Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

zemaker

macrumors 6502
Nov 25, 2011
284
164

anticipate

macrumors 6502a
Dec 22, 2013
900
735
On my MacPro 6 core 3,33 Ghz with a Geforce 980 I get 11.8 frames/sec in NeatBench. Is this Vega really that slow?
You can download Luxmark here: http://www.luxmark.info/
I get 12910 with my Geforce 980, so in this case the Vega is significantly faster.

This is what NeatBench shows as of 10.13.3 beta 1. (Luxmark is not available to download anymore it seems.)



Neat Video benchmark:


Frame Size: 1920x1080 progressive

Bitdepth: 8 bits per channel

Mix with Original: Disabled

Temporal Filter: Enabled

Quality Mode: Normal

Radius: 2 frames

Dust and Scratches: Disabled

Slow Shutter: Disabled

Spatial Filter: Enabled

Quality Mode: Normal

Frequencies High, Mid, Low

Artifact Removal: Enabled

Detail Recovery: Disabled

Edge Smoothing: Disabled

Sharpening: Disabled



Detecting the best combination of performance settings:

running the test data set on up to 8 CPU cores and on up to 2 GPUs

AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine: 8176 MB currently available, using up to 100%

AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine: 4096 MB currently available, using up to 100%


CPU only (1 core): 1.64 frames/sec

CPU only (2 cores): 3.13 frames/sec

CPU only (3 cores): 4.78 frames/sec

CPU only (4 cores): 6.06 frames/sec

CPU only (5 cores): 6.25 frames/sec

CPU only (6 cores): 6.45 frames/sec

CPU only (7 cores): 6.29 frames/sec

CPU only (8 cores): 6.02 frames/sec

GPU only (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 6.13 frames/sec

GPU only (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 4.41 frames/sec

GPU only (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.04 frames/sec

CPU (1 core) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 5.41 frames/sec

CPU (2 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 4.72 frames/sec

CPU (3 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 6.71 frames/sec

CPU (4 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 6.94 frames/sec

CPU (5 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 7.46 frames/sec

CPU (6 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 7.25 frames/sec

CPU (7 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 7.19 frames/sec

CPU (8 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 9.17 frames/sec

CPU (1 core) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 4 frames/sec

CPU (2 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 4.81 frames/sec

CPU (3 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 5.95 frames/sec

CPU (4 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.63 frames/sec

CPU (5 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.75 frames/sec

CPU (6 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.63 frames/sec

CPU (7 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 6.71 frames/sec

CPU (8 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.41 frames/sec

CPU (2 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.09 frames/sec

CPU (3 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 6.8 frames/sec

CPU (4 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.46 frames/sec

CPU (5 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 8.2 frames/sec

CPU (6 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 8.13 frames/sec

CPU (7 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 9.26 frames/sec

CPU (8 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 9.01 frames/sec


Best combination: CPU (7 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine)
 

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 15, 2015
2,874
2,357
Portland, Ore.
LuxMark can be downloaded here: http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#Binaries
[doublepost=1513026666][/doublepost]
The sleep issue may be the same issue that the RX cards are having, but there is a fix for it if you want to do it yourself. I can confirm that it works as I did it on my Mac Pro and sleep/wake is back to normal.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/high-sierra-10-13-2-broke-sleep.2093595/page-2#post-25573366

I changed CFG_FB_LIMIT from 0 to 4 in AMD10000Controller.kext and the computer booted up to a black screen. The HDMI and 3 DP ports output nothing.
 

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 15, 2015
2,874
2,357
Portland, Ore.
  • Like
Reactions: dabotsonline

h9826790

macrumors P6
Apr 3, 2014
16,605
8,531
Hong Kong
This is what NeatBench shows as of 10.13.3 beta 1. (Luxmark is not available to download anymore it seems.)



Neat Video benchmark:


Frame Size: 1920x1080 progressive

Bitdepth: 8 bits per channel

Mix with Original: Disabled

Temporal Filter: Enabled

Quality Mode: Normal

Radius: 2 frames

Dust and Scratches: Disabled

Slow Shutter: Disabled

Spatial Filter: Enabled

Quality Mode: Normal

Frequencies High, Mid, Low

Artifact Removal: Enabled

Detail Recovery: Disabled

Edge Smoothing: Disabled

Sharpening: Disabled



Detecting the best combination of performance settings:

running the test data set on up to 8 CPU cores and on up to 2 GPUs

AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine: 8176 MB currently available, using up to 100%

AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine: 4096 MB currently available, using up to 100%


CPU only (1 core): 1.64 frames/sec

CPU only (2 cores): 3.13 frames/sec

CPU only (3 cores): 4.78 frames/sec

CPU only (4 cores): 6.06 frames/sec

CPU only (5 cores): 6.25 frames/sec

CPU only (6 cores): 6.45 frames/sec

CPU only (7 cores): 6.29 frames/sec

CPU only (8 cores): 6.02 frames/sec

GPU only (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 6.13 frames/sec

GPU only (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 4.41 frames/sec

GPU only (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.04 frames/sec

CPU (1 core) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 5.41 frames/sec

CPU (2 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 4.72 frames/sec

CPU (3 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 6.71 frames/sec

CPU (4 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 6.94 frames/sec

CPU (5 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 7.46 frames/sec

CPU (6 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 7.25 frames/sec

CPU (7 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 7.19 frames/sec

CPU (8 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine): 9.17 frames/sec

CPU (1 core) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 4 frames/sec

CPU (2 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 4.81 frames/sec

CPU (3 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 5.95 frames/sec

CPU (4 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.63 frames/sec

CPU (5 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.75 frames/sec

CPU (6 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.63 frames/sec

CPU (7 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 6.71 frames/sec

CPU (8 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.41 frames/sec

CPU (2 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.09 frames/sec

CPU (3 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 6.8 frames/sec

CPU (4 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 7.46 frames/sec

CPU (5 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 8.2 frames/sec

CPU (6 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 8.13 frames/sec

CPU (7 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 9.26 frames/sec

CPU (8 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine): 9.01 frames/sec


Best combination: CPU (7 cores) and GPU (AMD Radeon HD Vega10 XT Prototype Compute Engine, AMD Radeon Pro 460 Compute Engine)

It seems this software can use CUDA, and work much better with the Nvidia GPU.

Neat Bench (Neat Image 8.2.0, Neat Video 4.6.0) x64
Copyright (c) 1999-2017 Neat Image team, Neat Video team, ABSoft.
All Rights Reserved.

GPU detection log:

Looking for NVIDIA CUDA-capable devices...
CUDA driver version: 9010
NVIDIA CUDA initialized successfully.
Checking CUDA GPU #1:
GPU device name is: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
8441 MB available during initialization (11263 MB total)
Check passed - will attempt to use the device

Looking for AMD OpenCL-capable devices...
OpenCL driver version: 20171031.181943
OpenCL initialized successfully.
Checking OpenCL GPU #1:
GPU device name is: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
11264 MB available during initialization
This device is not supported
Check failed - will not use the device


Neat Video benchmark:

Frame Size: 1920x1080 progressive
Bitdepth: 8 bits per channel
Mix with Original: Disabled
Temporal Filter: Enabled
Quality Mode: Normal
Radius: 2 frames
Dust and Scratches: Disabled
Slow Shutter: Disabled
Spatial Filter: Enabled
Quality Mode: Normal
Frequencies High, Mid, Low
Artifact Removal: Enabled
Detail Recovery: Disabled
Edge Smoothing: Disabled
Sharpening: Disabled


Detecting the best combination of performance settings:
running the test data set on up to 12 CPU cores and on up to 1 GPU
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti: 8441 MB currently available (11263 MB total), using up to 100%

CPU only (1 core): 1.24 frames/sec
CPU only (2 cores): 2.56 frames/sec
CPU only (3 cores): 3.55 frames/sec
CPU only (4 cores): 4.35 frames/sec
CPU only (5 cores): 4.76 frames/sec
CPU only (6 cores): 4.81 frames/sec
CPU only (7 cores): 4.61 frames/sec
CPU only (8 cores): 4.37 frames/sec
CPU only (9 cores): 4.17 frames/sec
CPU only (10 cores): 3.95 frames/sec
CPU only (11 cores): 3.79 frames/sec
CPU only (12 cores): 3.68 frames/sec
GPU only (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 17.5 frames/sec
CPU (1 core) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 13 frames/sec
CPU (2 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 15.4 frames/sec
CPU (3 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 16.4 frames/sec
CPU (4 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 17.5 frames/sec
CPU (5 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 17.2 frames/sec
CPU (6 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 16.9 frames/sec
CPU (7 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 17.2 frames/sec
CPU (8 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 16.7 frames/sec
CPU (9 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 16.1 frames/sec
CPU (10 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 15.6 frames/sec
CPU (11 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 15.2 frames/sec
CPU (12 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 14.1 frames/sec

Best combination: GPU only (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti)
[doublepost=1513029511][/doublepost]
LuxMark can be downloaded here: http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#Binaries
[doublepost=1513026666][/doublepost]

I changed CFG_FB_LIMIT from 0 to 4 in AMD10000Controller.kext and the computer booted up to a black screen. The HDMI and 3 DP ports output nothing.

If you further click the link on that page, you may realise the link is dead. At least it's dead for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: itdk92

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 15, 2015
2,874
2,357
Portland, Ore.
If you further click the link on that page, you may realise the link is dead. At least it's dead for me.

Oh, yeah the link is dead. Weird.
[doublepost=1513030437][/doublepost]Found an archive. :)

https://web.archive.org/web/2016010...release/luxmark/v3.1/luxmark-macos64-v3.1.zip
[doublepost=1513032058][/doublepost]There appears to be no performance increase with the driver in 10.13.3 beta 1. The LuxMark bench I just did was a little below my last 10.13.2 bench. It might be more stable though.
 

anticipate

macrumors 6502a
Dec 22, 2013
900
735
It seems this software can use CUDA, and work much better with the Nvidia GPU.

Yes seems much faster on CUDA than OpenCl that one.
[doublepost=1513044169][/doublepost]
Fan and sleep still broken in final 10.13.2 release (build 17C88). Hopefully we'll see a difference in the 10.13.3 beta that should be released soon. Interestingly, if the iMac Pro is released this month it should be running 10.13.2 and since the drivers aren't quite perfect yet I think that suggests it will be delayed, unless of course these drivers are optimized for the iMac Pro. I think that would explain the fan running high, but sleep shouldn't be broken.
[doublepost=1512590447][/doublepost]A little speed bump with the latest build. 56 bios. Scored 23024 up from 22804 in last beta.

View attachment 740621

I got 22214 in 10.13.3 beta 1. 56 BIOS.
 

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 15, 2015
2,874
2,357
Portland, Ore.
I got 22711 with 56 bios. Lower than the 22782 score I got with 10.13.2 beta build 17C60c.

LuxMark 10.13.3 Beta 17D20a.jpeg
 

namethisfile

macrumors 65816
Jan 17, 2008
1,186
168
LuxMark can be downloaded here: http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#Binaries
[doublepost=1513026666][/doublepost]

I changed CFG_FB_LIMIT from 0 to 4 in AMD10000Controller.kext and the computer booted up to a black screen. The HDMI and 3 DP ports output nothing.

I was afraid I'd do something like this and laziness is why I haven't tried messing around with it, yet.

But, how did you come up with the value of "4?"

Aren't you suppose to match that value with the number of ports on your GPU?

Also, AMD10000Controller?

Not AMD95000Controller?
 

drfreud

macrumors newbie
Nov 6, 2017
9
2
Mexico
Today I decided to give it a go with 10.13.2... big mistake.

Now I'm having the sleep and fan problems too, and I have what used to be a reliable rx480.

With 10.13.1 it was all ok... besides from being unable to use bootcamp.

So now i have to downgrade and what I hate the most is the time I'll have to waste on it.
 
