Nvidia SLI in a Hackintosh?

Forgive me if this post seems a bit stupid or out of reach, but I'm new at building a Hackintosh and I was wondering if I could get two EVGA GTX 670's (EVGA 02G-P4-3677-KR) for my Hackintosh project and run them in SLI possibly? Any knowledge/feedback to decipher if this is can happen or not and why would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

DontUSASme said:

Forgive me if this post seems a bit stupid or out of reach, but I'm new at building a Hackintosh and I was wondering if I could get two EVGA GTX 670's (EVGA 02G-P4-3677-KR) for my Hackintosh project and run them in SLI possibly? Any knowledge/feedback to decipher if this is can happen or not and why would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Click to expand...

No, nVidia SLI and ATI Crossfire are not supported in Mac OS X. You can run the two cards as separate cards, but not in SLI configuration.

Is there any benefit to running two separate cards? Or am I better off just getting one card?

DontUSASme said:

Is there any benefit to running two separate cards? Or am I better off just getting one card?

Click to expand...

Not unless you need more than 4 displays.

No, I;m just running 3 Dell U3011's. Don't know technically how useful a 4GB GTX 670 compared to a 2GB 670 would be though.

DontUSASme said:

No, I;m just running 3 Dell U3011's. Don't know technically how useful a 4GB GTX 670 compared to a 2GB 670 would be though.

Click to expand...

There's no real gain between the two, except the fact that the 4Gb can give you a little edge when running more monitors. However, the overall performance is the same. Plus the 2gb card is cheaper.

So getting the 4GB card will be a waste? I would be running Adobe Creative Suite, do editing and rendering in Sony Vegas, and boot into Windows and playing games through Parallels. Keep in mind these are 2560x1600 30" Monitors. Although not 120Hz, I love them so

DontUSASme said:

So getting the 4GB card will be a waste? I would be running Adobe Creative Suite, do editing and rendering in Sony Vegas, and boot into Windows and playing games through Parallels. Keep in mind these are 2560x1600 30" Monitors. Although not 120Hz, I love them so

Click to expand...

It's more of a personal preference really. You won't be using that much vRam while editing, only really during rendering times. If you're going to be pushing more than 3 monitors, the 4Gb might be the route to go, but running 3 monitors you should be fine. However, I always feel a little safer pushing higher resolutions when I know my card can handle them without breaking a sweat. Personally, I would choose the 4Gb card, since you are pushing higher resolution monitors, but again, it's a personal preference.

You should also note, that playing games through Parallels may not be a good option. Due to the obvious lag, glitching, and tears. It's better to just dual boot into Windows for gaming. Makes life a lot easier. Also, one more thing. For photo processing in Photoshop and programs of the like, a GPU isn't the solid background for getting the best results, a solid CPU is.

Thanks for the response. It really helps me to narrow down my search options to find the best part. I had two more questions if you could take the time to answer them.

1. If I plug say a thunderbolt display through the thunderbolt port on the back of my motherboard and I had a GPU in the system, would I get the same performance benefit as pluging the display into the GPU or would I have to plug it directly into the GPU to get the higher framerates and faster rendering and overall performance benefit they offer?

2. Do converter cables, such as DisplayPort to DVI-D, have a reduced/negative affect on Graphics performance and response times compared to pluging in a straight DVI-D to DVI-D cable? Thanks


Reference to #1 (My Motherboard): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128559&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=4902415&SID=
Reference to #2: http://www.computercablestore.com/DisplayPort_to_DVI_D_Vide_PID49359.aspx

DontUSASme said:

Thanks for the response. It really helps me to narrow down my search options to find the best part. I had two more questions if you could take the time to answer them.

1. If I plug say a thunderbolt display through the thunderbolt port on the back of my motherboard and I had a GPU in the system, would I get the same performance benefit as pluging the display into the GPU or would I have to plug it directly into the GPU to get the higher framerates and faster rendering and overall performance benefit they offer?

2. Do converter cables, such as DisplayPort to DVI-D, have a reduced/negative affect on Graphics performance and response times compared to pluging in a straight DVI-D to DVI-D cable? Thanks


Reference to #1 (My Motherboard): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128559&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=4902415&SID=
Reference to #2: http://www.computercablestore.com/DisplayPort_to_DVI_D_Vide_PID49359.aspx

Click to expand...

1. I've never had any experience with Thunderbolt, as I don't have any peripherals to use with it, so I can't really give you a solid answer. But due to the nature of Thunderbolt, I would presume that it would maybe benefit you in some way or another, but probably so little to where you probably couldn't tell the difference.

2. I've heard of some people saying they've had problems using converter cables not converting the signal correctly, but those were with off-brand converters, so that's probably to be expected. But as for it affecting the graphic performance, no. There should be no change in the performance level with a converter cable. The only thing it is doing is changing the output signal from the card to the monitor.

Hope that helps.