2
« on: May 20, 2024, 03:29:07 PM »
Hi Pierre
From my tests, while the machines were connected, the performance was more or less similar. The PC was similar while generating Depth Maps and, sometimes, seemed to be quicker. However, the M3Max seems to never stop while the PC seemed to freeze processing once in a while, probably related with information transfer among components. This gave an edge to the M3Max because, in the end, the processing was faster in the M3max overall, sometimes by more than 15 to 20% of the time. However, using the machine only in Battery power, there's no match for the M3Max. The processing in this machine is similar while connected or not connected to wall power. The PC was a lllloooooottttttt slower in battery power. I guess that both CPU and GPU uses a lot of throttling techniques to spare battery power at the expense of processing power. In this case (using battery power) I guess that there is no Laptop in the market today that can match the M3Max and the 3nm circuit technology (very thermal efficient).
Be aware that, despite lots os benchmarks that you can find in the internet, the benchmarks that matter are the ones we use in our workflow. Considering this, I went for the M3Max and, for now, the choice seemed to be correct. A matte acquired an M3Pro and the processing times in Metashape are a lot slower, more or less 30 to 40% the times we can observe in the M3Max. For this reason, if you choose a Mac for this purpose, the M3Max is the way to go for now. If you see in the internet, the percentages of lots of benchmarks between M3Max and M3pro do not reflect this difference and lead people to think that they have almost similar benchmarks.
Cheers