Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I have never noticed any of that. I always get the top-of-the-line card available with my iMacs and they seem very smooth to me. Of course everyone's use cases are different.

1. You shouldn't need the top of the line card for it to be useable.
2. What cards have you used? Cause the old 5k iMacs clearly had some performance issues.
 
1. You shouldn't need the top of the line card for it to be useable.
2. What cards have you used? Cause the old 5k iMacs clearly had some performance issues.

One has the R9 M295X and one has the R9 M395X and neither has been anything but smooth for me.
 
One has the R9 M295X and one has the R9 M395X and neither has been anything but smooth for me.

That either apple fixed it or you don't really push your system. I predict you are more likely to agree with the former since most people take the later as an insult (which it isn't) and are rash to claim their use cases are harder than average.
 
No. AMD CPUs are not supported in macOS, nor will they ever be. (At least, that's my prediction).

Darwin supported AMD (and Intel) cpus before Apple officially released their Intel machines. Mac OS X for AMD Installer images were available since Tiger. I ran a hackintosh on Snow Leopard.

So, yeah, AMD cpu's aren't supported officially by Apple now. But that doesn't stop people from running it on them anyway.
 
has anyone tested this with the 10 series cards yet? as in inside a Mac Pro or in some whacky eGPU setup? got a couple thunderbolt 1 ports here...
 
has anyone tested this with the 10 series cards yet? as in inside a Mac Pro or in some whacky eGPU setup? got a couple thunderbolt 1 ports here...

As I understand it, there are a few very late "cheesegrater" Macs that can use the newer cards with this driver and Sierra. I assume the usual suspects will flash the 1080ti if you'd like a boot screen. This is great news--now if Apple is serious about their new professional commitment maybe they'll kick the "trashcan" to the curb and build something that can be upgraded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: derohan
Titan X Pascal working on the MacOs

 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-04-16 at 2.54.36 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-04-16 at 2.54.36 PM.png
    97.7 KB · Views: 12,271
Now anybody with a $800 budget can build a hackintosh that runs circles around a $6000 mac pro in graphic intensive applications.
This is wrong on so many levels... If you use a decent CPU and a pro level GPU, I can't see how an $800 budget can work, unless for you "graphic intensive" means making GIFs and youtube 480p cat videos. Put the latest i7 and an Nvidia 1080 and you are already around $1500 and still have to get the rest of the stuff...
 
  • Like
Reactions: derohan
This is wrong on so many levels... If you use a decent CPU and a pro level GPU, I can't see how an $800 budget can work, unless for you "graphic intensive" means making GIFs and youtube 480p cat videos. Put the latest i7 and an Nvidia 1080 and you are already around $1500 and still have to get the rest of the stuff...

Right. A decent mobo alone is 250-300 minimum if you want professional feature set
[doublepost=1492536298][/doublepost]
finally time to buy a 5.1 & configure it just like yours sir... :D kudos! Long live old HW :apple::apple::apple:

The CPU is slow in modern apps and most of the cores are unused. The I/O is bottlenecked. And most likely the 5,1 will be dropped from the next macOS. They dropped the 4,1 with Sierra even though it's basically identical.
 
Now anybody with a $800 budget can build a hackintosh that runs circles around a $6000 mac pro in graphic intensive applications.

How is the stability on Hackintoshes these days? I never went with one years back because i couldn't afford it to flip out on me during a project...would love to hear if things have improved.
 
How is the stability on Hackintoshes these days? I never went with one years back because i couldn't afford it to flip out on me during a project...would love to hear if things have improved.

Mostly Hackintosh is just a boot loader and any extra drivers needed, if needed. You can use Clover to boot up a clone of your Mac's drive on a PC. There shouldn't be an instability issue if macOS detects the hardware correctly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: derohan
Your comment made me curious, so I did some quick pricing, and minus extras like finishing off the cooling system and stuff like monitors and whatnot, probably the cheapest you could go and still "run circles" around the $6000 Mac Pro is probably at least $1500.

Yes, US$1500 is what my build cost and it runs circles around a lot of other computers, including the Mac Pro.
 
Right. A decent mobo alone is 250-300 minimum if you want professional feature set
[doublepost=1492536298][/doublepost]

The CPU is slow in modern apps and most of the cores are unused. The I/O is bottlenecked. And most likely the 5,1 will be dropped from the next macOS. They dropped the 4,1 with Sierra even though it's basically identical.
Back on to the hackintosh road then... worth waiting for DDR5 & newer CPU's though? got plenty of patience!
 
