Haven't quite stuck to relying on ARM iGPU yet - Macbook with new Radeon graphics found

[Lord Vile]

46 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Also the assumption there was the 6700 would be a lot slower than the 6800 which may not be the case. Lots of professional apps scale poorly with the top end configurations of GPUs anyway as things like memory bandwidth become a performance constraint, or memory capacity, or simply not all tasks can be GPU offloaded.

 

The GPU in the M1 is already performing in professional applications to the same level as GPUs twice the raw power, in limited cases triple, and that's simply down to architecture optimizations and memory latency.

 

However for something like the Mac Pro it doesn't really make sense to limit only to the 6700, or necessarily use the 6700 over a 6800 even with such little gains. Comes down to performance efficiency per dollar and when you are in the Mac Pro platform do you really care the absolute most about that? Probably not as much as the overall performance of the system.

 

At this stage of the industry it would be rather foolish of AMD to introduce yet another new TSMC 7nm product this side of February, the last thing AMD needs is to split up what 7nm allocation they have with yet more products.

Apples software scales really well with multiple GPUs

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Apples software scales really well with multiple GPUs

Well that's because they actually have so few lol. But really you're talking about software and tasks in it like exporting and pretty well all of them can do that well across multi GPU, pull out something more user interactive like CAD software and there are real hard diminishing returns on high end GPU performance.

[Lord Vile]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well that's because they actually have so few lol. But really you're talking about software and tasks in it like exporting and pretty well all of them can do that well across multi GPU, pull out something more user interactive like CAD software and there are real hard diminishing returns on high end GPU performance.

But if you’re getting a Mac Pro are you really using it for CAD? Considering a lot of software flat out doesn’t have a version for Mac? 

[leadeater]

33 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

But if you’re getting a Mac Pro are you really using it for CAD? Considering a lot of software flat out doesn’t have a version for Mac? 

Yes, there are plenty of CAD software that work just fine on Mac. A lot of Autodesk's software have Mac OS versions, in fact Autodesk alone has more professional applications for Mac OS than Apple does. Maya (Autodesk ) or 3DS Max (Autodesk), Blender, Cinema 4D, ZBrush etc etc. A lot of this software have Mac OS versions because they are all design and arts tools which is a community of users that prefer Mac OS as it is.

 

In terms of professional applications that utilize GPU acceleration Apple has 2 unless I'm forgetting something? Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro X.

 

P.S. I added Maya and 3DS Max separately because they were for a long time not owned by Autodesk and were very popular.

[Lord Vile]

26 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes, there are plenty of CAD software that work just fine on Mac. A lot of Autodesk's software have Mac OS versions, in fact Autodesk alone has more professional applications for Mac OS than Apple does. Maya (Autodesk ) or 3DS Max (Autodesk), Blender, Cinema 4D, ZBrush etc etc. A lot of this software have Mac OS versions because they are all design and arts tools which is a community of users that prefer Mac OS as it is.

 

In terms of professional applications that utilize GPU acceleration Apple has 2 unless I'm forgetting something? Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro X.

 

P.S. I added Maya and 3DS Max separately because they were for a long time not owned by Autodesk and were very popular.

But if you’re buying a system just for autodesk why buy a Mac Pro? You’re better off buying a system for windows and using an iMac for your artists etc, that’s pretty much what studios like Pixar do. Also solid works  doesn’t have a Mac version. 

[wall03]

Updated speculation spreadsheet

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

But if you’re buying a system just for autodesk why buy a Mac Pro? You’re better off buying a system for windows and using an iMac for your artists etc, that’s pretty much what studios like Pixar do. Also solid works  doesn’t have a Mac version. 

Why not, if you like Mac OS and you use an Autodesk product that has a Mac OS version along with your other software there isn't any reason to not stick with that platform you want.

 

But it's not like Audotdesk is the only, like the other software I mentioned those are just some of many. When it comes to design software Mac OS is not short on those and when it comes to the ones that are widely used that list is actually small anyway with almost all having a Mac OS version.

 

But that wasn't really the point I was getting at anyway. In these software there is very little gain in application performance once you go up from something like an RTX 2060, and if the software supports multi GPU you can often get better performance with two RTX 2060 than you can with one RTX 2070/2080. There's just architectural and software limitations that prevent the raw computational power of these GPUs from being fully utilized. This also happens to be why much more expensive Quadro cards with more VRAM are more useful even though the GPU itself is less powerful, you get that extra VRAM and professional drivers with optimizations for these software and even legacy API support that can still be found in these software that is not implemented in the Geforce drivers at all which is where you can see things like a Quadro with a TU106 outperforming and Geforce with a TU102, but that is Windows world because Apple still refuses to work with Nvidia to their own detriment.

 

Software will always largely dictated which OS you can use but when both are viable options and you have a preference there is no reason to choose against your preference. There is no disadvantage to going with a Mac Pro unless the software you use has no Mac OS version and when it comes to CAD/3D modeling there is more than enough selection on Mac OS.

 

Sure Windows might have more software but like 99% isn't exactly productive software that has much use in a work/professional setting.

[saltycaramel]

42 minutes ago, wall03 said:

Updated speculation spreadsheet

Can I help you refine that speculation?

- a 6p+4e configuration was never rumored, whereas 8p+4e was mentioned since the original leak by Bloomberg in April 2020, and the Bloomberg report also mentioned “more than 12 cores”, so I think we’ll see 8p+4e configurations in the next batch of AS Macs, and probably even 12p+4e in one of them (iMac)

- the first miniLED iMac supposedly will be 24” (source: Kuo), not 21”

- since the butterfly keyboard (needed for extremely thin designs) was abandoned, and no one wants to go back to having 1 port only, I doubt Apple will go back to the 12” Macbook concept, the Air is thin enough 

- the GPU column has too many dGPUs...only the MBP 16” and iMacs have any hope to get the AMD 6700, based on the predecessors...

- I think models offering 32GB ram will have 16GB as the baseline and skip the 8GB RAM size...too many SKUs..

- I think the bigger iMac in late 2021 will not be 27” but something like 31.5”, closer to the XDR 6K display

[wall03]

14 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

- a 6p+4e configuration was never rumored, whereas 8p+4e was mentioned since the original leak by Bloomberg in April 2020, and the Bloomberg report also mentioned “more than 12 cores”, so I think we’ll see 8p+4e configurations in the next batch of AS Macs, and probably even 12p+4e in one of them (iMac)

updated

 

14 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

- the first miniLED iMac supposedly will be 24” (source: Kuo), not 21”

updated

 

14 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

- since the butterfly keyboard (needed for extremely thin designs) was abandoned, and no one wants to go back to having 1 port only, I doubt Apple will go back to the 12” Macbook concept, the Air is thin enough 

removed

 

15 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

- the GPU column has too many dGPUs...only the MBP 16” and iMacs have any hope to get the AMD 6700, based on the predecessors...

fixed

 

15 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

- I think models offering 32GB ram will have 16GB as the baseline and skip the 8GB RAM size...too many SKUs..

updated

 

16 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

- I think the bigger iMac in late 2021 will not be 27” but something like 31.5”, closer to the XDR 6K display

updated

 

[Vishera]

Laptop GPUs arrive only after manufacturers iron out and get familiar with the architecture...

I think we will not get to see any RDNA 2 laptops anytime soon.

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Would be a “Pro” model with more VRAM though. Plus a lower power draw.  Think the Mac Pro with apples software would be better off with dual 6700’s vs one 6900

Didn’t hear anything about duals.  

[Bombastinator]

iMac as top worker with mGPUs. The usual for mGPUs is cut two off the top. An m2080 was a desktop 1660.  Ok for laptops I guess. If this is an m6700, in a desktop it’s what one would project a desktop 6500 to be.  

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Didn’t hear anything about duals.  

Well the only desktop they sell that has high level graphics is the Mac Pro which has a lot of expandability 

[Lord Vile]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Why not, if you like Mac OS and you use an Autodesk product that has a Mac OS version along with your other software there isn't any reason to not stick with that platform you want.

 

But it's not like Audotdesk is the only, like the other software I mentioned those are just some of many. When it comes to design software Mac OS is not short on those and when it comes to the ones that are widely used that list is actually small anyway with almost all having a Mac OS version.

 

But that wasn't really the point I was getting at anyway. In these software there is very little gain in application performance once you go up from something like an RTX 2060, and if the software supports multi GPU you can often get better performance with two RTX 2060 than you can with one RTX 2070/2080. There's just architectural and software limitations that prevent the raw computational power of these GPUs from being fully utilized. This also happens to be why much more expensive Quadro cards with more VRAM are more useful even though the GPU itself is less powerful, you get that extra VRAM and professional drivers with optimizations for these software and even legacy API support that can still be found in these software that is not implemented in the Geforce drivers at all which is where you can see things like a Quadro with a TU106 outperforming and Geforce with a TU102, but that is Windows world because Apple still refuses to work with Nvidia to their own detriment.

 

Software will always largely dictated which OS you can use but when both are viable options and you have a preference there is no reason to choose against your preference. There is no disadvantage to going with a Mac Pro unless the software you use has no Mac OS version and when it comes to CAD/3D modeling there is more than enough selection on Mac OS.

 

Sure Windows might have more software but like 99% isn't exactly productive software that has much use in a work/professional setting.

