Mac gpu config for better Fusion AND Resolve use

Hi there,

Wow, Fusion as a non CUDA based piece of software is carrying more perf issues than I thought actually...
See, I'm mainly on Resolve which is highly CUDA oriented so far, and I'm about to add a 2nd used 980 ti on this computer. The problem is I often use Fusion too, which shows poor performance on the first one (so that I don't expect really better perf with a second one actually).

Therefore :
- nvidia cards are not really beefy in OpenCL mode;
- even if one should never say never, Fusion won't ever be CUDA oriented.

Now, what if I decide to keep one 980 ti I already own and add an AMD 8 Go (which one ?) instead of a second 980 ti ?
I already have one - sad - answer : Resolve Studio won't use 2 GPUs to compute .

But is it worth the sacrifice for Fusion to show best perf ?

fusion cant currently only use one GPU

and all "modern" Macs come with an AMD GPU, or i am wrong here?

Technically, Fusion can use 2 GPU's. They don't parallel process like Resolve, but you can choose one for 3D openGL calculations, and one for OpenCL calculations for accelerated 2D tools.

fusion cant currently only use one GPU

I don't know, but I have the Studio version where I can tick available GPUs anyways...

and all "modern" Macs come with an AMD GPU, or i am wrong here?

Well... Before co-workers, and me, and thousands of pro around the world replace the poor default GPUs by at least 2 nvidia 10xx GPUs (or 980 [ti]) cards, yes, it's surely been coming with a medium AMD GPU in the first place...

Technically, Fusion can use 2 GPU's. They don't parallel process like Resolve, but you can choose one for 3D openGL calculations, and one for OpenCL calculations for accelerated 2D tools.

So what do you Rony recommend in my example, given that I won't drop a strong nvidia card for Resolve anyways ?
(and thx for you post of course)

Well... Before co-workers, and me, and thousands of pro around the world replace the poor default GPUs by at least 2 nvidia 10xx GPUs (or 980 [ti]) cards, yes, it's surely been coming with a medium AMD GPU in the first place...

how do you change the GPU on a Mac book, iMac or the round Mac "Pro" ? do you use external cases?

how do you change the GPU on a Mac book, iMac or the round Mac "Pro" ? do you use external cases?

Either you don't change them, or you use a TB external enclosure when it's possible.
Otherwise, you don't bother with that and go on with a legacy cheesegrater MacPro, where you're able to use 4 PCIe ports (where you may hook a Cubix expander) and 4 internal HDs for RAIDs

I think eGPUs will only be used to their full potential with the most recent machines with TB3.

Yep Uli that's true.
But actually my concerns are about the only upgradable Mac, of course, and optimizing for both Fusion and Resolve isn't the piece of cake I thought, it's about maths , look :
- Fusion is OpenCL only
- Resolve uses OpenCL and CUDA but this last one shows way better perf
- Resolve must be studio version to use 2 GPUs ore more to compute
- 10xx nvidia series are Sierra only compatible
- nvidia cards show worst OpenCL perf than AMD afaik

Now I want to put 2 serious cards, and use Fusion and Resolve in the best way (about performance). I've come to the conclusion that one "big" nvidia and one big AMD may be a solution.
So ?

Considering that Fusion and Resolve compete for resources and can cause each other to crash, your best option may be to have a Fusion machine and a Resolve machine.

- nvidia cards show worst OpenCL perf than AMD afaik

Where do you see that? Titan Xp is faster and cheaper than a AMD Vega 64 FE watercooled. A 1080Ti is faster and cheaper than a regular Vega 64 FE.

Considering that Fusion and Resolve compete for resources and can cause each other to crash, your best option may be to have a Fusion machine and a Resolve machine.

Hi Chad; I never saw crashes so far and appreciate the fusion connect roundtrip from time to time so no, 2 separate machine is not an option I'm considering.

- nvidia cards show worst OpenCL perf than AMD afaik

Where do you see that? Titan Xp is faster and cheaper than a AMD Vega 64 FE watercooled. A 1080Ti is faster and cheaper than a regular Vega 64 FE.

Well, this part is interesting, and I saw tests showing that (the same vram, like 8Go vs 8Go)... Anyway what you tell me is good for me. I could basically add a second 980 ti, which would be great for parallel computing in resolve, but finally in Fusion too on OpenCL.
You must understand that I'd really like to test 2 similar cards and already own a 980 ti
I just have to really understand how to dedicate cards in Fusion as Rony wrote above.
Thx for your point of view.

A second 980Ti won't do anything for you. You need to get the fastest single GPU you can. A Titan Xp is going to be 50% faster than dual 980Ti's.

A second 980Ti won't do anything for you in Fusion. You need to get the fastest single GPU you can. A Titan Xp is going to be 50% faster than dual 980Ti's.

Correction.
In Resolve, it's totally relevant with the studio version.
BTW, for Fusion, I was thinking about a amd radeon R9 390 or R9 390X

A second 980Ti won't do anything for you in Fusion. You need to get the fastest single GPU you can. A Titan Xp is going to be 50% faster than dual 980Ti's.

Correction.
In Resolve, it's totally relevant with the studio version.
BTW, for Fusion, I was thinking about a amd radeon R9 390 or R9 390X

Correction:

Mac gpu config for better Fusion OR Resolve use

Isn't the 390X already 2 years old, though?

I dunno, I don't care, I just saw 8 Go vram; I'm ok to sacrifice a good parallel config for Resolve, just for Fusion to have decent perf, that's what I know.
And I confess I'm a sort of stuck...

So the issue is you can't run the current Nvidia cards? Because the price/performance on those is astounding and they're low power enough that you can stick tons on them in a box for Resolve if you wanted without much power/thermal engineering.

I'm not sure I understood well, but the thing is I have a 980 ti and am about to put a second one, but I wonder wether it is a better idea to put one amd 8 Go instead, especially for Fusion.
Current 10xx nvidia cards would be ok too, but they need OSX Sierra (10.12) and I'm on ElCap so far (10.11.x)

I am not using one myself, so can't personally recommend, but have you considered one of these?

http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graph ... on-pro-duo

Apparently they were showcasing it at NAB using Resolve (It performed well. Google it) and it would definitely work well for Fusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Issue is that you can only use one GPU in Fusion, so it pays to put in the fastest one you can. A Titan Xp is 2x faster than a AMD 390X. The 390X isn't going to be a significant improvement over the 980Ti, I suspect.

http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graph ... on-pro-duo

Careful, that's the old model that I think is no longer made. The new model has 4x the memory.

Sorry. Forgot there was an older version of the card. I definitely meant the Polaris version.

http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graph ... on-pro/duo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I take it into account, thx (so far, this particular one needs 3 x 8 pin, I'd prefer 2 maximum but I got the idea)

Just wondering what GPU you went for ? I have a similar setup with horrible render times using my GTX 1080 ti

In case I'm the one you wrote to, you can see my signature... Anyway, there's no hope trying to get OpenCL perf challenge cuda's one for me : playback or render times are ridiculous when I compare Resolve to Fusion (even a basic comp).
But ok, I have time, quality counts more than speed...

I wonder if the Vega 64 8gb or Polaris duo 32gb offer better performance.

Sent from my Redmi 4A using Tapatalk

Better perf maybe, amazing perf (or something close to cuda) I doubt it.. But these are only personal bets