But Da Vinci notes that it's slower than the CUDA implementation, so CUDA is recommended. Da Vinci recently announced version 8 of Resolve, and it adds OpenCL support (for mobile Macs and iMacs). It is also very fast with Adobe filters that have built-in support for the CUDA engine. I just tried out the Mercury playback engine to make sure it works with the Quadro 4000 and indeed it does: Also, while I know NVIDIA is hot to promote Da Vinci Resolve or the CUDA-enhanced Mercury playback engine in Premiere Pro CS5, the former doesn't have a demo and the latter is not something you can really benchmark (it's used for playback, not export). It's still very CPU-bound for the demosaic and RAW decoding, with just filters being handled by the GPU. Just a note that I stopped testing Aperture as a GPGPU because the results were so close that it proved that the difference in GPUs had little effect on total render times. Still, people might be considering the Quadro as an upgrade from the GTX 285, so it's covered here. Also testing the Geforce GTX 285 as a potential CUDA card is a bit funny since the Quadro 4000 is the only CUDA PCI card currently for sale for Macs it would be like benchmarking the Wright Brothers' plane. Now we just need to see if those promised performance boosts are achievable.Now that I've beaten the 3D stuff into the ground, let's talk about the Quadro 4000 as a cruncher for CUDA/GPGPU (general-purpose computing on graphics processing units) apps. Even if these benchmarks are accurate when re-testing on a full macOS Monterey build, the M1 Max is plenty powerful enough to run the demanding applications it promised it could during the Apple Fall Event. With this fresh look and powerful SoC, the MacBook Pro no longer feels like an expensive folly for some people. Macs have long been favored by those working in creative jobs such as video and audio editing, but the previous MacBook models missed a few beats by removing ports and including that divisive Touch Bar. These scores, while not mind-blowing when stacked against the rest of the mobile workstation market, have shown that you can get near-desktop Mac performance on a portable Mac laptop, with the M1 Max outperforming every current Mac device other than the Mac Pro and iMac Pro models that are equipped with Intel's high-end 16 to 24-core Xeon chips.Īdditional variety to the CPU/GPU market is always welcome too, given the near-monopoly that previously existed. Ugly camera notch aside, both of the latest MacBook Pro devices equipped with the M1 Max feel like the first Apple laptop to really appeal to its intended market for some time. Regardless of our feelings on the performance jump, Apple has proved itself to be a formidable rival to its competitors, despite Intel and AMD having decades of developmental experience. It also reported that the CPU is running a base clock of 24MHz, but Geekbench's John Poole has since mentioned to MacRumors (opens in new tab) that this is likely attributed to Geekbench itself not correctly identifying the clock speed of the new M1 Max, rather than there being an issue with the processor. Thankfully, there are other things that could also be impacting performance numbers, such as the benchmarks being run on a pre-release version of macOS Monterey. Let's not get things twisted – it isn't that the scores are unimpressive, as they sit very comfortably at the top-tier of portable workstation benchmarks, but the margins are pretty slim and the price of the new MacBook Pro 14-inch and MacBook Pro 16-inch can quickly feel ridiculous, with the most affordable M1 Max (32 core) 14-inch MacBook starting at $3,099 / £2,999 / AU$4,649.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |