Thread: The New Mac Pro is Here!!!

Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 32 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 314
  1. #71  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Allen View Post
    Yeah but that's like saying horsepower is horsepower. Yes, it does have an effect on how fast the car will go... but isn't a perfect way to predict track times!

    You'll find that real-world use depends on more than just those dumb numbers, unless you're doing very simple cases.

    Intricacies RE how the cache is setup, how the scheduler works, how the pipeline works, how the compilers are built, how well the data structures fit the hardware, throughput vs latency, etc.

    It's not trivial - differences here can account for MASSIVE (10x) speedups or slowdowns. This is where NVIDIA has a huge real-world advantage currently - and this won't go away in just a year.

    Also, if I were a developer, would I really want to spend a lot of time and money optimizing stuff for this odd case of 4x GCN chips (the core in these Mac Pro GPUs) when AMD has already announced Navi?

    Bruce Allen
    www.bruceallen.tv
    Blackmagic Design has proven that it can be done (the combination of FP32 TFlops, memory bandwidth and memory latency is what matters, the programmers make the difference).

    Navi is focussed on gaming, like geforce.

    RTX Quadro is expensive RTX geforce with (more) ECC memory and driver certification (launch price RTX Quadro 8000 $10,000 selling price today $5,600, https://www.anandtech.com/show/13217...dro-rtx-family). GV100 still sells for $9k+

    AMD VEGA and NVidia VOLTA are focussed on compute.

    The developers get paid by apple to spend time optimizing stuff, these cost for apple are transfered to the Apple buyers (same as NVidia does and AMD is starting to do) and when they don't cover all the cost they can atleast have fun in Cupertino HQ forcing NVidia to lower their prices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    Blackmagic Design has proven that it can be done (the combination of FP32 TFlops, memory bandwidth and memory latency is what matters, the programmers make the difference).
    In that specific SIMPLE case that suits AMD. I actually wrote a paint program once and wrote color correction, blurs, etc. Try something more complex, like facial recognition or machine learning denoising and you'll see very different performance and NVIDIA will quite likely pull far ahead.

    I actually have a degree in computer science and have written GPU accelerated code so please trust me I know what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    RTX Quadro is expensive RTX geforce with (more) ECC memory and driver certification (launch price RTX Quadro 8000 $10,000 selling price today $5,600, https://www.anandtech.com/show/13217...dro-rtx-family). GV100 still sells for $9k+
    You don't need a GV100 or a Quadro 8000. Not sure what you're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    Navi is focussed on gaming, like geforce.
    No, that is a stupid statement. They will very, VERY likely make professional and compute derivatives that use Navi.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    AMD VEGA and NVidia VOLTA are focussed on compute.
    That's just how they brand it - the fundamental architecture of the GPU processor in VEGA is the same between RADEON VII and their "compute" INSTINCT MI60. It's all GCN.

    You're just reading a bunch of marketing stuff and believing it and repeating it without actually understanding it.

    Bruce Allen
    www.bruceallen.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    Senior Member David Collard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Allen View Post

    That's just how they brand it - the fundamental architecture of the GPU processor in VEGA is the same between RADEON VII and their "compute" INSTINCT MI60. It's all GCN.

    You're just reading a bunch of marketing stuff and believing it and repeating it without actually understanding it.

    Thanks, Bruce.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #74  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Allen View Post
    In that specific SIMPLE case that suits AMD. I actually wrote a paint program once and wrote color correction, blurs, etc. Try something more complex, like facial recognition or machine learning denoising and you'll see very different performance and NVIDIA will quite likely pull far ahead.

