So funny - rumours vs rumours.
On 4 April, it might be rumours vs silicon. And just when ATI seems poised to climb out of the basement - Nvidia moves the goalposts and puts ATI back in the cellar.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2016 nMP
- Thread starter ManuelGomes
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nmp
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
On 4 April, it might be rumours vs silicon. And just when ATI seems poised to climb out of the basement - Nvidia moves the goalposts and puts ATI back in the cellar.
Oh, I could see Nvidia announcing something April 4th. I just don't see them releasing anything for April 4th, or any time soon after. Even the most optimistic Nvidia rumors only mention a Titan around that date with everything else pushed back, possibly without HBM. Not the strongest showing.
I'd be happy with a Pascal Titan vs ATI's vaporware.
Actually, I'd order twenty Pascal Titans on day one.
4 April 2016 - Save the date
Last edited:
Yep, these are some of the rumors I was talking about. Indications are that Pascal is running behind Polaris.
Its more like Nvidia asks Oxide games to leave out Async Compute because it does terrible at its benchmarks...Ouch!
Yes, they're testing it wrong, we've heard that one.
They do make great hand warmers.
Yes, MfM stuff is supported, but not the other way around. A R9 290X device ID in the drivers doesn't automatically make it "supported" or "Made for Mac". Apple doesn't ship one single device with a GCN 1.1 card in it. All recent AMD based Macs have one of those: Cape Verde, Pitcairn, Tahiti, Tonga. That's it, no Bonaire, no Hawaii, no Fiji.
Regarding performance: The last time I checked (around 10.11.1?), Apples drivers did not receive those huge performance improvements yet. The performance gap between stock drivers and Web Drivers was still as big as shown on barefeats (tested with a GTX 760). But maybe things have changed since then.
Maybe I'll repeat the testing when I find the time.
Hard to say without looking at the source code, but I'm quite sure that Apple is using a branch based on an older Nvidia driver where Metal supported has been merged in. The performance differences between those two (in earlier OS X versions, maybe still today, has to be checked) is an evidence for that.
On Zauba there is still no mention of Nvidia GPUs for Pascal. Also, Pascal is ONLY Maxwell with FP64 and DeepLearning.
Look at this slide. It is from Nvidia themselves: http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/vega/2015/wrzesien/nvidia_pascal_3.jpg
Look at this slide. It is from Nvidia themselves: http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/vega/2015/wrzesien/nvidia_pascal_3.jpg
How ironic that some people are now taking the apologist approach when defending Nvidia cards.
In 2016 Apple ships a computer that is called a "2013 Mac Pro" that uses GPUs from 2011. And they still charge FULL RETAIL.
In 2016 Nvidia offers drivers to put cards introduced in 2015 into Macs, all of their latest and best cards are supported.
What does Nvidia require apologizing for? Who exactly is doing things that require Appologists?
Unless the Nvidia driver page is wrong, that's not quite true. The GTX 285 & 680; GT 120; 8800 GT; Quadro 4000, Quadro K5000 for Mac, Quadro FX 4800 and Quadro FX 5600 are supported. I.e. they only support the official "For Mac" cards. Drivers for the latest and best cards are provided As Is.
So Nvidia is under no obligation to provide or update drivers for the latest and best. Chances are the only reason Nvidia is still turning out drivers is the hope that Apple will start using their chips again.
Given that it has been 6 years since Apple chose an Nvidia card for the Mac Pro and the only Mac Pro that can use Nvidia cards went out of production 3 years ago, the clock may well be ticking. Nvidia could stop producing Mac versions of those drivers tomorrow.
Apple will probably not release a mac pro this year.
If you look at the current Xeon E5 2600 v4 lineup, almost all xeons have a high core count and a moderate frequency.
None of them have support for intel quicksync (FCPX fast encoding).
The low frequencies will make them slower than the iMac 5k in most creative apps. (Adobe CC, Logic ...)
This generation of xeons is really for computing intensive tasks.
What's the point for a single cpu workstation ?
Will there be a 5,1GHz 4 cores MacPro? Or a MacPro 2017 Thread?
If you look at the current Xeon E5 2600 v4 lineup, almost all xeons have a high core count and a moderate frequency.
None of them have support for intel quicksync (FCPX fast encoding).
The low frequencies will make them slower than the iMac 5k in most creative apps. (Adobe CC, Logic ...)
This generation of xeons is really for computing intensive tasks.
What's the point for a single cpu workstation ?
Will there be a 5,1GHz 4 cores MacPro? Or a MacPro 2017 Thread?
Last edited:
Is this true for prospective processors? I also do not see apple releasing without quick sync. Unless apple creates some other encoding protocol for FCPX.
Quicksync needs an IGP (intel HD4600 / Iris Pro etc ...)
The only xeons with IGP are xeon for laptops and low power for small servers
http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced?s=t&QuickSyncVideo=true
Last edited:
I don't follow Intel's logic there. Accelerated video encoding in CPUs for laptops but not workstations? What am I missing?
At the very worst, until the Kepler-era Quadro K5000 for Mac is no longer supported. Which is still being sold by the manufacturer today. With a 3 year warranty. So it will be quite some time before Nvidia stops providing us with OS X drivers.
The fact that the hardware in the laptop is pretty limited (fast, but not flexible).
People buying a workstation for encoding are probably looking for something beyond a "home video" solution.
http://www.gamecrate.com/interview-amds-roy-taylor-dawn-virtual-reality-age/12842
Roy thinks that for VR, AMD has to ramp up the specs on lower ends, and open VR to all performance/price brackets. That is good approach.
Well Xeons E5 v4 can go up to 44 cores in dual-socket (88 thread). So you don't really need quicksync on this type of machines.
Nevermind all the video card talk how about a new monitor to go with it? I know I know I said it a zillion times in a bunch of other threads including my own that I even created but WHEN O WHEN will Apple get to releasing an updated display for this beautiful machine with a beautiful glass panel like the current display? It really is the ONLY thing holding me back in picking up one of these fine machines!
Is it press release, or Interview? Reading comprehension is THAT bad in your case?
Pretty sure the Xeon E5 v2 line up does not have quick sync either and Apple was fine with building a computer around that architecture. Quick sync is only there with integrated graphics, which these E5 Xeons never have... so not sure I follow your logic there that Apple would wait for the v5's or something.
As for clock speeds, we only know what's been leaked so far, and they're pretty much inline with the v3 chips. Even though the base clocks are a little lower than the v2 series, there will be a massive leap (~15%) in instructions per clock going from v2 to v4, so even at lower clock speeds these new chips will perform much better than Ivy Bridge-EP.
So is your thought apple would wait for the Xeon E5 v5's then? What makes you think Intel would have those chips running at much higher clock speeds than the v4's?
- Status