Contribute
Register

[SOLVED] Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080/1070

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keep an eye for a Christmas gift from Nvidia guys......























... no, not the drivers

:D
 
What, 1080ti? It's out soon and useless in macOS for the time being (or who knows.) They will be nice consumer GPUs to compare with Titan X in performance with a lot less money. Again, moot for macOS.
 
What, 1080ti? It's out soon and useless in macOS for the time being (or who knows.) They will be nice consumer GPUs to compare with Titan X in performance with a lot less money. Again, moot for macOS.

The 1080Ti will be priced around $799+ and 1080 will drop down to ~$500 ish.

Titan XP will stay at ~$1200

Honestly a single 1080 is a monster of a card. It runs wonderful on air.

The problem nVidia has is they don't have Pascal mobile GPUs to run at lower TDPs...this is probably why Apple will skip nVidia completely even for iMacs and Mac Pros in the next updates (March?)
 
The 1080Ti will be priced around $799+ and 1080 will drop down to ~$500 ish.

Titan XP will stay at ~$1200

Honestly a single 1080 is a monster of a card. It runs wonderful on air.

The problem nVidia has is they don't have Pascal mobile GPUs to run at lower TDPs...this is probably why Apple will skip nVidia completely even for iMacs and Mac Pros in the next updates (March?)
There are some Laptops that use the 1060, 1070 or even the 1080 (mobile gpus).
 
There are some Laptops that use the 1060, 1070 or even the 1080 (mobile gpus).

Yes and they are thick and power hungry, which is against what Apple is about. Remember, the MacBook Pro dGPU TDP is about 35w and it's getting smaller as they make it thinner. The iMac 2015 I believe is 65w TDP. The Mac Pro 2013 I'm not sure, but Apple has ALWAYS been about more heat than noise.

There are no Pascal mobile GPUs (yet). They just run at lower clock speeds in laptops.

The last mobile GPU from nVidia was the 980m and it's really old, and the iMac had issues with the 9xxm series.

For the MacBook Pro 2016, it was actually nVidia's fault for not having the ability to connect 2 x 5k monitors to the USB-C port, so Apple pushed AMD to do the Radeon Pro and they delivered.

I just think it's ridiculous that Apple is constantly undermining CUDA and nVidia's high end GPU offerings by not even looking at them. OpenCL and Metal aren't even there yet in terms of computing against CUDA (which had years of a head start).

Not to mention the fact that the ONLY highly optimized OpenCL/Metal application under macOS is FCPX, which honestly isn't really used that much in high end environments. FCPX is mostly used by hobbyists, event productions, and some tv stations. Also we may never know, but FCPX may be discontinued. Apple's done this plenty of times (Anyone remember Shake? FCP7 (and lost a ton of editors in the process)? Aperture?)

I feel like Metal is a complete miss and no one cares about it since it's such a niche market. Yeah it's fine and dandy for iOS, but not the desktop.

Under Premiere Pro CC2017, I have the options of using CUDA, OpenCL and Metal. CUDA beats all of them in terms of performance with the 980Ti (currently using a single GPU, but have a second one ... waiting to watercool them they run too hot).

What IS funny is that the 980Ti works flawlessly under FCPX (which I rarely use) and it's actually pretty speedy.

That Bloomberg article really hits it on the head. Apple doesn't know what creative professionals are doing with the Macs. Tim thinks their whole Mac user base lives in San Francisco/Brooklyn/Berlin and works at Huffington Post writing terrible articles on a $3,000 laptop.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the fact that the ONLY highly optimized OpenCL/Metal application under macOS is FCPX, which honestly isn't really used that much in high end environments. FCPX is mostly used by hobbyists, event productions, and some tv stations. Also we may never know, but FCPX may be discontinued. Apple's done this plenty of times (Anyone remember Shake? FCP7 (and lost a ton of editors in the process)? Aperture?)

I feel like Metal is a complete miss and no one cares about it since it's such a niche market. Yeah it's fine and dandy for iOS, but not the desktop.

As a guy who works(ed) on that daily let me say you are wrong. Metal Api is by far one of the last best well thought pieces of API from Apple. It's very good both from API and ease of use side. Metal on desktops is very young but it's already phased out OpenGL for some video cards.

I never use Cuda true but my own tests and test samples on mac and metal showed very solid results.

Also you can find apple metal engineers in the net and work with them on things that trouble you.

So no matter how the fate of mac turns to be - going metal was the very right answer.
 
As a guy who works(ed) on that daily let me say you are wrong. Metal Api is by far one of the last best well thought pieces of API from Apple. It's very good both from API and ease of use side. Metal on desktops is very young but it's already phased out OpenGL for some video cards.

I never use Cuda true but my own tests and test samples on mac and metal showed very solid results.

Also you can find apple metal engineers in the net and work with them on things that trouble you.

So no matter how the fate of mac turns to be - going metal was the very right answer.

FCPX is not liked in the industry -- end of story.

Anyone who used FCP7 professionally went to Adobe Premiere CC (Adobe actually listens to its customers and goes above and beyond to implement new features) or back to Avid.

Final Cut Pro was a revolution because anyone with a cheap Mac could do what the big boys did. FCPX is not. I'm not saying it's a terrible program, it's actually a super fast application, but it's not used in the industry that matters.

Metal may be good, but it's macOS only and it's clearly a replacement for OpenCL rather than OpenGL.

The point is, Apple has pissed off a lot of people, and we're not the only pissed off people here. A lot of people here own real Macs.

I only went the Hackintosh route because I wanted to have access to a good GPU so I can do VR development on the Windows side (which I loathe).

I was about to pull the trigger on a 2013 Mac Pro right before I decided to build a Hackintosh (to be fair I hadn't built any new PCs in a while).
 
Well I guess then that I'm not a professional?
I use FCP X and Premiere, and let me tell you that I prefer FCP X. It gets the job done faster and without all the weird crashes that Adobe's products still suffer from.
The narrative that X is for hobbyists is really just plain wrong. I've been editing for about ten years, and X is (after a learning periode) the best editing software that I have used.
It is also being adopted in latter Hollywood productions and is used quite a bit in documentaries.
 
Well I guess then that I'm not a professional?
I use FCP X and Premiere, and let me tell you that I prefer FCP X. It gets the job done faster and without all the weird crashes that Adobe's products still suffer from.
The narrative that X is for hobbyists is really just plain wrong. I've been editing for about ten years, and X is (after a learning periode) the best editing software that I have used.
It is also being adopted in latter Hollywood productions and is used quite a bit in documentaries.

Do you work on $100 million projects?

Many big movies have been cut on Premiere. It's a testament that Adobe wants all FCP7 people to go to Adobe.

I've worked on multi-million dollar projects, have you? I can't name them for privacy concerns. But I'm sure you've seen some of my work.

I'm not an editor by trade, but I do use all Adobe apps when I have many people who need to work with me to deliver a big project. (Mine is mostly short form nowadays).

The funny thing is, this Hackintosh route I went was a bit of an experiment for me to see if getting a $8,000 2013 Mac Pro or a $3000 (with full upgrades) 2010 Mac Pro 12 core is any bit more stable than a Hackintosh in real world scenarios -- it turns out the Hackintosh is pretty stable as long as you don't do any updates.

So anyway, I'm not trying to toot my horn, I'm just a concerned person who uses Macs almost 12-18 hours a day to get things done.

Also I've been doing this since I was a wee lad, so....let's not bring in "age" old experience here. If I count how long I've been in production/post production, it amounts to 20 years...and I'm only in my mid 30s.

The only big movie FCPX was used on was Focus starring Will Smith. FCPX is a mess with the cheesy magnetic timeline, "story" mode, and automated audio features. The issue here with FCPX is that it does too much FOR YOU. Editors like to have complete control and audio is a big no no to mess around with.

If Apple didn't try to "revolutionize editing" by completely dumping the way FCP7 worked (which I loved)...they might've been more successful. It's quite clear that their only Pro apps left are Logic X and FCPX...with the latter being, like you said, mostly used in docus but not major movies where 5-10 editor work at the same time and between different types of artists under the same roof.

You should look into how David Fincher used Premiere with Gone Girl and Dragon Tattoo and the workflow they created with Premiere/After Effects with multiple editors. Adobe also listened to their demands and The Coen brothers use Premiere (funnily enough they still shoot on film). Also Deadpool too.

Just watch these:

But as usual, it comes down to "what tool is best". But in this case, Adobe is the ONLY option that translates well from FCP7 users. Apple has alienated this industry and it is seaping into their product lines now. FCPX is a piece of poo for me, I recently had to work with a guy who was an FCPX editor and I literally couldn't get him to properly send me an XML so I can go back into Premiere/AE combo to finish up a project. I had to buy a $50 app to translate the .fcpxml into an FCP7 XML and then bring it into Premiere -- with many elements not translating well. He also had issues with stupid little things like unable to link clips (SIMPLE THINGS). Premiere Pro is solid and works well and has a bright future.

Apple is going to become the next HP if they keep going at it this way.
 
Last edited:
Of course I haven't worked on $100 million dollar projects. I'm from Europe, which that even more unlikely. Those budgets are not what I'm arguing. With broadcast and commercials it has worked for me.

It just, to me, seems like a blanket statement that FCP X is garbage or doesn't suit a professional enviroment, and I've used and use both programs, that I can't agree with. Now there are issues with both programs, but in my experience Premiere and AE crashes a lot, and has some very weird behavior (corrupting projects and so on). X isn't perfect, but it is a lot more reliable for me. It is I agree a hassle to integrate with other programs. A bit. But it is manageable.

For me the magnetic timeline has been phenomenal, it has really sped up the way I work, and is a huge reason why I say, that X is faster for me. It is simply easier (for me) to get from the idea to a result that way.

I am aware of the workflows Fincher used, and that is very impressive.

I also think Whisky Tango Foxtrot was edited on X, on the whole that's not a large sample size, but in my experience editors are some of the most conservative people I've met. In a good and bad way.

X, for me, can be a great foundation if Apple continues to develop it, well it actually already is a pretty good foundation.

Anyway this is quite off-topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top