Rhino 6 mac Beta

I work a lot in rendered or pen view.

In Rhino 5 mac you can do that with large files and complex geometries and it still runs smoothly.

You can rotate and so on without any trouble.

Rhino 6 mac is slow in rendered mode even when you rotate a few cubes.
The same in pen view.

Where is the use dear McNeel in proposing such a slow and laggy piece of software?
Are you now supposed to buy a new 10000€ mac because you want to run Rhino??

Rhino 6 mac like this is a HUGE disappointment. And I am surely not the only one who will heavily complain about that.

Are we now in a week supposed to upgrade to this piece of crappy software in order to test this further in hope it will get miraculously faster??

Totally laggy. https://global.discourse-cdn.com/mcneel/uploads/default/original/3X/3/5/3569c623978bedb08a5781838b4c548fae4cf166.mov

Can you send me the model?

Rendered mode in V6 is different than V5. You may want to try turning the skylight off in V6. That may also bring speeds up in rendered mode.

out of curiosity, I just made an array of 10,000 spheres and compared V5 vs V6 performance in default shaded mode…

V6 is way more responsive during navigation in this simple comparison for me… (mainly because it appears V6 is temporarily switching to wireframe mode, or otherwise dropping the render mesh until navigation stops)

in either case though, I think you’d have to hide some of the spheres or work in wireframe mode for a file like this (4.72GB) …I wouldn’t consider either as ‘useable’ in the state I tried…

still, V6 did appear to handle it better than V5



This is why I am trying to get models. I can’t make up “beyond boxes” as I could have done just what you did and made spheres. It may be some specific geometry type (brep, point, annotation, hatch, block,…) that is causing problems.

1 Like

I’m also experiencing slow downs and stuttery movement, especially in the technical display modes. I made a small comparison with v5 and v6:

The file:
testv5.3dm (3.1 MB)

Display mode:
Pen Outline.ini (6.4 KB)

I’m on a 2016 15" Mbp with an AMD Radeon Pro 450 2GB. Hope this helps!

1 Like

how did you get that .ini file from Mac Rhino? and how do you get it back in?
I didn’t know it was possible to share these individual modes on Mac

edit- never mind… I figured it out… COOL!

(fwiw, when I downloaded your file, my system added a .txt extension to it… I had to delete that part)

seems like the ‘Show silhouettes’ option is one thing causing a noticeable slowdown.

that said, if I recreate your example, I’m not getting the major slowdown after running TestMaxSpeed multiple times with your Outline display mode?

(V6-- PenOutline first… then Shaded)

@jeff can you take a look at this technical display post when you get a chance?

I also get very disappointing performance on my macbook 2016/Radeon Pro 450:

Time to regen viewport 100 times = 2.11 seconds.
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 6.11 seconds.
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 12.50 seconds
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 50.98 seconds

Rhino 5:
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.71 seconds.
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 1.11 seconds.
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 1.39 seconds.

GPU tesselation on or off doesn’t make a difference for me.
strangely enough, at 8x antialiasing it is faster than at 4x antialiasing

I think there are thousands and thousands of Rhino mac users out there which didn’t take Rhino mac 6 seriously and didn’t test it, because the performance seemed so oddly bad.

Not necessarily that but I was always in the assumption that the slowness was due to things being in development. Much has been changing during the wip phase, so I thought once it will be on par with the windows version, these things will be ironed out. And I still have high hopes that it will. What worries me though is that I get the feeling that McNeel seems to be surprised about these reports. It isn’t that difficult to compare v5 against v6 to find that the latter is much much slower.

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!)

RhinoWIP 6.16.19183.08014


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)

Rhino 5.5.3


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. :wink:

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?

duckduckgo Just joking! :wink:

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. :slight_smile:

The performance values you posted are a disaster. I am very disappointed and pessimistic.
I also don’t get why McNeel doesn’t take the issues seriously and they pretend it has to do with a particular 3d model or a particular computer. BS.

Using Quick Time for screen recording, Rhino’s performance drops, but you should see the difference.
iMac 27" 3,2 GHz Intel Core i5, 32gb ram, GPU Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2 gb. OS High Sierra.


Watching this video, it seems to me that there is something wrong with the mouse.

Don’t be so harch on them, @OXII. In my opinion, they DO take the issues seriously!
Furthermore, the problems sure have to do with computer performance!

If McNeel indeed does GPU viewport rendering in Rhino 6 (speculation), that basically means that the faster your GPU is, the faster the viewport re-renders. Now, most Mac base models have weak-ass GPUs.
You seem to have all kinds of Macs. Why don’t you post some results yourself? I’m very curious about the 2016 Mac Mini. Does it even have a dedicated GPU? :smiley:

Can you too run some testes with Testmaxspeed and post the results? The video shows very little in my opinion.

Most macs don’t have a good GPU performance. I think the mac mini as you said doesn’t even have one. But those were computers which were expensive (ssd, 16gb or ram).

The hardware choices of Apple are no secret to as all.

But it is not hard to take into account which computers mac users have. They will have a mac mini or a macbook, a macbook pro or an imac. Which is probably mid range and 2-5 years old.

1% of the Apple users have a workstation comparable computer!

Evidently the use of Quick Time, then of Handbrake to reduce the size of the videos, distorts the result. In this case, Rhino 6 is definitely faster. A little but faster.

Rhino 6
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.49 seconds. (205.76 FPS) Wireframe
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.56 seconds. (179.86 FPS) Shaded
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.95 seconds. (104.82 FPS) render
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 6.92 seconds. (14.44 FPS) Pen

Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.42 seconds. Wireframe
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.73 seconds. Shaded
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.69 seconds. render
Time to regen viewport 100 times = 0.69 seconds. Pen

This data does not represent what I see using this file with Rhino 5 and 6. Rhino 6 is slightly faster. (note: I use a 3d mouse Connexion) I am especially surprised by the Pen view. From this data, Rhino 5 would be much better than Rhino 6. Instead, it is precisely where there is the greatest difference in speed for Rhino 6.