Ah, then I guess it's limited to 5Gbps: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204360 :-/There is no thunderbolt controller on the Macbook, nor is there a USB-C connection in existence that runs TB2 (20 Gbps).
Ah, then I guess it's limited to 5Gbps: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204360 :-/There is no thunderbolt controller on the Macbook, nor is there a USB-C connection in existence that runs TB2 (20 Gbps).
How do you mean?You seem too defensive. It was meant in a positive way.
It is nicer to come up with a solution yourself.How do you mean?
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.
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.
- 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.
Right. Sooooo, why? Never mind.Then there will be a newer, cheaper, and more powerful card.
Oh, cool. Well, the solution I came up with based on your super helpful tutelage is that 12 FLOPS is a perfectly valid number of FLOPS for a modern computer. I just made it up, since you didn't provide any sources or really any information at all.It is nicer to come up with a solution yourself.
Seriously?Oh, cool. Well, the solution I came up with based on your super helpful tutelage is that 12 FLOPS is a perfectly valid number of FLOPS for a modern computer. I just made it up, since you didn't provide any sources or really any information at all.
Same here.I think I'm more excited about Pascal drivers for macOS than the card re-re-release of a TitanXP.
From the 9to5Mac Article:
"We have reached out to Nvidia for a statement about compatibility down the line with lesser 10-series cards, and I’m happy to report that Nvidia states that all Pascal-based GPUs will be Mac-enabled via upcoming drivers. This means that you will be able to use a GTX 1080, for instance, on a Mac system via an eGPU setup, or with a Hackintosh build. Exciting times, indeed."
https://9to5mac.com/2017/04/06/nvidia-titan-xp-beta-pascal-drivers-mac/
Great for us Mac Pro users who already have the GTX 1080 for Windows! Now we'll be able to us it in macOS too!
Seeing all these price, it make me feel like only millionaires can use Mac Pro.That price though, ouch.
For this to be true, Apple would have to release the fabled xMac, a tower with a consumer grade CPU and a PCI slot. Mac Pros are workstation machines. They are really expensive and not designed for gaming in mind. Although they can do it, a new Mac Pro is not going to sell well enough to make the platform more attractive to developers.
Also, this is a workstation-class card, and insanely expensive. Although the good news is that with Pascal support, hackintosh users can now use 1070s and 1080s.
Actually no they don't!
Did you read the statement yesteday from Craig and Phil?
iMac "Plus" let's call it, can and most likely WILL use an authorized & supported eGPU solution ... similar to this TitanXP card. How Apple will have it boost internal LCD performance is something I'd like to see but for external then it's good to go.
Users of MBPro (non and touchbar) have begun to do this already yet bootup is only Windows supported and performance is on the internal screen but via hosted Windows OS. not sure about Mac OS support.
The problem with eGPUs is that like most Thunderbolt peripherals, the chassis is really expensive––Razer's Core is $500. If Apple rolls their own It'd be even more so. I have a 2016 MBP and I'd love to ditch my gaming PC, but not at that price.
The problem with eGPUs is that like most Thunderbolt peripherals, the chassis is really expensive––Razer's Core is $500. If Apple rolls their own It'd be even more so. I have a 2016 MBP and I'd love to ditch my gaming PC, but not at that price.
Curious why are you looking at the Razer's Core as a benchmark on pricing?
My classic Mac Pro can do it just fine. Furthermore NVIDIA knows their audience. I bought a Mac Edition Nvidia Card for my 2008 Mac Pro. then went on to Purchase a TItan and later a Titan X (Maxwell) for my current rig, a 2010 Mac Pro. I am on the fence as to whether I should purchase the Titan Xp so I'll wait until Mac EFI bios support is there, but once it is ready I am definitely pulling the trigger.I don't get this announcement, since there is not a single Mac that can use this card out of the box.
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.
Nvidia today announced the launch of its latest super high-end graphics card, introducing the new Nvidia Titan Xp.
The Titan Xp, which Nvidia calls the world's post powerful graphics card, features 12GB of GDDR5X memory running at 11.4 Gb/s, 3,840 CUDA cores running at 1.6GHz, and 12 TFLOPS of processing power.
![]()
Priced at $1,200, this year's Titan card is unique because for the first time, Nvidia is making it available to Mac users with new Pascal beta drivers (also available for the entire 10-series lineup) that are set to be released during the month of April.
Earlier this week, Apple announced plans for future high-end Mac Pro machines with better graphics capabilities, so that ultra high-end cards like the Titan Xp are already offering support is a good sign. The Titan Xp could also potentially be used with older Mac Pro machines and Hackintosh machines.Housed in a die-cast aluminum body, the Titan Xp uses vapor chamber cooling technology. According to Nvidia, the graphics card offers up to three times faster performance than previous generation graphics cards, and it includes support for "next-gen VR experiences."
The Titan Xp can be purchased from the Nvidia website starting today.
Article Link: Nvidia Debuts New High-End Titan Xp Graphics Card With Mac Support
The turtle in my backyard is flopping faster.....12 FLOPS... Slower than my Mac Classic!![]()
Depends on how you define "being based on". Metal in so far based on OpenGL ES 3.0 as they took the latter as a blueprint to decide what the former should be able to do. As a result, the feature set of the first version of Metal (on iOS) was pretty much identical to OpenGL ES's. (And yes, this feature set was (and still is) limited when compared to Vulkan, DirectX or even full OpenGL.)Metal is NOT 'based on OpenGL ES 3.0'... That's complete rubbish.