You're absolutely right. I'm thinking about reordering with the Vega 56 and grabbing an external GPU enclosure with a GTX 1080i or wait until the 2080 comes in early 2018. I'm also not liking what I'm hearing that these GPUs are down clocked versions of the consumer ones and the power output for the Vega 56 and 64 are 210W and 295W TDP, respectively.Is it just me, or is the $600 premium for upgrading from Vega 56 to Vega 64 over the top? Apple is making a lot of money on those upgrade options...
what may be interesting in that upgrade is the RAM available. More RAM means that more rendering or calcul data can be put inside the card next to the cores with a fast bandwidth.Hi ! I'm about to order it!But I still have a doubt between 56 & 64 for FCPX. I studied some bench here, I dont' know if there reliable, the 720€ option seems to be expensive for only 20% more no ? What do you think ? Thanks for your help.
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Vega-Frontier-Edition-vs-AMD-RX-Vega-56/3929vs3938
RX Vega 56 owner here (not on mac but on windows desktop). There is very very little difference between the 56 and the 64. The RX Vega uArch is very memory bound by the HBM and any serious gains in performance is from it not the core clock as evidenced by mining.What could we expect from both cards? Are there any tests that could show the differences for a usage in machine learning dev?
One thing to keep in mind is that the 64 might be running substantially more hot, eating into the available safe zone for the CPU.
I remember Anandtech’s notes about the top end Vega running very hot whereas the 56 part did much better. Apparently there is a threshold where the chip just takes off. Both are lower clocked on the iMac Pro so they may both operate under this nasty threshold, but we don’t know yet.
[doublepost=1513319996][/doublepost]Here is the review from Anandtech I was talking about:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review/20
Hard to say until consumers test them in hand. Most of Mac desktop GPUs are downclocked from the regul
You're absolutely right. I'm thinking about reordering with the Vega 56 and grabbing an external GPU enclosure with a GTX 1080i or wait until the 2080 comes in early 2018. I'm also not liking what I'm hearing that these GPUs are down clocked versions of the consumer ones and the power output for the Vega 56 and 64 are 210W and 295W TDP, respectively.
RX Vega 56 owner here (not on mac but on windows desktop). There is very very little difference between the 56 and the 64. The RX Vega uArch is very memory bound by the HBM and any serious gains in performance is from it not the core clock as evidenced by mining.
If these are anything like the desktop variety it should be easy to either overclock or hard-flash these into each other and is definitely *not* worth $600. The only way it would be is if you're getting 16GB of HBM vs 8GB but I doubt that.
I'm not sure whether you meant you doubt that 16GB would make any difference over 8GB or you doubt that the 64 on the iMac Pro will actually come with 16GB. If it was the latter, according to the tech specs for the iMac Pro the 56 comes with 8GB and the 64 comes with 16GB of HBM2 memory.If these are anything like the desktop variety it should be easy to either overclock or hard-flash these into each other and is definitely *not* worth $600. The only way it would be is if you're getting 16GB of HBM vs 8GB but I doubt that.
Drat - you beat me to it!Thanks ! Indeed the VEGA64 has 16GB on the ImacPro (versus 8GO for the 56).
Well color me suprised, I guess it is going to depend on how the latencies are configured. If you want a safe bet the 56 will be fine. If and I do mean IF the latencies are equal between the 56 and the 64 HBM stack then the 64 will be much better in the long run however given how hot it runs I am betting the two will be more or less equal and the only difference will be the extra video memory for CAD applications.I'm not sure whether you meant you doubt that 16GB would make any difference over 8GB or you doubt that the 64 on the iMac Pro will actually come with 16GB. If it was the latter, according to the tech specs for the iMac Pro the 56 comes with 8GB and the 64 comes with 16GB of HBM2 memory.
[doublepost=1513701507][/doublepost]
Drat - you beat me to it!
Well color me suprised, I guess it is going to depend on how the latencies are configured. If you want a safe bet the 56 will be fine. If and I do mean IF the latencies are equal between the 56 and the 64 HBM stack then the 64 will be much better in the long run however given how hot it runs I am betting the two will be more or less equal and the only difference will be the extra video memory for CAD applications.
