Vega Mackbook Benchmarks

[koyoot]

If you want games, NVIDIA is the way to go, AMD usually isn't properly optimised for games, will take a big hit in performance

No. Just, no.

LOL, I’m not going to argue here, I have a pretty bad track record when it comes to predicting what technology will sell, I think going all the way back to PCI vs Local Bus. When I saw first iPod I thought of it as overpriced POS with cassette desk player sound quality and don’t even ask me what was my opinion on iPad back in the days of its first release.

AMD just released rx590, where are the mid range Vega based cards? Too expensive to make?

It genuinely depends on performance target, performance achieved, and possibility to sell those GPUs. AMD would happily build HBM2 GPU if the price/performance/manufacturing cost would justify it.

My advice. If you have any AMD stock, keep. You will not be disappointed. ROME is a monster, 7 nm mainstream CPUs will come in up to 5 months, and Navi is launching H1 2019. AMD will have process advantage over their competitors for some time.

 

[_Kiki_]

No. Just, no.

Is this your argument? AMD blind worshipper

 

[koyoot]

Is this your argument? AMD blind worshipper

I am not blind to see the advantages of using AMD hardware.

And AMD is not in every way worse in games than Nvidia. Only High-end, but thats because... AMD does not have High-End GPUs.

 

[_Kiki_]

I am not blind to see the advantages of using AMD hardware.

And AMD is not in every way worse in games than Nvidia. Only High-end, but thats because... AMD does not have High-End GPUs.

HS, Vega 64 is slower than 1080 in most cases and both cards are similar priced

 

[koyoot]

HS, Vega 64 is slower than 1080 in most cases and both cards are similar priced

Vega 56 is slower than GTX 1080. Vega 64 is on par, or faster, than GTX 1080.

 

[fate0311]

So I am confused. Some are saying Vega 20 is a very good card for SolidWorks. Some are opposing that.

 

[erigas]

So I am confused. Some are saying Vega 20 is a very good card for SolidWorks. Some are opposing that.

I posted SW results on the previous page. It smokes the 1050Ti by 30fps in Specviewperf 12

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Vega 56 is slower than GTX 1080. Vega 64 is on par, or faster, than GTX 1080.

Yes for gaming. In compute tasks the 56 can match the 1080 and the 64 can match the 1080ti.

 

[edenorchestra]

I've read this entire thread as I prepare for my biennial MacBook Pro purchase. Right now I have a 2016 MBP and will soon be selling it and buying a 2018-32g-i9-Vega20-1TB. I don't play games ever, ok maybe 10 minutes every couple years, they bore me, but that's me. I am curious why there is so much argument about gaming when Apple is pretty explicit about creativity using their products. I'm not sure if I've every seen an Apple commercial about playing games on the MBP or for that matter any of their computers. I seems that the volley back and forth about Mac vs Win machines playing games has been going on for all of computer eternity, but why? Why do these discussions sound like a broken record to me. AMD was chosen by Apple certainly not for gaming, yet we still hear the same bickering to no avail.

The MacBook Pro is not and has never been built for high-end gaming. EVER. Gaming requires a different targeting of hardware than what Apple does with this machine. The MacBook Pro was designed for video editors, photo editors, and music producers who are not always at a desk and who want elevated performance.

NVIDIA GPUs are awesome for gaming on Windows, which is primarily why they were designed. Apple did not design the MacBook Pro for gaming. (Although these days it ain't too bad)

Apple wants to become self-sufficient with APIs that control its OS, as well as the hardware architecture it employs. In Apple's perfect world, the software and silicon would be 100% designed by them. AMD's GPUs give them the closest shot at achieving this, especially alongside Apple's own graphics framework, Metal. Its meant to be!

Now if all you do is run stress tests for fun, have at it. I enjoy looking at all that work, but it means very, very little to the creative crowd.

 

[Ploki]

I'm not sure if I've every seen an Apple commercial about playing games on the MBP or for that matter any of their computers.

The MacBook Pro was designed for video editors, photo editors, and music producers who are not always at a desk and who want elevated performance.

NVIDIA GPUs are awesome for gaming on Windows, which is primarily why they were designed. Apple did not design the MacBook Pro for gaming. (Although these days it ain't too bad)

Apple wants to become self-sufficient with APIs that control its OS, as well as the hardware architecture it employs. In Apple's perfect world, the software and silicon would be 100% designed by them. AMD's GPUs give them the closest shot at achieving this, especially alongside Apple's own graphics framework, Metal. Its meant to be!

Now if all you do is run stress tests for fun, have at it. I enjoy looking at all that work, but it means very, very little to the creative crowd.

There's literally a game FPS comparison on the macbook pro product page.

if it were designed for music producers, it shouldn't have had so many audio issues then.

If you buy pay 400$ more for a CPU, you expect it to perform better, not worse, than inferior options.
I was super disappointed to see that most use cases in Logic Pro X don't benefit from better CPU at all due to the computer being thermally so restricted.

