MacVidCards now has a UK partner set up. That may well be your best option. Here's a link.
This is the best news I heard in a long time..... ;-)
Cheers
MacVidCards now has a UK partner set up. That may well be your best option. Here's a link.
Wouldn’t it make sense to use fewer modules so you have more spaces open for upgrades?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.
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.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
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.
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.
Okay. Is it really three times faster?I bought this computer configured this way, but in this configuration there is a benefit of memory working in triple channel.
The page I linked absolutely had GTX 680 results.
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.
- 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%).
The page I linked absolutely had GTX 680 results.
3 times? Definitely not. Maybe somewhere around 5 ~ 7% over two channel.Okay. Is it really three times faster?
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
Would a 4GB GPU also be advisable for iMovie? Or is the extra 2GB of VRAM only needed by Final Cut Pro?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
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 don't really know iMovie, but for editing 4K/5K footage 4 GB are generally favorable.
I’d recommend the MSI GTX 970. It’s a powerful card, but at a good price.
1. I meant to say GTX 960. Sorry about that! Sometimes I get those two confused.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
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.
New Web Driver for El Cap out this morning:
http://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults.aspx/99119/en-us
Lou
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 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
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.