Mac mini M1 v. M2

[Hawthorne Gray]

How well will an M2 Mac mini with 16GB of unified memory run SL v. an M1 Mac mini with 16GB? Would switching from a WiFi connection to ethernet help either machine reduce lag? I know there are a myriad of variables pertinent to producing a proper evaluation between these options but I’m basically looking for some feedback from anyone who has spent time with these machines and what their general impressions are. And doing so without getting mired in Mac v Windows discussion. Thanks.

[filz Camino]

Answering the Wi-Fi versus ethernet question, my ping times to google.com on ethernet and Wi-Fi 6E are both identical at about 7ms. So for me, there's not a noticeable difference between ethernet and Wi-Fi on SecondLife.

Consistent performance over ethernet is basically guaranteed, though, whereas the same is not true for any connection that involves a radio link. For the latter, how close you are to the router, what Wi-Fi standard you are using and how much interference there is in your area will all impact the quality of the connection. Because of the connection uncertainty with Wi-Fi, if it is convenient to use ethernet, I always prefer to use ethernet.

I can't really help with the Mac  question, other than to say that I think these days, 16Gb of memory on a machine with integrated graphics is less than optimum. In some situations it will be fine, but if you intend to visit busy sims such as clubs and other music venues, lack of memory is likely to contribute to significant lag.

[AmeliaJ08]

Not well.

Someone shared videos of a pretty high spec M3 Max Mac Studio running SL and I wouldn't say this is performance I could tolerate. It's not the Mac's fault really (kinda) but SL simply is not written for Apple Silicon and everything is being translated with a performance penalty.

WiFi/Ethernet will make no difference, that's one of those SL myths from the ancient times. If you've got any sort of remotely modern WiFi network with reasonable signal quality you won't notice any difference.

Edited May 24 by AmeliaJ08

[filz Camino]

On 5/24/2024 at 10:19 AM, AmeliaJ08 said:

It's not the Mac's fault really (kinda) but SL simply is not written for Apple Silicon and everything is being translated with a performance penalty.

The translation penalty is surprisingly small, something like 10% from memory. I believe that Rosetta 2 translates the entire application and saves it as native code before running it. Also, Mac SL performance was just as terrible relative to other operating systems when Intel Macs were running SL natively.

I may be wrong, but I think the main culprit may be the old version of OpenGL that Apple is still using. 

[AmeliaJ08]

1 hour ago, filz Camino said:

The translation penalty is surprisingly small, something like 10% from memory. I believe that Rosetta 2 translates the entire application and saves it as native code before running it. Also, Mac SL performance was just as terrible relative to other operating systems when Intel Macs were running SL natively.

I may be wrong, but I think the main culprit may be the old version of OpenGL that Apple is still using. 

I believe there's OpenGL -> Metal translation happening as well? Not sure.

Whatever it is, performance looks awful. I've seen videos of roughly on-par with Windows performance back when they were using AMD GPUs so I assume it has to be something driver or translation related.

Whatever it is I'm not sure I would recommend an M series Apple computer for SL, I guess it is better than old Intel integrated GPU performance though...

 

[J Canucci]

Now, I can't make an honest comparison to an M1 or M2 Mac mini. But, I am using an older Mac mini c. 2014, its my back up until I get my new graphics card for my regular rig. But, its processor is like 2.7Ghz, with 8 Gigs of memory and Intel Iris graphics...at the moment, on a completely empty full sim, I'm getting 12.5 fps. I would imagine that either the M.1 or M.2 would see better performance as the silicon is somewhere around 10 years newer, but I can't imagine that the difference would be significant, but I could be very very wrong, as I'm normally a PC user...I hope some of this info helps, even if my equipment is antiquated.

 

[Coffee Pancake]

Don't compare. When ti comes to Apple always buy the newest offering.

Why? Longer supported life from date of purchase.

[filz Camino]

18 hours ago, AmeliaJ08 said:

Whatever it is I'm not sure I would recommend an M series Apple computer for SL,

I'd go further, I'd recommend never considering an Apple computer for SL. Frame rates on alternative operating systems aren't just a bit higher, in my experience they can be as much as 10 times higher which in many situations is the difference between SL being completely usable or completely unusable.

Although I'm mindful of the OP's request that this post is not about the MacOS vs Windows debate, and is only about comparing Wi-Fi with ethernet and Apple M1 with Apple M2 (some people are going to buy Apple products anyway because that may be the best choice for them in other respects unrelated to SL).

[Nagachief Darkstone]

Currently, all Macs have a very limited OpenGL implementation that Apple labels as "Depreciated".

While Viewer 6 based viewers are fine, due to the severe crippling Apple did to OpenGL, Viewer 7 (PBR Viewers) is badly crippled. You can't have shadows and alpha at the same time because it would go over the 15 texture samples Apple put in place. At some point the viewer will need to run Metal natively to get rid of these severe limitations, but for now it's a poor experience.

Essentially, if you care about Second Life, Mac is not a good idea right now.

[Lord Pole]

If you can then do connect your Mac to an ethernet cable instead of WiFi as you will get a better and more consistent connection.

SL performance on Macs is sadly subpar. Currently running on an M3 with 24GB and it's "ok". If you want a super frame rate then you need to go Windows (or another OS that actually has continued to update OpenGL).

If you are wanting to stay on Mac (like me) then I'd actually advise you to consider using the official viewer as it is less resource hungry (just opt out of automatic update to release candidates in preferences as sadly clients with severe Mac issues are pushed through when they would otherwise be held back if they were Windows based). You can still have your third party viewer of choice installed and use that when you need a feature that is not in the official viewer.

Edited May 27 by Randy Pole