No way to guess if/ when they will switch back to NVIDIA GPUs. Apple seems to be heavily invested in AMD for GPUs recently. Even the iMac Pro to be released in December will include AMD's Vega GPU architecture. Not likely they will cycle back to NVIDIA anytime in the foreseeable future.Any idea? I need to use CUDA.
The upcoming macOS High Sierra - to be released this fall - includes support for external graphics. Essentially plug-and-play. This support is also included in the currently available public beta of macOS High Sierra.Thanks. It seems that some forum users can get eGPU to work while others can't.
The MacBook will not support an eGPU as it's one port is limited to USB 3.1 gen 2 and does NOT support Thunderbolt 3. Either the 13" or 15" MacBook Pro models will work once High Sierra is installed for native eGPU support. 15" may be a better option as it uses a quad-core CPU witch would go a long way to eliminate CPU bottleneck depending on what exactly you are looking to do...Thanks. In the case of using eGPU, does it matter whether I buy MacBook, MacBook Pro 2017 13" or MacBook Pro 2017 15"?
It seems that some forum users can get eGPU to work while others can't.
No you lose a bit of performance using egpu cause it's not using pcie slot...about 20%Everything being equal, one with discrete GPU on the motherboard and the other with an eGPU. Will the performance be the same?
Not any time soon. Seek a solution elsewhere, unfortunately.Any idea? I need to use CUDA.
As already stated, there is a performance decrease of about 10-20% depending on the GPU in the eGPU box and the workload applied. The degradation in performance is because Thunderbolt 3 only has 4 PCIe lanes, whereas a typical laptop GPU is connected to the CPU via 8 PCIe lanes. A desktop card is usually 16 PCIe lanes.Everything being equal, one with discrete GPU on the motherboard and the other with an eGPU. Will the performance be the same?
Probably a variety of factors: cost, heat output, power draw, availability, driver support etc.What is the reason for Apple to use ATI rather than Nvidia? Technical reason or for profit?
As I recall, the company keeps switching between the two over the years.
I imagine in the past the primary reason was related to whichever company gave the best deal. In the recent MacBook Pros, however, there may be another reason... Apple wanted the 15" Pros to be able to drive 2 of their LG UltraFine 5K displays. Currently the only way to to that is via MST (multi-stream transport), meaning that each 5K display is two images being seamlessly stitched together. This means that when powering two 5K displays plus the internal display, your GPU is outputting 5 monitor signals, which AMD Polaris supports. NVIDIA Pascal, on the other hand, only supports 4 display outputs. It would not be possible for the 15" Pro to drive two 5K displays plus the built-in monitor with any of NVIDIA's current offerings.What is the reason for Apple to use ATI rather than Nvidia? Technical reason or for profit?
As I recall, the company keeps switching between the two over the years.
I'm pretty sure the 2011 15" MBP debacle had something to do with it.What is the reason for Apple to use ATI rather than Nvidia? Technical reason or for profit?
As I recall, the company keeps switching between the two over the years.
I imagine in the past the primary reason was related to whichever company gave the best deal. In the recent MacBook Pros, however, there may be another reason... Apple wanted the 15" Pros to be able to drive 2 of their LG UltraFine 5K displays. Currently the only way to to that is via MST (multi-stream transport), meaning that each 5K display is two images being seamlessly stitched together. This means that when powering two 5K displays plus the internal display, your GPU is outputting 5 monitor signals, which AMD Polaris supports. NVIDIA Pascal, on the other hand, only supports 4 display outputs. It would not be possible for the 15" Pro to drive two 5K displays plus the built-in monitor with any of NVIDIA's current offerings.
Also, FinalCut Pro tends to run very well on AMD GPUs, but that is just likely optimization on the software level. Meaning that Apple could optimize for NVIDIA GPUs if they so desired...
Again, nobody knows what the future will hold, but it looks like AMD may be around for a while at the moment.
Apparently, GTX 10 series chips has higher performance per watt and overall performance than the AMD counterparts. Would love to see future MacBook Pro 13 use Nvidia cards like the MX150.Probably a variety of factors: cost, heat output, power draw, availability, driver support etc.
No you lose a bit of performance using egpu cause it's not using pcie slot...about 20%
Simply put, we don't know, unfortunately Apple and Nvidia don't get along very well as companies. I also use CUDA to accelerate computations, so I can understand your frustration. As a matter of fact, right now the only solution on the mac OS side is eGPU with High Sierra (which entails spending money for an external enclosure and taking a slight performance hit).