Back on to the hackintosh road then... worth waiting for DDR5 & newer CPU's though? got plenty of patience!

Hmmm not really. Those type of generational improvements only add a couple percent increases which you won't see in real apps. Modern ports, GPU and a good SSD are the main performance enhancers at the moment.
 
w
Yes, US$1500 is what my build cost and it runs circles around a lot of other computers, including the Mac Pro.
what's inside that beast?
Hmmm not really. Those type of generational improvements only add a couple percent increases which you won't see in real apps. Modern ports, GPU and a good SSD are the main performance enhancers at the moment.
Wasn't this the deal with intel's since 4th gen i7's, don't know if I should keep waiting?
So 9th or 10th gen might finally give us that jump if the next gen is only small percentages... f*ck me!
Still rocking 1st gen i7's (desktop & laptop SKU's) here with no end in sight at this rate :p
 
I'm confused - given that Apple are committed to AMD and/or last gen graphics cards, which Mac is this news relevant to? I'd buy an Nvidia 10 series mac in a heartbeat if it were available.

It is relevant to users of the older tower style Mac Pros, since they have a PCI Express slot to use these cards. It would be a great upgrade for my 3,1 Mac Pro.
 
The CPU is slow in modern apps and most of the cores are unused. The I/O is bottlenecked. And most likely the 5,1 will be dropped from the next macOS. They dropped the 4,1 with Sierra even though it's basically identical.

Why would you support Apple discontinuing Mac Pros better in some ways than what they currently sell?

And why would the cores not be used. Isn't newer software making more use of added cores rather than less? I understand the I/O bottleneck, but Moore's Law is pretty much debunked in 2018. An SSD alone removes a lot of bottleneck.

Btw, I'm running High Sierra on a 4,1 Mac Pro with no issues and an AMD 7950 with no issues.
Apple, of course took away WIFI support, but you can get better WIFI externally anyway then they terrible internal WIFI.
 
Last edited:
Why would you support Apple discontinuing Mac Pros better in some ways than what they currently sell?

I’m not ‘supporting’ the discontinuation of support for the old Mac Pros. But fast single core and I/O performance are still more important for most work than having 8–12 slow cores. Those Westmere CPUs are about half the performance per core than a Skylake and there isn’t native chipset support for NVME or Thunderbolt 3.

But if you want to use them with High Sierra if you want to have an affordable classic machine. There are still people who who buy 80s-90s Macs for fun and nostalgia even if they are limited to OS 8.1
 
I’m not ‘supporting’ the discontinuation of support for the old Mac Pros. But fast single core and I/O performance are still more important for most work than having 8–12 slow cores. Those Westmere CPUs are about half the performance per core than a Skylake and there isn’t native chipset support for NVME or Thunderbolt 3.

But if you want to use them with High Sierra if you want to have an affordable classic machine. There are still people who who buy 80s-90s Macs for fun and nostalgia even if they are limited to OS 8.1

AHAHAHAHAHA! My 'nostalgia" Mac Pro still beats a Mac Mini that Apple is currently selling!

I'm actually testing High Sierra betas!

Not everyone has a need for Thunderbolt 3, especially when you have plenty of PCIe slots & drive bays. :D

Someone forgot to tell you that the Steve Jobs reality distortion field is dead with him.
 
AHAHAHAHAHA! My 'nostalgia" Mac Pro still beats a Mac Mini that Apple is currently selling!

I'm actually testing High Sierra betas!

Not everyone has a need for Thunderbolt 3, especially when you have plenty of PCIe slots & drive bays. :D

Someone forgot to tell you that the Steve Jobs reality distortion field is dead with him.

Nothing makes sense in what you said. Zero.

Those drive bays are limited to SATA2.

The PCIE slots are limited to 2.0 and have no Thunderbolt upgrades.

Most new SSD and GPU upgrades have bugs or compatibility problems.

The Mac mini beats it when using lesser cores. It has support for eGPU.
 
Nothing makes sense in what you said. Zero.

Most new SSD and GPU upgrades have bugs or compatibility problems.

The Mac mini beats it when using lesser cores. It has support for eGPU.

Compatibility problems with SSDs and GPUs?

And btw, most SSDs don't even tap out SATA2 speeds.

Cheese grater Mac Pros are steadily keeping values on eBay since Apple offers nothing like it still.

I've seen benchmarks. Mac minis do not beat XEON processors nor do they have Radeon or Nvidia graphics capabilities.

Next you'll tell me Intel graphics beats Radeon and GTX too? :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.