 

[Thysanoptera]

I am curious why there is so much argument about gaming when Apple is pretty explicit about creativity using their products.

You probably should define what you mean by ‘creativity’, because blindly following without question or even a hint of doubt, marketing slogans of one of worlds largest corporation is exactly the opposite of it.

 

[FrostyF]

I've read this entire thread as I prepare for my biennial MacBook Pro purchase. Right now I have a 2016 MBP and will soon be selling it and buying a 2018-32g-i9-Vega20-1TB. I don't play games ever, ok maybe 10 minutes every couple years, they bore me, but that's me. I am curious why there is so much argument about gaming when Apple is pretty explicit about creativity using their products. I'm not sure if I've every seen an Apple commercial about playing games on the MBP or for that matter any of their computers. I seems that the volley back and forth about Mac vs Win machines playing games has been going on for all of computer eternity, but why? Why do these discussions sound like a broken record to me. AMD was chosen by Apple certainly not for gaming, yet we still hear the same bickering to no avail.

The MacBook Pro is not and has never been built for high-end gaming. EVER. Gaming requires a different targeting of hardware than what Apple does with this machine. The MacBook Pro was designed for video editors, photo editors, and music producers who are not always at a desk and who want elevated performance.

NVIDIA GPUs are awesome for gaming on Windows, which is primarily why they were designed. Apple did not design the MacBook Pro for gaming. (Although these days it ain't too bad)

Apple wants to become self-sufficient with APIs that control its OS, as well as the hardware architecture it employs. In Apple's perfect world, the software and silicon would be 100% designed by them. AMD's GPUs give them the closest shot at achieving this, especially alongside Apple's own graphics framework, Metal. Its meant to be!

Now if all you do is run stress tests for fun, have at it. I enjoy looking at all that work, but it means very, very little to the creative crowd.

Because people would like the ability to play games on their $4-5,000 machine after work is done.

 

[edenorchestra]

Because people would like the ability to play games on their $4-5,000 machine after work is done.

Ah finally an honest answer, thanks.

 

[unglued]

I've read this entire thread as I prepare for my biennial MacBook Pro purchase. Right now I have a 2016 MBP and will soon be selling it and buying a 2018-32g-i9-Vega20-1TB. I don't play games ever, ok maybe 10 minutes every couple years, they bore me, but that's me. I am curious why there is so much argument about gaming when Apple is pretty explicit about creativity using their products. I'm not sure if I've every seen an Apple commercial about playing games on the MBP or for that matter any of their computers. I seems that the volley back and forth about Mac vs Win machines playing games has been going on for all of computer eternity, but why? Why do these discussions sound like a broken record to me. AMD was chosen by Apple certainly not for gaming, yet we still hear the same bickering to no avail.

The MacBook Pro is not and has never been built for high-end gaming. EVER. Gaming requires a different targeting of hardware than what Apple does with this machine. The MacBook Pro was designed for video editors, photo editors, and music producers who are not always at a desk and who want elevated performance.

NVIDIA GPUs are awesome for gaming on Windows, which is primarily why they were designed. Apple did not design the MacBook Pro for gaming. (Although these days it ain't too bad)

Apple wants to become self-sufficient with APIs that control its OS, as well as the hardware architecture it employs. In Apple's perfect world, the software and silicon would be 100% designed by them. AMD's GPUs give them the closest shot at achieving this, especially alongside Apple's own graphics framework, Metal. Its meant to be!

Now if all you do is run stress tests for fun, have at it. I enjoy looking at all that work, but it means very, very little to the creative crowd.

Very well said, now let me get some popcorn and continue watching the show.

 

[edenorchestra]

There's literally a game FPS comparison on the macbook pro product page.

if it were designed for music producers, it shouldn't have had so many audio issues then.

If you buy pay 400$ more for a CPU, you expect it to perform better, not worse, than inferior options.
I was super disappointed to see that most use cases in Logic Pro X don't benefit from better CPU at all due to the computer being thermally so restricted.

You are correct, I agree. I use an older MacPro cheese grater 6-Xenon, running Steinberg Nuendo with RME ADAT fiber on a PCI-e buss to my audio gear, works fabulous. What kind of audio interface are you using, or are you using all internal audio? So audio on Logic sounds like it needs more investigation, sometimes Nuendo plays catch-up with newer hardware and/or OSX changes. However there is a crowd such as myself that use a large variety of applications, and not necessarily one more than others. My world is Parallels running AutoCad, some automation software and on OSX Adobe products, FinalCutX, and a few similar others. Somehow I've been pleased with everything, and just like to buy new MBP's every other year for my business . . it's a kind of sickness, but I always have fun . . like a game.

