Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
They are unaffected by this. One of reasons for shortage in consumer market is that AMD has to feed the OEM market in the first place with GPUs.
why is apple even on AMD for GPU`s ?
wasn't Apple about the best?
Nvidia is better, like, by far, since ever
wasn't Apple about the best?
Nvidia is better, like, by far, since ever
I keep saying that PCI-E 4.0 could be a possibility for the mMP.
https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/03/08/amds-naples-x86-server-chip-stacks-intels-xeons/
@
https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/03/08/amds-naples-x86-server-chip-stacks-intels-xeons/
@
If they would be the best Apple would take their solutions regardless of anything happened between them. But they are not.
they're the best for everything other than FCP performance, and I think the EGPU initiative is a tepid realization by Apple that they need to expand their pro demographic beyond just video editors who happen to dislike Premier.
So what you are saying is that they are best in software optimized for Nvidia, not for everybody else.
Ask yourselfs a question. If a Metal is on Apple platform, and you are required to use it for your software, for which GPU vendor will it be better? Who will get better performance, if it resembles OpenCL?
And who in the end will be the best?
P.S. Watch this also if you want to say which GPUs are better: You asked about Premiere. Here you go.
One of quotes from the film: we tested GTX 1070 in Ryzen build and RX 480 was still faster.
Guys, please. Give AMD credit where is due.
Last edited:
No. If apple were unbiased, they'd offer the option to choose. Otherwise they wouldn't exclude nvidia from their entire line, pro (with or without quotes) or not. They can't just behave like this list does not exist.
As far as Metal goes, remember we're talking about s/w here. It can be shaped to favor whatever tech apple wants.
You know what is the funniest for me?
People complain how Vendor Lock in on Apple computers is not allowing them to use Nvidia GPUs. They do not see that they are locked in to CUDA software, which is Nvidia proprietary API.
Let me ask you a question, antonis. If CUDA is Nvidia proprietary API, isn't it shaped for whatever tech Nvidia wants you to use?
P.S. Why do you use Passmark as a vantage point? You do know that this IS CPU bound benchmark? Worthless from the ground up to judge any of the GPUs.
If Passmark would be any relevant in real world, RX 480 would not be faster in video editing tools than GTX 1070, like it is in that film above which I have posted.
People complain how Vendor Lock in on Apple computers is not allowing them to use Nvidia GPUs. They do not see that they are locked in to CUDA software, which is Nvidia proprietary API.
Let me ask you a question, antonis. If CUDA is Nvidia proprietary API, isn't it shaped for whatever tech Nvidia wants you to use?
P.S. Why do you use Passmark as a vantage point? You do know that this IS CPU bound benchmark? Worthless from the ground up to judge any of the GPUs.
If Passmark would be any relevant in real world, RX 480 would not be faster in video editing tools than GTX 1070, like it is in that film above which I have posted.
Nvidia’s compute performance seems like it’s a hardware issue. But as far as the Metal drivers go... improving them is on Nvidia, not Apple. If Nvidia wants to get in the next Mac Pro, they need to improve their drivers first.
Even then... Vega is coming, and might end Nvidia’s hardware dominance. Once that happens, Apple will have very little reason to concern themselves with Nvidia unless Nvidia has something truly amazing up their sleeves that no one has heard of yet.
I do not see any negatives in Apple officially supporting CUDA and allowing to use Nvidia GPUs. Doesn't really matter if CUDA is Nvidia proprietary, because if your software performs better on AMD GPU, then you can always switch. If your software thrives in CUDA, then stay Nvidia, simple as that.
Absolutely and without doubt. It's proprietary, enough said. But let me return the question; does this justify apple's choice to lock us in a specific vendor (any vendor for that matter) ?
I like to think of it like that; Lots and lots of people are also locked to apple's h/w just because running macOS in other h/w is unlicensed and - at the very least - problematic, although they'd be more than happy running macOS (and their macOS-only s/w) on the h/w of their choice. So apple pin us down as well, practically doing the same thing as nvidia. Hence apple could at least give us vendor choices. nVidia is not a gpu vendor that can be justifyingly ignored, imo.
