Problem with poor Vega 64 Performance on Mojave 10.14.5

[demonknight9]

Hi @jaymonkey - I would agree that it's a driver / optimisation issue but the confusing thing is that @pastrychef is still able to get the faster times using Mojave 10.14.5 and FCPX 10.4.6. I guess the only difference is Vega 64 vs 56 ??

I don't know how he gets it. It might be because he still uses VGTab. I have a Vega 56 and have the same issue as Jay.

 

[movolans]

I don't know how he gets it. It might be because he still uses VGTab. I have a Vega 56 and have the same issue as Jay.

Interesting. I tried VGTab and saw no improvement. So must be another variable. I'm trying a diff Vega 64 today and will also try another Mobo (Giga Z390 Designware) just to rule out hardware. I dont really expect it to make a difference.

 

[jaymonkey]

Interesting. I tried VGTab and saw no improvement. So must be another variable. I'm trying a diff Vega 64 today and will also try another Mobo (Giga Z390 Designware) just to rule out hardware. I dont really expect it to make a difference.

@movolans,

I agree, with Mojave 10.14.5 I see no improvement with or without using a custom SoftPowerPlayTable.

Is it's possible that in the past FCPX used the IGPU (possibly load sharing with the Vega) but now it solely uses the Vega ?.

This would re-enforce my theory that Mojave 10.14.5 is not using the IGPU as much as it did in previous versions of MacOS. Since upgrading to Mojave 10.14.5 the IGPU is no longer shown in Activity Monitor -> GPU History at least thats the case on my system. Would be interesting for you guys to confirm if this is the case for you too.

My IGPU is configured as headless and MacOS still seems to use IQS in Finder, Preview ... etc, the IGPU shows up in iStat Menus along with its utilisation history so I know it's being used ... but interestingly there is no trace for it in Intel Power Gadget ?

The mystery continues ....

Cheers
Jay

 

[movolans]

Hi all - Had a bit of a breakthrough here!

I had two NVME drives installed - I removed one (the one next to the 16X GPU PCIe) and I'm immediately back to 12/13 seconds on BruceX.

Anyone else have this configuration?

 

[pastrychef]

Hi all - Had a bit of a breakthrough here!

I had two NVME drives installed - I removed one (the one next to the 16X GPU PCIe) and I'm immediately back to 12/13 seconds on BruceX.

Anyone else have this configuration?

Both of my M.2 slots are populated with NVMe drives.

 

[movolans]

Both of my M.2 slots are populated with NVMe drives.

Try taking them out if you can? Especially the one next to the 16x slot and run again.

 

[pastrychef]

Try taking them out if you can? Especially the one next to the 16x slot and run again.

My motherboard is different from yours... I don't have an M.2 slot next to my x16 slot. Also, macOS is on one of them so I wouldn't be able to boot without it.

 

[movolans]

I left one in. I also boot from OSX on one. Worth a try. I saw my GPU clock speed double more or less. Clearly PCIe bandwidth is being shared.

 

[pastrychef]

I left one in. I also boot from OSX on one. Worth a try. I saw my GPU clock speed double more or less. Clearly PCIe bandwidth is being shared.

It's possible. Z370 really doesn't have enough lanes to support all the PCI-e slots on some of these motherboards. That's one of the reasons why I always choose mATX motherboards, no PLX PCI-e switching or sharing.

 

[movolans]

It's possible. Z370 really doesn't have enough lanes to support all the PCI-e slots on some of these motherboards. That's one of the reasons why I always choose mATX motherboards, no PLX PCI-e switching or sharing.

Apologies @pastrychef - you were getting full speeds anyway, right? Ignore me, it's been a long day