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

Nvidia Debuts New High-End Titan Xp Graphics Card With Mac Support

iReality85 said:
Almost half of those you cited are from Blizzard, which admittedly has had a very good track record of supporting Mac for its IPs. Many of those are legacy IPs, though. WoW is over a decade old, and SC2 not far behind. Not what I'd consider new, nor are they very graphics intensive (WoW for example is a very CPU-bound game).

But even Blizzard decided not to support Mac with its popular Overwatch, last I knew.

I suppose at the end of the day, it's not really a huge issue for Mac users, as they can just use Parallels and run Windows 10 to play the latest games. You'd think Apple wouldn't encourage that, though.
Click to expand...

WoW is over a decade old, but the game's graphics (and also Starcraft 2's to a certain extent) isn't the same as when it was released. It has been changing throughout the years adding more complex features. Is it CPU intensive? A good reason to move to Metal then since it gives the CPU more room to breathe:

metal-vs-opengl.jpg


And there must have been a reason Blizzard decided to go for Metal support in WoW first.

That they decided not to support Overwatch at the time is probably partially because the general graphics hardware situation for the majority of Mac users. But also that the API situation wasn't really in a good state and even now it seems Metal is being worked on (we'll probably see even more Metal features in the next macOS release) and Apple seems to be doing bug fixes to it with every point update to MacOS: https://www.feralinteractive.com/en/news/754/

Anyway, I think (hope) Overwatch will one day make it's way to MacOS. Especially if Metal keeps maturing and if more powerful GPU options will be supported.

Playing graphics intensive games through Parallells seems like a bad idea (I can imagine it works fine for less demanding). Better to start into Windows 10 directly (Bootcamp).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iReality85 and LordVic
The big news being you can get a reasonably priced 1060 and plug it into your new MBP via a TB3 enclosure :) sounds fantastic to me!
 
Michael Goff said:
No, Metal doesn't compare to DX12 or Vulcan for 3D gaming. It's not even in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

Why not?
My impression is that they're at least somewhat comparable – the idea is to ”reduce overhead”. But I've also heard (Like SoyCaptainSoyCaptain mentioned) that there are features missing compared to other API's, but that some new ones was added in MacOS Sierra and I can imagine some more will come in the next major MacOS version.

But you're saying it's not even in the same ballpark?

SoyCapitanSoyCapitan said:
It's just behind. Performance is fine.
Click to expand...

More features coming in the next MacOS I guess. I can imagine there's only bug fixes in the Sierra point updates.
 
Anyone 'member rumors that Thunderbolt would lead stand-alone graphics breakout boxes? So that one could have an externally connected GPU?

It'd be nice. Plug this in with Thunderbolt/USB C and and game with a retina Macbook? I'd like to see it.

won't happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoyCapitanSoyCapitan
star-affinity said:
Why not?
My impression is that they're at least somewhat comparable – the idea is to ”reduce overhead”. But I've also heard (Like SoyCaptainSoyCaptain mentioned) that there are features missing compared to other API's, but that some new ones was added in MacOS Sierra and I can imagine some more will come in the next major MacOS version.

But you're saying it's not even in the same ballpark?



More features coming in the next MacOS I guess. I can imagine there's only bug fixes in the Sierra point updates.
Click to expand...

Metal is, on a basic level, on a bad foundation. It's based on OpenGLES 3.0. It doesn't have the API and might never because Apple doesn't care about gaming. That's why I say it isn't in the same ballpark. We're comparing a mobile graphics API to a desktop one.
 
Michael Goff said:
Metal is, on a basic level, on a bad foundation. It's based on OpenGLES 3.0. It doesn't have the API and might never because Apple doesn't care about gaming. That's why I say it isn't in the same ballpark. We're comparing a mobile graphics API to a desktop one.
Click to expand...

Okay, this is new info to me. Where can I learn more?
 
ChrisCW11 said:
Lol, older mac support, like the aluminum tanks that was Apple last "real" pro product, and I doubt they will work on them because of power supply requirements.
Click to expand...

Just get a SATA breakout cable and plug it in. It's not hard to do.
 
I can't wait to fire my Hackintosh back up! Been running Windows 10 since I got the GTX 1080.
 
LordVic said:
Thunderbolt (3) is a direct interconnet to the PCI-E bus, and offers many of the benefits of PCI-E in an external plug. Carries up to 40Gbps (5GBytes/s)

Many tests hvae been done (here's one link for example) where, while there IS some performance difference, ultimately, even a GTX 1080 performance nearly the same regardless if it's x4, x8, or x16 lanes available. (on at least PCI-E2.0)

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/
Click to expand...


Excellent point, but that link doesn't really compare actual performance differences of a Thunderbolt eGPU vs PCI-E, and there are a few things I'm thinking of that are probably still relevant if you're considering going this route.
  • If your Thunderbolt 3 computer uses Gen 1 USB Type C connectors (like the newest MacBook), you are limited to 20 Gbps instead of 40.
  • The test I recall seeing showed nearly a 10% performance hit on 9xx cards on Thunderbolt 3 compared to using the internal x16 PCI-E 3.0 port. 10% feels like a lot when you're paying over $1000 for this kind of setup.
  • Effective bandwidth usage is title-influenced. I have heard second hand (I'm obviously no expert on this) that many engines perform the same on 4 or 16 lanes of 2.0 (I'd assume console ports?) while some more properly scale.
  • PCI-E 2.0 16x's bandwidth is a notable step up over Thunderbolt 3, but gaming rigs are using PCI-E 3.0 now which is more than 3x the theoretical max from Thunderbolt 3, making it much more future proof.
  • With Thunderbolt 3 you basically got one x4 PCI-E 3.0. So SLI/CrossFire is out of the question, if that matters to you.
  • Bandwidth on Thunderbolt 3 is shared, so it's further reduced if you plug in additional devices.
  • Overall game performance is more than just the graphics card. Macs are still using older, slower RAM and processors and in general slower, cooler-running mobile components... Apple isn't going to attract the gamer crowd regardless of eGPU options.
Of course, if you're using a MacBook Pro as your main machine and you want to game or get a rendering boost in After Effects or something, this is still going to be a huge performance boost and your best option short of building a more optimized (albeit more expensive) rig.
 
apolloa said:
So.. I want to know how this affects EGPU boxes? Will they have more chance of working in OSX with these new drivers and 10 series Nvidia cards?
Click to expand...
You could use an eGPU chassis with your Mac a year ago if you wanted. Nothing has changed in that regard. You just had to use a supported graphics card - like a 9xx series card after downloading Nvidia's drivers. Now you have the option to use the new 10xx series cards too... after downloading Nvidia's drivers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apolloa
jamescobalt said:
If your Thunderbolt 3 computer uses Gen 1 USB Type C connectors (like the newest MacBook), you are limited to 20 Gbps instead of 40.
Click to expand...

There is no thunderbolt controller on the Macbook, nor is there a USB-C connection in existence that runs TB2 (20 Gbps).
 
Maybe the price will come down to the reasonably affordable by the time a Mac capable of using it is available in 2019.
 
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