Resolve 10

[Paul King]

If those GPUs are so powerful (really they’re just off the self products) then why haven’t we been using them before Apple implemented them in the new Mac Pro?

It smells of pandering to Apple and the decisions they make for their hardware. Right now Davinci think the Nvidia is the most powerful solution. Apple go the AMD route and all of a sudden Davinci are singing the praises. I know who has the better track record of GPU performance and I also know how Apple behave when it comes to their hardware suppliers. Nvidia wouldn’t put up with Apple’s crap so the Mac Pro ends up with AMD cards.

Really AMD should tell Apple the deal includes their CPUs as well.

[Margus Voll]

But if it would work fast should we care who made it ?

I mean with the app we use for work there is the result what interest us?

—

Margus

https://iconstudios.eu
https://vimeo.com/iconstudioseu/videos

DaVinci 9, OSX 10.7.4
MacPro 5.1 2×2,93 24GB
GTX 470 / Quadro 4000
Multibridge 2 Pro

[Joakim Ziegler]

Very likely Apple and BMD have cooperated to bring support for the new and improved OpenCL to Resolve 10. That’s why you haven’t been using them before.

—
Joakim Ziegler – Postproduction Supervisor

[Paul King]

My point was if Open CL was the right direction, why does it require Apple to bring out new hardware before developing it?

[Margus Voll]

In the other hand why should apple bring new tech out without product ?

—

Margus

https://iconstudios.eu
https://vimeo.com/iconstudioseu/videos

DaVinci 9, OSX 10.7.4
MacPro 5.1 2×2,93 24GB
GTX 470 / Quadro 4000
Multibridge 2 Pro

[Paul King]

It’s not Apple tech. Apple did not develop any of this technology, they simply implemented it. They did so after it was long available on the PC. So why should Davinci change gears just because Apple decide not to go Nvidia?

[Margus Voll]

But when it would work super fast should we care ?

Time will tell but there may be good thing coming as Apple tends to optimise its
tech as on consumer devices.

Less heat more efficiency.

—

Margus

https://iconstudios.eu
https://vimeo.com/iconstudioseu/videos

DaVinci 9, OSX 10.7.4
MacPro 5.1 2×2,93 24GB
GTX 470 / Quadro 4000
Multibridge 2 Pro

[Joakim Ziegler]

Apple usually comes out with new hardware along with new software.

In general, I’d say, OpenCL is probably the right way to go on all platforms and GPUs. It’s an open standard, it’s also supported on NVidia GPUs (indeed, NVidia is part of the OpenCL consortium) and others, and it’ll make more sense than CUDA for anyone wanting to abstract away more hardware.

This is one of those cases where faster hardware will make more general and higher-abstraction standards make sense. As CPUs got faster, we moved from assembly language to C to C++ and now to things like Java, C#, etc. They’re not quite as efficient, but we gained a lot of programmer productivity, which in the long run makes more sense. I predict the same thing will happen with a transition from CUDA to OpenCL. OpenCL doesn’t need to be quite as efficient, just in the same ballpark.

—
Joakim Ziegler – Postproduction Supervisor

[Paul King]

That’s all fine.

My point is that Apple’s choice in hardware should not dictate software development.

OpenCL and any hardware Apple are running were long available before the release of the new Mac Pro. So if those platforms were better for software development, then they should be implemented, regardless of what Apple do and their general tardiness to update their hardware.

What Apple have released in the Mac Pro is old news.

[Margus Voll]

If i remember correctly it was Opencl 2 ?

—

Margus

https://iconstudios.eu
https://vimeo.com/iconstudioseu/videos

DaVinci 9, OSX 10.7.4
MacPro 5.1 2×2,93 24GB
GTX 470 / Quadro 4000
Multibridge 2 Pro