The iMac Pro came in on this benchmark and proudly held its own, highlighting that it has great 3D performance.
There is a suggestion that it might be optimisation changes, but this is yet to be confirmed or denied. Why Unigine prefer the older Titan X (P) over the newer Titan Xp is unknown. *This tool provides two scores so there are two tables The Titan model cards are designed for this workflow and its clear from the results.Īlas, performance from the RX cards was quite underwhelming but to be expected in this case. The iMac Pro Vega was a middle of the pack average runner in this benchmark, coming just above the 980Ti from the discontinued Maxwell line-up from NVidia. It outperformed the 1080Ti and came exceptionally close to the Titan Xp. This benchmark is geared more towards the OpenCL architecture and the AMD Vega was the one GPU that took the bull by the horns and came into its own here. Unfortunately, despite the most valiant efforts from AMD, their RX cards came dead last! We assume this is probably due to the iMac Pro’s excellent optimisation of the card. Interestingly the iMac Pro Vega64 outperformed the standard Vega64. Graphics cards are the main workhorse in this application, so who prospered here? Well, the Nvidia Cards are highly optimised with their use of the more mature CUDA platform. Interestingly, the RX570 was only marginally slower than the 980Ti and Titan X (M), which shows there is some massive value for power in the RX570 the best of the bunch, in fact!ĭavinci Resolve Standard Candle Light Test The iMac Pro Vega64 version is only slightly slower despite being inside an iMac, and this can be, in part, tied to the fact that Apple have massively improved on its thermal design. Nvidia can be pleased with the improvements they saw with the OpenCL performance in the Pascal Architecture, while despite AMD’s efforts, the Vega64 flagship still cannot outperform the top Nvidia models.
Looking at the results from Geekbench 4 Compute OpenCl, AMD’s strong point is in its ability with OpenCL. So, let’s get to the juicy stuff, shall we? We’ve picked out the main talking points from the following applications: This is especially poignant following an exclusive by the Create Pro team who compiled an assessment that reveals Apple could well have been slowing down not only the iPhone but Macs as well! Of course, we wanted to highlight to you which cards offered you the best bang for your buck, for want of a better phrase. This gives us the chance to identify if there are any areas that the cards struggle with once Final Cut Pro was introduced to the fold. We broke the testing into two sections overall performance including Final Cut Pro results and overall performance excluding Final Cut Pro results. Running tests to measure aspects such as latency, long render times and poor playback frames per second are all things that an incorrect graphics card choice will cause. So, what are we looking for in our test? Well, the point of selecting the right graphics card is to ensure that your workflow is efficient, and you are able to get a good return on investment. The test systems involved in our testing were: Our extensive graphics card benchmarking put eleven GPUs through their paces, and the results we gained paint a nice picture of which graphics card offers you the best in terms of price versus performance.īelow are the GPU units that were involved in our testing: If you’re thinking of making upgrades, or you’re just generally looking to see how your current GPU works against other models and brands, then we’ve got what you need! Kicking off our ‘Price Vs Performance Series’ in style, we’ve conducted extensive in-house testing that you can benefit from when it comes to choosing the optimum graphics card options in your custom Apple computer.īenchmarking graphics cards gives an accurate representation of just how well a GPU will survive against an assortment of graphical requests and effects.