Contribute
Register

Which GPU?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
2
Mac
  1. MacBook Pro
Mobile Phone
  1. iOS
I’m trying to decide between a 1080Ti and Vega 64 for my build. The computer will primarily be for 4k video on FCPX/DaVinci Resolve and some fun with Affinity Photo/Designer.

I’ve always been under the impression that when looking at video cards meant for video and other graphic work that, in a Mac envirnoment, AMD was better over NVidia due to their OpenCL support/faster render times.

It’s been a while since I’ve read up on the two, is this no longer the case? I see what seems to be most builds here going with NVidia.

Is there another reason? Better support for custom builds? Ti’s power high enough it overcomes the positives of something like the Vega 64?

The cost seems close to the same, which isn’t an issue. Specs are obviously higher on the Ti, just curious if it’s still “better” for my purposes.

Thanks for any info...
 
I would guess it is because they have been using an Nvidia cards for a long time and people do not like to change. I also think that it has to do with the fact Nvidia has their own drivers that they release. However, that can cause issues when Apple releases updates to the OS and Nvidia does not. You can also get 60hz HDMI from Nvidia where AMD you only get 30hz.

I use an AMD card and for what I do it works, but for what you might do it might not. I felt like the MSI Vega 56 preformed better then the Nvidia 1080 Founders Edtion in FPS in games and when Running a VM. Doing renderings in Archicad seemed about the same.

I also have dual 4k Monitors one DP and HDMI hopefully when they update whatevergreen for Mojave it will no longer cause the crashes as it did in HS with both monitors on DP.
 
Vega 64 is equivalent to a 1080 (non-ti). you will get just as good as performance, dual monitor support, 4K video and the AMD card works out of the box. The issue is going to be Nvidia is simply "faster", better suited for 4K if you have "G-sync" monitors. However, you must use Nvidia graphics driver which they could stop making at anytime. If you can hold out, wait about two months as they are releasing the next version of graphics card. There is a rumor that apple will natively support the next rev of AMD cards which should even be better and not require additional drivers.
 
Vega 64 is equivalent to a 1080 (non-ti). you will get just as good as performance, dual monitor support, 4K video and the AMD card works out of the box. The issue is going to be Nvidia is simply "faster", better suited for 4K if you have "G-sync" monitors. However, you must use Nvidia graphics driver which they could stop making at anytime. If you can hold out, wait about two months as they are releasing the next version of graphics card. There is a rumor that apple will natively support the next rev of AMD cards which should even be better and not require additional drivers.

Here is a list of the AMD device IDs for the Vega or 100000Controllerkext. 25 card IDs and we only have 3 of those released so there is some serious development going on with Apple and AMD.

0x68601002 0x68611002 0x68621002 0x68631002 0x68641002 0x68671002 0x68681002 0x68691002 0x686A1002 0x686B1002 0x686C1002 0x686D1002 0x686E1002 0x687F1002 0x69A01002 0x69A11002 0x69A21002 0x69A31002 0x69AF1002 0x66A01002 0x66A11002 0x66A21002 0x66A31002 0x66A71002 0x66AF1002
 
Just for the record I am currently running a 1050 TI in my current system with the Nvidia Drivers and two 1080P monitors. The 1050TI can drive 1 4k screen, but I'm staying where I'm at at least until the next couple of months to see where things shake out. Worst case scenario I can grab a 1080 TI at reduced rates along with the G-Sync monitors.
 
Just for the record I am currently running a 1050 TI in my current system with the Nvidia Drivers and two 1080P monitors. The 1050TI can drive 1 4k screen, but I'm staying where I'm at at least until the next couple of months to see where things shake out. Worst case scenario I can grab a 1080 TI at reduced rates along with the G-Sync monitors.

Pretty sure that it can drive at least 2 - 4k Monitors, I would not be surprised if it could drive at least as many ports as it has on the back.
 
Pretty sure that it can drive at least 2 - 4k Monitors, I would not be surprised if it could drive at least as many ports as it has on the back.

I can drive 2 4K monitors. I'm using one HDMI and one display port right now so the refresh rate would be mismatched. (not to mention I would have to decide on the whole g-sync vs free sync issue....LOL)
 
I don't think there will be a difference between the GPU's on viewing 4k, so much as there may be in rendering 4k files from FCPX. It's my understanding that in the past OpenCL/AMD was far more efficient at this...not sure if it still is, especially with the stronger specs in the TI over a Vega 64. I expect to do enough video/content creation that render time is a real consideration.

I'll be dualbooting into Windows for some occasional games but nothing to serious, and I have a Freesync 4k monitor right now so in that regard AMD does look a little more attractive.

Gigamaxx - that's some interesting info. I'd like to see how that turns out...

jsconiers - I'm going to wait a little longer also, just getting things figured out now so I'll be ready to buy when the new stuff drops (as soon as I know it's supported).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top