Mac Pro as a main Windows gaming machine?

[St. Germain]

I know there were some initial problems with gaming on Mac Pros (don't remember the issues)...just wondering if a well equipped Mac Pro can stack up with a well equipped Dell for Windows gaming. After seeing my MacBook, my wife would like me to replace our old Dell desktop with a Mac Pro. It was mainly used for Windows gaming though. If I can kill two birds with one stone, I'll go with an Apple.

Does anyone have experience with Windows gaming on a Mac Pro? Any drawbacks compared to a Dell for gaming for instance?

And did I see that you can get Mac Pros equipped with 4 nVidia video cards? :eek: Can games actually take advantage of that?

[Jiddick ExRex]

The Mac Pro is not a gaming machine, more like a versatile solution for those gamers who also happen to spend a lot of time using os x. You can get much better gaming rigs for the money of a Mac Pro.

As far as the actual gaming performance on the Mac Pro, I don't think there are many issues... Of course it depends on the games and the graphics cards etc.

[Grenadier]

You can get much better gaming rigs for the money of a Mac Pro.


For goodness sake-
dont give him that.

90% of the time, when asking around, thats what I was told.
What a load of BS.


The Mac Pro is a fantastic gaming machine.
Even more so because you can put almost an GPU into it for Windows.
Suggested config:

2.66GHz, 4GB RAM, X1900XT, 23" ACD

Just remember to get the 1900, if anything !


Enjoy your uber l33t gaming system-
I know I will ;)

[combatcolin]

Waste of money.

You can get better performance at half the price with a self build Windows PC.

[Grenadier]

Waste of money.

You can get better performance at half the price with a self build Windows PC.

Some of you people fail to realise that some of us hate Windows boxes, and actually want to run OSX.


Dont listen to him-
get the Mac Pro, and enjoy :)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Here's a bench by PC gamer on the Mac Pro . They did a review on how it stacks up to the PCs in gaming in their monthly issue but I dont think they posted the whole review on their website.http://www.pcgamer.com/images/MacPro.jpg

[patrick0brien]

Easy people, let's watch our diplomacy, the guy's asking a valid question - one that I'm curious about too.

Of course, my MacPro will be used for OS X heavy lifting, but every now and then, I'll venture onto the Windows side for a quick fragging. :D

[miniConvert]

If you want gaming grunt and OS X in one machine then, fitted with the X1900XT card, the Mac Pro is really your only choice. Depending on what your gaming expectations are, it should perform admirably.

[killmoms]

I'd say it breaks down like this: if you do heavy OS X lifting (either big-time image/photography work or video work) and occasionally want to play a Windows game or two, a Mac Pro with 2GB of RAM and the 1900XT gives great performance in both.

If, however, you're PRIMARILY a PC gamer who's interested in trying out OS X, you'd be better served building your own PC tower and buying a lower end Mac like the Mac mini (or an iMac if you don't mind the integrated display).

Personally, I enjoy the occasional game but needed the Mac Pro's power for editing and compositing HD video in FCP and Shake (versus my 3 year old PowerBook G4). Plus, while I had owned an aging gaming PC back in Virginia, my move to California prevented me from bringing it along, and I needed access to Windows at home. In light of all that, the Mac Pro was the best fit for me.

[patrick0brien]

If, however, you're PRIMARILY a PC gamer who's interested in trying out OS X, you'd be better served building your own PC tower and buying a lower end Mac like the Mac mini (or an iMac if you don't mind the integrated display).

-killmoms

Well stated. You're right, getting a MacPro just for Gaming - let alone if one removes OS X, is like swatting a fly with a sledge. Could be done cheaper.

[Dont Hurt Me]

-killmoms

Well stated. You're right, getting a MacPro just for Gaming - let alone if one removes OS X, is like swatting a fly with a sledge. Could be done cheaper.

Again Apple needs a mid grade Tower for Consumers.

[patrick0brien]

Again Apple needs a mid grade Tower for Consumers.

-Dont Hurt Me

Yes, as long as they don't so low as to compete in the Wal-Mart market.

[combatcolin]

Again Apple needs a mid grade Tower for Consumers.

Agreed.

The Mac Pro is a bloody powerful computer, but for most of us its just too damned expensive.

And spending £1700+ to play Half Life 2 is funking stupid.

The Mac Pro is a computer for people who make money with a computer, if you buy for bragging rights your an idiot.

[Umbongo]

You can get a windows PC with a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320GB HD, 8800GTS graphics card, decent motherboard, case, psu, windows etc for $1,500. That will play games fine for at least 2 years, longer on lower than the highest settings then get another $1,500 PC when yours doesnt cut it anymore. You could get a Quadcore, gaming beast for $3,000 if you game alot. Or you can drop $3000 on a Mac Pro (2GB RAM and ATI 1900). Yeah you get OSX and it is a more than capeable machine at many, many tasks, but you need to look at how much extra you are paying to be able to do things you never will. Even if money isn't an issue, the Mac Pro makes little sense as a pure gaming system.

[combatcolin]

Or , from a British price alternative, for the price of a Mac Pro (£1700) you can buy a decent speced self built PC with a 30" Dell monitor and a decent surround sound system.

'Nuff said eh?

;)

[patrick0brien]

The Mac Pro is a computer for people who make money with a computer, if you buy for bragging rights your an idiot.

-combatcolin

I think this is what they call "invidious distinction".

[combatcolin]

Funked if i know what that means!

:confused: :p

Wikied it but no luck.

Although i think it might be latin or something for "more money than sense", but im probably wrong

[apfhex]

I know there were some initial problems with gaming on Mac Pros (don't remember the issues)

It was mainly used for Windows gaming though. If I can kill two birds with one stone, I'll go with an Apple.

And did I see that you can get Mac Pros equipped with 4 nVidia video cards? :eek: Can games actually take advantage of that?
Like everyone else said, if you're going to take advantage of the power for something in addition to gaming, then the Mac Pro is a great machine. All the Windows issues have been hammered out with firmware updates. As for the 4x nVidia 7300's, no, they can't be used in SLI mode AFAIK. Better to get the X1900 XT.

You're replacing an old Dell, what was that used for? If you want a high-end gaming rig AND a new Mac, the price might work out so that the Mac Pro is still a good deal. If you're looking for a family/home computer, might be better to look into an iMac. That wouldn't be too bad for gaming either, especially if you get the 7600 gfx card.

[patrick0brien]

Funked if i know what that means!

:confused: :p

Wikied it but no luck.

Although i think it might be latin or something for "more money than sense", but im probably wrong

-

That's a good one huh? :D

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
in·vid·i·ous /ɪnˈvɪdiəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective[i]
1. calculated to create ill will or resentment or give offense; hateful: invidious remarks.
2. offensively or unfairly discriminating; injurious: invidious comparisons.
3. causing or tending to cause animosity, resentment, or envy: an invidious honor.

Or just click on the Linkypoo (http://blogs.zdnet.com/carroll/?p=1634).

It's a great term, but a bit dangerous as even using it can cause one to appear to be a subscriber of "invidious distinction". IMHO those who by expensive things for status are subscribers in my book, cars, houses, diamond-encrusted celphones, etc.

[Sesshi]

There are certain things that a self-build, or a gaming Windows PC brings to the table that you can't get on a Pro.

For the more esoteric but more relevant as of late, there's physics processors. There isn't a PCI-E processor readily available as far as I know, although one can't be far away. Then there's Creative's X-Fi. If you're a half serious gamer, the Realtek onboard the Pro is something of a joke - and on the Pro, there's no way to add a gaming audio card. Then there's Boot Camp. Whatever people say it is not quite a fully Windows machine. There are still hiccups here and there especially in demanding gaming applications. Then there's the gaming systems themselves, which aren't based on the Intel 5000X but more commonly (now) on platforms like the NF690. The 5000X is not a board which is that gaming friendly.

If you spend the vast majority of your time in OS X and you only occasionally dabble in Windows, then the X1900 system is not a bad choice.

But if it's a case that you're anywhere near an avid gamer and your OS X use is dabbling, then you can definitely do better with a self-built, or a 'boutique build' machine if you want support from one party. And get yourself a Macbook or something for OS X dabbling.

I thought about this rather a lot before buying the Pro. At that time Boot Camp was even shakier and bearing that in mind plus the hardware compromises, I bought the Dell XPS 700 and the Precision 490 as well so that I had a no-compromise Mac workstation, Windows workstation and gaming PC.

Since then a few things have changed. More recently I realised that I was not using the Pro because I've already moved all of my 'heavy lifting' apps (back, in some cases) to Windows. So the Pro has been shuffled off elsewhere to be part of a testbed for a scientific computing applications I might end up using, and it's replacement is the new Dell XPS 710 H2C so now I'm back to an all-Windows desktop lineup at home. The Pro's duties as the OS X desktop is now back to being filled by the 17" MBP hooked up to an external monitor. Having no applications running under OS X that requires the power of a Quad-core, I've come to prefer to run powerful Windows machines more specifically geared towards home entertainment - but machines which can be very effectively used in graphics and audio work too.

[psingh01]

If you want a MacPro for a gaming machine (i.e. your gonna run Windows on it...) then you will have to fork over some extra $$$ for a DirectX 10 capable card. With Vista this close you might as well get it, and since you are spending the cash for a MacPro gaming rig then you can probably afford the extra card. Sadly Apple only sells the ATI 1900XT which is NOT a DX10 card. Buying a GeForce 8 series card won't currently work on OS X (though it will in Windows), so if you want to switch back to OS X you will also have to switch the video card because apparently you can't boot into OS X with an 8 series card + one of the Apple offered cards in the machine at once.

[djray77]

I think the macpro does just fine if not better then a windows box.
I have both and both of them have the same video card and I think windows runs faster and the games run smoother running on my Mac, this is just my opinion.

[slughead]

For goodness sake-
dont give him that.

90% of the time, when asking around, thats what I was told.
What a load of BS.

Uh no it isn't

1) most games still aren't very multithreaded so you wont use the other 3 cores anytime soon
2) ****** video card selection (unless you don't care about OS X)
3) Overpriced intel hardware (though cheaper than it usually is, still way more than a mid-range AMD which will not see significantly lower benchmarks in games).
4) Expensive RAM
5) High latency RAM

I could make a better gaming machine than a Mac pro with X1900XT ($2,748.00) for less than $1500

If all I were doing was gaming, I would buy a PC. The fact that the MP does gaming allowed me to sell my PC.

[tyr2]

I use my Mac Pro, in part, for gaming and it flies through titles like FEAR, Oblivion, X3 etc.. with the res at 1600x1200. Obviously I have the 1900XT card.

The Mac Pro replaced an old self build PC with a Althlox 2400XP in it. When Apple announced that they were moving to Intel the obvious choice was to buy a Mac which would replace the old PC and also my PPC Mac Mini.

Since getting the MP I've started to get into video editing and am finally getting on top of my photo collections, it has enabled me to expand my OS X usage in ways that would have been impossible if I'd kept using my PPC Mini for OS X. Could I have acieved this by getting and iMac and a new PC to play games with? Probably. Would it have been signifficanlty cheaper? A bit perhaps but the OS X performance would be a lot lower. Plus I find having a single machine to maintain makes for a better user experience, especially as the MP is a nicelly engineered machine, no more faffing around with cables and suchlike.

Quad core isn't that important for gamming at the moment but it will become so over the next year or so. Valve's Source engine is being rewritten to scale over however many cores you have. Supreme Commander supports multi core (possibly only 2 tho). More and more titles will take advantage as time progresses, so the extra cores are an investment for the future on the Windows side and are exteemelly timesaving on the OS X side now.

[waremaster]

Here's a bench by PC gamer on the Mac Pro . They did a review on how it stacks up to the PCs in gaming in their monthly issue but I dont think they posted the whole review on their website.http://www.pcgamer.com/images/MacPro.jpg

I think that review was done with the 7300GT that came stock in the Mac Pro at the time of publication. Have they done an updated review now that the ATI Upgrade cards are shipping? Because those numbers definetly do relate to what you would get on a 7300 or there was something seriously wrong with the config if it had a 1900xt in it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The article is in the febuary edition 2007 of Pc Gamer, wait its not even feb yet! anyways pg 30 and they pulled the 7300Gt out and used a X1900Xt. They tried the new 8800 class cards but were having issues getting it to work so they couldnt provide benches for that one. Also for anyone reading the Mag they had reversed the benches for Mac Pro vs the homemade they made with a 8800 though the chart I posted in the link is the correct chart. They said a powermac would be fine if you had to have OSX but didnt mind a strong yet 2nd tier gaming scores. Those benches are at 1600 x 1200 all settings maxed. Hope that helps.

[bearbo]

The Mac Pro is a fantastic gaming machine.
Even more so because you can put almost an GPU into it for Windows.


that sounds so sad.

[product26]

that sounds so sad.

oh no... someone forgot the y

[bearbo]

oh no... someone forgot the y

it's a wonder what one letter can do to you.

[Dont Hurt Me]

As in a question? because the state of Mac software and gaming has devolved into such a sad state that it has to run Windblows?:D

[patrick0brien]

If you want a MacPro for a gaming machine (i.e. your gonna run Windows on it...) then you will have to fork over some extra $$$ for a DirectX 10 capable card. With Vista this close you might as well get it, and since you are spending the cash for a MacPro gaming rig then you can probably afford the extra card. Sadly Apple only sells the ATI 1900XT which is NOT a DX10 card. Buying a GeForce 8 series card won't currently work on OS X (though it will in Windows), so if you want to switch back to OS X you will also have to switch the video card because apparently you can't boot into OS X with an 8 series card + one of the Apple offered cards in the machine at once.

-psingh01

This is an interesting statement. How can one find out what cards are DirectX and DirectX 10 compatible?

[amtctt]

... and on the Pro, there's no way to add a gaming audio card.

Not true. there is a bridge made for the purpose of adding PCI audio cards to PCI-E slots. Mine comes today. i'll post this weekend and let you all know if it works well. sounds like it could be a great solution to this problem.

[psingh01]

-psingh01

This is an interesting statement. How can one find out what cards are DirectX and DirectX 10 compatible?

Well basically any video card will be DirectX compatible (i.e. you will have to look very hard to get an old card that only supports some old version of DX and it probably won't even fit in your MacPro because the MP uses PCI express slots ;)). Apple's ATI offering is DX9 compatible and is great for all the latest games.....but with Vista we get DirectX 10 and some of those games will be updated to use it like Company of Heroes and at some point MS Flight Simulator not to mention new games that aren't out yet.

As far as what cards are DirectX 10 ready....I believe the only option now is the NVidia 8800 series cards. They are VERY expensive. ATI does not have an offering yet but it will be the R600 series. Expect more to come out once Vista is in gamers hands.

[Dane D.]

So after reading everybody's post, the logicial conclusion is get a Mac, unless you are hardcore gamer. Interesting, the Windows box has become what I always thought it was - a game console. Judging by the opinions posted one can only conclude that Macs are for getting work done and Windows boxes are for gaming. There I said it, having reading hundreds of posts about Bootcamp, WinXP on Macs, and so-on. Windows is nothing more than a game console OS. I've played games on custom-built AMD boxes, running the latest hardware goodies, they are great at pushing high fps numbers but lack a sense of realism in the game environments. My opinion is, if you want to do things effortlessly get a Mac and enjoy the games you can play. If you are a drooling hardcore gamer than build a PC.

[Sesshi]

Not true. there is a bridge made for the purpose of adding PCI audio cards to PCI-E slots. Mine comes today. i'll post this weekend and let you all know if it works well. sounds like it could be a great solution to this problem.

