Nvidia GTX 960 cMP 5,1

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by theitsage, Jan 25, 2015.

  1. theitsage macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    #1
    I was very interested in the recently released GTX 960 due to its power consumption specs. Picked one up this morning and it works great with the latest web driver. The GPU is EVGA GeForce GTX 960. I connect it using a single power cable from PCIe Booster A to an 8 pin plug.

    My initial impression is that it's slightly faster than the R9 280x I have and uses way less power. Here are some early benchmark #s. I will have more in the next few days.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. gpzjock macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    #2
    For comparison here are my GTX770 results:
    The GTX960 acquits itself very well.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. theitsage thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    #3
    Thank you for the screencaps of your GTX 770.

    The 960 is running bet quiet so far. The latest web driver doesn't have the right name for this GPU yet. It only shows up as Nvidia Graphic Device. I'm hoping in the next month or so it'll have better driver.
     
  4. ssls6 macrumors 6502a

    ssls6

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #4
    Mountain Lion 10.8.5 doesn't run the benchmarks right. Tessellation is not supported on that OS.
     
  5. crjackson2134 macrumors 68020

    crjackson2134

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #5
    I really hate to ask the question and show my ignorance, but how else can I learn?

    It looks like the GTX 770 (older according to model number) is faster than the GTX 960. So apparently new/improved doesn't mean faster in this case?

    Please explain why the newer model is slower.
     
  6. theitsage thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    #6
    As ssls6 pointed out, the Unigine benchmarks in 10.8.5 is not the same as in 10.10. My interest of using the GTX 960 is its low power requirements. In a sense, the performance per wattage is very good in these newer GTX cards.
     
  7. crjackson2134 macrumors 68020

    crjackson2134

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #7
    I see, so the benchmark comparison isn't valid then. Thanks for the explanation.
     
  8. ssls6 macrumors 6502a

    ssls6

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #8
    The first and middle digit on an nvidia card are important. For example, my gtx 680 would also pull mid 50s on mountain lion heaven 4 but around 38 on Yosemite. Based on what I see in this thread, you could say

    A gtx 680 is about equal to a 770 or 960...with the later being more efficient from the smaller transistor size. A 780 would beat all three and a 980 beat the 780. I haven't seen the benchmarks but a 970 and 780 I bet are pretty close.
     
  9. flowrider macrumors 601

    flowrider

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    #9
    My MVC Gigabyte GTX 780 here.

    Lou
     

    Attached Files:

  10. gpzjock, Jan 28, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015

    gpzjock macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    #10
    The comparison is more valid than you think, the only difference is the age of the OpenGL drivers which disables tessellation. The ultimate scoring system of Heaven and Valley factors this even though the GTX 770 gains higher frames for easier work.
    As I said the GTX 960 does very well with its scores of 998 H and 1630 V and extremely well for bang per watt compared to the older architecture.

    GPUboss rates them both the same and the 960 draws half the power to do it.
    http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-960-vs-GeForce-GTX-770

    When I put Yosemite on this rig I will redo the bench and see a drop in frames too.
     
  11. theitsage thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    #11
    The overall performance of the GTX 960 is nothing to write home about. The performance per watt is very good though.

    I ran some benchmarks in Windows today. Valley score was about 1800 and Heaven was almost 1100. Very close to my R9 280x.

    Another thing I noticed is that Nvidia drivers for Mac is not that far behind its Windows counterpart.
     
  12. MacVidCards Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #12

    He, he, I guess a matter of perspective. There are people with $10K nMPs running a pair of D700s that are nothing but heavily downclocked R9 280Xs. They would love to be able to have a mid-level newer card to plop in, but sadly they are stuck with the old pigs. (until we release line of eGPUs for nMP)
     
  13. crjackson2134 macrumors 68020

    crjackson2134

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #13
    I would be interested to know what the overall best performing card is, that doesn't require power source augmentation. Would that be the 980?
     
  14. ssls6 macrumors 6502a

    ssls6

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #14
    I would think so but MacVidCards would know for sure.
     
  15. theitsage thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    #15
    In that sense, yes. A pair of GTX 960 costs around $450 retail will most definitely outperform the dual D700s in nMP. :cool:
     
  16. theitsage, Jan 28, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015

    theitsage thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    #16
    The GPU idles around 38 Celsius degrees when not much is going on. Get this, the fans stay off until the temp reads mid 60s or so. Even when the fans run during these benchmarks, I barely saw the speed past 800RPM.
     

    Attached Files:

    • test.gif
      test.gif
      File size:
      19.8 KB
      Views:
      141
  17. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #17
    It's a "60", not a "70". ;)

    Your question is "why is a higher end previous generation GPU faster than a lower end current generation GPU?".

    The 960 has 1024 CUDA cores, the 770 has 1536 cores. The 960 is around $220, the 770 around $600.

    One third the price, not quite as fast. Seems like a good deal.
     
  18. Asgorath macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #18
    Which driver disables tessellation? OS X has supported this since 10.8 if I remember correctly (as part of the GL 4.1 core profile), and the Unigine tests definitely use tessellation.
     
  19. gpzjock macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    #19
    Mountain Lion doesn't have OpenGL 4.1 it uses 3.2 and can't be updated without moving to Mavericks or Yosemite.
     
  20. bugmenot123 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    #20
    Just some experiences using the EVGA GeForce GTX 960 SSC ACX 2.0 (part no. 02G-P4-2966) in a cMP4,1:

    Connected the card using two six pin power cables (just to be sure ;)) and the included 2x6 to 8 pin adapter.

    I tried using it with Mavericks (10.9.5), which did not work (reboot loop), since the latest web drivers are from September and don't seem to support the platform (yet?).

    Updated to Yosemite with old card, installed newest web drivers (343.02.02f01) and then booted with the gtx960 without problems (shows up as "NVIDIA Graphics Device 2047 MB").

    Installed newest CUDA drivers (6.5.46, which curiously were not signed as opposed to 6.5.45) which made it work in Premiere Pro CS6 after adding "Graphics Device" to cuda_supported_cards.txt.

    Quick benchmark for comparison:
     

    Attached Files:

  21. DougTheImpaler macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    #21
    OK so here's a cMP 4,1 upgraded to a W3570 CPU with a GTX 750Ti for reference. Your 960s are quite a bit faster, but even little Maxwell does good! Yosemite 10.10.2 with the latest web drivers.

    I'm also monitoring temperatures and voltages using the FakeSMC HWMonitor utility (though obviously I didn't install FakeSMC because that'd be bad on a real Mac). It shows a bunch of ghost sensors that this machine doesn't have, like CPU socket 2 and DIMM slots 5-8, but if you ignore those it seems to do a good job. With baby Maxwell and my upgraded CPU, power consumption seems to max out around 160W while the benchmarks are running. That's pretty dang efficient.
     

    Attached Files:

  22. Surrat macrumors 6502

    Surrat

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Location:
    United States
    #22
    These are some nice comparisons for the different maxwell cards.

    Would be nice if MVC was able to offer EFI version of them all, so we have more of a price range to get our macs updated to maxwell.
     
  23. MacVidCards Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #23
    970 EFI is done and will be available soon.

    960 I might wait until it is named something other than "Nvidia Model" in System.
     
  24. omvs macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #24
    Great News! I'm looking forward to be able to use FileVault again.
     
  25. DougTheImpaler macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    #25
    For fun and comparison, here's a flashed Radeon 7950. Startling how little Heaven is improved by a card that uses close to 2x the power. Valley's improvement is significant, though.

    The 960 actually out-runs the 7950 in Heaven and basically matches Valley. Wows.

    MVC if you do the 970 before the end of April I'll buy flashing service for it. My 750Ti can be upgraded to a 970 using EVGA step-up until then, roughly. Right now it's sitting as a spare, debating on the step-up.
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page