Radeon Pro 580x or Radeon Pro Vega 48?

[mikehalloran]

Samsung X5 1TB connected via thunderbolt 3 will probably be faster than the internal drive. (2500-3000 read-write) for 50% of the price of Apple's upgrade. So you will get 1TB extra instead 512GB extra for 50% less money.

I'd say Vega 48, since it's significantly better, especially for video. it's a nobrainer


you need a quantum computer
[doublepost=1553168565][/doublepost]
no it doesn't, not anymore at least.
I have a superfast external NVMe SSD on a Mini with 512GB internal storage. Internal storage has 400GB free, i work mostly on the external now, since i can just disconnect it and have everything on a MacBook. + if anything goes awry, you don't need to jump through hoops to recover your work.

You do not understand how APFS Snapshots and other aspects of the current Mac OS work. I’m sorry but you just don’t.

APFS Snapshots allows a complete system restore in a few minutes (same as a Time Machine restore that can take many hours) just as I wrote. It only works with boot drives. This can be looked up. As often as you’ve written that this isn’t correct, the fact is that you are ignorant on the subject. Please look it up so that you give good advice in the future.

In addition, you seem to think that an NVMe external will be faster than that same drive on the internal PCIe bus if it goes over TB3. Again, you don’t understand how this works despite the number of people who’ve explained it to you. With Samsung, it’s the same blade that Apple uses except fo the pin-out. The 2015 iMac was different because Apple used an inferior NVMe 2 blade but they fixed this in in 2017. This is 2019.

 

[Digeeedad]

Thanks to everybody who replied here! After lots of research, reading hours of posts on this forum and much obsessive thinking, I did order a new 2019 iMac for my film student daughter.
27”
i9
Vega 48
1TB SSD
8g RAM (will self upgrade to 40g)

Hoping this ends up being a good choice (a little concerned about heat/ cooling) that will work well for her, for some time to come!

 

[Koulie]

Thanks to everybody who replied here! After lots of research, reading hours of posts on this forum and much obsessive thinking, I did order a new 2019 iMac for my film student daughter.
i9
Vega 48
1TB SSD
8g RAM (will self upgrade to 40g)

Hoping this ends up being a good choice (a little concerned about heat/ cooling) that will work well for her, for some time to come!

Congrats on your purchase, you have a very lucky Daughter!

I had the exact same order and I think the heating should be a non-issue with the soldered i9 processor + more efficient HBM2 graphics architecture, which have worked wonders for the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros!

With that said, benchmarks will ultimately confirm the theory-crafting...

 

[Digeeedad]

Congrats on your purchase, you have a very lucky Daughter!

I had the exact same order and I think the heating should be a non-issue with the soldered i9 processor + more efficient HBM2 graphics architecture, which have worked wonders for the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros!

With that said, benchmarks will ultimately confirm the theory-crafting...

Thanks much! Best of luck and good times with your new iMac.

 

[bigtomato]

TB4? Are you sure you're not referring to USB4 (which is basically TB3)? In any case, TB3 is plenty fast enough. It's already fast enough that there isn't much of a performance penalty for having an external drive.

My bad pic-e 4.0, which will allow even larger data transfer. I'm confident they will be in the Mac Pro desktop that is coming.

 

[Apple Mac Daz]

Thanks to everybody who replied here! After lots of research, reading hours of posts on this forum and much obsessive thinking, I did order a new 2019 iMac for my film student daughter.
27”
i9
Vega 48
1TB SSD
8g RAM (will self upgrade to 40g)

Hoping this ends up being a good choice (a little concerned about heat/ cooling) that will work well for her, for some time to come!

Nice dude that’s the spec I want waiting for reviews so post what you think of it at some point

 

[Ploki]

You do not understand how APFS Snapshots and other aspects of the current Mac OS work. I’m sorry but you just don’t.

APFS Snapshots allows a complete system restore in a few minutes (same as a Time Machine restore that can take many hours) just as I wrote. It only works with boot drives. This can be looked up. As often as you’ve written that this isn’t correct, the fact is that you are ignorant on the subject. Please look it up so that you give good advice in the future.

