Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I chose the gtx 680 because I was looking for a GPU with a good performance and an attractive price, it may be a good alternative for you too. But if you're looking for an alternative plug and play with bootscreen without surprises, look at macvidcards.com, I have never traded with him, but based on what I read about him, surely he will be able to help you.


I don't use 3x8 as you imagined, but 6x4, the idea is upgrade to 64gb soon.
Wouldn’t it make sense to use fewer modules so you have more spaces open for upgrades?

If I had four RAM slots, I’d use 2x4 so I could upgrade to 4x4 later. I only need 8 gigabytes and I might have a use for 16 gigabytes eventually. Though, since I use a Solid State Drive, I don’t need as much RAM.
[doublepost=1455641100][/doublepost]
First of all a huge thanks you. This is the most interesting post about the topic I've found in days. I have a Mac Pro 5.1 and I'm exploring the idea of updgrading my default 5770 and, even being kind of an expert in the Mac area I TOTALLY missed the fact I could aim for regular PC cards. Thanks again, you opened a world to me.

Now the hard stuff :)

Having used Mac for 20 years and always with their default hardware, I am completely out of the scenes if we talk about the millions of GPU and brands and options available...and for this reason my post will most probably appear as a classical newbie thing.

So...let's say I want a better video card, mainly for gaming, with a non crazy budget, something around 200 GBP; a card which I can supply easily, let's say from Amazon...where should I look into? You suggest EVGA brand, and there's many options on Amazon...but no specs present, for example, about the power requirements (6 or 8 pins, etc.)

If someone has time, I'd strongly appreciate some real suggestions :)

Thanks in advance

Tampano
I’d recommend the MSI GTX 960. It’s a powerful card, but at a good price. The nice thing about MSI is their stuff is built to Military Class 4 specifications and the fan spins backwards when the card power up to dislodge dust. The military specification hardware makes it better for overclocking. Though, if you’re going to overclock, you’ll have to do that in Linux or Windows with something like NiBiTor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MrAverigeUser
Wouldn’t it make sense to use fewer modules so you have more spaces open for upgrades?

If I had four RAM slots, I’d use 2x4 so I could upgrade to 4x4 later. I only need 8 gigabytes and I might have a use for 16 gigabytes eventually. Though, since I use a Solid State Drive, I don’t need as much RAM.

I bought this computer configured this way, but in this configuration there is a benefit of memory working in triple channel.
 
There is no benchmark evidence & in real life use I see no difference. The new web drivers may well be faster on the GTX980 which cannot use the native drivers but we don't have any evidence that this is true of the GTX680.

The page I linked absolutely had GTX 680 results.
  • Dirt 3 went from 57 to 68 (19.3%).
  • Tomb Raider went form 46 to 80 (73.9%).
  • TessMark went from 481 to 507 (5.4%).
  • OceanWave went from 519 to 600 (15.6%).
Benchmark sites like BareFeats typically chose a representative sample for the apps they publish results for. That is, these results are indicative of the improvements found in the new web drivers. Nobody was complaining that the older web drivers were massively slower than the stock drivers for the 680 (in fact most people were complaining that the web drivers showed no improvement at all). So, as I mentioned, it's a reasonable assumption that the older web driver scores matched the stock drivers.

What apps/games are you using where you see no difference? As I said, I've seen a massive improvement in the apps and games I play (in particular the Blizzard and Valve games).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Synchro3
The page I linked absolutely had GTX 680 results.
  • Dirt 3 went from 57 to 68 (19.3%).
  • Tomb Raider went form 46 to 80 (73.9%).
  • TessMark went from 481 to 507 (5.4%).
  • OceanWave went from 519 to 600 (15.6%).
Benchmark sites like BareFeats typically chose a representative sample for the apps they publish results for. That is, these results are indicative of the improvements found in the new web drivers. Nobody was complaining that the older web drivers were massively slower than the stock drivers for the 680 (in fact most people were complaining that the web drivers showed no improvement at all). So, as I mentioned, it's a reasonable assumption that the older web driver scores matched the stock drivers.

A FCP Benchmark went from 53 seconds to 29 seconds - 45% (Nvidia Web drivers 10.8.5 vs 10.11.3): https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/fcpx-amd-vs-nvidia.1956128/#post-22568628

A GTX 770 is the same as a GTX 680, has the same chip.
 
Last edited:
Hello what is the best for 4k 60z and Final Cut x better than my card . I have a mac Pro 4.1 upgrade to 5.1 6core . And a NVIDIA Quadro 4000 2048 MB I think is to hot and noisy. What is the best card silent and cold (not to expensive? Thanks
 
The page I linked absolutely had GTX 680 results.

Those benchmarks only compare an old version of the web drivers to a new version of the web drivers. There is no comparison of the native drivers to any version of the web drivers.

I don't play games. I use Adobe CC & FCP X.
 
Hello what is the best for 4k 60z and Final Cut x better than my card . I have a mac Pro 4.1 upgrade to 5.1 6core . And a NVIDIA Quadro 4000 2048 MB I think is to hot and noisy. What is the best card silent and cold (not to expensive? Thanks

GTX 680 or 770 are no-brainer, working ootb with OS X drivers and Nvidia web drivers. 4 GB VRAM variants are recommended for FCP use.
GTX 970/980/980 Ti working with Nvidia web drivers. OS X updates may cause issues, until new web driver is released.

If you want Option boot menu etc: http://www.macvidcards.com/store/c2/Nvidia_GPUs.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmxfr
Hello all, it's been a long month. I started reading here when I realized my Mac Pro would not talk to my new GTX 970 Strix. Without going back to find all the relevant posts, I will say this combo is working just fine. The power has not been an issue at all.
I had the same doubts as many here. I also do not understand the scripting-kexting sidebars discussions.
2008 3.1 Mac Pro
2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
18 GB 800 MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4095 MB
OS ver. 10.11.2
I found this post to be one of the most helpful.
  • Plug in an older card (my case a quadro FX 5600) and install the latest Nvidia drivers. (same as web drivers I think)
  • Restart
  • Point the Nvidia driver manager to the Nvidia drivers.
  • Shut Down
  • Unplug (forgot this step once)
  • Uninstall older card
  • Install 970 card
  • Restart
  • There will be a long black screen BUT this should be all that is needed
ALSO:
Another post listed the watts available at the socket and each mini 6-pin as 75 watts. I currently am using all 3 sources of power. The replacement cable I ordered uses a single mini 6-pin and I believe jumpers to the outside last 2 power pins. I have not tried this cable yet, maybe I ordered the wrong one? 71fR6n1FQhL._SL1500_.jpg


Some finer points in my experience:
  • I have not found out exactly why, but the Samsung 4k screen loses the HDMI connection. Unplug/replug HDMI cable fixes it.
  • I have a 22 inch DVI connection screen in mirror screen mode to see if there is a signal at all. (This was a problem at first but not now. Thats the short story)
  • Somehow one of my mini 6-pin cable ends was bent and making intermittent connection. I removed and rerouted 3 or 4 times. Then removed all hard drives.
  • While the tower is unplugged, install and connect the 970 card. Carefully WATCH the board while plugging in the main tower power cable. Don't push the main power button.
  • There is a single LED on the board. About 2 seconds you should see it flash either red or white. (hard drives are still out)
  • If RED, check all connections. If WHITE, you can proceed to UNPLUG then reassemble.



In MY case, the LED was WHITE until I put the side cover back on. This caused the bent connector to disconnect. I could describe the unrecommended ways I tested to find which plug end was the problem but I will just say I did break out the old school multi-meter and the cables checked out fine.
No stores locally will carry that mini 6-pin connector. I re-bent the female end and ordered a backup. The re-bent one is working still.
I have shut down and restarted several times and the OS has never switched back to the OS drivers. Other than the Samsung forgetting the connection, all is running as expected with no special startup procedures.
 
GTX 680 or 770 are no-brainer, working ootb with OS X drivers and Nvidia web drivers. 4 GB VRAM variants are recommended for FCP use.
GTX 970/980/980 Ti working with Nvidia web drivers. OS X updates may cause issues, until new web driver is released.

If you want Option boot menu etc: http://www.macvidcards.com/store/c2/Nvidia_GPUs.html
Would a 4GB GPU also be advisable for iMovie? Or is the extra 2GB of VRAM only needed by Final Cut Pro?
 
I don't really know iMovie, but for editing 4K/5K footage 4 GB are generally favorable.
 
I don't really know iMovie, but for editing 4K/5K footage 4 GB are generally favorable.
I don’t edit 4K video, and I probably won’t for 5-10 years. For now, I only go as high as 1080p. Would a 2 GB GPU be fine for editing 1080p video?
 
I’d recommend the MSI GTX 970. It’s a powerful card, but at a good price.

I wanted to play it nice and easy...got an EVGA GTX 960 4Gb. Drivers installed, card installed, power cable connected...lost boot screen (expected, I don't care) and the card works like a charm.

Any test I can make to check everything's working properly? Drivers are loaded, now I can put to "ultra" any game (just downloaded Firewatch from Steam and with the ATI HD 5770 I had to set graphics to "medium" to have it fluid). The only one that doesn't seem to care about the card is WoW...not sure why...but changing video settings doesn't seem to have a real effect.

A quick benchmark with Heaven gives me between 3x an 4x fps. Anything else I can try/set?

Thanks everyone
 
I wanted to play it nice and easy...got an EVGA GTX 960 4Gb. Drivers installed, card installed, power cable connected...lost boot screen (expected, I don't care) and the card works like a charm.

Any test I can make to check everything's working properly? Drivers are loaded, now I can put to "ultra" any game (just downloaded Firewatch from Steam and with the ATI HD 5770 I had to set graphics to "medium" to have it fluid). The only one that doesn't seem to care about the card is WoW...not sure why...but changing video settings doesn't seem to have a real effect.

A quick benchmark with Heaven gives me between 3x an 4x fps. Anything else I can try/set?

Thanks everyone
1. I meant to say GTX 960. Sorry about that! Sometimes I get those two confused.
2. I guess you could try Futuremark.
 
Have you tried selecting a different output device in System Preferences > Sound or the menu bar volume control (option-click)?

I'll try that, but can I use a non-Apple GPU and use line-out audio? HDMI audio through the GPU adds a lot of signal noise.

Yes, I tried the HDMI Audio kext 1.1, but it did not work. Please see my reply here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/guide-hdmi-audio.1499797/page-18#post-22582337

I'm still at a loss. I have no audio at all under OS X with the NVIDIA card installed. I've considered just re-selling this new NVIDIA card as used and conceding that I can't upgrade the GPU in my Mac Pro 4,1.

I can't find any graphics cards on the apple.com web site, so I presume that Apple does not sell GPU upgrades anymore.
 
Last edited:
I'm still at a loss. I have no audio at all under OS X with the NVIDIA card installed. I've considered just re-selling this new NVIDIA card as used and conceding that I can't upgrade the GPU in my Mac Pro 4,1.

I think you are jumping the gun here. Many people, maybe hundreds or thousands, have installed new GPUs and still use their audio just fine. You may have a simple software or settings issue.

If you have a spare drive, I'd install a fresh OS X onto that drive with no other software and see if you get sound from it. This will determine if your current OS X installation has some errant driver, software, or setting that is mucking things up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jblagden
A note on something that had to happen...

Running 346.03.04f02 and 10.11.2, everything seems to work fine. I wanted to try a restart with Apple stock drivers...and I got nothing other than a black screen forever. Tried also a PRAM reset, no joy.

Luckily I had Remote Desktop enabled and another Mac so I controlled a driver change from there and restarted.

Is this the only way in case this happens again? Will a Safe Boot work?

Thanks
 
I bought this computer configured this way, but in this configuration there is a benefit of memory working in triple channel.

Just to be sure and correct me please if I am wrong:

I read some time ago somewhere that 4- and 8- core MPs will run better in 3 of 4 -slot configuration, but 12-core can profit as the only configuration from 4 of4 slot configuration ( in this case 8-of8-slot configuration) ?

Could someone of the Pro here confirm this?

And just btw: does it matter what 3 slots of 4 you use for 3-of4-configuration?

Thanks
 
Just to be sure and correct me please if I am wrong:

I read some time ago somewhere that 4- and 8- core MPs will run better in 3 of 4 -slot configuration, but 12-core can profit as the only configuration from 4 of4 slot configuration ( in this case 8-of8-slot configuration) ?

Could someone of the Pro here confirm this?

And just btw: does it matter what 3 slots of 4 you use for 3-of4-configuration?

Thanks

AFAIK, regardless which CPU, use 3 slots for each CPU can always achieve the best memory performance. However, it doesn't mean that you will have the best overall performance.

Sufficient memory is always in 1st priority. And in the modern OS, the system almost can always benefit by having more RAM (by using them as cache). So, unless someone's workflow is really very memory bandwidth sensitive, there should be not much difference in real world between using 3 slots or 4, but there will be a huge difference when the system is running out of RAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrAverigeUser
AFAIK, regardless which CPU, use 3 slots for each CPU can always achieve the best memory performance. However, it doesn't mean that you will have the best overall performance.

Sufficient memory is always in 1st priority. And in the modern OS, the system almost can always benefit by having more RAM (by using them as cache). So, unless someone's workflow is really very memory bandwidth sensitive, there should be not much difference in real world between using 3 slots or 4, but there will be a huge difference when the system is running out of RAM.


I now rmember the argument why a 12-core MP would profit from 4of4-configuration:

The Xeons ar able to create a virtual 3rd core. To max that out, you need a sum of real hardre cores that you can divide by 3. if this is not the case, the 4th occupied slot will only brake instead of helping the system.

-----> could someone with a 12-core MBP help,us tomverify this?
Would be easy for him:

Just run a performance test with both configurations and report the result....
Imthinkmthis would be very interesting for a lot of people.

As for "as much RAM as possible" : i agree, having 32 GB of RaM since I purchased my MP with it (yes, I was really that naive and burned money because at that time this was horribly expensive...)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.