iMac Pro Vega 56 & 64 Performance

[boto]

Looks like the AMD Vega GPUs that are being implemented into this year's iMac Pro is going to be very disappointing compared to nVidia's counterparts. Using it other then gaming will be decent or a little better than the nVidia 1070 and 1080 cards, but will consume significantly more power. What do you guys think?

 

[Bghead8che]

The iMac Pro Vega chip will NOT be a gaming chip and will perform poorly on most games. In fact, I read the lowly 580 in the current iMac might even be better at games as it is a consumer chip. Unless you really need the multiple cores and hyper threading for video editing work I can't imagine getting the iMac pro over the standard iMac.

Most people will be better served by the iMac.

 

[poematik13]

These chips are not intended to play video games. They are for image rendering, transcoding, and machine learning applications

 

[Appleaker]

We already knew this, and the iMac Pro cards will perform lower than the RX Vega cards shown in the video, so even more disappointing. Aside from gaming, as shown, it should perform better. But I would still prefer Nvidia cards in Macs.
[doublepost=1502752339][/doublepost]

These chips are not intended to play video games. They are for image rendering, transcoding, and machine learning applications

Are you talking about the cards in the video? They are definitely intended to play video games....

 

[UL2RA]

Looks like the cards are on par with the 1070 and 1080 ... which are really great for gaming ... so not sure what the comments are regarding them being bad for gaming. Obviously productivity is a focus for the Pro, but if you want to game you most definitely can on very high settings. You'll obviously need to turn the resolution down though.

 

[Trebuin]

Until we see them, we only have speculation...mine being that the Vega 56 will be on par with the 1080, & the 64 being about 10-15% faster.

 

[magbarn]

Giv

Until we see them, we only have speculation...mine being that the Vega 56 will be on par with the 1080, & the 64 being about 10-15% faster.

what reviews have you've been looking at? The 56 trades blows with the 1070, while consuming 60 more watts of power, doesn't come close to the 1080. The 64 meets the 1080's performance at a whopping extra 100 watts of power consumption over the 18 month old 1080. I'm shuddering to think how loud a iMac pro is going to be rocking a 295 watt gpu plus 18 core intel CPU in that tiny little chassis. Ryzen was a winner while vega is fail when AMD had almost 2 years to get it right.

 

[UL2RA]

Giv

what reviews have you've been looking at? The 56 trades blows with the 1070, while consuming 60 more watts of power, doesn't come close to the 1080. The 64 meets the 1080's performance at a whopping extra 100 watts of power consumption over the 18 month old 1080. I'm shuddering to think how loud a iMac pro is going to be rocking a 295 watt gpu plus 18 core intel CPU in that tiny little chassis. Ryzen was a winner while vega is fail when AMD had almost 2 years to get it right.

The iMac is going to have mobile versions of these cards so naturally they're going to consume less power.

 

[Precursor]

Looks like the AMD Vega GPUs that are being implemented into this year's iMac Pro is going to be very disappointing compared to nVidia's counterparts. Using it other then gaming will be decent or a little better than the nVidia 1070 and 1080 cards, but will consume significantly more power. What do you guys think?

I'm thinking current 2017 iMac with an external GPU, I fear iMac Pro will not be worth all the wait, and the cost

 

[magbarn]

The iMac is going to have mobile versions of these cards so naturally they're going to consume less power.

"Which lets iMac Pro handle 500 watts — 67 percent more power than the previous iMac — and stay chill." quote from Apple's website. We'll see, but that much allows 200-300 watts for the GPU. I guess Apple will find a way to cool that much heat while remaining quiet...

 

[Xteec]

I guess Apple will find a way to cool that much heat while remaining quiet..

It will remain quiet. But judging by track record, I doubt it will stay cool ;-)

 

[UL2RA]

"Which lets iMac Pro handle 500 watts — 67 percent more power than the previous iMac — and stay chill." quote from Apple's website. We'll see, but that much allows 200-300 watts for the GPU. I guess Apple will find a way to cool that much heat while remaining quiet...

Having said that, you're not going to stick the full size GPU into any iMac. The new one is still thin like the current ones. It's gong to be modified in some form.

