PDA

View Full Version : No High-End Video Card for the next Mac Pro




Topper
Oct 9, 2007, 09:56 AM
I don’t think there is a high-end video card available for the next Mac Pro.
Okay, they are available but will Apple offer them?

I think there are 4 high-end consumer video cards on the market today; GeForce 8800 GTS 640mb, GeForce 8800 GTX, GeForce 8800 Ultra, and Radeon HD2900 XT.

I think the 8800 GTX and 8800 Ultra can be elminated just on size alone...10.5 inches long.
All the above cards are basically already old technology.
They all run hot, too hot, and they all consume a lot of power.
Does Apple really want those cards in their computer?
I do but does Apple?

There are two new sets of video cards by Nvidia and ATI; GeForce 8800 GT (G92) and Radeon HD2950 XT and Pro (RV670)

The Radeon HD2950 XT has fairly impressive numbers if the rumors are true.
But it isn’t considered a high-end card. It will probably make it’s debut at the end of the month.

Nvidia will launch it’s 8800 GT (G92) card this month. It’s specs are not as good as the 8800 GTS.
The 8800 GT is a mid-range card.

The smaller die of the HD2950 and 8800 GT should make for cooler, less noisy, and lower power
consumption than the 8800 series and HD2900 XT cards.

The next generation of high-end video cards are not coming out until next year.

I would like an 8800 series card or the HD2900 XT available as a bto option of the next Mac Pro
but I don’t think it will happen. Hope I’m wrong.

If the specifications of the HD2950 XT are true, it will be a pretty good card.
But it will be a disappointment for those expecting an 8800 or HD2900 XT.

I made the following table.
The numbers of the HD2950 and 8800 GT are pure speculation.
If any of the stats are wrong I am sure someone will let me know.
I filled in the HD2950 and 8800 GT cards in yellow to show that they are the new cards that
have not come out as yet.

http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/VC.jpg



Pressure
Oct 9, 2007, 10:08 AM
Somehow you think the Mac Pro is a gaming machine, when it in reality is a workstation.

You might want to be looking at the FireGL and Quadro products, as high-end replacement.

The standard card is surely going to be some $50 - $99 card, like the Radeon HD 2600 or Geforce 8600.

Eidorian
Oct 9, 2007, 10:09 AM
The only other options we have are the Mac mini and iMac on the desktop front.

twoodcc
Oct 9, 2007, 10:15 AM
The only other options we have are the Mac mini and iMac on the desktop front.

that's true...which is really sad :(

Eidorian
Oct 9, 2007, 10:16 AM
that's true...which is really sad :(In before complaining about the lack of a Macintosh minitower.

Wild-Bill
Oct 9, 2007, 10:23 AM
Topper,

From what I read (which is pure speculation so far) is that the upcoming G92 from nVidia (8800GT) will have performance that is somewhere between the 8800GTS and the 8800GTX. And, of course, the lower wattage due to the die shrink and a single-slot solution.

Digitimes is reporting this morning that nVidia is bumping up the release of the 8800GT to October 29th, so while it could make the Mac Pro revision in time, we all know that Apple's core competency is NOT choosing good graphics cards.

Link (http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20071009PD207.html)

Somehow you think the Mac Pro is a gaming machine, when it in reality is a workstation.

You might want to be looking at the FireGL and Quadro products, as high-end replacement.

The standard card is surely going to be some $50 - $99 card, like the Radeon HD 2600 or Geforce 8600.

Don't even go there Pressure.

suneohair
Oct 9, 2007, 10:25 AM
Somehow you think the Mac Pro is a gaming machine, when it in reality is a workstation.

You might want to be looking at the FireGL and Quadro products, as high-end replacement.

The standard card is surely going to be some $50 - $99 card, like the Radeon HD 2600 or Geforce 8600.

Whether or not someone sees it is a gaming machine is irrelevant. When the Mac Pro was released it came with the X1900XT as an option, a decent card for its time, also what one might consider a gaming card. With that in mind it is not out of the question to expect similar hardware in the next Mac Pro.

FireGL and Quadro cards offer no advantage if you aren't doing 3D modeling/rendering. I don't see how that is a replacement for someone seeking to gain UI advantages in pro apps.

Most of the consumer cards and the "workstation cards" run parallel, the only difference being the drivers.

Also, it is clear that one of these higher end cards won't be the base. Again, based on the brief history of the Mac Pro one can infer these things.

Low end (base card)
Higher end consumer
High end workstation (Fire, Quadro)

irishgrizzly
Oct 9, 2007, 11:01 AM
I'm expecting the worst for the high end option maybe they'll offer the something like the iMacs 2600 for it.

Anyway don't you know that Steve is implanted with a wireless receiver every time someones plays a game on a Mac it sends a bolt of pain through him :rolleyes:

killmoms
Oct 9, 2007, 11:04 AM
...The HD2950 XT is an upgrade to the 2900. How is it not high-end? :confused:

irishgrizzly
Oct 9, 2007, 11:14 AM
Does anyone have a link to that chart where are the current cards are benchmarked against each other? It's quite simple more of an overview. I saw it on one of the threads in the last few months.

Found it, came up first after a google :o

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/4325/859722288bt4.th.png (http://img120.imageshack.us/my.php?image=859722288bt4.png)

Eidorian
Oct 9, 2007, 11:17 AM
...The HD2950 XT is an upgrade to the 2900. How is it not high-end? :confused:The biggest difference would be the 256-bit interface on the HD2950 Vs. the 512-bit one on the HD2900. It'll only be a big difference at high resolutions though.

The HD2950 is a well balanced card otherwise.

Topper
Oct 9, 2007, 11:33 AM
Somehow you think the Mac Pro is a gaming machine, when it in reality is a workstation.
You might want to be looking at the FireGL and Quadro products, as high-end replacement.
The standard card is surely going to be some $50 - $99 card, like the Radeon HD 2600 or Geforce 8600.

I should have said, "bto high-end consumer video cards." ...like the X1900 XT was supposed to be.
I'll bet most professionals who use the Mac Pro for work do not have the Quadro FX 4500 but are using the X1900 XT instead.
I haven't heard too many people in this forum using the FX 4500.

I never said the Mac Pro is a gaming machine.
However it is correct that I would like to run "one" game on it also.
I think you recall from my other posts that I do a lot more than just game.

Topper
Oct 9, 2007, 11:46 AM
...The HD2950 XT is an upgrade to the 2900. How is it not high-end? :confused:

The HD2950 XT is meant as a mid-range card to compete against the GeForce 8800 GT.
I've heard rumors of this card going crossfire, then you would have a card to brag about.

And what Eidorian said...

Topper
Oct 9, 2007, 11:57 AM
Topper,
From what I read (which is pure speculation so far) is that the upcoming G92 from nVidia (8800GT) will have performance that is somewhere between the 8800GTS and the 8800GTX.

If the 8800GT had performance between the 8800GTS and the 8800GTX I'd be ultra happy to have it in a Mac Pro.
Unfortunately it's performance will be close to that of the 8800 GTS 320MB card.
But that's not bad considering it was originally meant as a go-between the 8600 GTS and the 8800 GTS 320MB card.
Now Nvidia is looking at it as a replacement of it's 8800 GTS 320MB card.
Nvidia is stopping 8800GTS 320MB production and keeping/updating their 8800GTS 640MB card.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3446&Itemid=34
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/05/nvidia-kills-8800gts-320mb

Dreadnought
Oct 9, 2007, 12:29 PM
Whatever it will be, it will be a BIG improvement over my PM G5 dual 1.8 with a 9600 pro with 64 MB...

slackpacker
Oct 15, 2007, 11:32 AM
[quote=suneohair;4300971]Whether or not someone sees it is a gaming machine is irrelevant. When the Mac Pro was released it came with the X1900XT as an option, a decent card for its time, also what one might consider a gaming card. With that in mind it is not out of the question to expect similar hardware in the next Mac Pro.
quote]

Well some of us have PC gaming machines that are getting old.... Buying a new MP would give you the best of Both worlds.... But Apple has always been way behind the times in Graphics... no Idea why. Our systems are the Graphics kings and we are really using cards that the PC world laughs at.

Also how about the people who use Alias or Newtek 3D programs.... its not Gamers anymore that would benifit from having the fastest card.

I think we should feel a little miffed that Apple makes it so hard to upgrade & why are we lagging 2-3 years behind the rest of the industry -Graphics wise.

Also if Apple was so concenred about the gaming industry why can't I have a Mac that can play games like the PC. Apple goes through all the trouble to cort EA GAMES to the Mac and what we have hardware wise is just not up to par, even to play games (at Higher Rez and with all the Graphic Bells and whistles turned on)

Topper
Oct 15, 2007, 11:35 AM
The Inquirer says that, "The 8800GT with MeII-32, a QX6800 and 2G of DDR2-1000 ram all on a 780i board scores 14200 on 3DMark 05."

They also say that this is, "just about even with the 8800Ultra scores at this rez."

And..., "All we can say is life sucks if you recently bought a GTX."

I don't understand 3DMark benchmarks.
How can a G92 be even with a 8800Ultra?

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/15/g92-scores-outed

contoursvt
Oct 15, 2007, 09:43 PM
So you'd buy totally outdated hardware at full price becuase its better than your even more outdated hardware? At some point you'll need to ask yourself if being brand loyal might be hurting your experience or not.

Whatever it will be, it will be a BIG improvement over my PM G5 dual 1.8 with a 9600 pro with 64 MB...

krunk
Oct 15, 2007, 10:51 PM
So you'd buy totally outdated hardware at full price becuase its better than your even more outdated hardware? At some point you'll need to ask yourself if being brand loyal might be hurting your experience or not.

This is how I look at it: When macs were ppc, having a machine that I could both work and have fun with was not even in the picture when deciding to buy one.

Fact is, macs were for work or for grandma (mail and web only) with some nice user software thrown in.

Now that macs are intel based, the mythical "porting to ppc" barrier broke down. With bootcamp, the perfect machine is...so...close...yet so far away because of apple's lack of commitment to top end peripherals. This is what is so frustrating.

There are only two major players in the video card business. How hard can it be to write a drive capable of decent 2D rendering for both? Answer: Not at all. In fact, all they'd have to do is make OF bootable to a non-main slot and I can slap some crappy card in the off slot for osx and dual boot.

The only explanation is that Apple relishes the "grandma or graphic designer" stigma.

paul619LT
Oct 16, 2007, 01:26 AM
if you really want a gaming mac pro, then put your own card in there. problem solved.

Wild-Bill
Oct 16, 2007, 02:58 AM
if you really want a gaming mac pro, then put your own card in there. problem solved.

Uhh....., looks like someone hasn't been reading enough in here to understand what is going on.

If one were to "put their own card" in there, they would be relegated to the Windows world, which is completely out of the question for many, and defeats the point of having a BootCamp capable machine.

Additionally, if one were to follow your advice and needed to boot into Mac mode, they would need to physically swap cards. That is not feasible.

And for the record, no one, and I repeat NO ONE in this thread or forum has stated that they want a "gaming Mac Pro". We want a CURRENT machine with top of the line graphics hardware, so that when we decide we'd like to game and boot into windows for it, we're not doing it on 2 year old graphics that are priced 2.66 times higher than their actual market value (ex: x1900xt)

But thanks anyway for the misguided comment. :rolleyes:

paul619LT
Oct 16, 2007, 03:38 AM
Uhh....., looks like someone hasn't been reading enough in here to understand what is going on.

If one were to "put their own card" in there, they would be relegated to the Windows world, which is completely out of the question for many, and defeats the point of having a BootCamp capable machine.

Additionally, if one were to follow your advice and needed to boot into Mac mode, they would need to physically swap cards. That is not feasible.

And for the record, no one, and I repeat NO ONE in this thread or forum has stated that they want a "gaming Mac Pro". We want a CURRENT machine with top of the line graphics hardware, so that when we decide we'd like to game and boot into windows for it, we're not doing it on 2 year old graphics that are priced 2.66 times higher than their actual market value (ex: x1900xt)

But thanks anyway for the misguided comment. :rolleyes:

then don't buy a mac pro. get a mac mini for your os x needs, and build a real gaming machine, a PC running windows. if you are buying a mac pro for gaming, you're getting ripped off.

G4DP
Oct 16, 2007, 04:14 AM
then don't buy a mac pro. get a mac mini for your os x needs, and build a real gaming machine, a PC running windows. if you are buying a mac pro for gaming, you're getting ripped off.

You are the only one who thinks of a Mac Pro for gaming. A Mac Pro is a workstation - for doing work. If you actually read his post, he comments that all we want is a machine which contains CURRENT technology. People buy a Mac Pro to work on, and now have the option to play the occasional game.

krunk
Oct 16, 2007, 10:27 AM
then don't buy a mac pro. get a mac mini for your os x needs, and build a real gaming machine, a PC running windows. if you are buying a mac pro for gaming, you're getting ripped off.

