MP 7,1 GPU rendering on the new Mac Pro. News, updates, chat.

[AndreeOnline]

Video attached.

And if you don't mind: is this using only GPU, or is it CPU+GPU (I'm not sure what's possible with Optix). If the latter, what CPU?

EDIT: upon further quick research, it seems the RT cores in Nvidia cards actually 'are a thing'. Seem to be able to ray trace 6x faster in Blender (and other supported software), which accounts for the large difference in performance.
Who knows how software will solve raytracing in the future, but as of now, dedicated cores + fitting APIs seem to get the work done best.

 

[vinegarshots]

And if you don't mind: is this using only GPU, or is it CPU+GPU (I'm not sure what's possible with Optix). If the latter, what CPU?

EDIT: upon further quick research, it seems the RT cores in Nvidia cards actually 'are a thing'. Seem to be able to ray trace 6x faster in Blender (and other supported software), which accounts for the large difference in performance.
Who knows how software will solve raytracing in the future, but as of now, dedicated cores + fitting APIs seem to get the work done best.

So far in my experience, the CPU+GPU rendering is slower most of the time I've tried to use it (it seems to only be faster in certain scenarios), so I only use the GPU by itself.

Maybe Apple has some tricks up their sleeve to address the ray tracing performance boosts that are possible from dedicated hardware. Maybe they have some secret sauce planned on the GPU side of things in the future? Hopefully sooner rather than later. I really despise working on Windows...especially Windows 11. I want to go back to MacOS so bad

 

[Gr1f]

Thank you, it's kinda crazy to see this solid machine struggle like that for a normal task.
I don't know where the bottleneck is between AE and the Mac Pro but something is definitely wrong

I don't even use .exr sequences, last project was just .png and .jpeg, photoshop layers, with very few effects here and there, comp of 100 layers or so... Impossible to work with.

I wonder if there isn't something else at play here? I've been using AE on my 7.1 for a while now with decent enough results. I definitely don't find the UI lagginess you mention.

I was careful to create a fast cache disk with 2X1TB 970Pro NVMe in a Raid 0 and the document/footage files on a separate Sabrent 1TB NVMe. Not using any serious PCIe cards either. While I did find previews slow to build at times, usually a cache flush would fix them.

Not sure if possible or practical but would be interesting to test one of your projects... or even a fake one that gives similar results on yours.

Spec is in signature.

 

[chouki]

I wonder if there isn't something else at play here? I've been using AE on my 7.1 for a while now with decent enough results. I definitely don't find the UI lagginess you mention.

I was careful to create a fast cache disk with 2X1TB 970Pro NVMe in a Raid 0 and the document/footage files on a separate Sabrent 1TB NVMe. Not using any serious PCIe cards either. While I did find previews slow to build at times, usually a cache flush would fix them.

Not sure if possible or practical but would be interesting to test one of your projects... or even a fake one that gives similar results on yours.

Spec is in signature.

There certainly was something else at play, but I couldn't figure what. I was in a very intense period of work so I didn't have enough time to try several configurations. The struggling project was heavy but simple. (it worked fine on my old 5,1 MP). Some other heavy projects had the same problems. By heavy I mean lots of comps and precomps, layers, image files. But as said before I never used .exr in any project, just .png and .jpegs

So I decided to send back the Mac Pro to Apple.

Now I'm very happy with my M1Max MBP. The only downside is for 3D GPU rendering, the MBP cannot compete with the RX6900xt I had in the Mac Pro for that task.
But everything else is so smooth and fast that I think I've made the right choice. (cloud rendering works fine when needed!)

Unfortunaltely I cannot send you the project I had problems with on the 7,1, as it is a client project I cannot share. I would have been curious, I'll probably never know what happened exactly, but as some other people seem to encounter same kind of problems (and some not at all), I think it was not a totally isolated and personnal case.

Thx for your interest.

 

[Gr1f]

RX6900xt I had in the Mac Pro for that task.

Out of interest what version of the 6900xt did you have? I'm thinking of upgrading the 5700 in mine.... although, probably wait to see if Apple announce an AS Mac Pro before I put anything else into this.

 

[chouki]

Out of interest what version of the 6900xt did you have? I'm thinking of upgrading the 5700 in mine.... although, probably wait to see if Apple announce an AS Mac Pro before I put anything else into this.

