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.
MP 7,1 W5700X Release
- Thread starter darkmatter343
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Same for me, with 10.15.5 (Public) Beta performance is stable so far (with 10.15.4 occasionally same issue like mentioned by @pwhy in #323, mainly after wake-up from sleep)
Hi guys, new user here. I just got my Mac Pro 16 cores today (been using iMac 5k 2017) and I will mainly use this with FCPX.
I've done a few export tests and I have to say I'm very disappointed with the results. It's barely faster than my iMac 5K, but slower than my Windows PC that is 1/3 of the price.
My testing is simply exporting a h.264 file (elgato game capture recording). I did my testing with Davinci Resolve so I can compare my Mac with my Windows PC. For the record, fcpx and davinci resolve both exported in almost the same exact time.
My video length is 10 minutes and I am encoding in 1080p 60fps.
The iMac 5K did it in 4:30mins, the Mac Pro did it in 3:35 mins.
But my Windows PC with 8 cores and Nvidia 1080ti finished the file in 2:35mins.
Can anyone explain this to me. I know the CPU doesn't matter much here since Davinci Resolve is using mostly the gpu for encoding. Is there anything I can change in my Mac or is the 1080ti really this much faster than my W5700X? If that's the case then I will most likely send back my Mac Pro since it's slower and 2/3 the price of my PC.
I really hope there's something obvious I'm missing here because I would love to ditch my iMac and keep my Mac Pro.
Before I ordered my Mac, I saw a video from the YouTuber Max Yuryev that explained how this is navi based gpu and should result in much faster gpu encoding, but so far I don't see it.
I've done a few export tests and I have to say I'm very disappointed with the results. It's barely faster than my iMac 5K, but slower than my Windows PC that is 1/3 of the price.
My testing is simply exporting a h.264 file (elgato game capture recording). I did my testing with Davinci Resolve so I can compare my Mac with my Windows PC. For the record, fcpx and davinci resolve both exported in almost the same exact time.
My video length is 10 minutes and I am encoding in 1080p 60fps.
The iMac 5K did it in 4:30mins, the Mac Pro did it in 3:35 mins.
But my Windows PC with 8 cores and Nvidia 1080ti finished the file in 2:35mins.
Can anyone explain this to me. I know the CPU doesn't matter much here since Davinci Resolve is using mostly the gpu for encoding. Is there anything I can change in my Mac or is the 1080ti really this much faster than my W5700X? If that's the case then I will most likely send back my Mac Pro since it's slower and 2/3 the price of my PC.
I really hope there's something obvious I'm missing here because I would love to ditch my iMac and keep my Mac Pro.
Before I ordered my Mac, I saw a video from the YouTuber Max Yuryev that explained how this is navi based gpu and should result in much faster gpu encoding, but so far I don't see it.
Last edited:
Edit: never mind, read your post more closely and saw that you already answered what I was asking lol
Last edited:
I bought my Mac Pro with W5700X which is why I wanted to make a reply here. The gpu is indeed being used here as I am checking the stats in istat 6, cpu is barely being used. So it beat out my iMac using intel gpu quicksync by 1 minute, but still lost to my gaming PC with 1080ti. Ideally, I would love for it to be as fast or faster than my gaming cpu since I am primarily playing on that while I need a second device to encode at the same time. I've been using iMac 5k 2017 until now.
The quality is perfectly fine for my job, which is uploading to youtube. I understand software encoding will always be better but because of YouTube compression, this doesn't matter as much for my content. And based on what I have read and watched, the hardware encoder in this should be much faster than previous generation. I didn't just go and buy the Mac Pro for fun, if it works as fast as it should then it will save me time and earn more revenue. Here is the video I mentioned in my previous reply showing the speed improvement in Navi based Gpu:
Sorry I can't help with the question, still waiting on mine. May I ask what date you placed the order with Apple? And what options? (Mine is 16 core / W5700X / 2 TB SSD, placed 4/15.)
I ordered it 21st of April and got told it would arrive 15th of May. A few days after I ordered, I got an update that it will be delivered on the 5th of May instead. Same specs as you but I chose 1TB SSD.
What an entirely ignorant thing to say. Nicely done.
I don't know exactly what the NVidia Pascal encoder can do from an FPS perspective. I suspect the AMD encoder in the new Navi is still behind NVidia's. Team Green has had a huge head start with this tech; remember they've been doing this since the Keplers in 2012!
After my W5700X went walkabout and TNT misplaced it for about a week, it arrived, is installed, and I even admitted to my wife that I bought it (she remains unconvinced this is a "gift" for "us").
I had the Thunderbolt pop up annoyance, so, did the supplemental update for 10.15.4 again and that cleared that up for now. Not quite wanting to jump onto the Beta Train for this machine, but it's good to hear that 10.15.5 is looking stable.
However, now I've got the 580X sitting in the box the W5700X came from...is there any reason NOT to install it in the MacPro and use it as well? I see plenty of others doing something similar with Vega IIs and the W5700X, but, not sure if there's a downside to having both the Radeon W5700X in the system at the same time as the 580X.
I know that it's likely going to be software dependant as to whether or not things are taken full advantage of, but, I'm wondering if anyone has done this and actually noticed that it's a BAD thing to do (like, for example, macOS somehow preferring the 580X and not getting full benefit from the W5700X for rendering time or whatnot).
