MP 7,1 The future Mac Pro has a problem…RTX 4090

[rondocap]

I know we always compare the Mac Pro with apples own ecosystem, but looking at the results of Nvidia‘s RTX 4090 today shows that it is a massive upgrade not just for gaming, but also for video and content creation.

it also has plenty of encoders and decoders.

while you can’t use an Nvidia GPU with a Mac, this level of performance just overall raises is the bar for everyone, Apple included. Hopefully whatever they have planned for the next Mac Pro has the performance to keep up with this.

at the end of the day, let’s say you were doing video work, Davinci resolve works on both types of systems, so it’s certainly something that we can compare.

 

[startergo]

while you can’t use an Nvidia GPU with a Mac,

Actually you can use it on a Mac hardware just not on an OS higher than 10.13.6. No issues in windows.

 

[Jupiter-8]

[Posted in the wrong thread]

 

[Matt2012]

I'm losing interest in the new Mac Pro as its taking so long so just snapped up a 4090 for my PC and keen to see what its like for for Davinci resolve.
For reference, My Mac Studio Ultra renders out quicker than my PC with a 3090 card so looking forward to comparing the two.

 

[gammamonk]

I watched a number of the reviews yesterday, performance looks incredible but the power draw is intimidating. Nvidia PR repeatedly makes the point it has the same TDP as the 3090TI. Well, yeah, but it's not a 4090TI now is it? Gamers Nexus recorded the card drawing 666.6 watts when modestly overclocked. That's an ungodly amount of power for a GPU. Even stock at 450 watts is a TON. I have an old 24GB Tesla M40 that peaks at 250 watts, and that was extreme for it's day.

My PC's RTX 3060 draws 170 watts at full load, and while 5x slower than a 4090 in most metrics it does the job. I'm waiting for the 4070 / RDNA3 to consider an upgrade.

I can't see Apple releasing a system with that kind of borderline unethical power consumption just to beat the benchmarks. They'll figure something out. I don't know how much power my M1 Max laptop uses, but it barely gets warm under sustained full load, so it can't be much.

 

[Matt2012]

I watched a number of the reviews yesterday, performance looks incredible but the power draw is intimidating. Nvidia PR repeatedly makes the point it has the same TDP as the 3090TI. Well, yeah, but it's not a 4090TI now is it? Gamers Nexus recorded the card drawing 666.6 watts when modestly overclocked. That's an ungodly amount of power for a GPU. Even stock at 450 watts is a TON. I have an old 24GB Tesla M40 that peaks at 250 watts, and that was extreme for it's day.

My PC's RTX 3060 draws 170 watts at full load, and while 5x slower than a 4090 in most metrics it does the job. I'm waiting for the 4070 / RDNA3 to consider an upgrade.

I can't see Apple releasing a system with that kind of borderline unethical power consumption just to beat the benchmarks. They'll figure something out. I don't know how much power my M1 Max laptop uses, but it barely gets warm under sustained full load, so it can't be much.

I'll admit, the power draw is a concern for me but some reviews I've seen today since the embargo has been lifted are saying its actually more efficient than he 3090 in reality.
I do really like the Mac Ultras efficiency but who knows what the new Mac Pro will bring. As someone who uses the power of any computer for my job and feeds my kids, pays my mortgage etc, I just can't keep waiting for Apple to maybe announce something this year or next when there is some serious hardware out there now to buy.

 

[richinaus]

I'll admit, the power draw is a concern for me but some reviews I've seen today since the embargo has been lifted are saying its actually more efficient than he 3090 in reality.
I do really like the Mac Ultras efficiency but who knows what the new Mac Pro will bring. As someone who uses the power of any computer for my job and feeds my kids, pays my mortgage etc, I just can't keep waiting for Apple to maybe announce something this year or next when there is some serious hardware out there now to buy.

As someone in the exact same position, I am just about to get the 4090. Apple have shown no evidence at all they will have anything close to it. And if they do, all the great PC 3D apps won't run on it very well anyway, which is why I run a platform agnostic studio - just using the right tool for the job [gave up on the Mac Pro sometime ago due to slow single core speeds].

 

[mattspace]

at the end of the day, let’s say you were doing video work, Davinci resolve works on both types of systems, so it’s certainly something that we can compare.

My biggest workload app, which just announced a Linux version - PTGui Pro:

Apple Mac

An Intel mac with a dedicated AMD or NVIDIA GPU is required, or a mac with Apple Silicon (M1) processor. Many older models only have Intel integrated graphics (Intel Iris or HD Graphics); this is not supported for GPU acceleraton by PTGui. OpenCL 1.1 is required, Mac models released before 2010 only have OpenCL 1.0.

Unfortunately Apple have decided to deprecate OpenCL. While it is still supported in the current macOS, Apple may decide to remove OpenCL from future macOS versions. This means that PTGui's GPU acceleration may no longer be available under some future macOS version. Apple is suggesting that developers rewrite their software to support Apple's proprietary Metal framework but this involves a huge amount of work. We can't say if or when PTGui will support Metal-based GPU acceleration.

 

[exoticSpice]

just using the right tool for the job

My biggest workload app, which just announced a Linux version - PTGui Pro:

well for you mattspace Linux will be the way for you.

Like I said in the other thread. PC for my workstation and a MacBook Pro as my laptop. PC will always be open and Macbooks will always be better in efficiency.

 

[Matt2012]

Fitted he 4090 today and only done a couple of tests in Resolve but there is a big jump in rendering speed and with effects such as NR. Apple will need to do some serious work on the Pro.

 

[ChedNasad]

Given the market for a product like this probably cares less about the electricity cost and more about time cost I think this is a valid point and it will be interesting to see how Apple proceeds

 

[Matt2012]

Maybe that’s why Apple have been so quiet so they can see what the 4090 can actually do

 

[richinaus]

Maybe that’s why Apple have been so quiet so they can see what the 4090 can actually do

And then panic given the studio ultra isn’t very close to my 3080ti……

 

[deconstruct60]

Maybe that’s why Apple have been so quiet so they can see what the 4090 can actually do

The general standard operating rule at Apple is to be quiet if they are far away from launch. So "being quiet" isn't indicative of anything other than "normal".


I think you got the "company that begins with 'A'" mixed up. If there is someone laying back to see what they have to cover it is AMD; not Apple. Extremely unlikely Apple is using the 4090 as a benchmark at all. They explicitly said they wanted to have the fastest iGPU. [ although that will be a problem also with the AMD MI300 comes along. ] I doubt Apple is trying to directly kill off all dGPUs that could be using in desktop/server units on a card. More so dGPUs that might show up in a laptop (or most All-in-one desktops.).

As long as they have to allocate die space to CPU cores , SSD controllers , Secure element cores , Thunderbolt controllers , and a much higher than average number of memory controllers ... they just aren't likely to 'win' in the bigger/biggest die area allocation desktop GPU card space. At some point "more allocation" will be too big a hurdle. Nvidia tossed NVLink off the 4090 to allocate more specialized cores ( I think RT cores). Can't put everything and the kitchen sink on a single die. As some point have to make transistor budget allocation trade-offs (and package construction costs trade-offs) .

Nvidia's 4090 will likely top the AMD 7900 on many metrics, but probably not Pref/$. After a while later in 2023 AMD can do a 7950 with double the cache by just stacking some extra 3D L3 cache on top and likely get a boost. Tweak some clocks just even to close most (if not all the gap) to the 7900. Nvidia has already stretched the overclocking on the 4090 without even more exotic cooling so there won't be much of a response.

Extremely highly doubtful Apple wants to jump into the middle of that pissing contest. AMD and Nvidia will likely sell mostly not 4090/7900 GPU units. How well Apple covers the mid-range ( 7600-7700 and 4060/4070 respectively) is the far more strategically critical piece.


