Resolved Vega 56 (8GB) vs Vega 64 (16GB)

[farslan]

Hi everyone,

Lately I'm following this forum for information related to the iMac Pro as I'm thinking to get one. I want to get with the configuration: 10Core, 2GB SSD and 64GB memory. However I don't know if I should stay with the Vega 56 (8Gb) or should upgrade it to Vega 64 (16GB) ?

I'm going to use this machine for years, so part of me says it's definitely worth it. However it's another upgrade, which means it increases the overall cost.

Thanks

 

[pajako]

I ordered the 64 with 16GB for the same reason: hoping to get some extea speed out of it (Adobe: please let apps make use of the iMac Pro raw power in more apps than just video-related) and hoping to be more futureproof.
And the extea cost is a relative cheap upgrade.

 

[Bryan Bowler]

To better answer your question, we need to know what type of things you need a computer for.

 

[farslan]

To better answer your question, we need to know what type of things you need a computer for.

Hi Bryan. Sure thing. I'm a Software engineer and do mostly low level backend stuff. I'm doing virtualization a lot so the 64GB will come handy. On the other hand, I'm a hobbyist photographer and sometimes I shoot vlogs. For photos I use Apple Photos or Lightroom (depending on what I want to do).

You might think that I should pick up a normal iMac. The reason I want to get the iMac Pro is due it's multi-core and ram capabilities.

I'm a professional software developer, and I want it to be future proof. I'm currently working on backend stuff, but that might change very easily to something more heavy duty going forward (maybe some VR stuff for example). Because I'm earning my money out of software and consulting, I can justify the purchase somehow. But despite this, I'm not sure about the graphic card so much. For example I've upgraded to the 10 core because that's the sweet point and everyone is on the same page. Likewise, I need the 2TB SSD as I have a lot of media. I'm curious why people choose the Vega 64 over the Vega 56.

Thanks again.

 

[Strelok]

I’m not sure how this translates to computational workloads/benchmarks, but in gaming the 64 is barely faster than the 56 although you can overclock in custom rigs. I would try to find some reviews that use benchmarks that are similar/relevant to your usage.

 

[maflynn]

I'm a professional software developer, and I want it to be future proof. I'm currently working on backend stuff, but that might change very easily to something more heavy duty going forward (maybe some VR stuff for example). Because I'm earning my money out of software and consulting, I can justify the purchase somehow. But despite this, I'm not sure about the graphic card so much. For example I've upgraded to the 10 core because that's the sweet point and everyone is on the same page. Likewise, I need the 2TB SSD as I have a lot of media. I'm curious why people choose the Vega 64 over the Vega 56.

I'm going to go against the grain, and say your stated usage will be handled easily by the non Pro iMac. I don't think you'll benefit that much for spending the amount of money apple asking for the Pro machine. The only wild card is VR if you're intent in developing for that, but other then that, the regular iMac is more then enough computer.,

 

[CWallace]

Based on reviews, it sounds like the Vega 64 is more an "immediate need" purchase (as in my job needs this power) than a "future-proofing" purchase. They're very similar in most respects, with the 64 being clocked a bit higher and having 256 texture units versus 224 in the 56. Annandtech did a review of both cards (PCIe format with 8GB each) and the difference between them in compute tasks was between 2 and 10 seconds and the Geekbench favoring the 64 by less than 5%. The main advantage of the 64 over the 56 was 3D texture fill rates, which ranged between 15-20% better in terms of gigapixels/gigatexels per second - not surprising with the additional texture units on the 64.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review

So if you do or plan to do a lot of 3D computer modeling, then the 64 is the way to go. If not, you're likely better off saving the money and staying with the 56.