In addition, you seem to think that an NVMe external will be faster than that same drive on the internal PCIe bus if it goes over TB3. Again, you don’t understand how this works despite the number of people who’ve explained it to you. With Samsung, it’s the same blade that Apple uses except fo the pin-out. The 2015 iMac was different because Apple used an inferior NVMe 2 blade but they fixed this in in 2017. This is 2019.

I've yet to see a video professional that relies on time machine backups and apfs snapshots. It's completely irrelevant, video takes a ton of space and you simply need to rely on external media and have backups in more places, and you need to have that external media backed up.

i've never ever written that APFS snapshots work with external SSDs, i've written that external NVMe drives are as fast and sometimes faster than the internal drive.
Apple doesn't use drives in the grade of 970 PRO, or 970 EVO PLUS.

If you have projects on an external drive you can literally plug it into ANY machine and continue working, if you have it on the internal and something dies, you have to troubleshoot. From strictly a file management point of view it's always wise to have data in several places...

Not to mention that video projects are several hundreds of GB in size very very fast, all the intermediate renders, non-compressed sources, takes a lot of space...

Further more, all 2018 macs have used toshiba chips in a form of raid, and the write speed is gradually worse with smaller sizes (512gb is already capped at 1800mb/s), and the 2018 T2 drives have SSDs handled by the T2 chip. in iMac it's obviously not the case, but T2 has actually increased internal drive speed not hindered it, and the iMac Pro (T2) isn't the same blade as off the shelf because it's dead NAND, while controller being the T2 chip.

I don't claim that external NVMe will be faster because its over TB3, but because apple uses crap drive.
Of course, you can fire up the trusty ol' heatgun and remove the screen on the brand new mac to access whatever garbage SSD apple shipped your iMac with, or you can put a 970 PRO in an external TB3 NVMe enclosure and be happy with it without the heatgun

Since you dont know for a fact which blade non-T2 iMac uses you cannot claim it's the same as the Samsung better ones, because apple historically hasn't shipped their computers with the best drives.

 

[kaintxu]

Congrats on your purchase, you have a very lucky Daughter!

I had the exact same order and I think the heating should be a non-issue with the soldered i9 processor + more efficient HBM2 graphics architecture, which have worked wonders for the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros!

With that said, benchmarks will ultimately confirm the theory-crafting...

Do you think the i9 will run cooler than the i5 with the soldered thingy?

 

[BigBoy2018]

vega it was proven that runs cooler into the MBP also
So your order is the right one i9+vega since the imacs still has the same thermals

Wouldn't the i5 be cooler than the i9? I hear the jury is still out on how the current iMac will thermally handle the 8-core i9.

If it throttles, then you're effectively wasting your money.

 

[kaintxu]

Wouldn't the i5 be cooler than the i9? I hear the jury is still out on how the current iMac will thermally handle the 8-core i9.

If it throttles, then you're effectively wasting your money.

So the thing is both are classed as 95W chips, though it seems the i9 is actually it's using 140W under load. On the other hand, they say the i9 has this new system which means it actually run 10-15 degrees cooler than others without it, so it could even run cooler than the i5 (not sure about this)

To be honest, the thing is if it can handle the 9th gen i5 as that's 95W too. I think the mid-tier 8600 would be good, and would love to know if there is much of a performance difference between these 2

 

[BigBoy2018]

So the thing is both are classed as 95W chips, though it seems the i9 is actually it's using 140W under load. On the other hand, they say the i9 has this new system which means it actually run 10-15 degrees cooler than others without it, so it could even run cooler than the i5 (not sure about this)

To be honest, the thing is if it can handle the 9th gen i5 as that's 95W too. I think the mid-tier 8600 would be good, and would love to know if there is much of a performance difference between these 2

Yep, we will have to wait and see. but thats why I’d caution against buying a top end one right away before we know for sure.

 

[kaintxu]

Yep, we will have to wait and see. but thats why I’d caution against buying a top end one right away before we know for sure.

I have been waiting for this update a year now as for some reason I Wanted to skip the 2017 one. I can wait a few more weeks to see some reviews, I don't want a 2017 i7 loud heater. Unless it's clearly cooler most probably will leave the i9 for others and stick to i5.

My biggest doubt is going to be before wether to get the 8th gen i5 8600 or the 9th gen i5 9600K, and wether to go vega or not

 

[BigBoy2018]

I have been waiting for this update a year now as for some reason I Wanted to skip the 2017 one. I can wait a few more weeks to see some reviews, I don't want a 2017 i7 loud heater. Unless it's clearly cooler most probably will leave the i9 for others and stick to i5.

My biggest doubt is going to be before wether to get the 8th gen i5 8600 or the 9th gen i5 9600K, and wether to go vega or not

I’d definitely go with the i5 3.7ghz.
Its benchmarks may end up being only a sliver better than the lower chips, but thats only because those chips have a higher differential between base clock speed to turbo boost speed.
That turbo boost only last for a short bit (long enough to ‘trick’ geekbench) and over the long haul, the 3.7 will be a better performer vs the lower cpus than the geekbench scores might indicate.

 

[SkiHound2]

So the thing is both are classed as 95W chips, though it seems the i9 is actually it's using 140W under load. On the other hand, they say the i9 has this new system which means it actually run 10-15 degrees cooler than others without it, so it could even run cooler than the i5 (not sure about this)

To be honest, the thing is if it can handle the 9th gen i5 as that's 95W too. I think the mid-tier 8600 would be good, and would love to know if there is much of a performance difference between these 2

Look at some of the benchmarks. Not real world but still a reasonable approximation. Looking at benchmarks, there's not a heck of a lot of difference between the 8th and 9th generation chips except with tasks that exploit multi-threading on chips where they've changed the actual architecture. I think you need to ask yourself what applications you run and what features will they use. The 580X will perform better than the 575x, though neither is a state of the art game gpu and the integrated 630 on intel chips works fine for many uses (sucks bad for some others). My issue with the lower, and especially the mid-tier iMacs, is that if you upgrade storage, the price differences become very minimal. That is especially true between the mid-tier and high tier. The 1TB fusion only has a 32gb ssd. I'd never buy one. Many on this forum would say never buy a fusion, but at least the 2TB version has a 128gb ssd. Look at the configuration of prices if you upgrade the storage.

 

[kaintxu]

Look at some of the benchmarks. Not real world but still a reasonable approximation. Looking at benchmarks, there's not a heck of a lot of difference between the 8th and 9th generation chips except with tasks that exploit multi-threading on chips where they've changed the actual architecture. I think you need to ask yourself what applications you run and what features will they use. The 580X will perform better than the 575x, though neither is a state of the art game gpu and the integrated 630 on intel chips works fine for many uses (sucks bad for some others). My issue with the lower, and especially the mid-tier iMacs, is that if you upgrade storage, the price differences become very minimal. That is especially true between the mid-tier and high tier. The 1TB fusion only has a 32gb ssd. I'd never buy one. Many on this forum would say never buy a fusion, but at least the 2TB version has a 128gb ssd. Look at the configuration of prices if you upgrade the storage.

Oh, I'm totally upgrading to 512GB SSD, that makes the mid-tier be £2219 and the top tier £2339. At that point for 120 quid I get the 9th gen K processor which is meant to be cooler than 8th gen, and the 580x, which while maybe not way more powerful, I Think will give a few more fps on my occasional gaming. I think I won't break the bank for those £120, and when you are already spending at least 2.2k, well...

My final doubts are whether to go VEGA or not

Also for you, following my above reasoning, if you plan on upgrading mid tier to 2TB Fusion, just spend the extra £90 and get the 512SSD

 

[kaintxu]

Quick question.

Is the Radeon Pro 580 this iMac bring the same as AMD RX 580 on gpu.userbenchmark.com? I'm trying to look for it, but can't find it otherwise

 

[Chips62]

I need to replace a 2010 21” iMac and have been waiting for this update. Last year I found it fairly easy and inexpensive to install a 1TB SSD to tide me over.
I will go with a 27” this time for prosumer video and photo editing and it’s ram upgradabilty. So I am interested in the 580X vs Pro Vega 48.
Is there something special about Apple SSDs? Why not save money with a base model Fusion drive and just replace it with an SSD? I am by no means a computer technician but even I could manage the process.
One more question: the OP’s daughter is going to film school, I just want to make some cool GoPro videos. Would I be fine with the 580X GPU?

 

[Returnoftheimac]

I would be interested in some analysis on this geekbench data taken from a Japanese web site. Particularly in relation to the 580x performance which seems to be significantly improved over the 580 and relatively competitive with the Vega.


Thanks a million.

 

[kaintxu]

I would be interested in some analysis on this geekbench data taken for a Japanese web site. Particularly in relation to the 580x performance which seams to be significantly improved over the 580 and relatively competitive with the Vega.


Thanks a million.

Anyone more expert on Geekbench, does compute only take into account the GPU or also the CPU?

I ask that because the comparative between Vega48 and 580X, also includes that the Vega has the i9, while the 580X has an i5, which can really mean that the difference between both GPU is even smaller than suggested. Would be good to see the scores for the i5 with vega and the i9 with 580X.

Wow, if those numbers are right the 580X, while far, is not that far away from the vega. What surprises me even more, is that now even the 570X is on par with the 580? And what's the deal with the 575X? There has to be something wrong there.

Taking into account those numbers, if at any point I was thinking of sticking with the the mid tier, to save some cash, the low tier is becoming even more attractive for £300 less.

Now I seriously have to reconsider the i5 + 580x or i9 + vega. It's £800 cheaper, and while it will last less, it also means you have extra cash towards the next update a few years down the line (maybe even once it's redesigned and stablished)

 

[T_Oscura]

Anyone more expert on Geekbench, does compute only take into account the GPU or also the CPU?

I ask that because the comparative between Vega48 and 580X, also includes that the Vega has the i9, while the 580X has an i5, which can really mean that the difference between both GPU is even smaller than suggested. Would be good to see the scores for the i5 with vega and the i9 with 580X.

Wow, if those numbers are right the 580X, while far, is not that far away from the vega. What surprises me even more, is that now even the 570X is on par with the 580? And what's the deal with the 575X? There has to be something wrong there.

Taking into account those numbers, if at any point I was thinking of sticking with the the mid tier, to save some cash, the low tier is becoming even more attractive for £300 less.

Now I seriously have to reconsider the i5 + 580x or i9 + vega. It's £800 cheaper, and while it will last less, it also means you have extra cash towards the next update a few years down the line (maybe even once it's redesigned and stablished)

I think the Geekbench website has more realistic results. Vega Pro 48 should be around the performance of a Radeon 590.

https://browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks

AMD Radeon Pro 580 Compute Engine 117389
AMD Radeon Pro 580X Compute Engine 122103
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 Compute Engine 142292
Radeon RX 590 Series 146239
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 Compute Engine 158262

 

[kaintxu]

I think the Geekbench website has more realistic results. Vega Pro 48 should be around the performance of a Radeon 590.

https://browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks

AMD Radeon Pro 580 Compute Engine 117389
AMD Radeon Pro 580X Compute Engine 122103
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 Compute Engine 142292
Radeon RX 590 Series 146239
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 Compute Engine 158262

Based on geekbench, should we asume the RX 480 is better than the 580?

Quick question, what does Compute engine stand for?

Also, I was told the Radeon Pro 580 and the RX 580 were equivalent, but numbers are clearly lower for the Radeon Pro 580 which is what the iMac has?

 

[T_Oscura]

Based on geekbench, should we asume the RX 480 is better than the 580?

They should be identical. There are multiple scores for those.

 

[kaintxu]

They should be identical. There are multiple scores for those.

Should the 580 not be ahead of the 480?

Also edited my previous post with another couple of questions

 

[T_Oscura]

Should the 580 not be ahead of the 480?

Also edited my previous post with another couple of questions

The 5xx series was just a rebrand of the 4xx. Radeon Pro 580 is slower than the desktop 580. Radeon Pro 580x should perform the same as the desktop 580 because of higher clock speeds.

 

[kaintxu]

The 5xx series was just a rebrand of the 4xx. Radeon Pro 580 is slower than the desktop 580. Radeon Pro 580x should perform the same as the desktop 580 because of higher clock speeds.

So then the Radeon RX 580 and the pro 580 are not the same like some someone mentioned earlier? I Guess one is the old M (mobile)version, while the other is the full fat version?