New Mac Pro Video Card Question

[FakeShamus]

and for Mac Pro comparison, here's a 2012 (5,1) model
3.33 Ghz 6-core Xeon, with a Radeon HD 5770

CPU only: 889 spp, 3263k s/sec
GPU: 171 spp, 627k s/sec

(I guess this card is kind of useless for Indigo? I was surprised.)

[Polinalkrimizei]

overclocked i7 2600k (4,5 MHz) + geforce gtx 560 Ti:

3 min CPU: 805.89 spp, 2964k samples/second

3 min hybrid: 1047,16 spp, 3839k samples/second (GPU load around 65 %)

Cheers!

[OnoSendai]

We should be getting a new Mac Pro very soon, and will be doing some optimisations and dev on it when we get it to make sure Indigo runs really fast on it.

[Oscar J]

Even faster than it runs now?

[Polinalkrimizei]

I have a little more than 75% of the spp of the new MacPro, but paid less than 25% of it's price

And yes, of course I want one, too!!

[Oscar J]

That's mighty impressive for a computer clocked at 4,5 MHz Polinalkrimizei!

Just remember the new Mac Pro is about more than raw power - it's good looking, small, quiet, and has workstation class CPU, GPU's and memory, meaning that it should be more stable than consumer class computers. Furthermore, it has all kinds of wireless connectivity.

I hope somebody will get their hands on the 12-core model to benchmark.

[PureSpider]

Price-performance ratio is insulting though

[pl.mccarthy]

Price-performance ratio is insulting though

Perhaps when both GPU's render it will be less insulting? I also get a big benefit from everything else on my mac running crazy fast!

[Oscar J]

Price-performance ratio is insulting though

For you, maybe it is. It's important to understand though that the higher price is because of the workstation parts inside, that are not just built to be faster than everything else, but also less likely to break, crash or produce errors. These are professional computers, and for some people in different industries, the advantages you get with them are worth the higher price.

For most of us though, consumer machines with i7's and gaming graphics cards are more than enough.

[tkatz]

Saw this thread after reading about how currently the ATI cards might not be good for 3D rendering and wanted to find out if that was true.

I have a "fully loaded" 12c, 64gb, D700 2013 Mac Pro, here's the results:

CPU: 1712.94 spp, 6292k s/sec
GPU: 1746.26 spp, 6418k s/sec

I tested both D700's to see if that made a difference and the results came up pretty much the same.

Rendering video out of Premiere and Resolve is significantly faster with the OpenCL then on my old 2010 Mac Pro with a GTX 570 with CUDA enabled. I guess OpenCL either might be too "new", or as they say, not as good as CUDA (with regards to 3D rendering) ? Hopefully this is something that will improve over time with the same hardware, as devs use it more (?).

[JasonWD]

Hi All

I am in the process of trying to choose a new renderer and am fascinated with GPU rendering. If there was a renderer that could use the power of the Mac Pro then I would jump on both the Machine and the software.

At the moment I am using a Retina machine:

Retina MacBook Pro 2.7 i7
16GB RAM GeForce GT650M 1GB

CPU 337SPP 1238 samples/s
GPU CL 495SPP 1804 samples/s
GPU Cuda 642SPP 2349 samples/s
GPU Intel 4000 590SPP 2164 samples/s

I dont know if it has any bearing on things, but I am driving two Thunderbolt displays and the built in display at the same time.

It's really, very interesting that the Intel GPU has such a high score compared to the "dedicated" Nvidia one.

Maybe we should make a Google Doc or something with all this info collated?