keithw

About

Username
keithw
Joined
Visits
63
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
486
Badges
0
Posts
166

Reactions

196Like10Dislike60Informative

  • Mac Studio with M1 UItra review: A look at the future power of Apple Silicon

    keithwkeithw
    runswithfork said:
    I was so excited to get a Mac Studio until I saw the GPU benchmarks. Very disappointed and the wait continues for a Mac with great 3D performance. They should really clarify that  their performance graphs are for video editors only - this is no where near the performance of a 3090 for 3D and I didn't think it was but even if it was 70% of the performance of a 3080 I would have got one. Will there ever be a Mac with comparable GPU performance? Probably not, it seems their focus is solely on the video side of things.
    ...or they could just re-compile the AMD drivers and support eGPUs like they do with the Intel Macs.  My iMac Pro gets really good graphics performance with my AMD RX 6900 XT eGPU.

    darkvadercgWerks

  • Mac Studio with M1 UItra review: A look at the future power of Apple Silicon

    keithwkeithw
    I'm still trying to decide whether or not to spend the extra $1k for 64 GPU cores instead of 48.  I tend to keep machines for at least 5 years (or more,) and want to "future proof" as much as possible up front. Sure, I know there will probably be an M2 "Ultra" or M3 or M4 or M5 in the next 5 years, but the "studio" is the Mac I've always wanted.  My current 2017 iMac Pro was a compromise since the only thing available at the time was the "trashcan" Mac, and it was obsolete by then.  This thing is 2-1/2 times faster than my iMac Pro in multi-core CPU tests. Howerver, it's significantly slower in GPU performance then my AMD RX 6900 XT eGPU.
    pulseimagesbala1234darkvadercgWerks

  • Which upgrades are worth it for the Mac Studio

    keithwkeithw
    My 27" 2017 iMac Pro (10 core) has a Geekbench score of 1129/9264.  The leaked M1 Ultra Benchmark comes in at 1793/24055.  That's 1.6x improvement in single-core and 2.6x improvement in multi-core.   I never really wanted an iMac Pro.  The "trashcan" Mac was obsolete and there was no "Mac Pro" at the time.  This new offering gives us the best of both worlds. Now the only decision is which configuration to buy.
    radarthekat

  • Leaked M1 Ultra Mac Studio benchmarks prove it outclasses top Mac Pro

    keithwkeithw
    As impressive as this is, (no flames here- I'm an exclusive Mac user)  you have to get to Page 388 on the Geekbench 5 CPU results to get to this result of 24055.  The Ryzen Threadripper 3960X 3800 MHz (24 cores) from October 2020 already beat the Ultra.  The single core results are outstanding, and this much horsepower in this form factor with so little power draw is very impressive.  The ASi "Mac Pro" will have a pretty high hurdle to climb with the AMD EPYC (128 cores) coming in at 75539 GB5 multi-core.

    There are, of course, other factors to consider such as the unified memory, built in encoders/decoders, neural engine, etc.  All in all, a lot of bang for the buck.  All that said, my AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT eGPU (attached to my 5 year old iMac Pro) got a Metal GB5 score of 160166.  So they have another hill to climb in their ASi "Mac Pro" when it comes to graphics performance.
    darkvaderwilliamlondonbulk001

  • New iMac Pro & AirPods Pro included in 2022 refresh, report reiterates

    keithwkeithw
    I'm getting a GB 5.4.4 Metal result of 160620 with my AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT eGPU on my old 2017 iMac Pro. Unless the "new" iMac Pro can get into that territory, I'll probably stick to what I have.  It would be REALLY nice if Apple would just support eGPUs on M* Macs.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra