Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Thank You so much for the information. I am going to try emulating your setup. Too bad Dual GTX 980's is not possible using internal power.

Why would you say that ? EVGA reference GTX 980 has two 6 pin booster power connectors . Should be as easy to power up as a 970 . I went with 970s because they were a sweet spot for price/performance ratio and I needed to stay within budget to buy the expensive drive subsystem .
 
Why would you say that ? EVGA reference GTX 980 has two 6 pin booster power connectors . Should be as easy to power up as a 970 . I went with 970s because they were a sweet spot for price/performance ratio and I needed to stay within budget to buy the expensive drive subsystem .

It's not just about the 6pins, it's that a Mac pro has 300w limit for PCI, that can be spread either through 75w 4x pci slot power, or 2xslot + 2 booster cables. The 980s draw 180 watts or so (165 maybe?) so it exceeds the max available ouput for PCI on the Mac pro.

The 970s work because they need less then 150w each so they slot in under the output threshold.
 
It's not just about the 6pins, it's that a Mac pro has 300w limit for PCI, that can be spread either through 75w 4x pci slot power, or 2xslot + 2 booster cables. The 980s draw 180 watts or so (165 maybe?) so it exceeds the max available ouput for PCI on the Mac pro.

The 970s work because they need less then 150w each so they slot in under the output threshold.

You're forgetting superior Borg capabilities - those two SATA backplane connectors I used with my Dual 970s . Messy, but effective . :) And come to think of it, probably overkill with the dual 970s . But likely very necessary with the dual 980s , if you are correct with your numbers .

Two SATA backplane power connectors provide an extra 66 W total available to the two cards (33 W + 33 W) .

Let's dance !

GTX 980 card number 1 powered from PCIe slot 1 (75 W) + PCIe booster Aux A (75 W) + SATA Backplane #3 (33 W) . Total 183 W available .

GTX 980 card number 2 powered from PCIe slot 2 (75 W) + PCIe booster Aux B (75 W) + SATA Backplane #4 (33 W) . Total 183 W available .

We've just consumed all available PCIe power resources (300 W) , but we have our array up and running internally powered .

But , there's no juice left for the two remaining PCIe card slots . Hmmmm . And we really need at least one of them .

How are we going to fire up that gorgeous Sonnet PCIe high speed drive card we will definitely need to write all the data our GPGPU array is so busy processing ?

We'll need to reroute just one of those 6 pin power booster cables and stick it somewhere else …

But where internally ? We're not gonna cheat and route from the exterior . Clients hate external aux power supplies . Every time I mention it , I get cold stares . So, time to think like a Borg again ! Enter the ODD power point on the mobo .

That point fires up two energy hogging optical drives through a harness in the Optical Bay .

We reroute the optical harness from the Bay and into the middle of the enclose , where the video cards are . There are two SATA power connectors on that harness . We get a PCIe 6 pin booster connector to dual SATA power connector splitter cable and connect it to one of GTX 980 card number 2's booster connectors . This will require some minor cutting and super-gluing . But , at least, we have all our devices connected and powered .

Concern is , how much juice does Apple allow to the two Optical drives ? A DVD-RW drive likely needs 27 W max . So, the two drives will be provided with 54 W bare minimum through that harness . And there is going to be some extra provided as a reserve . What this amount is , is anyone's guess .

So, we now have the following installation :

GTX 980 card number 1 powered from PCIe slot 1 (75 W) + PCIe booster Aux A (75 W) + SATA Backplane #3 (33 W) . Total 183 W available .

GTX 980 card number 2 powered from PCIe slot 2 (75 W) + ODD SATA (54 W) + SATA Backplane #4 (33 W) . Total 162 W available .


We now have more than enough juice (75 W freed up) to power the PCIe Sonnet high speed drive .

But, will a GTX 980 work properly with just 162 W ?

And , we also need to be concerned about melting mobo traces with all the draw the components will be demanding . We're grabbing resources from all over the place . So, maybe baby steps one step at a time with this build, folks .

And, if it does work as described as above, there may be some automatic down throttling involved , due to insufficient power provided.

If the above set up does not work, then we will need to take a page from Prince134's beautiful dual 7970 Mac Pro experiment and down voltage the cards to reduce the power draw .

I bet it would work , especially with down volt-aging the cards . The 980s perform no higher than 20 percent compared to the 970s in the passmark direct compute score . Compute is what this is all about . And I think my 970s draw no more than 153 W each at load . So, add 20 percent to the 153 W and we get 183 W .

This is really a close call...

And all of this is still theoretical , as no one has done this yet (install two GTX 980s in a Mac Pro entirely internally powered .)

By the way, try all this at your own risk :)
 
Last edited:
FCPX BruceX score is 101 seconds

Haha, emperor has no clothes then :D At least in FCP X.
Dual AMD 7770s do BruceX in 44s in Mac Pro 2006.

attachment.php
 
Haha, emperor has no clothes then :D At least in FCP X.
Dual AMD 7770s do BruceX in 44s in Mac Pro 2006.

attachment.php

It will be tested for real tomorrow by a bunch of film makers . They are aware that the drivers for the Maxwells are still very immature in Mac OS X .

We are lucky to get these GPUs installed , period , because Apple is providing no assistance at all . Not even silently .

That said , the raw power of these Maxwells is formidable and when it can be accessed , they will easily outclass a pair of D700s .

Did you see the Luxmark score ? That is not faked . Luxmark is an Open CL benchmark . The same Open CL that the D700s use in a Black Tube running FCPX .

The Emperor's tailor is still hard at work . Don't worry , he'll be dressed to the 9's soon enough :)
 
It's not just about the 6pins, it's that a Mac pro has 300w limit for PCI, that can be spread either through 75w 4x pci slot power, or 2xslot + 2 booster cables.

Ahhhhhm, nooooo?!?

75W each PCIe-Slot and 75W each booster. So you can use up to 450W with 4 PCIe-Cards and 2 boosters.
 
Last edited:
Did you see the Luxmark score ? That is not faked . Luxmark is an Open CL benchmark . The same Open CL that the D700s use in a Black Tube running FCPX .

Your BruceX score clearly says that raw OpenCL power isn't all what counts for FCP X. There is some kind of software-level optimization for AMD drivers. Something what is very doubtful to be seen for Nvidia drivers as long as the trashcan will house Dwhatever GPUs.
 
Your BruceX score clearly says that raw OpenCL power isn't all what counts for FCP X. There is some kind of software-level optimization for AMD drivers. Something what is very doubtful to be seen for Nvidia drivers as long as the trashcan will house Dwhatever GPUs.

Apple's optimization tricks with hardware and software under their control is already a given . It's a home field advantage already known to system builders . That said , the high end Kepler based nVidia GTX 680 (even with it's poor Open CL support and lack of optimization by Apple) does a very respectable job in FCPX . The high end nVidia Maxwell based GPUs are about three times faster in Open CL operations , compared to the 680 . Once the drivers are mature , the GTX 970 and 980 will be top performers in FCPX . I don't think you realize the Maxwell mac drivers are in their infancy . Give it three months and take a look again . Also, for the first time , nVidia has with the Maxwells really respectable performance with Open CL - something lacking with previous chip architectures from nVidia .
 
I don't think you realize the Maxwell mac drivers are in their infancy .

You can think that ;)

680 is another animal: it's official (non Apple) Mac Edition card. Maxwells are not, so it's all up to Nvidia. If there will be any Maxwell based GPU in future Macs, further driver development will be guaranteed. Otherwise you can't be sure. Green team does the good work, time will tell if they will stay on this course. I hope so.
 
If there will be any Maxwell based GPU in future Macs, further driver development will be guaranteed. Otherwise you can't be sure.

Future driver support is my concern too, as I start to consider an upgrade from the 680 to the 970 or 980.

The 680, with it's ease to flash, availability of a supported Mac version, fantastic driver support, excellent price/performance ratio, and "lack of weirdness", has made me used to having it all.
 
Consider that driver development is a continuous thing. The only way NVIDIA would stop would be if Apple told them that they would never use a new Nvidia card in any Mac, ever again.

As the Maxwell cards keep knocking the ball out of the park this gets less and less likely.

Have a look at Barefeats, our EFI GTX750ti gives the Quadro 4000 a knock down. No power cable needed, and very little heat produced. Pretty close to magic.
 
Consider that driver development is a continuous thing. The only way NVIDIA would stop would be if Apple told them that they would never use a new Nvidia card in any Mac, ever again.

As the Maxwell cards keep knocking the ball out of the park this gets less and less likely.

Here's to hoping the next iteration of Mac pro ships with dual 960/970/980 as the options :p
 
Consider that driver development is a continuous thing. The only way NVIDIA would stop would be if Apple told them that they would never use a new Nvidia card in any Mac, ever again.

As the Maxwell cards keep knocking the ball out of the park this gets less and less likely.

Have a look at Barefeats, our EFI GTX750ti gives the Quadro 4000 a knock down. No power cable needed, and very little heat produced. Pretty close to magic.

Hey MVC , I cut my teeth on the Maxwells with a 750 Ti - cute little respectable kid and probably fun to fill up PCIe slots with for some extra boost .

Did you know you can re-manufacture them into a single slot Petit Monstre ?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/single-slot-geforce-gtx-750-ti,3761.html

----------

Here's to hoping the next iteration of Mac pro ships with dual 960/970/980 as the options :p

Give us dual , give us dual , give us Dual Broadwells ! :) And enough room to get both our paws under the hood .
 
You can think that ;)

680 is another animal: it's official (non Apple) Mac Edition card. Maxwells are not, so it's all up to Nvidia. If there will be any Maxwell based GPU in future Macs, further driver development will be guaranteed. Otherwise you can't be sure. Green team does the good work, time will tell if they will stay on this course. I hope so.

They licensed a ROM to EVGA ... Is that the same thing as optimizing it in an app ? It never shipped from Apple in a rig , after all .
 
Hi guys !

Fun stuff from the UK !

I schooled in Grantham for a bit so always happy to hear from you guys.

The 980 add mentioned is a placeholder, don't expect anyone to buy it, hence the price. Believe it or not there are unscrupulous types who like to lay claim to things they had nothing to do with.

Our cards have same CUDA as anyone else's, which isn't compleye yet. (Try Ray tracing...)

Will get to 970s and 960s soon. Still getting 3,1 support ironed out. All EFI 980s so far have been 4,1/5,1 only.

Hey MVC , Adobe says ray tracing acceleration will never happen with the Maxwells . It's a feature not supported in the GPU . And there is no fix for it . You might want to read this :

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1660172
 
Just as a carry on for my findings I've attached some scores from that program and a few of the rig complete.

please excuse my workflow i am aware that its a bit messy, but my office is pretty cramped and full of macs!


PS, Do not buy this SSD card, i repeat do not. the sonnet tempo SSD product is garbage.

buy an apricorn velocity duo instead. (mines on order now)

the box for this card states it supports win 7/8 booting, but it doesn't. at all. i spent a whole blasted weekend trying to forcefeed the card an installation and a preinstalled volume and it just will not boot to it, it shows the drive in the boot options fine but selecting it instantly give you a "boot failure, press CTRL ALT DELETE to restart" error.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1219.JPG
    IMG_1219.JPG
    2.8 MB · Views: 270
  • IMG_1220.JPG
    IMG_1220.JPG
    2 MB · Views: 254
  • IMG_1221.JPG
    IMG_1221.JPG
    2.3 MB · Views: 283
  • IMG_1222.JPG
    IMG_1222.JPG
    3 MB · Views: 311
  • IMG_1223.JPG
    IMG_1223.JPG
    1.7 MB · Views: 298
the box for this card states it supports win 7/8 booting, but it doesn't. at all.

My understanding is that it only boot Windows from a PC, not a Mac. I download the manual before I bought the card, so no confusion for me. However, on the box, it's very poor written. It didn't say anything about Windows under Mac compatibility (which they want to imply no windows support in a Mac), but said Windows 7/8 bootable under Windows compatibility (which means PC only in a very indirect way).
 
