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

[phobos]

I would also advise to get the Vega 64 option.
The more memory will come in handy in the future.
You might not take advantage of it now but you very well might be in a few years.
Especially if you don’t intend to replace the machine in 2 years.

More memory works great for GPU rendering, if you’re gaming and also in other applications like Resolve.

The only reason I would see going for the Vega 56 is if the machine ran colder and spent less energy. Vega 64 is a power hog. It’s not the most efficient card ever. It’s AMD trying to catch up to NVidia. But even then the more memory would win for me at least

 

[Double-Slit]

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

Thanks for sharing your insights. You are right, I don't want 2 machines, one for gaming and one for home use. So the basic iMac Pro kills two birds with one stone, home use and gaming in one. The VR gaming part is for my son, so he will be doing that occasionally. So, the basic iMac Pro should be the right choice for me.

 

[lorddevil]

Yeah if you have the money you can't go wrong with the basic model - I am pretty sure it will handle VR good enough for normal use and is a great machine overall - good enough for several years to come . And also the resell value in a few years may be better with the basic model - simply because due to the overpriced components of apple noone will give you the money back in a few years.

Especially in a 1-2 years the GPU will already be out powered by better options, thus the small difference in performance of 56 and 64 won't pay off in any logic way
[doublepost=1514657958][/doublepost]

I would also advise to get the Vega 64 option.
The more memory will come in handy in the future.
You might not take advantage of it now but you very well might be in a few years.
Especially if you don’t intend to replace the machine in 2 years.

More memory works great for GPU rendering, if you’re gaming and also in other applications like Resolve.

The only reason I would see going for the Vega 56 is if the machine ran colder and spent less energy. Vega 64 is a power hog. It’s not the most efficient card ever. It’s AMD trying to catch up to NVidia. But even then the more memory would win for me at least

I would advise the exact opposite . The additional 8GB is total overkill for today (expect for very rare and specific use cases) and if you should ever need more video RAM in the future then you will probably also need much more video power where you need to rely on an eGPU instead of the vega graphic - let alone the high power consumption of vega 64 for a mere 10% perf gain.....

Always remember the VEGA 56 nor the 64 are truly high end graphic cards. They are good but nothing you will rely on in a few years!

Don't feel forced into those upgrades because of someone saying it is more future proofed - non of the imac pros will be future proof and you never get the value of upgrades back later on.

Look at today Imacs from 2012 they have good value, but not many care about configurations. Most just put an external SSD to it (thats what I did for my wifes mac) - because that cost you 100 bucks. so where can you satisfy 1000€ extra cost 5 years ago

 

[phobos]

I would advise the exact opposite . The additional 8GB is total overkill for today (expect for very rare and specific use cases)

It definitely depends on the use case. For GPU rendering for example it’s ok. Not amazing put you won’t have to constantly optimize your scene like you would have to with 8GB. But yeah it’s not for everyone.

It is unfortunate that the Vega series are not good performers. Vega 64 can almost catch up to Nvidia’s 1080, and by using a lot more power to do that. But both Vega 56 and 64 are good enough. So no matter what the OP will choose he’ll be fine.

 

[phren0logy]

For me, the real wild card is how Apple, and developers, will handle GPU compute.

The speed difference between the two options is pretty modest, but 8GB vs 16GB of VRAM might end up making a huge difference as software with CoreML behind it start to roll out. Or, it might not. I am considering the Vega64 almost entirely for the increased VRAM, but it's a gamble if it will ever be useful. The main reason I'm looking at is that I can't change it later, and I think it's a fair bet that there will be considerably more GPU compute applications in the coming few years.

 

[floridaman]

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.

Originally the Vega 64 was supposed to be part of the standard configuration then Apple decides to milk more money from the consumer and make it an expensive upgrade. Apple always seems to take at least one shortcut on their products and in this case it was the Vega 56 instead of Vega 64. What they should have done was make the Vega 64 standard and then offered a better video card as an upgrade.

 

[lorddevil]

For me, the real wild card is how Apple, and developers, will handle GPU compute.

The speed difference between the two options is pretty modest, but 8GB vs 16GB of VRAM might end up making a huge difference as software with CoreML behind it start to roll out. Or, it might not. I am considering the Vega64 almost entirely for the increased VRAM, but it's a gamble if it will ever be useful. The main reason I'm looking at is that I can't change it later, and I think it's a fair bet that there will be considerably more GPU compute applications in the coming few years.

I totally understand that - but regardless on how the future comes out - the vega is still not a top of the line card - so if at any point in time it should be required to use 16GB RAM you will have plenty of options to buy an even cheaper eGPU at that time by saving those 600 bucks now with which you will outperform everything you know yet quite easily

And you can be sure it will take at least 1-2 more years till you "require it" - except for those specific use cases today - which I am sure almost 90% of imac pro users don't need yet - but feel the need because of the fear of missing something which won't happen anytime soon
We are now in a stage where we barely use over 4GB of video ram, except in those rare special cases like high quality rendering or high quality 4k gaming, 8k video editing etc. -> some of this stuff usually requires a SLI setups of premium graphic cards or real workstation GPUs to be on the safe side anyway.
[doublepost=1514667936][/doublepost]

Originally the Vega 64 was supposed to be part of the standard configuration then Apple decides to milk more money from the consumer and make it an expensive upgrade. Apple always seems to take at least one shortcut on their products and in this case it was the Vega 56 instead of Vega 64. What they should have done was make the Vega 64 standard and then offered a better video card as an upgrade.

Totally agree and if they would have made something like a Titan X or a special Workstation GPU as an upgrade - I would be the first to agree having the top of the line card makes sense - at least if you need the power - be it for 4k hq gaming, 8k video editing, rendering or other special uses.
But now if you are smart, safe your bucks and get the 56 - you won't notice any difference

 

[BornAgainMac]

I wonder when we will see Thunderbolt 3 GPUs.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

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.

If you think VR is in your future then the 64 (16gb) is a no brainer.
[doublepost=1514908207][/doublepost]A lot of people saying the vega is not a top of the line card here!!

That is nonsense it is only beaten by the NVidia 1080 in benchmarks, and it's set up as a workstation card for compute and pro graphics rendering not for gaming.

It is the second best single graphics card you can buy at the moment that is top of the line in anyones book.

 

[BigBagaroo]

I wonder when we will see Thunderbolt 3 GPUs.

How would that work iMac Pro? Since it has a built-in screen? Not sure how these external GPUs will work.

 

[dimensional]

How would that work iMac Pro? Since it has a built-in screen? Not sure how these external GPUs will work.

I think those external GPUs have to drive other monitors ... i.e. the monitor needs to be connected directly to the GPU. This is because the GPU is communicating raw uncompressed graphics data to the monitor at the maximum frame rate and this traffic would swamp the Thunderbolt 3 connection.

 

[h9826790]

If you think VR is in your future then the 64 (16gb) is a no brainer.
[doublepost=1514908207][/doublepost]A lot of people saying the vega is not a top of the line card here!!

That is nonsense it is only beaten by the NVidia 1080 in benchmarks, and it's set up as a workstation card for compute and pro graphics rendering not for gaming.

It is the second best single graphics card you can buy at the moment that is top of the line in anyones book.

I think it is also beaten by the 1080Ti, Titan X, Titan Xp, and most likely those not yet supported (in MacOS) Volta GPU.

 

[sputnikBA]

Has anyone been able to work out what the power draw on the custom Vega 56 & 64 units are yet?

They are obviously using downclocked parts so the official AMD numbers aren’t useful.

 

[PickUrPoison]

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.

Software developers are one class of users who can benefit immensely from a 10-core iMac Pro. It could even be argued it’s the best use case (Xcode) for an all-in-one Pro vs. a traditional Mac Pro. If you can afford it, it’s a no-brainer (vs. the regular iMac). The OP also mentioned doing a lot of virtualization, another no-brainer for the 10-core iMac Pro as spec’ed, over a quad core iMac.

Given the lack of upgradability, I’d be inclined to go with the Vega 64, if the extra $600 is affordable. I have no idea about it’s actual applicability to VR development, hopefully someone can answer that specifically.

But given that you make your living as a developer, and can’t predict what type of projects you’ll be working on—and that you’re talking maybe $10/month after tax if you use this machine for 3 years before you sell it—I’d probably spend the extra money.

 

[BornAgainMac]

How would that work iMac Pro? Since it has a built-in screen? Not sure how these external GPUs will work.

The built-in screen would continue to use the crappy Vega 64 card. I suppose you can do basic things like run Calendar or Terminal on your main Mac 5K screen. Then you use an external GPU connected to another external 5K or higher monitor for your real stuff.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

The built-in screen would continue to use the crappy Vega 64 card. I suppose you can do basic things like run Calendar or Terminal on your main Mac 5K screen. Then you use an external GPU connected to another external 5K or higher monitor for your real stuff.

It’s the 6th fastest single graphics card you can buy period and 3 of those that beat it are variations on the 1080 the other two are titans. It is not a crappy graphics card by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Precursor]

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

I'd personally go for 1 TB SSD and upgrade to Vega 64. You can expand your storage easily via TB3 but you won't have a chance to upgrade your VGA through the years.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

I think those external GPUs have to drive other monitors ... i.e. the monitor needs to be connected directly to the GPU. This is because the GPU is communicating raw uncompressed graphics data to the monitor at the maximum frame rate and this traffic would swamp the Thunderbolt 3 connection.

Technically, eGPUs can be used to drive internal monitors, but at a 10-20% performance hit (depending on resolution). As far as I know, you can only do this in Windows presently. So on the Mac end, it's external monitors only.
[doublepost=1516941336][/doublepost]

I'd personally go for 1 TB SSD and upgrade to Vega 64. You can expand your storage easily via TB3 but you won't have a chance to upgrade your VGA through the years.

Yeah, drop to a 1TB SSD and buy the Vega64.

1TB should be plenty for a working drive (I would have gone with 512GB if I could have). Any long-term storage should be on an external drive anyway, in case your Mac decides not to boot one day. A 4TB external drive split between Time Machine and Long-Term document storage is perfect.

 

[Mac32]

..