EVGA's GeForce GTX 285 Mac Edition: The Best for OS X?
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 17, 2009 7:00 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Power Consumption
Comparing power consumption under OS X echoes what we've seen under Windows, the GeForce GTX 285 uses less power than the Radeon HD 4870 at idle but more under load:
| Total System Power Consumption | Idle | Load (Mudbox 2009) |
| ATI Radeon HD 4870 (512MB) | 286W | 334W |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 Mac Edition (1GB) | 278W | 350W |
| NVIDIA GeForce GT120 (512MB) | 251W | 262W |
Both of these cards will consume much more power under load than the GT120, but you also get much more performance out of them. The extra ~30W at idle isn't terrible.
Final Words
To me, the biggest advantage of EVGA’s GeForce GTX 285 Mac Edition is its large 1GB frame buffer. Something you can’t currently get from any other video card Apple offers. Kudos to EVGA for not only putting out a complete product but also delivering the best video card offered on Apple’s website.
What I would like to see is this become a regular occurrence; whenever there’s a new PC GPU release I’d like to see EVGA or one of the other vendors provide quick turnaround on releasing a Mac edition. So long as there’s driver support, there’s no reason that it can’t happen.
The other thing I’d like to see is EVGA work to break down the ridiculous pricing on these things. A $100 price premium for two cables, different packaging and an EFI compliant ROM is ridiculous. Unfortunately that seems to be what the Apple user has to live with. EVGA’s pricing isn’t as bad as it could be (remember the $399 X1900 XT?) and from talking with EVGA, apparently they are also working to drive prices down. However if you take into account the fact that two PCIe power cables will cost you $60 and EVGA bundles them for free, the price premium ends up a more manageable $40.
Personally, I’d try your hands at converting a PC video card first but if you don’t want to deal with the hassle - EVGA’s GeForce GTX 285 Mac Edition is pretty much the best option you’ve got.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
bupkus - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link
For so very long linux never could claim itself a good platform for games. So I'm thinking, admittedly quite wishfully, that the OS X's linux roots could provide a trail for drivers in OS X to become useful in linux.What say you experts on this matter?
erple2 - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link
OSX isn't based on Linux. It's based on a BSD flavor. I'm not sure if it's NetBSD or OpenBSD (I think NetBSD). Which is very different from Linux.Kurotetsu - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link
Well, according to Wiki (which means you should take it with some salt), it was both:Mac OS X is based upon the Mach kernel.[8] Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in Nextstep, the core of Mac OS X. Nextstep was the object-oriented operating system developed by Steve Jobs' company NeXT after he left Apple in 1985.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
sprockkets - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link
Yes, this is true. The BSD part is just for POSIX compliance. Even though OSX is certified UNIX, Apple saying it is UNIX stable is a bit disingenuous, as the part of the kernel doing all the work is all Apple, not UNIX or BSD.8steve8 - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
means can't connect to the LED 24" display apple makes.weird.
Natfly - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link
I would think a standard dvi -> mini-displayport adapter would work, right?http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id...">http://www.monoprice.com/products/produ...2&p_...
BrianMCan - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link
no, that is to connect a DVI monitor to mini-displayport computer.to go the other way it would have DVI male, to mini-displayport female.
Demon-Xanth - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link
...the markup on those cables is the most I've seen outside of audiophile or specialty cables.
Connectors:
4x Molex 45559-0002 $0.30ea, $0.14/ea in quantities of 5000
24x Molex 44476-1111 $0.12ea, $0.05/ea in quantities of 4000
12' 18AWG stranded wire (assuming the cables are 12") $38/100 foot spool, $145 for 1000'
(prices from Mouser, distributors may be much lower)
Low quantity cost: About $8 for the pair.
Higher quantity cost: About $3 for the pair.
Admittedly, the crimp tool itself runs about $320, so given the $52 profit margin, it should take about 7 sets to end up in the black.
rpmurray - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link
I'd go with the higher quality pair, according to you they're $5 cheaper then the low qualityDemon-Xanth - Thursday, July 23, 2009 - link
Quantity, not quality.The parts are $8 for two if you built one set. $3 for two if you build 1000 sets.