Please do remember that the iMac Pro of 2017 has almost exactly the same rendering speed in GPU renderers as a full m1 max of a 2022 Mac Studio. Just something different enough to separate from the Studio target market. The don't necessarily have to make a Dell/HP super bulky workstation 'killer'. Remove that constraint and add some modest PCI-e v4 lane provisioning to the SoC and Apple can make a substantively different product for a different product audience. It has to fit inside of a 7 inch x 7 inche square. Studio has a Apple self imposed constraint that it is a literal desktop system. If it is an SoC that is so expensive 'nobody' wants to buy it then you pragmatically don't have a product either. The danger is that it sinks so low that it rounds to zero. The Mac Pro is very low single digits of the Mac unit sales. There are hyper modular advocates, but they collectively don't relatively buy much in the aggregate. If too expensive to make then that will be a product inhibitor.Ī major constraint the Mac Pro has is that it is realtive very low volume. There is little to no economic reason to decouple the R&D spend of the Mac Pro from the rest of the Mac (and iPadOS ) line up. The bigger the ecosystem the slower the migration is likely going to be.Īctually is the the opposite. The other major issues is all the plug-ins and wrap around infrastructure apps. That won't be a 'cure all' since pretty several of the computational bottlenecks are all in OpenGL shader code littered with assumptions it is talking to a 5-12 year old AMD/Nvidia GPU. Probably will run faster on an Intel Mac also. More likely Maya developers need to find some localized modules that are a computational choke point and possibly just convert a portion so that the Rosetta2 compiler can get a 'better' handle on translating a more modern Intel/Metal chunk of code into something that will run faster. Maya really isn't going to get those either even pre-Rosetta2 status. The non Metal exposure impacts them on the macOS on Intel side also because there are still some AMD Metal optimizations trickling. All the new GPU driver features rolled out over the last 2 years they don't have direct access to because sitting behind a deprecated API. (so if arm core is clocked faster and has a faster cache properties the code will run faster.) However, frozen-in-time OpenGL code knows nothing about new Metal 3 features that dramatically better leverage tile memory caching, new ray tracing data structures, or etc, etc. Once they have gone through the Rosetta2 translator it is running native code. That is probably where Maya is likely leaving performance on the table. ( which Apple could also just nuke in 4-6 years ). Mismatch on the GPU optimizations if only trying to talk to the Apple GPU through the now 'frozen in time' OpenGL (and OpenGL shader language code ). The bigger Apple Silicon optimization problem that Maya likely has is not the Arm "half" of the SoC, but the GPU 'half'. The other hiccup is all the 'plug ins' have to be switched over also ( there is no mixed-mode with Rosetta2 ). If there is AVX code in Maya that would be problematical. The system requirements for Maya say it only requires SSE4.2. ( If there is some 'too clever for its own good' assembler code then perhaps have problems, but non perverse c/c++ code should work. If the Rosetta compiler is working in vast majority of cases the source code to arm binary compiler is going to work to. There is some overhead/steps to set up an XCode project to compile an Arm build but it isn't a huge project. ( there is some corner case stuff that does some dynamic compiles when necessary, but that also is mostly just a compile). Primarily, all Rosetta2 does statically compile the Intel binaries into a 'hidden' Arm binary the first time you run the applications.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |