Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So, Linux is apparently a distinctly higher priority for Nvidia than MacOS. :(

Hardly surprising - no Macs ship with these GPUs and honestly I don't believe there's many people putting these in their Mac Pros.
I have fifteen Titan X (Maxwell), six GTX 980 Ti, nine GTX 980, and a dozen or so GTX 970 cards.

All but one of them (a 970 in my office Windows 10 workstation) are in headless Linux servers running CUDA tasks. (The 970 in my office workstation because it was a cheap way to drive three 4K monitors.)

Of course Linux is far higher priority for Nvidia than Apple OSX.
 
Yes, yes, I concur. The reasons for this are the same as have been discussed and bickered over endlessly here.

Apple will do what Apple does, and we shouldn't have expectations otherwise.
 
I have fifteen Titan X (Maxwell), six GTX 980 Ti, nine GTX 980, and a dozen or so GTX 970 cards.

All but one of them (a 970 in my office Windows 10 workstation) are in headless Linux servers running CUDA tasks. (The 970 in my office workstation because it was a cheap way to drive three 4K monitors.)

Of course Linux is far higher priority for Nvidia than Apple OSX.

The GTX 970 is fine for 3 4K monitors? I suppose I should have known it as my laptop can drive 2 4K monitors along with its high res display.

I had been waiting for the 10xx series, but with no support I will just get a used 970 from the local craigslist.
 
It's an interesting conundrum. I wonder if Apple are preventing Nvidia from releasing these drivers? I mean, we saw that youtube link where Nvidia were testing Pascal virtualised on older Mac Pros, so the drivers must already exist.

Perhaps releasing them or not is a purely political decision. Apple wouldn't want people to keep their machines indefinitely, and the Mac Pro line until the 2013 model us almost entirely user-servicable. It's reasonable to believe Apple would like to do all they can to make it hard to keep these machines up to date to force us to upgrade.

Perhaps Nvidia are in discussion with Apple over including them in future products, but a stipulation of any such agreement on Apple's part is that Nvidia not make Pascal available via driver support. That would make sense, but then Maxwell support is a bit of a mystery. Apple obviously wouldn't permit people to make 'Mac-compatible' products without their approval, not least of which because they include Apple's logos on the products et al. The 680 and the 7950 have full support, although that isn't entirely surprising, since the same family of cards are present in Mac lineups from the time (680m and 7xxx series 'Dx00' brand cards). Maxwell never got released on Macs though, so their inclusion on web drivers from Nvidia must mean that they aren't bound by Apple not to release something like that, though I doubt any Nvidia partner today would be permitted to sell Mac-compatible GPUs. AMD obviously have closer ties to Apple these days, surprising they haven't, but then perhaps that's part of their agreement. AMD get to ship cards in Macs, don't develop web drivers themselves for products not shipping within Macs.

Something I've wondered for a while too, the 7950 and 680 Mac Edition cards were rather unusual. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the first time Apple ever allowed this? Especially since they went Intel? I wonder if Apple were going to launch the 2012 Mac Pro 'update' with these GPUs, then got cold feet and cancelled it at the last minute, but the EFI/driver work had already been done? They did come out a while later, (2013 is when I bought mine), so perhaps partner companies were allowed to release them separately?

Seems a bit heartless, but ultimately, Apple have to make a profit. Even if these machines did cost a lot when we bought them, all they're really interested in is selling us new ones. I think a lot of people evangelise Apple as some paragon of virtue, but in many respects they're just like any other big technology company.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, Maxwell support in the web drivers came out for the Yosemite beta about a month before Yosemite was officially released. So start worrying/making conspiracy theories if it's not out by Sierra's release.
 
I don't understand. How?
Tegra, Nvidia automotive AI systems, Shield.

These are direct competitors to Apple's AX CPU, mobile gaming and automotive ambitions. Why would Apple feed a direct competitor with so much income they could make from GPUs installed in Macs? Would you do that if you were a board member with so many shares?
 
I didn't even know about the shield. I got it. I saw on Reddit that some people believe it also stems from a GPU IP Lawsuit? I'm not familiar with that either so I need to read some more.
 
Tegra, Nvidia automotive AI systems, Shield.

