Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2016 nMP

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've got a few ADC monitors holding doors open around here if anyone collects examples ill-conceived display technologies.
 
got me a good footstool.. might let it go if the price is right.

IMG_5524.JPG
 
I had a partially melted SSD blade and two dead D700s here until a few days ago. Should have made a sculpture.
 
Larry-K said:
So all those bad developers are to blame for Apple's lackluster OSX dual GPU support?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any third party hardware manufacturers designing their hardware solely around someone elses software package.

I've got drawers full of Apple connectors, cables and adapters that didn't become industry standards, you can have them if you like.
Click to expand...

I literally have a trash bag full of obsolete PC cables, want to trade? Not to mention a drawerful of 11 different "Standard" USB plugs. ( Really 11? ) I would not doubt they will make at least 5 more USB plugs before the end of 2020.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ManuelGomes
koyoot said:
People called Apple crazy when they got rid of Floppy drive.
People called Apple crazy when they got rid of optical drive.
People call Apple crazy when they want to get rid of 3.5 inch jack in iPhones.
People called Apple crazy when they redesigned Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

When Apple got rid of the floppy drive, there were alternative mediums to go to. Some people found the transition hard, some didn't.

When Apple got rid of the optical drive, some people didn't get it, but most barely use the drive, so it made sense.

When Apple dictate what headphones I can use, I don't like that.

When Apple marched towards soldered components and propriety connectors in personal computers, they improved things, though at the same time made it harder for people to repair/replace/upgrade their own machines, a move I strongly disagree with.

If the Mac Pro 2013 used a standard M.2 connector, we'd be using SM951s with no issue instead (and their R&D would take a lesser hit each time). Some might argue Apple don't get a profit from that kind of upgrade; why don't they offer it then?

As it is, we're at the point where people choose to cling to older products because they like the comfort of knowing they can replace almost anything inside. When you have the ability to upgrade an older machine to outperform the current one, that's a bit daft.
 
Thanks guys.

This thread needs the occasional bursts of truth and reality to break through the Apple and AMD PR echo chamber it has spent pages on.

The "AMD makes the best stuff but nobody notices because all the software is written wrong" stuff gets hard to stomach after awhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larry-K and tuxon86
Mago said:
As I explained, one is the PRO user in a regular PC-Workstation Ecosystem, and another is the Pro User in an Apple Environment, most of them on Advertising, Video Edition, and Music (Music is a special case, these actually arent real power users but since their tools are the best example of inefficient code they need Workstation HorsePower to do what an mainstream cpu could do on efficient code).
Click to expand...

As someone who's been working in post production (film music and sound) for more than 15 years I find this statement rather funny. But let's not derail the conversation... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: owbp, filmak and Draeconis
Flint Ironstag said:
What happened, and do you have pics? Was the incident covered under warranty?
Click to expand...

We bought 2 nMP's to have around as we transition to Windows workstation. The one in use for Resolve developed a lot of problems, corrupt renderings, crashes etc. Eventually figured out it was a persistent heat issue when it just shut down one day. SSD and D700's both dead. Luckily AppleCare covered it. The other machine is on a DIT cart and has a lot lighter workload. Has been largely trouble-free outside of the usual weird USB3/ thunderbolt related behaviors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flint Ironstag
GeForce GTX 1070
  • 16 nm "GP104" silicon, 7.2 billion transistors, "GP104-200-A1" ASIC
  • 1,920 CUDA cores, 15 out of 20 streaming multiprocessors enabled on the GP104 silicon
  • 120 TMUs, 64 ROPs
  • 256-bit GDDR5 memory, 8 GB standard memory amount
  • Max GPU Boost frequency 1600 MHz
  • 6.75 TFLOP/s single-precision floating point performance
  • 150W TDP, single 8-pin PCIe power connector
  • 3x DisplayPort 1.4, 1x HDMI 2.0b
  • 2-way SLI with SLI HB bridge support

So, at 150W this is definitely higher than I expected.. US $379. Founders Edition, at $449. If Polaris 10 has similar performance as GTX 1070.. but with 110-130W.. ah, let's wait and see.
[doublepost=1463494298][/doublepost]
Stacc said:
Nvidia GTX 1080 reviews are out. Impressive card. I think this chart says it best.
Click to expand...

30% better scores (vs GTX 980 Ti) overall in 4k gaming...

Shame that the chart didn't have Fury Nano.

Anyway, Nvidia can be the King of the Hill at least next 6 months.
 
Last edited:
I am pleased with what I see about GTX 1080. 15% more performance compared to Fury X in Direct X 12 titles. Good performance for VR.

185W power consumption is pretty much in line with what I expected(around 200W). 48 GFLOPs of compute power per watt. Highest PPW from previous node was Fury Nano with 40 GFLOPs/watt.
 
netkas said:
Not what one would expect from a node shrink.
Click to expand...
What baffles me is this. The GPU has around 50% higher core clock than GTX 980 Ti, 50% more compute power than GTX 980 Ti, yet it is only 25% faster than GTX 980 Ti.

IPC may have decreased with new architecture. It may be due to smaller SM's L1 cache compared to previous generation. But I need to dig a bit to find out ;).

P.S. Overall performance is great. However it is disappointment, overall also...

 
Last edited:
I'll take a 1070 and pass my 960 on to the kid, and since I'm passing that on to the kid hopefully my wife won't mind when I buy a new processor to replace the one I passed down to her not long ago. :D
 
koyoot said:
What baffles me is this. The GPU has around 50% higher core clock than GTX 980 Ti, 50% more compute power than GTX 980 Ti, yet it is only 25% faster than GTX 980 Ti.

IPC may have decreased with new architecture. It may be due to smaller SM's L1 cache compared to previous generation. But I need to dig a bit to find out ;).
Click to expand...
And many 980ti can be oced 25% to almost match 1080. but then 1080 can be oced another 13-15 %

perf_oc.png

perf_oc.png
 
netkas said:
And many 980ti can be oced 25% to almost match 1080. but then 1080 can be oced another 13-15 %
Click to expand...
GTX 1080 after OC is 13% faster than GTX 980 TI Waterforce after OC. Which means that 2.1 GHz GPU is 13% faster than 1.6 GHz GPU with similar core count and bandwidth.

I don't know what happened here. Maybe the 64 vs 96 ROP play a role here?

I don't believe Polaris 10 will match GTX 1080 overall. But it might be faster than GTX 1070. While using less power...

Edit. Haha, you provided the exact benches I was thinking about :D
 
wrong calculcations.
1080 runs at stock 1.6, boost 1.73 and a lot of time it runs at higher 1.86 ghz.
(2100/1860 - 1) * 100% = 13 %, surprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back