The bigger blunder that Apple may have wandered into here is blowing up any ability to add a "Compute GPU" card to the Mac Pro ( a GPGPU to just add more compute grunt without a display option. e.g. AMD MI210. Or even Intel Flex 140-170 if someone needed AV1 hardware de/encode (which apple is likely to skip this iteration). ). They are likely to land short of Nvidia 4090 ( and pretty likely AMD 7900). They don't have a huge fab process utilization lead to lean on. (unless put a desktop "M2" on TSMC N3. )

 

[deconstruct60]

And then panic given the studio ultra isn’t very close to my 3080ti……

If the 3080ti sold 2-3M units per year than perhaps. But it does not . So Apple probably is not in a panic. In the Mac Studio intro they explicitly said most Mac Pro buyers got an W5700X. The top, top , top end of the spectrum is not where the bulk of the users are.


If they sell 10-15K less Mac Pros per year , that really don't matter much to the overall mac ecosystem if they make progress across the rest of the line up. (e.g., swap 30K MBP 14"/16" new users for 15K MP users walking away ... that is far from a net loss in user base numbers. Or bump < $9K MP sales up 10% and > $11K sales go down 10% .. also not a net loss. )

The next Mac Pro likely will have a "low volume" tax attached to it because it always was in the sub 100K/year run rate zone.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I'm losing interest in the new Mac Pro as its taking so long so just snapped up a 4090 for my PC and keen to see what its like for for Davinci resolve.
For reference, My Mac Studio Ultra renders out quicker than my PC with a 3090 card so looking forward to comparing the two.

Please post back here what your results are!

 

[Shawn Moosa]

They could always write a driver for Nvidia cards.

Its just that they don't want to

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

They could always write a driver for Nvidia cards.

Its just that they don't want to

Yea it's disgusting and pathetic. It's so user hostile.

 

[exoticSpice]

They could always write a driver for Nvidia cards.

Its just that they don't want to

Apple can't even write a proper settings app in Vuntura. nah, I am done with Mac.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I know we always compare the Mac Pro with apples own ecosystem, but looking at the results of Nvidia‘s RTX 4090 today shows that it is a massive upgrade not just for gaming, but also for video and content creation.

it also has plenty of encoders and decoders.

while you can’t use an Nvidia GPU with a Mac, this level of performance just overall raises is the bar for everyone, Apple included. Hopefully whatever they have planned for the next Mac Pro has the performance to keep up with this.

at the end of the day, let’s say you were doing video work, Davinci resolve works on both types of systems, so it’s certainly something that we can compare.

It's not going to be a matter of how whatever Apple Silicon GPU compares to the RTX 4090 in terms of raw performance. Apple has already proven that they're not after raw benchmarks, but rather performance in specific applications. For example, it's not going to be a matter of raw GPU prowess as much as it will be a shootout between, say, Premiere Pro for Mac using Metal as its engine and Premiere Pro for Windows using CUDA. Otherwise, there will definitely be tons of use cases where whatever Apple comes out with won't be as good (let alone SO MUCH so) as what NVIDIA has.

 

[Matt2012]

Please post back here what your results are!

I rendered some projects on my 3090 and then fitted my new (and very large!) 4090 and ran these non scientific tests for comparison.
I'm not really bothered about other online benchmarks such as gaming and Blender etc as they're irrelevant to myself but the tests I've done are what I do day in, day out so any extra performance helps me out with my work - and the results are pretty impressive.
For reference, I also did the same tests on my Mac Studio Ultra which outperforms all but one Resolve test over the 3090.


PC specs are:
i9-12900KS 3.40 GHz
64GB Ram
Latest PC version of Resolve (18.0.4 build 5)

Mac Studio Ultra
20 core CPU
64 core GPU
64GB RAM
Latest MAC version of Resolve (18.0.2 build 78)

All files were pulled from my NAS running 10Gb Ethernet and rendered out onto my PC's secondary SSD in h264/mp4 format and the Macs internal SSD drive.

File 1 (runtime 11 min, 14 secs)
An older SD mp4 (720x480) that was super scaled x3 within Resolve, with a 75% amount of temporal noise reduction and general sharpening and colour correction.

3090 did it at 53fps and render time of 5 mins, 5 secs
4090 did it at 92ps and render time of 3 mins, 2 secs
Mac Studio did it at 59fps and render time of 4 mins, 34 secs

************

File 2 (runtime 21 min, 05 secs)
An older SD mp4 (720x480) that was super scaled x3 within Resolve, with max amount of temporal noise reduction and general sharpening and colour correction.

3090 did it at 57fps and render time of 9 mins, 7 secs
4090 did it at 107fps and render time of 5 mins, 0 secs
Mac Studio did it at 63fps and render time of 8 mins, 23 secs

************

File 3 (runtime 29 min, 16 secs)
A 1080p HD mp4 (1920x1080) that was super scaled x2 within Resolve, with 75% amount of temporal noise reduction and general sharpening and colour correction.

3090 did it at 40fps and render time of 18 mins, 40 secs
4090 did it at 72fps and render time of 10 mins, 39 secs
Mac Studio did it at 44fps and render time of 16 mins, 31 secs

************

File 4 (runtime 31 min, 14 secs)
A 1080p HD mp4 (1920x1080) with 10% amount of temporal noise and no other correction.

3090 did it at 117fps and render time of 8 mins, 2 secs
4090 did it at 174fps and render time of 5 mins, 26 secs
Mac Studio did it at 80fps and render time of 11 mins, 43 secs

************

I also did a file conversion/upscale using the latest version of Topaz Video Enhance as it tests the GPU with a 17 min, 29 sec clip.

3090 did it at 15 min, 22 sec
4090 did it at 13 min, 47 sec
Mac Studio did it at 20 min, 02 sec

************

Overall, very happy with 4090 *for my use* considering Resolve doesn't appear to be fully optimized for it yet with the card only being released less than 48 hours ago.
I also expected to pay over £2000 for it as prices were vague until 2pm on launch day but I got one for £1699. I paid just £100 less for the 3090 back on launch day and with raging inflation, expensive as these cards are, the price was ok as there was lots of talk of a £2k+ price.
It also seems less noisy than the the 3090 and I don't hear the fans spin up as much and is much quieter than I was expecting.
The Mac Studio Ultra is a great little machine though using less power and a way smaller footprint.

 

[Xenobius]

Apple can use RX 7900XT in Mac Pro to get RTX 4090 performance level.

 

[Matt2012]

Apple can use RX 7900XT in Mac Pro to get RTX 4090 performance level.

But its not out yet so impossible to say and rumours are very mixed:

"Underwhelming AMD Radeon RX 7000 performance estimate renders it incapable of competing with Ada Lovelace"
"Likely Slower than NVIDIA’s RTX 4090"
"RX 7900 XT Rumored To Hold A Key Advantage Over The GeForce RTX 4090"

 

[Xenobius]

Yes, at the moment we only have speculations. However, the RX 6900XT performance is similar (except for raytracing with Optix) to the RTX 3090, and the RX 7900XT will have two next-generation GPUs on the card. It can be expected that they will strongly improve the units responsible for raytracing (which Apple unfortunately does not use). So in theory, the RX 7900XT should be comparable to the RTX 4090 and Apple could use it if they feels that the desktop Apple Silicon GPU cannot compete with Nvidia's new cards.

 

[gammamonk]

My biggest workload app, which just announced a Linux version - PTGui Pro:

Apologies for being off topic, but I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on PTGui. I use Microsoft ICE for this which works great but there is definitely some quality loss that shouldn't be there. It also hasn't been updated in over a decade...