Thanks, I did not pay attention to that item. It was not at 100% for his high settings run either.
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.
Unigene Superposition Benchmark
- Thread starter Prince134
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But the maxed out superposition benchmark shows 99% gpu use, that's why I asked him for gaming benchmarks that we could compare to the newest cpu like i7-6700 or i7-7700.
Under 2k resolution, it just don't need that much of GPU power. But the score is at the end of the bar. When you see the benchmark running, it's as smooth as silk.
We should ask someone with Mac Pro 6.1 to do the benchmark. Judging by the spread of fps is not realistic if the deviation of the complexisty of scenes are just like that. I haven't seen any Mac Pro 6.1 reported their Unigene 2 benchmark here. I'd like to see their default benchmark, 4K optimized, 8K optimized, and also VRs.
You can definitely not able to compare a crazy 4.5Ghz Hacintosh to this in 2k resolution.
So Mac Pro 6,1. S'il vous Plait...
We should ask someone with Mac Pro 6.1 to do the benchmark. Judging by the spread of fps is not realistic if the deviation of the complexisty of scenes are just like that. I haven't seen any Mac Pro 6.1 reported their Unigene 2 benchmark here. I'd like to see their default benchmark, 4K optimized, 8K optimized, and also VRs.
You can definitely not able to compare a crazy 4.5Ghz Hacintosh to this in 2k resolution.
So Mac Pro 6,1. S'il vous Plait...
Yes, that's maybe it, but I compared your cmp score with i7-7700k and your results were higher (I think because of the gpu power: Titan X (Pascal) vs gtx 1080.
So in this test you were not bottlenecked at all and your gpu usage were on 99%
I wonder how much difference would it be in games but who cares if you can get strong and stable 60fps+ in 1080p.
I'm only afraid that our cpu won't be as strong as I think and there will be dips under the 60 fps...
thanks for this, I am sold, comparing your numbers with Prince134's I'm sure that cMP IS STILL THE BEAST
thanks for this, I am sold, comparing your numbers with Prince134's I'm sure that cMP IS STILL THE BEAST
Pls post your results with cMP and GTX 1080 Ti when you have it.
Ok, I will post it when I will have one, but I'm confident that the cpu bottleneck won't be huge, comparing to the Prince134 post on the first page
Here you go. X5690 3.46Ghz.
I know it's very hard to swallow. When do people realize the latest advancement of gaming/visual/computing hardware is the GPU. Not the CPU, not USB 3.0, not Blutooth 4.0, and not Thunderbolt. What do you expect any shortcoming or drawback when compare a cMP 5.1 to any lately built Hacintosh, while you understand the point aforementioned?
The PRO badge is real.
1080P extreme: 5555
4K optimized :8830
Any tcMP D700s results? Cross fired by default?
I know it's very hard to swallow. When do people realize the latest advancement of gaming/visual/computing hardware is the GPU. Not the CPU, not USB 3.0, not Blutooth 4.0, and not Thunderbolt. What do you expect any shortcoming or drawback when compare a cMP 5.1 to any lately built Hacintosh, while you understand the point aforementioned?
The PRO badge is real.
1080P extreme: 5555
4K optimized :8830
Any tcMP D700s results? Cross fired by default?
Last edited:
Maybe I should remove my GTX 1080 Ti from the i7-7700K machine, und put it in my Mac Pro 4,1/5,1 ?
Possibly my card is thermal throttling (small MiniITX case), however here a result from an other i7-7700K:
Possibly my card is thermal throttling (small MiniITX case), however here a result from an other i7-7700K:
Last edited:
Whoa, long live the cMP ;P
Guys, is it possible that you will post some gaming benchmarks from under the bootcamp? :>
I want to be sure that 1080ti will give me stable 60fps on 1080p with no cpu bottleneck dips under the 60fps.
Last edited:
1080p/60 fps is no problem for the Mac Pro with a GTX 1080 Ti. 120 fps could be an issue. Even with a GTX 980 Ti/GTX Titan X (Maxwell) a Mac Pro nearly reaches 60 fps on 4K resolution.
I ran this Mac Pro vs i7-7700K comparison some time ago, GTA V, with GTX Titan X (Maxwell) and GTX 980 Ti: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/webdriver-for-gtx-1080-1070.1979778/page-10
Last edited:
The only game where my i7-7700K PC is twice as fast as my Mac Pro is Starcraft II.
This CPU demanding game uses only ~1.5 cores, so the CPU with the most gigahertz or most instructions per cycle is the fastest. The number of cores are of no importance here.
This CPU demanding game uses only ~1.5 cores, so the CPU with the most gigahertz or most instructions per cycle is the fastest. The number of cores are of no importance here.
Last edited:
I only play battlefield one. 2.5K with Apple LED display. The frame rate always stay at 60. All video setting is ultra with DX12 enabled.
They basically say they don't want to support anything that's not OpenGL (or DirectX), but it doesn't mean that Metal could not power their Benchmark. The only "graphical" feature that I know is missing from Metal is geometry shaders, but according to many they can be replaced by compute shaders in most cases. Metal may miss particular optimisation-oriented functionalities that are present in DX12 or Vulkan, but these are not required to achieve desired graphical results. Metal is, by design, more efficient than openGL anyway.
I only ran the test on 3 presets.
1080p Extreme Preset 6070
1080p Medium Preset 22736
4k Optimized Preset 9836
1080p Extreme Preset 6070
1080p Medium Preset 22736
4k Optimized Preset 9836
Last edited:
Yep, the 3.46 Mac Pro will trail behind that by around 10%, but honestly, it's a lot less than I thought. I feel better about putting a 1070/1080 in a 5,1 now.
According to an 7700k bench above, the Mac Pro 5,1 is actually faster!
Seems like regardless, the Westmere doesn't appear to be significantly bottle-necking GPU performance....
According to an 7700k bench above, the Mac Pro 5,1 is actually faster!
Seems like regardless, the Westmere doesn't appear to be significantly bottle-necking GPU performance....
Last edited:
Whoa, I thought that running this gpu on pcie 1.1 instead of pcie 2.0 would get us much lower points in benchmarks! Nice!
Last edited: