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

What graphics cards will the New Mac Pro have?

M

Miles.Kelly97

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 24, 2015
34
0
Tunbridge Wells
Just wanted know see if anybody knew or had heard rumours about the graphics cards that will go into the new Mac Pro's?

I'm hoping for NVIDIA as there are a lot of Cinema 4D plugins and extensions that require an NVIDIA graphics card.
 
Miles.Kelly97 said:
Just wanted know see if anybody knew or had heard rumours about the graphics cards that will go into the new Mac Pro's?
Click to expand...

cart-before-the-horse.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: imanidiot, Nermal, mw360 and 5 others
Nobody knows, but I would be surprised if it were an Nvidia solution. Apple seems to be moving into AMD's camp across the line.

Also there was a rumor that when Apple approached Nvidia to make custom cards for the nMP, Nvidia responded with "go away" pricing, indicating their lack of interest for such a thing.

If you want Nvidia you'll have to go with a classic Mac Pro, a Windows PC, or wait for eGPU to become more feasible.
 
It will have a newer card than the old one has ... if they don't dump the entire Mac Pro line first.
 
AMD's newest GPU architecture Polaris and 14nm process will launch in mid-2016. There's a chance Apple was waiting for AMDs GPU tech to improve in efficiency/architecture, before putting together their next MP. CPUs haven't improved drastically since 2013, but GPUs have (especially in Nvidia's camp) and both AMD and Nvidia are moving on from 28nm to 14nm, which will be the biggest performance jump in GPUs in a long time (which is saying something, considering how quickly they improve).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flint Ironstag
Maybe your best bet is to look at what came with the current Mac Pro -
At announcement it was dual FirePro W9000 with 6GB of VRAM each.

What could be similar but for a mid 2016 update?
 
merlinmage said:
Except that the D700s are not W9000s (I wished they are) but consumer HD7970.
Click to expand...

They're close in some ways those cards. How do you see them not being W9000s?

The 7970 was the first to 28nm and launched January 2012 for about $550.
W9000 launched August 2012 for about $4,000. (ECC support and some more RAM is costly eh?).

Mac Pro initially on sale in small quantities late 2013.

Retail version was out 23 months beforehand.
FirePro equivalent out 16 months beforehand.

In one generation Apple catches up so far they can release a new Mac Pro with a mainstream/FirePro equivalent card launching at the same time mid 2016 to catch the HBM2 Polar cards?

If they kept the above timings of being behind, a mid 2016 Mac Pro would be sporting something nearer a ~FirePro updated in 2014.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8371/amd-firepro-w7100-w5100-w4100-w2100
 
  • Like
Reactions: linuxcooldude and Flint Ironstag
I am in the market for a Mac Pro, but there is very little evidence for them being updated at this point right?
 
t0mat0 said:
They're close in some ways those cards. How do you see them not being W9000s?

The 7970 was the first to 28nm and launched January 2012 for about $550.
W9000 launched August 2012 for about $4,000. (ECC support and some more RAM is costly eh?).

Mac Pro initially on sale in small quantities late 2013.

Retail version was out 23 months beforehand.
FirePro equivalent out 16 months beforehand.

In one generation Apple catches up so far they can release a new Mac Pro with a mainstream/FirePro equivalent card launching at the same time mid 2016 to catch the HBM2 Polar cards?

If they kept the above timings of being behind, a mid 2016 Mac Pro would be sporting something nearer a ~FirePro updated in 2014.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8371/amd-firepro-w7100-w5100-w4100-w2100
Click to expand...

the nMP GPU don't have ECC ram.
 
If Apple is feeling generous it might support one of Thunderbolt 3's main selling points (official support for eGPU) and you can use an Nvidia card.
 
Demigod Mac said:
If Apple is feeling generous it might support one of Thunderbolt 3's main selling points (official support for eGPU) and you can use an Nvidia card.
Click to expand...

I think Apple will support eGPU but probably in their way I.e. Hidden and sealed inside a 5k display. so you'll get half your wish =P
 
merlinmage said:
Except that the D700s are not W9000s (I wished they are) but consumer HD7970.
Click to expand...
They were neither one of those. D700 is a FirePro as the AMD Software in Windows says. D700 does not have ECC ram so it's not the same as W9000, but it's not 7970 either.
 
The name is different, D700, 7970, R9 280x, but they all use the same chip, same architecture, and same device ID.

Yes, the D700 has 6G VRAM, but it won't make it another card. The standard GTX680 has 2G VRAM, but the 4G VRAM version still the GTX680.

And if we downclock the 7970 or R9 280x to match the D700's clock speed, we should have more or less the same performance as well. So, even though they are technically different (at least the D700's PCB looks very different), they are still effectively the same card, because they use the same GPU.

The driver ident it as the FirePro, but it won't change the fact that it's the same GPU as the 7970. They can use whatever name they want. From memory, at the early stage, when people try to install the AMD driver on the nMP (of course I am talking about Windows), even the AMD software call the card "7xxx" but not D700. So, is that mean once you upgrade the software, you have a new hardware? From 7xxx "upgrade" to D700? I don't think so.

AMD rename the 7970 to R9 280X. So are they the same? They are not. But I never see any review agree that from 7970 to R9 280x is an upgrade. And almost all review I've ever read agree that they are practically the same. Rename the 7970 to D700 on the Mac Pro won't make it really have anything different from the 7970 (apart from the name).

So, I think it's all about how to define "the same". I agree that the D700 is not the same as 7970, because we cannot buy a 7970 to replace the D700. They are definitely not identical. But we know that the chip inside both cards are the same, they use the same technology, and should have the same performance (if no real world error, software differences, clock speed difference, etc). The card is difference, but the GPU is the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacVidCards, t0mat0, AidenShaw and 1 other person
h9826790 said:
The name is different, D700, 7970, R9 280x, but they all use the same chip, same architecture, and same device ID.

Yes, the D700 has 6G VRAM, but it won't make it another card. The standard GTX680 has 2G VRAM, but the 4G VRAM version still the GTX680.

And if we downclock the 7970 or R9 280x to match the D700's clock speed, we should have more or less the same performance as well. So, even though they are technically different (at least the D700's PCB looks very different), they are still effectively the same card, because they use the same GPU.

The driver ident it as the FirePro, but it won't change the fact that it's the same GPU as the 7970. They can use whatever name they want. From memory, at the early stage, when people try to install the AMD driver on the nMP (of course I am talking about Windows), even the AMD software call the card "7xxx" but not D700. So, is that mean once you upgrade the software, you have a new hardware? From 7xxx "upgrade" to D700? I don't think so.

AMD rename the 7970 to R9 280X. So are they the same? They are not. But I never see any review agree that from 7970 to R9 280x is an upgrade. And almost all review I've ever read agree that they are practically the same. Rename the 7970 to D700 on the Mac Pro won't make it really have anything different from the 7970 (apart from the name).

So, I think it's all about how to define "the same". I agree that the D700 is not the same as 7970, because we cannot buy a 7970 to replace the D700. They are definitely not identical. But we know that the chip inside both cards are the same, they use the same technology, and should have the same performance (if no real world error, software differences, clock speed difference, etc). The card is difference, but the GPU is the same.
Click to expand...

I've posted this several times, but I always get crickets and tumbleweeds.

http://icrontic.com/article/the-real-difference-between-workstation-and-desktop-gpus

It seems manufactures do base their workstation graphics on the consumer versions. But slight hardware modifications on the GPU which make it more better suited for pro software then something like gaming.
 
I'm hoping for Polaris but also preparing to be disappointed. Fury Nano seems like the disappointing option that they'd go with.
 
linuxcooldude said:
I've posted this several times, but I always get crickets and tumbleweeds.

http://icrontic.com/article/the-real-difference-between-workstation-and-desktop-gpus

It seems manufactures do base their workstation graphics on the consumer versions. But slight hardware modifications on the GPU which make it more better suited for pro software then something like gaming.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, l've read that before. However, apart from the ASIC may be difference. I can hardly see any other differences between the D700 and the 7970. A single D700 can drive 6 screens, the Eyefinity 6 7970 can do that as well. I have no doubt that a workstation graphic card can be different from the gaming graphic card even though they use the same GPU. However, I doubt if there is any difference between the D700 and 7970 under OSX. I am not a professional, may the something like the colour depth is different, but just I don't know about it.

The D700 should be very reliable if it's a work station graphic card. However, there quite a few post here about their nMP have faulty GPU. I have no idea how many nMP do Apple sell, and how many of them have faulty GPU. May be that failure rate is normal. And because only the users have the faulty GPU will make a complain here, which make me believe that the failure rate is higher than normal workstation GPU like the Quadro does.

Apple / AMD seems didn't give out special support to the nMP's graphic card. Still the same Apple care, same as the iMac's support.

AFAIK, OSX choose driver base on device ID. So, D700 use exactly the same driver as the 7970 and R9 280X.
 
I think we'll see a refreshed Mac Pro by the end of the year with Broadwell-e and AMD polaris graphics. The timelines are all spot on for Apple to announce a Mac Pro at WWDC. Broadwell-E and Polaris could be shown off at Computex the first week of June. 10 USB-C ports sounds like heaven. TB3.. Dual Polaris GPU's .... can finally push 6 monitors at a decent resolution. it would be a complete beast. Definitely buying one.

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/02/mac-pro-aaplj951-el-capitan/
 
h9826790 said:
The D700 should be very reliable if it's a work station graphic card. However, there quite a few post here about their nMP have faulty GPU. I have no idea how many nMP do Apple sell, and how many of them have faulty GPU. May be that failure rate is normal. And because only the users have the faulty GPU will make a complain here, which make me believe that the failure rate is higher than normal workstation GPU like the Quadro does.
Click to expand...

We've had people come on the board saying how AMD's are hotter than Nvidia. But its been pointed out many more Nvidia chips overheat or have problems than AMD chips in the past in Mac computers. I've owned at least 12 Apple computers & iOS devices and still yet to have a bad one. So individual milage may vary. I might still get a bad one in the future but thats what Apple care is for.
 
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