Unacceptable. I need a workstation to do my work. For some of us it's not a "web browsing or gaming" situation. It's a "workstation and gaming" situation.

Compound that with the fact that I can afford 2500 for a workstation, but not 4-6kk for a workstation and a machine capable of gaming and you may see our predicament.

For us it's not a matter of "getting a mac mini" for our needs since we need more for our work. The choice apple has presented us with their lackluster hardware is:

Buy an Apple workstation and go without the ability to have fun when you want to or buy a windows/linux workstation and go without osx (which we very much enjoy as s development/design/whatever platform).

Since both of these weigh fairly heavily (osx v. having fun when we want to), the decision is a very difficult and thus frustrating one. Especially when there are two extremely easy fixes apple could provide us:

a) bring their peripheral hardware within throwing reach of current technology (instead of in the electronic stone age)
b) Allow us to boot OSX from a secondary expansion slot

Eidorian
Oct 16, 2007, 10:34 AM
Unacceptable. I need a workstation to do my work. For some of us it's not a "web browsing or gaming" situation. It's a "workstation and gaming" situation.

Compound that with the fact that I can afford 2500 for a workstation, but not 4-6kk for a workstation and a machine capable of gaming and you may see our predicament.

For us it's not a matter of "getting a mac mini" for our needs since we need more for our work. The choice apple has presented us with their lackluster hardware is:

Buy an Apple workstation and go without the ability to have fun when you want to or buy a windows/linux workstation and go without osx (which we very much enjoy as s development/design/whatever platform).

Since both of these weigh fairly heavily (osx v. having fun when we want to), the decision is a very difficult and thus frustrating one. Especially when there are two extremely easy fixes apple could provide us:

a) bring their peripheral hardware within throwing reach of current technology (instead of in the electronic stone age)
b) Allow us to boot OSX from a secondary expansion slotYou've summed up how I feel as well.

Great post! :cool:

aLoC
Oct 16, 2007, 10:51 AM
And the sad thing is, Apple's software people spend so much effort writing frameworks that offload work to the GPU, and then the hardware people diminish the value of that by not using the best GPUs.

krunk
Oct 16, 2007, 01:23 PM
You've summed up how I feel as well.

Great post! :cool:

Yes, in fact. It's is a HUGE testament to just how impressed those in our camp are with OSX the operating system that we are willing to endure such neglect on the hardware front.

As the poster above put it:

Apple Software is the bees knees. The hardware engineers need to step up to the plate and begin offering something that can approach it.

Eidorian
Oct 16, 2007, 01:25 PM
Yes, in fact. It's is a HUGE testament to just how impressed those in our camp are with OSX the operating system that we are willing to endure such neglect on the hardware front.I've said this before in many posts, Apple needs to concentrate more on a well rounded machine Vs. a CPU only power house.

We've seen this with the Mac Pro and now the iMac sporting the X7900.

I MacBook or Mac mini with a X1300/7300 when it switched to Intel would have been a godsend.

paul619LT
Oct 16, 2007, 06:27 PM
um if apple's products don't fit what you want, how about buying something else? if you must have the POS os x, then you're screwed.

Eidorian
Oct 16, 2007, 06:30 PM
um if apple's products don't fit what you want, how about buying something else? if you must have the POS os x, then you're screwed.Yeah, I'm going to make entire new workflows and purchase/find new software in another operating system. :rolleyes:

Wild-Bill
Oct 16, 2007, 06:39 PM
um if apple's products don't fit what you want, how about buying something else? if you must have the POS os x, then you're screwed.

Alright, at this point you are just trolling. :rolleyes: You obviosuly have NO idea what we have been talking about in the Mac Pro forum for MONTHS now, and your presence here is to rile people up with your ridiculous comments.

Run along now.:rolleyes:

Bigheadache
Oct 16, 2007, 06:48 PM
To be fair guys, a G92 or a RV670 (if thats what they elect to put in the next Mac Pro) is still pretty good, and both should run alot quieter and cooler than a 8800 Ultra or 2900XT. Hell some websites are showing the RV670 as having single slot cooling.

Eidorian
Oct 16, 2007, 06:51 PM
To be fair guys, a G92 or a RV670 (if thats what they elect to put in the next Mac Pro) is still pretty good, and both should run alot quieter and cooler than a 8800 Ultra or 2900XT. Hell some websites are showing the RV670 as having single slot cooling.Single slot and maybe no external power requirements. :D

Bigheadache
Oct 16, 2007, 06:55 PM
I think the no external power requirements is dependent on PCIe 2.0 as that standard allows 150watts via the PCIe slot (instead of 75watts IIRC). As long as both the card and the new Mac Pro implement PCIe 2.0 then they should be able to do it with no external power.

Eidorian
Oct 16, 2007, 07:05 PM
I think the no external power requirements is dependent on PCIe 2.0 as that standard allows 150watts via the PCIe slot (instead of 75watts IIRC). As long as both the card and the new Mac Pro implement PCIe 2.0 then they should be able to do it with no external power.I believe you are correct.

Topper
Oct 17, 2007, 08:12 AM
There is a lot of talk about nVidia and ATI bringing out high-end video cards in Q1/2008.
Rumor has it that the high-end cards may be nothing more (or less) than two G92 chips for nVidia's card and two RV670 chips for ATI's card.

If the next Mac Pro uses either the 8800GT or HD2950, could we use that driver to put the new 2008 (dual) cards in the Mac Pro?

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 08:15 AM
Apple would need to make a driver for it in OS X.

Hacking one together is also a possibility.

Topper
Oct 17, 2007, 08:50 AM
Apple would need to make a driver for it in OS X.
If the new Mac Pro has a G92 or RV670 driver, wouldn't that work for the supposedly new "dual" G92 or dual RV670 card in 2008?

Fujilives
Oct 17, 2007, 09:31 AM
I don't think the responses are those from people who understand the situation fully.

The ONLY reason people are upset, is because the foundation is already put down. All the hard work is already done for the ultimate rig. Something that can video edit, photo edit, sound edit, on the OSX side, game on the Windows side as well as do some office-related stuff on the Windows side - is merely a graphics card away from being complete.

Today's gaming requires high-end workstation systems. This is not far fetched, since most other pc related (non gaming) tasks also have begun to require these things, so they are already available when people want to game. The only things that really seperate performance in most of these machines is processor speed and graphics cards.

Mac has the processor speeds and all other groundwork complete. A simple graphics card update would have made the iMac the machine of the century for a TON of people. People would not bitch about the glossy screen if the graphics in the iMac were powered by some variation of / or something on par with an geforce 8800. People around the world would be rejoicing. The machine would be a top tier choice for gamers world round - especially if they kept thier current price point.

