I’m also using a 2016 MacBook Pro (2.9 GHz Intel i7, 16 GB RAM, Radeon Pro 460 4 GB).
Here’s my report, done with @_vals’s file. (Tanks for providing it!)
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 1.18 seconds. (84.53 FPS)
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 5.57 seconds. (17.96 FPS)
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 5.35 seconds. (18.68 FPS)
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 2.05 seconds. (48.80 FPS)
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 18.92 seconds. (5.28 FPS)
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.48 seconds.
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.63 seconds.
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 1.00 seconds.
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.64 seconds.
It seems like the viewport rendering speed is directly linked to the GPU performance.
I don’t mean to be rude guys, but a 2 GB GPU for CG work seems a bit underpowered. Even my 4 GB GPU is laughed upon! And non-dedicated GPUs, don’t even get me started here.
What is weird though is the huge difference between Rhino 5 and 6. McNeel must have switched view port rendering from CPU to GPU?
I guess, they should adapt their system requirements from “NVIDIA or AMD graphics processor is recommended.” to what is recommended for Windows users anyways, which is “4 GB Video RAM recommended.”
Why publish such vague Mac requirements anyways?
Unfortunately, it seems to be confirmed now. Rhino for Mac 6 is indeed much slower than 5 (unless you have a beast of a mac)!
#metoo, but now it seems that either McNeel has serious trouble developing for the Mac platform, or they simply take it too lightly (allegedly)?
I don’t even have that much of a problem with Mac Rhino not being totally on par with the Windows version. WinRhino has been in development for much longer.
What I don’t get is, despite the many complaints in the forums about performance (and other things), some folks always want to talk the issues down and sell that Rhino 6 must/should/might be faster than version 5, when truly it is not. On what machines do you guys even test on?
I totally get that there is much pressure in the CAD software biz and that you need to sell new products to stay afloat, but at least be honest about (1) the software requirements and (2) the software performance.
The release next week should be interesting. I’m still optimistic.