The fact that this lock happens in their consumer machines as well (e.g. where the opencl doesn't count much and other factors get on the table like gaming etc), makes this choice look even worst.
I think we could agree on the above
There is a difference between software vendor lock in and hardware vendor lock in.Absolutely and without doubt. It's proprietary, enough said. But let me return the question; does this justify apple's choice to lock us in a specific vendor (any vendor for that matter) ?
I like to think of it like that; Lots and lots of people are also locked to apple's h/w just because running macOS in other h/w is unlicensed and - at the very least - problematic, although they'd be more than happy running macOS (and their macOS-only s/w) on the h/w of their choice. So apple pin us down as well, practically doing the same thing as nvidia. Hence apple could at least give us vendor choices. nVidia is not a gpu vendor that can be justifyingly ignored, imo.
The fact that this lock happens in their consumer machines as well (e.g. where the opencl doesn't count much and other factors get on the table like gaming etc), makes this choice look even worst.
I think we could agree on the above
Hardware Vendor lock in can always be changed. With software vendor lock in you have to use hardware which software Vendor wants you to use. Nothing stops Nvidia from optimizing the drivers for Metal.
That is why I prefer Apple approach. That is why I prefer AMD hardware with immature software, than mature software with immature hardware. Because software can with time mature, and use the capabilities which were unused before and therefore increase performance of the hardware you have. I wanted to post something about the differences between AMD and Nvidia architectures in the past, and present, in response to goMac post, but I stopped myself.
And believe me. Nvidia is the first company which SHOULD be ignored in the first place, because of their politics, in the industry, and behavior. If industry would not be CUDA locked, the progress of technology would be much better because of increased competition between vendors, on healthy rules.
really?
if macOS and Windows (which also doesn't) officially supported CUDA.. then software was developed under this official support.. Apple and/or Microsoft would have given nvidia far too much control over their own software.. CUDA would have to continue being supported and nvidia could, just based off this official CUDA support, require licensing fee of ,say, $200 per install... requiring every mac user to pay this fee regardless of if they use CUDA or not..
either that, or Apple/Microsoft just swallows the cost themselves?
that is just not going to happen.. no matter how hard you wish for it.
how about this-- nvidia open sources CUDA instead.
?
that's the consumer friendly way to go about this.. instead, you're seemingly duped into believing it's Apple being the evil-doers here regarding CUDA and yourself &nVidia are the 'victims'.. pretty much exactly what nvidia wants you to think like.
the more you let CUDA into your software, the less alternatives will be available.. and the more your software will 'thrive' in CUDA with less&less alternatives..
again, exactly what nvidia wants to happen.. results of which could be disastrous (hyperbole)..
nvidia isn't trying to be helpful here with CUDA and/or locking their software to their GPUs.. they're trying to be slick business-people (understandable)..
if nvidia had their way, i'm almost positive you'd want to go back in time and un-say this: "I do not see any negatives in Apple officially supporting CUDA"
I think I should have worded differently. I didn't mean as in like official CUDA support layered on OS. I only said that because it needs Apple to officially release drivers for Nvidia GPUs on Mac OS (Nvidia still does Mac drivers, but rather supports just for the sake of supporting), unlike Windows, where GPU vendors are all responsible for providing drivers. It could all change when new Mac Pro actually has option to configure with Nvidia GPUs.
ok.. yeah. that's different
that's how it is currently.
fwiw, Apple doesn't have to have CUDA drivers included in macOS.. a user can download/install a CUDA driver on their own.. which is how it's been done up to now:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/mac-driver-archive.html
.
I've seen it in other MR threads, but I didn't think I'd seen it here as I take in high value all of the participants in this thread. But the truth is people are actually applause for the lack of choices, period ! I've read so much nonsense in MR forums about how futuristic is to have a laptop with practically no ports, of how forward-thinking is to have no port options other than usb-c (even if when this possible future comes, the aforementioned machines will be in the trash), to have a non-upgradeable Mac Pro, to have a phone without headphone jack port. And still people are trying so hard to justify apple taking away choices from them, even more than apple itself.
