I have Macs M1s M2s. I feel like nothing has improved on speed and in some aspects it has gotten slower.
Are the developers putting any work into Mac GPU support at all? Or is it just PC GPU support?
I just need to know what computers I should buy. If the Mac version is not going to use the GPU cores then I need to start investing in PCs I guess.
It really seems like development on/for Apple Silicon has mostly come to a halt.
Plus, currently those NVIDIA 4080 / 4090 GPUs are hard to beat
If you’re mainly doing TVAI encodes and care for the best speed I therefore guess you should get a PC with at least core i7 13700 and RTX 4080.
I think this has more to do with NVIDIA than Topaz; NVIDIA is top of the pack and very hard to beat. They have better development support, a stronger community, have been at this longer, and have better products. BTW, you should look at RTX A-series processors if you convert to a Windows machine.
The last benchmark posted by someone with an M2 Ultra had comparable speeds to an RTX 3080 or better. That’s the best speeds I have ever seen from a Mac. (The Iris speeds were still capped.) It made me think something’s been worked on.
No there wasn’t a speed gain on Apple Silicon in the last few versions of the software.
I have both, an M1 Pro and an M2 Ultra system.
Speed was much faster with Iris (both V1 and V2) some time in the past - around the first 3.4 versions - but otherwise there’s not really a major change to see other than the quite high fluctuations of the benchmark numbers.
Which is OK for the other models as I think they’re performing mostly as they should, just Iris is totally underperforming and there unfortunately even more so for the most widely use case: 2x upscaling.
i encourage you to get a gamer/studio laptop with windows. costs HALF a mac and has the same if not better hardware. and dont choose a PC just by topaz software. think if you can save HALF of the price of a mac, you can get TWICE the better hardware (more resources) in a regular windows laptop than in customer hating apple.
That doesn’t make sense. First, you’ll burn the laptop out and second, any of the new Mac Minis can handle video editing and file conversion much faster with very little electric.
That’s not entirely true.
You’ll have a really hard time finding anything Windows based that can compete with an MacBook Air M1/M2 in the basic configurations from several points:
Only with the more expensive versions the price/performance ratio of those Apple devices reduces drastically.
And, of course if you’re only remotely into gaming you should avoid the Mac.
P.S.: Look at your own slow speeds with your gaming laptop…
look the specs of any decent priced windows laptop VS a brand new macbook. or a windows tower vs a mac competer like a mini mac. you will see price is lower and specs are higher.
You can’t compare specs between Apple and PC computers.
Built in Apple M1 and M2 chips are designed to perform certain tasks much faster than a typical PC chip.
It is apples and oranges. I guarantee you that a Mac Mini M2 @ $499 will easily convert most video formats faster than any $1000 PC based system. Adobe products will run faster on equipment easily 1/2 the price if you go the Apple route.
That is the problem with this software. For Mac users, they are not utilizing the machine’s full capabilities. Other big brands, like Adobe, are writing code to utilize the high performing GPU cores in Mac computers.
Now it appears that this software is not designed to utilize Apple’s GPU chips fully. That is their choice – but even if it says it is compatible with an Apple M2 chip – it does not mean it fully utilizes it.
AI is moving super fast. Other options are appearing quickly for Macs and for professional video producers, this software is just becoming a headache. It should not crash any more.
For PC users – you can add any GPU you want – at any price – and at a high usage of electricity and noisy fans.
I have seen zero performance gains and a bizarre workflow with no real time previewing after going to V4. For me it is based on the value of my time. For a hobbyist – maybe not.
The lack of any almost real-time viewing of the rendering ends my interest in this product. I want to see if it is rendering the way I want it to – not after I have rendered the entire project.
Bizarre.
hardware is hardware. a processor that runs @1.50 GHZ is slower than a processor that runs @3.00 GHZ. does not matter if it is intel, AMD or whatever brand is out there.
its not the same having 8 gbs of RAM than 16 gbs.
its not the same having a brand new AMD gpu than a brand new NVIDIA GPU nor a INTEL gpu.
MAC os its not the best thing in the world, many many stuff does not work well on it.
windows is no marvel eighter, linux may be optimized but is all command based to do advanced stuff.
if i sell you windows PC hardware with a processor that runs @ 3.00 GHZ INTEL I9 with 32 GBS of RAM and a graphics card NVIDIA from 2023 at $XXX value is better than a macbook air with a cpu of @ 2.00 GHZ 16 GBS of RAM and a graphics chip AMD from early 2022. facts are facts. look for some benchmark comparisons between your fav mac hardware and a similar windows PC hadware. cheaper and better performance.
Have you heard of the word ARM?
yes but that is relatively new hardware. and windows 11 does support ARM.
ARM is all about power saving. Not powerful processing.
Well I think it is both:
Arm processors can execute many more millions of instructions per second than Intel processors. By stripping out unneeded instructions and optimizing pathways, an Arm processor can deliver outstanding performance while using much less energy than a CISC-based processor.
Sounds like it levels out. ARM can do lots of single instructions, and X86 does more complex instructions that would be equal to several single instructions. I’m not finding anything that agrees with your statement about “many more millions of instructions per second than Intel processors”.
The most I found was they’re like comparing a car on water and a boat on a road.
I guess you never really used Win on ARM 
Ouch. Ever heard of Netburst architecture?
Ouch, ouch. Apparently you don’t know recent Apple architecture at all - which then of course does explain your previous statement.
Yes, earlier MacBooks were quite slow because they relied on PC hardware (Intel/Intel or Intel/AMD) for the mobile notebook/miniPC segment (so just what you suggested to use :-/) and that was the main reason Apple switched to their own C/GPUs.
So: Yes, current PC hardware IS faster at the cost of power consumption and heat (and also being nearly as expensive if you look at those prices for 4080 or even 4090 GPUs) - but not really so with components from the mobile/notebook sector.
Besides, those gaming laptops are really quite expensive if you want one of a known brand with decent build quality. So there a M2 MacBook Air in the basic configuration can definitely compete, just not for gaming.
Interesting… 
I thought you were unhappy about the performance of your new gaming laptop.
Personally, I do not recommend using a laptop for TVAI. Laptops are not designed to work at 100% CPU/GPU load 24/7. They easily overheat and start thermal throttling. For long periods of heavy-load AI processing, a real desktop tower is preferred (not a mini PC). If you have a powerful CPU, it is preferable to use a decent CPU cooler, such as a beefy dual-tower CPU cooler or a 360 AIO, to prevent the CPU from thermal throttling.
Topaz Video AI v3.5.4
System Information
OS: Windows v11.22
CPU: 13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-13700H 15.737 GB
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU 11.729 GB
Processing Settings
device: 0 vram: 0.89 instances: 0
Input Resolution: 1920x1080
Benchmark Results
Artemis 1X: 16.87 fps 2X: 10.64 fps 4X: 03.11 fps
Iris 1X: 18.81 fps 2X: 09.47 fps 4X: 02.73 fps
Proteus 1X: 15.74 fps 2X: 10.07 fps 4X: 03.19 fps
Gaia 1X: 05.50 fps 2X: 03.64 fps 4X: 02.43 fps
Nyx 1X: 06.98 fps
4X Slowmo Apollo: 23.38 fps APFast: 70.35 fps Chronos: 12.64 fps CHFast: 20.89 fps
Topaz Video AI v3.5.0
System Information
OS: Windows v11.22
CPU: 13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-13700K 31.773 GB
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 11.744 GB
GPU: Intel(R) UHD Graphics 770 0.125 GB
Processing Settings
device: 0 vram: 1 instances: 1
Input Resolution: 1920x1080
Benchmark Results
Artemis 1X: 19.47 fps 2X: 13.15 fps 4X: 04.33 fps
Iris 1X: 20.48 fps 2X: 11.19 fps 4X: 03.59 fps
Proteus 1X: 18.01 fps 2X: 12.12 fps 4X: 04.49 fps
Gaia 1X: 06.64 fps 2X: 04.59 fps 4X: 03.16 fps
Nyx 1X: 07.96 fps
4X Slowmo Apollo: 24.93 fps APFast: 72.91 fps Chronos: 14.21 fps CHFast: 22.26 fps
you quoted me out of context: i am complaining of how awful the performance of TVAI is not my laptop pc. my laptop pc runs any game at ultra settings and wont lag for a second specially on 60 fps. i always preferred pc towers untill i realized CPU’s change their sockets like every 2 years so if i am not upgrading every 2 years my pc, even my motherboard will run outdated and may as well just get a new tower and add any cool hardware from the previous one. i prefer a laptop that will last a minimum of 5 years running at top notch and deal with it rather than after 2 years if i wanna upgrade my cpu or ram need to swap the mother board as well. and any component it gets outdated with it.
But we are talking about computer for TVAI, not gaming. 
You can upgrade your graphic card without change motherboard.
Also, if you choose AMD system, they keep their sockets for 6 years.
(AM4 2016~2022)
