filmov
tv
Sonnet eGFX Breakaway 650 vs Razer Core X - eGPU Comparison
Показать описание
*Re-loaded without the sound issue.
Looking to add a bit of “oomph” to your Thunderbolt 3 enabled Mac? Then an eGPU is probably going to be your best bet. Now we’ve been using two different eGPU’s for our videos over the last year and we definitely know the differences between the Sonnet eGFX Breakaway Box 650 and the Razer Core X.
In short, the Razer Core X comes out on top.
When it comes to gaming, both were definitely better than the stock GPU but there was no measurable difference between the two.
When it comes to video editing, we had more success with the Razer Core X.
BUT outside of video editing and gaming, there are two things that I found made me like the Sonnet.
So here’s what we did for this video. We bought the two eGPU’s and to keep things simple, we have the same graphics card in both, a 8GB Radeon RX VEGA 56. Halfway through our official testing, we swapped the cards between the boxes and ran the same tests.
Now from our technical perspective, here are a few notable differences.
Sound - The Razer Core X is louder than the eGFX Breakaway Box when the box is idling and when under loads. When both units are under loads, the sound difference is smaller BUT the Core X is still louder by 2-5 DB’s. I will note that the Sonnet box will sound louder because the differences between idle and load is over 10DB’s so it is very noticeable when it spools up.
Portability - The eGFX Breakaway Box is easy to move because it only weighs 7lbs whereas the Razer Core X is 12lbs. The enclosure on the Core X is heavy. The extra length and extra weight gets annoying to move around so if you’re treating the Core X as a desktop and keeping it one place, then this won’t be an issue.
Another downside for the Core X when it comes to portability is that the sled where the GPU sits in slides around a bit so when you move it around, feels like it’s going to fall out.
BUT that’s a good thing when it comes to card swapping as you’re not peeling and prying the cover off like the Sonnet box.
Capacity - Both boxes fit my RX Vega 56’s without any issue. However, if you’re going balls out on a GPU and plan on getting one that’s a 3-fer, than Core X is going to be your only choice. Between these two eGPU boxes.
Alright, that’s the boring stuff out of the way. Let’s talk about how well these units perform when it comes to video editing and gaming/graphics.
I ran the test from Unigen Valley and captured the FPS for each pass. During this test, I didn’t notice much of a difference between the eGPU’s. Both were definitely better than the stock MacBook Pro but neither offered much difference between each other.
Now the only numerical benchmark I could run that would test the GPU’s was LuxMark whose scores didn’t provide much insight in terms of differences. Both devices had scores around 26,600 whereas the stock GPU clocked in around 5000. It was at this moment that I thought there wouldn’t much difference in the performance of the units but I was wrong.
When it comes to using both boxes with Final Cut Pro X, the Razer Core X performed in the most consistent manner before and after the card swaps. When adding a 50’s TV filter onto a 4GB 4K video clip took between 8 and 9.5 minutes whereas the Sonnet took between 8.75 minutes to 13 minutes.
As a side note the render took over 15 minutes to do without the eGPU so if you’re working in render heavy environments, you’re going to save close to 50% of your time. Now the eGPU has no effect on video exports or imports.
When it comes to games, I did two tests, one with a little known game called Starcraft 2 and a newer game called Subnautica. I choose these games because I’m in the process of replaying them because current games blow.
When it came to SC2 with the graphic setting put on Ultra, every card, including the stock card was able to produce FPS between 18-22 without any issue. Is this surprising? Not really since it’s a 9 year old game BUT it was worth testing to see what would happen.
Now Subnautica was a bit different story. For the base GPU as the game was hard to play at 7 FPS. Both eGPU’s put out numbers between 18-22 FPS. Is it stellar? No but that’s not the point of this video.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to stay in the loop! We release 2-3 videos a week so there's going to be something new every week. We're all about helping you get the most out of iOS so click Subscribe!
Looking to add a bit of “oomph” to your Thunderbolt 3 enabled Mac? Then an eGPU is probably going to be your best bet. Now we’ve been using two different eGPU’s for our videos over the last year and we definitely know the differences between the Sonnet eGFX Breakaway Box 650 and the Razer Core X.
In short, the Razer Core X comes out on top.
When it comes to gaming, both were definitely better than the stock GPU but there was no measurable difference between the two.
When it comes to video editing, we had more success with the Razer Core X.
BUT outside of video editing and gaming, there are two things that I found made me like the Sonnet.
So here’s what we did for this video. We bought the two eGPU’s and to keep things simple, we have the same graphics card in both, a 8GB Radeon RX VEGA 56. Halfway through our official testing, we swapped the cards between the boxes and ran the same tests.
Now from our technical perspective, here are a few notable differences.
Sound - The Razer Core X is louder than the eGFX Breakaway Box when the box is idling and when under loads. When both units are under loads, the sound difference is smaller BUT the Core X is still louder by 2-5 DB’s. I will note that the Sonnet box will sound louder because the differences between idle and load is over 10DB’s so it is very noticeable when it spools up.
Portability - The eGFX Breakaway Box is easy to move because it only weighs 7lbs whereas the Razer Core X is 12lbs. The enclosure on the Core X is heavy. The extra length and extra weight gets annoying to move around so if you’re treating the Core X as a desktop and keeping it one place, then this won’t be an issue.
Another downside for the Core X when it comes to portability is that the sled where the GPU sits in slides around a bit so when you move it around, feels like it’s going to fall out.
BUT that’s a good thing when it comes to card swapping as you’re not peeling and prying the cover off like the Sonnet box.
Capacity - Both boxes fit my RX Vega 56’s without any issue. However, if you’re going balls out on a GPU and plan on getting one that’s a 3-fer, than Core X is going to be your only choice. Between these two eGPU boxes.
Alright, that’s the boring stuff out of the way. Let’s talk about how well these units perform when it comes to video editing and gaming/graphics.
I ran the test from Unigen Valley and captured the FPS for each pass. During this test, I didn’t notice much of a difference between the eGPU’s. Both were definitely better than the stock MacBook Pro but neither offered much difference between each other.
Now the only numerical benchmark I could run that would test the GPU’s was LuxMark whose scores didn’t provide much insight in terms of differences. Both devices had scores around 26,600 whereas the stock GPU clocked in around 5000. It was at this moment that I thought there wouldn’t much difference in the performance of the units but I was wrong.
When it comes to using both boxes with Final Cut Pro X, the Razer Core X performed in the most consistent manner before and after the card swaps. When adding a 50’s TV filter onto a 4GB 4K video clip took between 8 and 9.5 minutes whereas the Sonnet took between 8.75 minutes to 13 minutes.
As a side note the render took over 15 minutes to do without the eGPU so if you’re working in render heavy environments, you’re going to save close to 50% of your time. Now the eGPU has no effect on video exports or imports.
When it comes to games, I did two tests, one with a little known game called Starcraft 2 and a newer game called Subnautica. I choose these games because I’m in the process of replaying them because current games blow.
When it came to SC2 with the graphic setting put on Ultra, every card, including the stock card was able to produce FPS between 18-22 without any issue. Is this surprising? Not really since it’s a 9 year old game BUT it was worth testing to see what would happen.
Now Subnautica was a bit different story. For the base GPU as the game was hard to play at 7 FPS. Both eGPU’s put out numbers between 18-22 FPS. Is it stellar? No but that’s not the point of this video.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to stay in the loop! We release 2-3 videos a week so there's going to be something new every week. We're all about helping you get the most out of iOS so click Subscribe!
Комментарии