Jump to content


Member Since 16 Aug 2002
Offline Last Active Today, 06:01 PM

Posts I've Made

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.

In Topic: Monitor suggestions?

26 June 2020 - 06:28 AM

I agree that a Vega56 isn't going to push more than 1440p (and with some newer games that will be a stretch). There is very little on the AMD side right now that will. The good news, is that the Thunderbolt 3 bandwidth becomes less and less of a bottleneck at higher resolution, where it is more the graphics card that is challenged rather than the CPU and bandwidth of getting data to the graphics card. So you will see a much bigger spread (usually 20-25%) between internal graphics card and eGPU with the same card at lower resolutions, and a might tighter range (5-10% difference maybe) at higher resolutions.

If you want any more proof of that or to check out what a Vega 56 can do on Mac in an eGPU at 1080p and 1440p check out these benchmarks I posted about a year ago: https://egpu.io/foru...tabase-results/

I also posted them on IMG I thought but I can't find them. My 2012 Thunderbolt 1 Mac can almost keep up with the 2018 Thunderbolt 3 Mac in many games with the same eGPU.

In Topic: Civ VI released for iPads!

25 June 2020 - 05:03 AM

I haven’t played it since back when it first came out. But I took a couple games to the end and didn’t have any instability at the time. Thought it was a fantastic port - touch controls are not quite as good as mouse, but the portability on iPad is amazing.