 

[Trebuin]

Giv

what reviews have you've been looking at? The 56 trades blows with the 1070, while consuming 60 more watts of power, doesn't come close to the 1080. The 64 meets the 1080's performance at a whopping extra 100 watts of power consumption over the 18 month old 1080. I'm shuddering to think how loud a iMac pro is going to be rocking a 295 watt gpu plus 18 core intel CPU in that tiny little chassis. Ryzen was a winner while vega is fail when AMD had almost 2 years to get it right.

I don't think apple would put in that version of the chip, but rather a downclocked version (meaning slower). Do you have a link with the comparisons between the 1070/1080 and the 56? I've been looking an engineering numbers and have no real world benchmarks yet. We also need to make sure we're not comparing SLI'd 1080s against the 56 as I've ran into with older cards ("the 980 is far faster than the 1080" with me saying, "you're not highlighting that you're running two 980s on your system, are you")

I'm not calling you out as wrong, I would just love to see some real world numbers, and I really don't see Apple going for a 100 watt chip.
[doublepost=1502818487][/doublepost]

"Which lets iMac Pro handle 500 watts — 67 percent more power than the previous iMac — and stay chill." quote from Apple's website. We'll see, but that much allows 200-300 watts for the GPU. I guess Apple will find a way to cool that much heat while remaining quiet...

That concerns me...200-300 watts free for the GPU, that could be bad. I'm leaning the 56 to avoid running into thermal limits with the 64, but I should check again on the current 580 against the 1080s and 1070s (mobile cards)

Here's some benchmarks from notebook check:
1080 desktop: 157
1060 desktop: 149
580 Apple: 130

1080 laptop: 122.7
1070 laptop: 112.09
1060 laptop: 99.93

I've been weighing performance on the nVidia desktops and just looking at the laptop cards actually suprised me...I thought that the 1080 laptop cards should still be the 580, but I'm wrong.

 

[poematik13]

Are you talking about the cards in the video? They are definitely intended to play video games....

This is an iMac subforum, so any talk about the Vega chips implies that it's about the ones in the upcoming iMac Pro.

 

[UL2RA]

This is an iMac subforum, so any talk about the Vega chips implies that it's about the ones in the upcoming iMac Pro.

The ones in the iMac will play games too.

 

[Trebuin]

This is an iMac subforum, so any talk about the Vega chips implies that it's about the ones in the upcoming iMac Pro.

Per the moderators, they want the imac pro also in the imac forum, I've been pushing for a imac pro forum but they won't budge unless they get enough supporting one.

 

[Appleaker]

This is an iMac subforum, so any talk about the Vega chips implies that it's about the ones in the upcoming iMac Pro.

Firstly, no it doesn’t - context matters and it could refer to next years iMac cards or eGPU performance.

And secondly, this is a thread where the OP posted a video looking at the RX Vega gaming cards and referenced the performance shown in the video, and where, in reply to that post, you said “these chips”.... not very clear. And I did ask you whether you were referring to RX Vega or Radeon Pro Vega.

Anyway, I agree with you although I would say they are not ‘optimised’ to play games. You’re right, the image rendering, transcoding, and machine learning applications is where the iMac Pro will shine, outperforming the Nvidia alternative.

 

[Trebuin]

So compared to the 1080, the 64 should just edge out that card. The 1080ti is this year's optimized (tock cycle) nVidia card, much like the Vega series, which should edge out the AMD's Vega 64 pro or RX. Until actual specs are released, I'm betting the nVidia's finFET implementation beat out AMD. AMD tried delaying the high end to release a faster card than the 1080, but the 1080ti beat them out...so in the end, AMD is a day too late & a bridge too far.

