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
OS X Apps That Need a Fast GPU
There are a few OS X apps that do benefit from a powerful GPU, but as far as I can tell the numbers are still limited. There are a number of functions that are executed on the GPU, but very few applications are actually GPU bound. Photoshop only makes minimal use of the GPU, the real benefits there come from having more video memory than having more shader processing power.
I tried using Autodesk’s Mudbox 2009 to measure GPU performance under OS X. Mudbox is a 3D modeling application that depends heavily on the GPU and includes the ability to benchmark rendering your model in real time.
Mudbox 2009
I created two models in Mudbox, one more complex than the other and measured rendering performance on the GTX 285, Radeon HD 4870 512MB and my Mac Pro’s default GeForce GT120:
The performance improvement over the GT120 is clear, but the GTX 285 wasn’t actually any faster than the Radeon HD 4870. The only advantage here is that the 285 has a larger frame buffer and could thus handle more complex models.
Even Cinebench’s antiquated OpenGL benchmark had troubles showing the GTX 285 in a positive light under OS X
This test isn’t particularly representative of anything but it does showcase some potential driver deficiencies for the GTX 285 under OS X.
OpenCL to the Rescue, CUDA Available Today
Snow Leopard will change all of this of course as it brings full OpenCL support to the table. Applications written in OpenCL will be able to execute completely on the GTX 285 and that’s where this thing will really be useful. Snow Leopard will be available in September and who knows how long it will take for good OpenCL apps to see the light of day. In other words, you may be waiting a while for your investment to pay off unless you have a high end workstation need for the GTX 285 today.
There is one other option. NVIDIA has made CUDA available for OS X, so if you’re a CUDA developer or are interested in playing around CUDA OS X apps you can put the GTX 285 to use today.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
rpmurray - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link
So, is there going to be a follow-up on how to upgrade the card to 2GB?RawOysters - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link
Now if Mac users can only find a game to play.DKant - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link
Ergh. Still not used to or able to ignore trolls.The 100$ premium can be attributed to one simple fact I think - lower expected volume of shipping so higher premium per SKU.
And all that wolf in sheep's clothing talk? Anybody heard of Windows 7? Hundred plus dollars for a freaking SPITnSHINE? THAT is overpricing! The only reason MS is charging so much is that - again - it makes it want to look like a different OS and not just an upgraded and FINALLY polished Vista. Maybe 40$ is all it was actually worth, if not less.
And why don't people ever get that Apple charges for the OS + the hardware. My theory for Snow Leopard upgrade being priced at a ridiculous 30$ (ESPECIALLY considering Snow Leopard comes with some ACTUAL upgrades, and not just tweaks) is just that - Apple has already recovered some of the cost of the OS from the hardware sales, plus this simply is the best possible way of extending the service promised to their high-paying customers. There is a loyalty there that MS simply cannot hope to emulate any time in the short run, and that's not a fanboy talking. The ONE time they did extend some kind of good support was when they shelled out 1 billion to extend the warranty of 360's, and even THAT was done because they really didn't have a choice - people would have simply walked away otherwise.
Windows is a money-minting device. Apple actually cares about what they build and put thought into it. If I have to pay a gazillion dollars for that, it is fine. I don't mind paying a premium to reap the results of somebody else's hard work. :)
I'm not saying that because I'm an Apple fanboy or something. I'm infact a long-time Windows customer who is just FED up with all the bull I have to put up with. 100+ $ for an OS UPGRADE?! Insane amounts of money for an Office suite that I cannot even make a half-decent presentation (for people with taste) with? I have had to design a custom background, spend several costly minutes configuring the fonts and their positioning because the defaults are just SO arcane and butt-ugly. And so are the fonts they use everywhere. Ugh. UI changes that do not even make any sense (can you seriously read those transparent top-bars in Vista? SERIOUSLY? All that transparency only hurts my eyes) 30% red-ringing hardware (I know, old news). Nah. I have had enough of Microsoft. Thank you. (please don't) Come again.
OptimusP83 - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link
I use both Vista and Leopard, though I FAR prefer Leopard. I am a Graphic Designer and hence use OS X at work. Each OS has its ups and downs, but what really irks me about Windows is its lack of snappiness. Blame it on Vista if you want, but With OS X programs launch faster, basically everything I need to be productive in doing, happens faster in OS X. Now Clearly GPU performance has yet to catch up and I blame this on Apple as well as the GPU manufacturers.Also in regards to the FUD about OMG my i7 machine can roxxors yourz Mac Pro... They are machines with fundamentally different purposes. Yes you could most likely do the same work in the same amout of time on an i7 box, but Workstations are meant for very specific purposes in PRODUCTION environments. Yes there are people who would buy a MacPro to play games. They are idiots. I could build a Core2Quad box for 1/2 the cost of a MacPro and it would run games just as fast. But can you build an 8 core desktop machine? no. You have to PAY LAVISHLY to get a Xeon dual socket workstation for that. Yes the majority of applications wont run any faster from 4 cores to 8 cores (all else being equal) but for that tasks that do, machines like the MacPro are essential for maintaining productivity.
Having said that, the majority of the people posting on here would be much better served sticking to a consumer level desktop machine. Its really not worth the extra cost for them to get a dual socket machine. Hell even 4 cores are just finally being able to be utilized well...
Hxx - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link
"Windows is a money-minting device. Apple actually cares about what they build and put thought into it. If I have to pay a gazilliondollars for that, it is fine. I don't mind paying a premium to reap the results of somebody else's hard work. :) "
You cant compare apple with windows, its just doesnt make sense. Apple developes their own software assembles their own boxes and sells you the finished product. They use high quality components and they charge a little extra for them just because they offer a finished product.Does it make sense? it depends on the user i'd say. Microsoft on the other hand is a software developer. It is up to the user to either build a box or buy a prebuilt one. One can buy the highest quality hardware available and built one of the best and most expensive systems out there... or not. People dumb enough to criticize either OS are either not familiar with one of the two or just plain trolls.
OptimusP83 - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link
... are out in force today.4870s insanely easy to flash with an EFI capable rom provided you get the right model.
trochevs - Sunday, July 19, 2009 - link
There is FOSS test suit that I believe supports Mac OS X and series of OpenGL test. Have you try to run it?http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/">http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/
vailr - Sunday, July 19, 2009 - link
The Intel Northbridge chip (?) on the Mac Pro motherboard photo has no heatsink?That would seem to be an Apple design error, no?
Or: does it not get "too hot to touch"?
Demon-Xanth - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link
One thing I just noticed, is that the TV out that's common with PC cards isn't there.MonkeyPaw - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link
I must say, I'm surprised that Photoshop manages the video memory that way. To have to quit the app and not close the picture to recover the video memory? Terrible! Many people buy Macs for the professional photoshop work, and this has to be a serious drag on productivity once the RAM is gone. Do you think it's Adobe's fault, or could it be a limitation where OSX doesn't know what to do with window-in-window closing?