Apple M1 8-Core GPU vs TITAN RTX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared TITAN RTX with M1 8-Core GPU, including specs and performance data.
TITAN RTX outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by a whopping 257% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 70 | 388 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.12 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.01 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | no data |
| GPU code name | TU102 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 December 2018 (6 years ago) | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4608 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1278 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 18,600 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 509.8 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 16.31 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 96 | no data |
| TMUs | 288 | no data |
| Tensor Cores | 576 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 72 | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 164
+486%
| 28
−486%
|
| 1440p | 103
+281%
| 27−30
−281%
|
| 4K | 74
+311%
| 18−21
−311%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 15.24 | no data |
| 1440p | 24.26 | no data |
| 4K | 33.77 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 264
+725%
|
30−35
−725%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 166
+622%
|
21−24
−622%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 79
+193%
|
27−30
−193%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 198
+519%
|
30−35
−519%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 163
+191%
|
55−60
−191%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 141
+513%
|
21−24
−513%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 79
+193%
|
27−30
−193%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 165
+275%
|
40−45
−275%
|
| Fortnite | 169
+128%
|
70−75
−128%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 187
+246%
|
50−55
−246%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 168
+394%
|
30−35
−394%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 202
+339%
|
45−50
−339%
|
| Valorant | 348
+214%
|
110−120
−214%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 118
+269%
|
30−35
−269%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 164
+193%
|
55−60
−193%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120
+422%
|
21−24
−422%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+54.4%
|
180−190
−54.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 79
+193%
|
27−30
−193%
|
| Dota 2 | 155
+82.4%
|
85−90
−82.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 156
+255%
|
40−45
−255%
|
| Fortnite | 176
+138%
|
70−75
−138%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 186
+244%
|
50−55
−244%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 153
+350%
|
30−35
−350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 152
+210%
|
45−50
−210%
|
| Metro Exodus | 134
+415%
|
24−27
−415%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 163
+254%
|
45−50
−254%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 267
+685%
|
30−35
−685%
|
| Valorant | 336
+203%
|
110−120
−203%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 160
+186%
|
55−60
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110
+378%
|
21−24
−378%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
| Dota 2 | 148
+74.1%
|
85−90
−74.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 146
+232%
|
40−45
−232%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 175
+224%
|
50−55
−224%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 136
+196%
|
45−50
−196%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 139
+309%
|
30−35
−309%
|
| Valorant | 236
+113%
|
110−120
−113%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 134
+81.1%
|
70−75
−81.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+224%
|
95−100
−224%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 114
+470%
|
20−22
−470%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85
+467%
|
14−16
−467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+65.1%
|
100−110
−65.1%
|
| Valorant | 307
+124%
|
130−140
−124%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+220%
|
35−40
−220%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+500%
|
10−12
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 134
+379%
|
27−30
−379%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 157
+406%
|
30−35
−406%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
+355%
|
20−22
−355%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 120−130
+339%
|
27−30
−339%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 134
+458%
|
24−27
−458%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+506%
|
16−18
−506%
|
| Valorant | 300
+335%
|
65−70
−335%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 97
+439%
|
18−20
−439%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 33
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Dota 2 | 146
+217%
|
45−50
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80
+515%
|
12−14
−515%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 114
+418%
|
21−24
−418%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 96
+700%
|
12−14
−700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 74
+517%
|
12−14
−517%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how TITAN RTX and Apple M1 8-Core GPU compete in popular games:
- TITAN RTX is 486% faster in 1080p
- TITAN RTX is 281% faster in 1440p
- TITAN RTX is 311% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the TITAN RTX is 725% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- TITAN RTX is ahead in 63 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 49.06 | 13.74 |
| Recency | 18 December 2018 | 10 November 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 5 nm |
TITAN RTX has a 257.1% higher aggregate performance score.
Apple M1 8-Core GPU, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.
The TITAN RTX is our recommended choice as it beats the M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.
Be aware that TITAN RTX is a desktop card while Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