Last edited:

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 15, 2015
2,874
2,357
Portland, Ore.
Today I decided to give it a go with 10.13.2... big mistake.

Now I'm having the sleep and fan problems too, and I have what used to be a reliable rx480.

With 10.13.1 it was all ok... besides from being unable to use bootcamp.

So now i have to downgrade and what I hate the most is the time I'll have to waste on it.

Your RX 480 has fan and sleep issues too?
[doublepost=1513139531][/doublepost]
I was afraid I'd do something like this and laziness is why I haven't tried messing around with it, yet.

But, how did you come up with the value of "4?"

Aren't you suppose to match that value with the number of ports on your GPU?

Also, AMD10000Controller?

Not AMD95000Controller?

Yeah, that’s the Vega one. I came up with 4 because there are 4 ports on the Vega, 1 HDMI and 3 DP. Is that not what I was suppose to do?
 

drfreud

macrumors newbie
Nov 6, 2017
9
2
Mexico
Your RX 480 has fan and sleep issues too?
[doublepost=1513139531][/doublepost]

Yeah, that’s the Vega one. I came up with 4 because there are 4 ports on the Vega, 1 HDMI and 3 DP. Is that not what I was suppose to do?
The fan thing was a coincidece because it stopped, but I have the sleep issue. If it goes to sleep i cant wake it. And yes, It's a RX480.
[doublepost=1513172535][/doublepost]
The fan thing was a coincidece because it stopped, but I have the sleep issue. If it goes to sleep i cant wake it. And yes, It's a RX480.
I guessed i was safe wirth 480 and was curious to know if the drivers would improve the performance of my gpu, but what they caused was the sleep problem. I dont have time untill the weekend to make a fresh install so Im going to toss the oem hd5770 meanwhile
 
Last edited:

krakman

macrumors 6502
Dec 3, 2009
413
442
The fan thing was a coincidece because it stopped, but I have the sleep issue. If it goes to sleep i cant wake it. And yes, It's a RX480.
[doublepost=1513172535][/doublepost]
I guessed i was safe wirth 480 and was curious to know if the drivers would improve the performance of my gpu, but what they caused was the sleep problem. I dont have time untill the weekend to make a fresh install so Im going to toss the oem hd5770 meanwhile

I just fixed my RX480 by following the advice give in various threads...

  1. Make sure SIP is disabled and download a copy of Kext Utility - its free just google for it
  2. find this kext: /System/Library/Extensions/AMD9500Controller.kext and make a duplicate of it in case you need to replace it
  3. find this file: /System/Library/Extensions/AMD9500Controller.kext/Contents/Info.plist
  4. copy Info.plist to your desktop and then open this copied file in Text Edit
  5. search for this text :<key>CFG_FB_LIMIT</key> <integer>0</integer>
  6. change it to :<key>CFG_FB_LIMIT</key> <integer>4</integer> The number 4 is the number of ports on the back of the card. I have the reference 480 card if you have a Nitro 480 then the number should be 5 because the Nitro has an extra DVI port on the back.
  7. save the edited Info.plist file to your desktop
  8. go to /System/Library/Extensions/AMD9500Controller.kext/Contents/ and delete the original info.plist file
  9. copy the new version from the desktop to replace it.
  10. run Kext Utility to repair permissions
restart and enjoy!

Also this fixes audio over Displayport.
 

drfreud

macrumors newbie
Nov 6, 2017
9
2
Mexico
I just fixed my RX480 by following the advice give in various threads...

  1. Make sure SIP is disabled and download a copy of Kext Utility - its free just google for it
  2. find this kext: /System/Library/Extensions/AMD9500Controller.kext and make a duplicate of it in case you need to replace it
  3. find this file: /System/Library/Extensions/AMD9500Controller.kext/Contents/Info.plist
  4. copy Info.plist to your desktop and then open this copied file in Text Edit
  5. search for this text :<key>CFG_FB_LIMIT</key> <integer>0</integer>
  6. change it to :<key>CFG_FB_LIMIT</key> <integer>4</integer> The number 4 is the number of ports on the back of the card. I have the reference 480 card if you have a Nitro 480 then the number should be 5 because the Nitro has an extra DVI port on the back.
  7. save the edited Info.plist file to your desktop
  8. go to /System/Library/Extensions/AMD9500Controller.kext/Contents/ and delete the original info.plist file
  9. copy the new version from the desktop to replace it.
  10. run Kext Utility to repair permissions
restart and enjoy!

Also this fixes audio over Displayport.


Thanks, I'll try tonight when I get home
 

anticipate

macrumors 6502a
Dec 22, 2013
900
735
FYI all, FCPX 10.4 breaks eGPU support for rendering. I confirmed the results shared here:

https://egpu.io/forums/pro-applications/new-fcpx-10-4-and-egpu/#post-26441


Some render times: 2 min 4K DJI Mavic Pro H.264 footage with FilmConvert applied, exported to a 4K ProRes 422 file.
  • FCPX 10.3.4 with eGPU used: 2 min 34 seconds
  • Compressor 4.4: 4 min 10 seconds (eGPU shows use, but didn’t seem to be doing anything)
  • FCPX 4.4 with eGPU seemingly not used but MBP's Radeon 460 used: 3 min 46 seconds.
Something's broken.
 
Last edited:

PowerMike G5

macrumors 6502a
Oct 22, 2005
555
241
New York, NY
It seems this software can use CUDA, and work much better with the Nvidia GPU.

Neat Bench (Neat Image 8.2.0, Neat Video 4.6.0) x64
Copyright (c) 1999-2017 Neat Image team, Neat Video team, ABSoft.
All Rights Reserved.

GPU detection log:

Looking for NVIDIA CUDA-capable devices...
CUDA driver version: 9010
NVIDIA CUDA initialized successfully.
Checking CUDA GPU #1:
GPU device name is: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
8441 MB available during initialization (11263 MB total)
Check passed - will attempt to use the device

Looking for AMD OpenCL-capable devices...
OpenCL driver version: 20171031.181943
OpenCL initialized successfully.
Checking OpenCL GPU #1:
GPU device name is: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
11264 MB available during initialization
This device is not supported
Check failed - will not use the device


Neat Video benchmark:

Frame Size: 1920x1080 progressive
Bitdepth: 8 bits per channel
Mix with Original: Disabled
Temporal Filter: Enabled
Quality Mode: Normal
Radius: 2 frames
Dust and Scratches: Disabled
Slow Shutter: Disabled
Spatial Filter: Enabled
Quality Mode: Normal
Frequencies High, Mid, Low
Artifact Removal: Enabled
Detail Recovery: Disabled
Edge Smoothing: Disabled
Sharpening: Disabled


Detecting the best combination of performance settings:
running the test data set on up to 12 CPU cores and on up to 1 GPU
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti: 8441 MB currently available (11263 MB total), using up to 100%

CPU only (1 core): 1.24 frames/sec
CPU only (2 cores): 2.56 frames/sec
CPU only (3 cores): 3.55 frames/sec
CPU only (4 cores): 4.35 frames/sec
CPU only (5 cores): 4.76 frames/sec
CPU only (6 cores): 4.81 frames/sec
CPU only (7 cores): 4.61 frames/sec
CPU only (8 cores): 4.37 frames/sec
CPU only (9 cores): 4.17 frames/sec
CPU only (10 cores): 3.95 frames/sec
CPU only (11 cores): 3.79 frames/sec
CPU only (12 cores): 3.68 frames/sec
GPU only (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 17.5 frames/sec
CPU (1 core) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 13 frames/sec
CPU (2 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 15.4 frames/sec
CPU (3 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 16.4 frames/sec
CPU (4 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 17.5 frames/sec
CPU (5 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 17.2 frames/sec
CPU (6 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 16.9 frames/sec
CPU (7 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 17.2 frames/sec
CPU (8 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 16.7 frames/sec
CPU (9 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 16.1 frames/sec
CPU (10 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 15.6 frames/sec
CPU (11 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 15.2 frames/sec
CPU (12 cores) and GPU (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti): 14.1 frames/sec

Best combination: GPU only (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti)
[doublepost=1513029511][/doublepost]

If you further click the link on that page, you may realise the link is dead. At least it's dead for me.

I use NeatVideo extensively and it is one plugin that uses all cores and GPU to the max at the same time while rendering.

I also am getting 17.2 frames/sec as my max with my system (12-core 3.46Ghz with Titan X Maxwell GPU). I was looking to see if Vega would increase the speed for this particular plugin, but it seems a lot slower actually. Most of my real-work usage of this is on DCI 4K 10-bit footage, which averages around 5-6 frames max per second using all '24' cores and the full GPU at the same time. And that's if its the only filter... it gets slower when stacking other filters as well.

I can't wait for this new Mac Pro next year. Between all the 4K video editing, encoding, transcoding and rendering, I've really put my CPUs and GPUs to work over the years. My Mac Pro is even starting to show subtle burn marks on its front case from all the constant rendering!!

Being temped by an 18-core iMac Pro... but I know its best to wait for something modular and upgradeable next year!
 
Last edited:

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 15, 2015
2,874
2,357
Portland, Ore.
No change in fan or sleep behavior with latest 10.13.3 beta build 17D25b. You would think there is a tweak we can do like for the Polaris cards. I've thought about possibly being able to fool the OS into thinking it's a iMac Pro Vega 56, but I don't think we can access the iMac's VBIOS to even be able to tell what the version number is and I don't believe we have a way to edit a Vega BIOS due to the security protection feature. We will probably have to wait for 10.13.4 or 10.13.5 when Apple implements official eGPU support.
 
Last edited:

zemaker

macrumors 6502
Nov 25, 2011
284
164
No change in fan or sleep behavior with latest 10.13.3 beta build 17D25b. You would think there is a tweak we can do like for the Polaris cards. I've thought about possibly being able to fool the OS into thinking it's a iMac Pro Vega 56, but I don't think we can access the iMac's VBIOS to even be able to tell what the version number is and I don't believe we have a way to edit a Vega BIOS due to the security protection feature. We will probably have to wait for 10.13.4 or 10.13.5 when Apple implements official eGPU support.
Ugh, well then the waiting continues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterAndrew

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 15, 2015
2,874
2,357
Portland, Ore.
Has anyone tried one of the custom cards yet? Overclockers UK has the Sapphire Vega 56 and 64 Nitro+ in stock. With 3x 8-pin power connectors they'll definitely need the Pixlas mod and you'd lose a PCIe slot since they're 3 slot. They might be good for an eGPU enclosure though. I wonder if there'll be a Pulse version.
 

Apples Apples Everywhere

macrumors 6502
Jan 4, 2017
290
494
Ugh, well then the waiting continues.

Yeah. Due to the wait I'm thinking about giving up on Vega despite the huge potential upsides. Up until 10.13.2, I mistakenly thought iMac Pro's release would fix the drivers. I agree that eGPU support for Vega seems logical and we know eGPU is coming.
 

Tokaji_909

macrumors member
Nov 29, 2017
30
20
I have a XFX RX Vega 64 in my Mac pro. I`m not having the Fan Issue but there seems to be a problem when it comes back from sleep.
But benchmarks(Cinebench,Unigine,Luxmark) are good for it and I can play most of my Steam Games at High or Ultra. Also C4D,Vectorworks,Final Cut and my lighting Design Software render very good...
So for the moment I can live with the Issues quite well :)
 

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 15, 2015
2,874
2,357
Portland, Ore.
I have a XFX RX Vega 64 in my Mac pro. I`m not having the Fan Issue but there seems to be a problem when it comes back from sleep.
But benchmarks(Cinebench,Unigine,Luxmark) are good for it and I can play most of my Steam Games at High or Ultra. Also C4D,Vectorworks,Final Cut and my lighting Design Software render very good...
So for the moment I can live with the Issues quite well :)

Which MacOS version are you running? I’ve tried the 64 bios and the issues are not different.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.