RTX Series Cards have Native Bootscreen Support!

[namethisfile]

Hmmmm, most benchmarks I've seen with dual X5690's in the cMP are better than the Trashcan.......

This GB4 chart doesn't show 5690's since those are DIY upgrades but the chart proves, otherwise:

Thats how Apple sells LOTS and lots of new iPhones that are expensive and vastly inferior to most flagship smart phones.
Most Pro's know the difference between a work horse and industrial design...

Apple doesn't sell a lot of iphones because they've tricked the public into seeing it as a kind of "art" or gimmick. The Apple CPU/GPU's in the iphones have always been ahead and it is the competition who are playing catch up in the hardware dep't. As for iOS vs. Android, there are perks to both as always. Neither are inferior to the other. More like preference these days.

And, the last line of Pro's knowing what a work horse is and what industrial design is pure BS.

 

[kings79]

This GB4 chart doesn't show 5690's since those are DIY upgrades but the chart proves, otherwise:

Exactly. It doesn't show 5690s. So no point showing it...

Anyway man if you wanna buy up 8k and up beautiful pieces of industrial design go for it. They will look nice in your living room.

I prefer a work horse.

Sorry if we have derailed this thread too much but; the trashcan . ...

 

[h9826790]

Hmmmm, most benchmarks I've seen with dual X5690's in the cMP are better than the Trashcan.......

This GB4 chart doesn't show 5690's since those are DIY upgrades but the chart proves, otherwise:

View attachment 796145

Both 12 cores nMP and dual X5690 cMP has roughly the same raw performance.

 

[kings79]

Both 12 cores nMP and dual X5690 cMP has roughly the same raw performance.

In that particular chart yes M...

 

[h9826790]

Suddenly remember this blog

http://www.macvidcards.com/blog/egpu-update

When I first read that, I didn't realise that MVC was talking about using a EFI UGA GPU as the 6,1 eGPU which is a UEFI machine.

I have absolutely no idea about the technically details behind.

But if EFI UGA can make eGPU setup on Mac more straight forward. Will this be the reason why Nvidia add that into the RTX2080? Of course, it can still be 7,1 related. Who know what "Modular" means by Apple.

 

[goMac]

Suddenly remember this blog

http://www.macvidcards.com/blog/egpu-update

When I first read that, I didn't realise that MVC was tasing about using a EFI UGA GPU as the 6,1 eGPU which is a UEFI machine.

I have absolutely no idea about the technically details behind.

But if EFI UGA can make eGPU setup on Mac more straight forward. Will this be the reason why Nvidia add that into the RTX2080? Of course, it can still be 7,1 related. Who know what "Modular" means by Apple.

While I still think Apple abandoning AMD is a bit of a long shot, I could see them wanting the PR of announcing that Nvidia is now an option for eGPU.

I think MVC was working around driver issues though. As far as I know, there is no reason with proper drivers that a Mac card would need UGA. TB3 Macs don't even support UGA.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

There is still no 10 bit output on Geforce on Win or Mac. This is the issue that remains and is a deal breaker for pros working with color. I'd rather not spend ridiculous 20 series prices and wait for 7nm Navi, if you're thinking of upgrading that old cMP.

I'm no fan boi so that's my unbiased opinion, and I sold me AMD stock at $32. I still own NVDA stock.

 

[LightBulbFun]

this is the thread MVC posted in

http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,13881.0.html

I also asked some questions, and it looks like IF it is giving boot screens its only giving the bare minimum

which would mean no formatted name in OS X without GPU drivers, which might explain why Create.Pro did not show any System Profiler shots however they could of at least shown them anyhow we would of been able to verify it was legit via the Device ID...
[doublepost=1539866154][/doublepost]The curious question now would be

why does it need the 138.0.0.0.0 BootROM (or later?) to function

I wonder if Apple changed things so all a card needs to show Boot screens is JUST a UGA compatible ROM and drops the need for anything more?

I has many questions LOL

 

[vetruvian]

Maybe it's not permanent. But, something that didn't get snuck out before final release of RTX cards? Boot picker screen would be more important for users who use Bootcamp and Windows with their cMP....



Well, the RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti benchmark of Metal or CUDA in Geekbench 4 compared to Pascal are off the chart... even compared to Vega64...

I don't know what it means. It could just be just that... that for some reason or other, RTX cards have native capability for boot screens.

I don't think I will need it for editing, though. So, my Pulse RX 580 is good enough for me.

I'm referring to the large scale implications. Why did Nvidia spend the time/money/effort to slip this in? Why not announce this capability at launch? Is Apple potentially moving to Nvidia cards in the near future?

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

I'm referring to the large scale implications. Why did Nvidia spend the time/money/effort to slip this in? Why not announce this capability at launch? Is Apple potentially moving to Nvidia cards in the near future?

If you have upgradable workstation and also egpu support then there’s no ‘moving to’. The option is to support all AMD and Nvidia cards. All that is missing is decent drivers from Nvidia also with egpu and 10 bit support.

 

[h9826790]

I'm referring to the large scale implications. Why did Nvidia spend the time/money/effort to slip this in? Why not announce this capability at launch? Is Apple potentially moving to Nvidia cards in the near future?

Can't figure out any high possibility reasonable explanation yet.

However, Nvidia say nothing about that is perfectly normal. Apart from Mac Pro 5,1 users, who will benefit from this EFI UGA thing? Make a large scale public announcement about this may only cause more confusion to most normal PC users (which may means more trouble for their CS / tech support department). So, they say nothing make perfect sense to me.

 

[vetruvian]

Can't figure out any high possibility reasonable explanation yet.

Either way, it's all exciting stuff. About 6 months ago I would have considered the cMP dead in the water. Official Mojave support, NVME boot, and now this. It's quite an interesting time to be a cMP owner and I hope the 7,1 is an enticing machine.

 

[lgwells1]

Either way, it's all exciting stuff. About 6 months ago I would have considered the cMP dead in the water. Official Mojave support, NVME boot, and now this. It's quite an interesting time to be a cMP owner and I hope the 7,1 is an enticing machine.

This news plus NVME support is very exciting. I hope to get several more years out of my cMP. It is a shame that the RTX cards are so expensive. I wish they would add support for previous generation of Pascal cards. My 1080 is going strong, and I am sure it will continue too for a while longer.

 

[bsbeamer]

The RTX 2070 Founders Edition would likely be the NVIDIA RTX card choice for the majority of people. It is easily powered via dual mini 6-pin to standard 8-pin (just like the GTX 1080 FE and RX580 Pulse). The power connector itself is in a slightly strange spot (rear of card vs. typical side) that might be awkward for some people to hook up inside a Mac Pro 5,1 tower but should still be possible. Might want to find a 90º connector set appropriately, but that's trivial for this discussion.

My issue with the RTX 2070 FE card - it's basically a little slower than the GTX 1080 FE for some things, a little faster for others, and it has less CUDA cores vs. GTX 1080 FE. At $600, it would not really be an upgrade for my needs over my current NVIDIA GTX 1080 FE. That being said, if I had to only choose between an RX560/RX580 and an RTX 2070 FE, it would likely be the RTX 2070 FE.

If the RTX 2080 FE (or Ti FE) could be easily internally powered, it would be a nice upgrade over the GTX 1080 FE... but at $800-$1200 for the GPU alone, I'd really need to weigh options. Even if you can modify the power internally, I'd stress the card too much and would need an external PSU. Dropping $1K+ into this machine at this time for this upgrade is not something I would do lightly (or recommend to anyone). I'd rather move to a few NVMe and/or increase total SSD capacity.

Fingers crossed NVIDIA Web Drivers for 10.13 stay updated and 10.14 drivers are released soon. Appears there may be a security update for 10.13.6 released in the next few weeks, which would change the build number and break drivers. Certainly looks like we should have the answers most of us have been waiting for by end of 2018 or early 2019.

