OpenCL available on nVidia gfx?

[Funky frank]

Hi,

 

I ve seen some rumors that nVidia gfx doesnt support OpenCL in macOS??  I think it's BS, but now unsure.

 

Thanks

[mitch_de]

Yep, OpenCL is available - you must install nothing. It comes with the Nvidia Webdrivers ( needed for most newer gpus) or Apple drivers (some gpus works with Nvidia Web and! orig. Apple).

Normally if you nvidia is supported rigth you have full resolution support, fast OpenGL(by HW)  and OpenCL.

So normally all is working or nothing (only VGA mode = sloooow).

Not working - only VGA mode  can come from : not installed but needed Nvidia web drivers and/or not injected but needed nvidia card  by bootloder (chameleon or clover) or injected but not! needed nvidia card  by bootloder (chameleon or clover).

 

To get Nvidia working ist mostly much, much less trouble than with AMD. If you wand AMD i would before buying ask or read all about each AMD gpu modell and how to use them (lot of inject, patch things to make in clover bootloader)

[gills83]

Yep, OpenCL is available - you must install nothing. It comes with the Nvidia Webdrivers ( needed for most newer gpus) or Apple drivers (some gpus works with Nvidia Web and! orig. Apple).

Normally if you nvidia is supported rigth you have full resolution support, fast OpenGL(by HW)  and OpenCL.

So normally all is working or nothing (only VGA mode = sloooow).

Not working - only VGA mode  can come from : not installed but needed Nvidia web drivers and/or not injected but needed nvidia card  by bootloder (chameleon or clover) or injected but not! needed nvidia card  by bootloder (chameleon or clover).

 

To get Nvidia working ist mostly much, much less trouble than with AMD. If you wand AMD i would before buying ask or read all about each AMD gpu modell and how to use them (lot of inject, patch things to make in clover bootloader)

 

hello,

 

All the AMD compatible GPU OS X works perfectly, for nV it's more complicated, good performance OpenCL for some model with a lot of bug under LuxMark 3.1, Hotel that does not work for example and so on, results OpenGL very bad "GTX 950 // 3930k = 60 fps !! // 90 fps win 10

The GTX 1050 41 fps !! // 106 fps win 10, I will add that it is impossible to view a 4k 60 fps video on 2k monitor.

I manage to do that with a tiny HD 6670!

I will change my mind when the contrary is shown.  

[mitch_de]

 

hello,

 

All the AMD compatible GPU OS X works perfectly, for nV it's more complicated, ... 

 

 

I dont want to start an whats better AMD or Nvidia task...

But you have an much more wide range of Nvidia gpus than AMD which works without clover framebuffer & other AMD gpu  patchings.

And for El Capitan+ you need an IGPU (Cpu with GPU) to get AMD working- doenst matter which AMD gpu modell.

So i think AMD in generall isnt more easy to use - depends also on CPU (with GPU or older without) and want to use Clover or use Chameleon (which is much more easier than clover)

 

To speed: 

That depends what you want - and its always slower than same gpu with windows drivers. 

If you wand CUDA accell apps (Octane Renderer OS X for example is CUDA only, no OpenCL) only Nvidia can do CUDA.

 

Here some huge Infos and benches using real world (FCP, Motion, Blender,...) gpu tasks.

For example (eGPU= an GPU which is in an external Box > Mac)  http://barefeats.com/imac17egpu.html

In this bench you see what much different GPU speed can be.

Running AMD against Nvidia (using Blender) - AMD is far slower than Nvdia - both use gpu compute (Cuda or OpenCL)

 

here some more: http://barefeats.com/sierra_rx480.html

 

So it is near impossible to say what card is for all usage the best. It depends very much on what apps you use.

Some apps have huge diff on AMD/Nvdia or gpu speed in general and some apps (using GPU) even dont use GPU much= Gpu type & speed doenst matter really much.

 

So if someone needs a new gpu good to ask with information what things (or apps) you want to use - hard to recommend an gpu in general for all.

[gills83]

I dont want to start an whats better AMD or Nvidia task...

But you have an much more wide range of Nvidia gpus than AMD which works without clover framebuffer & other AMD gpu  patchings.

And for El Capitan+ you need an IGPU (Cpu with GPU) to get AMD working- doenst matter which AMD gpu modell.

So i think AMD in generall isnt more easy to use - depends also on CPU (with GPU or older without) and want to use Clover or use Chameleon (which is much more easier than clover)

 

To speed: 

That depends what you want - and its always slower than same gpu with windows drivers. 

If you wand CUDA accell apps (Octane Renderer OS X for example is CUDA only, no OpenCL) only Nvidia can do CUDA.

 

Here some huge Infos and benches using real world (FCP, Motion, Blender,...) gpu tasks.

For example (eGPU= an GPU which is in an external Box > Mac)  http://barefeats.com/imac17egpu.html

In this bench you see what much different GPU speed can be.

Running AMD against Nvidia (using Blender) - AMD is far slower than Nvdia - both use gpu compute (Cuda or OpenCL)

 

here some more: http://barefeats.com/sierra_rx480.html

 

So it is near impossible to say what card is for all usage the best. It depends very much on what apps you use.

Some apps have huge diff on AMD/Nvdia or gpu speed in general and some apps (using GPU) even dont use GPU much= Gpu type & speed doenst matter really much.

 

So if someone needs a new gpu good to ask with information what things (or apps) you want to use - hard to recommend an gpu in general for all.

 

hello,

 

I do not say that nV is not good but works very badly on OS X, cuda is very limited in its use, almost without interest for Mr everyone, the only thing that interests me with nV is decoding x265 / X264, it does not work under OS X, AMD does much better with small GPU, this is the paradox, watching a video UHD is the minimum one can ask a GPU, the paradox that nV does this Very well on Windows and well incapable on OS X!

It's frustrating, spend in a GPU at 800 € for nothing or so little.

A GPU must be good everywhere, at least the minimun of video quality.  

[gills83]

excellent, i also don't want to start what better, so i agree with you

i also used octane render and that one has support for dual GPUS

 

while some other benchmark app detect both GPUS it only let you use one for the benchmark process

i'm not sure or i don't remember about luxmark

i no longer have the dual 970's

so i can't say about luxmark but i do remember about octane render perfectly fine

i think it just a matter of taste and opinion

 

i don't have nothing against AMD they are also good and affordable

but is much easier to run mac os on intel that it is to run it on AMD CPU

 

i think the only reason apple uses AMD is because they don't want to paid Nvidia for the GPUS

because Nvidia GPUS cost more than AMD GPUS

while some other people just mention about the energy saving feature

or that AMD card uses less power

 

all that is up for debate, it might be one or the other or it might be both, who knows

those who are happy with AMD and like the brand, we completely understand

but to say that Nvidia cards run crappy on os is not true at all

my 1080 run perfectly fine on os

not at the same level that in windows but pretty damn good

 

let's just talk about this after HS is out

so we can see the benefits of metal v2

this has to be a joke

 

do you own an Nvidia card

i'm not talking about a 10 year old card

no wonder

i'm talking about the 1000 series

it also depends on the motherboard,CPU etc

it seen people complaining about their GPU performance and when i go to their house

they have their cards on a pci-e 2.0 motherboard, which it limit the bandwidth

 

if you want post a benchmark of your video card 

and i do the same 

and let's see how they compare

let's see how good your AMD card really is

and how crappy and limited my 1080 really is

just for fun

 

i bet you i will smoke your card even with the 30% less performance in mac os

i really don't know where you get your information

but i don't have none of the problems/limitation you describe  

 

not only do i get 4k but i also can go beyond

to 5k and 6k using switchresx and my monitor is only 4k

so i don't know how you said that the Nvidia cards can't even do 4k when i can easily do even more than 4k

if you don't believe me tell please tell me 

so i can post the screenshots

:hysterical:

 

look vidéo !! It's just

 

https://youtu.be/CcSCmDtETRI

 

And then I will not waste money for a miserable 1080 to watch a video 4k 60 fps in 2k, frankly, it stays comical, well it works well on Windows;)

The gpu stays all the time in "feignasse" mode to say that nV works well under OS X, it is a joke, my HD 6670 does much better than that bench do not do everything....

 

[ydeng]

 

:hysterical:

 

look vidéo !! It's just

 

https://youtu.be/CcSCmDtETRI

 

And then I will not waste money for a miserable 1080 to watch a video 4k 60 fps in 2k, frankly, it stays comical, well it works well on Windows;)

The gpu stays all the time in "feignasse" mode to say that nV works well under OS X, it is a joke, my HD 6670 does much better than that bench do not do everything....

 

 

 

Run this to see if opencl is supported.

 

Nvidia opencl driver is not well-tuned.

Apple software usually optimizes for AMD cards.

The fft sample code from Apple even gives wrong

numbers on GTX 1080.  Unless, application uses cuda

natively, Nvidia cards just run slow on Macos.

dumpcl.zip

[gills83]

 

 

yes granted that card is pathetic but so is the CPU

NVIDIA , AMD don't mix well together = oil and water

AMD with AMD

Intel with Nvidia

 

 

Which is pathetic?

 

 

[gills83]

i honestly i don't have to convince nobody anymore

is better to leave people believe what they want to believe

sometimes even showing them proof is not enough

some people are blind to the truth or simply live in denial

well the guy is saying at first that the the card is bad and slow

so in order for me to make him happy i said the the card is bad

because is an Nvidia card and it seems that he hate Nvidia and love AMD

he even said that the 1080 is {censored}

so is the Nvidia cards are garbage so 

so is AMD cpu's

i simply used a little bit of reverse psychology

i honestly don't want to go off topic here anymore

the question has already been answer

i already encode a movie in 4k and it came out to 50 gigs

but my Nvidia card is so crappy that it plays a 50 gigs 4k movie perfectly fine without a hiccup

did you noticed that i called my own card crappy because that is what you were implying about Nvidia cards before

 

i can't make everybody happy

i had a 970 and it used give me 130 frames in cinebench

 

1050 are a good decent card for the money but sometimes people expect more but they don't want to pay more

i think there is a bit of confusion here

are you complaining or are you satisfied

based on the benchmark results it look like a pretty good system to me

but you should know that even in windows to play max out game in 4k you might need 2 cards

while you might be able to play some not demanding games in 4k using a single card or just at a little lower settings

but to completely max out all the settings in 4k a 2nd card might be require

and i'm not talking about 2 regular average cards 

i'm talking about 2 hell of a beast cards and those cards cost money

 

here is the deal, you first said one thing then you changed and said another thing

so which is the right one

 

i stick to your original comment that a 1080 can't play 4k videos and can't go beyond 2k in mac os right 

i will try my best to upload a video today

to finally put this to rest

 

i know we always want more but we should be happy with what we have

if you have a 1050 then i don't know why you complaint about Nvidia

if you want more power then you have to buy a more powerful card

AMD or Nvidia

 

i really wanted the 1080 TI but for that i had to leave my 4k monitor or just wait a little longer to get the monitor

so i settle for the 1080 and the monitor at the same time and i'm happy

of course the TI is better but like said before

we should be happy with what we have

i just didn't want to wait because i need a card ASAP since i sold both of my 970's

 

anyway be back later with the video

 

your system is good but i heard about risen CPU'S having some problem with Nvidia GPU'S

so maybe that might be the problem

 

if you go to you tube you might find some videos

where they use a risen cpu with an nvidia gpu

then they switch to a intel cpu with the same nvidia gpu

and the nvidia card can achieve higher frame rates with the slower intel cpu

 

i don't know if the risen cpu can't push the card or something is not optimized yet

at least at the time of those videos and that is in windows 10

 

so imagine what would happen in mac os

i will try later to see if i can get you any of those videos

any peace out

later

The problem is not whether it works well on Windows, even an Intel 3000/4000 HD is able to play 4k without lag.

I'm talking about OS X, I really want to see if nV on OS X is able to read 4k 60 fps on OS X, it's simple, everyone talks but does not show anything.

You have a video passes everywhere, you captured it (extract) with ScreenFLow for example and export it in 60 fps / 10 mbit/s and I would see if the video is fluid or not.

 

 

https://www.4kdownload.com/fr/download

 

thanks 

[ydeng]

ok no problem i'll do that

right now i'm encoding the movies to the maximum bit are available

at least in the app that i'm using 50,000 which is equal to 50 mbps

 

i use media info which it shows the resolution 3820x2160 and also the bitrate

 

i need to run a test first with screen flow or similar app

because capturing in 4k and playing back in 4k might impact performance

 

what i'm going to do is show you my monitor screen which is in 3820x2160=4k

and also show you the movies resolution and bitrate

 

but i will capture my monitor screen using a laptop with a logitech c920 cam

 

i'll be back in around an hour or less

 

 

mean while check this out

according to this link https://haodong.me/post/2016-02-29-750ti-stories-3-enable-cuda.html

NVEncodeAPI is not in the Nvidia osx drivers.  Unless your encoding app has someother

means of Nvidia GPU acceleration, 1080 is not going to be much faster.

[mitch_de]

Thanks for lot of tests - Interesting!

But back to the question about OpenCL for Nvidia Even if newer AMD GPU does a better job playing 3k+ Video stuff at 60Hz  on OS X it has nothing to do with OpenCL and of course it doesnt

affect all OS X users. For example me, i never used such video tasks.

 

We should first ask for what generell  and special usage the questioner will use his gpu before go in deep of videoplayback 3k+ on Nvidia.

 

As you see in the wide tests of OpenCL, CUDA supported App benches there are lot of differences - and so hard to say whats better for ALL apps.

Apple starts very early to support OpenCL - BUT! also went out the OpenCL dev and go for METAL (isnt only to see as new+faster OpenGL API its also their new but Apple Only OpenCL )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL

"OpenCL was initially developed by Apple Inc., which holds trademark rights, and refined into an initial proposal in collaboration with technical teams at AMD, IBM, Qualcomm, Intel, and Nvidia. Apple submitted this initial proposal to the Khronos Group." https://www.khronos.org/opencl/

 

"OpenCL 1.0 released with Mac OS X Snow Leopard on August 28, 2009. According to an Apple press release"

 

OpenCL got much further in Version, Apple , like in OpenGL , is stalling to go further. We see its not an company for workstations, highend computing. Fokus (since fastest "PC" PowerMac G5 vs Intel , goes other direction) .

Now we have OpenCL 2.2 (at paper Mai 2017, already running is  2.0, 2.1)  - Apple stays at 1.2 for my knowledge ( 1.2 was out: 2012/2013, paper 2011)

 

So for app dev using OpenCL it is an problem if they optimize their OpenCL code for 2.0 or 2.1 but OS X cant handle that. So, if they sell their app also for win / linux they must support (and dev)  many source paths. Lot of work & time & money. 

Thats one reason, why not many Apps use OpenCL - its gpu independend, the big pro against CUDA - but problematic of different version implemented for win, linux, os x.

At the beginning wasnt a big problem , all has v 1.0 or 1.2 , but now and in the future it is a problem for the dev of OpenCL supporting wide range of 1.2 to 2.1.

So the pro - AMD&NVIDIA = same OpenCL code - getting less, at least for OS X. OS X apps using OpenCL stay at their 1.2 code and cant use full new hw features of newest gpus & newest OpenCL code.

CUDA, from Nvidia, has not that problem - Cuda version for OS X same as win / linux - but CUDA dev mostly work for win or lunux apps, not OS X. 

So CUDA on OS X doenst matter in real. OpenCL does matter future with old OpenCL version of OS X is unclear.

 

 

 

 

So for OpenCL Apple OS X  inst anymore the best platform. For example the Luxmark bench have major problems at the beginning and stays on if you try to run the biggest scenes on OS X  luxmark crashes then  on many systems. I dont think High sierra will have newer OpenCL version (as 1.2 today).

 

So for the questiiner i would read and check the barefeats benches - back the last years huge information about gpu accell apps - and then you see more clear.

In general OpenCL works on both Nvidia and AMD - doesnt matter. Speed for sure may vary much between them.

[gills83]

here as i promise sorry it took so long

 

i put an iPhone on a tripod on front of the monitor

 

unfortunately this is the best i can do for now

 

my internet speed is very slow right now

 

also is almost impossible to playback at 4k and capture at 4k at the same time

 

the result video will lag at video playback part because there is when the card is doing the high processing 

 

not while doing regular stuff like going to system preferences and stuff like that

 

but at the 4k video playback it will lag in the record video

 

then you will say that is lagging but is actually doing a double 4k process

 

i can screen capture the 4k playback video in 720 and i think it will play just fine

 

but to show you how is really playing back this the best way

 

without the capture screen software interfering 

 

also i’m waiting on a new CPU

 

right now as you can see my video card is running only at 8x and still plays 4k fine in mac os

 

i have to change the card to another slot to make it run at 16x

 

i forgot to move the card after i installed all the new Samsung 960 in the other pci-e slots

 

i need to do that later

 

anyway have a look and tell me what you think

 

i could it have set the desktop to 720 or 1080 and playback the 4k video

 

but i didn’t want you to have any doubt so i set the desktop resolution to 4k

 

then playback the 4k video

 

but the problem when i do that is that i can’t run the capture software because is capturing at 4k while is playing a 4k video

 

i know is not the best video but it shows all the info and it also shows playing back the 4k video even at 8x without any problem

 

https://en.file-upload.net/download-12603830/IMG_0082.MOV.html

 

Under the same conditions as the GTX 1050.

No comparison possible, nV is quite incapable of doing this.

 

The second video is more complex than the first, with a throughput of 50 mbit / s flow, ScreenFlow reaches its limits, in reality the video is very fluid.

 

 

 

[gills83]

Thank you for having seen it.

The main problem comes from decoding mp4 / mkv x264 / x265, nV is based on this principle when you use Windows, on OS X, it does not exist that is why the GPU remains inert and the CPU decodes as well Badly, the problem comes with WebdriversnV graphics drivers encoded with the feet !!

With support for x264 decoding by the AMD GPU, the CPU load does not exceed 3 or 4%, the GPU arrives at 50 or 60% of its load accelerating as nV on Windows. VLC uses it very well on OS X with AMD GPU.
Paradoxically, the AMD GPU I use (HD 7950) is unable to play a UHD 60 fps video on Windows 10 ahahahhah !!! Lag in all directions.

Try Divx Media Player, the result may be better for playing UHD videos.

NV make very good GPU, that's not the problem but they are very poorly supported on OS X, AMD GPU works perfectly, OpenGL / OpenCL / MetalGL.

Nothing has changed since Yosemite, I had the GTX 950 with a CPU i7 3930K and the problems were exactly the same at when.

 

This joins the measures OpenGL, GTX 1050 = 105 fps Windows; HD 7950 = 104 fps Windows // GTX 1050 = 40 fps OS X; HD 7950 = 90 fps OS X.

I would like to know the solution ........

AMD CPUs are for nothing

[ydeng]

Thank you for having seen it.

 

The main problem comes from decoding mp4 / mkv x264 / x265, nV is based on this principle when you use Windows, on OS X, it does not exist that is why the GPU remains inert and the CPU decodes as well Badly, the problem comes with WebdriversnV graphics drivers encoded with the feet !!

 

With support for x264 decoding by the AMD GPU, the CPU load does not exceed 3 or 4%, the GPU arrives at 50 or 60% of its load accelerating as nV on Windows. VLC uses it very well on OS X with AMD GPU.

Paradoxically, the AMD GPU I use (HD 7950) is unable to play a UHD 60 fps video on Windows 10 ahahahhah !!! Lag in all directions.

 

Try Divx Media Player, the result may be better for playing UHD videos.

 

NV make very good GPU, that's not the problem but they are very poorly supported on OS X, AMD GPU works perfectly, OpenGL / OpenCL / MetalGL.

 

Nothing has changed since Yosemite, I had the GTX 950 with a CPU i7 3930K and the problems were exactly the same at when.

 

AMD CPUs are for nothing

 

NVenc makes export 4 times faster 

 

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1243687

[gills83]

look

 

small vidéo x265

 

vidéo UHD + ScreenFlow + test cinebench15

 

Ryzen is slow ?

 

https://www.partage-fichiers.com/upload/us8ay7ht

 

another problem is that apple still uses old version of opengl and opencl and that alone just limit the card performance

that is the problem with mac os in games

untill apps, games are updated and written to use metal, we are going to continue to have performance problems

it doesn't matter if we use AMD or Nvidia

 

let's take for a example encoding

some apps use CPU encoding that is much slower than GPU encoding

GPU encoding is much faster

that's why is you have an nvidia card and the app uses CUDA then you will be able to encode using the GPU

 

this what mitch_de was talking about and is true

is really hard to say wich one is better than the other

it just depend in what aps you use and what you use your card for

some card will perform better than other in certain apps

 

back to the capture screen software

i sold my CPU yesterday i'm going to order a new CPU this week

 

then i will try to re create the mac os test in windows

if the same thing happens then the problem is not mac os

we can say the problem is the card

i said that is just too much load

technically speaking two 4k process at the same time is 8k

 

the only way around this i to do it the way i did it

like a bootleg movie from the theater

 

simply capture the screen monitor from another source

it might not look pretty but at least is effective and it gets the job done

 

can't wait to have my computer up and running

right now i'm using a slow laptop running windows

i can't stand it

 

later

 

 

We can turn all directions, nV on OS X will never work as nV on Windows and it is regrettable

[mitch_de]

Doesnt matter AMD or Nvidia - OpenCL works (if there is no bug in the App uses OpenCL and! the App not need OpenCL 2.0+ features (OS X only app no prob but win/linix/OS X app may disable OpenCL usage running OS X )

And dont forget (Nvidia video dev/enc not full supported in hw) that Nvidia cant life from OS X hackintosh users only to put much dev money in the OS X part of their work.

Apple, for my knowledge buy no more gpus from them = no money from Apple = why should Nvidia put much money in the OS X dev?

But they do give us further Nvidia Web drivers - used by hackintosh and oooolder real Macs (MacPro, some few other Macs) and they work - even staring to work for pascal gpus - Apple dont (perhaps never!) buy and use.

So its clear that such things like the  video dec/enc API (of OS X system) used by video apps (made & dev  by Apple, not Nvidia or AMD) are supporting that gpus Apple buyed and use in their Macs.

 

But OpenGL, Metal & OpenCL are not affected by missing Nvidia gpus in macs - but that can change in future if apple stay further away from Nvidia

My opinion: Apple made an deal with AMD in time as AMD has very much probs on the market / needs money. And apple got and get AMD gpus much cheaper than Nvidia because Nvidia does (in the past) not need Apple - had and has much more gpu market % as AMD. 

I understand them, apple + amd to go that way, its simple buissnes and not based on which gpu is better.

[gills83]

Could not we imagine coders that improves the OpenGL conditions on nV?

There are many AMD CPU kernels not recognized Apple

[gills83]

 

Intel works slowly you mean !! , You think that Intel CPU works fast, for the price they offer, it works very slowly, only to see the new 7900x vs Threadripper 1920x, poor Intel, is literally flushed !!

[mitch_de]

Yep, but same as Apple choosed AMD as main gpu hw you get in problems (at least you must patch the apple kernel for AMD usage...) if you take AMD as cpu in hackintosh.

So its not an  question for speed of cpu ,  its an question  of more easier to take Intel than AMD cpu.

Same as if you want much video playback (of HD++ material) on hackintosh- AMD gpu seems to be better for video usage (supports HW acc for video dec).

 

 

This example show that technical things , like speed or other advantages can be complete reordered by what system you run (what system supports the "better" HW or not)

bad- or unsupported HW makes at least trouble - or give black screen as may AMD gpus do since El Capitan without IGPU or second gpu beside amd gpu.

[gills83]

Yep, but same as Apple choosed AMD as main gpu hw you get in problems (at least you must patch the apple kernel for AMD usage...) if you take AMD as cpu in hackintosh.

So its not an  question for speed of cpu ,  its an question  of more easier to take Intel than AMD cpu.

Same as if you want much video playback (of HD++ material) on hackintosh- AMD gpu seems to be better for video usage (supports HW acc for video dec).

 

 

This example show that technical things , like speed or other advantages can be complete reordered by what system you run (what system supports the "better" HW or not)

bad- or unsupported HW makes at least trouble - or give black screen as may AMD gpus do since El Capitan without IGPU or second gpu beside amd gpu.

Why talk about black screen? , I never had a problem of black screen with ATI / AMD GPU, I explained to Dos, that the comparison of CPU was not good and was not the cause of graphical problems nV or AMD and especially That it was not very good to compare these CPUs especially at this time.

 

I had a lot more graphics problems with nV than AMD, that's for sure. I had a lot of GPU nV and ATI and a lot of black screen with nV, none with ATI, except the HD 4850, but memory the nV GPU before had very good performance regardless of the CPU Intel or AMD

 

I often made the comparison between the 2 platforms and the results are similar, the person who says he has better graphics results OpenGL with Intel CPU is dishonest because that is wrong.

 

I hope that the translation will be understandable.

[mitch_de]

About AMD is an easier to use as nvidia gpu card (maybe easy to use AFTER you got it working )

I asked at AMD thread here about to use AMD with Quad 9550 CPU and needed patch  (Clover, kext, Clover config settings...:

 

It will work, but this patch is only for the black screen after boot up, and not after wake up and it only works for AMD verde cards. An IGPU is only needed to wake up properly.

 

So there are two known problems with AMD:

1. black screen after boot (many sites of how to .. and try&error  framebuffer settings, patches)

2. black screen after sleep/wakeup (to fix this an IGPU is a must, no IGPU (or mayby 2. gpu card) = no fix - for my knowledge since El Capitan

 

So in general AMD gpus arent more easier to get them to work  than Nvidia gpus - its much  more the opposite! - for my knowledge!

[gills83]

Me, it's the opposite, I change very often CPU Intel and I had much more than AMD;)

Aside from the high-end CPU (very expensive) Intel CPUs are not good in general

 

Many people are buying from the Intel CPU, just for Windows video game !!

[gills83]

About AMD is an easier to use as nvidia gpu card (maybe easy to use AFTER you got it working )

I asked at AMD thread here about to use AMD with Quad 9550 CPU and needed patch  (Clover, kext, Clover config settings...:

 

It will work, but this patch is only for the black screen after boot up, and not after wake up and it only works for AMD verde cards. An IGPU is only needed to wake up properly.

 

So there are two known problems with AMD:

1. black screen after boot (many sites of how to .. and try&error  framebuffer settings, patches)

2. black screen after sleep/wakeup (to fix this an IGPU is a must, no IGPU (or mayby 2. gpu card) = no fix - for my knowledge since El Capitan

 

So in general AMD gpus arent more easier to get them to work  than Nvidia gpus - its much  more the opposite! - for my knowledge!

 

 

 

It all depends on what you call "complicated" the only complicated ATI I had was that in 1600x900x75 Hz (HD 4850) the others I had no problems with chameleon or clover old 4670/5450/5770/5870 / 6670/6850/7850/7950 was never a problem, it is true that the HD 7950 was flying under Mountain Lion with FBRotate, my first nV problem was the GTX 460 (with Quadro 4000 driver under Snow Leopard ), All small nV 9500 / GT 220 etc were not a problem but very bad, the GT 440 the worst black sreen !! The GTX 950, a fiasco !! Ahahaha !! And do not talk about the GTX 1050, before issuing a notice, I always try before, I do not launch free bad arguments, I believe that an old GT 440 works better than the GTX 1050 !! Once out of his black screen

My next test GPU will be AMD and nothing else;) maybe vega or R9 Nano, it's expensive !!

 

Thanks anyway for listening;)

[gills83]

Certainly, your GPU is not able to take charge of 60 fps video playback and recorded at the same time CQFD.

 

My choice has been made for a long time, the results of nV GPUs are getting worse as OS X versions advance.

It's a certainty.

For me, it's been a long time since it's closed

 

I tried to show you and thank you to have played the game and to have been sincere. 

[mitch_de]

I think for Nvidia there is only the video problem on OS X- if you need that 4K+ video playback

Running OpenGL, Metal and OpenCL with newer nvidia gpus (Maxwell+) it is not a problem - its mostly mostly faster than AMD.

I say this not as an nvidia freak but this thread goes to video problems with nvidia (4K+ 30Hz+)  and not OpenGL & OpenCL Speed -was the main question was!!!! 

 

https://gfxbench.com/result.jsp?benchmark=gfx40&test=754&text-filter=&order=median&ff-desktop=true&ff-lmobile=true&ff-smobile=true&os-OS_X_gl=true&os-OS_X_metal=true&pu-dGPU=true&pu-iGPU=true&pu-GPU=true&arch-ARM=true&arch-x86=true&base=device

You see, even Nvidia Pascal gpu (10xx gpus) OS X webdrivers are beta (main problem: bugs using some Adobe + Apple Apps) , they perform very well. Last year the List  (nvidia Kepler/maxwell gpus) looks other