 

[farslan]

I'm going to go against the grain, and say your stated usage will be handled easily by the non Pro iMac. I don't think you'll benefit that much for spending the amount of money apple asking for the Pro machine. The only wild card is VR if you're intent in developing for that, but other then that, the regular iMac is more then enough computer.,

I know you want to help but this is really not helpful. I already decided to get the iMac Pro, my question is about the graphic cards choice. Nevertheless, thanks for the advice.
[doublepost=1514301094][/doublepost]

Based on reviews, it sounds like the Vega 64 is more an "immediate need" purchase (as in my job needs this power) than a "future-proofing" purchase. They're very similar in most respects, with the 64 being clocked a bit higher and having 256 texture units versus 224 in the 56. Annandtech did a review of both cards (PCIe format with 8GB each) and the difference between them in compute tasks was between 2 and 10 seconds and the Geekbench favoring the 64 by less than 5%. The main advantage of the 64 over the 56 was 3D texture fill rates, which ranged between 15-20% better in terms of gigapixels/gigatexels per second - not surprising with the additional texture units on the 64.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review

So if you do or plan to do a lot of 3D computer modeling, then the 64 is the way to go. If not, you're likely better off saving the money and staying with the 56.

Thanks a lot! This is a perfect answer and answers my question indeed. Seems like the base model will be good enough for my needs then.

 

[maflynn]

I know you want to help but this is really not helpful. I already decided to get the iMac Pro, my question is about the graphic cards choice. Nevertheless, thanks for the advice.

I'm offering my opinion due to the excessive price that apple is charging. I'm thinking why spend that much money when you don't need that class of machine.

Anyways the lower level GPU should be more then enough on the iMac Pro

 

[FredT2]

I'm offering my opinion due to the excessive price that apple is charging. I'm thinking why spend that much money when you don't need that class of machine.

Anyways the lower level GPU should be more then enough on the iMac Pro

Still not helpful. The price of the iMac Pro is not "excessive" but rather reflective of the components used.

 

[maflynn]

Still not helpful. The price of the iMac Pro is not "excessive" but rather reflective of the components used.

I disagree, the OP is asking for purchase advise and I offered. Why spend close to 8K on a computer that seems to be overkill for his stated usage. Its his money, but I'm free to convey my opinion that he may be better off with something else.

One thing I noticed here, its a general statement, not directed to the OP, is that people are flocking to the iMac Pro for reasons other then needing a professional workstation. Whether its because its cool looking (no argument), it's new and the latest from Apple, or because they think more cores equates to longer years without needing to upgrade.

Just scroll down and people want to spend 5k to 8k on the iMac Pro to play games.

Back to the OP, he's free to buy what he wants, its his money but since he started a thread asking for purchase advise, I offered my opinion in the vein to be helpful. Whether you or he agrees with it, is up to you.

 

[Shivetya]

Give up maflynn, he wants his space gray computer, its obvious his research was nil before making that decision hence any contrary opinion will be met with disdain. Just stoke his ego and say that he was right and should go for the 64.

 

[farslan]

Give up maflynn, he wants his space gray computer, its obvious his research was nil before making that decision hence any contrary opinion will be met with disdain. Just stoke his ego and say that he was right and should go for the 64.

Can you please stop diverging the thread? I just want opinions on the graphic cards. Why does this have to be like this now? Not cool.

 

[maflynn]

Can you please stop diverging the thread? I just want opinions on the graphic cards. Why does this have to be like this now? Not cool.

I apologize, Its your money and your decision. Like I said, the low end GPU is more then enough for your stated tasks.

 

[joema2]

...I'm a Software engineer and do mostly low level backend stuff. I'm doing virtualization a lot so the 64GB will come handy. On the other hand, I'm a hobbyist photographer and sometimes I shoot vlogs. For photos I use Apple Photos or Lightroom (depending on what I want to do)....I'm curious why people choose the Vega 64 over the Vega 56...

Given the currently limited real-world application benchmarks, it's difficult to answer whether Vega 64 would be useful in your projected workload over Vega 56. Synthetic benchmarks like Geekbench OpenCL may not accurately reflect the performance difference in a specific application. If you can wait a few weeks, there will be a lot more testing by 3rd parties using applications that cover a wider more realistic spectrum.

One reason for getting the best GPU is it cannot be upgraded and the general trend in software development is to increasingly leverage the GPU. OTOH Adobe LR and Photoshop overall don't do a great job of using the GPU. But this could easily change in the future. The Vega 56 GPU is significantly faster than the RP 580 in the top iMac. How much faster Vega 64 vs Vega 56 is in various real world tests -- that I'd like to know myself.