Myself, I keep praying every day that a new iMac will get introduced with a great gaming card. I'd be willing to pay more for it, because in one single amazing package I'd have a machine that could do everything I'd want it to do.

I keep seeing these people say "its not for gaming its for work". That's fine... but all this processor speed and power is a tad overkill for a simple "workstation" in most cases. Let it be a workstation, but then should the people who DO want to do stuff outside of just "work" suffer consequences that shouldn't even exist? Why should the people who want more just be told "NO" on principle? It's pretty messed up when we are one computer component away from perfect.

krunk
Oct 17, 2007, 10:47 AM
It's pretty messed up when we are one computer component away from perfect.

Yep, and with what could only be a trivial change to OF allowing osx booting to a secondary card slot...they wouldn't even have to worry about supporting said component or write drivers for it.

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 10:48 AM
If the new Mac Pro has a G92 or RV670 driver, wouldn't that work for the supposedly new "dual" G92 or dual RV670 card in 2008?It depends on the implementation.

I expect the GPU to have a controller that would effectively make it a single GPU while processing in parallel instead of requiring CrossFire/SLI drivers.

Topper
Oct 17, 2007, 11:20 AM
Rumor has it that the RV670 will now be called an HD 3800 series.
Not HD 2950 but HD 3800.

It is also rumored that the Pro, XT, GT, XTX suffixes have been discontinued also.
The last 2 numbers of the name will determine it's performance.
For example...
The RV670XT will now be called the Radeon HD 3870.
The RV670Pro will now be called the Radeon HD 3850.

Eidorian
Oct 17, 2007, 12:52 PM
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3673&Itemid=34

Bigheadache
Oct 17, 2007, 06:56 PM
Myself, I keep praying every day that a new iMac will get introduced with a great gaming card. I'd be willing to pay more for it, because in one single amazing package I'd have a machine that could do everything I'd want it to do.

I keep seeing these people say "its not for gaming its for work". That's fine... but all this processor speed and power is a tad overkill for a simple "workstation" in most cases. Let it be a workstation, but then should the people who DO want to do stuff outside of just "work" suffer consequences that shouldn't even exist? Why should the people who want more just be told "NO" on principle? It's pretty messed up when we are one computer component away from perfect.

Have you seen the double slot cooling that topline graphics systems have these days? they're not going to miraculously engineer an 8800 series or a R600 based GPU in an iMac and keep the same slimline all in one formfactor.

fernmeister
Oct 18, 2007, 06:22 AM
I don't think the responses are those from people who understand the situation fully.

The ONLY reason people are upset, is because the foundation is already put down. All the hard work is already done for the ultimate rig. Something that can video edit, photo edit, sound edit, on the OSX side, game on the Windows side as well as do some office-related stuff on the Windows side - is merely a graphics card away from being complete.

Today's gaming requires high-end workstation systems. This is not far fetched, since most other pc related (non gaming) tasks also have begun to require these things, so they are already available when people want to game. The only things that really separate performance in most of these machines is processor speed and graphics cards.

Mac has the processor speeds and all other groundwork complete. A simple graphics card update would have made the iMac the machine of the century for a TON of people. People would not bitch about the glossy screen if the graphics in the iMac were powered by some variation of / or something on par with an geforce 8800. People around the world would be rejoicing. The machine would be a top tier choice for gamers world round - especially if they kept thier current price point.

Myself, I keep praying every day that a new iMac will get introduced with a great gaming card. I'd be willing to pay more for it, because in one single amazing package I'd have a machine that could do everything I'd want it to do.

I keep seeing these people say "its not for gaming its for work". That's fine... but all this processor speed and power is a tad overkill for a simple "workstation" in most cases. Let it be a workstation, but then should the people who DO want to do stuff outside of just "work" suffer consequences that shouldn't even exist? Why should the people who want more just be told "NO" on principle? It's pretty messed up when we are one computer component away from perfect.

That's a good explanation and it makes sense if the one bottleneck for gamers is the video-card.

The thing is, I know quite a lot of people using high end Macs, for Audio, Video, Graphics and Photography and never hear people complaining about the need for a better video card for gaming purposes. It's a complaint I only hear in these kinds of forums, which makes me wonder how big the market really is. Not the size of the gaming market, the size of the market of people putting down money for a MacPro who want to game.

In fact, I'm not alone amongst the 90s switchers I know in prizing the fact that Apple was a non-gaming platform, with the slower hardware changes that implied. I wonder is some of the computers for work not play comments come from people in that same boat.

If people want to game that's their choice - I don't really care. But I do care about Apple keeping their eyes on building solid machines for work, especially in support of their Pro apps (Logic, Final Cut, Apeture).

bboucher790
Oct 21, 2007, 12:21 PM
Man I'm tired of all the Apple noobs out there saying that a Mac Pro is not a gaming machine. This is correct ONLY due to the fact that there is no good graphics card out there, which is why people complain. If you put an OSX bootable 8800 GTX in a Mac Pro (theoretically speaking), it would stomp on all the newest games out there. The Xeon's are built off of the Core architecture and provide similar performance to PC dekstop processors. The ram holds back the Mac Pro a bit, and yes, it wouldn't be the MOST powerful or cheap gaming rig on the planet....but to say it "isn't" a gaming machine is just ignorant. The potential is there, Apple just doesn't spend the time or money on the graphics to make it happen....which noobs...is WHY people are complaining!

Oh the idiocy of that comment.

Oh and fernmeister...now you have heard one high-end Mac gamer complain.

krunk
Oct 21, 2007, 03:07 PM
In fact, I'm not alone amongst the 90s switchers I know in prizing the fact that Apple was a non-gaming platform

What an incredibly odd thing to say. Choice is never a bad thing. If Apple started offered just *semi-current* card, it doesn't mean you have to buy them. You can use your 2 year old, discontinued card for as long as you'd like.

Why I find the statement so odd is that it's essentially saying "I, for one, am glad that my platform sucks at application X." Why would anyone be anything but happy that their platform is one of the best on all fronts?

Eidorian
Oct 21, 2007, 07:08 PM
Single slot love via PCI-Express 2.0. (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3735&Itemid=34)

psingh01
Oct 21, 2007, 07:23 PM
The Mac Pro is for WORK! So don't no one go using iTunes or iMovie or any other kiddy program. If you are not using the Mac Pro to generate income then you are not allowed to use one.......

:o

hugodrax
Oct 21, 2007, 10:07 PM
I am happy with the 1900XT and will probably not upgrade it :) I mean the one game I mainly play are EvE online which I can run in parallels and Xplane which runs fine.

I wonder if the reason apple stays behind a bit is the time involved in writing the drivers etc.. for the videocard and making sure it is rock solid.

I would not be surprised if the new Mac Pros will sport new videocards and that Leopard will have those drivers built in already.

ndriver182
Oct 21, 2007, 10:25 PM
Here's what I want to know - If newer cards were available to work with upgraded MP's, would you be able to use the card in a current-generation MP?

Eidorian
Oct 21, 2007, 10:27 PM
Here's what I want to know - If newer cards were available to work with upgraded MP's, would you be able to use the card in a current-generation MP?You might need to get Leopard for it and wait for an update. (e.g. 10.5.1/10.5.2)

It'll work, you just won't have the drivers otherwise.

That's working, right? :rolleyes:

ndriver182
Oct 21, 2007, 10:30 PM
You might need to get Leopard for it and wait for an update. (e.g. 10.5.1/10.5.2)

It'll work, you just won't have the drivers otherwise.

That's working, right? :rolleyes:

Lol. Well, I'm definitely getting Leopard on Friday. So I guess we'll just see. I definitely wouldn't mind throwing in a better card.

Wild-Bill
Oct 22, 2007, 02:57 AM
You know, Apple could pull off something surprising and outfit the new Mac Pro with the new nVidia 8800 GT series. If that's the case, I don't know where that'll leave existing Mac Pro owners, as the card is PCI-E 2.0

I believe the PCI-E 2.0 spec delivers more power through the slot. If anything I'm sure someone could probably figure out a way to make it work though.

Topper
Oct 22, 2007, 06:02 AM
You know, Apple could pull off something surprising and outfit the new Mac Pro with the new nVidia 8800 GT series.
That would not be a surprise to me.
I am guessing that either the 8800 GT or HD 38XX series card will be available.
You do know that these are mid-range not high-end video cards, right?

By the way, I know you are going to come back at me and tell me how well the 8800 GT did with FEAR, Quake,
and Prey.
It certainly appears that it is doing much better than expected.
As a matter of fact, nVidia is doing away with the 8800 GTX 320MB and they are upgrading the 8800 GTX 640MB to 112 stream processors (as compared to the 96 stream processors of the 8800 GT).

Pressure
Oct 22, 2007, 09:49 AM
You know, Apple could pull off something surprising and outfit the new Mac Pro with the new nVidia 8800 GT series.

It might be an option but definitely not the base card. I strongly believe that the majority of Mac Pro buyers would have nothing to use all that power for.


I believe the PCI-E 2.0 spec delivers more power through the slot. If anything I'm sure someone could probably figure out a way to make it work though.

PCI-Express 2.0 is backwards compatible. The card would just need power from elsewhere than the PCI-Express connector.

As a matter of fact, nVidia is doing away with the 8800 GTX 320MB and they are upgrading the 8800 GTX 640MB to 112 stream processors (as compared to the 96 stream processors of the 8800 GT).

You must mean the Geforce 8800GTS 320MB. Both the new, shrinked (65nm) Geforce 8800GTS 640MB and the Geforce 8800GT have 112 Stream Processors.

Topper
Oct 22, 2007, 10:22 AM
You must mean the Geforce 8800GTS 320MB. Both the new, shrinked (65nm) Geforce 8800GTS 640MB and the Geforce 8800GT have 112 Stream Processors.
That's me, not Wild-Bill.

Yes, I meant the GeForce 8800GTS 320MB and 8800GTS 640MB.
You are right about the 8800GT have 112 stream processors, I was reading about the old 8800 GTS series cards.
I wonder if the new 8800GTS 640MB will actually have a new shrinked 65nm fabrication.
I know there are reports that it will but if so, why wouldn't it then be a G92 rather than a G80?

Pressure
Oct 22, 2007, 10:52 AM
That's me, not Wild-Bill.

Yes, I meant the GeForce 8800GTS 320MB and 8800GTS 640MB.
You are right about the 8800GT have 112 stream processors, I was reading about the old 8800 GTS series cards.
I wonder if the new 8800GTS 640MB will actually have a new shrinked 65nm fabrication.
I know there are reports that it will but if so, why wouldn't it then be a G92 rather than a G80?

Sorry, got lost in the quoting world :o

ndriver182
Oct 22, 2007, 07:15 PM
How unlikely is it that Apple *may* have included more up-to-date drivers that could possibly handle other video cards for those who have a Mac Pro? Maybe this is a rhetorical question..... :(

cokersa
Oct 22, 2007, 09:18 PM
Just to add some perspective from an Apple noob, I bought my first Mac - a Mac Pro - precisely because of its ability to dual-boot into either MacOS or Windows, and expected that I would be able to buy more "off the shelf" PC-type peripherals that would be able to work in either OS.

I have subsequently added two such "non-Apple" peripherals - a hard disk and additional memory - that have both worked just fine. What has me stuck is that I do like to play the occasional game, and I intentionally kept the low-end 7300 when I ordered the system (not the X1900) because I new about the new DirectX 10 in Vista that would require new video cards, and I figured it would be a few months before such cards would be available for the Mac Pro. ..tap tap tap... still waiting...

Don't get me wrong, overall I'm happy with my Mac Pro. Its quiet, and performs well outside of high-end gaming. With a few minor issues, it also supports Vista Ultimate x64, which I dual-boot along with MacOS (without Bootcamp, I'll note). But the lack of support for regular video card updates makes me question whether I'll buy another Mac in the future. I'm not in need of the latest/greatest card, but there basically hasn't been a new card offered since the day the Mac Pro was launched (and I ordered mine that day), which was far from my expectation when I bought the system. I knew I was going to have to pay more for an Apple video card than I could get for a PC card, but to not even have a reasonable current generation card to buy? Some may say my expecations are unreasonable; okay, I never bought an Apple before so maybe I should have known better. But once burned, twice shy.

I'm sure that eventually Apple will release an updated Mac Pro that has new BTO options for video cards. I've seen some posts that indicate they might use a new PCI standard that supports higher power cards. That makes me nervous that they won't provide cards that are backwards compatible to the PCI slots in the original Mac Pro, leaving us original owners with no options. I hope that doesn't happen, because if it does, I know my next computer won't be an Apple.

Eidorian
Oct 22, 2007, 09:23 PM
I'm sure that eventually Apple will release an updated Mac Pro that has new BTO options for video cards. I've seen some posts that indicate they might use a new PCI standard that supports higher power cards. That makes me nervous that they won't provide cards that are backwards compatible to the PCI slots in the original Mac Pro, leaving us original owners with no options. I hope that doesn't happen, because if it does, I know my next computer won't be an Apple.The cards will be compatible. They just might require an external power source in addition to the bus power on PCI-Express 1.0/1.1.

On PCI-Express 2.0 they'll be able to run off of bus power alone.

krunk
Oct 22, 2007, 09:51 PM
I'm not in need of the latest/greatest card, but there basically hasn't been a new card offered since the day the Mac Pro was launched (and I ordered mine that day), which was far from my expectation when I bought the system.

1) When you bought your system, on day one, the cost of the system compared to other offerings was more then competitive...it was a downright bargain.

2) If you don't care about OSX, then you can run any card you want that vista has drivers for. Just pop it in and go.

3) If you had gotten the x1900 XT, then you'd be able to run all the latest games very well. It would only be with the games that are coming out in the next 6mths that you'd start to push the limits of your card. . . and coincidentally new cards are probably on the horizon and will be here before that day comes.

Don't get me wrong, I've been waiting a while too. And Apple's pitiful video card support is very frustrating...but really only to those of us who like to run OSX.

My point is, the mac pro was an amazing deal even if you only intended to run windows on it. The hardware was incredibly priced.

If you respond that you would have gone with a pc for 1/2 as much, then your real complaint lies in Apple not offering a desktop...only laptops and workstations.

ifredrick
Oct 22, 2007, 10:21 PM
As a computer repair tech and geek for windows/linux/mac boxes and a personal user of a Vista machine (love it) and a Mac (love that one too), I have seen my fair share of consumer issues when it comes to Mac's and their dated at best video capabilities. Now don't get me wrong, Apple has been able to offer the average consumer a unified hardware and software platform, of which has proven to be mutually advantageous to both the end user and the developer, something that those in the PC world hasn't seen since the day's of the one IBM. It is with the concept of the closed platform that has had a stranglehold on the hardware diversity that you see in Apple hardware, such as video card choices or processor choices. I had sold an iMac with a 20" screen to a Mother thinking that would be perfect for her son to game on and it would be a cinch to upgrade for bigger and better games. You can upgrade the memory or the hard drive, but unless you have had good luck at writing drivers for OSX-86, and know your way with a soldering iron- your SOL. You cannot simply "toss in" a video card from a PC to a Mac, and it doesn't have to do with if it is "PCI-E 2.0" or not, but rather the specified Apple BIOS on the card itself. I had a customer once who took the advice from someone online had given him, and bought a new card and put it in, but was surprised to find that his display was garbled. Apple isn't to friendly to internal hardware that isn't "Apple Cert." It would be beneficial to Apple to introduce a "Gaming" Mac, or at least keep up to date with Video card hardware.

My first post, so my apologies about the rambling, a tad bit nervous.:cool:

cokersa
Oct 23, 2007, 10:00 AM
1) When you bought your system, on day one, the cost of the system compared to other offerings was more then competitive...it was a downright bargain.

2) If you don't care about OSX, then you can run any card you want that vista has drivers for. Just pop it in and go.

3) If you had gotten the x1900 XT, then you'd be able to run all the latest games very well. It would only be with the games that are coming out in the next 6mths that you'd start to push the limits of your card. . . and coincidentally new cards are probably on the horizon and will be here before that day comes.

Don't get me wrong, I've been waiting a while too. And Apple's pitiful video card support is very frustrating...but really only to those of us who like to run OSX.

My point is, the mac pro was an amazing deal even if you only intended to run windows on it. The hardware was incredibly priced.

If you respond that you would have gone with a pc for 1/2 as much, then your real complaint lies in Apple not offering a desktop...only laptops and workstations.

Thanks for the post:

1) I agree

2) I do care about OSX - I wouldn't have purchased the Mac Pro if I had only wanted to run Windows.

3) I, and many others, hope you are correct that "new cards are probably on the horizon". That said, I've been watching posts in this forum for at least six months speculating that new video cards should be coming "soon."

Regarding the desktop vs workstation discussion, it doesn't really matter to me how you classify it. If Apple did sell a "desktop" (something between the iMac and the Mac Pro), I'd still be bothered if it didn't have a new video card option.

I understand Apple's business model, and why you have to get a video card with their BIOS on it (to be supported anyway, I know their are folks who are willing to custom flash cards to get them to work; I have neither the expertise or interest to do that). I don't even have a problem paying extra for it (versus an "equivalent" card on a PC). I just want to be able to get one. I don't think its too much to ask for Apple to offer an updated video card once every six months or so.

Like I said, overall I'm happy with my Mac Pro - I'm just disappointed in Apple's commitment (or lack thereof) to keep it competitive from a video card perspective.

Eidorian
Oct 23, 2007, 10:04 AM
Geforce 8800GT is faster than RV670XT (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3769&Itemid=1)

RV670 to lose XT, PRO and GT tail (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3776&Itemid=1)

krunk
Oct 23, 2007, 10:43 AM
Like I said, overall I'm happy with my Mac Pro - I'm just disappointed in Apple's commitment (or lack thereof) to keep it competitive from a video card perspective.

Hey I'm with you. I'm a relatively new OSX user myself...last couple of years. At first I only go the laptops and this last round I got a Powermac. Great machine.

I'll try to impart what I've learned about buying Apple. Bear in mind, I learned this lesson the hard way and am also currently very frustrated.

==Me Wisdom==

Apple doesn't incrementally update. But, new apple hardware (after an update) is top notch. Unlike in the PC world, the buyer is beholden to Apple's update cycle and so we must adapt our buying habits according to them.

If you are not a "must have the latest 700 dollar video card released yesterday type" but the "Buy the best, ride it till it shows its age then upgrade" type then Apple is a perfect fit if you sync your buying habits.

Sounds like we're both in this camp. And it sounds like we both made the initial mistake. I did not buy the Mac Pro when it came out, so I'm 2 generations behind....and it hurts. You didn't buy the best when it came out (hoping for an incremental upgrade) and thus are also behind.

It's not as bleak as it sounds (buying every new hardware update) since Apple machines retain their value after market much more then PC's. So this is what you have to do:

a) Buy the best
b) Wait for update
c) Sale your old machine for 2/3's what you are going to pay for the new
d) Buy a new machine (usually end up paying about 600 or so for it after selling old).

In this way, you end up always having the newest and best and for about the same cost it would take to incrementally upgrade your PC. Sure, they might come out with "Uber card of pwnage" right after you buy....for 700 dollars. But unless your one of those compulsive upgraders, this is no different then the PC world. What you can count on is always having hardware that is the best or only a small notch behind the current. . . right where I usually stay.

If I had known this a year and 1/2 ago, I'd have sold my Powermac, bought a new Mac Pro with x1900 XT, and just now be thinking "hmmm, it might be nice to get a new card" when *pop* new Mac Pros.

*edit* My only point in this advice is if you really do value OSX....just hang tight, get in sync with the cycle (remember buying a new Mac Pro will cost you just as much as buying one of the new cards if you sell your old), and enjoy.

*edit 2* I still reserve the right to complain about Mac Pro video card options. :)

Topper
Oct 23, 2007, 11:14 AM
RV670 to lose XT, PRO and GT tail

Beat you to the punch on that one. Look at post #42 :)

Geforce 8800GT is faster than RV670XT

I guess I've got to start hoping Apple gives us an 8800GT option

Pressure
Oct 23, 2007, 03:47 PM
Geforce 8800GT is faster than RV670XT (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3769&Itemid=1)

RV670 to lose XT, PRO and GT tail (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3776&Itemid=1)

Incidentally, that rumour tabloid is contradicting itself, stating that the RV670 is faster than the G92 in another post.

Regardless, I would take anything Fruitzilla writes with a grain of salt as always, they are just rumours so far.

contoursvt
Oct 23, 2007, 04:17 PM
To everyone that keeps repeating that the Mac Pro is a workstation and not a gaming box and this somehow justifies the lack of video cards available, then let me say that the box is no longer competetive at least with regards to 3D modeling. The Quadro FX4500 is the highest available from Apple but its getting long in the tooth. The FX4600, 5500 and 5600 are available on the PC side. I'm sure there are significant performance increases when heavy scenes are being manipulated. You can also get these with SDI outputs on the PC side..not sure if you can order them with SDI from Apple.

Why should a workstation which has the ability to be so upgradable, be crippled by a lack of available hardware to upgrade it? Heck offer current stuff and charge 50% more in standard Apple fashion but even thats not being done. The 7300GT and X1900 cards are not "workstation" cards by the way. Even the cheaper HP workstations come with some form of quadro even if its a lowly FX540 or something. Its at least a card listed as being a workstation card.

krunk
Oct 23, 2007, 04:34 PM
The Quadro FX4500 is the highest available from Apple but its getting long in the tooth. The FX4600, 5500 and 5600 are available on the PC side.

Stop confusing the issue with the facts.

contoursvt
Oct 23, 2007, 04:49 PM
The issue is that there are no newer video cards available for the Mac Pro right? The answer to that is that the Mac Pro doesnt need anything newer because its a workstation right? These are newer, stronger and faster workstation cards that have come out since then.

...so if its a workstation, apple should be striving to offer the new workstation cards if not standard cards. Heck offer ANY card.

How is this confusing the issue? Is everyone supposed have their head burried in the sand?

Stop confusing the issue with the facts.

krunk
Oct 23, 2007, 05:00 PM
The issue is that there are no newer video cards available for the Mac Pro right? The answer to that is that the Mac Pro doesnt need anything newer because its a workstation right? These are newer, stronger and faster workstation cards that have come out since then.

...so if its a workstation, apple should be striving to offer the new workstation cards if not standard cards. Heck offer ANY card.

How is this confusing the issue? Is everyone supposed have their head burried in the sand?

I see you are very riled. However, a response of "Don't confuse the issue with the facts." is a classic tongue in cheek response when someone has made a very good point. It indicates that opponents to that persons view do not want to consider the facts, but have made up their mind already.

;)

contoursvt
Oct 23, 2007, 05:04 PM
LOL well this topic does drive me a little crazy because I believe a machine of this caliber deserves more. PS. I was wondering about that statement and why it didnt make sense. I was like "confuse the issue with the facts" huh.. wait how can things be confused when there are facts. Now i get it :)

Funny. Anyway I think I need to lay off the coffee. Gets me a little hyper.

I see you are very riled. However, a response of "Don't confuse the issue with the facts." is a classic tongue in cheek response when someone has made a very good point. It indicates that opponents to that persons view do not want to consider the facts, but have made up their mind already.

;)

Topper
Oct 23, 2007, 05:32 PM
Incidentally, that rumour tabloid is contradicting itself, stating that the RV670 is faster than the G92 in another post.

Considering how poorly the HD2900 XT does against the 8800GTS, 8800GTX, and 8800Ultra, my money says the G92 beats up on the RV670.
And Murphy's Law tells me that Apple will make the RV670 the bto video card of the next Mac Pro.

Topper
Oct 23, 2007, 05:40 PM
The Quadro FX4500 is the highest available from Apple but its getting long in the tooth. The FX4600, 5500 and 5600 are available on the PC side.

...so if its a workstation, apple should be striving to offer the new workstation cards if not standard cards.

I expect Apple will upgrade the workstation card to a newer Quadro or FireGL card.

Pressure
Oct 23, 2007, 05:47 PM
Considering how poorly the HD2900 XT does against the 8800GTS, 8800GTX, and 8800Ultra, my money says the G92 beats up on the RV670.
And Murphy's Law tells me that Apple will make the RV670 the bto video card of the next Mac Pro.

Time will tell. Basically the RV670 is a shrinked down R600 but with improved Anisotropic Filtering, Anti-Aliasing and Universal Video Decoder (UVD) included in the package.

Regardless, both cards will be cheaper than the current high-end, while still offering near high-end performance.

Eidorian
Oct 23, 2007, 05:47 PM
Beat you to the punch on that one. Look at post #42 :)True but you never posted a corroborating source.

Not that I don't trust you. ;)

Considering how poorly the HD2900 XT does against the 8800GTS, 8800GTX, and 8800Ultra, my money says the G92 beats up on the RV670.
And Murphy's Law tells me that Apple will make the RV670 the bto video card of the next Mac Pro.The ATi card does keep all of the shaders of its older siblings though.

krunk
Oct 23, 2007, 06:47 PM
I expect Apple will upgrade the workstation card to a newer Quadro or FireGL card.

I'm sure that's what the GL cards will be upgraded to, but it still leaves open what the new top end consumer card will be.

Wild-Bill
Oct 23, 2007, 07:08 PM
Considering how poorly the HD2900 XT does against the 8800GTS, 8800GTX, and 8800Ultra, my money says the G92 beats up on the RV670.
And Murphy's Law tells me that Apple will make the RV670 the bto video card of the next Mac Pro.

Actually, Murphy's Law would have Apple offering the 2900xt as the BTO video card. :p:p

I've started using the Mac Pro feedback form to suggest that the G92 would be a better option for Apple both price-wise and heat-wise. Will they listen? Probably not.

Pressure
Oct 23, 2007, 08:12 PM
Actually, Murphy's Law would have Apple offering the 2900xt as the BTO video card. :p:p

I've started using the Mac Pro feedback form to suggest that the G92 would be a better option for Apple both price-wise and heat-wise. Will they listen? Probably not.

Funny, considering that the RV670 is using less power, dissipating less heat and cheaper compared to the G92. After all, it is 55nm versus 65nm.

As far as I am aware, the R600 is also at End of Life and not being produced anymore.

fernmeister
Oct 26, 2007, 03:00 AM
What an incredibly odd thing to say. Choice is never a bad thing. If Apple started offered just *semi-current* card, it doesn't mean you have to buy them. You can use your 2 year old, discontinued card for as long as you'd like.

Why I find the statement so odd is that it's essentially saying "I, for one, am glad that my platform sucks at application X." Why would anyone be anything but happy that their platform is one of the best on all fronts?

It's not at all about "...glad that my platform sucks at application X." Rather, it's about being glad that development is driven by application, L, F & A, which happen to be the apps I do need.

Topper
Oct 29, 2007, 07:09 AM
Boot Daily did a benchtest with the 8800GT.
As you can see by the chart, it comes pretty close in performance to the 8800GTX (if you can believe them).

Boot Daily says, "In all honesty, we'd really have a hard time recommending any other card than the 8800GT for purchase at this time – not even the GTX. Its price, performance and power use make the GTX look like a relic. Moving to the 65nm process has really paid some nice dividends for both NVIDIA and those whom are seeking the best graphic card out right now.
Some may rag on the 8800GT since it doesn’t have DX10.1 support but until we know of a game that’s worth buying which supports 10.1, We certainly wouldn’t worry to much about it and at this point would far from consider it to be a deal-breaker at all."

http://www.bootdaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=849&Itemid=51

I JUST ADDED TWO MORE GRAPHS FROM VR-ZONE.

http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/8800gt.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/8800gt 1.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/8800gt 2.jpg

Wild-Bill
Oct 29, 2007, 07:21 AM
WOW. :eek: That thing is a monster!

But, that only leads me to believe that Apple won't use it, just because it is that good and that new. We'll be stuck with something inferior probably. Doesn't make sense (for me at least) to count on this card in the Mac Pro, as I'll only be working myself up only to be disappointed.

Regardless, I will find a way to make it work somehow. Someone figured out how to make the 8800GTX work in OSX (albeit a nonstandard OSX). Stands to reason those same folks will fashion a driver for this card.

The internet is buzzing about this card.

Still, I submit the Mac Pro feedback asking for this card. I hope others are too. With the lower price and lower heat dissipation, Apple would be fools not to.

Topper
Oct 29, 2007, 07:29 AM
But, that only leads me to believe that Apple won't use it, just because it is that good.

Absolutely correct. Apple's going to stick it to us again.

chewietobbacca
Oct 29, 2007, 07:11 PM
The 8800GT is at nearly 8800GTX levels of performance but single slot, takes only 105W of power, etc.

But supposedly the RV670 / HD3800 series is aimed to match it so this'll be interesting times

Considering Apple already has a contract with ATI, i wouldn't be surprised if the RV670 gets selected.

Topper
Oct 29, 2007, 07:42 PM
The 8800GT is at nearly 8800GTX levels of performance but single slot, takes only 105W of power, etc.

But supposedly the RV670 / HD3800 series is aimed to match it so this'll be interesting times

Considering Apple already has a contract with ATI, i wouldn't be surprised if the RV670 gets selected.

That's my worry. The 8800GT looks to be a winner.
ATI hasn't been able to match up with nVidia in a long time. I seriously doubt they can do it now.
On paper ATI video cards look good but when the benchmarks come out comparing the HD 3870 to the 8800GT, I'll bet nVidia spanks good ol' ATI once again.
Once again we will get a crappy ATI card.

Wild-Bill
Oct 29, 2007, 07:58 PM
Once again we will get a crappy ATI card.

Submit Mac Pro feedback to Apple, guys. It's the only way to get our voices heard. Sure, they probably throw all of mine away, but there is strength in numbers. Tell Apple what you want!

Topper, I also believe that ATI won't step up to the plate in their next incarnation. They have fallen so far behind in both the video card and processor arena. And I'm no Intel or nVidia fanboy either. The PC to my left has an x1800xt and an AMD 3800+ X2 in it. My money goes where the performance is. At the time, it was AMD. Intel's technology and 45nm process just makes me shake my head in disbelief at how good it's going to be. Likewise with the 8800GT. A card at that price point, form-factor, and thermal output slicing through its elders like that is simply amazing.

Topper
Oct 29, 2007, 09:47 PM
[B]Intel's technology and 45nm process just makes me shake my head in disbelief at how good it's going to be. Likewise with the 8800GT. A card at that price point, form-factor, and thermal output slicing through its elders like that is simply amazing.

Potentially a very powerful, yet cool and quiet computer.

Submit Mac Pro feedback to Apple, guys. It's the only way to get our voices heard. Sure, they probably throw all of mine away, but there is strength in numbers. Tell Apple what you want!

I think it is too late.
Apple has already put in the orders and the video cards are most likely already in the computers and ready to go.

randyhudson
Oct 29, 2007, 10:24 PM
Have you seen the double slot cooling that topline graphics systems have these days? they're not going to miraculously engineer an 8800 series or a R600 based GPU in an iMac and keep the same slimline all in one formfactor.

I applaud Apple for not shipping whatever ATI and NVidia decide to manufacture as part of their pissing contest, resulting in a noisy, 800W PC. But on the other hand, the MacBook Pro is a notebook with double the performance of the latest iMac, so I don't think one can argue that cooling is the issue.

krunk
Oct 29, 2007, 10:46 PM
I applaud Apple for not shipping whatever ATI and NVidia decide to manufacture as part of their pissing contest, resulting in a noisy, 800W PC. But on the other hand, the MacBook Pro is a notebook with double the performance of the latest iMac, so I don't think one can argue that cooling is the issue.

I'd rather they offer a range of cards so that the customer can choose which fits his needs, and tolerance, best.

Apple has already put in the orders and the video cards are most likely already in the computers and ready to go.

True, but OEMs know of what's coming out before we do. They may very well have placed orders for these new cards as they have the intel chips.