*Steeples hands*
Iiiiinteresting.

Do let us know how you get on. And how much it all costs when you add it up.

EDIT: Actually, got a link? I might as well pick one up and try it out.

[amtctt]

*Steeples hands*
Iiiiinteresting.

Do let us know how you get on. And how much it all costs when you add it up.

EDIT: Actually, got a link? I might as well pick one up and try it out.

yeah, i can't wait. it's at home right now waiting, but i'm stuck at work. only $20, well $26 with shipping. not too bad considering i was going to try and find a creative usb external card on ebay, and those were going anywhere from $30-50 and i already had an x-fi card, so this makes so much more sense. hopefully it works well. anyway, here is the link:

http://www.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=PEX8111-BB66BC-Fvirtualkey58310000virtualkey862-PEX8111-BB66BC-F

[Sesshi]

yeah, i can't wait. it's at home right now waiting, but i'm stuck at work. only $20, well $26 with shipping. not too bad considering i was going to try and find a creative usb external card on ebay, and those were going anywhere from $30-50 and i already had an x-fi card, so this makes so much more sense. hopefully it works well. anyway, here is the link:

http://www.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=PEX8111-BB66BC-Fvirtualkey58310000virtualkey862-PEX8111-BB66BC-F

You're a "card" :D

Almost had me fooled for a second there.

[capran]

The Mac Pro simply isn't a gaming machine for 2 reasons: dual Xeons and FB-DIMMs.

At this time, as had been said, very few games make much use of multi-threading/benefit from it. In some cases, performance diminishes when multiple CPUs are added to the system.

And FB-DIMMs. New serialized RAM basically. It promises higher throughput, but right now, well, it sucks, especially for games. It's twice as latent and twice as expensive. Anandtech did a nice technical article about it.

So, I, being a gamer and a Mac lover, am in a bind. I can either stay with my slow G4 mini plus Pentium-D game box, keep the mini as Mac but upgrade the PC, get a new Intel mini and keep the PC, or go hog wild and buy a Mac Pro to replace both. The 24" iMac is also a consideration, but not quite a gaming box (slab?) either since even the 7600GT option is only mid-range and there's no aftermarket upgrade available.

I'm holding out a sliver of hope (in vain, I'm sure, knowing Teh Steve) that Apple will come out with a mid-range Conroe Core 2 Duo based Mac that uses regular DDR2 RAM and at least 1 PCI-E 16X slot.

The other day, I also had an interesting thought regarding the possible next generation of consumer computers. The 24" iMac was the first ever to use the MXM module, but it's not user-accessible and not advertised as upgradeable. What if Apple, with the next revisions, put MXM modules (and access doors!) across the Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Book, and Mac Book Pro lines? And offered a number of build-to-order options, as well as aftermarket upgrades?

Gamers would be happy, and the current stagnant 3rd party Mac upgrade market would be revived! The original iMac could be upgraded with a 3dfx Voodoo card, and there's still processor upgrades for the old G3/4 Macs that have socketed CPUs, so why not?

[topgunn]

I think that review was done with the 7300GT that came stock in the Mac Pro at the time of publication. Have they done an updated review now that the ATI Upgrade cards are shipping? Because those numbers definetly do relate to what you would get on a 7300 or there was something seriously wrong with the config if it had a 1900xt in it.
It is definitely not the 7300GT. They are comparing the Mac Pro to a "MUTTNIK" gaming rig equipped with an ATI 1900 and again with an nVidia 8800. The Mac Pro scores just behind the Muttnik 1900 which is exactly what we should expect since the Muttnik should be using stanard DDR2 memory instead of the high latency FB-DIMM's in the Mac Pro and since the Muttnik should have a more gaming friendly motherboard than the 5000X in the Mac Pro.

[briantology]

Just get whatever Mac you want, get rid of your PC, then buy and Xbox and Halo 2. That's all I need... :cool:

But seriously, I don't game with a-s-d-w, I use A-B-X-Y. To each his own.

[capran]

Just get whatever Mac you want, get rid of your PC, then buy and Xbox and Halo 2. That's all I need... :cool:


Well, that'd work if I was only interested in {insert mindless ultraviolent shooter with newest eye candy}. But I also like some RTS games, as well as SimCity/Civilization style games. I'm dying to play Spore, for instance.

But seriously, I don't game with a-s-d-w, I use A-B-X-Y. To each his own.

As far as shooters go, I hate gamepads. Give me a keyboard and a mouse. But I am extremely intrigued by the Nintendo Wii's controller and what might be possible for FPSers.

[St. Germain]

Well, that'd work if I was only interested in {insert mindless ultraviolent shooter with newest eye candy}. But I also like some RTS games, as well as SimCity/Civilization style games. I'm dying to play Spore, for instance.



As far as shooters go, I hate gamepads. Give me a keyboard and a mouse. But I am extremely intrigued by the Nintendo Wii's controller and what might be possible for FPSers.
I agree on all counts. Consoles just don't get it done as far as strategy games go.

So far this thread has been pretty disappointing for me. :( A dose of reality I guess that I can't have OSX and do any serious gaming (without installing OSX on a hacked PC anyway.) I may have to end up going that route.

[After G]

I agree on all counts. Consoles just don't get it done as far as strategy games go.

So far this thread has been pretty disappointing for me. :( A dose of reality I guess that I can't have OSX and do any serious gaming (without installing OSX on a hacked PC anyway.) I may have to end up going that route.Forgive my ignorance with regards to PC gaming, but what kind of strategy game requires a DX10 card? Overkill?

Windows on a Mac has its caveats. It's up to you whether you want both a PC to game and a Mac to get things done, or one machine and potentially swapping video cards (if you want the new NVIDIA stuff). I personally find that all a better card gets you in Windows is higher framerate in games, not necessarily an increase in realism.

[St. Germain]

Forgive my ignorance with regards to PC gaming, but what kind of strategy game requires a DX10 card? Overkill?

Windows on a Mac has its caveats. It's up to you whether you want both a PC to game and a Mac to get things done, or one machine and potentially swapping video cards (if you want the new NVIDIA stuff). I personally find that all a better card gets you in Windows is higher framerate in games, not necessarily an increase in realism.Have you seen the new Medieval Total War II engine? Beeeeyoootiful. It runs on DX9 but their next game with their engine is supposed to use DX10.

Whatever I decide, I certainly won't be swapping video cards. I also don't buy a new video card every two years so I generally like buying close to the best I can get at the time. Unfortunately that eliminates the current Mac Pros. I would like a card that can keep up reasonably to the new Flight Simulator. Damn that's pretty. I won't be upgrading until Leopard is shipped probably so maybe they'll have a refresh with more video card options.

[combatcolin]

Video card options?

:)

Apple only sell one machine that gives you a proper choice.

:(

Oh how i wish Apple would release a normal desktop Mac that would let me return to the fold.

There laptop range is fantastic, if i ever decided to buy a laptop i would have no hesitation in buying a Macbook.

[whooleytoo]

-combatcolin

I think this is what they call "invidious distinction".

That's funny - I thought it was called "same difference"! ;)

[psingh01]

Forgive my ignorance with regards to PC gaming, but what kind of strategy game requires a DX10 card? Overkill?

Windows on a Mac has its caveats. It's up to you whether you want both a PC to game and a Mac to get things done, or one machine and potentially swapping video cards (if you want the new NVIDIA stuff). I personally find that all a better card gets you in Windows is higher framerate in games, not necessarily an increase in realism.

Company of Heroes will be updated in March I believe to use DX10. As it is I can't currently use it on all high settings and it still looks GREAT! :)

[St. Germain]

Company of Heroes will be updated in March I believe to use DX10. As it is I can't currently use it on all high settings and it still looks GREAT! :)Company of Heroes is a fantastic game. RTS games these days use 3D graphics. Even the very spartan-like Civilization series went 3D in this iteration.

[Sesshi]

There laptop range is fantastic, if i ever decided to buy a laptop i would have no hesitation in buying a Macbook.

Two words - Samsung Q35.

[MacsRgr8]

Gr8 thread.

I am so waiting for amtctt's conclusions regarding PCI-E tp PCi bridge, to be able to use an X-Fi sound card...

I am waiting for the 2nd generation of Mac Pro, and hoping for the (3rd party or not) following solutions:

- PCI-E Sound card
- DirectX10 grfx card (Mac OS X AND Windoze)
- SLI / Crossfire
- Native Vista driver support

Then you got the real deal regarding "best of both worlds": Super-duper Mac OS X machine, and gr8 Windoze gaming rig in one.

[RMD68]

I know that MacPro's are used mainly in professional applications. As far as gaming though they are the only Macs that could even dare to compete in the high speed graphic video game market. Wouldn't it be nice if Apple could start to lean toward gaming just a bit more. It would open up a whole new, and might I say large market, for Apple and at the same time enhance the present Mac users experience.

[combatcolin]

I know that MacPro's are used mainly in professional applications. As far as gaming though they are the only Macs that could even dare to compete in the high speed graphic video game market. Wouldn't it be nice if Apple could start to lean toward gaming just a bit more. It would open up a whole new, and might I say large market, for Apple and at the same time enhance the present Mac users experience.

Yes, it would be nice.

But as Steve dosn't play games he won't allow it.

:(

[Macinposh]

Wouldn't it be nice if Apple could start to lean toward gaming just a bit more. It would open up a whole new, and might I say large market, for Apple and at the same time enhance the present Mac users experience.


Indeed.

I have been asking this around, this apples reluctancy to release the top of the line graphics cards for users.Havent gotten any sane answers. It is like people are completely dumbfounded by the question itself.



What is the reason why APPLE doesnt release top-of-the-line cards??!!"


A) Apple is still stuck in its PowerPC era,when the G4/G5 rigs were "solely" workstations. Well 99% of them. Gaming was non-existant,you could get by in your business (layout,music,photography,videoediting) with a lousy or mediocre gfx card without any problems. Thats why they left the rendering/3d to pc world and didnt even bother to compete with properly.
And making the gfx cards to work with the systems were expensive (manufacturers had to make larger modifications to a niche marke ->apple) so why bother?

No market = No use.


But now with the bootcamp/intel/parallels revolution gaming has become a BIG potential market.
It is attainable to everyone with a intel mac.
Manufacturers need only to take care of the EFI,they dont need to do any HW modifications to the cards anymore.

Apple only needs to write/customise proper drivers to the cards and test them. What does that cost? 10-50.000€ per card? They would make that money in upgrade buys alone, let alone potential buyers in gaming/professional world would ramp up the sales in their own.
Even if they would continue the premium pricing they are doing...


WHY isnt Apple being more aggressive in this are?



Tell me!!?
Here are a lot of knowledgable gentlemen(and women) around here, tell me why isnt apple intrested in money and new clients??

[MacRumorUser]

ITell me!!?
Here are a lot of knowledgable gentlemen(and women) around here, tell me why isnt apple intrested in money and new clients??

Gaming has never been a big feature of Mac OS X. It never has been. (Hence there's no API set like DX on the mac)

Bootcamp and the ability to run Windows with Intel macs is all well and good, but apple are not going to suddenly bow to the pressure and activly promote a rivals operating system for gaming on their hardware.

Especially when to Apple, Mac OS X & all the apple applications are FAR more important than pleasing a few gamers.

[whooleytoo]

But as Steve dosn't play games he won't allow it.

:(

That's it isn't it!

Even if you knew nothing about the make-up of Apple the company, you could probably guess from its product line that it's run by one strong personality, and not a committee. (i.e. it has a well integrated, very focused product line; but is sorely lacking in some areas).

You could easily tell Steve loves music and photos (when was the last demo not to feature sending photos to someone?), but has no interest in gaming.

It's a pity, as gaming is one market segment that's constantly being driven to upgrade - I can web/mail/iTunes on my old G3/350!

[Macinposh]

Especially when to Apple, Mac OS X & all the apple applications are FAR more important than pleasing a few gamers.


But there is the bloody point!!


Catering a top-specced gfx card would be one more option to both gamers and professionals alike!!
It would take anything away from anybody!!


It is just that we macusers shoud change our sheepish mindset from the days when any even remotely decent gfx card was manna from heaven,wich we had to cherish with tears and joy.

[combatcolin]

When Apple release a Mac worth buying i'll re-enter the fold.

As much as i would like a Mac i hate the hardware straight-jacket that every Apple Mac bar the mac Pro slow-strangles the user with.

I want a fair priced mac that i can upgrade over the years, but as probably isn't going to happen i'll stick with XP.

[St. Germain]

But there is the bloody point!!


Catering a top-specced gfx card would be one more option to both gamers and professionals alike!!
It would take anything away from anybody!!


Exactly. Apple is basically losing me as a potential Mac Pro buyer because they don't support high end graphics cards that their hardware can more than handle. I've got $3000-3500 burning in my pocket for a new desktop/high end monitor in 2007. I own a MacBook as my first Mac computer and have enjoyed OSX enough to consider getting a Mac Pro. Their choice to not support high end video cards basically means my money will likely be going to a different company.

I could understand them making a deal with ATI or nVidia to support one company or the other, but how difficult can it be for them to keep up with the latest cards if companies like Dell can do it? For Apple to sell low to mid-range graphic cards in premium/premium priced PCs is just ridiculous.

I honestly wonder if people realize how old the video cards are that Apple is selling them. The sad thing is that we're talking SEVERAL generations old, not just one.

GeForce 8800
GeForce 7950
GeForce 7900
GeForce 7800
GeForce 7600
GeForce 7300

[FleurDuMal]

Is the ATI card in the Mac Pro not considered high end anymore? :confused:

[patrick0brien]

Is the ATI card in the Mac Pro not considered high end anymore? :confused:

-FleurDuMal

Not to mention the nVidia Quadro in there.

But St. Germain raises a point that's bugged me for a while.

Why the heck do ATI and nVidia have to produce "Mac Flavored" video cards anymore? I hoped that with the Intel transition, I could go to any Fry's and pick something off the shelf (as long as it wasn't a POS).

I mean, wouldn't that solve the issues here?

[St. Germain]

Is the ATI card in the Mac Pro not considered high end anymore? :confused:It is a generation behind the Radeon X1950, and if you compare it to the nVidia 8800, it's several steps behind.

[St. Germain]

-FleurDuMal

Not to mention the nVidia Quadro in there.

But St. Germain raises a point that's bugged me for a while.

Why the heck do ATI and nVidia have to produce "Mac Flavored" video cards anymore? I hoped that with the Intel transition, I could go to any Fry's and pick something off the shelf (as long as it wasn't a POS).

I mean, wouldn't that solve the issues here?The current Quadro FX4500 that Apple sells is also a generation behind in its family...

NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 X2
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500

I guess that's my point, people are paying premium prices but getting older generation video cards. I'd almost be willing to bet that many Apple users don't even realize they're buying older cards when they purchase their high end priced Mac Pro.

[combatcolin]

Not just me then.

:p + :mad:

I grew up with the Spectrum and the Amiga.

While the Spectrum was mostly closed, (this was the mid-80's) the Amiga was not.

You could upgrade everything in the Amiga.

That, is what i consider is a "proper computer".

Now while the Mini and the iMac are fantastic machines, there lack of "properness" to me is a real turn off.

[FleurDuMal]

It is a generation behind the Radeon X1950, and if you compare it to the nVidia 8800, it's several steps behind.

But when it came out it was high end wasn't it? Apple have always released products in leaps rather than little steps - and thats not going to change even if they did make a genuine effort to accommodate gamers. That's always been Apple's business plan, and it makes them more money than if they started releasing a Mac-compatible version of every bleeding-edge video card just to satisfy the (small) number of mega-gamers with £100's burning holes in their pockets.

