Not sure what to give you but here are some benchmarks, and current, using Resolve 16. Yuri’s benchmark test area little more complex than the other and cover FCPX, Resolve, and Premiere, using luts stabilizers and other FX and multiple codecs to test the systems properly. H.265, Cannon Raw, and Red Raw. Doesn’t use Prores (you know, the industry standard) which is a shame, because that gap would be incredibly large.
It’s not at all a slam dunk for macs and the Window’s machine perform pretty well in Resolve in one area but lacks in almost all other.
Benchmarks are done on laptops but this would scale. Also adding more, blur, stabilizer would scale too.
It sounds like it’s been awhile since you’ve used a Mac with Resolve and especially Resolve 16 but it’s a different world than 10 years ago.
You seem kind of angry with Mac users but I’m just trying to help you out.
Like I said before, I’m straight up jealous of how well 3D applications run on Nvidia and windows far outpaces Macs in this field. But will that be forever?
I can’t speak for the houses that you work at only what I know, but you can see, if you catch it, what artist are using at the highest of levels in their promo videos.
Here is Mark Toia (An industry go to DP/Director talking about the RED 8K Helium (That means 8K raw footage being cut and graded). And what does he use to handle this monster footage? (no pun)… It’s MacOS …00:31, 1:50, 2:10 with the most important set of minutes in the video 4:30 Even three years ago MacBooks could handle 8K RAW footage. That’s right a laptop working with 8K RAW footage in realtime. Not sure if windows laptops can even do that to this day, especially without having to optimize media in Resolve LOL.
The internet forums keep chirping that no one is using MACs but I keep finding that the opposite is the case.
This is a good video to watch just for the sake of workflow…
hey guys, I think we all live in our little bubbles.
can just add my 5 cents:
I work as a commercial and feature film director, mostly in Europe and Asia. And I still see lot’s of Macs in advertising agencies and editing houses (Mostly Premiere and Avids. I refuse to edit on FCPX).
hell, in EVERY meeting the table looks like in an apple store!
funny story, I did commercials for big phone competitors of apple…and even those brand people used iPhones!!
to be fair I have to add, that I rarely see Macs in the 3D departments of post houses. (honestly don’t remember how it was years ago, since I was less interested in CG at the time.)
and besides…I live by the rule, that only current apple users are allowed to bash apple, current window users are allowed to bash PC’s.
oh…and believe me, as an apple user I condemn apple for lot’s of bad decisions (like dumping NVIDIA and ruining FCP for me). but…I also very much appreciate the sweet apple’s benefits.
You’ve created a little bubble reality for yourself where you can make these glib statements and need not provide proof or context.
The reality of the Mac Pro is that the current one is 6 years old and the new one still isn’t released. Everyone I know who would’ve been interested in updating their Classic Mac Pros have already bought PC workstations. No business can go six years and not update a product and expect customers to be waiting, they aren’t. There’s a reason why FCPX has virtually zero penetration into Film and TV post production after nearly 8 years.
The whole workstation market has changed since the classic Mac Pro and Apple aborted Trashcan released. AMD have produced far better processors with game-changing price/performance ratios that cannot be ignored.
The 28 core Xeon W that the new Mac Pro uses is $7500, the current 32 core Threadripper is $1800 if not less if you shop around. The 16 core Ryzen CPU will beat every single Mac Pro up to 16 cores and give the 24 core a run for it’s money, for just $750. The 3rd Gen Threadripper is a vastly superior Workstation chip with high clock speed and 64 threads and it’s going to be priced around $2000. There are 48 core versions coming too later next year.
$6000 for the base Mac Pro gets you an 8 core, AMD rx580 which is a 3 year old GPU and 256GB SSD. $6k would easily buy a 32 core TR, dual 2080TI and 1TB SSD. The comparison couldn’t be more stark.
A fully loaded 28 core Mac Pro is going to push $20k*, I will be able to buy 2 if not 3 faster workstations for the same money. You be the one to approach your boss and ask to spend 2-3 times the money on a Mac and see how he takes it. It’s pure economics and about running a business competitively.
*$6000 + CPU Upgrade $7500, GPUs at a guess are going to be minimum $999 for Single $1999 for Dual version. (Look how much Apple charges for iMac Pro GPU upgrades $400 to go from 8GB VRAM to 16GB! SSD upgrade $400. This doesn’t even include memory upgrades.
Spend a few minutes on PC parts picker and see if you can spend anything like $9k on a 32 core 4 GPU build.
So basically you have no response to his actual argument and you are now making this about price. Why not address what he actually wrote, which was to completely destroy your uninformed FUD argument that Macs don’t outperform PCs especially in the professional video market you claim to work in.
This is what you wrote “Apple have never been at the forefront of performance, ever.” and what he responded to quite thoroughly I may say (and cordially considering your responses).
Anyway back on topic. I personally take the metal vs OpenCL thing with a grain of salt. At the end of the day the answer will always be it depends. Apple has already created a custom board specifically for processing video on the Mac Pro. I can see them wanting to move that to their own custom GPU in the future and unify that across all of their machines. They definitely seems to be heading that way and using their own api will make that transition easier.
I personally would find that interesting, if for nothing else that it would be nice to see somebody trying something different. That being said Apple does have a bit of ADHD when it comes to these things.
Helpfully the presenter notes the Mac had the best GPU available in the range but the PC had a piss poor 1050TI. It was an absurd notion that this PC laptop with a crap GPU should speak for the whole PC laptops and that this result should then be extrapolated to desktops. It was such an absurd point it wasn’t worth debating.
There were plenty of PC laptops that had i9 CPUs and mobile 1080 at the time of recording at a cheaper price to the MBP that would’ve made a better comparison. So who was guilty of the FUD?
Price is an important factor that’s why I focused on it, the new Mac Pro is going to be one of the most expensive HEDT in history which isn’t going to make fly off the shelves. Especially when AMD and nVidia are about to launch new PCIe 4.0 GPUs (Big Navi and Ampere) which will make the Mac Pro’s rehoused RadeonVIIs look daft.
I use Macs and have done so for well over a decade.
The 1050ti and the radeon 560 are very comparable with the 1050ti probably having the advantage.
Dude you are totally missing the point of this entire thread. It’s not about who can build the best system for cheapest. lol. This thread is about getting programs to adopt METAL because we are showing you time in and time out that programs are running significantly faster when devs create an MacOS specific version of their software and use an Apple computer.
Jesus, why is this such beating to keep you focused on the original subject. lol
Edit:
Actually the 1050ti is a considerably more powerful card so the MacBook is smoking the PC with even lesser hardware.
Generally in the laptop scene, heat dispersion is a bigger factor in performance than raw hardware specifications.
I remember the first pricey laptop I ever bought, and it was so disappointing to me.
I could fully imagine two otherwise comparable laptops having a large performance disparity due to heat technology.
On the other side of things, as a technical person, I’m acutely aware of the awful markup on Apple hardware. If you build your own computer, even if it’s a hackintosh, it’s going to cost 3x less. It’s bad pricing.
Apparently this could be an uncomfortable situation, if it turns out that Blender Mac version is much faster than the PC version. Then what about the ethos of open solutions (CUDA or Optix as an example )? What about the myth of 2x more cores and 4x more memory for a 10x lower price?
Wish you well with Metal. I’ll be over on the PC choosing between whichever API is best because I’ll have a choice and not have to wait and hope developers support the Mac and Metal.
The goal of this thread is apparently to convince the developers to support Metal. Wouldn’t it be more viable to post this in Apple forums to convince Apple to fund the development, just like Nvidia did for OptiX?
I’m afraid no one on Apple’s forum cares. In my opinion the ball’s in Blender Institute court to get Apple interested. The situation seems hopeless at the moment.
How do you think a company could become interested in a multi-platform application when that company has made plenty of strategic decisions which make multi-platform development more difficult?
Like several other companies, Apple provided the Blender developers with hardware. But recently, they wanted it back. Now, Apple is neither helping them with hardware, nor have they helped financially in the past (as far as I know). Apple simply doesn’t seem to be interested. It would likely require quite a big change within Apple to support Blender. To me, it is highly unlikely that the Blender Foundation could change or influence that in a meaningful way.
I’ve been impressed with the Vulkan rendering modes in the beta RPR and can see the beginnings of a high fidelity viewport experience. Basically Eevee with ray tracing.
This is great news that’s coming off the back of tremendous work on 2.80, so many companies are getting on board. Blender is on a charge…
Even three years ago MacBooks could handle 8K RAW footage. That’s right a laptop working with 8K RAW footage in realtime. Not sure if windows laptops can even do that to this day, especially without having to optimize media in Resolve LOL.
