Radeon Pro 580 8 GB Preformance?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by MyRumors, Jun 5, 2017.

  1. MyRumors macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    #1
    Hi,

    anyone know or can estimate the performance of this card ?
    Will it run popular games at 4K ?
     
  2. dlewis23 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    #2
    Very interested in this as well as how the Radeon Pro 575 performs compared to it.
     
  3. HurtinMinorKey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    #3
    It sits somewhere between a GTX 1060 and 1070 (closer to 1060). You'll be able to game at 4K, but not on ultra settings (or even Very high).

    For reference, it's probably about 30% more powerful than a PS4 Pro version.
     
  4. bounou macrumors 6502

    bounou

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    #4
    Not 4K no, but you should be able to run just about everything in 1440p.

    Depends on what settings you want really.


    The reviews I read say it's a good mid range GPU and with High Sierra you can get a eGPU!
     
  5. Three141 macrumors 6502

    Three141

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Location:
    London
    #5
    @bounou @HurtinMinorKey thanks guys, I was wondering this myself; I am hope the time comes when Nvidia comes mac products but for now I think this is a good update and if it can run VR smoothly that's a very positive step to me.
     
  6. mcnallym macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    #6
    Interested in this as well but from the perspective of fcp x.

    Hexacore 2010 starting to show performance issues in handbrake with 1080p encodes, so looking at the new iMac, the iMac pro well outside what prepared to spend. Will then look at using the quicksync for encoding which should solve the encode times. A lot of OS X encoding software can use quicksync so looking like possible to use that to overcome the quad core cpu limit in the iMac.

    As only going to be working with 1080p or even pal format recordings then what likely to see in terms of benefit of the 580 over the 575.

    Mac Pro 2010 has a Gtx 680 installed so would figure either will be an improvement.
     
  7. Cloudsurfer macrumors 65816

    Cloudsurfer

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #7
    I have a 480 in my pc which is very similar to the 580 (the 580 has slightly higher clock speeds).

    It's not a 4k gaming card, but more along the lines of a 1440p gaming card. At any rate, I use it to game at 1080p and it does that brilliantly.
     
  8. fokmik macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    i wonder how this 580 will be vs a M295x or M395x
     
  9. Maetzle macrumors regular

    Maetzle

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Location:
    Austria
    #9
    I have one stupid question: The 27" models have a 5k display. Now if I play games and put the resolution in-game down to - let's say - 1080p or 1440p - will games look horribly jagged like when I put the game resolution from the monitors native 1080p down to 720p, because my computer currently can't handle more? Or is this less noticeable on the larger resolutions?
     
  10. ESA macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2015
    #10
    It would look jagged. I´ve tested it.
    The thing I did, that I think is the smartest.

    You want a better refresh rate on the screen.
    So i bought:

    MacBook PRO 15" with quad core i7 1 TB SSD
    ASUS ROG STATION 2 (much quieter than Razer Core, but bigger and bulkier)
    ASUS 27" 165 hz monitor (resolution 2560x.....)
    ASUS GTX 980Ti (used and cheap)

    The reason this is better, is because you can get sooo much better performance.
    You can install windows on the mac, or on an external SSD. But important, you have to use an external screen for optimal performance.
     
  11. dlewis23 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    #11
    If you go to 1440p on the 5k display games really don't look that bad because its exactly half, its just not as sharp. When you go to odd resolutions for the display like 1080p they look really jagged.
     
  12. exi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    #12
    Also interested.

    If I may ask a related question: I moved (a) away from windows, and (b) away from desktops at the same time years ago. I sometimes miss desktops and used to game somewhat, and a PS4 isn't the same. If I were to want to play things like BF1, GTA 5, and other "top" games, would a new high-end 27-inch iMac be a reasonable purchase with the Radeon Pro 580, or should I look towards picking up my first Windows machine in years?
     
  13. SnoFlo, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017

    SnoFlo macrumors regular

    SnoFlo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    #13
    Windows machine. Build one yourself as an economical way to a powerful computer, either AMD Ryzen or Intel: your choice. It's loads of fun, actually, and there's that sense of accomplishment when it's done. :)

    Or just buy some cheap Dell OptiPlex with a high CPU clockspeed, or something, and stick an NVIDIA GTX 1070/1080/1080 Ti into it and call it a day. Just make sure that the card can fit in the case beforehand (these cards are very big) and that the power supply can handle it.
     
  14. _manoloruiz_ macrumors newbie

    _manoloruiz_

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    #14
    I'm planning to get the mid range iMac but I was wondering what it's going to be a better upgrade: taking the i7 upgrade on the mid range iMac or going to the high end iMac with the i5 but with the Radeon Pro 580.

    Honestly, I don't use my iMac for gaming but I keep running Photoshop all the time so a better GPU might be better than a better CPU? .... I've got no idea, to be honest.
     
  15. Minxy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    #15
    Will this be able to run Premiere Pro in 4K smoothly?
     
  16. jerwin, Jun 5, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017

    jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #16
    The m295x is supposedly good for 3.5 TFlops.

    The iMacPro's graphics card is 11 TFlops. (The 22 TFlops figure refers to half precision, which is apparently useful for some applications.)

    A GTX 1080 is rated at 11.3 TFlops.

    These are theoretical, of course.
     
  17. cynics macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    #17
    For reference in the keynotes they said "up to 5.5 teraflops of compute". That in and of itself doesn't mean much but keeping everything as equal as we can for comparison the RX 480 is 5.8 teraflops.

    The RX 480 has been out long enough to have a lot of real world comparisons.

    I'd expect it to benchmark around nVidias 1060. Sometimes being slower and other times being faster (thanks to 8gb vram especially).

    Edit : I forgot, the reason I said teraflops doesn't tell us much is because in real world use the 480 compares to the 1060 (give and take) which only has 3.8 teraflops. So that is why I used the 480 as reference for the Pro 580.
     
  18. yalag macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    #18
    Does anyone know how it compares to the card I have in my mac pro 2013?
    AMD FirePro D700 6144 MB
     
  19. fokmik macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    i wonder if amd after 2 years, they come to at least close the perf of an nvidia 980 with this new amd 580 !?
     
  20. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #20
    D700= 3.5 TFlops each. The Mac Pro has two of them.
     
  21. yalag macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    #21
    Ok and the 580 is how many TFlops again?
     
  22. fokmik macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    amd 580 has 5.5 TFlops
     
  23. yalag macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    #23
    thanks. Do you think the 580 is going to improve performance for stuff like Lightroom compared to my mac pro that has the D700 but two of them? The thing is, I don't even know if the applications use both of them to begin with.
     
  24. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
  25. BigJohno macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #25
    I think the hardware has nothing to do with Lightroom's performance rather it is Lightroom its self. They need to rewrite that bloated program. So slow and cumbersome.
     

Share This Page