Haha, yeah this wasn’t spurred on by a couple of Apple peeps wanting Blender to consider Metal, then as normal, an army of forum members, not even really concerned with the topic at hand, try to convince everyone we are a bunch of sheep blinded by marketing magic. lol
Yes how dare we argue our point and counter points. lol 
Seriously though we’re not mad… well I’m not mad 
, we can use what ever we want right?
But you aren’t arguing, you’re cherry picking very specific cases then trying extrapolate that to show Macs are faster than PCs across the board while ignoring vast swathes of evidence to the contrary. This is just Myside bias.
Here’s your mate Max showing you a PC coming over onto Mac turf and stomping all over the iMac Pro for a shed load less money. I sit in front of 1 32" 4k LG screen which is DCI P3 and it matches my iMac’s screen perfectly except being bigger, this cost $1k. Add the screen and the Hackintosh is cheaper and more importantly it can be upgraded easily and does not require the full warranty invalidating disassembly of the computer to update something as basic as the memory.
The specs of the iMac Pro haven’t changed since it was released, look where PC hardware is now for a fraction of the cost.
Take a look at the Cinebench Benchmark database and see if you can see a Mac heading the tables in CPU or GPU performance tests.
I would not have switched my studio from Macs to PCs if Macs were faster.
You are right (in some weird way):
Unfortunately somebody would have to be a complete idiot to use hackintosh in the company.
I’m not cherry picking at all and your link only helps add to my argument. Building a better “APPLE” computer will only help widen the gap between the OS’s. A Hackintosh is still running MacOS.
Once again the argument isn’t about a cheaper machine. It’s about if software companies choice to adopt MacOS and metal 
for their platform and the advantages that it brings. 
After watching that video I may some day try a Hackintosh. 
I also find a "slap your forehead’ type of humor for the fact, that user who have to pay a premium for hardware to use a, locked down, more advanced operating system, are being berated by user who pay a premium for hardware that uses an advanced, locked down, operating system. 
cough Nividia and Optix.
Trust me this price vs performance humor isn’t lost on me. 
From my point of view, it is about Apple’s strategic decisions to make cross-platform development more difficult, which forces developers to make huge investments.
Metal is just an API, like others. There is nothing special or magic about it.
This is totally understandable and I do empathize with this argument.
But I’m just the end user hoping, not demanding, that Blender one day will be multi-platform without limitations levied on any one OS.
Which are limitations created by Apple, not Blender. Every other platform supports both OpenGL and Vulcan, it’s Apple who has decided to forego supporting cross-platform solutions in favor of their own proprietary solution.
I understand that OSX users want to be able to use Blender to its fullest extent, and I symphatize. But I don’t see it as realistic for Blender devs to support a whole new 3d api for one single platform, which in turn seem to be a very small part of the Blender ‘market share’.
Hopefully some other solution will emerge.
Unfortunately I think Apple would only be interested in Blender, if an iOS version would exist.
Me, I would already be very happy if the latest LuxCore Engine would be released for Macs.
It’s obvious that hundreds of Apple devs worked for a few years on a Metal to make you angry.
I am not looking at that topic from an emotional point of view (if I did, my arguments would look quite different). It would be great if we could keep the discussion about the topic and not making this sort of unfounded and personalized claims which don’t contribute anything.
AMD started just now to support OpenCL development for Blender.
This is just more of your strawman arguments and false equivalence arguments you trade in.
A PC user can decide to use nVidia GPUs or AMD GPUs, Intel CPUs or AMD CPUs they’re not locked into any hardware vendor whatsoever. If Apple offered the same customisation and if using Threadrippers instead of Xeons and that resulted in a vastly cheaper and faster Mac what would you buy? If you needed Redshift for your studio which GPU would you buy?
The difference is you can’t with Apple, you take what they offer and you pay through the nose for it and you have to like it.
When I build my new Workstation in the new year I’ll be making my hardware choice based solely on price/performance and if AMD’s ProRender team make a compelling argument with the Vulkan render modes and the Big Navi GPUs are the best price/perf I’ll be more than happy to buy AMD GPUs. I have no brand allegiance that’s why we left the Mac. Running a studio on Macs became more hassle than it was worth.
Apple booted nVidia off MacOS. Apples own policy screwed over Mac users I know who invested in CUDA hardware to run Redshift and Octane. All this short sighted corporate in-fighting did was piss off customers and at the end of the day Redshift and Octane were more important to many artists than MacOS so they bought PCs.
One of the Redshift developers said on their forum that Apple are putting a hell of a lot of development work into the Redshift port to Metal, I quote ‘But the vast majority of effort here is on Apple’s side of things - not even ours.’. So you won’t have anywhere to hide when CUDA vs Metal benchmarks become available. Redshift Metal will be the fastest Apple can make it.
Lol, whatever dude. You can only use Optix with Nvidia cards. Their software is locked to their hardware.
You may be getting lost with in a translation, not sure of your native tongue, but you’re totally missing the context of that comment. (Certain software only being allowed to run on certain hardware) And not in any way shape or form what hardware can be used with other hardware.
Geez like pulling teeth.
And I stand by my original comment.
I kind of feel like I’m getting trolled with your comments always turning into what PC you’re going to buy and the value you’ll save lol. If you are trolling me then touché. Haha 
You really can’t see the difference between a GPU manufacturer creating a library for it’s own GPUs and a systems/OS company saying “You can only use this API on our systems in the future”? You’d have a leg to stand on if nVidia disallowed OpenCL, or any other general GPU programming language (of which there are tons) on their hardware, or if Microsoft said “Only Direct3D 12 from here on out, folks”, but they don’t, which is in stark contrast to what Apple is doing saying not only will we ONLY officially support our own API on our hardware in the future, but we’ll also disallow anyone else from creating drivers or wrappers that would let the community decide what it wants. No company playing that game deserves anyone’s time or money.
That’s not true you can run a full legal version of Windows on Apple computers, legally; it’s an Apple design boot system called Bootcamp. So yes any OS on their platforms. As I mentioned this twice already.
And that matches my point perfectly, run whatever on our system, but when you want Optix/Metal it has to be ours and ours alone.
And Optix can only run on Nvidia cards, AMD can’t adopt it. Legally.
Before you get too cocky about your English skills I need to point out that you do not use apostrophes when using the plural form like you did here:
Who cares if Optix is locked is locked to nVidia cards, only those people who have been forced to have AMD GPUs in their computer who want to use applications that use the Optix framework, Apple victims.
My nVidia GPUs run OpenCL, CUDA and they could run Metal if Apple allowed nVidia to provide the drivers for the latest GPUs. The irony is Apple has their own nVidia Metal drivers in Mojave for the old Quadro and GTX680 they used to sell for the Mac Pro 5,1. What changed with Catalina? Forced obsolescence that’s what, they don’t want some 10 year old classic Mac Pro benchmarking higher than their latest white elephant.
AMD could run Optix if Nvidia made it open source.
PCs could legally run MacOS is Apple open sourced it so what’s your point?
If Apple hadn’t forced nVidia off it’s platform Mac users would have the benefits of nVidia hardware, if they needed it, but Apple wants OpenCL and CUDA off the Mac. Mac users are paying the price for Apple’s own business interests.
Has anyone tested Metal versus Opencl versus Cuda / Metal versus OpenGL versus DirectX on the identical hardware?
I found these from last year:
https://barefeats.com/directx_versus_metal_2.html
https://barefeats.com/gpus-gains-with-mojave.html
https://barefeats.com/opencl_v_metal_resolve.html
Based on these figures, I’d say Metal isn’t really that optimized or faster?