Jump to content


Member Since 16 Aug 2002
Offline Last Active Today, 12:41 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Rosetta 2 & Intel games

15 October 2020 - 04:23 PM

I can't do a direct comparison, but I believe it.

Rise of the Tomb Raider runs equal (+/- .1% on FPS) on my 2012 Retina MBP between 10.14.x and Windows 10 (Vega 56). So stands to reason that Shadow of the Tomb Raider would as well.

My 2018 MBP in 10.14.x is ~5% faster than my 2012 MBP in 10.14.x and in Windows 10 in Rise of the Tomb Raider. And my 2018 MBP in 10.15.x is ~17% faster than my 2012 MBP in Windows 10 on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. I just can't do a direct Shadow of the Tomb Raider comparison because I don't want to load 10.15.x on my 2012 MBP and lose access to all old 32 bit games (and I can't load Windows 10 on my 2018 MBP because it is a work laptop that is locked down for security reasons).

In Topic: Rosetta 2 & Intel games

15 October 2020 - 03:11 PM

I agree with that assessment. I actually re-installed Shadow of the Tomb Raider on my 2018 13" MBP to get a sense for what the iGPU can do. It could run at 22 FPS on 1080p at Medium settings (32 FPS on Low settings at 1080p), but it clearly doesn't have the features or horsepower to drive the game at normal medium settings. It looked like garbage compared to 1080p Medium on my eGPU, and compared to the video from Apple. Granted this laptop is now 2 years old, but it has a quad-core i7 and Intel Iris Plus 655 and it can't come remotely close to what Apple was showing.

In Topic: Apple Plans to Announce Move to Its Own Chips at WWDC

14 September 2020 - 01:19 PM

It's a good question. I thought that Apple licensed the ARM instruction set from ARM, but produced all of their chipsets themselves and have for the last 6-8 years (so they haven't relied on ARM chips for 6-8 years or so, just licensing the technology). My guess is there will be some sort of conditions in the sale for it to pass anti-monopoly regulators requiring Nvidia to still license the instruction set or something like that?

Put another way, I wouldn't expect it to change too much about the Apple/NVidia relationship one way or the other.

But this is all just a guess on my part.

In Topic: 27" iMac Update: 10th Gen Intel Chips, RDNA GPUs, 10Gb Networking, and more

10 August 2020 - 11:39 AM

View PostHomy, on 09 August 2020 - 10:55 AM, said:

"To try and push the iMac to its limits, I opened 40 tabs in Chrome; the CPU hit was barely seven percent. I then fired up a few rounds of World of Tanks and blasted away at its highest settings without any impact. It was only when I used Handbrake to re-encode a video that the CPU was put to the test, but I still had plenty of power to spare.

On the Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmark (1080p, Very High settings), the iMac averaged 52.3 fps, edging past the Surface Studio 2’s score of 51 fps. On the Civilization IV benchmark, the iMac averaged 46.3 fps at 2560 x 1440, also a more than respectable score."

This is very odd to me. I got 66.95 FPS on Rise of the Tomb Raider Very High 1080p benchmark on 10.14.4 on my 2012 Retina MBP with Vega 56 eGPU. And 69.63 FPS on Rise of the Tomb Raider Very High 1080p benchmark on 10.14.4 on my 2018 13" MBP with the same Vega 56 eGPU. I would expect the iMac with 5700 XT to be much faster than that, not slower. Granted I benchmarked 10.14 not 10.15, but still.

And can you even run Civilization IV on 10.15? I assume they meant Civilization VI? Even so, 46.3 FPS at 1440p isn't as high as I might expect. On my 2018 13" MBP with Vega 56 eGPU and 10.15.6 I got 42.9 FPS on Ultra settings and 43.1 FPS on High settings for Civilization VI at 1440p. So iMac is slightly faster, but not much. Would expect much more from a much more powerful CPU and GPU, without the Thunderbolt 3 tax.

In Topic: 27" iMac Update: 10th Gen Intel Chips, RDNA GPUs, 10Gb Networking, and more

05 August 2020 - 11:54 AM

Question/suggestion for you. What about getting the more powerful Mac mini (or waiting until a new one comes out), an eGPU enclosure, an external monitor, and a Radeon 5700 XT? In the US market by my estimation this would cost $2,199. $1,299 for the 6-core Mac mini (I upgraded it to 16 GB RAM), ~$300 for a Thunderbolt 3 enclosure, ~$400 for a Radeon RX 5700 XT, ~$200 for a 27" 1440p monitor. As compared to $2,999 for the new 27" iMac with 16 GB RAM and 5700 XT.

Downside is it will likely be slightly slower due to 8th Gen processor vs. 10th Gen in iMac and a ~10-20% FPS loss on the eGPU.

Upside is $800 cheaper, 1440p is much better for gaming than 5k, and longevity/upgradeability. You won't have an unusable machine for gaming in 2-3 years. You can upgrade to a new graphics card in 2-3 years for $300-400 and get much more out of it. Mac mini should last a long time (as long as Apple supports intel Macs).

For instance, if you are curious on the performance, I am still using a Vega 56 eGPU on an 8-year old 2012 Retina MBP over Thunderbolt 1. Only in the last year (Borderlands 3 and Total War: Three Kingdoms in particular) is it starting to suffer on 1440p Very High/Ultra performance as compared to my 2018 13" MBP with Thunderbolt 3. And on Windows/Bootcamp the 2012 MBP still is great. Check out this thread I made which shows performance benchmarks of an eGPU in Windows and Mac on my 2012 15" Retina MBP and 2018 13" MBP: http://www.insidemac...howtopic=48783. Pretty impressive what an 8-year old machine can do with a modern graphics card in an eGPU.