AMD Founders Edition. Fits and works instantly. I regret this beast! But as you said, let's wait and see what the AS Mac Pro will be...

 

[shuto]

Apologies for posting not Mac Pro related question, but this thread has some great people who know about GPU rendering on Mac.

I am going to get a Mac Studio Ultra, and I am trying to work out if I should get the 48core GPU or 64core GPU.

I think the only thing I'll need the GPU for is Redshift rendering, but what do people think, would you get the 64core version for another £1000 - to give what I am guessing would be a 33% increase in render speed???

(and I don't know about 64GB or 128GB RAM either, so any thoughts on this please help! I use after effects and C4D. I think the only real difference for me would be after effects ram previews of 30 sec in 4K rather than 15sec in 4K).


Thanks!

 

[MarkC426]

This is the WHOLE problem with a 'locked' Mac.
Having to decide at purchase what you might need in 5 years..........and having to fork out an extra ~2k or so.

 

[AndreeOnline]

This is the WHOLE problem with a 'locked' Mac.
Having to decide at purchase what you might need in 5 years..........and having to fork out an extra ~2k or so.

These (MacBook Pros, iMacs, Mac Studio) are what-do-you-need-today-and-tomorrow computers. You buy them with tomorrows needs in mind, and they will serve you well for 3 to 5 years, no problem.

After that, who knows? But the beauty of it all is that you get to make the decision all over again, with a new computer, leveraging future technologies, applying them to future trends.

The exact moment when you think technology is mature, will plateau, and it's a good time to invest long-term: it isn't, it won't and it isn't.

 

[goMac]

These (MacBook Pros, iMacs, Mac Studio) are what-do-you-need-today-and-tomorrow computers. You buy them with tomorrows needs in mind, and they will serve you well for 3 to 5 years, no problem.

There's been a lot of fuss over Apple's claims of 3090 or 6900 level performance but... I'd be surprised if thats what ends up showing in reviews.

M1 Max ended up being around a 3060 mobile level performer in a lot of graphics workflows. Doubling that performance doesn't get you to a 3090 or 6900 desktop card. It would be slower by a healthy margin. And new GPUs are likely coming sometime this year that are much faster.

There's a lot of reasons to go with a Mac Studio. If your graphics needs aren't extreme then it will probably do fine. If you're deeply into the Apple ecosystem in FCPX or Logic, the machine is probably well tuned for those apps. And I have no doubt that Intel's slow poke Xeon is going to get outclassed by this thing in CPU performance.

But beyond the upgradability, I'd be concerned about it's performance as a good all-around computer. The Mac Pro is not only upgradable - it's also flexible

 

[mikas]

If I read the presentation slides correctly, GPU on Ultra would be on par with a 3060Ti performance vice. At a lot less power draw too, but that's not the most important thing here I think.

The size of GPU memory for Mac Studio can be, on the other hand, huge, compering almost to anything out there. This is one real benefit of this UMA thing.

Waiting for real world tests. And waiting all or most of my software to be ported to ASi too of course.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I'd be concerned about it's performance as a good all-around computer.

I believe the Apple Silicon Macs are some of the best all-around computers you can buy. They are unusually well balanced in terms of 'system performance' if we look at CPU power, SSD speeds, memory and 'utility GPU'.

I think its weaknesses lie in areas where you'd want a strong dGPU: gaming, GPU rendering, and heavy video work (high res debayering, multi-node effects, or beauty work....).
Plus, most people will want to extend disk space. One large external drive is OK, I think. But if you want a large HDD raid + an external "cheaper" SSD + a few other things.... then it gets messy.

If you're a gamer, this is likely not your computer. But there are so many areas of computer work where these Mac Studios will be very popular; general office work, design, photography, software development... I also think we'll see them show up "everywhere" on larger productions as 'video render cows' due to their unique power to size ratio. On other forums, I see interest in adding one of these in addition to a classical workstation, due to its strengths in encoding and small size.

The Mac Pro is not only upgradable - it's also flexible

Being an owner of a 2019 Mac Pro, it has been interesting to see the new generation of Macs unfold. There are many areas now where much cheaper computers outperform my Mac Pro in single metrics. If we're being honest, the 7.1 Mac Pro was built on yesterday's technologies.
When I picked mine up (used), I was well aware of where the tracks end. But I also knew that I will be able to keep upgrading it by picking up previously high-end parts when the prices come down; I haven't done the CPU upgrade yet, but it's coming closer (targeting 28 cores for $1000).
I'll have to wait and see what happens to MPX modules. I haven't really seen any top components in any bargain bins, so far.

