Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MP 7,1 Radeon Vega II or W5700X on mac pro better for gaming?

which one would be better for gaming?

It looks Vega II is much more powerful for gaming purely by the comparison of Tflops. But, does it justify the price difference?

single Vega II - Compute Units 64 - 14.2 FP32 TFLOPs
W5700X - Compute Units 36 - 8.89 - FP32 TFLOPs

Or W5700X is better tweaked for gaming?


mac.jpg
 
Have we even determined if third party video cards will work in the mac pro 7,1 ?? How do you power them without 8pin connectors ?
 
gerrard0804 said:
yes , I doubt also purely based on the Tflops comparsion
Click to expand...

I should qualify ...

TFlops isn't pixel fill rate. It is a measure of compute performance. (I was also comparing against an iMac Pro Vega 56, sorry, which is 9 teraflops single precision.)

They're close but the Navi part still has a higher pixel fill rate, which works better in games.

Overall the Vega II will be better of course, but at a much higher price it should be. My statement was more a P/P argument than a overall power one.

Theoretical Performance
Pixel Rate 123.5 GPixel/s
Texture Rate 277.9 GTexel/s

Vs Vega II

Theoretical Performance
Pixel Rate 110.1 GPixel/s
Texture Rate 440.3 GTexel/s

You might get potentially higher resolution gaming on the 5700, though the Vega II's texture rate may make overall gaming faster at a given resolution.
 
Last edited:
anticipate said:
I should qualify ...

TFlops isn't pixel fill rate. It is a measure of compute performance. (I was also comparing against an iMac Pro Vega 56, sorry, which is 9 teraflops single precision.)

They're close but the Navi part still has a higher pixel fill rate, which works better in games.

Overall the Vega II will be better of course, but at a much higher price it should be. My statement was more a P/P argument than a overall power one.

Theoretical Performance
Pixel Rate 123.5 GPixel/s
Texture Rate 277.9 GTexel/s

Vs Vega II

Theoretical Performance
Pixel Rate 110.1 GPixel/s
Texture Rate 440.3 GTexel/s

You might get potentially higher resolution gaming on the 5700, though the Vega II's texture rate may make overall gaming faster at a given resolution.
Click to expand...

Radeon VII (60CU) it' s better than 5700 XT (40CU), so difference between Vega II (64CU) and W5700 (36CU) will be even higher, also humble 8GB VRAM in 5700 can be a bottleneck in 4K games with maxed settings
 
Last edited:
th0masp said:
The general thing about workstation cards is that they are not great for gaming, at best they'll be decent when still really new and somewhat comparable to high end gaming cards. Drivers are usually not geared towards gaming.
As soon as a game really pushes the envelope you'll have to step down the detail levels with these.

1440p sounds mighty fine to me unless you're sitting right in front of some gigantic screen? I even run my 65" 4K living room telly at 1080 to keep the Ps4 pro from stressing out too much - can't really see the difference when sitting on the couch. :cool:
Click to expand...

lol so much ******** on the internet
Seriously you should get your eyes checked if you can’t see the difference between 1080 / 1440 / 5k
Even
Noticeable difference between a 1440 2013 iMac 27 next to the 5k iMac
[automerge]1577582110[/automerge]
_Kiki_ said:
should be fine even with maxed settings in light games like Diablo 3, Starcraft 2 or DOTA 2, maybe some sports games like eFootball, FIFA or NBA
Click to expand...
Even iMac 2019 with vega 48 are capable of 5k gaming at maxed setting , it’s just 8GB vram isn’t enough , FPS started drop / black screen / weird stuff start happening after gaming for few hours
Etc : heroes of the storm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back