 

[Ploki]

You are correct, I agree. I use an older MacPro cheese grater 6-Xenon, running Steinberg Nuendo with RME ADAT fiber on a PCI-e buss to my audio gear, works fabulous. What kind of audio interface are you using, or are you using all internal audio? So audio on Logic sounds like it needs more investigation, sometimes Nuendo plays catch-up with newer hardware and/or OSX changes. However there is a crowd such as myself that use a large variety of applications, and not necessarily one more than others. My world is Parallels running AutoCad, some automation software and on OSX Adobe products, FinalCutX, and a few similar others. Somehow I've been pleased with everything, and just like to buy new MBP's every other year for my business . . it's a kind of sickness, but I always have fun . . like a game.

RME FireFace - audio glitched on both rme and internal audio - and not only in logic.
Didnt try it in cubase, i didnt have the laptop for long enough.

 

[edenorchestra]

RME FireFace - audio glitched on both rme and internal audio - and not only in logic.
Didnt try it in cubase, i didnt have the laptop for long enough.

Bummer, well I haven't used Firewire too many times, just a few small projects. I use RME RayDat but agin on a full size buss. Not really very portable though . . I do all my tracking on the big machine, but that's good to know should I ever try an external setup, I do have Focusrite Scarlett USB interface . . looks pretty, never fired it up.

 

[Ploki]

Bummer, well I haven't used Firewire too many times, just a few small projects. I use RME RayDat but agin on a full size buss. Not really very portable though . . I do all my tracking on the big machine, but that's good to know should I ever try an external setup, I do have Focusrite Scarlett USB interface . . looks pretty, never fired it up.

I wouldnt dare to use the 2018 15” as a portable setup anymore - i dont trust it.
I had the i9/32gb/560x/2tb model.
Glad i got a refund. These machines have lots of issues

 

[_Kiki_]

Vega 56 is slower than GTX 1080. Vega 64 is on par, or faster, than GTX 1080.

no, it isn't

 

[leman]

I am curious why there is so much argument about gaming when Apple is pretty explicit about creativity using their products.

Because gaming is a good measure of GPU's performance, even if its largely biased towards rasterisation tasks. Still, if a GPU is good in gaming, it will also be good in 3D modelling, video rendering and CAD, since all these tasks are conceptually similar. Compute performance can be different, since it usually doesn't utilise rasterisation.

The MacBook Pro is not and has never been built for high-end gaming. EVER.

True, and yet it can be used to play games on. Any computer with a capable GPU can play games. And its nice to finally have a MBP can can match the performance of a mid-range gaming laptop, simply because its nice to have the option of play some games on your work machine in your free time. Personally, I enjoy playing games here and now, I am a hobbit game developer, but I'm neither rich enough nor do I have a room or need for a dedicated gaming setup.

Apple wants to become self-sufficient with APIs that control its OS, as well as the hardware architecture it employs. In Apple's perfect world, the software and silicon would be 100% designed by them. AMD's GPUs give them the closest shot at achieving this, especially alongside Apple's own graphics framework, Metal.

And Metal is a great API for game developers. It is free of internal inconsistencies, it allows very high-performance applications, and its a pleasure to work with, unlike Vulcan or DX12. And don't even get me started on OpenGL...

 

[cube]

no, it isn't

 

[_Kiki_]

this is poor port from XBOX, poor example, also you can't do a verdict using one game, so you buying Vega 64 to play only one game?
engine is broken from FH3 because lazy developers

Project Cars 2 is the game properly written for PC, even has a nice SLI support, second good example Tomb Raider series (Rise and Shadow), also Destiny 2, Witcher 3, Overwatch, you should compare about several games to do proper results and in this situation for 1440p resolution, 1080 or even 1070ti is the way to go

also if you need CUDA for specified software, AMD doesn't have that

 

[koyoot]

this is poor port from XBOX, poor example, also you can't do a verdict using one game, so you buying Vega 64 to play only one game?
engine is broken from FH3 because lazy developers

Project Cars 2 is the game properly written for PC, even has a nice SLI support, second good example Tomb Raider series (Rise and Shadow), also Destiny 2, Witcher 3, Overwatch, you should compare about several games to do proper results and in this situation for 1440p resolution, 1080 or even 1070ti is the way to go

also if you need CUDA for specified software, AMD doesn't have that

Game Engine is broken because it shows AMD can have better performance?

Its funny, but everybody in the industry praised FH4 for its optimization, and how it runs on hardware, regardless of brand...

And then you go to show Nvidia Gameworks titles, or Nvidia optimized games as examples of properly written games.

And previously you said I am AMD blind worshipper. Come on, man.

P.S. CUDA is Nvidia proprietary Compute API. It is hardly an advantage for Nvidia, unless you want to lock yourself up to proprietary solutions.

 

[John-117]

A more comprehensive video from the same channel:

Game by game they trade positions on performance. Sometimes the gap is large, others more narrow. Seems like they perform similarly though.

 

[koyoot]

A more comprehensive video from the same channel:

Game by game they trade positions on performance. Sometimes the gap is large, others more narrow. Seems like they perform similarly though.

Pretty much, yes.