But I can't run programs that fast with RX 480 compare to HD5870. That's my concern. They still didn't add full graphic driver yet?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dual RX 480s in Mac Pro 5,1 running MacOS (w/ How-to)
- Thread starter theitsage
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But I can't run programs that fast with RX 480 compare to HD5870. That's my concern. They still didn't add full graphic driver yet?
No, only 16 compute unit out of 36 being used in macOS, that's why the performance isn't quite there yet.
On the other hand, 5870 may be the one that get the best optimisation in OSX so far, it will perform very well in some specific software (e.g. FCPX).
Of course, the 5870 is much weaker than the 480, however, most likely it's the driver and optimisation that make the 480 cannot out perform the 5870 in your programs.
[doublepost=1478478763][/doublepost]
No, the RX480 only perform like the 79xx in macOS ONLY due to lack of proper driver supported. It perform much much better in Windows and Linux.
Someone posted the timing parameters that worked for him on PC in some forum. It was not with UHD color.
No, the GPU won't even work (acceleration) without kext edit at this moment.
I have been running Valley at 4K@60 and in FullHD it looks very poor. At 1440p it approaches acceptability.
MBP 2011, RX460, maximum settings:
1080p: 17 fps
1440p: 10.8 fps
4K@60: 5.3 fps
There's a quite a bit of LOD popping, at least in 4K.
http://www.fcp.co/forum/hardware/18250-brucex-try-this-new-final-cut-pro-x-benchmark?start=440
Maybe RX 480 is a good option in Hackintosh to run fcpx.
Last edited:
It looks like you confuse the RX480 with the R9 280X. RX480 doesn't work in El Capitan at all. Hackintosh won't make it magically work.
The same poster claim that the RX480 result is 27 seconds.
Not bad at all, but again, a single 7950 can achieve the same result. Also, the 280x result looks so wrong to me. The performance in 10.11 and 10.12 should be similar. By considering this guy may run the test with background rendering on (which is not following the benchmarks instruction). I suspect the 17.5s result is not valid. I need 2x7950 to achieve 15s. And there was a thread about BruceX performance less than a year ago. None of the 280X user (including Hackintosh) can achieve that.
@mavericks7913 when you run the heaven or valley benchmark only use the 2 presets "basic" or "extreme" do not change any settings for comparisons when benchmarking.
like in this
edit
just saw this video
looks like the gtx 770 (gtx680 to then) is about as fast as a rx 460 in games, most the time. (in windows)
like in this
edit
just saw this video
Last edited:
AMD just announced FirePro WX Polaris Series.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10821/now-shipping-amd-radeon-pro-wx-series
Is the AMD FirePro WX4100 the exact one that is in the MBP? What I mean is that even tho the RX460 works OOB and is fine... is the WX4100 like also OOB but will also display correct GPU name under System Report? Instead of Generic name of R9 xxxx that is displayed with RX460? It will display Radeon Pro? And also will display the card under PCI in System Report, which it won't do with an RX 460? Plus it has full 16 CU's, instead of 14 CU's that is in the RX460, which means it's a little faster.
It's a $400 experiment....
But, would love to know if any of you guys in this community can grab one and let us know.
Thanks!
PS-- the WX4100 also seems to consume less than 50 watts, which is less than the RX460. I know it's a kind of a mismatch to match a classic Mac Pro tower with a 50 watt GPU. But, it really brings the average power consumption of these older architecture to somewhat reasonable levels. Maybe, 150 watts total with WX4100 while crunching would be cool. and maybe near 100 watt power consumption while just browsing macrumors?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10821/now-shipping-amd-radeon-pro-wx-series
Is the AMD FirePro WX4100 the exact one that is in the MBP? What I mean is that even tho the RX460 works OOB and is fine... is the WX4100 like also OOB but will also display correct GPU name under System Report? Instead of Generic name of R9 xxxx that is displayed with RX460? It will display Radeon Pro? And also will display the card under PCI in System Report, which it won't do with an RX 460? Plus it has full 16 CU's, instead of 14 CU's that is in the RX460, which means it's a little faster.
It's a $400 experiment....
But, would love to know if any of you guys in this community can grab one and let us know.
Thanks!
PS-- the WX4100 also seems to consume less than 50 watts, which is less than the RX460. I know it's a kind of a mismatch to match a classic Mac Pro tower with a 50 watt GPU. But, it really brings the average power consumption of these older architecture to somewhat reasonable levels. Maybe, 150 watts total with WX4100 while crunching would be cool. and maybe near 100 watt power consumption while just browsing macrumors?
Last edited:
h9826790
Thank you for your kindness!
That's my first time to write in this forum.
and when i was writing i edited the wrong facts but it still leaved when you read that^^. that's strange. (sorry for my poor english) thanks again.
anyway i want to know rx480's real performance in the real field.
I guess there are some people who run rx480 using fcpx and resolve in this forum.
Will you share the experience? for example BruceX test using 2 rx480.
Thank you for your kindness!
That's my first time to write in this forum.
and when i was writing i edited the wrong facts but it still leaved when you read that^^. that's strange. (sorry for my poor english) thanks again.
anyway i want to know rx480's real performance in the real field.
I guess there are some people who run rx480 using fcpx and resolve in this forum.
Will you share the experience? for example BruceX test using 2 rx480.
Last edited:
I'd say that RX 480s being a good investment is still 6 months away. I'd give them a chance for an iMac refresh before considering investing anything.
Depends on the device ID if it'll be OOB. It certainly won't report the correct name, only EFI GPUs will do that.
Unlikely.
For what it's worth, on my 12c 3.46 Mac Pro, rendering to fast PCIe SSD, BruceX looks like this:
280X: 42s
RX480: 30s
That's a noticable real world difference, but in compute benchmarks like GB4 and Luxmark, the 280X is a little bit faster than the 480, though. It's disappointing that a new RX480 can't comfortably beat such an old card, but there is still a chance that it will bloom with later drivers.
In DaVinci Resolve the cards are very close, but the 280X is 0.5 to 1 frame faster. That's not enough to make a meaningful difference.
I was having some render errors on my 280X in DaVinci (similar to the tearing happening on D700s in nMP) and wasn't sure if it was a gfx card error or software related. I'm not seeing the errors anywhere else on the 280X, but I don't get any errors at all on the RX480. For now I'm going to keep the 480 in my Mac Pro, pull out the 280X and reinstall my USB3 card.
280X: 42s
RX480: 30s
That's a noticable real world difference, but in compute benchmarks like GB4 and Luxmark, the 280X is a little bit faster than the 480, though. It's disappointing that a new RX480 can't comfortably beat such an old card, but there is still a chance that it will bloom with later drivers.
In DaVinci Resolve the cards are very close, but the 280X is 0.5 to 1 frame faster. That's not enough to make a meaningful difference.
I was having some render errors on my 280X in DaVinci (similar to the tearing happening on D700s in nMP) and wasn't sure if it was a gfx card error or software related. I'm not seeing the errors anywhere else on the 280X, but I don't get any errors at all on the RX480. For now I'm going to keep the 480 in my Mac Pro, pull out the 280X and reinstall my USB3 card.
Yeah. I guess they are wishful thinking on my part.
What do you think the chances are of another Mac Edition card coming out in the future? Perhaps, of the Polaris variety? Zero?
I just thought of this now... but there is a market potentially, or a doorway slash pathway for Apple to kind of reinvigorate their Mac lineup.
And that is
VIA
TB3
EGPU
EN
CLOSURE
VEGA HBM 2 MAC EDITION
2017
????
Sounds sexy, right?
macOS has some kind of software trickery so that Thunderbolt 3 MacBook Pro won't fully work with eGPU. I've been trying to make my RX 470 eGPU setup to work but no success. AKiTiO itself couldn't make it work either and stated macOS is not supported on the upcoming Node TB3 enclosure.
My RX 470 eGPU would provide output to an external monitor but no Metal Support or Graphics Acceleration. I knew it was going to be a challenge but didn't anticipate Apple to go out of its way to prevent TB3 eGPU in macOS. Unless Apple was aware its top-of-the-line 15" MBP with Radeon Pro 460 would be embarrassed by a sub $500 eGPU build.
My RX 470 eGPU would provide output to an external monitor but no Metal Support or Graphics Acceleration. I knew it was going to be a challenge but didn't anticipate Apple to go out of its way to prevent TB3 eGPU in macOS. Unless Apple was aware its top-of-the-line 15" MBP with Radeon Pro 460 would be embarrassed by a sub $500 eGPU build.
Last edited:
Yeah. But, hackintoshing is like a hobby within a hobby within a hobby isn't it? It's for tinkerers. It's really not for like everyday use, right? I could have gone hackintosh too and saved me some money using my current windows PC. But, I decided to get a mid-2010 Mac Pro this year because I didn't wanna have to deal with all of that.
And, Apple could simply make their own eGPU enclosure that's more reasonably priced because Apple can do this. And then Mac Edition cards of Polaris variety or whathaveyou can follow. Or, Apple can make a Mac Edition GPU. I don't know. It might cost more than PC variant but that is just the case with a lower number of potential costumers versus PC market.
I mean if Apple can make FCPX $300. Apple can enable eGPU via TB3 enclosure from Apple for $299. AMD RX480 Mac Edition for $399. AMD Vega HBM 2 Mac Edition for $1000.
It's an avenue that Apple can do. And, it doesn't work right now because it's not supported.
And, people with Mac Towers can benefit from this and bring new life to their ancient PC's by just spending $399 for that Mac Edition RX480.
But, this is just dreaming. I know.
TO be honest, I don't think Apple cares about a hackintosh that is $500 that can beat their new $2400 15" MBP.
Im waiting for Ellemere acceleration for RX 480 since Sierra only support Baffin acceleration and RX 480 and 470 are Ellemere family.
There you go. I hope all those people saying Apple is bringing eGPU will now stop being so hopeful and blind.
I agree that it is extremely hopeful. But, isn't there like a slim chance? Even tiny?
I mean, Macs just got Thunderbolt 3 this fall with the intro of the new MBP's. So, the hope just started, technically, I think. So, whatever hope people have had was based on TB2 dreams. Now, there is a new dream with TB3. And, it's just too short of a time period to squash this just now begun TB3 dream.
I mean, it's dumb not to look at TB3 docks or enclosures with potential for multi GPU setups even from Apple. Apple is in the same business as everyone else, like Razer or Alienware that has TB3 eGPU enclosures. Albeit, Apple is in the workstation business and the aforementioned companies are in the gaming business. Both businesses, BTW, benefit from GPU ponies.
So, the dream is legit, valid, and totally within the realm of possibility. With VR, Video/Graphics/Animation/Modeling, Apple's commitment to AMD GPU's, who is committed to releasing Vega, a workstation/gaming powerhouse of a GPU in 2017... who isn't tempted to put one of these things into their machines? Whether you're Joe Shmoe or Jon Ivy (or whoever decides at Apple of what GPU's to stick in their Macs)?
I mean Apple could go the route of the 2013 nMP (trashcan) edition and use proprietory GPU card thingies. But, they can also do that and enable people to stick a Vega Mac Edition GPU into the new 2017 NewNew Mac Pro (I think it will be a box this time but same small form factor) via an Apple Thunderbolt 3 enclosure unlike anything we've seen so far. Maybe because it is Apple that this enclosure will already include a GPU such as a Vega or Polaris that we can't upgrade. But, it's better than nothing.
I mean, Apple could go traditional and release a Razer-like dock but with Jon Ivy stamp of approval design and then have Mac Edition GPU's available, if they're feeling generous towards their legacy costumers. Or those who don't have Thunderbolt 3. But, do have PCIE slots like those owners of the classic Mac Pro towers. Maybe, only compatible with mid-2010 and 2012 Mac Pro's. Or, tower Mac Pro's that can run Sierra.
Sounds sexy, right?
Let's go Apple! Let's do it. Make me spend $400 for that Mac Edition RX480. While salivating over a $1000 Mac Edition Vega GPU.
They won't do it because they have taken Steve Jobs' vision of end to end control to an extreme level. Jobs was apparently still in favour of some expandability, if not the nMP would have come to market sooner (and the Cube would not have been killed). As soon as he died look what happened...
Mac Mini went from quad core with two upgradable SSDs - to dual core with no upgradability
Upgradable workstation Mac Pro turned into the nMP
MacBook Pro lost the upgradable SSD, upgradable memory and replaceable battery. Jobs made a big deal about the user upgradable SSD in one of his last keynotes.
The operating system has become more walled off, the APIs aren't being kept up to date, the Finder is crusty, the network stack is flaky, it doesn't install on Macs that can easily run it. This was Jobs' baby. He was proud to call it the most advanced OS in the world. Now Linux is more advanced in many ways. Windows is far ahead.
Mac Mini went from quad core with two upgradable SSDs - to dual core with no upgradability
Upgradable workstation Mac Pro turned into the nMP
MacBook Pro lost the upgradable SSD, upgradable memory and replaceable battery. Jobs made a big deal about the user upgradable SSD in one of his last keynotes.
The operating system has become more walled off, the APIs aren't being kept up to date, the Finder is crusty, the network stack is flaky, it doesn't install on Macs that can easily run it. This was Jobs' baby. He was proud to call it the most advanced OS in the world. Now Linux is more advanced in many ways. Windows is far ahead.
The Mac Mini went the way it did not because Apple is like evil. Or, anti-upgradeability. I mean it's unfortunate that the things that customers wanted were taken away like upgradeable RAM and HDD's. But, to me, the Mac Mini is totally align to Apple's vision. And, this vision, BTW, is not just external aesthetics like how the Mac Mini looks from the outside. But, also internal design, or how the Mac Mini looks from the inside. I think the current Mac Mini lacks those upgrade paths because Apple wanted to make the inside more "elegant." This is just my opinion. But, I think that's why it is like that. And, Apple thought that with the Market the Mac Mini is intended for that it is totally fine.
I mean, honestly, if you look at used Macs online, like Craig's List, or Ebay from original owners, you will find that the Macs on sale are basically left stock. Like, they never bothered to upgrade them after all these years.
My point with that is that Apple does "care" as much as you like to say they don't about their "target" audience. In fact, they "care" too much, I think, that the unintended target costumers of Mac Mini's are left wanting more because Apple did not look at a Windows Manufacturer's website with the same form-factor as the Mac Mini, and say, We gotta make our Mac Mini like that. Apple made the Mac Mini according to a certain vision. A vision that you don't agree with. And, I don't agree with, either. But, I see where they're coming from.
We can all blame everything on Steve Job's death. But, I don't think there is any legitimacy or reason to think that there are forces within Apple that relished or used the absence of Steve Jobs to push a certain vision contrary to what Steve would have liked or wanted.
It doesn't work that way.
I don't know what to say about your qualms with MacOS, though. I like the Finder. It's whatever. API's? I'm not too familiar with that. Network stacks? Not familiar with that either.
Nah, man. I have a Windows 10 PC for gaming. I don't think Windows is more advance. It's still Windows underneath it. I mean, have you tried troubleshooting Windows? OMG! But, for gaming, Windows beats Macs by a landslide, if you're into Triple-A games.
But, if you console game and have a Mac, I think you're fine. Trust me. I already spent a certain amount of money towards my Windows gaming PC by getting a 144Hz monitor, mechanical KB, nice gaming mouse, etc. So, I'll be using it for a while. But, have you tried updating Windows 10 to the recent Windows Anniversary Edition? OMG! Nvidia driver updates that have been sucky as of late breaking basic Windows function? OMG!
Linux? I used Linux briefly. But, it was having issues on my iMac not running the fans correctly. So, I uninstalled it. I would like to revisit Linux again, though.
Last edited:
Thanks! Very helpful. In the Resolve forum they said RX480 is the best one in PC. But not in Mac. That's a shame. I also hope there will a chance that it will bloom with later drivers. But, Does that ever happen to us? I don't think so. Anyway thanks again!
Last edited:
42s sounds a bit too slow for me. Which OS? Which version of FCPX? I am quite sure it should be around 30s.