But even looking aside from GPUs you’re limiting yourself with CPU, you can’t get a Mac Pro with Thread ripper 

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Well the only desktop they sell that has high level graphics is the Mac Pro which has a lot of expandability 

Ah. That.  I got the impression practically no one bought that thing because it had wild for-no-reason thousand dollar additions to it.  It cost near twice as much as machines of similar power levels.  I sort of assumed smaller machines were being discussed.  A Mac Pro would reasonably have dual cards but they’d be dual 6900xts not 6700s if all they’re allowing in a Mac Pro is a 6700 they’re going to destroy what little there is left of it.

Edited November 29, 2020 by Bombastinator

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

But even looking aside from GPUs you’re limiting yourself with CPU, you can’t get a Mac Pro with Thread ripper 

That doesn't really matter that much, and that's Apple choice to use Intel platform. Intel still has things AMD does not like AVX-512 which gives vast performance improvements. Threadripper is still on the Zen 2 architecture which has implications with performance with applications that are multi threaded and also have inter core communication which is most professional applications other than ones like Blender that do tile based rendering.

 

At the time Apple was going through the design phase Intel was the more optimal choice and Mac OS was already optimized for Intel architectures, just made more sense to stick with that. You don't actually find many OEM Threadripper workstations at all so due to that it's not actually widely used in the corporate professional workplace.

 

Threadripper primary market is still enthusiast and custom builders, with presence in the more boutique system integrators that build professional workstations e.g. Puget. Just have to remember Puget is not a large scale supplier of computers like HP or Dell are.   

[Lord Vile]

51 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That doesn't really matter that much, and that's Apple choice to use Intel platform. Intel still has things AMD does not like AVX-512 which gives vast performance improvements. Threadripper is still on the Zen 2 architecture which has implications with performance with applications that are multi threaded and also have inter core communication which is most professional applications other than ones like Blender that do tile based rendering.

 

At the time Apple was going through the design phase Intel was the more optimal choice and Mac OS was already optimized for Intel architectures, just made more sense to stick with that. You don't actually find many OEM Threadripper workstations at all so due to that it's not actually widely used in the corporate professional workplace.

 

Threadripper primary market is still enthusiast and custom builders, with presence in the more boutique system integrators that build professional workstations e.g. Puget. Just have to remember Puget is not a large scale supplier of computers like HP or Dell are.   

I'm talking purely for performance in CPU bound workflows. If you're using something that can leverage 64 cores you're better off on TR.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

I'm talking purely for performance in CPU bound workflows. If you're using something that can leverage 64 cores you're better off on TR.

While that is true for most of the apps that do run on Mac OS a lot of them have GPU support and outside of the tile based renderers core scaling isn't really that great, you can get better performance with fewer faster cores. Then you have first party Apple applications that support the Afterburner card which 64 TR cores will never match when that can be utilized. 3990X is still very expensive, really only makes sense if you are purely CPU focused.

 

There's more to a well rounded workstation than just slapping a very expensive high core count CPU in it and then assuming it's faster than everything else. An Intel CPU with dual AVX-512 units and optimized software is just as likely to perform as good as or better than a 3990X, NAMD workloads complied with AVX-512 is an example of that where 28 cores are faster than 64.

[Lord Vile]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

While that is true for most of the apps that do run on Mac OS a lot of them have GPU support and outside of the tile based renderers core scaling isn't really that great, you can get better performance with fewer faster cores. Then you have first party Apple applications that support the Afterburner card which 64 TR cores will never match when that can be utilized. 3990X is still very expensive, really only makes sense if you are purely CPU focused.

 

There's more to a well rounded workstation than just slapping a very expensive high core count CPU in it and then assuming it's faster than everything else. An Intel CPU with dual AVX-512 units and optimized software is just as likely to perform as good as or better than a 3990X, NAMD workloads complied with AVX-512 is an example of that where 28 cores are faster than 64.

That's only if software supports AVX though and would like to point out intel Xeon line with the closest amount of cores costs literally 10x as much as the 3990X 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

That's only if software supports AVX though and would like to point out intel Xeon line with the closest amount of cores costs literally 10x as much as the 3990X 

All the software in question supports AVX, also you'll find the Xeon W-3275 is not that much more than the 3990X, not even $1000 more. $4450 vs $3600 list price MSRP, you don't actually pay list price for Xeons unless you are going through retail and buying a single boxed CPU.

[Lord Vile]

26 minutes ago, leadeater said:

All the software in question supports AVX, also you'll find the Xeon W-3275 is not that much more than the 3990X, not even $1000 more. $4450 vs $3600 list price MSRP, you don't actually pay list price for Xeons unless you are going through retail and buying a single boxed CPU.

But it's still fighting against double the cores and PCIE 4.0