Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
but counterpart desktop versions cost 2-3 times more, memory alone it's a big step.
Counterpart desktop versions are a lot more powerful and have way more memory. Here you get the same amount of memory just a new type of it. I’m not saying these aren’t good cards but I don’t think they are some kind of a bargain. We should wait for benchmarks and compare them to the Pro range of the iMac.
 
There has been a lot of back and forth about eGPU's with the new mac mini. But, do they perform the same as internal GPU's, or is there a performance hit?

Although it is anecdotal, reviews on apple store are mixed as to them working.

Does anyone have useful experience with eGPU that can share?
There is a small performance hit which is IMO worth if for a laptop, but totally not worth it for a "desktop" Mac Mini. I think the difference (e.g. in FPS in games) is around 20% (there are plenty benchmarks on YT)
 
Feel bad for the folks who bought this before the new options

Actually now that I saw the cost of the upgrade, I went and I bought a non Vega version. In Hungary the upgrade is around 350EUR so not worth for a photo retoucher.

I could see this being worth if you do video editing but for the sake of chasing upgrades, not really. It's not that much of a speed bump.
 
Counterpart desktop versions are a lot more powerful and have way more memory. Here you get the same amount of memory just a new type of it. I’m not saying these aren’t good cards but I don’t think they are some kind of a bargain. We should wait for benchmarks and compare them to the Pro range of the iMac.

Conterpart desktop are compared to the 580 wich cost much more and has more memory
 
Conterpart desktop are compared to the 580 wich cost much more and has more memory
How much are these cards being sold for? Although it’s a bit difficult to decipher, Apple is asking around $600 for the 20.
 
If those developers cared about the market, they would program in OpenCL, not CUDA.

And Premiere supports OpenCL.
Premiere does indeed support OpenCL but CUDA is much faster and AMD cards are not as fast when it comes to video production, motion graphics or 3D rendering. Don't believe me? Puget Systems test all of this out for a range of different software - you can read it here but below is the important paragraph

"Does Premiere Pro run better with NVIDIA or AMD?
For Premiere Pro, we have seen consistently higher performance with an NVIDIA GeForce/Quadro card than with a comparably priced AMD Radeon/Radeon Pro card. Because of this, we highly recommend that you use an NVIDIA-based card for Premiere Pro."

Developers opt for CUDA because of the huge performance gains. That is crucial for any pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
Premiere does indeed support OpenCL but CUDA is much faster and AMD cards are not as fast when it comes to video production, motion graphics or 3D rendering. Don't believe me? Puget Systems test all of this out for a range of different software - you can read it here but below is the important paragraph

"Does Premiere Pro run better with NVIDIA or AMD?
For Premiere Pro, we have seen consistently higher performance with an NVIDIA GeForce/Quadro card than with a comparably priced AMD Radeon/Radeon Pro card. Because of this, we highly recommend that you use an NVIDIA-based card for Premiere Pro."

Developers opt for CUDA because of the huge performance gains. That is crucial for any pro.
CUDA is faster than OpenCL on NVIDIA because they don't care.

NVIDIA is faster at compute than AMD if you pay a lot more.
 
CUDA is faster than OpenCL on NVIDIA because they don't care.

NVIDIA is faster at compute than AMD if you pay a lot more.
Wait, you’re on an Apple forum moaning about the price of Nvidia? HA! And how is that a bad thing that you pay more for better performance? #flawedargument

You clearly love AMD, good for you. It doesn’t change the fact that the pro market would like Apple to offer it as an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kiwikat88
Wait, you’re on an Apple forum moaning about the price of Nvidia? HA! And how is that a bad thing that you pay more for better performance? #flawedargument

You clearly love AMD, good for you. It doesn’t change the fact that the pro market would like Apple to offer it as an option.
You pay more for more performance if you need it.
 
At least they are updating chips in-cycle for new buyers.

I imagine people who bought in July are not pleased....
I bought in July and I’m not mad. I probably wouldn’t have added the upgrade anyway. I didn’t even upgrade to the slightly better chip for 90 bucks, I figured if I really need great graphics I’ll just get an eGPU and hopefully with an Nvidia card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jawtab
I would think that they actually care about not falling into a monopoly.
That’s almost as hilarious as you saying Nvidia are overpriced in an Apple forum. Apple are monopolistic. They control every aspect of their brand and device and refuse to let a user think for themself. Just look at the repair market and Apple’s aggressive moves. Not offering a choice is monopolistic.
 
That’s almost as hilarious as you saying Nvidia are overpriced in an Apple forum. Apple are monopolistic. They control every aspect of their brand and device and refuse to let a user think for themself. Just look at the repair market and Apple’s aggressive moves. Not offering a choice is monopolistic.
Apple has monopolistic tendencies, but they like to have a choice of GPU vendor. Feeding the CUDA juggernaut does not help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 204353
Worried about heat dialing back performance the most, if only they had an option to use the 2.2ghz model with it I'd probably consider it in a heartbeat. Gonna wait for tests on YouTube, may just go 2.2ghz 560x with an eGPU when needed instead if it looks like the small chassis can't handle the heat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ener Ji
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.