    I actually have a degree in computer science and have written GPU accelerated code so please trust me I know what I'm talking about.
    With what kind of software did your write that program, was is CPU or GPU focussed.
    Facial recognition, machine learning, denoising will show that a $700 AMD card can be faster than a $ 2500 NVidia card, Blackmagic Design just showed it with DR16.
    8k.R3D, TNR + 3 OpenFX effects in DR15 on a Radeon VII is upto 40(..50)% faster than with a RTX Titan X or RTX Quadro 8000 (the RTX has the FP32, but lacks the memory bandwidth and low latencies).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Allen View Post
    You don't need a GV100 or a Quadro 8000. Not sure what you're talking about.
    When you want fast memory and low latency you need GV100 or VEGA2, when you need a lot of memory for VFX and you don't have HBCC, you need GPU's with a lot of VRAM, RTX Quadro 8000 has 48 GB of VRAM.
    VEGA 2 has only upto 32 GB but can swap to system memory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Allen View Post
    No, that is a stupid statement. They will very, VERY likely make professional and compute derivatives that use Navi.
    Currently VEGA is focussed on compute and NAVI on gaming, not my statement but straight from AMD's CEO Lisa SU, no statements about next gen.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Allen View Post
    That's just how they brand it - the fundamental architecture of the GPU processor in VEGA is the same between RADEON VII and their "compute" INSTINCT MI60. It's all GCN.

    You're just reading a bunch of marketing stuff and believing it and repeating it without actually understanding it.

    Bruce Allen
    www.bruceallen.tv
    Radeon VII is an instinct MI50 with video outputs, some vans and some options turned of. Radeon VII is a good compute card and a mediocore gaming card (Price/perf).
    Apple read the same marketing stuff and decided to use VEGA GPU's for most of their systems (with some polaris chip being the exception).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #75  
    One thing I want to bring up here is Metal in relation to CUDA. Apple did phenomenal work with Metal 2 and I truly can't think of anything that can be done with CUDA that can not also be done with Metal. Adapting from one to the other is actually not bad at all, it just takes a developer fluent in both APIs. Some may consider it heresy, but there are even some things about Metal that I think are more powerful or capable than counterpart operations in CUDA. I have not done that much with CUDA in the past year, but I've been diving pretty deep into Metal.

    The ultimate downfall of CUDA will be its proprietary nature, unless Nvidia chooses to open it up. The industry wanted OpenCL to be the open standard, but it never could mature to the point of keeping step with CUDA. Metal is great in that it's hardware agnostic, yet still proprietarily Apple. Microsoft is also trying to pull the Windows world away from CUDA for compute and over to their new compute libraries/APIs in DirectX. In the end I think we're going to see DirectX on Windows and Metal on Mac/iPad. I still fully expect Apple to be making their own GPUs at some point in the next few years. Nvidia offering GPUs for the new Mac Pro could make sense in the short term in regards to CUDA support, but long term it would only make sense if they could offer hardware with a price and performance advantage. Given that CUDA has not been kept up on the Mac and many apps on Mac have had to rely on OpenCL or have transitioned to Metal, I'm not so sure that developers would put the effort into CUDA on the Mac platform. Especially since it would be a third party GPU solution and not something Apple would offer directly with a system purchase. II don't know if Apple would offer an Nvidia GPU as a BTO option... they probably would if Nvidia chose to offer one. The two companies are not getting along due to other reasons and competition for IP and autonomy tech. So who knows....

    The VEGA GPUs spec'd for the new Mac Pro look pretty good. I'm sure they will be expensive, but probably (hopefully) not Quadro expensive.
    - Jeff Kilgroe
    - Applied Visual Technologies, LLC | RojoMojo
    - Just me and my 8K Monstro VV kicking ass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #76  
    Senior Member Jarek Zabczynski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Poughkeepsie, NY
    Posts
    2,404
    What can we guess one Vega II Dual MPX module will cost?
    Shoot for the Impossible...Then do it.

    Jarek Zabczynski
    Director / Editor / Cinematographer


    Weapon 8K | www.jarek.com | WE'LL BE ALRIGHT (Music Video) | BAJO EL SOL (Music Video)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #77  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
    Posts
    1,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarek Zabczynski View Post
    I seriously don’t get the bitching about the price. The Mac Pro was never for the average user. If it’s too expensive for you, odds are you really don’t need one.

    I look at it this way. I anticipate spending about 10k on mine. For something that I will use almost every day for a good 5 years to make money, that cost is pretty irrelevant. My current system is going on 7 years now. The price doesn’t phase me.
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewhake View Post
    For those concerned about price I would recommend spec-ing out a similar HP Z8 workstation. Just moving to an 8 core Xeon with 3.5Ghz base clock will put you well above $7000.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Allen View Post
    I'm guessing you don't deal a lot with 4K VFX shots! Burning through multi-layer 4K and above .exr files or uncompressed DPX files.

    When VFX goes to 8K, that's what you'll want a nice PCIe 4.0 SSD for! Just sucks that this Mac Pro won't allow for that.



    Yeah but HP's prices are stupid too.

    Puget Systems have good support and aren't cheap but they're $1500 less than that $6000 Mac.

    An 8-core Xeon with 4.3ghz base, 256GB SSD, 32GB RAM, 10G ethernet, and an RTX 2070 is $4500:
    https://www.pugetsystems.com/nav/pea.../customize.php

    Or more relevantly, here's an 8-core 3.6ghz system, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, RTX 2080 for $2780:
    https://www.amazon.com/Dell-8930-Spe.../dp/B07QLNSXV8

    Or really this $2000 system with a 3.6ghz 8-core, 32GB RAM and a 512GB SSD and a 1080:
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06WLMY9N4

    Now that's 1/3rd the price of that Mac Pro. And probably both that system and the $6000 Mac Pro will be similarly useless because they'll almost immediately bottleneck on the RAM and lack of SSD space. At least the $2000 system would bottleneck later because at least it has 512GB not 256GB haha!

    I know, I know, the last two aren't Xeons and it don't have ECC RAM. But guess what? In our industry, you don't need a Xeon with ECC RAM.

    This is speaking as a guy who personally owns a 40-core dual Xeon with 384GB ECC RAM. It's great for Houdini sims. ECC RAM still isn't necessary but Xeon is necessary to address that quantity of RAM.

    For editing and grading, my 4ghz 8-core standard Core i7 non-Xeon with 128GB of RAM, fast NVIDIA GPUs and many TBs of M.2 storage is a better choice.

    Bruce Allen
    www.bruceallen.tv
    I completely agree with Bruce. You could easily build a $2000 computer that you can safely overclock and have similar performance to the $6000 entry level Mac Pro. In the past the entry level Mac Pro was always $3000 or less. I understand that Apple’s hardware is built better than most others, and I’m willing to pay extra for that. But not $4000 extra. This entry Mac Pro should be $3000-$3500.


    Xeon and ECC memory is a complete waste for most of our industry. Nothing needs it. Regular desktop CPUs would be fine. Apple needs to have a desktop computer that’s between the Mac Mini and this Mac Pro. IMac Pro doesn’t qualify because it’s still overpriced for the performance and we need to be able use our own monitors with a computer that’s more powerful than the Mac Mini.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #78  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarek Zabczynski View Post
    What can we guess one Vega II Dual MPX module will cost?
    Atleast RTX Quadro 6000 x2 + 30% apple tax ~ $12k, when it's lower I would be surprised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Halper View Post
    I completely agree with Bruce. You could easily build a $2000 computer that you can safely overclock and have similar performance to the $6000 entry level Mac Pro. In the past the entry level Mac Pro was always $3000 or less. I understand that Apple’s hardware is built better than most others, and I’m willing to pay extra for that. But not $4000 extra. This entry Mac Pro should be $3000-$3500.
    That's not quite true. Yes you can overclock, but considering apples-to-apples comparisons (no pun intended) since we want equal hardware longevity, a comparable build would be around $3200.
    Linus covered that here: https://youtu.be/PPiEpSMkzoo?t=724
    The rest of that video after the time I linked, he also covers the past Mac Pro prices - we are all in agreement on the fact that it's marked way up haha.

    I agree you can save money by building it, but not as low as $2000 if you expect the same quality/longevity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #80  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,136
    Can we please stop comparing the announced base model against pimped PCs - it's pointless. The more relevant comparo would be in the $8-12K range. I'd imagine the Apple Tax would still be substantial, but not the "obvious ripoff" narrative one can construct with 256GB flash, a modest CPU and a "placeholder" GPU.

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts