SO do we think this would work properly on the newest 13" MacBook. I got the high spec i7, but the graphic chip is still garbage - doing a lot of video and photos on the MacBook itself, with no additional monitor or anything. aside from how insanely hideous this box is, can this work for me do you think?
It'll work fine on the 13-inch. There's nothing special about the 15-inch that makes it possible. Your integrated graphics are about 0.75tflop in performance.
The 980ti is the latest and greatest that will work with macOS, at least for now and is over 6tflop. The 980 is a bit more cost-effective, and about 4.8tflop. Realize, though, that frame rates don't increase 1:1 as tflop increases.
THANK YOU for the reply - you are a saint among men sir
SO do we think this would work properly on the newest 13" MacBook. I got the high spec i7, but the graphic chip is still garbage - doing a lot of video and photos on the MacBook itself, with no additional monitor or anything. aside from how insanely hideous this box is, can this work for me do you think?
It'll work fine on the 13-inch. There's nothing special about the 15-inch that makes it possible. Your integrated graphics are about 0.75tflop in performance.
The 980ti is the latest and greatest that will work with macOS, at least for now and is over 6tflop. The 980 is a bit more cost-effective, and about 4.8tflop. Realize, though, that frame rates don't increase 1:1 as tflop increases.
So nothing above the 980ti, i.e. Titan X won't work for me?
SO do we think this would work properly on the newest 13" MacBook. I got the high spec i7, but the graphic chip is still garbage - doing a lot of video and photos on the MacBook itself, with no additional monitor or anything. aside from how insanely hideous this box is, can this work for me do you think?
It'll work fine on the 13-inch. There's nothing special about the 15-inch that makes it possible. Your integrated graphics are about 0.75tflop in performance.
The 980ti is the latest and greatest that will work with macOS, at least for now and is over 6tflop. The 980 is a bit more cost-effective, and about 4.8tflop. Realize, though, that frame rates don't increase 1:1 as tflop increases.
Curious if a device like this could be used to enable 10-bit per channel video output to a 4K or 5k display. I've been using an Eizo 4K DCI display with a 2015 MacBook Pro and have been unable to get the 10-bit per channel going. I'd resigned myself to waiting for a new Mac to get this capability, but I'd love to stretch this MacBook Pro for another year or so if possible.
Have you tried SwitchResX? I can enable 10 bit in my Mac Pro with a Radeon 7950. In my case it´s useless because my screen (LG Ultrawide 34") is only 8 bit + FRC, but maybe it´s a solution for you.
That's a good thought. I haven't tried it. But I've worked with Apple directly and it appears my MacBook Pro is the final, highest-spec device that can't manage 10-bit per channel video out.
I know for a fact the Mac Pro can do it because I have used them in exactly that configuration. They have much stronger video cards than my MacBook Pro.
but to be clear - this does nothing for you unless you use an external monitor? unless using windows? theres NO way for it to be used for pass back on macOS?
Other companies are way out ahead of this kind of solution. LiquidSky, which will be launching soon, really destroys the idea of an external GPU. Granted this is mostly (but not exclusively) for gaming, but that is the single largest use case for external GPU shoppers.
The idea of Free-to-Cheap access to a cloud computer with specs far beyond your own, allowing you to use virtually any device but still take advantage of the power of a massive PC will be the go-to option for the majority of people who would potentially be in the market for an external GPU.
The truth about external GPU's is that they simply took too long to get here. Other, better alternatives to complete a user experience have sprung up in their absence.
You shouldn't, these kind of solutions are not designed for the gaming market, they're for the pro market, Graphics and Video production and post. $700 dollars for that amount of power is a drop in the bucket cost on the client billable.
but to be clear - this does nothing for you unless you use an external monitor? unless using windows? theres NO way for it to be used for pass back on macOS?
There's some discussion about the pass-back working if you don't have a discrete GPU, but there's no good way for me to test that.
Why would you need to use Windows? The whole point of the article is using macOS.
And yes, as tested, this does nothing without using an external monitor.
As Thunderbolt 3 is adopted by more and more companies primarily driven by the MacBook Pro, the external GPU marketplace looks like it will grow -- as practically demonstrated by the Devil Box.
I highly doubt that.
Other companies are way out ahead of this kind of solution. LiquidSky, which will be launching soon, really destroys the idea of an external GPU. Granted this is mostly (but not exclusively) for gaming, but that is the single largest use case for external GPU shoppers.
The idea of Free-to-Cheap access to a cloud computer with specs far beyond your own, allowing you to use virtually any device but still take advantage of the power of a massive PC will be the go-to option for the majority of people who would potentially be in the market for an external GPU.
The truth about external GPU's is that they simply took too long to get here. Other, better alternatives to complete a user experience have sprung up in their absence.
We'll see. There were no less than five TB3 eGPU enclosures at CES. I'm bullish on LiquidSky and similar, but they can be hamstrung by poor Internet and LAN conditions.
I still think that anyone willing to pay for a MBP _and_ play games will either get a decent console or gaming rig. The MBP ownership anyway already determines you can afford a middle-to-high end PC rig.
I don't quite get the point of external GPU's past the "cool" factor. You're not lugging it around with your MBP because it's heavy, just like your PC, anyway...
As to LiquidSky et alii, they seem like a nice solution, but here again, it feels more complicated and reliant on external factors (LAN/Internet, indeed) than a dedicated rig. A mid-range config is 800$ nowadays. A reasonable high end with a 1080 is around 2000$, with basically no other downside than the cost/space it takes. I'm quite unconvinced "LiquidSky"s have a market, except maybe when it comes to VR headsets or gaming on phones?
You forget the Radeons. The new RX470 runs well in OSX and with a small kext tweak, you can even get the RX480 going. For Final Cut Pro X, AMD cards give faster results thanks to Apple favouring AMD and better Open CL on the AMD lineup compared to Nvidia.
This would make it tempting to run with my 2011 17" MacBook Pro as a RX480 (or even my older Sapphire7970) would make editing on the road (whenever I have the chance to set it all up) far smoother than its old 6750m.
As someone who does use OSX for gaming as well as editing work, the 5.6t teraflops from my Sapphire RX480 OC edition (currently in use in my hackintosh), even if cut to just half performance, would mean I use my old MacBook Pro a lot more.
There isn't enough bandwith to feed two external GPUs though is there? Because two AMD GPUs are even nicer when using FCPX...
I have a mid 2011 iMac with a bad GPU, it litters my screen with tiny squares of random colors and eventually brings the whole iMac down. I have to restart 3 - 6 times a day. Would this work to bypass that troublesome GPU? The bad GPU can't be replaced, it's hard wired onto the mother board.
1. Undoubtedly there are some users that would be interested in a product like this for Adobe/Final Cut/3D software...but to me its questionable why they are buying a MBP to begin with, if they really need the power of an eGPU. Unlike gaming, where there really is no choice in the matter (you need the GPU power, or you simply can't play)... creative software is still very much usable with a MBP GPU...rendering is just slower.
4. LiquidSky is the future. If this service takes off, it basically ends the need for gaming users to buy spec'd out computers. And again I reiterate, while this service is focused on gaming, it is not limited to it. You can install and run other professional software that you own. There may indeed be further optimizations for other use cases over time, and other similar services that launch offering even more optimized experiences.
For pro apps, especially like 3D animation or CAD visualization and such, a MBP GPU is just way too limiting... and you're probably going to be plugged into a big monitor or two anyway. The advantage here, is to just be able to unplug your computer and head home or to the coffee shop when doing other work, w/o having to deal with multiple machines. ***IF*** the CPUs (and noise/cooling) are adequate, this is kind of the perfect one-machine solution. That said, with all the cloud-sync capabilities these days, maybe it's just better to build a killer Hackintosh and then buy a MacBook for the road.
re: LiquidSky - I'd almost guess it's more applicable for stuff like 3D/CAD, as the frame-rate and slight lag wouldn't be quite as crucial there. Maybe I'm missing something, but when these gamers are concerned about 100s+ FPS, how in the heck it's going to transmit a high-def screen across the 'Net at an acceptable pace.
But, generally yes, cloud-computing power is the way to go IMO. Instead of having a server rack of rending machines, one can now spin up a bunch of cloud instances to get a rendering job done, at a much lower cost. But, you still need to (for now) have enough local power for your needs when you're actually working on the setup and testing, etc.
You forget the Radeons. The new RX470 runs well in OSX and with a small kext tweak, you can even get the RX480 going. For Final Cut Pro X, AMD cards give faster results thanks to Apple favouring AMD and better Open CL on the AMD lineup compared to Nvidia.
This would make it tempting to run with my 2011 17" MacBook Pro as a RX480 (or even my older Sapphire7970) would make editing on the road (whenever I have the chance to set it all up) far smoother than its old 6750m.
As someone who does use OSX for gaming as well as editing work, the 5.6t teraflops from my Sapphire RX480 OC edition (currently in use in my hackintosh), even if cut to just half performance, would mean I use my old MacBook Pro a lot more.
There isn't enough bandwith to feed two external GPUs though is there? Because two AMD GPUs are even nicer when using FCPX...
Didn't forget, just don't have any. Plus, it's easier to tell somebody to "go get any Nvidia from the 900-series."
so im boggled - someone tell me what you think is going to be faster at processing and post production, since I can't just use this in an iMac for back or forth:
so im boggled - someone tell me what you think is going to be faster at processing and post production, since I can't just use this in an iMac for back or forth:
so im boggled - someone tell me what you think is going to be faster at processing and post production, since I can't just use this in an iMac for back or forth:
my MacBook Pro (+ External GPU + Monitor:) 13" late 2016 - 4 thunderbolt 3 3.3GHZ I7 16GB 2133mhz LPDDR3 ram Intel Iris Graphics 550 1536mb (but will go to external In this) 1 TB FLASH drive
I imagine the laptop would just go to an LG 5k
not gaming at all - just using Lightroom, Photoshop, and Final Cut THanks, aria
That's rough. Final Cut on the iMac, LR/PS on the MacBook Pro with eGPU, I think.
ok just for fun: if you could only own ONE of those two above listed systems, which would you pick. and you can never upgrade or add anything, just whats mentioned above
"And some other system modifications." What would these be? I've tried using this box with 10.12.2 and I just get the "thunderbolt device connected, no gpu detected" when I try to run the script. Works fine in windows.
"And some other system modifications." What would these be? I've tried using this box with 10.12.2 and I just get the "thunderbolt device connected, no gpu detected" when I try to run the script. Works fine in windows.
The script does all the system modifications. What brand/model card do you have inside the enclosure? Some are fussy with the reference drivers.
"And some other system modifications." What would these be? I've tried using this box with 10.12.2 and I just get the "thunderbolt device connected, no gpu detected" when I try to run the script. Works fine in windows.
I'm starting to wonder if PowerColor has used a few different chipsets with the box. Reddit and other sources have a bunch of success stories like mine, but some other people report things like the ethernet port not working, or what you're talking about.
I'll do a little delving, and contact PowerColor. All I had to do with mine was disable SIP, and run the script.
"And some other system modifications." What would these be? I've tried using this box with 10.12.2 and I just get the "thunderbolt device connected, no gpu detected" when I try to run the script. Works fine in windows.
I'm starting to wonder if PowerColor has used a few different chipsets with the box. Reddit and other sources have a bunch of success stories like mine, but some other people report things like the ethernet port not working, or what you're talking about.
I'll do a little delving, and contact PowerColor. All I had to do with mine was disable SIP, and run the script.
Early builds of these Devil Boxes use Texas Instrument TPS65982 (TI82) USB-C controller while the recent builds have TI83. TI82-equipped Devil Boxes have much better compatibility than TI83 ones atm. I'm hoping PowerColor will release a firmware update soon for the TI83-equipped Devil Boxes to enable eGPU support for more Thunderbolt 3 hosts (computers).
Comments
https://www.amazon.com/EVGA-CLASSIFIED-Installed-Backplate-06G-P4-4998-KR/dp/B010GK3YYC/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1484698126&sr=8-3&keywords=geforce+980+ti&th=1 - like this?
I know for a fact the Mac Pro can do it because I have used them in exactly that configuration. They have much stronger video cards than my MacBook Pro.
And yes, as tested, this does nothing without using an external monitor.
I still think that anyone willing to pay for a MBP _and_ play games will either get a decent console or gaming rig. The MBP ownership anyway already determines you can afford a middle-to-high end PC rig.
I don't quite get the point of external GPU's past the "cool" factor. You're not lugging it around with your MBP because it's heavy, just like your PC, anyway...
As to LiquidSky et alii, they seem like a nice solution, but here again, it feels more complicated and reliant on external factors (LAN/Internet, indeed) than a dedicated rig. A mid-range config is 800$ nowadays. A reasonable high end with a 1080 is around 2000$, with basically no other downside than the cost/space it takes. I'm quite unconvinced "LiquidSky"s have a market, except maybe when it comes to VR headsets or gaming on phones?
For pro apps, especially like 3D animation or CAD visualization and such, a MBP GPU is just way too limiting... and you're probably going to be plugged into a big monitor or two anyway. The advantage here, is to just be able to unplug your computer and head home or to the coffee shop when doing other work, w/o having to deal with multiple machines. ***IF*** the CPUs (and noise/cooling) are adequate, this is kind of the perfect one-machine solution. That said, with all the cloud-sync capabilities these days, maybe it's just better to build a killer Hackintosh and then buy a MacBook for the road.
re: LiquidSky - I'd almost guess it's more applicable for stuff like 3D/CAD, as the frame-rate and slight lag wouldn't be quite as crucial there. Maybe I'm missing something, but when these gamers are concerned about 100s+ FPS, how in the heck it's going to transmit a high-def screen across the 'Net at an acceptable pace.
But, generally yes, cloud-computing power is the way to go IMO. Instead of having a server rack of rending machines, one can now spin up a bunch of cloud instances to get a rendering job done, at a much lower cost. But, you still need to (for now) have enough local power for your needs when you're actually working on the setup and testing, etc.
my iMac:
late 2014 27" 5k retina
3.5ghz i5
32gb 1600 mhz ddr2 ram
amd radeon r9 m290x 2GB
1 tb FUSION drive
OR
my MacBook Pro (+ External GPU + Monitor:)
13" late 2016 - 4 thunderbolt 3
3.3GHZ I7
16GB 2133mhz LPDDR3 ram
Intel Iris Graphics 550 1536mb (but will go to external In this)
1 TB FLASH drive
I imagine the laptop would just go to an LG 5k
not gaming at all - just using Lightroom, Photoshop, and Final Cut
THanks,
aria