Contribute
Register

[SOLVED] Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080/1070

Status
Not open for further replies.
At $599 retail for the 1080 http://bgr.com/2016/05/09/nvidia-gtx-1080-gtx-1070-price-release-date/, I'm hoping the 980 will drop in price. The 980 and 1080 would be perfect cards, other than the fact that native driver support is not forthcoming, and Nvidia web driver update is one more problem to address on each upgrade. I'm very happy with my EVGA 760, and even the 1080 will run on a 500W p/s, so at that price I think Apple will support them sooner or later in iMac, or Macbook (lower power consumption teamed with better performance). I wouldn't bet on AMD for the long term, I have seen NVIDIA taking leaps and bounds over AMD technology over the past decade.
 
The main reason I wouldn't bet on AMD for anything anymore is because Apple does those drivers in-house, and they generally have a penchant for making them usable, but just barely. Once they hit a target performance vector, Apple generally lets them languish and once new generations of GPUs come out, the old GPUs stop getting updates and even bug fixes.

That's why nVidia is such a game changer for Hackies. Unlike Apple, who still ships nVidia drivers based on the 310 code, nVidia actually updates theirs to a somewhat modern level. Granted 346 is still a far cry from the 364 drivers out now on the Windows/Linux side, but 346 is still light years ahead of 310 no matter how you slice it.

nVidia wants sales, and it knows that Mac Pro/Hack Pro users want good GPUs. While 10.11.5 is essentially set in stone as far as GPU drivers go, there's always the teeniest, tiniest chance that OS version's web drivers will get preliminary Pascal support. But Fl0rian is probably right in that the earliest we should really hold our breaths for is 10.12.0. With any luck, the GTX 1080 will be able to help overcome Metal's driver overhead by sheer brute force, something my now "lowly" GTX 780 OC FTW has trouble with.

On the plus side, should the GTX 1080 rox0r my sox0rs (as it were - oh God I feel dirty having just typed that!), my GTX 780 can go into my Mac Pro 1,1 that now resides as a Windows machine for my grandpa and make it scream. Since only a single drive is in there a boot screen is pretty much pointless when it comes to things working now. :)
 
FYI, the GTX 780 might not work in the Mac Pro 1,1 (at least according to http://www.macvidcards.com/i-want-the-best-graphics-card-for-my-mac-pro-where-do-i-start.html).

I'm assuming he posted that warning because of the 8-pin connector that the 780 cards use in addition to the 6-pin connector. With an external PSU that isn't a problem, though it is a lot of extra work. I suppose I could always build my grandpa a cheap PC and use the Mac Pro as a MIDI to WAV rendering machine (Quicktime 7 Pro MIDI is unbelievably soft volumed in OSes after Snow Leopard and can't be fixed).
 
So leveraging off of what MrMage previously asked.... Is there a way to tell the OS X partition to only use the integrated graphics while the windows side can take full advantage of the new 10 series? I am about to update/upgrade by build to full a skylake gaming machine in a Mac Pro 2013 LIKE case and was trying to decide on a graphics card. I want VR support but do not want to spend $300 on a 970 when the 1070 is faster then a titan x....
 
The GTX 780 will work in a MacPro 1,1, just without a boot screen. The EFI flash is EFI64-only, so not for MacPro1,1 oder 2,1.

Back 2 topic: It might be necessary to disable the Nvidia drivers when having a Pascal card installed. For quite a long time, the drivers where crashing the system when an unsupported (=> Maxwell) GPU was installed. Might be similar with Pascal.
 
Back 2 topic: It might be necessary to disable the Nvidia drivers when having a Pascal card installed. For quite a long time, the drivers where crashing the system when an unsupported (=> Maxwell) GPU was installed. Might be similar with Pascal.

I'm totally fine with that, but would that mean that I could just use the Intel IGP? Or would the Pascal GPU still be used, just in some kind of non-accelerated, 2D-only mode?
 
I'm totally fine with that, but would that mean that I could just use the Intel IGP? Or would the Pascal GPU still be used, just in some kind of non-accelerated, 2D-only mode?

If no display is connected to the Pascal card, it won't be used. If a display is connected to the Pascal card and no drivers are loaded, it will function only at native resolution and have no acceleration or 3D capability. The Intel IGP will only be in use if you have a display connected to it. However it will still load its drivers unless disabled in BIOS.
 
I wouldn't bet on AMD for the long term, I have seen NVIDIA taking leaps and bounds over AMD technology over the past decade.

Actually, AMD's GPUs have been far more sophisticated and far more powerful in raw terms than Nvidia's for the past couple generations. Nvidia has had far, far more efficient drivers under DX11 (Windows), but under later DX11 games, and under DX12 we're seeing AMD GPUs from the 7970 to R9 290(x) revealing their huge silicon advantages. Besides the Nvidia 980ti, AMD outperforms at almost every level (and we're seeing Hawaii cards match 980Ti now in my DX12/computer heavy games, let alone non-gaming GPU compute tasks). Recent Nvidia GPUs have been more power efficient-- but that's almost entirely down to the fact that they've been robbed on compute hardware compared to AMD, and AMD has resorted to selling its GPUs overclocked even at stock (Hawaii is pretty efficient at 900/950 mhz undervolted, and pretty inefficient at 1050/1150 mhz even if it can run those higher clocks on stock volts!)

Computer + async is where AMD is really performing wonders. And because GCN is being used in all the consoles, it's longevity and progressively better performance over time is astounding when compared to where we are now re Kepler and Maxwell.

On the OS X side, Nvidia web drivers make using Nvidia cards far more easy generally. AMD cards require Apple supplied drivers, and/or tinkering to get full use out of-- but in Apple GPU compute apps (FCPX, for instance), those AMD cards seriously outperform, all the way from the 5770 to the R9 290X.

I think it's a safe bet we'll see solid Polaris support coming in 10.12, but for that we'll have to wait and see.

In any case, competition is good. But when it comes to GPU it really depends on your system, your tinkering tolerance, and your specific apps and games.
 
Oh it's no secret AMD has been the clear winner in the compute world when the app(s) involved did not have CUDA support. That's never been in dispute. And very few games make actual use of compute power, so typically nVidia will win on the gaming front. A/V editing though...AMD wins.

But for OS X, while AMD may have good hardware, the drivers are usually in a barely functional state and stop getting bugfixes shortly after the next generation GPU comes out, which makes them miserable to use and very suboptimal relative to the optimizations and bugfixes nVidia puts out.

That said, I'm SO drooling over the GTX 1080. Knowing my luck though I won't be able to afford a new GPU until its Ti part surfaces, which is just fine with me. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top