I will, yes. If macOS supported Vulkan, then those Intel Macs would have GPU acceleration too, and thus it would be a fair fight comparing it to MPS. Apple's tech stack is so miserly and poor that they never supported the common GPGPU libraries that literally every single OEM is and was shipping.
Apple's tech is appalling. Are you saying they exercise good judgement on behalf of their users?
I see this is them following their own differentiation and integration which I'd say is good for their users. (Personally I don't care about Vulkan support for example.)
So saying their tech is "appealing" is a matter of opinion and I'd argue something a small minority of their users care about. But I don't know.
Gp is saying their primary expertise is advertising. It's hard to watch any apple announcement and not notice how utterly hyperbolic they are at touting their own achievements.
Ya sure, you can say that every company must do that, but apple are exceptional at it. Once you start noticing the unlabeled performance charts, the missing baselines, the comparing with ages old models, the disingenuous "86x" metrics, the whole show becomes cringe worthy.
Your comment implies that it’s obviously not this spec that they compare against. Could you spell it out for the ignorant like me? What about that config makes it definitely not the thing that is 86x slower?
I don't see anything in the GP that implies that. It's simply a CPU that was released before an entire AI economic bubble was a twinkle in Jensen Huang's eye. Of course it has piss-poor AI performance vs something with hardware dedicated to accelerating that workflow.
It's not that the comparison is incorrect, just that it's a silly and unenlightening statement, bordering on completely devoid of meaning if it weren't for the x86 pun.