 

[sbarton]

Other than compute tasks, what use is a gpu with the power of a 20xx in a cMP anyway? For example - gaming under boot camp - Isn't the machine already cpu/bandwidth bound by the many other high-end options available? Seems like at best you would end up with a machine that yes, can hit a high frame rate, but will swing back wildly when cpu and memory bandwidth is needed. Not a troll, serious question as I have a 4,1 sitting next to me with its original card.

 

[Squuiid]

Other than compute tasks, what use is a gpu with the power of a 20xx in a cMP anyway? For example - gaming under boot camp - Isn't the machine already cpu/bandwidth bound by the many other high-end options available? Seems like at best you would end up with a machine that yes, can hit a high frame rate, but will swing back wildly when cpu and memory bandwidth is needed. Not a troll, serious question as I have a 4,1 sitting next to me with its original card.

While your theory is sound, in practice I've found a 5,1 3.46GHz 6C cMP to be an excellent gaming machine with a GTX 1080.
It runs Doom and Forza Horizon 4 like a dream on Ultra settings at 1600p.
My two cents

 

[thornslack]

The cMP is still a workhorse for gaming under windows. I see lots of people who don’t play games say it will be cpu limited but this is almost never the case. While some titles that execute on a single thread (ie 2010s Starcraft 2) experience more finite gains, almost all modern titles are designed to benefit from at least 4 cores. Furthermore, as resolution increases, the effects of cpu limiting become even less apparent. I’d recommend this article, published this year, which examined sandy bridge processors relevant to the various iterations of processors since 2011. It details lots of use applications, but if you look at the gaming sections you can see that very little separates an old processor from a new one, especially at 1440p or above.

 

[deconstruct60]

....
Nvidia may be working with Apple, and Apple want to make the 7,1 so "special" again by keeping it with EFI UGA but not UEFI GOP. Therefore, even give us PCIe slots (this will be an extremely good news), and we still can't installed whatever graphic card we want (without breaking boot screen).

Probably not. If the future Mac Pro ( 7,1) is stuck in upgrade swamp and won't be out for a year or more this move could be one coordinated with Apple to provide a smooth stop gap solution. A susbstantive number of 5,1 buyers purchase the card in the "empty year+" window to keep 'circling the airport' on the verge of vintage/obsolete systems. Apple releases a 7,1 and folks can move their $600-900 sunk cost 'investment' over to the new Mac system.

The new Mac Pro system doesn't need UGA. The point would be to get folks to squat on the 5,1 systems longer in hopes can flip them to 7,1 (or higher) systems over the 2019-2021 time frame. Nvidia probably gets a better chance of winning any design bake-off that is going on for future Macs. Or at very least this would further validate putting an open, empty standard PCI-e in the 7,1 system.

The broader the amount of "stop gap", squat enabling Apple (and partners ) fixes roll out, the more cluster screwed the 7,1 schedule probably is. If Apple has royally screwed up, this is the minimal effort they'd need to do for the 7,1 to remain a viable product long term.

 

[goMac]

why does it need the 138.0.0.0.0 BootROM (or later?) to function

The only thing I can think of...

The reason that the Mac Pro never got any generic video cards is that UGA basically never happened on Windows, at least for consumers. They skipped straight to GOP.

This is the first consumer non-Mac card I think I've ever seen with UGA support. It may be that there were bugs in the Boot ROM with generic UGA cards. As has been mentioned, this card doesn't expose all of the properties normally seen in Mac edition cards, only the UGA support. That would make this card a little different than a Mac edition card.

I think there might be some really ancient consumer PC boards out there that support UGA, but it's still really weird to have Nvidia go back and add UGA support if it wasn't Mac related. Especially if Apple did ship a fix for UGA at the same time.

 

[thornslack]

I saw it as since the cMP is still supported and the 7,1 is imminent, in order for NVIDIA to make a single card that works for both they baked in the old system into their rom for old machines (cMP) and the 7,1 will simply ignore it and use the modern loader. No more ‘Mac edition’ silliness.

A valid question was raised earlier though, what other systems benefit from UGA support? Answering that would offer more insight into this decision making.

 

[goMac]

A valid question was raised earlier though, what other systems benefit from UGA support? Answering that would offer more insight into this decision making.

UEFI dropped UGA, and UEFI has been the standard since... 2007? I think maybe I had a EFI board that supported UGA before that, but I never had a UGA card, and I'm not even sure Windows could do an EFI boot on that board. XP at the time didn't do EFI boot at all.

So I'm trying to figure out what other UGA boxes there are out there that can do an EFI boot of Windows, and I'm not coming up with anything. I don't think Windows requires full UEFI to boot, but even then it's odd timing to suddenly decide to start supporting EFI booting on some really old Windows boxes.

 

[bookemdano]

If NVIDIA is trying to make a card that can be a bridge between 5,1 and 7,1 let's remember how much easier it is to install web drivers when you have an EFI driver to fall back on. Maybe NVIDIA saw the value in what MVC was offering and just decided to do it themselves, since it removes a lot of the hoop jumping involved to get the drivers installed.

I also still think there is merit in the idea that some big-time corporation that's holding onto 5,1s waiting for a true successor may have requested this and since the development $ was already spent, NVIDIA just decided to include it on all shipping 20X0 cards. And in fact if NVIDIA and Apple are on speaking terms again, maybe NVIDIA even requested Apple make a change in the 5,1 firmware to support their hybrid UGA/GOP ROM.

It's all very interesting. If I had sold my 4,1 early this spring as I'd originally planned I'd be kicking myself by now.

 

[abdyfranco]

Other than compute tasks, what use is a gpu with the power of a 20xx in a cMP anyway? For example - gaming under boot camp - Isn't the machine already cpu/bandwidth bound by the many other high-end options available? Seems like at best you would end up with a machine that yes, can hit a high frame rate, but will swing back wildly when cpu and memory bandwidth is needed. Not a troll, serious question as I have a 4,1 sitting next to me with its original card.

The Mac Pro it's a very good gaming machine, I play at 3K resolution on Ultra at rock solid 60fps (In the vast majority of games, I get more than 60fps, but I limit it because my monitor is only 60Hz.) with a GTX 1080.

The only thing I can think of...

The reason that the Mac Pro never got any generic video cards is that UGA basically never happened on Windows, at least for consumers. They skipped straight to GOP.

This is the first consumer non-Mac card I think I've ever seen with UGA support. It may be that there were bugs in the Boot ROM with generic UGA cards. As has been mentioned, this card doesn't expose all of the properties normally seen in Mac edition cards, only the UGA support. That would make this card a little different than a Mac edition card.

I think there might be some really ancient consumer PC boards out there that support UGA, but it's still really weird to have Nvidia go back and add UGA support if it wasn't Mac related. Especially if Apple did ship a fix for UGA at the same time.

I never heard of consumer PC boards using UGA, But some very old HP servers uses UGA.

 

[h9826790]

The Mac Pro it's a very good gaming machine, I play at 3K resolution on Ultra at rock solid 60fps (In the vast majority of games, I get more than 60fps, but I limit it because my monitor is only 60Hz.) with a GTX 1080.


I never heard of consumer PC boards using UGA, But some very old HP servers uses UGA.

Yeah, I ran quite a few tests not long ago. Concluded that the cMP CPU can still deliver 60FPS on most games. And guess what, even my 1080Ti is not necessary able to deliver stable 60FPS in 4k with Max settings. So, most likely the cMP can still fully utilise a RTX2080 in Windows gaming. That just depends on resolution and setting.

Besides, if single monitor is not stressful enough, we can game at two or even three 4k monitors. It isn't that hard to stress a GPU to stress a RTX2080 100% in modern games (if we know how to do it). And of course, compute (or rendering) is another main area that can fully utilise a high end GPU (again, if we know how to do it right).

 

[goMac]

I never heard of consumer PC boards using UGA, But some very old HP servers uses UGA.

I'm pretty sure I had a consumer PC board with EFI in 2006-ish, but it couldn't have been UEFI... Maybe my dates are wrong.

Edit: Actually it might be possible that I got the board in 2007 and had one of the very first Intel UEFI boards.