Faster Gaming Gpus For Mac

Click to expand.I think so. If you search '680 vs 7970' on the internet. You will find that they are very close in performance. However, the 2GB version become slower and slower after 2014 because the 2GB VRAM simply not enough for today's game. In fact, even the 3GB on the 7970 is a serious limiting factor now.

1. Fastest Gaming Gpu For Mac Pro 5 1
2. Minimum Gpu For Gaming

So, if I have to choose between these 2 now, I will go for the 680 4GB. Also, the 7970 has a significantly higher failure rate. So, I will say 680 4GB is the best choice (If you only consider OOTB card). And the bonus is that you can flash this card to get the boot screen.

Jun 18, 2018 - Best external graphics cards (eGPUs) for Mac. But that's not the case with all Apple products and - as any Mac gamer will tell you - graphics. Underserved Mac gamers, now you can play any PC game on your Mac. Your favorite titles load faster and stay up-to-date with the latest patches when you. It's powered by NVIDIA GeForce GPUs, so quality and performance are covered. NVIDIA GPUs excel in many GPU intensive games. Cinema 4D R17 - Here is an example of a CPU bound animation that can confuse and frustrate Mac users seeking to boost FPS with a better GPU. Notice how none of the GPUs have a clear advantage.

Guys a little update on Witcher 3 benchmarks. My rig 2 x X5690 + 96GB ram + 2x gtx680 4gb in SLI plays still strong on stable 60fps in the biggest city in Witcher 3 - Novigrad on 1080p I even changed the character in bg to uber without dropping fps. I think the two cpu are doing the work and are not bottlenecking the gpus at all in this example.

I read some forums that W3 can bottleneck even i7-6700 in Novigrad but with my two cpus that's not an issue. I believe the massive core count helps here So to sum it up: I think the gtx 1080ti will be great gaming gpu in my current cMP config in the future (SLI support is crappy), but for sure it will be bottlenecked somehow especially in 1080p. But who cares about that if I'll get stable 60fps in the newest games.

Guys a little update on Witcher 3 benchmarks. My rig 2 x X5690 + 96GB ram + 2x gtx680 4gb in SLI plays still strong on stable 60fps in the biggest city in Witcher 3 - Novigrad on 1080p I even changed the character in bg to uber without dropping fps.

I think the two cpu are doing the work and are not bottlenecking the gpus at all in this example. I read some forums that W3 can bottleneck even i7-6700 in Novigrad but with my two cpus that's not an issue. I believe the massive core count helps here So to sum it up: I think the gtx 1080ti will be great gaming gpu in my current cMP config in the future (SLI support is crappy), but for sure it will be bottlenecked somehow especially in 1080p. But who cares about that if I'll get stable 60fps in the newest games. Guys a little update on Witcher 3 benchmarks. My rig 2 x X5690 + 96GB ram + 2x gtx680 4gb in SLI plays still strong on stable 60fps in the biggest city in Witcher 3 - Novigrad on 1080p I even changed the character in bg to uber without dropping fps. I think the two cpu are doing the work and are not bottlenecking the gpus at all in this example.

I read some forums that W3 can bottleneck even i7-6700 in Novigrad but with my two cpus that's not an issue. I believe the massive core count helps here So to sum it up: I think the gtx 1080ti will be great gaming gpu in my current cMP config in the future (SLI support is crappy), but for sure it will be bottlenecked somehow especially in 1080p. But who cares about that if I'll get stable 60fps in the newest games. Here is the review or 680 vs 7970 3 years after their released.

It's quite clear that back in 2012, 680 is generally faster. And getting slower and slower if compare to the 7970. By considering both card's processing power won't change over time. It's not too hard to conclude that should be the VRAM size limitation make the difference. Therefore, I will consider a 4GB VRAM card is a better option. Can you provide a link that from a reputable website to show that the 680 is not fast enough to utilise 4GB VRAM?

Again, buy considering the 7970 is fast enough to utilise 3GB or VRAM. And even though my 7950 can be 3GB VRAM limiting today. I don't think the 680 can never utilise that 4GB VRAM because of it's speed.

And even 4GB is too much, at least it can utilise the first 3GB of VRAM like the 7970 does, and make it able to perform (like the comparison back in 2012). On the other hand, here is the failure rate statistics 7970 7.24% 680 2.66% Therefore, the failure rate of 7970 is 172% higher than 680. It's no doubt 'significantly higher'. The worst 7970 is the Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 OC Edition 3 GB, 14.29% fail. The worst 680 is the ASUS GTX680-DC2O-2GD5 2 GB, 6.98% fail. So, The average failure rate of the 7970 is higher than the worst 680. And the worst 7970 has failure rate that 105% higher than the worst 680.

I will say that we should avoid that Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 OC Edition 3 GB by all means, 15% failed is not something worth to try. Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the 7970 is a bad GPU. It's definitely the best OOTB choice we can have the AMD side (but I personally believe that we should still void the Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 OC Edition 3 GB). And in this case, there is a good OOTB candidate on the Nvidia said as well, the 680 4GB, which is a direct competitor to the 7970 3GB. By considering it has more VRAM, lower failure rate. And the question was mentioned about 'least amount of problems'.

