Gts 450 For Mac Os

  
  1. OS: Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks) Processor: Dual core CPU 2.4 GHz; Memory: 4 GB RAM; Graphics: GeForce GTS 450-class (Intel HD 4000) Hard Drive: 3 GB available space; Recommended: OS: Mac OS X 10.10 (Yosemite) Processor: Quad core CPU 3.0 GHz; Memory: 6 GB RAM; Graphics: GeForce GTX 760-class (Intel HD 5300).
  2. Support with Mac OS X v10.6.x Snow Leopard; Support for both Quadro FX 4800 for Mac and GeForce GTX 285 for MAC; Update for compatibility with the new Apple driver release; If you would like to be notified of upcoming drivers for Mac OS X, please subscribe to the newsletter.
  3. Each Gainward GeForce GTS 450 1GB “GS-GLH” and “GS” operate the most extreme clock rate and ensure the best stability under aggressive over-clocking.Gainward invent GTS 450 1GB “GS-GLH” over-clocked approximately 18% from 783MHz to 930MHz with 192 CUDA Cores for high speed 1GB GDDR5 128 bits memory bank, and the equivalent bandwidth.
  4. CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture) is a parallel computing platform and application programming interface (API) model created by Nvidia. It allows software developers and software engineers to use a CUDA-enabled graphics processing unit (GPU) for general purpose processing – an approach termed GPGPU (General-Purpose computing on Graphics Processing Units).

Gts 450 For Mac Os High Sierra

Sierra

OS: 10.9.5 Mavericks or later: Processor: Quad Core CPU: Memory: 8 GB RAM: Graphics: GeForce GTS 450 / Radeon HD 6770: Hard Drive: 1 GB available space: Additional Notes: Compatible controllers for Mac OS are the Sony Dualshock 4 controller. Other controllers may well work but have not been thoroughly tested.

Gts 450 For Mac Os 10.13

October 20th, 2010, 11:20 AM #16
Major Player

Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Originally Posted by David Knarr
Hi Peter,
I am chimming in....
I am still running tests, but what I have found is, on the SAME system testing a GT240 with DDR5 memory gave me the same performance as a 460 and 480. (I was testing on an AMD Quad Core system at 2.9 Ghz. The main reason is the Mercury Playback Engine does not use all of the CUDA cores that are availble on the higher end cards.
In a test I was running last night ( and I haven't posted this yet on our website) when running on a AMD 6 core system, we did see a slight improvement between the 240 and a 460 and 470 card. It wasn't that much of an improvement, about 10 to15%. To me it wasn't worth the expense of the 470 card.
However, with all of that said, if Adobe in the future changes the Mercury Playback Engine to use more CUDA cores, then of course the 460 and 470 will be faster cards.
Also, as a side note. DO NOT bother with the new GT 430 card, it only has DDR3 memory. I tested this card last night also and the GT240 card with DDR5 memory is about 40% to 50% faster.
All test were run with the lastest drivers 258.96 WHQL
Thanks for chiming in, David. Again, thank you for writing such an extensive article on the MPE performance in CS5.
I am doing research for a new build, switching back from Mac to PC. My build will most likely be a Core i7 950.
A GT 240 1GB DDR5 can be had for as low as $76 and I've seen the GTS 450 1GB for $105. Those are pretty hot deals, especially if their performance is comparable to a $300 GTX 470 or $200 GTX 460.
My main preference for wanting to go for the GT 240 vs the GTS 450 is in case I miss my Mac and want to turn it into a Hackintosh. To my understanding, there are no Fermi drivers for Mac so the 4xx series wouldn't work in the Hackintosh, if I go that route. The GTS 450 is probably the best value, though, and some room for improvement if Adobe improves CUDA core usage.
How does the GT 240 performance compare with the GTS 450? Is the GTS 450 limited significantly by its 128bit memory bandwidth? It seems the GT 240 also has a 128bit memory bandwidth...
Note: I do check back and refer to your article often and it looks like it gets updated fairly often. It would be helpful to know what you've updated to your article so I can keep current more easily. Thanks again!