Overall, I prefer to look at it this way: know your needs. If you do, I think you'll likely find a Mac for you somewhere in the range—for work.

I guess gamers are the exception. It's a pretty large community that helps drive hardware development. They remain dependent on dGPUs.

And we already know that Apple is making a new Mac Pro as well, so I think it's all good.

 

[shuto]

If I read the presentation slides correctly, GPU on Ultra would be on par with a 3060Ti performance vice. At a lot less power draw too, but that's not the most important thing here I think.

The size of GPU memory for Mac Studio can be, on the other hand, huge, compering almost to anything out there. This is one real benefit of this UMA thing.

Waiting for real world tests. And waiting all or most of my software to be ported to ASi too of course.

In their presentation slide they say that the GPU in the M1 Ultra (64 core version) is slightly faster in performance than RTX 3090. Can this even be true? I know for redshift rendering it is going to be nowhere close to this, but would love to see how the two compare.

 

[shuto]

I believe the Apple Silicon Macs are some of the best all-around computers you can buy. They are unusually well balanced in terms of 'system performance' if we look at CPU power, SSD speeds, memory and 'utility GPU'.

I think its weaknesses lie in areas where you'd want a strong dGPU: gaming, GPU rendering, and heavy video work (high res debayering, multi-node effects, or beauty work....).
Plus, most people will want to extend disk space. One large external drive is OK, I think. But if you want a large HDD raid + an external "cheaper" SSD + a few other things.... then it gets messy.

If you're a gamer, this is likely not your computer. But there are so many areas of computer work where these Mac Studios will be very popular; general office work, design, photography, software development... I also think we'll see them show up "everywhere" on larger productions as 'video render cows' due to their unique power to size ratio. On other forums, I see interest in adding one of these in addition to a classical workstation, due to its strengths in encoding and small size.


Being an owner of a 2019 Mac Pro, it has been interesting to see the new generation of Macs unfold. There are many areas now where much cheaper computers outperform my Mac Pro in single metrics. If we're being honest, the 7.1 Mac Pro was built on yesterday's technologies.
When I picked mine up (used), I was well aware of where the tracks end. But I also knew that I will be able to keep upgrading it by picking up previously high-end parts when the prices come down; I haven't done the CPU upgrade yet, but it's coming closer (targeting 28 cores for $1000).
I'll have to wait and see what happens to MPX modules. I haven't really seen any top components in any bargain bins, so far.

Overall, I prefer to look at it this way: know your needs. If you do, I think you'll likely find a Mac for you somewhere in the range—for work.

I guess gamers are the exception. It's a pretty large community that helps drive hardware development. They remain dependent on dGPUs.

And we already know that Apple is making a new Mac Pro as well, so I think it's all good.

I agree with your thoughts, the Mac Studio is a very good all round computer, and the places it is lacking in is the GPU. If only they hadn't dropped support for eGPUs this could have been a great solution to expand the Mac Studios GPU rendering power. I guess its a trickier technical problem than me saying they choose to drop support tho!

I've been trying to work out how fast the Mac Studio GPU is compared to the Mac Pro options. They say the ultra (64 core) is 2.6x as fast as a Mac Pro W5700X card for rendering in redshift. And on the Mac Pro page they say a W5700X has 9.4teraflops single precision performance. (9.4tf x 2.6 times = 24.4tf). So is the Ultra GPU equivalent to a W6900X which has 22.2teraflops single precision. I don't know, or fully understand this stuff.

I'd just love to know how the M1 Ultra GPU compares to Mac Pro GPU power and RTX 3090 for rendering in Redshift / Octane. Hopefully YouTubers will be able to test this.

My plan if I get more into GPU rendering is to buy RTX cards for my PC and use that as a render farm. Still work on the Mac, and farm out to the PC only when needed.

But the real star of the Mac Studio is the 20core CPU! Hopefully After Effects will be able to use a lot of this. 40core CPU in upcoming Apple Silicon Mac Pro will be crazy good, beating all AMD Threadrippers, and will be crazy expensive too!

 

[mikas]

In their presentation slide they say that the GPU in the M1 Ultra (64 core version) is slightly faster in performance than RTX 3090. Can this even be true? I know for redshift rendering it is going to be nowhere close to this, but would love to see how the two compare.

You are right, my mistake. It was M1 Max on par with 3060 Ti. M1 Ultra was said to beat 3090.
We'll see.

 

[AndreeOnline]

While it's good that Apple provides some numbers we can hold them accountable to, it's wise to read with caution. Or, perhaps better: to not extrapolate what you read to be valid for another scenario.

"Relative performance" is very loosely defined. There are many ways you can benchmark GPUs and we can rest assured that Apple has used something that utilises the benefits of Apple Silicon to the max, while it isn't necessarily optimised, or even representative over a larger suite of tests, for the RTX3090.

Not having had access to GPU rendering myself on my Macs, I've mainly used Maxwell, Arnold and now Cycles in Blender. While Blender finally has GPU accelerated rendering, even for AMD GPUs, my Vega II Pro doesn't come close to RTX cards if I render with Metal and RTX uses OptiX. This is due to the native ray tracing cores that Nvidia cards have.

One of my small—and probably unrealistic hopes—for an Silicon Mac Pro, is that they manage to solve GPU rendering in 3D apps. I don't think they can do that in Silicon alone, but maybe with the help of a "3D Afterburner" card that has ray tracing cores.

If a Mac Pro with Silicon remains tied to "only" on chip GPU power, with no possibility of eGPU or accelerator card, I think it will be difficult to build a good price/performance Mac Pro for 3D and video work. Each doubling of chips will cost a lot of money and will add CPU power in excess (can't even believe I just wrote that), while GPU grunt will be average (or even poor compared to price point) for relative use cases.

By this I'm not saying that Apple won't be able to prove impressive in benchmarks. Only problem is that they don't matter.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I rendered Classroom on my 12c with a single Vega Pro II in 1 min 28 seconds. Would be cool to see what some of you with Duo setups get.

Still searching the internet (and have asked Barefeats to include) Blender benchmark data for Duo cards, or dual Single Pro Vega II.

I might have a possibility to pick up a used Pro Vega II and would like to see some data at this early stage of Blender development. On the Resolve side, there should be some nice benefits for certain render and plug-in tasks as well.

Anyone in here with Duo/dual or better who is willing to test? Thanks!

 

[shuto]

I found this video good for comparing m1 max GPU to PC equivalents...

So from this I guessing that the 64core GPU of M1 Ultra would render in redshift the same speed as a RTX 3060 ?



Will be super interesting to see what Apple do for apple silicon Mac Pro in terms of GPU expandability. My hopes are eGPU support again, but thats only because it would suit me really well, and thats not how tech decisions gets made ?


Does anyone know of a site which shows benchmarks for comparing PC cards to Mac cards for GPU rendering? I'd love to know how say a M1 Max compared to a Radeon Pro W6900X to a RTX 3090.


That video also shows these blender benchmarks. Do you think these are for GPU rendering?

 

[AndreeOnline]

That video also shows these blender benchmarks. Do you think these are for GPU rendering?

View attachment 1973765

Not using Redshift, but I just rendered the Classroom scene in Blender on my MacBook Pro M1 Max 32 in 1min 41sec using GPU rendering.

They might be using Cuda in the graphic above. They should be using OptiX and the 3090 would render that scene in... hmmm, what was it? 16-20 seconds or something.

Post #549 in this thread.

 

[vinegarshots]

Not using Redshift, but I just rendered the Classroom scene in Blender on my MacBook Pro M1 Max 32 in 1min 41sec using GPU rendering.

They might be using Cuda in the graphic above. They should be using OptiX and the 3090 would render that scene in... hmmm, what was it? 16-20 seconds or something.

Post #549 in this thread.

Since I've already shared Classroom benchmarks, for reference on the BMW scene with my 10900K CPU and 3080GPU:

BMW:
CPU: 2:35
CUDA GPU: 00:16
OPTIX GPU: 00:09

I'd assume that benchmark in the LTT video is showing CPU rendering on the PC side, because a 3090 is orders of magnitude faster than what they're showing in their bar graphs. EDIT: That video is also from Dec. of last year, so who knows what version of Blender they're testing with