 

[magbarn]

It will remain quiet. But judging by track record, I doubt it will stay cool ;-)

I don't think apple would put in that version of the chip, but rather a downclocked version (meaning slower). Do you have a link with the comparisons between the 1070/1080 and the 56? I've been looking an engineering numbers and have no real world benchmarks yet. We also need to make sure we're not comparing SLI'd 1080s against the 56 as I've ran into with older cards ("the 980 is far faster than the 1080" with me saying, "you're not highlighting that you're running two 980s on your system, are you")

I'm not calling you out as wrong, I would just love to see some real world numbers, and I really don't see Apple going for a 100 watt chip.
[doublepost=1502818487][/doublepost]

That concerns me...200-300 watts free for the GPU, that could be bad. I'm leaning the 56 to avoid running into thermal limits with the 64, but I should check again on the current 580 against the 1080s and 1070s (mobile cards)

Here's some benchmarks from notebook check:
1080 desktop: 157
1060 desktop: 149
580 Apple: 130
1080 laptop: 122.7
1070 laptop: 112.09
1060 laptop: 99.93

I've been weighing performance on the nVidia desktops and just looking at the laptop cards actually suprised me...I thought that the 1080 laptop cards should still be the 580, but I'm wrong.

What benchmark numbers are those? Whole system performance? Those are some piss poor laptops if those are genuine benchmark numbers, or those are benchmarks favoring AMD only. Every benchmark I've seen has the 580 just trading blows with the 1060 6gb model let alone a 1080. The 1070/1080 laptops are within a few percentage points below their desktop counterparts on properly cooled laptops.

 

[Trebuin]

What benchmark numbers are those? Whole system performance? Those are some piss poor laptops if those are genuine benchmark numbers, or those are benchmarks favoring AMD only. Every benchmark I've seen has the 580 just trading blows with the 1060 6gb model let alone a 1080. The 1070/1080 laptops are within a few percentage points below their desktop counterparts on properly cooled laptops.

Cinebench off the listed site. They add a spread to the charts with various system tests so you can expect some to be faster. I originally thought the 580 wold fall just a hair faster than the 1060. Also, this was comparing only graphics, though they have more.

 

[tipoo]

The iMac Pro Vega chip will NOT be a gaming chip and will perform poorly on most games. In fact, I read the lowly 580 in the current iMac might even be better at games as it is a consumer chip. Unless you really need the multiple cores and hyper threading for video editing work I can't imagine getting the iMac pro over the standard iMac.

Most people will be better served by the iMac.

These chips are not intended to play video games. They are for image rendering, transcoding, and machine learning applications

The "Pro" variant of Vega silicon is identical to the consumer variant. It's just lower clocked, and even lower still in the iMac Pro. The Vega Pro 64 in the iMac is 82% the Gflops/clock speed and 82% the memory bandwidth of the desktop Vega 64.

With that You can play games on "Pro" Radeons just fine, again, identical silicon, the drivers just undergo more testing for pro apps.


https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2871/radeon-rx-vega-64

vs

https://www.apple.com/ca/imac-pro/


https://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review/10

Even at that scale down factor it looks like it would beat the 580, especially as the iMac 580 in turn performs lower than the desktop 580.

"You can't play games on pro cards" has always been misinformed, it's just not the best use of your gaming dollar. I have a WX7100 that plays games just a bit slower than its consumer variant. If you need an iMac Pro for other actual Pro work, and happen to play games on the side, it happens to be fairly good at that. 83% of a Vega 64 with the top GPU in fact.

 

[fokmik]

iMac pro is days away !!! Its Coming ...you buy it with Vega 64 or 56?
I think ill go with 64 Gb Ram, vega 64 and 10 Cores xeon cpu, 1T should be enough
[doublepost=1513087834][/doublepost]So its officially FRIDAY. preorders starts !!!

 

[Samuelsan2001]

As usual you all went off on one about something we haven't seen yet.

By all hands on reviews released this morning, the machine is a beast in coding, computational and 3D modelling and 4k 6k and even 8k editing, all the while remaining cool and quiet.

i.e. exactly what the "professionals" (I use that word very loosely for the people who think that means anything special) and this forum in particular has been banging on about for years.

 

[Shivetya]

having read the reviews that barefeats did with Vega cards in eGPU boxes the key will be drivers. currently there no good drivers for Vega on High Sierra. One would hope that Apple is merely just sitting on them until the iMac Pro releases, if not it will be a big disappointment

http://barefeats.com/early_vega.html

 

[StoneJack]

Nvidia has terrible support, the cards just don't work in Macs (without web drivers - they don't work for sure), with web drivers they are also buggy. AMD cards have much better support since 10.12.6