I'm not sure many people will put 1080 in 5, 1 mac pro but the lower end pascal performs well and also uses less power. There is some advantage to use lower end pascal on 5, 1 because pascal consumes less power then previous nvidia chips.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Webdriver for GTX 1080&1070
- Thread starter chenfromchina
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not sure many people will put 1080 in 5, 1 mac pro but the lower end pascal performs well and also uses less power. There is some advantage to use lower end pascal on 5, 1 because pascal consumes less power then previous nvidia chips.
Because they're trying to win an Apple contract again. As long as the drivers aren't terrible and buggy like the beta Maxwell support they had.
I'd like them to implement eGPU in drivers without the system hack then I could try my GTX1070 with my new MBP.
I'd like them to implement eGPU in drivers without the system hack then I could try my GTX1070 with my new MBP.
It's actually the entire Pascal family. Although I'm an AMD fan, this is GREAT news!
Yes, apart from GTX 1080, Titan X, Titan XP and GTX 1080 Ti rest of Pascal family will not be a waste of money. Earlier you will get GPU bottleneck, than CPU on them.
It appears that everyone missed the point of my post.
So let me repeat. If you will use in MP 5.1 something more than GTX 1070, you can as well may go to bathroom, and flush into the toilet that 500 or more bucks you payed for your GPUs.
This is not AMD vs Nvidia. This is ONLY fact that CPUs in MP 5.1 will bottleneck your GPUs.
It will be nice to be able to use current gen cards with supported native drivers without any hacks. I'm feeling really positive right now.
Awesome! I never thought that would happen.
It's a little late for me since I don't use my 3,1 for graphics-intensive stuff anymore, but I can put my GTX 1070 in my 3,1 and buy a 1080 Ti for my Linux box. Any excuse to upgrade is a good excuse!
And the other fact...macOS support for cMP is already one foot in the grave. You would have to hack the next macOS to make it work on cMP.
For the moment the biggest performance gain is going to be at Hackintosh and MBP2016 with eGPU via TB3, as the TB2 Macs or the cMP all have their other performance bottlenecks. This is going to make the next iMac a very attractive option as well, since it will inevitably get a Skylake 7700 and TB3.
Sorry for assuming you were bashing NVIDIA. You are correct that the MP5,1 CPUs are really too slow to fully unleash the power of a 1080 or a 1080 Ti, but those will work great in a modern Hackintosh.
Thats exactly my point. Throwing GTX 1080 plus 7700K, or 6700K is best thing you can do right now, if you want "everything", and not waste your money.
I'll fully test the eGPU set up when the drivers come out. Already have the card and the MBP16. Just need a decent eGPU enclosure.
I look forward to your complaints about the drivers running in Kepler compatibility mode and no performance improvements over the GTX 680 in CPU-limited OpenGL applications.
Note that their beta Maxwell driver still fails OpenCL tests. If you rely on that then keep expectation realistic
Lol, there's one person in particular who is going to jump right on this and we all know who that is!
I don't doubt that GTX 1080 on a 5,1 cMP is a bit of a waste, but a 1070 GTX, 1tb ssd and 32gb ram will make it a pretty decent machine for most uses.
Is a new life for cMP users. Plenty of us out there.
Haven't checked into macrumors for quite some time.
Do eGPU solutions that work 100% with the latest MBPs that have TB3 now exist?
If so, does that mean the new iMacs/Mac Pros/Mac Minis can support an external GPU down the road?
Do eGPU solutions that work 100% with the latest MBPs that have TB3 now exist?
If so, does that mean the new iMacs/Mac Pros/Mac Minis can support an external GPU down the road?
The 5,1 cMP is using a CPU architecture from 2008-2009, which is positively ancient by today's standards. Be prepared to be extremely CPU limited, that's all I'm saying. Single-threaded performance matters a lot for games in particular, and the 1070 is not that much slower than a 1080. FWIW I ditched my cMP back in 2014 or so and have been on a Hackintosh ever since, and it's rather shocking how much faster they are.
When I upgraded from a 680 to a 980 I saw anywhere from 40% to 70% improvement in OS X. I read that Maxwell would be CPU limited and the OS X drivers weren't really Maxwell drivers or whatever. Maybe that's true but the improvement was substantial, what I had expected, and worth it.
Yes, logically a Pascal card will be hurt by 2008 CPU architecture, and that is my expectation too, but I am getting Deja Vu from last time and I can definitely say the 980 was a huge improvement over the 680.
So how about we actually wait to see how the Pascal drivers perform in OS X on a cMP instead of pretending that Windows 1080p gaming benchmarks relate to Mac Pros running OS X? There are people here who already have 1080 cards in their Mac Pros. We'll soon see the results.
Yes, logically a Pascal card will be hurt by 2008 CPU architecture, and that is my expectation too, but I am getting Deja Vu from last time and I can definitely say the 980 was a huge improvement over the 680.
So how about we actually wait to see how the Pascal drivers perform in OS X on a cMP instead of pretending that Windows 1080p gaming benchmarks relate to Mac Pros running OS X? There are people here who already have 1080 cards in their Mac Pros. We'll soon see the results.
"Not natively" is very different from "not working at all". You still have to modify an Apple kext if I remember correctly, but the process is very well understood and a lot of people have it working.