Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 7, 2012, 06:30 PM   #51
Fandongo
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Space
I'll hold out for the Fivero.
__________________
"There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it."
Fandongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2012, 06:48 PM   #52
Asgorath
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarisBSDman View Post
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.
Asgorath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2012, 07:05 PM   #53
voyagerd
macrumors 65816
 
voyagerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Send a message via AIM to voyagerd Send a message via MSN to voyagerd Send a message via Yahoo to voyagerd Send a message via Skype™ to voyagerd
Quote:
Originally Posted by inscrewtable View Post
Not really VRAM is not the problem with X-Plane, it needs processor power. With max setting, x-plane never uses more than 1.5GB of Vram.
It also doesn't use more than a few percent of CPU usage.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro / 2.6GHz C2D / 4GB / 750GB SSHD / 8600M GT
SR-2 Hackintosh / Dual Intel® Xeon® X5680@4.3GHz / 48GB RAM / 2x 480GB Intel SSDs / GeForce GTX 780
64GB iPhone 5S, 120GB iPod Classic
voyagerd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2012, 07:12 PM   #54
Wilder
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by daneoni View Post
Yeah but can it play Chess?


Not all the worlds problems can be solved by playing chess, Deep Blue.
Wilder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2012, 07:48 PM   #55
foijord
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Norway
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgorath View Post
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.
foijord is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2012, 08:01 PM   #56
larrylaffer
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by q64ceo View Post
Two thousand dollars, for a graphics card?

Is this a joke?
Not when you build a broadcast graphics generator, which is what I do for a living. I'm quite excited to play with this thing!
larrylaffer is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2012, 09:48 PM   #57
jpine
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinIllini View Post
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.

----------

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.
jpine is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2012, 10:23 PM   #58
zorinlynx
macrumors 68020
 
zorinlynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Jeez, at that price it makes more sense to just spend the extra $970 and get a nice Mac Pro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryth View Post
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)
__________________
Old-school Apple ][ expert! Ask me if you have a ][ question!
Apple user 1983-1992, 2003-Present -- Linux user 1995-Present
Windows-free since 2003! Though I still have to deal with it at work.
zorinlynx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2012, 11:43 PM   #59
strausd
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post
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.
strausd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 12:30 AM   #60
inscrewtable
macrumors 6502a
 
inscrewtable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyagerd View Post
It also doesn't use more than a few percent of CPU usage.
One (me for example) wonders what x-plane needs to run at a decent speed with FSAA. my 3.4GHz imac 2gbvram 16gbram is lucky to get 20fps
inscrewtable is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 01:00 AM   #61
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryth View Post
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.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 04:05 AM   #62
Craigy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Zealand
Quote:
Originally Posted by q64ceo View Post
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
Craigy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 04:47 AM   #63
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chatfan View Post
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.
wikus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 09:20 AM   #64
winston1236
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ><
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post
Jeez, at that price it makes more sense to just spend the extra $970 and get a nice Mac Pro.
Well thats the problem, they don't make/sell a nice mac pro. just some outdated machine at 2012 prices.
winston1236 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 11:59 AM   #65
TEG
macrumors 604
 
TEG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Langley, Washington
Send a message via ICQ to TEG Send a message via AIM to TEG Send a message via MSN to TEG Send a message via Yahoo to TEG Send a message via Skype™ to TEG
Quote:
Originally Posted by inlinevolvo View Post
How do I install this on my retina macbook?
External Thunderbolt to PCIe case. This SHOULD allow this card to process your graphics then either ship it back to the internal screen over Thunderbolt or use on an external screen.

http://www.magma.com/thunderbolt
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/thunderbolt/

TEG
__________________
Apple and Dell are the only ones in this industry making money. They make it by being Wal-Mart. We make it by innovation, - Steve Jobs
The Tegian Zone-Glass Onion Radio
TEG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 03:19 PM   #66
Fandongo
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
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.
__________________
"There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it."
Fandongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 03:43 PM   #67
MacVidCards
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 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)
MacVidCards is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 03:46 PM   #68
rabidz7
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Isla De Juventud, south Havana provence, Cincinnati 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.
rabidz7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 06:17 PM   #69
Asgorath
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post
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.
Asgorath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 06:19 PM   #70
rabidz7
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Isla De Juventud, south Havana provence, Cincinnati Ohio
Me

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgorath View Post
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
rabidz7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 06:50 PM   #71
Asgorath
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post
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.
Asgorath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 11:16 PM   #72
mdriftmeyer
macrumors 68020
 
mdriftmeyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
FWIW: The entire Radeon 7000 line is 4K Cinema ready.
mdriftmeyer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2012, 10:57 AM   #73
WoFat
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2008
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chatfan View Post
...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.
WoFat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2012, 12:34 PM   #74
chatfan
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WoFat View Post
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.
__________________
Arguing other peoples choices will change nothing.
chatfan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2012, 01:51 PM   #75
holmesf
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by foijord View Post
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.
holmesf is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nvidia Announces Quadro K6000 NickRichyRich Mac Pro 7 Jul 24, 2013 06:26 PM
Latest OS X 10.8.3 Beta Adds NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Graphics Card Drivers MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 63 Mar 24, 2013 07:47 PM
NVIDIA Quadro K5000 VS Quadro FX 4800 BrioBriss Mac Pro 3 Jan 22, 2013 07:06 AM
NVIDIA Quadro K5000 anisatam Mac Pro 3 Jan 14, 2013 10:08 AM
Nvidia Quadro K5000 announced for Mac Pro Cindori Mac Pro 46 Sep 9, 2012 11:04 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC