Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The DirectX version number has nothing to do with whether or not OpenCL support is possible. What does DirectX 10.1 mean in OpenCL terms? Absolutely nothing. They are two separate entities. The reason why Intel's IGP doesn't have true OpenCL support has absolutely nothing to do with a DirectX version number. There are tons of 'DirectX 10.1' cards that support OpenCL, hell the majority of the ones that you can use on Snow Leopard are 'DirectX 10.1' cards. DirectX 11 adds absolutely nothing in the aspect of which you were using it.
Why doesn't the IGP have OpenCL support?
 
Just realised I was being stupid yesterday.

I forgot about the Mac Pro's

when it said ATI 6970 I thought, Yay, finally an iMac that normal people will buy will be fitted into an iMac and make it a worthy competitor to a good spec PC.

Then it dawned on me, I'm stupid and probably none of the upper end models will find their way into iMac's will they? :(

Its unlikely they will fit in an imac case. They are about 30cm long and are all dual slot.
 
Why doesn't the IGP have OpenCL support?

Because the Sandy Bridge IGP was not designed to do any sort of GPGPU work, point blank. We will have to wait for Ivy Bridge(next major release from Intel after Sandy Bridge) for GPGPU/OpenCL support on Intel's IGP.
 
Nop... consider.

2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.

Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.

The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.

Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.

In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.

So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.

Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.

I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.

But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.

The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
 
Bye bye Nvidia. Twas interesting whilst it lasted.

While professionals can say bye bye to nVidia's CUDA processing and PhysX.
:-(

ATI/AMD is doing what they can, developing an OpenCL driven bullet physics port to Maya 2011, but they always seem to be one step behind - announcing a plugin for Maya 2011 in the same week that Autodesk announced that nVidia Physx is being integrated directly into Maya 2012 with real time physx cloth deformation, rigid body dynamics, and physx accelerated calculations for DMM destruction.

On the windows side, 3ds Max is getting Physx integration, too. Open CL is cool but it's got some ground to make up in the application world.
 
Nop... consider.

2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.

The cpus used in the dual-cpu MP are 80-95W parts (top is the 95W Xeon X5670 right now), so it's give or take ~190W.

Only the single cpu MP uses a 130W part (Xeon W3500/3600 series).

So it's either 130W, 160W or 190W for the cpus in a MP.
 
Its unlikely they will fit in an imac case. They are about 30cm long and are all dual slot.

Well, to be fair, I was never expecting a PCI version of such a card to be fitted into an iMac.

Given Apple's money, I thought they would have gone to ATI, Worked with them, and allocated a space inside the frame of a high end iMac, with the aluminium to act as a cooling area, and ATI could have designed a custom layout for this area using the same GPU's as are in the PCI card version.
 
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.

DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.

The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.

Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
 
Because the Sandy Bridge IGP was not designed to do any sort of GPGPU work, point blank. We will have to wait for Ivy Bridge(next major release from Intel after Sandy Bridge) for GPGPU/OpenCL support on Intel's IGP.

The SB documentation says it supports Compute Shader 4, a subset of the DirectX 11 level Compute Shader 5.

What that means in terms of OpenCL, I don't know.

Intel said they'll continue to evaluate OpenCL during 2011.
 
The SB documentation says it supports Compute Shader 4, a subset of the DirectX 11 level Compute Shader 5.

What that means in terms of OpenCL, I don't know.

Intel said they'll continue to evaluate OpenCL during 2011.
It doesn't mean anything, as I've noted about three times already.
 
It doesn't mean anything, as I've noted about three times already.

That's not the correct answer. The possible answers concerning the documented hardware capabilities are:

- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
 
You can upgrade to the latest 5870 card if you wanted to right now. It might not be 'officially' supported but you can still do it.

Supposedly the 5870 won't work on Mac Pro 1,1 with specific firmware (MP11.005C.B08 won't work).

From a comment at store.apple.com:

With regard to the Mac Pro 1,1, it apparently depends on your system's firmware and your version of Mac OS X. If your firmware version is MP11.005C.B00 or MP11.005D.B00, it should work. If your Mac Pro's firmware version is MP11.005C.B08, it will NOT work. If you have the correct firmware, you must have at least Snow Leopard 10.6.4 to use the card to its fullest.
 
That's not the correct answer. The possible answers concerning the documented hardware capabilities are:

- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
That's not the correct answer? Lol, how much longer are you going to waste my time for? DirectX in it of itself is not related to OpenCL. They are once again, two separate entities. Support for OpenCL 1.0 means support for OpenCL 1.1. DirectCompute was introduced in DX11 but can be used on DX10 hardware.

I've been sitting here correcting your mis-information, false accusations and asking for you to post some OpenCL applications you've been using. Don't respond until you give me an example of your OpenCL workflow. You seem to love AMD's CPU's but likely have never used one seeing as you have said Windows doesn't cut it and Linux "doesn't have enough commercial applications".
 
Unless Apple gets clever and uses ThunderBolt for connecting external graphics cards, after all it is a PCI-E based connector.

That's not clever at all. You'd still be stuck with the Intel GPU on the internal screen.

Where I see ThunderBolt being useful is in scenarios where you want to use it at your desk and have all the advantages of a desktop machine. So you put your MBP on your desk and connect via ThunderBolt:

* A drive array with several 3.5" drives, possibly in RAID configuration
* An external video card that is driving a 30" 2560x1600 display with two 1200 x 1920 displays (rotated) on each side of the 30"

You wouldn't bother to use the laptop display for this configuration (I wouldn't at least).

Though, ThunderBolt supposedly allows for daisy-chaining at least 2 monitors, in which case you could run off the laptop's internal video card, but then you need compatible monitors that allow daisy-chaining.

Personally I'd love to see external video cards compatible with ThunderBolt (I use my laptop mostly at my desk), or possibly an enclosure you can put a regular desktop video card in.
 
That's not the correct answer? Lol, how much longer are you going to waste my time for? DirectX in it of itself is not related to OpenCL. They are once again, two separate entities. Support for OpenCL 1.0 means support for OpenCL 1.1. DirectCompute was introduced in DX11 but can be used on DX10 hardware.

I've been sitting here correcting your mis-information, false accusations and asking for you to post some OpenCL applications you've been using. Don't respond until you give me an example of your OpenCL workflow. You seem to love AMD's CPU's but likely have never used one seeing as you have said Windows doesn't cut it and Linux "doesn't have enough commercial applications".

You fail to understand the difference between "API" and "API-class" hardware.
 
The cpus used in the dual-cpu MP are 80-95W parts (top is the 95W Xeon X5670 right now), so it's give or take ~190W.

Only the single cpu MP uses a 130W part (Xeon W3500/3600 series).

So it's either 130W, 160W or 190W for the cpus in a MP.

Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.

DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.

The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.

Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html

Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
 
OS X 10.6.7 Fried My Ruby!

On my MacBook Pro 10.6.7 fried my Ruby install. On my nearly identically setup MacMini it was fine. Install at your own risk and do a full system backup first!
 
Bye bye Nvidia. Twas interesting whilst it lasted.

Not. Even. Close.

You probably don't work in the 3D world if you're saying that. ATI blows for Maya currently. There's also the issue of GPU support. While OpenCL is promising for agnostic GPU support, the CUDA offering from Nvidia is showing real world support. DaVinci can use the Nvidia 4000 in multiple cards to dramatically speed up the application.

I'd be more impressed to see Apple support the off the shelf offerings of Nvidia, too. That way we'd have a choice and further the adoption of OpenCL in a variety of applications.
 
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.

Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.

Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.

No you're just overestimating the power required for the GPU and are very wrong about the memory. DDR3 is around 4-5W per DIMM, not 10W-20W per GB.
 
This is great news and all but I still don't get why people keep comparing an iMac (All in One) to a PC Tower and not something like the Gateway One or those Sony AIO computers. Its comparing apples to oranges.

The iMac isn't crippled anymore than those PC AIO computers from Sony, Dell, HP, or Gateway. In fact, the iMac is the fastest AIO you can buy, at the moment. I don't get it. People seem to think the iMac is "underpowered" because it isn't the speed of a tower computer. Well, duh. Instead of comparing an AIO to a tower, compare it to another AIO. THEN you'll see that the iMac isn't "underpowered" or anything close to the meaning of the word.
 
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.

Umbongo said:
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.

Then why "2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there."?
If the power consumption is less than the TDP, it should be: 2x CPUs 95W rated. So that's 190W max, anyway.

If you want an example of power consumption from a similar computer, go here. The maximum power consumption is 570W for 2x Xeon X5570 (TDP=2x95W), 12GB RAM, FX4800 gpu (TDP=150W), 2x 1TB HDD, ODD, Ethernet, on a 650W 80PLUS® BRONZE PSU.

If you change the gpu for one with a 300W TDP, and if the power consumption is still less than the TDP, then a 800W PSU would do the trick. No?
 
I would advise people not to take too seriously the words of tonymacx86 who admittedly does a great deal to help the junior hackintosh brigade, but he is not well respected by many serious OSX86 supporters, who claims he uses a lot of stolen code, and asks for money from people who cannot do it themselves.


Macrumors needs to seriously consider using this tonymacx86 as a reliable source. As I stated before he gets info from other sources, and this is often highlighted by others

See this quote ex Netkas...
6950 AND 6970 DO NOT WORK IN ANY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE VERSION OF OSX FOR MACS OR HACKS !!!!

THE NEWS STORIES THAT WERE LIFTED FROM HERE ARE INCORRECT !!!!!

DON'T BUY A 69XX CARD UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO WAIT A FEW WEEKS (OR MONTHS) TO USE IT IN OSX !!!!!

OK, done my part. And if you still think they work, go ask your buddy "Tony" how to make them work.

Sad but macrumors - please take more care.
 
While professionals can say bye bye to nVidia's CUDA processing and PhysX.
:-(

ATI/AMD is doing what they can, developing an OpenCL driven bullet physics port to Maya 2011, but they always seem to be one step behind - announcing a plugin for Maya 2011 in the same week that Autodesk announced that nVidia Physx is being integrated directly into Maya 2012 with real time physx cloth deformation, rigid body dynamics, and physx accelerated calculations for DMM destruction.

On the windows side, 3ds Max is getting Physx integration, too. Open CL is cool but it's got some ground to make up in the application world.

If you refer to my prior post in this thread, I too am a professional 3D content creator. As things stand currently, all software I use take better advantage of nVidia compared to ATI. Most of what I use prefer "CUDA" cores and eventually more "PhysX" integration.

This is why I can no longer use Apple at all in my work, I can not come close to getting what I can from a pair of 580 GTX factory OC cards in SLI for a Mac Pro. In fact, most of what Apple offers is still behind the curve.

It is the single area where Apple fails and I know from attending conferences that most of the big names simply don't care because they do not have enough users on that platform to matter. Don't get me wrong, I still think Apple is great for most all other areas and I recommend them to family and friends. But for the 3D professional market, there is no way I can use Apple without making many sacrifices.
 
Awesome news, I recomend the ATI 5870. It can be found for only $200 and it more than holds it's own against the latest and greatest from Nvidia and ATI. It's only 6 percent slower than a 6950. The 6950 on the other hand can be flashed to a 6970 quite easily but it costs abot $260.

Where can I see a comparative of all cards? Or do a comparison of select cards?

Um, I believe credit for this should actually go to netkas:

http://netkas.org/?p=679

He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.

Is this confirmed or still ...?

this is AWESOME news for all the hackintosh people out there.

Although, my Radeon HD5570 isn't on this 'supported' list, I still got it to work... all resolutions including quartz extreme enabled. :D:D:D

Nice :) What version of OS are you using?

Where I see ThunderBolt being useful is in scenarios where you want to use it at your desk and have all the advantages of a desktop machine. So you put your MBP on your desk and connect via ThunderBolt:

* A drive array with several 3.5" drives, possibly in RAID configuration
* An external video card that is driving a 30" 2560x1600 display with two 1200 x 1920 displays (rotated) on each side of the 30"

You wouldn't bother to use the laptop display for this configuration (I wouldn't at least).

Though, ThunderBolt supposedly allows for daisy-chaining at least 2 monitors, in which case you could run off the laptop's internal video card, but then you need compatible monitors that allow daisy-chaining.

Personally I'd love to see external video cards compatible with ThunderBolt (I use my laptop mostly at my desk), or possibly an enclosure you can put a regular desktop video card in.

I'd like external video cards as well :)

Macrumors needs to seriously consider using this tonymacx86 as a reliable source. As I stated before he gets info from other sources, and this is often highlighted by others

See this quote ex Netkas...
6950 AND 6970 DO NOT WORK IN ANY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE VERSION OF OSX FOR MACS OR HACKS !!!!

THE NEWS STORIES THAT WERE LIFTED FROM HERE ARE INCORRECT !!!!!

DON'T BUY A 69XX CARD UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO WAIT A FEW WEEKS (OR MONTHS) TO USE IT IN OSX !!!!!

OK, done my part. And if you still think they work, go ask your buddy "Tony" how to make them work.

Sad but macrumors - please take more care.

Hmm.. Interesting conflict of information.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.