Would be great to know if this is a really bad idea before I open it all up again...
I had the Thunderbolt pop up annoyance, so, did the supplemental update for 10.15.4 again and that cleared that up for now. Not quite wanting to jump onto the Beta Train for this machine, but it's good to hear that 10.15.5 is looking stable.
However, now I've got the 580X sitting in the box the W5700X came from...is there any reason NOT to install it in the MacPro and use it as well? I see plenty of others doing something similar with Vega IIs and the W5700X, but, not sure if there's a downside to having both the Radeon W5700X in the system at the same time as the 580X.
I know that it's likely going to be software dependant as to whether or not things are taken full advantage of, but, I'm wondering if anyone has done this and actually noticed that it's a BAD thing to do (like, for example, macOS somehow preferring the 580X and not getting full benefit from the W5700X for rendering time or whatnot).
Would be great to know if this is a really bad idea before I open it all up again...
I would think that unless you need a second video card to drive more displays, there's no real advantage to having it installed. Also, potentially a disadvantage as there's more memory, system management (PCIE lanes in use for TB controllers, DisplayPort upstream etc.) and increased thermal load inside the machine.
Unless you need the 580X, there will be 0 benefit to keeping it installed IMO. Though I guess it does provide additional Thunderbolt 3 ports, and if you do go dual or triple monitor it takes the load of one of the video processors?
I'd not want to waste a perfectly good card though either, so I feel your "hesitation".
Unless you need the 580X, there will be 0 benefit to keeping it installed IMO. Though I guess it does provide additional Thunderbolt 3 ports, and if you do go dual or triple monitor it takes the load of one of the video processors?
I'd not want to waste a perfectly good card though either, so I feel your "hesitation".
How about for the system-routed displayport streams you get from the 580x? If you ever see yourself plugging in a monitor to the I/O card or top ports, it could be useful to know that every port has displayport capabilities.
The W5700X can feed those. You are just limited to 2 streams total between the I/O card and top ports IIRC. But if you do exceed the limits here, you probably know it already.
So... it seems like until the next update of FCPX and macOS, the HEVC hardware encoder on the W5700X it not well utilize?
The 580X has no Thunderbolt ports on the card. It has HDMI ports which is a better match if have more HDMI input monitors. The Thunderbolt advantage it has is that it can feed the top (or front in rack model). Thunderbolt ports with two DisplayPort Feeds. The W5700X and Vega II 'solo' don't appear to. Those can get one DisplayPort stream to the top by diverting one of the streams that could feed the back I/O ports.
For those who will never try to plug a monitor directly or downstream on a TB chain into the top ports then they won't miss much on the Thunderbolt abilities front. Most folks are probably going to conventionally hang monitors off the back of the Mac Pro 2019.
The top ports can be several inches closer to the desktop if the system is under a desk and the desktop surface is raised high. After a certain length, Thunderbolt cables get substantively more expensive.
Last edited:
Highly depends upon your primary, high workload applications. If they basically ignore the second GPU for computational work then there is dual edged benefit/costs. Similar to issues the Mac Pro 2013 ran into when more than a few apps couldn't leverage the two GPUs present.
For apps that are aware and can get "divide and conquer" parallel work, it is performance you have essentially already paid for that your are leaving on the floor ( or in the closet). The 580X wouldn't halve the compute time, but it would lower it for the apps that can do something with it. If getting wall clock time back then the extra power used isn't so even dual edged. ( W5700X + 580X pretty much close the gap the Vega II 'solo' has on the W5700X by itself.). Other apps will 'freak out' as they aren't perfectly symmetrical or can't divide problem or have constraint have to do all work out of the same graphics frame buffer ( same card as monitor(s) is attached to)
If you are out of PCI-e slots then there is the opportunity cost of getting in another card that can do something else besides GPU work, but if most of the slots are empty anyway there can be other places for that card. Could also have a very high bandwidth requirement card that really needs 'unswitched' slot 3 x16 lanes. Or if have another modern AMD GPU card faster than the 580X in the closet then could use that instead in MPX bay 2.
Thanks, very helpful to me, appreciate it. Hesitant to ask for more, but if you don't mind, could you tell me your general location (country, anyway), or if you know where it shipped from (privately is ok too). (Just getting a little background for when I talk to Apple again after I finally get it. They screwed up my order, obviously put it back in 15 days later after I talked to them for the third time, with the same quoted delivery as if I's placed it new that day. Then gave me a vague "supply issues" reason, but couldn't elaborate.)
Brand new Mac Pro... 16 core 96gb w5700x blah blah... dam thing freezes daily. I just got it this week. Tried disabling sleep, to see how it helps... I assume it's related to the w5700?
Last edited:
Hmmm, mine hasn’t frozen with that new card, yet... seems to sleep fine. Just resetting PRAM?
I'll give that a shot. It seems only happen after letting it sit over night.. i.e: When waking it up from sleep. The UI becomes very sluggish to the point that it just freezes.
Yeah, that could be PRAM then. Everyone is saying to wait for the new macOS update... it’ll fix everything. I’ve been told that for years!
That also happens with the 16 inch MBP and auto graphics switching + sleep, I think it has something to do with the Navi drivers. It's too coincidental the 5500M and W5700X both have issues with sleeping.
I always disable auto sleep anyway though, so I haven't run into it.
I always disable auto sleep anyway though, so I haven't run into it.