I cannot speak to the actual results that the Vega 64 will bring with its increased power and RAM, but I can say this: you cannot replace the graphics card in the iMac Pro and the graphics card is usually the showstopper as time marches on. For me, it's a no brainer: I'm already spending $10,000'ish on a powerful system...I'm getting the upgraded graphics card too!
What could we expect from both cards? Are there any tests that could show the differences for a usage in machine learning dev?
You are so right. AMD's suggested prices for the retail versions are $400 for the Vega 56 and $500 for Vega 64.Is it just me, or is the $600 premium for upgrading from Vega 56 to Vega 64 over the top? Apple is making a lot of money on those upgrade options...
No. You need to look at the Vega 56 and 64 Frontier edition to get comparable pricing.You are so right. AMD's suggested prices for the retail versions are $400 for the Vega 56 and $500 for Vega 64.
What could we expect from both cards? Are there any tests that could show the differences for a usage in machine learning dev?
You are so right. AMD's suggested prices for the retail versions are $400 for the Vega 56 and $500 for Vega 64.
Oh my mistake, I forgot about the memory difference. So not so bad after all.No. You need to look at the Vega 56 and 64 Frontier edition to get comparable pricing.
This is entirely true in a graphics-limited application. For MacBooks, Mac mini, I agree, not being able to run 4k due to the cheaper graphics option is a huge pain!
For the iMac pro though, we are considering the possibility that with HBCC (the ability to leverage the ECC system ram as virtual VideoRAM and increase overall video memory), the Vega 56 is actually as effective as the 64 when operating below "throttle threshold"
In this scenario, the Vega 64 might provide 'less' performance over the course of a full workload IF the 64 throttles and the 56 doesn't.
Given that eGPU can extend external screens and upgrade performance over time, the value of having a faster onboard video card is decreased if you plan to run multiple screens, or future proof for gaming.
In any other machine, I would 100% agree and spring for the best of the best, but the thermal behavior of the iMac5k 2017 demonstrates temperatures affect average performance more, while base and turbo clocks affect peak performance more.
In an iMac Pro, I would be more concerned with average/sustained performance than peak performance. This is why I'm curious if the HBCC feature actually enables the 56 to scale VRAM effectively, or if it's just a marketing gimmick that doesn't actually provide any useful real-world results.
P.S. I am also curious if anyone has actually seen a 4.5ghz 10-core iMac Pro clock... The 10 core is advertised as the fastest boost speed, but no one seems to see above 4.2 ghz in any scenario... if that's the case, the 14-core may actually be the highest performance option, in both single and multi-core loads (for the same reason that if the other cores are lower temperature due to lower base clocks and inactive threads, the single boost core may throttle less due to temperature).
...snip...
P.S. I am also curious if anyone has actually seen a 4.5ghz 10-core iMac Pro clock... The 10 core is advertised as the fastest boost speed, but no one seems to see above 4.2 ghz in any scenario... if that's the case, the 14-core may actually be the highest performance option, in both single and multi-core loads (for the same reason that if the other cores are lower temperature due to lower base clocks and inactive threads, the single boost core may throttle less due to temperature).
This is exactly what I feared... Does that mean the actual cap is lower than (or hopefully at least equal to?) 4.2 for the 14 and 18 cores as well?The only way you will get 4.5 GHz on a single core in the 10-core iMac Pro will be to run it with 9 of its cores disabled. Of course this is not a practical solution and I suspect the max frequency in any core will be the 4.2 GHz that people are reporting seeing.
I have the late 2013 MP6,1 6-core with a rated Processor frequency of 3.5 GHz. It has a max Turbo boost of 3.9 GHz and the only way I've seen this 3.9 GHz is with all but one core disabled. When I run production workload using all cores and all hyper-threads the typical core frequency is a solid steady 3.6 GHz.
For the 10-core iMac Pro (which I've ordered) I expect to see a 4.2 GHz steady core frequency for my workload when using all cores. The 4.5 GHz for all intents and purposes is a myth IMO.
No. You need to look at the Vega 56 and 64 Frontier edition to get comparable pricing.
Is it just me, or is the $600 premium for upgrading from Vega 56 to Vega 64 over the top? Apple is making a lot of money on those upgrade options...