My understanding is that it only boot Windows from a PC, not a Mac. I download the manual before I bought the card, so no confusion for me. However, on the box, it's very poor written. It didn't say anything about Windows under Mac compatibility (which they want to imply no windows support in a Mac), but said Windows 7/8 bootable under Windows compatibility (which means PC only in a very indirect way).

I agree that it doesn't seem to be something that wasn't well thought out, the box doesn't outrightly say "supports booting windows in a mac pro" but it doesn't exactly list it as a situation where it wouldn't work.

either way, I'm getting this refunded for not being fit for purpose. and the apricorn card seems better in everyday. also doesn't cause an extra 10 secs of boot time on the mac pro for no good reason.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1270.JPG
    IMG_1270.JPG
    1.5 MB · Views: 253
  • IMG_1271.JPG
    IMG_1271.JPG
    1.6 MB · Views: 208
Just as a carry on for my findings I've attached some scores from that program and a few of the rig complete.

please excuse my workflow i am aware that its a bit messy, but my office is pretty cramped and full of macs!


PS, Do not buy this SSD card, i repeat do not. the sonnet tempo SSD product is garbage.

buy an apricorn velocity duo instead. (mines on order now)

the box for this card states it supports win 7/8 booting, but it doesn't. at all. i spent a whole blasted weekend trying to forcefeed the card an installation and a preinstalled volume and it just will not boot to it, it shows the drive in the boot options fine but selecting it instantly give you a "boot failure, press CTRL ALT DELETE to restart" error.

There's nothing wrong with the gorgeous Sonnet Tempo , Lucas ! It is my understanding Windows 7 / 8 cannot boot from a software RAID device . You are using Mac OS X RAID (software RAID) with the Tempo . I am not even certain hardware RAID will work with Windows booting (no experience with that.) You are required to use just a single drive for Windows booting . Our Macs can boot with RAID , however , in OS X .

Buying an Apricorn will not get you software RAID Windows boot-ability . It's a Windows limitation !

PS ... your score went down :-(

----------

I agree that it doesn't seem to be something that wasn't well thought out, the box doesn't outrightly say "supports booting windows in a mac pro" but it doesn't exactly list it as a situation where it wouldn't work.

either way, I'm getting this refunded for not being fit for purpose. and the apricorn card seems better in everyday. also doesn't cause an extra 10 secs of boot time on the mac pro for no good reason.

My Mac boots in 27 seconds in Mac OS X 10.10.1 with the Sonnet . Not bad considering all the hardware that has to go through POST .
 
Hey MVC , Adobe says ray tracing acceleration will never happen with the Maxwells . It's a feature not supported in the GPU .

No. Optix ray tracing isn't going to be supported anymore; not ray tracing period. This is not so much a Maxwell thing as Adobe backing away from Optix.

That is not surprising. With version 3.5 of Optix two major changes relative to Adobe's use.

http://docs.nvidia.com/gameworks/content/gameworkslibrary/optix/optix_release_notes.htm

1. " ... commercial applications now require a Commercial License to redistribute OptiX 3.5 and later. ... "

In other words, Adobe would own Nvidia money for using it ( Nvidia takes a piece of the action of Adobe software products). Adobe isn't going to be a big fan of this.

2. " ... OptiX 3.5 libraries are now statically linked with the CUDA runtime library. As a result, no cudart*.dll file needs to be shipped ... "

There is new library to ship with Maxwell GPUs because it is now buried inside of CUDA. CUDA is on track toward taking a piece of the action too from software vendors who are trapped in the CUDA tarpit. As you might guess, Adobe isn't a big fan of that either.

There probably will be other less locked in ray tracing solutions in the future that the Adobe products either loosely or tightly couple with. As the linked thread already outlines the short term solution is Cinema 4D lite.

Nvidia needing a long term funding source of Optix development is a business decision. It may/may not match up with Adobe's. Pragmatically, binding commercial license required with an API that has free and not so free parts probably will be a red flag for deep pocketed software vendors.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.