MP All Models AMD Polaris, Vega, & Navi GPU macOS Support

[Hendrik94]

highest I've seen is around 2.5A

2,5A Only with 10.14.5... and newest Firmware...

 

[solaris8x86]

It will never pull 75W from the PCIe slot though, highest I've seen is around 2.5A (30W).

But good thing your setup is stable

Thanks, because I did research before picking the Vega 56. My first choice was Vega 64. But after the calculations. I know if to pick 64 must have a modification to the power source. The Vega 56 doesn't need that and it just damn fits to the ceiling of a stock configuration. And today, I received the card and proved my calculation is right.

 

[Hendrik94]

Swap the Vega64 vor an Radeon VII it is like 30% Faster.....

 

[solaris8x86]

There is the point of view that each cMP's microFIT 6 pins connector can provide 120W+. Look at the spoiler of p. 3.3.

If it can draw 120W on each PCI AUX port. Which is already 10A. It is unlikely that port can provide a 10A current if you have seen the size of the pin on the motherboard.
[doublepost=1556993384][/doublepost]

Swap the Vega64 vor an Radeon VII it is like 30% Faster.....

On gaming. It is a yes. On Final Cut Pro. It is a No (confirmed, did research too). Vega 56, 64 and Frontier all perform very close when running FCPX or exporting a h264 movie (confirmed, did research too on those benchmark sites.). Vega 64 may be faster a few seconds than Vega 56 on FCPX. When talking about a movie that is 10 mins long. A few second faster is almost nothing. And Vega 56 doesn't require a Mod to the power source. So good pick for FCPX users. If for gaming. Vega 64 is observable better I think. And you will spend another round of money for extending the power source. So it depends your application if it is worth doing. To me, Vega 64 is a No.

 

[Hendrik94]

ega 56, 64 and Frontier all perform very close when running FCPX or exporting a h264 movie

you need to activate Hardware Acceleration for that... and if you doo VII is way Faster as I said...


//and also latest 10.14.5 dev beta

 

[solaris8x86]

you need to activate Hardware Acceleration for that... and if you doo VII is way Faster as I said...


//and also latest 10.14.5 dev beta

by default. The hardware acceleration has already been enabled on FCPX for these cards. I pointed out already earlier in this thread.
Vega 64 is just 2-3 second faster than Vega 56. And Frontier is just 2-3 second faster than Vega 64. Talking on FCPx encoding a h264 movie. Those benchmark sites have already listed out too. When. you are encoding a 10 mins long movie. You won't mind and almost unnoticeable the different.

 

[Hendrik94]

by default. The hardware acceleration has already been enabled on FCPX for these cards. I pointed out already earlier in this thread.

no its not Apple does not Hardware Encode at all for cMP by default .....

 

[solaris8x86]

no its not Apple does not Hardware Encode at all for cMP by default .....

No, it has been confirmed already. By my figure when drawing power. It is h265 not hardware encoded by default. Not h264.

 

[mrtang42]

Actually, I did some research before buying the card. I know Vega 64 (300W) and Frontier (300W) would go beyond the Watt capacity the Mac Pro 2010 can provide. So when using 64 and Frontier they need to do a mod is understandable.

Each PCIe AUX-A = 75W + PCIe AUX-A = 75W + PCI slot = 75W. Total max load it can provide is = 225W where AUX-A and B can provide 75W max is a theoretical technical specification. In my real case. Each AUX port can actually support up to 8A. Which is actually 98W each.

Therefore, in practical world (tested from my case by LuxMark Stress Test). The Mac Pro 2010 can provide up to 100W + 100W + 75W = Total 275W max for the graphic card. This is really the ceiling that it can handle.

My objective is I don't want to do a power-mod to my Mac but demands a similar performance from Vega 64. So I got a Vega 56 which its rating is 180W max on AMD website (your 210W doesn't matter). In my case, it is 201W max when using a stress test software. Practical application on FCPX on max load is actually just 122W (It won't go higher anymore in ANY cases that I have tried. It just won't draw more power for the card. 122W that is.). It's far less than the theoretical ceiling at 225W and practical ceiling at 275W max. So it is pretty safe now. And when comparing to the OpenCL/Metal scores. The Vega 56 and 64 are very close. So, I've achieved my objective now (no need to do a mod but it comes with a pretty close to a Vega 64 performance). The Vega 56 is the best pick for an unmodified Mac Pro. Win-win.

Totally agreed. I have been keep telling people that, but many people just don't believe me. Actually, if you can use a reference VEGA 56 bios 2, you can even lower the TDP to 150W in 10.14.5. This may help to even lower to total power. Many reviews online is tested under windows. I believe Mac OS has different power management policy, because clearly the Apple writes the driver for AMD GPUs not AMD.

 

[AlexMaximus]

For the 5.1 core audience that uses a Vega card with a default blower fan, I have found a simple method that improves airflow and a tiny lowering of temps. The installed lexan/blister air cover doesn’t cost anything and reduced my temps for about 3 degrees. Routing the Pixlas cable this way, it doesn’t block the pci boost fan in the front and provides an even cleaner look.

 

[solaris8x86]

For the 5.1 core audience that uses a Vega card with a default blower fan,

Nice.

 

[h9826790]

But, here is Sapphire pulse RX580 which recommended by Apple. Its power comsuption is 234W under load.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/319...ew-solid-gaming-on-a-tight-budget.html?page=8

234W is the whole system power use, not just the card

[doublepost=1557097711][/doublepost]

Vega 56 reference has two bioses which have two different TDP (150w & 165w). You better have a source of your number. Please note, some people flash their vega 56 with a vega 64 bios to increase TDP. We are here to talk about vega 56 reference original eco bios.

150W and 165W is the default target power consumption under Windows, not in macOS.

In Windows, the AMD driver default to set PowerTune to 0%. Therefore, the card obey that basic power target (e.g. 150W).

But in macOS, we do NOT have that AMD driver. The Apple driver will read the data from the card's ROM, and do whatever it says. Inside the VBIOS, PowerTune default +50%.

For a 150W target, +50% means 225W
For 165W, +50% means 247.5W

And these numbers are very close to what the review says (without OC, or power saving features)

[doublepost=1557098096][/doublepost]

Sapphire Pulse Vega 56 in a Mac Pro 2010 (5,1). Xeon 3.46GHz 12 core, 64GB RAM. Mojave 10.14.4.

• No fan top-speed issue. It turns on when it needs. Most of the time both fans are off automatically if the environment is cool (my room).
• Just direct plug-and-play. No need any power-related modification. It just works out.
• The card is 28cm long. It can fit into the PCI bay flawlessly. No need to remove the PCIe fans in the front.

Under LuxMark OpenCL Stress Test Full Load. Watt consumption is.

• PCIe AUX-A = 12.3V x 6.79A = 83.5W
• PCIe AUX-B = 12.3V x 7.99A = 98.2W
• PCI slot = 12.3V x 1.65A = 20.2W

Max practical power consumption of Sapphire Pulse Vega 56 in my Mac Pro 2010 (5,1) = 201.9W. On AMD website, it is rated 180W.

View attachment 835211

Here is the metal score by Geekbench 4.
View attachment 835210

Here is the OpenCL score by Geekbench 4.
View attachment 835212


I'm a Final Cut Pro user. I have some findings. When export a movie using h264 coding. It can fully draw the GPU power at full loading. The Xeon CPU loading (usr) would become lower. I can tell because it draws 4A on each PCI-e AUX-A and B port. The export speed is fairly fast. However, when export a movie using h265 (HEVC) coding. Final Cut Pro wouldn't make use the GPU performance but from the Xeon CPU. I can tell because it draws less than 1A on each PCI-e AUX-A and B port. It seems that this card doesn't process h265 hardware acceleration or encoding feature by Final Cut Pro. The export time of a movie using h265 is 5 times longer than h264 in Final Cut Pro X when exporting the same length of movie clip.

To all Final Cut Pro users, be aware.
Here is a power consumption when exporting a movie by Final Cut Pro.

• PCIe AUX-A = 12.3V x 3.68A = 45W
• PCIe AUX-B = 12.3V x 4.6A = 57W
• PCI slot = 12.3V x 1.65A = 20.2W

So when exporting a movie by FCPX with h264 coding. The power consumption of Sapphire Pulse Vega 56 = 122W only.

View attachment 835374

7.99A is the display limit, your card most likely was pulling more than that by that time. If you make a bridge in between to balance the power draw between both mini 6pins, most likely you will see the total of A+B increased, or even both top at 7.99A.

Also, Luxmark may be quite demanding, but nowhere near max stress.

[Note: when running Furmark, the power draw wasn't that stable, but both mini 6pin hit the display limit 7.99A (97W), so, a sharp stop at there. But actually the card (NOT Vega, but something else) was drawing more than that]
[doublepost=1557098581][/doublepost]

If it can draw 120W on each PCI AUX port. Which is already 10A. It is unlikely that port can provide a 10A current if you have seen the size of the pin on the motherboard.
[doublepost=1556993384][/doublepost]

On gaming. It is a yes. On Final Cut Pro. It is a No (confirmed, did research too). Vega 56, 64 and Frontier all perform very close when running FCPX or exporting a h264 movie (confirmed, did research too on those benchmark sites.). Vega 64 may be faster a few seconds than Vega 56 on FCPX. When talking about a movie that is 10 mins long. A few second faster is almost nothing. And Vega 56 doesn't require a Mod to the power source. So good pick for FCPX users. If for gaming. Vega 64 is observable better I think. And you will spend another round of money for extending the power source. So it depends your application if it is worth doing. To me, Vega 64 is a No.

The mini 6pin can and will deliver 120W, it's been tested many times, just monitoring software can't show anything beyond 7.99A.
[doublepost=1557099028][/doublepost]

by default. The hardware acceleration has already been enabled on FCPX for these cards. I pointed out already earlier in this thread.
Vega 64 is just 2-3 second faster than Vega 56. And Frontier is just 2-3 second faster than Vega 64. Talking on FCPx encoding a h264 movie. Those benchmark sites have already listed out too. When. you are encoding a 10 mins long movie. You won't mind and almost unnoticeable the different.

Show us.

Steps:

1) Open FCPX
2) DISABLE all background rendering, optimised media, proxy media
3) clear all the generated files / cache
4) import BruceX
5) select H264 output as per below screen capture

If you have hardware acceleration. Your CPU and GPU usage should be like this. And I can export BruceX in H264 within 30s (on the cMP that as per my signature).

Please show us your Vega can do that by default. It cost us years to figure out how to get video hardware acceleration on the cMP. FCPX can use the GPU to compute or rendering by default, but definitely no hardware acceleration available on cMP (by default).

You can't get faster on H264 export because you are NOT using the GPU's hardware acceleration. The CPU still doing the encoding, of course no noticeable improvement by upgrading the GPU. But if you have a much faster GPU, and you really utilise it's hardware encoding functions, you should able to see noticeable different.

 

[mrtang42]

234W is the whole system power use, not just the card
View attachment 835512
[doublepost=1557097711][/doublepost]

150W and 165W is the default target power consumption under Windows, not in macOS.

In Windows, the AMD driver default to set PowerTune to 0%. Therefore, the card obey that basic power target (e.g. 150W).

But in macOS, we do NOT have that AMD driver. The Apple driver will read the data from the card's ROM, and do whatever it says. Inside the VBIOS, PowerTune default +50%.

For a 150W target, +50% means 225W
For 165W, +50% means 247.5W

And these numbers are very close to what the review says (without OC, or power saving features)
View attachment 835514
[doublepost=1557098096][/doublepost]

7.99A is the display limit, your card most likely was pulling more than that by that time. If you make a bridge in between to balance the power draw between both mini 6pins, most likely you will see the total of A+B increased, or even both top at 7.99A.

Also, Luxmark may be quite demanding, but nowhere near max stress.
View attachment 835516
[Note: when running Furmark, the power draw wasn't that stable, but both mini 6pin hit the display limit 7.99A (97W), so, a sharp stop at there. But actually the card (NOT Vega, but something else) was drawing more than that]
[doublepost=1557098581][/doublepost]

The mini 6pin can and will deliver 120W, it's been tested many times, just monitoring software can't show anything beyond 7.99A.
[doublepost=1557099028][/doublepost]

Show us.

Steps:

1) Open FCPX
2) DISABLE all background rendering, optimised media, proxy media
3) clear all the generated files / cache
4) import BruceX
5) select H264 output as per below screen capture

If you have hardware acceleration. Your CPU and GPU usage should be like this. And I can export BruceX in H264 within 30s (on the cMP that as per my signature).

Please show us your Vega can do that by default. It cost us years to figure out how to get video hardware acceleration on the cMP. FCPX can use the GPU to compute or rendering by default, but definitely no hardware acceleration available on cMP (by default).

You can't get faster on H264 export because you are NOT using the GPU's hardware acceleration. The CPU still doing the encoding, of course no noticeable improvement by upgrading the GPU. But if you have a much faster GPU, and you really utilise it's hardware encoding functions, you should able to see noticeable different.

You are doing a great job here to clarify things. Since the Vega 56 reference only works correctly under 10.14.5, I will hold it till 10.14.5 released and do further test with the newest firmware. The other concern is if Istat is not able to display any current higher than 8A, how do we measure it? Thank you.

Also I did not read carefully on those reviews(my mistake). Since those lack of comparison, just ignore them. But the Techpowerup's review should be considered as a fair comparison. Just give you a reference:
Rx 580 8g 219W vs Vega 56 237W.

The other option for us to prove Vega 56 is safe is by comparing RX580(Apple recommended) and Vega 56(air) power consumption, if there is no other way to accurately measure the current by software.

 

[startergo]

You are doing a great job here to clarify things. Since the Vega 56 reference only works correctly under 10.14.5, I will hold it till 10.14.5 released and do further test with the newest firmware. The other concern is if Istat is not able to display any current higher than 8A, how do we measure it? Thank you.

Also I did not read carefully on those reviews(my mistake). Since those lack of comparison, just ignore them. But the Techpowerup's review should be considered as a fair comparison. Just give you a reference:
Rx 580 8g 219W vs Vega 56 237W.

The other option for us to prove Vega 56 is safe is by comparing RX580(Apple recommended) and Vega 56(air) power consumption, if there is no other way to accurately measure the current by software.

To tell you the truth I don't trust the software measurement. Especially the istat. Ever since I measured the current on the boost A and Boost B with a clamp meter and they were quite different than the software reading. My advice is to wrap around a clamp meter (probe) around the cable from boost A or Boost B (Or the common cable) coupled with a scope or Fluke 189/289 with recording software.

 

[solaris8x86]

234W is the whole system power use, not just the card
[doublepost=1557097711][/doublepost]

150W and 165W is the default target power consumption under Windows, not in macOS.

Can you list me which monitoring software to use in order to see the no limitation at 7.99v? So that I can give it a try again.

And about the final cut pro "Fast Encoder". It is no longer useful. I realize that when I encode/export to any h264 video. The Final Cut Pro would draw a significant power up (saying on each both AUX-A/B port jumping from 0.5A to 5A) from the GPU with or without the "Fast Encoder" option selected. So Vega 56 is always being fully utilized the hardware acceleration for h264 by Final Cut Pro is confirmed. Besides, the "Fast Encoder" only available thru the export option "Apple Device" which this export option can only export a low bitrate movie at about 15Mbps. My work demands blu-ray quality at 45Mbps. So the "Fast Encoder" is no longer matter now, at least to me. The h264 hardware encoding acceleration is always On by FCPX on Vega 56.

What a little disappointed to me is the HandBrake's h264 hardware acceleration for encoding (thru VideoToolbox option) doesn't work on "Mac Pro 2010 + Vega card" combination. It cannot even be started an encoding session. It seems that it needs a new Mac to make use of this option. So even with a Vega card installed. The old Mac still uses the Xeon CPU to encode a movie. Not by GPU.

 

[solaris8x86]

NO, it's NOT doing H264 encoding, it's just helping the rendering. The GPU is working doesn't mean that's doing the encoding (hardware acceleration).

I am not following. Which part in your media info is saying it is "hardware h264 accelerated" ?

Ok, I tried again. I can confirmed that h264 acceleration is always on FCPX with Vega. I just did a h265 video exporting. Both AUX-A and AUX-B remains claim at 0.5A only. If the rendering theory is truth then it should rise up but it is not in this case. Because the Vega is neither "rendering" or encoding anything and all workload has been assigned to Xeon. So the rendering and encoding of h264 is actually the same process combined assigned to the Vega by FCPX. It is hardware accelerated for h264 by FCPX on Vega is confirmed and these two processes cannot be split up in the assigned queue to Vega for hardware processing.

Furthermore, whether the total consumption is 201W as I measured by software, or 210W, 237W...etc by the others. These have become meaningless because under the stress test of full load at AUX-A (7A), AUX-B (7.99A). The Mac Pro has been proven doesn't required a power mod and it has no power cut issue is physically confirmed on Vega 56. And most importantly, these three 201W, 210W, 237W figures are all within the theoretical specifications by Apple on Mac Pro 2010 or the practical measurement by other users. So the point is, no modification is needed for Vega 56 to get a full load on Mac Pro 2010. As a result, Discussing of 201W - 237W or whether full load at 7.99A or 10A...etc are already pointless because It has just proven you physically that it is just ok working at full load without requiring a mod and with hardware accelerated h264 encoding on FCPX. (as long as FCPX is not putting the work queue to Xeon. Then It is hardware h264 accelerated to Vega. Because Vega draws power significantly when encoding a h264 movie. Not drawing from the Xeon. That proved that.). The Sapphire Pulse Vega 56 (custom design) or Vega Reference model on Mac Pro 2010 are ok. Cheers.


[doublepost=1557128202][/doublepost]

To tell you the truth I don't trust the software measurement. Especially the istat. Ever since I measured the current on the boost A and Boost B with a clamp meter and they were quite different than the software reading. My advice is to wrap around a clamp meter (probe) around the cable from boost A or Boost B (Or the common cable) coupled with a scope or Fluke 189/289 with recording software.

Yeah, that may work.

 

[h9826790]

I am not following. Which part in your media info is saying it is "hardware h264 accelerated" ?

Ok, I tried again. I can confirmed that h264 acceleration is always on FCPX with Vega. I just did a h265 video exporting. Both AUX-A and AUX-B remains claim at 0.5A only. If the rendering theory is truth then it should rise up but it is not in this case. Because the Vega is neither "rendering" or encoding anything and all workload has been assigned to Xeon. So the rendering and encoding of h264 is actually the same process combined assigned to the Vega by FCPX. It is hardware accelerated for h264 by FCPX on Vega is confirmed.



[doublepost=1557128202][/doublepost]

Yeah, that may work.

It won’t says that’s encode by GPU, but there will be no software encoding parameters, and AFAIK, a false info “maximum bitrate 768Kbps” always there if you are using the AMD hardware encoding in MacOS.

But some Players May able to tell if the video was from VideoToolBox.

The GPU can assist H264 software encoding via OpenCL (e.g. the lookahead function can be handled by OpenCL, which means GPU). I don’t want to go into details here. However, it is NOT doing the encoding.

You can believe what you want. I study this for years, and only figure out how to get full H264 hardware acceleration in MacOS on cMP just 2 days ago.

What you saying about your Vega doing, I know exactly how they looks. And I am 100% sure that it was NOT doing hardware encoding.

If you turn off all background rendering, clear all generated media. And export H265, the GPU should assist the rendering again during export. But I don’t think it can help H265 encoding (via OpenCL) at this moment.

But until you can confirm your video is encoding via VideoToolBox (hardware encoding in MacOS). Please stop spreading the info that Vega has native H264 support in FCPX. Even Apple says this function is NOT activated on 5,1 (I consulted them already).

 

[h9826790]

Yeah, 2 years ago was not Mojave. And still no Metal. These things are using metal now. You need to catch up the technology. Study harder in HKU. What you studied was obsolete technology after all.

So, you make this personal now? But not related to hardware encoding anymore?

If yes, then I will stop at here. And report this post to admin.

If no, then I am waiting for your apologies and then continue there discussion.

 

[AlexMaximus]

It won’t says that’s encode by GPU, but there will be no software encoding parameters, and AFAIK, a false info “maximum bitrate 768Kbps” always there if you are using the AMD hardware encoding in MacOS.

But some Players May able to tell if the video was from VideoToolBox.

The GPU can assist H264 software encoding via OpenCL (e.g. the lookahead function can be handled by OpenCL, which means GPU). I don’t want to go into details here. However, it is NOT doing the encoding.

You can believe what you want. I study this for years, and only figure out how to get full H264 hardware acceleration in MacOS on cMP just 2 days ago.

What you saying about your Vega doing, I know exactly how they looks. And I am 100% sure that it was NOT doing hardware encoding.

If you turn off all background rendering, clear all generated media. And export H265, the GPU should assist the rendering again during export. But I don’t think it can help H265 encoding (via OpenCL) at this moment.

But until you can confirm your video is encoding via VideoToolBox (hardware encoding in MacOS). Please stop spreading the info that Vega has native H264 support in FCPX. Even Apple says this function is NOT activated on 5,1 (I consulted them already).

Regarding hardware decoding, I have read somewhere that Apple de-activated the feature for the 5.1 folks from Mojave 10.14.2 on. This means only Mojave 10.14.1 still has that feature

 

[h9826790]

Regarding hardware decoding, I have read somewhere that Apple de-activated the feature for the 5.1 folks from Mojave 10.14.2 on. This means only Mojave 10.14.1 still has that feature

Actually, only 10.14.0 has HEVC hardware decode, not even 10.14.1 from memory.

But that's a bit buggy, must fully close the player, and re-open again to play one HEVC video.

The hardware acceleration fix I found in 10.14.5 beta is complete solution for H264, and perfect for HEVC decode. However, still no way to activate the HEVC encoding part yet.

 

[solaris8x86]

Regarding hardware decoding, I have read somewhere that Apple de-activated the feature for the 5.1 folks from Mojave 10.14.2 on. This means only Mojave 10.14.1 still has that feature

Ok, it is confirmed that if your graphic card is supported Metal as shown in the system profile. Then your graphic card can use Metal and hardware acceleration. Especially on FCPX. I think this discussion has come up with a confirmed answer.

So all Vega on Mac Pro 2010 is hardware accelerated and enabled on Mojave (any sub-releases). That's why it draws a significant power from AUX-A and AUX-B during the encoding phase by Vega 56.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/28/why-macos-mojave-requires-metal----and-deprecates-opengl
"Apple's list of Mac hardware supporting the new macOS Mojave is identical to its list of Mac computers that support Metal. More specifically, Metal is Apple's hardware-accelerated 3D graphics and compute framework, standard library and GPU shading language............it also supports the earlier "cheese grater" Mac Pro models back to Mid 2010, if equipped with a Metal-capable graphics card."

 

[AlexMaximus]

Ok, it is confirmed that if your graphic card is supported Metal as shown in the system profile. Then your graphic card can use Metal and hardware acceleration. Especially on FCPX. I think this discussion has come up with a confirmed answer.

So all Vega on Mac Pro 2010 is hardware accelerated and enabled on Mojave (any sub-releases). That's why it draws a significant power from AUX-A and AUX-B during the encoding phase by Vega 56.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/28/why-macos-mojave-requires-metal----and-deprecates-opengl
"Apple's list of Mac hardware supporting the new macOS Mojave is identical to its list of Mac computers that support Metal. More specifically, Metal is Apple's hardware-accelerated 3D graphics and compute framework, standard library and GPU shading language............it also supports the earlier "cheese grater" Mac Pro models back to Mid 2010, if equipped with a Metal-capable graphics card."

That is actually great news! Thanks for that insight, I appreciate it!

 

[h9826790]

Ok, it is confirmed that if your graphic card is supported Metal as shown in the system profile. Then your graphic card can use Metal and hardware acceleration. Especially on FCPX. I think this discussion has come up with a confirmed answer.

So all Vega on Mac Pro 2010 is hardware accelerated and enabled on Mojave (any sub-releases). That's why it draws a significant power from AUX-A and AUX-B during the encoding phase by Vega 56.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/28/why-macos-mojave-requires-metal----and-deprecates-opengl
"Apple's list of Mac hardware supporting the new macOS Mojave is identical to its list of Mac computers that support Metal. More specifically, Metal is Apple's hardware-accelerated 3D graphics and compute framework, standard library and GPU shading language............it also supports the earlier "cheese grater" Mac Pro models back to Mid 2010, if equipped with a Metal-capable graphics card."

Please STOP spreading the wrong info.

He was talking about hardware decoding, do you know what it is?

If don't know, please go to download this video and play it via QuickTime player on your cMP.

https://4kmedia.org/sony-swordsmith-hdr-uhd-4k-demo/

If you have hardware decoding, you should see smooth playback with all CPU cores almost stay at idle.

 

[solaris8x86]

That is actually great news! Thanks for that insight, I appreciate it!

Yeah, I read the same information from Apple WWDC site. So confirmed. Great.
But the requirements is your app can make use of Metal or VideoToolBox low level API. HandBrake is not one of them on our old Macs but works only on those new Macs.

 

[h9826790]

This is directly from Apple just 2 weeks ago, not any 3rd party web source. Hardware encode and decode are NOT enabled on Mac Pro 5,1.