These are direct competitors to Apple's AX CPU, mobile gaming and automotive ambitions. Why would Apple feed a direct competitor with so much income they could make from GPUs installed in Macs? Would you do that if you were a board member with so many shares?
That doesn't stop Apple from buying a lot of Samsung components.... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790
Few reasons: First was the lawsuit.
Second reason: Nvidia CUDA - locking the software to one vendor. And it is direct competitor to Metal.
Third reason: pricing.
Fourth reason: almost zero documentation for drivers: Nvidia is on this like Apple, they want to control the user experience, and do not allow anyone to write specific drivers for specific tasks. Intel and AMD on other hand have vast documentation for anyone who would want coding specific drivers for specific tasks - again its all about Metal.
 
Tegra, Nvidia automotive AI systems, Shield.

These are direct competitors to Apple's AX CPU, mobile gaming and automotive ambitions. Why would Apple feed a direct competitor with so much income they could make from GPUs installed in Macs? Would you do that if you were a board member with so many shares?

This is silly. Apple does not sell GPUs or its A series chips to anyone. Nvidia and Apple are not competitors in mobile chips.

When it comes to cars. Nvidia sells compute packages and software to install on cars. Apple is rumored to be developing a car. Again, not competitors.

The tablet argument has a bit more merit, but Nvidia is such a small player in the tablet market I doubt Apple is too concerned about them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790
This is silly. Apple does not sell GPUs or its A series chips to anyone.

You buy these CPUs and GPUs when you buy an iDevice. They are selling to you. The same market Nvidia is trying to tap into. Cmon, I had to explain this???

I'm off to watch 'Terry Crews builds his gaming PC'. It's got to be better than this ;)
 
You buy these CPUs and GPUs when you buy an iDevice. They are selling to you. The same market Nvidia is trying to tap into. Cmon, I had to explain this???

I'm off to watch 'Terry Crews builds his gaming PC'. It's got to be better than this ;)

Nvidia sells its Tegra chips to tablet manufacturers. Apple sells its A series chips to no one.

Cmon, I had to explain this???
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790
Second reason: Nvidia CUDA - locking the software to one vendor. And it is direct competitor to Metal.

Um, what? CUDA and Metal are not the same thing? CUDA is to OpenCL what Metal is to Vulkan/DX12, or close enough.

CUDA and OpenCL are compute languages.
 
Nvidia sells Tegra devices to the public. In case you didn't read above.

Yes, and Nvidia has such a small sliver of the tablet market that Apple isn't worried about it. Apple wouldn't see using Nvidia GPUs in macs as a threat to the iPhone. Likewise, as Aidenshaw pointed out, this doesn't stop Apple from paying Samsung to manufacture its mobile chips despite their competition in smartphones.

Apple likely has other reasons not to use Nvidia GPUs, such as OpenCL/Metal performance, driver support, Nvidias willingness to design custom form factors, pricing and intellectual property concerns.
 
AMD was far more competitive with Nvidia back when Apple still put Nvidia chips in their computers. I am willing to bet price is the only driving force behind Apple's decision to go with AMD, especially given how little they seem to care about the Mac line as it is.
 
Last edited:
About patent concerns: It was Apple that was suing Samsung for stealing intellectual property. Nvidia pushed lawsuit against Apple, for alleged violation of patents. SemiAccurate did pretty good analysis about how it was logical, and how big strength it had in the court against Samsung(the same type of lawsuit).

That made Nvidia out off Apple computers. Charlie also wrote that on SemiAccurate forum some time ago.
 
The real winner in the Mac GPU lineup is Intel.

I remember back in the day when a key difference between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro was that the MacBook had integrated GPUs and the Pro had a dedicated GPUs. Not any more. Now there are "Pro" computers with Intel integrated video. :(
 
The GTX 970 is fine for 3 4K monitors?
My bad - I've bought quite a few Maxwells and lost track.

The triple head (three Dell P1715Q) Windows system has a GTX 960 - 4 GiB EVGA Superclocked ACX 2.0+(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487155).

I was checking it today, and saw (from the on-screen menus) that two of the monitors were 3840x2160@60Hz, and the third was 3840x2160@30Hz. I hadn't noticed, because I use that screen for reference PDFs and dashboards - nothing with much motion. Haven't had time to determine if it's a setup or hardware issue, or a basic limitation of the card.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.