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

nVidia GTX 1080

Draeconis said:
They do, under OS X. Under Windows, so I'm lead to believe, a stock PC Card is stuck at PCIe 1.1 without the resistor mod MVC does.
Click to expand...

Ah ok. Thanks for the clarification. I don't use windows on the machine, so I didn't know.

Seems weird though, considering you should be able to use Nvidia's control panel and driver versions for that platform. But I don't know much there, considering I'm a Windows noob.
 
Performance hit of running a GTX 1080 on PCIe 1.1 @16x will be minimal. Maybe 5%, 10% at the high end.
Still definitely worth getting it to run games in Bootcamp at PCIe 1.1, if you're into gaming. There is nothing faster for your Mac Pro and performance will be pretty close to running it on a PC with PCIe 3.0.

The EVGA GTX 1080 ACX3.0 SC is still the card to beat IMO. Great cooling, OC'd out of the box, silent, and only one 8-pin connector required.
 
pat500000 said:
Why couldnt they support under OS X? Did they put in some special code in OS X to prevent nvidia from working?
Click to expand...

No driver support yet. Nvidia provides drivers on its website for graphics cards that don't have built in driver support in OS X (i.e. the 900 series). However, they have not been updated to support the 1000 series.
 
Stacc said:
No driver support yet. Nvidia provides drivers on its website for graphics cards that don't have built in driver support in OS X (i.e. the 900 series). However, they have not been updated to support the 1000 series.
Click to expand...
Oh okay. No driver yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pinchu71
Bubba Satori said:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 in the Mac Pro tower.
http://barefeats.com/gtx1080.html
Click to expand...

Very nice, can't wait to see the Titan/Ti Pascal series. Will be monster performers.

A shame the most valuable member of this subforum got suspended because some people got their feelings hurt.

He's at the forefront of developments in the Mac Pro world. Apple's radio silence leaves little to discuss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flehman, NOTNlCE, Synchro3 and 6 others
Chaps, can we try and keep this thread on topic please? I don't want this thread to get locked too..

I emailed Rob at Barefeats to see if he could compare the 1080 performance to the 680, so us hangers-on can see the difference :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squuiid and Synchro3
That's interesting; Ars article mentions that although 3-way and 4-way old bridge SLI will be disabled altogether for 1080 in favor of the faster bridging that supports only 2-way, having 3 or 4 individual cards will be able to work together for applications that support multi-gpus without driver's participation (aka SLI).

So, I guess, that's a no-go only for gaming.
 
Maxwell web drivers require 10.10 or newer. So for Pascal I wouldn't be surprised if drivers were limited to 10.11 and newer or maybe even 10.12 and newer.

Edit: ...assuming we get Pascal drivers at all. :(
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pat500000 and TheStork
ActionableMango said:
Maxwell web drivers require 10.10 or newer. So for Pascal I wouldn't be surprised if drivers were limited to 10.11 and newer or maybe even 10.12 and newer.
Click to expand...

Very true. And I have to wonder how many models of the cMP that 10.12 will keep supporting. The latest one is already 6 years old.
 
Mac Tracker, the wee app that tells the spec of all macs produced, has a fairly good classification system.
Mac Pros are currently "Supported", "Vintage" or "Obsolete" according to their latest Mac OS X version support.
As a general rule, anything "Vintage" moves to "Obsolete" in the next OS upgrade. I expect MP 3,1 and 4,1 models not to make the cut next time.
 
Last edited:
gpzjock said:
Mac Tracker, the wee app that tells the spec of all macs produced, has a fairly good classification system.
Mac Pros are currently "Supported", "Vintage" or "Obsolete" according to their latest Mac OS X version support.
As a general rule, anything "Vintage" moves to "Obsolete" in the next OS upgrade. I expect MP 3,1 and 4,1 models not to make the cut next time.
Click to expand...

Wrong, afaik "Supported" means official Apple support for repairs. "Vintage" or "Obsolete" models will not be repaired.

This classification has nothing to do with OS X Support.

Apart from that MP 4,1 (vintage) has the exactly same hardware as MP 5,1 (Supported).
 
gpzjock said:
Mac Tracker, the wee app that tells the spec of all macs produced, has a fairly good classification system.
Mac Pros are currently "Supported", "Vintage" or "Obsolete" according to their latest Mac OS X version support.
As a general rule, anything "Vintage" moves to "Obsolete" in the next OS upgrade. I expect MP 3,1 and 4,1 models not to make the cut next time.
Click to expand...
Supported, Vintage, and Obsolute statuses refer to hardware support, not software support.

2007-2008 iMacs are obsolete but supported by El Capitan.

Meanwhile, some iMac G5 models are merely vintage, but obviously haven't been able to run anything since Leopard.

Vintage/obsolete lists are here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
 
So those are Apple designations? I stand corrected. :)

Strange that a G5 produced in 2005-6 is Vintage when Apple's own definition for Vintage on your link states "Vintage products are those that have not been manufactured for more than 5 and less than 7 years ago." so this is clearly bollocks. I still have a G5 20" iMac somewhere and it is long dead for support (OS 10.5.8).;)

OS support can be pretty tenuous on real "Vintage" kit and "Obsolete products are those that were discontinued more than 7 years ago." so if a product has a long production run it will stay out of obsolete status longer than something released at the same time and replaced the following year. The 13" non retina MBP is a fine example, last updated in June 2012 and still in production 4 years later. It will hit obsolete status at least 3 years after the 15" MBP it was originally released with. By Apple's logic.

I assumed Apple's attitude was more like, kill it for hardware support around the 10 year mark but this is just from my past experiences with older Macs.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong folks but I was under the impression that loss of OS support generally comes about from core architectural changes such as dropping PowerPC, dropping 32bit Intel Core CPUs, dropping 32bit EFI, etc.

These are significant changes in the core hardware platform and consequently result in OS support being dropped.

However, 2009 cMPs onwards use fundamentally the same hardware platform as newer Macs today and I don't really see what might make that change.

Apple don't deliberately drop OS support for a specific model unless there is a fundamental architectural reason to do so.
I think evidence of this is that 2007 Core 2 Duo iMacs happily run El Capitan.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Synchro3
Squuiid said:
Correct me if I'm wrong folks but I was under the impression that loss of OS support generally comes about from core architectural changes such as dropping PowerPC, dropping 32bit Intel Core CPUs, dropping 32bit EFI, etc.

These are significant changes in the core hardware platform and consequently result in OS support being dropped.

However, 2009 cMPs onwards use fundamentally the same hardware platform as newer Macs today and I don't really see what might make that change.

Apple don't deliberately drop OS support for a specific model unless there is a fundamental architectural reason to do so.
I think evidence of this is that 2007 Core 2 Duo iMacs happily run El Capitan.
Click to expand...

Thunderbolt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back