blocks|key|3361664|text|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|entityMap^0^^$0|@$1|2|3|-4|4|5|6|B|7|@]|8|@]|9|$]]]|A|$]]

<h1>A GTX 1080/1080 Ti in a AORUS/Gigabyte Gaming Box/Sapphire GearBox/AKiTiO Node, on macOS High Sierra</h1>

<h2>Preface</h2>

<p>First and foremost: <strong>what card is best for you will depend heavily on your specific workload</strong>, down to often even relatively small details. Things from what you're modeling, render settings, and even what format you're exporting to can influence what card works best for you massively. Unfortunately, spending more doesn't mean you'll be getting better performance, and outside of the very best Quadros, doesn't even guarantee the same level of performance. What I'm trying to do here is provide you with a general recommendation of what will <em>probably</em> be good given your (somewhat varied) workload. If it turns out that you're really doing one thing in particular, either come back here for more specific recommendations or contact the developer/a third party consultant who specializes in the tech for a specific recommendation.</p>

<p>Second: I am by no means an expert when it comes to hardware-accelerated GPGPU. The world of GPUs, even compared to others in the industry, is a particularly messy one, and I make no pretense that I understand it all or even close to it. If you want a brief and very interesting (while slightly terrifying) look into the world of graphics, I highly recommend <a href="https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2017/07/30/ubershaders/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this post on the Dolphin Emulator blog on ubershaders.</a></p>

<p>That said, let's get into it.</p>

<h2>Graphics APIs</h2>

<p>Understanding what GPU is best for you requires understanding how GPUs interface with software. Based on your background, I'll assume you understand the basic premise between APIs, but it's worth reviewing them in specific for macOS, since it in particular sits in a bit of a weird space when it comes to graphics APIs. For the purposes of these programs, macOS has three different graphics APIs: OpenCL, CUDA, and Metal. OpenCL is cross-vendor and cross-platform, working on AMD, Nvidia, and Intel (plus others) GPUs with Apple's out-of-the-box drivers on macOS. CUDA is specific to Nvidia GPUs but cross-platform, installable with Nvidia's web drivers on macOS. Metal is the newest of the bunch, written by Apple for their OSs with support for AMD, Nvidia, and Intel (plus others) GPUs. So, which to choose? Well, it's not so simple. Metal and CUDA tend to provide "better" access to the hardware, at the cost of the developers. Although Metal might seem like the obvious first choice, because it's so new and specific to Apple's OSs, performance is often somewhat lackluster, if developer support exists at all. OpenCL might seem like a solid bet, but because Apple wants to push Metal, <a href="https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202823" rel="nofollow noreferrer">it refuses to provide drivers past version 1.2</a>, <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/28/why-macos-mojave-requires-metal----and-deprecates-opengl" rel="nofollow noreferrer">even outright deprecating it with the release of macOS 10.14 Mojave</a> (somewhat ironic given <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL#History" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Apple is the original author of OpenCL</a>.) Additionally, Nvidia GPUs tend to perform worse with OpenCL compared to CUDA. CUDA, meanwhile, suffers from the obvious burden of only supporting Nvidia GPUs and lackluster support from Nvidia themselves.</p>

<p>This has left software vendors in a bit of a tight spot. Many have existing support for OpenCL (and sometimes CUDA) based hardware acceleration, but don't see a clear path forward. No matter what option they choose, they're either alienating part of their consumer base on the basis of their hardware choices, getting less performance than they could, or spending more time and resources developing their software. As a result, <strong>developers have basically scattered when it comes to what graphics API they use on macOS.</strong></p>

<p>For this reason, <strong>this will be considered on a program by program basis, along with hardware.</strong> </p>

<h2>After Effects (and sort of the rest of CC)</h2>

<p><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/after-effects/using/basics-gpu-after-effects.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">In the timeline, After Effects supports some effects and fast rendering on GPU using OpenGL for most, and CUDA <em>only</em> for a few.</a></p>

<p>As it stands, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oz_F1ECwzQ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Media Encoder still favors OpenCL over Metal</a> for encoding. Or maybe not? Initial testing with Adobe Media Encoder 2019 (which has a bunch of improvements on the Metal front) actually yielded a 11% (1:20 vs. 1:30) improvement with Metal transcoding from a H.264 screen recording to H.264 Youtube 1080p... so maybe not? In any case, I won't be considering this for now because of the wonky state of Metal at the moment (more on this later.)</p>

<p><a href="https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/After-Effects-CC-2019-NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-Performance-1270/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Let's get down to the benchmarks:</a></p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/NKmyf.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/NKmyf.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Conclusion? <strong>More raw power is better (but not by a ton); Nvidia is favored somewhat over AMD; "Pro" features don't matter.</strong></p>

<h2>Maya</h2>

<h3>Viewport</h3>

<p>Unfortunately, <a href="https://techgage.com/article/radeon-pro-vs-quadro-a-fresh-look-at-workstation-gpu-performance/4/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">numbers</a> for the RTX series aren't available here. However, we can still get a pretty good idea of things.
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/8t2UG.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/8t2UG.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<h3>Rendering</h3>

<p>AFAIK, Maya doesn't support GPU-based rendering. While I believe there are other renderers which do, I don't feel I'm qualified to talk about them here. </p>

<p>Conclusion? <strong>More raw power is better; AMD and Nvidia appear roughly equal; "Pro" features are favored by ~5-20%, but which features are important is unclear.</strong></p>

<h2>Cinema 4D</h2>

<h3>Viewport</h3>

<p>Unfortunately, SPECviewperf numbers aren't available for Cinema 4D AFAIK, and I haven't been able to find a good replacement. Will update if I find something.</p>

<h3>Rendering</h3>

<p>Cinema 4D is really simple: no support for GPU rendering!</p>

<p>...until it's not. While the "normal" rendering engine doesn't support GPU acceleration, <a href="https://greyscalegorilla.com/2017/08/what-renderer-should-i-use-in-cinema-4d/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cinema 4D offers the ability to use a variety of other rendering engines</a>, including Arnold, Octane, Redshift, and even Blender's Cycles engine. However, these might as well be considered separate programs, so I won't actually be covering those here.</p>

<p>Except, starting with release 20 on September 1st, 2018, Cinema 4D includes built-in support for the Radeon ProRender rendering engine, with support for OpenCL and Metal based acceleration. Unfortunately, because it's new, numbers are hard to come by. So far, all I've managed to find is <a href="https://techgage.com/article/performance-testing-amds-radeon-prorender-in-autodesk-3ds-max/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this set</a>:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/t0u8r.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/t0u8r.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Note also that these numbers are with OpenCL on Windows 10 Pro and don't include the RTX series.</p>

<p>Conclusion? <strong>More raw power is better; AMD is favored over Nvidia; "Pro" features don't matter. However, things are fast-moving.</strong></p>

<h2>GPU: The final decision</h2>

<p>Based on your budget, ~$500 seems reasonable for your graphics card. </p>

<p>Frankly, the extra expense of a "pro" card doesn't make sense for the relatively minimal gains in Maya. Because of the much better availability of consumer cards, I'd highly recommend one of them over a pro card.</p>

<p>Going for straight power, a used GTX 1080 should be well within reach; and, if you're willing to shop around a bit, a GTX 1080 Ti should be doable. Right now, AMD's offerings just aren't competitive at this price point; used 10 series cards are far cheaper and available compared to Vega cards, and no AMD card can match the 1080 Ti ATM.</p>

<p>However, it must be noted that Nvidia cards are currently unsupported on Mojave, and other than Kepler, Metal drivers are absent, making it impossible to upgrade to Mojave. However, it seems likely that Nvidia will release drivers (with Metal support) in the future. Just when exactly that future is is unclear. In the meantime, stay on High Sierra.</p>

<p>Note also that <a href="https://egpu.io/forums/mac-setup/state-of-egpu-for-macs-mojave-10-14-update/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Thunderbolt 2 and Nvidia eGPUs are unsupported by Apple and require extra work</a> for macOS compared to the plug-and-play of an AMD card on Mojave with a TB3 equipped Mac. Since you've got a Thunderbolt 2 equipped laptop anyways, I'm going to recommend this setup anyways. Just keep this in mind.</p>

<h2>eGPU enclosures</h2>

<p><a href="https://egpu.io/build-guides/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">eGPU.io</a> is a fantastic resource for everything eGPU related, from hardware recommendations to build guides. Information is generally quite recent, and the forums there are extremely useful.</p>

<p>I'm going to recommend using a Thunderbolt 3 eGPU enclosure with an adapter, rather than a Thunderbolt 2 enclosure. While Thunderbolt 2 enclosures can be cheaper, they're usually harder to find, have much, much lower power limits, and aren't great for upgradability. </p>

<p>eGPUs are a bit strange in that there are a bunch of different enclosures available, all of which are fairly valid choices. While I'm going to make some recommendations, if you find yourself looking at something else, there's nothing wrong with that. Again, the <a href="https://egpu.io/external-gpu-buyers-guide-2018/#tb3-enclosures" rel="nofollow noreferrer">eGPU.io buyer's guide</a> is a fantastic resource.</p>

<h3><a href="https://www.aorus.com/product-detail.php?p=601" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AORUS/Gigabyte Gaming Box with a preinstalled GTX 1080</a> – ~$650?</h3>

<p>This box is a pretty good deal at $670... if you can find one. Unfortunately, as far as I can find, they're completely out of stock in normal retail channels. However, they're still in good supply from 3rd party resellers for around $600 with the card, and often significantly less without the card.</p>

<h3><a href="https://sapphirenation.net/sapphire-gearbox-thunderbolt-3/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sapphire GearBox</a> vs. <a href="https://www.akitio.com/expansion/node" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AKiTiO Node</a> – $259</h3>

<p>They're both very similar budget enclosures, each with a few trade-offs. Winner of each category gets asterixes:</p>

<pre><code>                    | GearBox                   | Node
––––––––––––––––––––+–––––––––––––––––––––––––––+––––––––––
PSU type-location   | fATX-int                  | *SFX-int*
Power delivery (PD) | *60W*                     | 15W
IO                  | *2x USB 3.0, 1x Ethernet* | None
</code></pre>

<p>Frankly, most of these features are probably unimportant given your laptop and the already beefy PSUs included out of the box. So, it's really a toss-up IMO.</p>

<h3><a href="https://www.razer.com/gaming-laptops/razer-core-x" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Razer Core X</a> - $300</h3>

<p>It's bigger, has a full sized PSU, and looks prettier. It also costs more. IMO, nothing more than a runner-up if you think the others are too ugly.</p>


<p>I'm looking for external GPU options for a power boost for a mid-2015 MacBook Pro 15 inch. It is used for animation production and 3D rendering, using software such as Aftereffects and Maya. </p>

<p>I don't have any knowledge of hardware systems, so I'll appreciate any information on what would my the best options for this for a budget around 700-750$ ? I was thinking of buying an AMD RX 580. Is that a good choice?</p>

<p>Please keep in mind that my Macbook is Thunderbolt 2, and I'm going to have to use the eGPUs with a Thunderbolt 2 to 3 adopter I guess. (I don't know if that matters.)</p>


Best graphic cards and eGPUs for MacBook Pro 15" mid-2015

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

教程

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云智能顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云AI代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

功能1上新10个字符

功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符。

功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符。

功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符

功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符

功能4上新

文章&问答评论现已支持表情

全新交互，全新视觉，新增快捷键、悬浮工具栏、高亮块等功能并同时优化现有功能，全面提升创作效率和体验

社区富文本编辑器全新改版！诚邀体验～ 

精选全网热门MCP server，让你的AI更好用 🚀

💥开发者 MCP广场重磅上线！

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

聚焦“写作效率、视觉美观与运行性能”三方面进行全面升级，为您提供更高效、稳定的创作环境

社区富文本&Markdown编辑器全新改版上线，欢迎大家体验!

诚挚邀请您参与本次调研，分享您的真实使用感受与建议。您的反馈至关重要，感谢您的支持与参与！

社区新版编辑器体验调研

我正在寻找外部GPU选项，为2015年中期的MacBook Pro 15英寸的功率提升。它用于动画制作和3D渲染，使用软件，如后效和玛雅。我没有任何硬件系统的知识，所以我会感激任何关于我的最好选择的信息，预算在700-750美元左右？我想买一辆AMD RX 580。这是个不错的选择吗？请记住，我的Macbook是雷霆2，我将不得不使用eGPU与雷霆2到3采用者我猜。(我不知道这是否重要。)

问2015年中期MacBook Pro 15版的最佳图形卡和eGPU
EN

回答 1

Hardware Recommendations用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问2015年中期MacBook Pro 15版的最佳图形卡和eGPUEN