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

Asgorath

macrumors 68000
Mar 30, 2012
1,573
479
Nice to see Apple investing a bit to get a updated Quadro card to OSX but will there be any dedicated drivers for CAD/MCAE ? this was the issue with the 4000 and therefore may features in pro tools did not work.

What makes you say that Apple invested in this? This is a 3rd party card, it's unlikely Apple has anything to do with it outside their normal generic OpenGL and OpenCL framework support.

Regarding dedicated drivers, given the fact that Apple implements the OpenGL API in their framework and the vendors just implement the back end, there is only so much that can be done to support the CAD/MCAE and other pro app markets.
 

Wilder

macrumors member
Jun 28, 2011
49
0
Yeah but can it play Chess?

DeepBlue2.jpg


Not all the worlds problems can be solved by playing chess, Deep Blue.
 

foijord

macrumors newbie
Jul 18, 2012
6
0
Norway
What makes you say that Apple invested in this? This is a 3rd party card, it's unlikely Apple has anything to do with it outside their normal generic OpenGL and OpenCL framework support.

Regarding dedicated drivers, given the fact that Apple implements the OpenGL API in their framework and the vendors just implement the back end, there is only so much that can be done to support the CAD/MCAE and other pro app markets.

True, but Apple's OpenGL drivers only support OpenGL 3.2, a spec released more than 3 years ago. If Apple updated their driver, you could get much more performance out of this GPU. There's been huge developments in the OpenGL API these last years, exposing new hardware features which you don't get to use on a mac because of the lack of driver support.
 

jpine

macrumors 6502
Jun 15, 2007
393
71
Between phones, computers, razors, and car transmissions, the term "quad" has been beaten to death.

Sweet graphics card, though.

When I was a kid back in the 70's, I wanted a "dual quad" (two four barrel carburetors) intake manifold on my small block Chevy. :D

----------

If there was a decent Mac Pro available, I would not have to think twice about a card like this. Now if I can just quit drooling. :)
 

strausd

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2008
2,998
1
Texas
Jeez, at that price it makes more sense to just spend the extra $970 and get a nice Mac Pro.

People who spend that much money will not be putting it into an entry-level Mac Pro. People who buy this and the PC version will most likely be putting it into a top of the line workstation. And I would bet that a majority of them will be putting this in a dual-socket motherboard.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
7,005
3,343
http://www.magma.com/thunderbolt

You don't make a card with a TB port. You make a case that the card can plug into.

Though this has 3 slots...wish they had a 2 or 1 slot option. (and PCI3)

Those things aren't a replacement for something like a mac pro. Even at that price, you're granted roughly 150W peak power draw, meaning you can't even support the absolute top workstation cards. It's really not a good match for the card referenced in the OP. I don't see external gpus gaining any ground unless they're released as turnkey solutions. If you bought a gpu in a thunderbolt breakout box as a whole, that would be a much better solution. It would be tested as a full implementation and not necessarily an extra $900.
 

Craigy

macrumors 6502
Jan 14, 2003
403
48
New Zealand
Two thousand dollars, for a graphics card?

Is this a joke?

I'm pretty sure every graphics card update I've done in the past has paid for itself in 1 or 2 jobs. If your a video professional $2.5 is peanuts for the increased performance and increased project turnaround time. I understand the gut reaction though :)
 

wikus

macrumors 68000
Jun 1, 2011
1,795
2
Planet earth.
Still waiting for my Quadro 4000 to show it's usefulness, might as well get three iMacs for the money I wasted on this Mac Pro. Motion, AE, Final cut and Premiere run smoother and more reliable on my 17MBP. And its a lot nicer to my electrical bill.

New cards are great but the whole architecture of the Mac Pro needs to be updated from 2004 to 2012 tech before it is actually useful. Besides with Apple still deciding how I should work and what is important, jumping back to windows for video and visuals might be a better option then wasting more money on poorly supported hardware.

Not sure I can face the horror of popups I left behind a few years ago.

I hope Apple is listening.... too bad the professional mac user has basically been ignored for the last 5 years.
 

Fandongo

macrumors 6502
Nov 2, 2011
313
1
Space
Those things aren't a replacement for something like a mac pro. Even at that price, you're granted roughly 150W peak power draw, meaning you can't even support the absolute top workstation cards. It's really not a good match for the card referenced in the OP. I don't see external gpus gaining any ground unless they're released as turnkey solutions. If you bought a gpu in a thunderbolt breakout box as a whole, that would be a much better solution. It would be tested as a full implementation and not necessarily an extra $900.

That'd be an excellent solution...Even if it had to use both Thunderbolt ports--on the iMac/rMBP/future Mac Pro--to pull enough bandwidth.

Tacking on absurd GPU power to your portable AND desktop workstations would take the Video/Graphics/3D world to a whole new level.
 

MacVidCards

Suspended
Nov 17, 2008
6,096
1,056
Hollywood, CA
Good news !!!

One way or another, this is wonderful news for Mac Pros.

And Nvidia deserves major kudos for continuing to support the Mac Pro PROFESSIONAL crowd whilst Apple seems to have fallen asleep at the wheel.

The Quadro 4000 led to the drivers for all of the other Fermi cards that have worked out for 100's of people.

The rMBP brought us some entry level Kepler drivers. The imminent arrival of this card means that solid Kepler drivers are sure to be here in next 30-90 days.

And I am fairly certain that we will be able to use this EFI to write some GTX670/680 EFIs that will bring gaming level cards for other users. I have a feeling that Nvidia has more successfully segmented "pro" cards from "gamer" cards.

If you have a read here:

http://barefeats.com/rogue02.html

you will see that the current Quadro 6000 can only step away from the gamer cards in one narrow place (DPF). In theory, Kepler cards will show much greater distinction between Quadro and GTX series cards, not just for Mac but Windows as well.

The Kepler cards are PCIE 3.0, the current Mac Pro is only PCIE 2.0. We can also hope that Nvidia has some idea that a Mac Pro with PCIE 3.0 is on the horizon. While this stuff is always "backwards compatible" nobody likes being the one going backwards. (current drivers allow GTX680 to run in Mac Pro, but at 1/4 of their bus speed capability, for multiple cards in CUDA this is a bad thing)
 

rabidz7

macrumors 65816
Jun 24, 2012
1,205
3
Ohio
Great card gtx next

It is great that nvidia released a new card but they really should release there gtx cards for the mac pro. Most mac gamers can't and do not want to get a
graphics card that costs as much as the computer.
 

Asgorath

macrumors 68000
Mar 30, 2012
1,573
479
It is great that nvidia released a new card but they really should release there gtx cards for the mac pro. Most mac gamers can't and do not want to get a
graphics card that costs as much as the computer.

And how many Mac Pro gamers do you think there are exactly?

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=mac

I think the majority of gamers will have Steam these days, and as you can see from their hardware survey numbers, the Mac Pros make up less than 3% of the total market. At best, you're probably looking at dozens or maybe hundreds of people who would buy such a card, which means the vendors would lose money on it.
 

rabidz7

macrumors 65816
Jun 24, 2012
1,205
3
Ohio
Me

And how many Mac Pro gamers do you think there are exactly?

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=mac

I think the majority of gamers will have Steam these days, and as you can see from their hardware survey numbers, the Mac Pros make up less than 3% of the total market. At best, you're probably looking at dozens or maybe hundreds of people who would buy such a card, which means the vendors would lose money on it.

I would sure buy a few 680s
 

Asgorath

macrumors 68000
Mar 30, 2012
1,573
479
I would sure buy a few 680s

I'm sure that'll go a long way to covering the millions of dollars it costs to get such a product to market, and then provide official support for it for several years.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more third-party high-end gaming cards available for the Mac Pro. However, I've resigned myself to the fact that the market just doesn't seem to be there.
 

WoFat

macrumors member
May 26, 2008
64
0
TIGHT-WAD Alert!!!!

Only a fool goes to the effort of tracking down & bagging a Super Model for a wife then complains about the operating cost. Maybe a Meth-head Mary is more in line with your budget.

...might as well get three iMacs for the money I wasted on this Mac Pro. Motion, AE, Final cut and Premiere run smoother and more reliable on my 17MBP. And its a lot nicer to my electrical bill.
 

chatfan

macrumors regular
Nov 2, 2006
103
0
in mah cribb yo
Tight Wad alert?

So what stick did they just shove up your IO port?

After speeding about 6500$? on the MAc Pro, $3K? for the Adobe Master Collection, not counting the 2x HP 3065 screens, and another $3500 on audio IO, I find out my 17MBP runs smoother and more stable and somehow that makes me a tight wad? Saving electricity would be a added bonus, and I think we should consume as little energy as possible for many other reasons, but it's hardly the issue. the issue is spending a effin fortune on something I can do almost as well on a $3K laptop.

Only a fool tries to be clever without understanding the point.

Only a fool goes to the effort of tracking down & bagging a Super Model for a wife then complains about the operating cost. Maybe a Meth-head Mary is more in line with your budget.
 

holmesf

macrumors 6502a
Sep 30, 2001
528
25
True, but Apple's OpenGL drivers only support OpenGL 3.2, a spec released more than 3 years ago. If Apple updated their driver, you could get much more performance out of this GPU.

Only if application developers used the new OpenGL 4 features. Considering how few even use OpenGL 3.2, this doesn't seem too likely.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.