When the next revision of the Mac Pro is made, which will probably be quite soon, there will no doubt be a new bleeding-edge video card. And then in a few months a few gamers will complain that what was top end a few months ago is no longer. And then Apple will release another revision of the Mac Pro with the latest graphics card...and thus continues the circle of life. :)

[FleurDuMal]

I guess that's my point, people are paying premium prices but getting older generation video cards. I'd almost be willing to bet that many Apple users don't even realize they're buying older cards when they purchase their high end priced Mac Pro.

In which case it makes perfect business sense for Apple to carry on as they are.

[topgunn]

-FleurDuMal

Not to mention the nVidia Quadro in there.

But St. Germain raises a point that's bugged me for a while.

Why the heck do ATI and nVidia have to produce "Mac Flavored" video cards anymore? I hoped that with the Intel transition, I could go to any Fry's and pick something off the shelf (as long as it wasn't a POS).

I mean, wouldn't that solve the issues here?
When video card makers begin to implement EFI and BIOS compatibility in their cards, then you open up the possibility of using off-the-shelf video cards in your Mac Pro. Just about every new GPU works fine in the Mac Pro as long as you are in Windows where BIOS is emulated at startup. On the Mac however, it is not even recognized since the card has no EFI layer. Regardless, once you get an EFI video card, you still have to worry about having proper drivers and neither Apple nor nVidia/ATI will be much help there.

[RMD68]

But when it came out it was high end wasn't it? Apple have always released products in leaps rather than little steps - and thats not going to change even if they did make a genuine effort to accommodate gamers. That's always been Apple's business plan, and it makes them more money than if they started releasing a Mac-compatible version of every bleeding-edge video card just to satisfy the (small) number of mega-gamers with £100's burning holes in their pockets.

When the next revision of the Mac Pro is made, which will probably be quite soon, there will no doubt be a new bleeding-edge video card. And then in a few months a few gamers will complain that what was top end a few months ago is no longer. And then Apple will release another revision of the Mac Pro with the latest graphics card...and thus continues the circle of life. :)

When the MacPro's came out I'm not sure the video cards were even high-end then. Even if they were Apple should make it possible to purchase more advanced video cards as the technologies progress just like on a PC. When you go to price a new MacPro today you are stuck with the older generation video cards and when you go to other areas of the store for add ons there aren't any upgrades for video cards beyond what is already offered. Not just for gamers but for the fact that your buying a $4,000+ system (mid-ranged upgraded) it only makes sense to have access to cutting edge technology in video card selection with all the technology your buying and the money your paying.

[Swarmlord]

You'd think that anything that fits in a PCI-X slot along with some universal drivers could be made to work. :confused:

[topgunn]

You'd think that anything that fits in a PCI-X slot along with some universal drivers could be made to work. :confused:
First, it's PCI-E that is required and not PCI-X. Also, you cannot downplay the importance of Macs using EFI and everyone else (basically) still using BIOS. Mind you, eventually everyone will transition to EFI but with Vista not even sporting it, what are the chances that Dell or HP pick it up anytime soon?

[MacRumorUser]

It is a generation behind the Radeon X1950, and if you compare it to the nVidia 8800, it's several steps behind.

Not exactly a 'generation' behind the X1950XT

More of 1 small revision behind. Framerate wise it's not too far behind that a person would notice generally.

As for the NV8800, I'm sure either it or the R600 based ATI will make it into the MacPro eventually, however it's debatable for most mac users will see the difference a DX10 hardware card will make to them in their daily life (if they never boot up bootcamp & vista)

[hollerz]

The DX10 issue has always worried me, wether or not there'll be a compatible card and not months late. I play a lot of games and the X1900XT has been great for me so far though

[patrick0brien]

When video card makers begin to implement EFI and BIOS compatibility in their cards, then you open up the possibility of using off-the-shelf video cards in your Mac Pro. Just about every new GPU works fine in the Mac Pro as long as you are in Windows where BIOS is emulated at startup. On the Mac however, it is not even recognized since the card has no EFI layer. Regardless, once you get an EFI video card, you still have to worry about having proper drivers and neither Apple nor nVidia/ATI will be much help there.

-topgunn

Ah-HA! The EFI thing! Didn't even think of it.

Ok, I'm committing this one to memory - very good info there.

[Stevez0r]

I'm in the market for a gaming pc also. I'm thinking of getting the Mac Pro for about $2500 and adding XP on there to game. Or am I better off building my on Gaming PC?

[longofest]

Hey guys... just popping in. Here's my two cents.

A Mac Pro has several advantages, and also some disadvantages to a home-brew system. While it is less configurable than you might be able to make a home brew system, and therefore may cost you a bit more, it is also an extremely CLEAN and well-designed system. You don't have cable mess that you'd have to deal with when you open it up, and something that I really like... the display slot can accommodate a 2-slot wide card without taking up the adjacent slot. Good thinking.

The Mac Pro is also an extremely good performing machine, and has proven itself against similarly configured machines. Intel really made Apple a good motherboard to use in that system, and those Xeons are no slouch.

What you will want to consider is what is important to you? Is gaming the most important thing to you? Is getting the next best graphics upgrade when it comes out going to be important, or can you live with an X1900XT until Apple or its partners deliver an upgrade (which they will at some point, just probably a little behind our PC brethren)? Also, do you care about having OSX? A custom rig won't support OSX at all, so that is a big difference.

I already have a setup today which consists of a PowerMac Quad and a self-built gaming box. However, if I didn't have either and I was purchasing, I would probably go for a Mac Pro, or perhaps even a 24" iMac with the upgraded graphics to save some money.

And there's my 2 cents.

[aneks]

Although I want a better Nvidia card for my mac as much as the next Mac Pro gamer. the reality is this. Apple are not trying to compete in the gamers market. It does not suit their business model to try and hold up a market share in a field which is moving so rapidly and which is SOOO benchmark trend crazy.

Without using the term 'unified shader' or quoting 3dmark scores explain to me the differnce between, a 7900gts, a 7900gtx, a 7950 gx2, a 7950gtx, an 8800gts and a 8800 gtx !?

oh the wiseguys amongst you will say Frame-rate right ! nonsense it like 10fps total and once you are over 50fps who cares ! It's circuitry porn ! The games market is a big heaving machine driven by the promise of being able to squeeze 4 extra frames out of some old FPS you don't even play anymore, at a res your monitor doesn't support !

Look, the Mac Pro is sold as a workstation. Apple decided to make a concession and offer a decent (no best-absolute-up to the milisecond) GPU as an option. Sure there are better cards out there, but if you must have the to die for gaming rig. Go and mod your own box with water-cooled 8800's in SLI and a Asus Srtiker Extreme board and all all those silly coloured lights inside a box with a demons head on it. and spend 11k for those extra 12fps in Chronicles of riddick.

[Pressure]

I honestly wonder if people realize how old the video cards are that Apple is selling them. The sad thing is that we're talking SEVERAL generations old, not just one.

GeForce 8800
GeForce 7950
GeForce 7900
GeForce 7800
GeForce 7600
GeForce 7300

Actually, all Geforce 7xxx are the same generation. The Geforce 7300 just happens to be the lowest performing graphic card in the Geforce 7 series.

The only new generation graphic card from nVIDIA are the Geforce 8 series.

[Pressure]

The current Quadro FX4500 that Apple sells is also a generation behind in its family...

NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 X2
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500

I guess that's my point, people are paying premium prices but getting older generation video cards. I'd almost be willing to bet that many Apple users don't even realize they're buying older cards when they purchase their high end priced Mac Pro.

The Quadro FX4500 and X2 are basically in the same generation. The only new card is the Geforce FX5500.

[Sun Baked]

Actually, all Geforce 7xxx are the same generation. The Geforce 7300 just happens to be the lowest performing graphic card in the Geforce 7 series.

