Screenshots attached. Smooth!
Depends on the context of the ride but that’s like £3,000 for Zwift performance roughly equivalent to a GTX 950 build.
was just on watopia and it’s not a dedicated zwift machine so ultra res and 65 frames per second, well that’s great for a machine that I also use for other stuff all day
I’d expect much better, personally. Hopefully you’ll at least get Ultra profile at some point. It’s presently performing about the same as a dedicated build I put together in January with a six year old graphics card costing £45 in it.
Are you getting rider shadows btw?
That was the ultra profile, at least that’s what I selected in zwift.
Yeah weird it says high. Ultra was selected, for sure. Yes to shadows
Resolution and profile/detail are separate; only the resolution can chosen by the user. You’re not on the highest detail level (High, rather than Ultra) and the resolution goes up to 4K.
Interesting, thanks for the clarification. So does zwift have to update the profiles?
Yeah the profile is picked automatically by the game based on what is manually assigned to the GPU. For your reference, phones, tablets, integrated graphics and Apple TV run the Basic profile or a minor variant of it. Dedicated graphics (plus the M1 and a few other modern APUs) get either Medium, High or Ultra. Virtually every Nvidia graphics card launched since 2015 gets Ultra.
Great! Interesting read and nice charts. Yeah, about the profile vs resolution thing, that is all explained on the Zwiftalizer page you included in your post. I am working on a new version of that website and you’ve helped me understand the 1st rule of user interface design - (nothing personal, everyone does this, including me) - people can’t read text - they scan images and large numbers, and if they could read, they wouldn’t want to anyway. It doesn’t help that Zwift use the same names for profile and resolution. It’s easy to see why people think they are choosing Ultra profile when really they have no such choice.
For comparison, here are the Zwiftalizer results for the new M1 Pro chip. Interestingly, not that much different from the M1 Max. High graphics profile assigned by Zwift & Ultra 1440 resolution selected in game. Note that I had higher shadow resolution as a result of copying the Ultra.txt config file setting into the High.txt config file in my local Zwift configs folder.
I rode for ~an hour on battery, streaming the laptop via HDMI to a 4k TV. The computer was loafing - no fans, cool as could be and 79% battery left at the end. By comparison, my previous 2019 Intel i9 MacBook with the Radeon 5500M card ran hot, the fans stirring up a storm and continuous charging required. Granted, it was “granted” use of the Ultra profile (same 1440 resolution).
Here’s hoping Zwift will likewise “grant” the new MacBook Pros the Ultra Profile and perhaps less importantly, access to 2160 resolution. It’s clear to me that this new M1 Pro mac can run circles around my 2019 Intel I9/Radeon card macbook.
No need to kibitz again on how I could get better performance cheaper with a windows or other machine. Zwift is not the reason I purchased this mac, but I will be using it for Zwifting. No need to have a second machine; particularly, since I have Zwift pain caves in two different locations.
That looks promising- I’m in the situation of two Mac pros that I use for work (a 6,1 12 core 2.7ghz) and a dual 6 core 3,46ghz at 128gb ram, and a backup 6 core 5,1 at 3,46ghz.
The backup/parts machine does Zwift nicely but eventually the two 5,1s will have to be replaced when they get too old.
I either get a M1 Max or try to get a 7,1 MP refurbished and upgrade it.
I put it together for someone with a mix of new and used parts. Cost about £175 if I recall correctly, roughly the same as the GTX 960 build I’m doing right now which will do Ultra profile.
Do any Mac computers get Ultra display?
Yeah loads of them. The ones with a dedicated Nvidia or AMD graphics card.
The new ones aren’t really optimised for and still use Rosetta. Hopefully they’ll look at recompilation next year for ARM64.