NVIDIA GTX 780 6GB coming..

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by riggles, Mar 22, 2014.

  1. riggles, Mar 22, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2014
  2. riggles thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    #2
    Guess this is only interesting to those doing GPU rendering like me. Not sure it would do anything for the gaming community.
     
  3. Redneck1089 macrumors 65816

    Redneck1089

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    #3
    I think it's great! I won't replace my current GTX 780, but for those who need this it will be awesome.

    Too bad the new POS Mac Pro is stuck with old GPU technology.
     
  4. blueshogun96 macrumors regular

    blueshogun96

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    #4
    If you ask me, it's not even necessary, even for the gaming crowd. I understand that 6gb is just a selling point, but from a dev's perspective, even today's games generally don't need that much video memory. I imagine if a game uses that much, then it's just inefficiently using memory and highly un-optimal practices. It won't magically make your games go faster either.

    It sounds great in all, and I'm sure it will eventually be used and abused properly, but right now, I see it as highly unnecessary.
     
  5. Redneck1089 macrumors 65816

    Redneck1089

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    #5

    Titanfall can use up to 3 GB vRAM.
     
  6. jasonvp macrumors 6502a

    jasonvp

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #6
    If you're playing in 1080p, then yes, I agree with you. As more and more games start pushing 4K (and higher?), and gamers potentially play with more than 1 panel (3 panels @ 4K?! EEK!) then the memory becomes infinitely important.

    Don't be myopic.
     
  7. riggles thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    #7
    That's kinda my point, it's not that interesting or necessary for gamers IMO. But for me, for Octane GPU rendering, it's the best value out there I think.
     
  8. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #8
  9. riggles thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    #9
    Yeah, watched the live stream and it's crazy card ... for a crazier price (considering it's not a Quadro).

    And it's the same GK110 generation chip. But for the price of one Titan Z, you could 5 x 780 6GB, which would give exactly twice the number of CUDA cores. Or 3 x Titan Blacks if you needed the DPFP performance, and have 1/3 more CUDA cores.

    Just doesn't make sense to me.
     
  10. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #10
    It makes sense to have the fastest graphics card around - even if some multi-card setups add up to more cores.

    It makes sense if the dual GPU card has better memory bandwidth than dual single GPU cards.

    And it really should make those poor souls who bought the "new Mac Tube" with Radeon cards wonder "what have I done"....
     
  11. dalupus macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #11
    I'm curious if it will look like 2 chips or 1 to CUDA and if all 12 GB will be accessible to both of the chips or if it is split.

    It could potential be much better for certain applications if it acts like 1 card and all 12GB of memory are allotted in a singe chunk of global memory.

    I would buy one in a heartbeat instead of the tesla k40 I had been looking at.
     
  12. Tutor, Mar 25, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2014

    Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #12
    I suspect that the Titan Z be like my GTX 590s (1.5 gigs per GPU, but marketed as 3 gigs) and GTX 690s (2 gigs per GPU, but marketed as 4 gigs) and could be really the GTX 790 in all but name [ http://videocardz.com/49465/asus-geforce-gtx-titan-black-6gb-memory-gets-listed-974-eur ], with 6 gigs per GPU. Applications like OctaneRender will probably see only 6 gigs. So the Tesla K40 with one GPU processor and 12 gigs of vram will load more data and still has a reason for existence, but the Titan Z will process that data about twice as fast (with double the CUDA cores) if the data doesn't require more than 6 gigs of memory space.

    Also keep in mind, as Riggles first pointed out to me and as can be seen from the video, the Titan Z will consume 3 slot spaces*/. At best, I could install only four of them and one Titan Black Edition (25,920 CUDA cores total) into my otherwise 8 double wide GPU slotted Tyan server for about $13k or I could install 8 Titan Black Edition SCs for about $8.08K (23,040 CUDA cores), saving me about $4.9K, but leaving me with 2,880 fewer CUDA cores. 23,040 CUDA cores happens to be the same number of total CUDA cores that I have at present in my 8 GTX 780 Ti ACXs that cost about $250 less per GPU card than the Titan Black Edition. The Titan Black Edition does have twice the amount of vram (6 gigs vs. 3 gigs), however.

    */ Note that in the video that Nvidia uses the price for 4 Titan Zs (4x$3K=$12k) whereas they appear to be comparing only three of them to attain the processing power of the Google brain system aggregation.
     
  13. FluJunkie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #13
    1/3 more cores, but 3x space in your machine. If you want to boost compute capacity without increasing the number of actual machines...
     
  14. blueshogun96 macrumors regular

    blueshogun96

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    #14
    Panels?
     
  15. riggles thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    #15
    Because of the triple-width of the Z, it doesn't save you much space. Especially considering most standard boards have the x16 slots spaced for double-wide. So the most you'd fit in is two, which could also accommodate 4 reg Titans (for less money and more performance).

    I just don't see scenarios outside the cluster and cloud computing world where this price premium for small space savings would make practical sense.
     
  16. FluJunkie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #16
    Clusters was actually what I was thinking of.

    It's an edge use-case.
     
  17. OrangeSVTguy macrumors 601

    OrangeSVTguy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Northeastern Ohio
    #17
    If you're still gaming at 1080p no but multiple monitor with like 4k screens, the 6GB gets filled quick.
     
  18. riggles thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    #18
    Ah, ok. I don't really know much about gaming usage. Never got into it.
     
  19. OrangeSVTguy macrumors 601

    OrangeSVTguy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Northeastern Ohio
    #19
    I tried out x-plane 10 for OSX using a singe titan driving 3 27" displays in portrait and it shot up to 4.5GB+ usage quick when I turned up all the settings.
     
  20. riggles thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    #20
  21. developer13245 macrumors 6502

    developer13245

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #21
  22. riggles thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    #22
    No. And I wouldn't hold my breath for any more Mac Edition cards now that new Mac Pro has custom boards.
     
  23. flowrider macrumors 601

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    #23
    Not from one of the Major Manufacturers, however I'm sure there will be a flashed EFI (Mac Edition) GTX 780, 6MB card from here:

    http://stores.ebay.com/macvidcards?_trksid=p2047675.l2563

    I currently running a Gigabyte accelerated GTX 780, 3GB Card modified by MVC.

    This is my second MVC modified card. Absolutely no issues.

    Lou
     
  24. iBug2 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    #24
    Wow, this is some crazy GPU, but 3000$ price tag? Are they frikking kidding me? When did gaming GPU's become this expensive? Seriously, I remember buying the newest gen stuff for 300$ back in the 90's.
     
  25. slughead macrumors 68040

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #25
    Well, considering the W9000 is still > $3000 and has a fraction of the performance...

    ----------

    What's wrong with underclocked cards from 2012?
     

Share This Page