The only new generation graphic card from nVIDIA are the Geforce 8 series.

The 7300 is also a low power card 32W, so you can stuff 4 of them in the machine at the same time (which required having sub 40W cards.)

And Apple needed that for the 4x 7300 configurations, where FPS isn't as important as the ability to have a low watt configuration option that can drive 8 displays at once.

[glhiii]

I have a PowerMac G5 2500 dual and it uses an AGP card. I just got a 30" monitor and needed a card to support it. I went to Frys, and they had about 10 AGP cards ($150 or so) -- but of course none will work in my PowerMac. For some reason, no one has any of the cards that will work in stock -- they're back ordered to March (or, I suspect, more). So I managed to buy a card on eBay for $250 -- which I could have gotten for about $180 if it had been in stock anywhere. It all works now, and the PM is still a fine machine, but I think having to buy a proprietary card cost me at least $100. This is not something that makes people love Macs or want to buy them. It is pretty depressing to read that the new Mac Pros have the same issue.

[RMD68]

Although I want a better Nvidia card for my mac as much as the next Mac Pro gamer. the reality is this. Apple are not trying to compete in the gamers market. It does not suit their business model to try and hold up a market share in a field which is moving so rapidly and which is SOOO benchmark trend crazy.

Without using the term 'unified shader' or quoting 3dmark scores explain to me the differnce between, a 7900gts, a 7900gtx, a 7950 gx2, a 7950gtx, an 8800gts and a 8800 gtx !?

oh the wiseguys amongst you will say Frame-rate right ! nonsense it like 10fps total and once you are over 50fps who cares ! It's circuitry porn ! The games market is a big heaving machine driven by the promise of being able to squeeze 4 extra frames out of some old FPS you don't even play anymore, at a res your monitor doesn't support !

Look, the Mac Pro is sold as a workstation. Apple decided to make a concession and offer a decent (no best-absolute-up to the milisecond) GPU as an option. Sure there are better cards out there, but if you must have the to die for gaming rig. Go and mod your own box with water-cooled 8800's in SLI and a Asus Srtiker Extreme board and all all those silly coloured lights inside a box with a demons head on it. and spend 11k for those extra 12fps in Chronicles of riddick.

Excellent point. :) On second thought the Apple compatible Video Cards are sufficient enough especially when you consider how well they work on the games already for Mac OSX. I run "WOW" on the stock Video Card in a Power Mac G5 from a few years ago. It runs like butter and everything looks like great. I'm sure the new Aleinware's/Falcon NW's will look a bit better but I ask by how much to the visible eye. So for now maybe just sticking to what is available to Apple users is more than enough instead of shelling out even bigger bucks every 4 months for a marginal difference. However, if Apple did want to dig deeper into the video game market allowing more PC only games onto the Mac then the latest video cards might become more viable. So I guess it's a bit of a Catch-22.

[patrick0brien]

-aneks, RMD68

You both make great points. I'd like to add a third to the whole video card discussion, and that is, sure, the cards in the Mac Pro may be downlevel, but they're no slouches, and more that enough for most - even with Mac Pros.

That being said, and this is my point, LAGS (Latest And Greatest Syndrome) is a sad and debilitating affliction, and those with the most amazing video cards will suffer from it. So at least we're spared that ;)

[combatcolin]

Hmmm LAGS...

How about AD (anything decent?) syndrome?

[patrick0brien]

Hmmm LAGS...

How about AD (anything decent?) syndrome?

-combatcolin

Dude, you're minimum standards are higher than most. :D

[combatcolin]

-combatcolin

Dude, you're minimum standards are higher than most. :D

There not, honest!

I bought an iMac a month after they 1st came out, knocking it back a bit now, but i loved it at the time.

I bought a 4MB VRAM upgrade and got a free 64MB DIMM, meaning i had triple the normal VRAM and triple the normal RAM.

However, after a year i wanted to buy Unreal, but i didn't have enough RAM.

It was then that i realised just how quickly my Mac had aged and how massively limited i was upgrade wise.

I do regret buying my iMac, looking back i should have bought a G3 desktop- same price but didn't have a monitor BUT really expandable.

Since then i have always made a point of owning a computer that can grow with me - i almost bought a G5 but couldn't justify the cost what with running a house, bills etc.

I would dearly love to return to the Mac, but until the fabled consumer tower comes out i'm sticking with my powerful, expandable PC, and having fun with Windows on a semi-regular basis.

[psingh01]

LAGS can apply to Mac users as well....only the latest and greatest for Macs (when it comes to video cards at least) isn't as late or great as those for the PC's. So some Mac users try to rationalize this deficiency in some way or another.....:rolleyes:

[RMD68]

LAGS can apply to Mac users as well....only the latest and greatest for Macs (when it comes to video cards at least) isn't as late or great as those for the PC's. So some Mac users try to rationalize this deficiency in some way or another.....:rolleyes:

Haha, yeah with purchasing iPODS with miniscule changes. For instance the iPOD (PRODUCT) RED I know its partially for a cause but still I think it serves my point.

[patrick0brien]

LAGS can apply to Mac users as well....

-psingh01

Y'r telling me - when that octo-core hits, I'll suffer it...

... but just this once - I swear!

[Umbongo]

The current Quadro FX4500 that Apple sells is also a generation behind in its family...

NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 X2
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500

I guess that's my point, people are paying premium prices but getting older generation video cards. I'd almost be willing to bet that many Apple users don't even realize they're buying older cards when they purchase their high end priced Mac Pro.

Let's assume for a moment that Apple have a reason for offering a very small of graphics cards, because they have been doing so for a long while now. In such a case you will not see the highest end, newest cards in a workstation. Not only do they tend to cost significantly more in comparrison to performance but there will also be unknown issues relating to them. The two upgrades they offer are two of the best performing cards on the market for their respective tasks and more than enough for the majority of users.

Yes it isn't ideal for heavy gamers, yes it isn't ideal for those who would benefit from dual cards (X2s), but Apple aren't likely to pander to such small markets. If the customers were there, then I believe so would the cards. Sure companies can miss opportunities and be stuck up their own asses, but I find it unlikely in this case.

[^squirrel^]

Don't do it.....

I purchased a Macpro thinking it would be good enough for gaming. It was fine until I got flight sim X which battered my X1900XT to death! I’m in the middle of selling my Macpro and building a PC for gaming. I’ll probably get a Mac laptop at some point in the future. It’s a shame I couldn’t get a machine that does both, to the levels I expect.

It’ll cause you more trouble than it’s worth, just get a low end mac and build a gaming pc.

[FleurDuMal]

Don't do it.....

I purchased a Macpro thinking it would be good enough for gaming. It was fine until I got flight sim X which battered my X1900XT to death! I’m in the middle of selling my Macpro and building a PC for gaming. I’ll probably get a Mac laptop at some point in the future. It’s a shame I couldn’t get a machine that does both, to the levels I expect.

It’ll cause you more trouble than it’s worth, just get a low end mac and build a gaming pc.

From what I've heard Flight Simulator X puts any graphics card through its paces, especially if you want to play at a high resolution.

[nihilisticmonk]

Wow,

Again In this thread I hear such arrogant mac user stereotypes as "Mac Pros are for people who make a living through their computer"

Or even more stereotypical

"Not worth it unless you do photography or video editing"

<yawn>

That sort of thinking is usually what comes out of the mouths of people who never have touched a mac, or used os9 in school years ago.

I do photography with my mac pro, but not as a career, I use OSX because it's 100% better than XP, and that trend can only continue against the trainwreck of an os that is vista for the average consumer.

I bought my Mac Pro to have a kickass OSX system, to support better raid configurations and windows out of the box, to have a great os experience, and because it's freaking fast.

Of course I was looking forward to playing games, having gotten rid of my pc shortly after completing half life 2 on release, but I was tired of the constant upgrading, and was using my powerbook more than my PC for everyday tasks.

Saying the macpro is a poor games machine is nonsense, I have a 20" ACD, and it runs every recent game I've thrown at it fine at native res, including call of juarez, half life 2 episode 1, and it cuts like a knife through butter with older titles such as fear and far cry!

Sure, you can' buy the fastest graphics card for osx yet, but apple have done upgrade paths in the past, and I'm hoping that graphics card manufacturers get onto making dual supported cards in the near future.

If you love OSX, and you're finding your imac restrictive, then shift up to a macpro, you'll love it, and it plays windows games pretty darn cool as well.

The PC gaming scene is dying, think of how many PC releases over the last 12 months have been exclusive....not many, unless you count RTS (which I can't stand).

FPS and nearly every other genre are focused at consoles first, because it's a more profitable market, splinter cell, et al, are focused on 360 and other consoles.

PC version of Ghost recon = teh sux, 360 version = teh win
Rainbow 6 Vegas = Straight port of the 360 version
Fear = out on 360

apart from "OMG HAVE U S33n CRYSIS Vidz" posts on the net, the pc only scene is bleak, and with that pushed back to 2008, I'll be just ready to buy a new macpro, and that'll pwn that badboy as well.

[killmoms]

The point isn't that a Mac Pro isn't good at playing games. It's great. Definitely the fastest Windows machine I've ever used.

It's just not cost-effective if "playing games in Windows" is your PRIMARY GOAL. If that's the case, it's MUCH cheaper to build a Core 2 Duo (Conroe) box with an E6600, OC it a touch, add in cheaper and faster DDR2 that's not fully-buffered, and a better graphics card.

IF, however, your PRIMARY goal is to have a really fast Mac for whatever reasons you choose and you want the ability to some gaming on the side in Windows, then it's a great choice.

[WildPalms]

The PC gaming scene is dying, think of how many PC releases over the last 12 months have been exclusive....



Finally, someone else who sees the writing on the wall. People, p.c. gaming is winding to a close. I'll say it again for those who have blinkers on... "P.C. GAMING IS COMING TO AN END"
The next generation of gaming will be console based, aside from a small niche area of games for Mac's or p.c's, the bulk of gaming will be done on consoles. If you cant see this happening already, then you need to look around and see what the Xbox and Wii is doing to the market. There are much bigger efficiencies in coding for one or two platforms than for the p.c. world with all its incongruities.

[St. Germain]

There not, honest!

I bought an iMac a month after they 1st came out, knocking it back a bit now, but i loved it at the time.

I bought a 4MB VRAM upgrade and got a free 64MB DIMM, meaning i had triple the normal VRAM and triple the normal RAM.

However, after a year i wanted to buy Unreal, but i didn't have enough RAM.

It was then that i realised just how quickly my Mac had aged and how massively limited i was upgrade wise.

I do regret buying my iMac, looking back i should have bought a G3 desktop- same price but didn't have a monitor BUT really expandable.

Since then i have always made a point of owning a computer that can grow with me - i almost bought a G5 but couldn't justify the cost what with running a house, bills etc.

I would dearly love to return to the Mac, but until the fabled consumer tower comes out i'm sticking with my powerful, expandable PC, and having fun with Windows on a semi-regular basis.
I think this is my point as well. While I understand why Apple makes the video card choices that it does, and doesn't cater to gamers, as I'm heading into 2007 I would like a graphics card that can do well for 2007 games. That means DirectX 10 games at the end of the year. I don't want to settle for a video card that just does OK for a 2004 game like WoW. Not when I'm paying $3000+.

[killmoms]

I think this is my point as well. While I understand why Apple makes the video card choices that it does, and doesn't cater to gamers, as I'm heading into 2007 I would like a graphics card that can do well for 2007 games. That means DirectX 10 games at the end of the year. I don't want to settle for a video card that just does OK for a 2004 game like WoW. Not when I'm paying $3000+.

There are two main reason why the Mac Pro doesn't have a DX10 card:

1) There's only one DX10 card, from NVIDIA. It came out very recently, and the Mac Pro has not been revved since it debuted. It is very expensive.

2) Apple has to write the graphics drivers for the boards they ship, the manufacturers do not help them outside of providing the necessary specs and such. They do not code drivers for OS X. This is also why there are so few aftermarket graphics options for OS X—Apple has neither the time nor resources to support hardware besides what they ship, and no one else is helping them.

I'd imagine that either we'll see the 8800 as an option in the next Mac Pro, or a card based on ATI's R600 core (DX10 capable) when it hits.

[combatcolin]

nihilisticmonk, a Mac Pro is £1700 for the average spec.

That is a hell of a lot of money to play WOW.

You may disagree with me but i stand by my (slightly modified for clarity) comment.

The Mac Pro is a computer for people who make money from there computer generated work.

[Umbongo]

Finally, someone else who sees the writing on the wall. People, p.c. gaming is winding to a close. I'll say it again for those who have blinkers on... "P.C. GAMING IS COMING TO AN END"
The next generation of gaming will be console based, aside from a small niche area of games for Mac's or p.c's, the bulk of gaming will be done on consoles. If you cant see this happening already, then you need to look around and see what the Xbox and Wii is doing to the market. There are much bigger efficiencies in coding for one or two platforms than for the p.c. world with all its incongruities.

I suggest you read the article I have linked below.

http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-pc-gaming-dead-dont-be-silly.html

[FleurDuMal]

Finally, someone else who sees the writing on the wall. People, p.c. gaming is winding to a close. I'll say it again for those who have blinkers on... "P.C. GAMING IS COMING TO AN END"
The next generation of gaming will be console based, aside from a small niche area of games for Mac's or p.c's, the bulk of gaming will be done on consoles. If you cant see this happening already, then you need to look around and see what the Xbox and Wii is doing to the market. There are much bigger efficiencies in coding for one or two platforms than for the p.c. world with all its incongruities.

Oh blah, blah, blah...

The same thing has been said every time a new generation of consoles came out. It's nonsense. Why do people always get carried away with a release of new consoles? In a years time the old balance will be restored and PC games will once again trounce console games, not only in visuals, but in depth for a few years. And then Sony will announce plans for Playstation 4, Microsoft will release details of Xbox 720, some people will get carried away again and announce the death of PC gaming, etc, etc...

The fact is certain games don't play well on PC's, but well on consoles, and vice-versa. Hence there'll always be a market for both.

[combatcolin]

Oh blah, blah, blah...

The same thing has been said every time a new generation of consoles came out. It's nonsense. Why do people always get carried away with a release of new consoles? In a years time the old balance will be restored and PC games will once again trounce console games, not only in visuals, but in depth for a few years. And then Sony will announce plans for Playstation 4, Microsoft will release details of Xbox 720, some people will get carried away again and announce the death of PC gaming, etc, etc...

The fact is certain games don't play well on PC's, but well on consoles, and vice-versa. Hence there'll always be a market for both.

Agree.

Each has there strengths and weaknesses.

I can remember people saying this in 1989 with the release of the Super Famicom....

[Sesshi]

The Mac Pro is a computer for people who make money from there computer generated work.

... by drawing pretty pictures in well ventilated offices where they baby their computers.

[Tangerine]

Hi, why we on the topic here and I feel like I may selling my Mac Pro because I do a lot of Gaming. Which processor is better and faster? Intel Xeon or Intel Duo Core?

Thanks

[dkoralek]

Hi, why we on the topic here and I feel like I may selling my Mac Pro because I do a lot of Gaming. Which processor is better and faster? Intel Xeon or Intel Duo Core?

Thanks


I assume that you mean core 2 duo and not core duo. It depends completely on which core 2 duos and which xeons you are talking about. In fact some conroe chips are called xeon and core 2 duo depending on their applications. Between the xeons and core 2 duos that Apple uses, the Xeons are faster chips. Some people have seen, though, that windows boxes using the top of the line conroes (all the core 2 duos that apple uses are the mobile variant, merom, while the desktop variant is conroe), may be faster than some using the woodcrest xeon's that apple for certain applications (faster unbufferred ram, for example). core 2 duos do not support multiple chips like the xeons can (but now you can get four core single chips that are two conroes put together). For some benchmarks of the imac core duo (which should be slightly slower than the newer core 2 duo machines) vs. the mac pro, check out http://www.macintouch.com/reviews/macpro/benchmarks.html . All the core 2 duos and the newer xeons are based off of the same microacrchitecture, but are optimized for different uses (i.e. the mobile core 2 duo uses less power than the other two).

cheers.

[FleurDuMal]

Wow. Just been reading up on that new Nvidia 8800 card. It really is a beast ain't it?! I never thought gaming on a 30" screen at native rest at fast speeds would be a reality for a few years yet. I though hardware was still struggling to keep up with 24" native res!

Put that card in the next Mac Pro and my bank account will be as good as emptied already! :o

[combatcolin]

... by drawing pretty pictures in well ventilated offices where they baby their computers.

Well, there is that sort as well i suppose.

:D

[Sesshi]

Wow. Just been reading up on that new Nvidia 8800 card. It really is a beast ain't it?! I never thought gaming on a 30" screen at native rest at fast speeds would be a reality for a few years yet. I though hardware was still struggling to keep up with 24" native res!

Put that card in the next Mac Pro and my bank account will be as good as emptied already! :o

There's two in my 710H2C :D

[miniConvert]

There's two in my 710H2C :D
My heart goes out to them :p

[whooleytoo]

Oh blah, blah, blah...

The same thing has been said every time a new generation of consoles came out. It's nonsense. Why do people always get carried away with a release of new consoles? In a years time the old balance will be restored and PC games will once again trounce console games, not only in visuals, but in depth for a few years. And then Sony will announce plans for Playstation 4, Microsoft will release details of Xbox 720, some people will get carried away again and announce the death of PC gaming, etc, etc...

Yeah, it's funny isn't it. Console gaming leaps forward every 5 years or so, then stagnates for the next 5; whereas PC/Mac gaming technology (graphics cards, peripherals, etc) is constantly evolving. So at the start of a console launch cycle the consoles will be way ahead, but will be way behind by the time they're refreshed.

That said, he's pretty much right about Mac gaming. Especially with Boot Camp being released, Mac game sales must have dwindled to near nothing by now. I don't know why Apple treats the gaming market with such disdain..

[patrick0brien]

All this back-and-forth over GPU's. I'm just glad they're upgradable - e.g. we're not stuck with OEM.

So when that 8800 (big fan of nVidia here) comes along for the Mac Pro, we can pop it in...

[FleurDuMal]

All this back-and-forth over GPU's. I'm just glad they're upgradable - e.g. we're not stuck with OEM.

So when that 8800 (big fan of nVidia here) comes along for the Mac Pro, we can pop it in...

Lets just hope they do release it for the Mac Pro. If Apple didn't sell many Mac Pros with the top end ATI card, then they might give up on the whole top end graphics card concept all together :-S

[Macinposh]

Lets just hope they do release it for the Mac Pro. If Apple didn't sell many Mac Pros with the top end ATI card, then they might give up on the whole top end graphics card concept all together :-S


I am bloody stunned if they didnt break even with the ATI cards...
The cards are quite a lot expensiver that the PC counterparts,while otherways being identical exept for the drivers. If they make 50€ profit of every card they would need 2000 cards sold to break even if the developement of the drivers for the cards would have cost 100.000€.
And i have a very hard time to think that the developement costs would be tenfold than that... Even with anal testing procedures.


The biggest hindering to the developement is that Apple is nowadays very conservative in "risk" taking or creating something "new".
Even if in such a mundane subject that in providing a game orientated card (wich would very usefull in pro apps too...) seems to be impossible.
And the apples style of anouncing their products is delaying such (rare) releases by months.

Pfft...


But,lets hope that the pea counters manage to convince the upper leadership that by small investments they can actually make a bit profit.
That seems to be the only way to get the products (what ever it might be) to the clients.
Customer needs and satisfaction is secondary in the business nowadays anyway.

[combatcolin]

Yeah, it's funny isn't it. Console gaming leaps forward every 5 years or so, then stagnates for the next 5; w.

Stagnates?

:rolleyes:

[Sesshi]

My heart goes out to them :p

They're very happy in a machine that blows the Pro clean away for the purposes of home entertainment :p

(Not to mention the fact that with the corporate discount, even with a physics coprocessor, X-Fi, 3-year onsite and 10K drives it was a few hundred cheaper than a Pro with a single measly X1900 ;)... and it looks totally badass to boot. Well, except for the plastic on the drive doors.)

[Tangerine]

I assume that you mean core 2 duo and not core duo. It depends completely on which core 2 duos and which xeons you are talking about. In fact some conroe chips are called xeon and core 2 duo depending on their applications. Between the xeons and core 2 duos that Apple uses, the Xeons are faster chips. Some people have seen, though, that windows boxes using the top of the line conroes (all the core 2 duos that apple uses are the mobile variant, merom, while the desktop variant is conroe), may be faster than some using the woodcrest xeon's that apple for certain applications (faster unbufferred ram, for example). core 2 duos do not support multiple chips like the xeons can (but now you can get four core single chips that are two conroes put together). For some benchmarks of the imac core duo (which should be slightly slower than the newer core 2 duo machines) vs. the mac pro, check out http://www.macintouch.com/reviews/macpro/benchmarks.html . All the core 2 duos and the newer xeons are based off of the same microacrchitecture, but are optimized for different uses (i.e. the mobile core 2 duo uses less power than the other two).

cheers.


I mean if I get a Dell PC with Intel Core 2 Duos, will it be faster then the Mac Pro Intel Xeons?

[dkoralek]

I mean if I get a Dell PC with Intel Core 2 Duos, will it be faster then the Mac Pro Intel Xeons?

It depends completely on what you want to do. If you want a gaming system, xeon based systems, whether it is a Dell precision or a mac pro, you're probably better off with a core 2 duo system. A xeon based system will best a core 2 duo system for other applications. It isn't a simple comparison. The decision on what machine you want is entirely dependent on what type of work that you want to do on it. Part of the problem for Apple is that there is no consumer level tower available, and while the mac pro is very well suited (and priced well) for workstation type applications it isn't always the best choice replacement for a pc tower. check out any pc manufacturer, dell for example, and you will see how complex decision making can be (although, in some cases I think there is product overlap). Dell can afford to have such a wide product line because they produce so many pcs. If memory serves me correctly, one of Steve Jobs' first moves when he came back to Apple was to attempt to simplfy the product line. While this may not be the best for every consumer, it is the best for the health of the company, at least until they get their market share up higher). Sorry for such a long winded and ultimately unhelpful response. Maybe if you could say what you intend to use the computer for, it will be easier to give you a better response as to which processor, etc. makes the most sense.

cheers.

[marcosc]

They're very happy in a machine that blows the Pro clean away for the purposes of home entertainment :p

(Not to mention the fact that with the corporate discount, even with a physics coprocessor, X-Fi, 3-year onsite and 10K drives it was a few hundred cheaper than a Pro with a single measly X1900 ;)... and it looks totally badass to boot. Well, except for the plastic on the drive doors.)

Keep up the bragging, we haven't noticed. :p

Seriously though, nice setup. What's the % discount you got @ Dell?

[aneks]

I keep debating whether to buy another machine to play games. But I can't help bu think it would be a waste if I can get a better GPU for my macpro. Instead I bought a Gamecube and Zelda for like 80 bucks and hooked it up to my LCD. All the games I am looking forward too on PC aren't even out yet !

Anyway I live in AUS and PS3 has been delayed till god-knows-when here. By the time it comes out here. Mac Pro's start at 3999 here and the PS3 will be 1099. For 1300-1500 I can get a core2duo intel and a 8800 system, and the games will be a lot cheaper than the PS3....... ah the dilemas