Sorry, koyoot, but I cannot see a logic behind your arguments. I still can't understand - no matter what you'd prefer for your workflow - how can you approve the lack of choice. The lack of nvidia choice is unjustifiable especially since it happens for the entire mac line where other kind of gpu usage comes in (e.g. games where nvidia dominates). Regarding the methods and practices of the "evil" nvidia, let me kindly remind to all, the 3D Mark fiasco that both of the companies were involved to, a few years ago. Shady practices was never off their table and will never be.
Sorry, flat five, but I cannot see a logic behind your arguments either. Saying that proprietary/closed ecosystems hurt the market in a mac forum ("disastrous" ?) is contradictory, at the very least. So, apple is giving a fight against proprietary systems by supporting opencl-only ? If you really believe that, then there's only one way for you; Linux. In a Linux forum, your arguments might had a chance.
"Consumer friendly" ? "nvidia open sources CUDA" ? In an apple forum ? OK, how about apple licenses macOS to other vendors, then ? Let's see how many people will still keep buying macs when that happens. All they have to do is to officially "unlock the door" and it will be the end of mac computers. But what's the point of discussing the obvious ?
Sorry, koyoot, but I cannot see a logic behind your arguments. I still can't understand - no matter what you'd prefer for your workflow - how can you approve the lack of choice. The lack of nvidia choice is unjustifiable especially since it happens for the entire mac line where other kind of gpu usage comes in (e.g. games where nvidia dominates). Regarding the methods and practices of the "evil" nvidia, let me kindly remind to all, the 3D Mark fiasco that both of the companies were involved to, a few years ago. Shady practices was never off their table and will never be.
Sorry, flat five, but I cannot see a logic behind your arguments either. Saying that proprietary/closed ecosystems hurt the market in a mac forum ("disastrous" ?) is contradictory, at the very least. So, apple is giving a fight against proprietary systems by supporting opencl-only ? If you really believe that, then there's only one way for you; Linux. In a Linux forum, your arguments might had a chance.
"Consumer friendly" ? "nvidia open sources CUDA" ? In an apple forum ? OK, how about apple licenses macOS to other vendors, then ? Let's see how many people will still keep buying macs when that happens. All they have to do is to officially "unlock the door" and it will be the end of mac computers. But what's the point of discussing the obvious ?
The die itself will be used. The clock rates will be different: FE has 1.6 GHz on core, and 925 MHz on memory. iMac Pro's Vega 64 will have the same spec, but 1.35 GHz core clock, and 800 MHz HBM2 clock.Interesting insights on Vega (FE). Am I wrong or will this be the one used in the iMac Pro and possibly also in the mMP? (yeah yeah, ok... "should Apple stick with AMD options"
Interesting insights on Vega (FE). Am I wrong or will this be the one used in the iMac Pro and possibly also in the mMP? (yeah yeah, ok... "should Apple stick with AMD options"
For the Mac Pro: It sounds like Nvidia will be considered again, but the amount of catch up on the software side they would need to do, and Vega really looking good makes me think there just won't be any huge reason for Apple to do Nvidia. I don't think they'll make a decision for Nvidia just on CUDA.
Thank you, guys.
Btw, I got scared when I saw the price of the iMac Pro, but all considered (and given the non-upgradeability) it seems to be quite competitive. (see image)
I hope the mMP will start from a similar price point (not higher!), offering even higher performance, real PCI slots (I keep hoping 4.0, future proof) where maybe soon people can decide whether it's AMD or Nvidia, and more expandability and I/O capability.
Btw, I got scared when I saw the price of the iMac Pro, but all considered (and given the non-upgradeability) it seems to be quite competitive. (see image)
I hope the mMP will start from a similar price point (not higher!), offering even higher performance, real PCI slots (I keep hoping 4.0, future proof) where maybe soon people can decide whether it's AMD or Nvidia, and more expandability and I/O capability.
Attachments
hmm.. if you can't read&understand what i wrote there (and more concisely, directly after that).. then, i don't think you're actually interested in any of my other thoughts either.. just interested in arguing
---
here's a hint though in case ESL:
Oh I know what hyperbole means. But it is still a choice of words that show a very biased and single-sided opinion. And that was my point. See, I ready every word very carefully, and sometimes even "between the lines" (hyperbole).