 

[crw]

One other aspect that is important in this discussion is the additional 8GB memory with the Vega 64 upgrade. While the additional execution units of the 64 over the 56 only provide a 5-20% bump (depending on the benchmark) certain use cases may benefit much more significantly from the additional memory. Though I don't think the memory would make much of a difference for the OP's outlined uses, it could benefit others.

 

[bxs]

Hi everyone,

Lately I'm following this forum for information related to the iMac Pro as I'm thinking to get one. I want to get with the configuration: 10Core, 2GB SSD and 64GB memory. However I don't know if I should stay with the Vega 56 (8Gb) or should upgrade it to Vega 64 (16GB) ?

I'm going to use this machine for years, so part of me says it's definitely worth it. However it's another upgrade, which means it increases the overall cost.

Thanks

A $600 upgrade cost is small change for your stated multi-year use of the machine. At this time the GPU cannot be upgraded and may or may not provide significant improved productivity for you. Given the $600 for an ~$8000 cost already you're looking at spending some 7% more for the Vega 64. For me, there would be no hesitation for spending the extra $600. Some will argue you should validate the need upgrading from the 56 to the 64, but you may hang around for months or even a year before you feel you've got a good sense for spending the extra $600. It certainly will not be worse than the Vega 56 so my advice is to simple fork out that $600 knowing it will provide a benefit of some level and this will remove any future angst for having not spent the $600 a year or two down the line.

 

[Bryan Bowler]

Hi Bryan. Sure thing. I'm a Software engineer and do mostly low level backend stuff. I'm doing virtualization a lot so the 64GB will come handy. On the other hand, I'm a hobbyist photographer and sometimes I shoot vlogs. For photos I use Apple Photos or Lightroom (depending on what I want to do).

You might think that I should pick up a normal iMac. The reason I want to get the iMac Pro is due it's multi-core and ram capabilities.

I'm a professional software developer, and I want it to be future proof. I'm currently working on backend stuff, but that might change very easily to something more heavy duty going forward (maybe some VR stuff for example). Because I'm earning my money out of software and consulting, I can justify the purchase somehow. But despite this, I'm not sure about the graphic card so much. For example I've upgraded to the 10 core because that's the sweet point and everyone is on the same page. Likewise, I need the 2TB SSD as I have a lot of media. I'm curious why people choose the Vega 64 over the Vega 56.

Thanks again.

Thank you for expanding on your current and future usage. I understand your desire for an iMac Pro. As for the major differences between the Vega 56 and Vega 64, as Joema2 has already pointed out, we don't have enough real-world results yet, but that will change over the next 4-6 weeks as both of these cards are deployed out into the world. And it's going to be very important to seek out how these two models perform within your field of needs. Synthetic benchmarks can be very misleading and so can real-world results in different areas of computing and software utilization. So, as you're already doing here, you'll need to seek out the results for programmers, VR developers, etc and see how things pan out in that field. Hopefully, we'll start to see these questions answered in the next month or two.

As for me, I'm a content creator (photography and video production), so I am unable to offer any useful information on the software development side of things. I'm sure some smart people will chime in here with good info as soon as we know more.

If you prefer not to wait that long to place your order, then as rudimentary of an answer as this is, I would suggest upgrading to the Vega 64 simply based of the fact that you cannot upgrade the Graphics later and it's only a $600 upgrade on a $7,500 (+/-) computer. You're only bumping up the cost by approx 8%. And it may very well extend the life of usefulness for you by a year or three.

 

[matrahaim]

Can you please stop diverging the thread? I just want opinions on the graphic cards. Why does this have to be like this now? Not cool.

It has to be this way for someone because they always need to be right and need other people to admit they are right. And actually I am kind of the same. I understand that you want an iMac Pro and are going to buy an iMac Pro no matter what anyone says and that is totally fine. But why lie to yourself and say you need it to be future proof for your work. For the price you pay for it you can buy a new maxed 27” iMac every third year, and the one you buy 3 years from now will be equal or probably more powerful than the iMac Pro you buy today the one you buy 6 years from now will be leaps and bounds faster. So justifying it by saying it will be a better investment for future proofing is plain wrong.

Simply saying that you want an iMac Pro because you want it is OK. But to tell everyone one need that kind of computer for your tasks in a forum will only make others reading this think they might need it as well making them take decisions made based on simply wrong information.

However based on you plainly wanting and going to buy the iMac Pro i will say. You don’t need the upgraded vega 64 for what you describe. But as other people it is not possible to upgrade later and IF you ever go into VR you will want the Vega 64 over the vega 56.


And yeah I will freely admit I want an iMac Pro myself. And I am likely to buy one and yeah I will use it mostly for gaming which is both overkill and underwhelming at the same time. I can get a Windows computer that will run circles around the iMac Pro when it comes to frame rate in gaming for 2,5k but I hate Windows and want better performance than the top specced iMac can get. So either I buy a windows computer and stop gaming because I hate windows that much or I buy an iMac Pro and continue to game and stay happy even though people tell me I waste money. But I will never tell myself I need it I know the iMac is good enough for the games I play at the moment it simply that I want the iMac Pro.

 

[barefeats]

With the trend by pro apps toward 'enlisting' the GPU to do (or at least share) the load of work, I opted for the optional Pro Vega 64. For example, when you add one or more nodes of noise reduction in DaVinci Resolve, the on-the-fly-render during playback is pure GPU. It even lets you choose which GPU to use and what rendering method (OpenCL, Metal, or CUDA). If you are rendering 3D scenes with Blender, it lets you choose GPUs only and rendering method (OpenCL or CUDA). Of course, the Vega doesn't speak CUDA but for those of us using NVIDIA GPUs in Mac Pro towers or in eGPU boxes, that's a useful option.

 

[Hotshoe]

I disagree, the OP is asking for purchase advise and I offered. Why spend close to 8K on a computer that seems to be overkill for his stated usage. Its his money, but I'm free to convey my opinion that he may be better off with something else.

One thing I noticed here, its a general statement, not directed to the OP, is that people are flocking to the iMac Pro for reasons other then needing a professional workstation. Whether its because its cool looking (no argument), it's new and the latest from Apple, or because they think more cores equates to longer years without needing to upgrade.

Just scroll down and people want to spend 5k to 8k on the iMac Pro to play games.

Back to the OP, he's free to buy what he wants, its his money but since he started a thread asking for purchase advise, I offered my opinion in the vein to be helpful. Whether you or he agrees with it, is up to you.

I custom ordered a well spec'ed i7 iMac a couple months back thinking that I shouldn't need an iMac pro (use cases are software development, music production, and photography). The price w/ 1TB SSD and 32GB ram starts to encroach on the new iMac Pro 8-core base model, which made it a hard decision at the time. I did an LR import w/ smart previews of some big 50MP raws and the i7 couldn't pump heat out fast enough. I went to sleep on it and the next day my machine was unresponsive, and when I rebooted it was in an endless boot cycle with red vertical bars on screen. Possibly a hardware defect, but can't rule out thermals as root cause. Anyway, that was enough for me. Apple agreed the machine was foobar and took it back, and I decided to wait it out for the new iMac Pro base model -- which I have now and am very happy with. Considering the cost delta, I think the pro is a good value -- 8 vs 4 cores, ECC memory, better GPU, + other 2nd order improvements. And of course, 8 cores in a package and cooling system designed to handle up to 18 cores, so thermals should be much less of an issue than an i7 stuffed into a system that was primarily designed and built around an i5 -- afaict.

My point is that it's difficult to assess what's right for somebody based on a short intro. I assessed for myself that I didn't really need a pro, but in retrospect it's the the better choice for me. I did need to exercise quite a bit of restraint when ordering. In particular, the 10-core option is very enticing, but then the pro vs i7 decision quickly starts to become more difficult, and one really needs to ask him or herself if the work warrants something more. For me, the answer was most definitely not.

 

[lorddevil]

I got the 32GB, 10xCore, 56 VEGA - why?

Because for my need multi core performance as much as possible to save compiling times. But the 32GB is absolutely enough for most of the normal tasks (I dont do any 8k video editing - so why pay 1000 bucks for an upgrade you dont need?). The Vega 64 is also a pretty worthless upgrade. The card in real have a 100$ price difference and yeah sure 8 GB more - if you do lot of 8K video editing then why not. But to be true the benefits of the Vega 64 are negligible in most cases. The 5-15% speed increase are not worth the price increase , especially since the ati card is not really a powerful card in comparision to nvidia stuff. So if you ever need real video performance you need a nvidia card via eGPU anyway - so thats where you can easily save some money.

I think the basic imac pro is really good value for the bang for the buck ratio (if you need the performance!) - the more upgrades you put into it - the less rentable it gets - because the upgrade prices are too high - thats where they start to milk you

Just my 2 cents,
Oliver

 

[Double-Slit]

I got the 32GB, 10xCore, 56 VEGA - why?

Because for my need multi core performance as much as possible to save compiling times. But the 32GB is absolutely enough for most of the normal tasks (I dont do any 8k video editing - so why pay 1000 bucks for an upgrade you dont need?). The Vega 64 is also a pretty worthless upgrade. The card in real have a 100$ price difference and yeah sure 8 GB more - if you do lot of 8K video editing then why not. But to be true the benefits of the Vega 64 are negligible in most cases. The 5-15% speed increase are not worth the price increase , especially since the ati card is not really a powerful card in comparision to nvidia stuff. So if you ever need real video performance you need a nvidia card via eGPU anyway - so thats where you can easily save some money.

I think the basic imac pro is really good value for the bang for the buck ratio (if you need the performance!) - the more upgrades you put into it - the less rentable it gets - because the upgrade prices are too high - thats where they start to milk you

Just my 2 cents,
Oliver

It seems that you know what you're talking about. Is the basic iMac Pro execution sufficiently equipped for playing VR games?

 

[BornAgainMac]

Vega 64 should be standard when you invest in those systems. The only thing you should be able to cut corners is memory, disk, and cores.

 

[lorddevil]

It seems that you know what you're talking about. Is the basic iMac Pro execution sufficiently equipped for playing VR games?

I would say if the imac pro with the vega 56 can't take the VR game then the 64 wouldn't cut it too. Both cards are almost the same, except that the 64 has a tiny bit more of everything but with the ridiculous high added prices tag absolutely not worth it.

People think they need this extra to make their imac worthwhile - but to be true the only good value for money imac pro (as far as you can say this from mac ) is the absolute base configuration - so due to the extremely high added prices tags of extras in apple store everything else is not really worth it - except you have a special need to satisfy it.

I don't have any experience with VR gaming - but to be true if gaming would be my focus - I would never buy a mac (never!) - windows pc all the way -> you get a much better experience at half the price for sure and you also have much more games to choose from. Since I am forced on a mac (due to iOS development) I am in the lucky position that I don't play games anymore thus it was easy to switch to a mac. Otherwise I guess I would have 2 machines - or accept a less good experience on a mac

Sure there are people buying the iMac Pro with vega 64 and all maxed, because they think they have then a killer gaming machine - but thats absolutely not the case. If you want 4K gaming etc, you need some nvidia 1080Ti - maybe in SLI - which would cost you the half of any imac pro - and would give almost twice the performance in games.

Mac is not really good for games - you can do it and it can do it well - but in my eyes, its still a big compromise - and that was also the reason why I skipped the Vega 64 - because since the 56 is not a high performance gaphic card - the 64 isn't too. And in 1-2 years both cards will be crap compared to any new cards offering out there. So you have to rely on an eGPU anyway.
If they would have added a nvidia graphic card - then I would change my mind and go for the max graphic configuration - because then you would have a high end graphic card. But since ATI isn't high end anyway - why waste money in order to have something a tiny bit better but still far below of high end stuff

Oh and to answer your question - if you want a mac and don't want to use 2 machines for gaming and work - which I totally understand - then I am pretty sure you will get a more than great machine with imac pro - and there is absolutely NO NEED to invest in any of their expensive extras which would give you ANY benefit in gaming .

Just my 2 cents,
Oliver