The FirePros in the Mac Pro don't exist outside it, some thoughts

[tipoo]

Just a thought about the FirePros that seemingly aren't like other FirePros (from the memory bus/shader core/etc configs, the low and mid end don't exist in the FirePro line). On Windows, the distinction between Radeon and FirePro is mostly driver level, FirePros do also support ECC memory but not all FirePros have that (and adding to my point, the D***s in this Mac Pro seemingly don't have ECC memory). On OSX, Apple writes much of the graphics driver themselves, so perhaps the distinction between the two is less important for that reason, plus with a smaller pool of GPUs in macs pro applications certify more of them (as a percentage at least), so consumer level GPUs are supported more in pro apps.

So my thinking was, could these just be Radeon configs, rebranded and re-drivered with FirePro?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

As you pointed out, virtually all Firepros are "Radeon configs, rebranded and re-drivered."

If the drivers, features, software support, and hardware support are there, pros will be happy. If not, they won't be. *shrug*

 

[slashbinslashbash]

AFAIK, back in the day FirePros and Quadros had better quality PCB components, i.e. voltage regulators, oscillators, RAMDACs, capacitors, etc. I guess this was probably more important back when analog VGA connections dominated the display world, but maybe it's still the case?

 

[tipoo]

As you pointed out, virtually all Firepros are "Radeon configs, rebranded and re-drivered."

If the drivers, features, software support, and hardware support are there, pros will be happy. If not, they won't be. *shrug*

I'm aware, but I was wondering if they may be Radeon configs, as the core configs don't appear to exist for the D300 and D500 at least, while the D700 is like the 9000.

I also wonder if they'll all show up as FirePros in Windows.

 

[Kaido]

AFAIK, back in the day FirePros and Quadros had better quality PCB components, i.e. voltage regulators, oscillators, RAMDACs, capacitors, etc. I guess this was probably more important back when analog VGA connections dominated the display world, but maybe it's still the case?

Back in the day, I flashed my 8800GTX to a Quadro FX 5600. Primary difference was 768mb VRAM vs. 1.5gb VRAM. It let me install all of the pro apps I wanted to and served me well for years! :thumbsup: I can't say if it really made a difference performance-wise, but there were certain applications that it helped by having the name "Quadro" show up in the GPU query.

 

[vbuggy]

As you pointed out, virtually all Firepros are "Radeon configs, rebranded and re-drivered."

Add 'underclocked' for Apple. The Dxxx's are TDP-friendly versions of various FirePros - which are slaughtered by the class-comparable (even mobile) Quadro's.

 

[tipoo]

Add 'underclocked' for Apple. The Dxxx's are TDP-friendly versions of various FirePros - which are slaughtered by the class-comparable (even mobile) Quadro's.

True in many pro apps, but I think Apple wants OpenCL to gain more traction than CUDA, as the latter would tie them to one vendor. And AMD was clearly willing to drop their margins on FirePros to get into this dual GPU high end Apple system, to further push OpenCL.

 

[vbuggy]

Oh clearly. It's just not a surprise they needed to stick two in to get anywhere near IRL respectable performance, but again marketing - dumb people attracted to shiny things will see 'DUAL GRAPHICS' and go omg teh powah

 

[ViRGE]

Oh clearly. It's just not a surprise they needed to stick two in to get anywhere near IRL respectable performance, but again marketing - dumb people attracted to shiny things will see 'DUAL GRAPHICS' and go omg teh powah

But you're assuming they're using both GPUs for graphics...

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Oh clearly. It's just not a surprise they needed to stick two in to get anywhere near IRL respectable performance, but again marketing - dumb people attracted to shiny things will see 'DUAL GRAPHICS' and go omg teh powah

So are there non-dual-GPU solutions out there capable of feeding 3x 4k feeds?

 

[joshhedge]

Oh clearly. It's just not a surprise they needed to stick two in to get anywhere near IRL respectable performance, but again marketing - dumb people attracted to shiny things will see 'DUAL GRAPHICS' and go omg teh powah

Apple have been catering to the 'pro' market for many years and know what they're doing, I don't think 'pros' in the most part are stupid enough to base their purchases on marketing alone.

Reading through your posts leads me to believe that you have a negative disposition towards Apple and without a clear and rational basis.

 

[vbuggy]

So are there non-dual-GPU solutions out there capable of feeding 3x 4k feeds?

Sure. At the top end I doubt the K6000 will break a sweat for example. But that's not the point of what I said of course.

 

[ViRGE]

So are there non-dual-GPU solutions out there capable of feeding 3x 4k feeds?

Any modern Radeon card built with 3 DP outputs could do it, as AMD's GPUs have 6 display controllers. You're technically tying up 2 display controllers right now (due to tiling) so a GeForce card (4 display controllers) wouldn't be able to pull it off.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Thanks, I stand corrected / informed.

 

[tipoo]

So are there non-dual-GPU solutions out there capable of feeding 3x 4k feeds?

I'm not a video pro by any means, but I'm quite sure single cards are able to do that. In fact the proof is in the pudding, right now only Apples software supports the second GPU, many third party pro apps on the new Pro are just using the one connected to the display outputs, not the secondary idle GPU.

 

[Childs]

Any modern Radeon card built with 3 DP outputs could do it, as AMD's GPUs have 6 display controllers. You're technically tying up 2 display controllers right now (due to tiling) so a GeForce card (4 display controllers) wouldn't be able to pull it off.

Supporting 3 4K displays is one thing, but using a timeline full of 4K clips with a bunch of effects and previewing in real time is something else entirely. The main reason for the Mac Pro update was 4K editing.

 

[blackened23]

The difference between firepro and radeon is the level of support and acceleration available for professional applications such as adobe suite. This is the primary design consideration of Firepro - professional apps. Also, all firepros support 10 bit color output for professional applications (photo, video editing) while Radeon does not.

The new Mac Pros scream in photoshop. Even though i'm more of a PC guy - I don't get the hate toward the new Mac Pros. These machines have and always have been for content creation. For their target market they do the job and do it well.

 

[blackened23]

I'm not a video pro by any means, but I'm quite sure single cards are able to do that. In fact the proof is in the pudding, right now only Apples software supports the second GPU, many third party pro apps on the new Pro are just using the one connected to the display outputs, not the secondary idle GPU.

One 4k display requires surround via MST on the PC. So no, consumer GPUs on the PC side cannot do 3x 4k surround. An AMD eyefinity 6 card could theoretically do it, but most AMD cards on the PC side are not eyefinity 6.

I assume that the Mac cards will use thunderbolt catered towards this type of thing, so I would imagine that it works for the Mac Pro. But none of the thunderbolt displays are 4k....yet.

 

[ViRGE]

Supporting 3 4K displays is one thing, but using a timeline full of 4K clips with a bunch of effects and previewing in real time is something else entirely. The main reason for the Mac Pro update was 4K editing.

Sure. Performance is another issue entirely (though I suspect if we're talking about real time previewing, then we're limited to one GPU anyhow). I was just pointing out that driving 3 4K displays is something that AMD's GPUs have been capable of for years, rather than being something Apple has done on their own. There's nothing particularly special about the Mac Pro in that regard, other than that it's one of a limited number of devices with 3+ DP outputs.

One 4k display requires surround via MST on the PC. So no, consumer GPUs on the PC side cannot do 3x 4k surround. An AMD eyefinity 6 card could theoretically do it, but most AMD cards on the PC side are not eyefinity 6.

For the record, both MSI and Asus make a few different Tahiti cards with 3+ DP outputs. You have to know what you're searching for (and all of this Bitcoin nonsense isn't helping), but they're out there.

I assume that the Mac cards will use thunderbolt catered towards this type of thing, so I would imagine that it works for the Mac Pro. But none of the thunderbolt displays are 4k....yet.

TB is backwards compatible with DisplayPort of course. For 4K Apple fully intends for their early adopters to be using the Sharp/Asus/Dell 32" monitors with the Mac Pro, which is why they even sell the Sharp alongside the Mac Pro.

Though that actually brings up a good point; would a 4K TB monitor would even make sense? A 1440p TB monitor works because there's plenty of bandwidth left over after the monitor. However a 4K monitor will saturate nearly the entire link.

 

[tipoo]

It appears I was right, these are Radeons under Windows

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/9

 

[joshhedge]

ignore