I will consider a lower failure rate GPU with more VRAM (less limiting) and similar performance is the best answer for that particular question. Click to expand.I don't agree this point. To check driver's performance. We should use the same game, same setting, but only different driver for comparison. It that review, there is zero hint on that. And my 7950 has virtually zero improvement over time (I always use the up to date AMD driver). And I always use the same game (TR) to check the performance after driver upgrade.

Since the performance difference (between 680 2G and 7970 3G) getting bigger and bigger when resolution increase. Also occasionally a sharp drop. I will say it's more point to hardware limitation (e.g. VRAM), but not software maturity In this techpowerup review. It basically shows that 680 4GB 7970 3GB 680 2GB. Click to expand.I asked for a reliable website or a class action lawsuit - That LTT post links data to a single French online PC component store. Hardly reliable.

Fastest Gaming Gpu For Mac Pro 5 1

Furthermore, you didn't mention these points from the LTT post: ' We have to add that these statistics are limited to products sold by this e-vendor, and returns done specifically to said vendor, which is not always the case because people will sometimes return the product to the manufacturer, however this is a minority of the cases.' ' The reported failure rates concern products sold between April 1st, 2012 and October 1st 2012, for returns created before April 2013' '.Please note that obviously not all brands of particular components are noted either because of retailer availability, regional availability or sample sizes that are too small for this large French e-vendor.' So we basically have a limited timeframe, with limited sample sizes, and limited model selection too. Furthermore: ' Certain numbers are very strongly impacted by certain models, which is the case with the 7870s by Sapphire for example. With the 7970, if we exclude the problematic Sapphire model, we get 5.47%. The rate of failure for 7870 lowers considerably, although it's still abnormally high, with sapphire cards still having the problems. In general, we see that GeForce models are more reliable according to this data, notably with an excellent ROF for the GTX 660.'

Reading the original post, most AMD cards sold were Sapphire custom board overclocked models. But what about the OEM reference board 7970s and 7870s? Where are other prominent AMD IHVs such as HIS? Were the GeForce models Nvidia reference board designs? Click to expand.As discussed by the points above. This is dubious accounting, and a great example of the phrase: there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

The 7970 failure rate (once excluding Sapphire's questionable custom overclock model) falls to 5.47% - and even that statistic is questionable because it may have a small sample size. So, actually, it's what, 5.47% for the 7970 verses 6.98% for the Asus GTX 680? Also, if we ignore the ASUS GTX 680 model and look at other GTX 680s, the GTX 680 failure rate is just 2.66%. 5.47% (7970) - 2.66% (GTX 680) = 2.81% difference Hardly statistically significant. Furthermore, we don't even know sample sizes.

Click to expand.This has been proven incorrect many times by the aforementioned websites. Kepler is simply a rubbish GPU design for modern games. It was great for the DX10/DX11 generation, but it's horrible with DX12/Vulkan. For example, the GTX 780 Ti with 3GB has aged very poorly, and sometimes struggles to match Tahiti (with 3GB), a significantly smaller and cheaper GPU design. Finally, as I said, the RAM myth was debunked when looking at Tonga card with only 2GB of RAM. I'll leave with these performance summary charts from techpowerup: As you can see GK104 (GTX 680/GTX 770) and GK110 (GTX Titan/780 series) did not age well - RAM had very little to do with it.

Minimum Gpu For Gaming

I don't agree this point. To check driver's performance. We should use the same game, same setting, but only different driver for comparison. It that review, there is zero hint on that.

And my 7950 has virtually zero improvement over time (I always use the up to date AMD driver). And I always use the same game (TR) to check the performance after driver upgrade. Since the performance difference (between 680 2G and 7970 3G) getting bigger and bigger when resolution increase. Also occasionally a sharp drop. I will say it's more point to hardware limitation (e.g.

VRAM), but not software maturity In this techpowerup review. It basically shows that 680 4GB 7970 3GB 680 2GB.

Click to expand.Why are you using 2012 reviews in 2017? Especially considering my point: Over time, AMD GPUs are becoming faster, than Nvidia competitors. You do not have to agree with my point. Lets cut to the chase.

GTX 770 4GB vs R9 280X 3 GB: GTX 770 slower. GTX 770 slower. GTX 770 slower massively than HD 7970. GTX 770 is using the same core as GTX 680. In 2016-2017 titles. I am actually staggered that nobody here tends to say anything about R9 380X, which should be slightly faster than HD 7970, and should work flawlessly, because it is the same GPU as R9 395X in iMac, and should work out of the box. At the beginning AMD GPUs are always slightly slower than Nvidia counterparts.

They start to outpace, when software: which means drivers and applications mature. No wonder that you see no difference in performance if you use single Application, which is also very dated. Hmm, I guess I'm a little confused.

How about just buying a flashed 7970 on eBay and running with it? Doesn't MacOS have drivers for that, no questions asked? Auction said full boot screen and driver support, etc. Assuming you can get a flashed 7970 for $200-225 or a GTX 680 for $200ish, isn't there more benefit with modern games to go for the 7970?

The question also goes back to the 3.33GHz Westmere's limitation. You can only go so much with the GPU (even at 1440p) until you've lost benefit of going with a faster GPU. Is a 7970 kind-of about there? Is there something I don't know about the 7970?