You guys are all waiting for the...

[mojopixel]

...NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT and it's driving some of you mad but what exactly is wrong with the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT???

[Mr.PS]

There is nothing wrong with it, it's a great card, and it's more then enough for some of us, including myself. The problems lies with the video issues this card has been causing for everyone including myself. The random artifacts and screen flicker issue. All of these cards look to be defective right now - that's why a lot of US are re-ordering with the 8800GT.

That's what's wrong...

[ideasman69]

nothing is really wrong with it but the speed and processing power between them is amazing. and for $200 its nothing. you'd be stupid not to spend the extra when you're already spending so much.

xeon + 8800 = awesome

[exspes]

Because pouring so much money into a top of the line machine and not having a top of the line(ish) videocard is just a ridiculous idea.

For me - this is replacing my desktop PC and thus it has to play games as well as do complex 3d rendering. So, 8800 rawks.

[sirris101]

There is nothing wrong with it, it's a great card, and it's more then enough for some of us, including myself. The problems lies with the video issues this card has been causing for everyone including myself. The random artifacts and screen flicker issue. All of these cards look to be defective right now - that's why a lot of US are re-ordering with the 8800GT.

That's what's wrong...

Sorry to hear about your trouble... I've got a 2600 XT and it's working great. That said, I also have an 8800 GT on order...

[schreck]

I currently have the ATI card and have also seen some problems with screen flickr and lag. Even exposé is slow at times. All of this in a brand new xeon Mac Pro. Perhaps 10.5.2 will help with some of these issues, but if it does not, I'll wait until the 8800GT becomes more readily available from Apple.

[ksz]

Graphics processors are beginning to share the computational load with the main processor. This may be a significant trend if nVidia's plans for General Purpose Graphics Processor Units (GPGPUs) become widely adopted. OS X already uses the GPU for various Quartz Extreme tasks. These are primarily 2D tasks, but could be expanded to utilize a broader spectrum of the graphics processor.

[whistler222]

plus the upgrade is only 160 dollars for ADC discount... even more reason to get it :D

[macenforcer]

My 2600xt card is just perfect. I feel for everyone with card problems. That said I am having major leopard problems.

[Mr.PS]

My 2600xt card is just perfect. I feel for everyone with card problems. That said I am having major leopard problems.

what kind of problems?

[ErikAndre]

There is nothing wrong with it, it's a great card, and it's more then enough for some of us, including myself. The problems lies with the video issues this card has been causing for everyone including myself. The random artifacts and screen flicker issue. All of these cards look to be defective right now - that's why a lot of US are re-ordering with the 8800GT.

That's what's wrong...

Are we so sure it's the video card? I mean, if it is HW related, it could very well be with another component in the system (hard drive, logic board chipset... hell, it could be the power supply). I too am waiting on the 8800, but am also hoping it's perhaps SW related and the 10.5.2 will address many of these issues folks are experiencing. I guess it wouldn't be conclusive to be the graphics card until a mass of folks get a system without the 2600 and we find only those with it are having trouble. That would be conclusive to me.

... or did I miss something?

[krye]

I'm in the same boat. I'd love to just go to the store and walk out with a new Mac Pro. I've been saving my money for a year and it’s finally here, and I finally have the money. It's so hard to hold on...but for $200, it's worth it.

I've always been an Nvidia fan over ATI. (For no apparent reason other than my first "real" video card was Nvidia.) To spend $3000 dollars and a top-of-the-line machine and settle for entry-level graphics doesn’t seem to make much sense. I'm sure the ATI card would probably have been better than any card I've had before, it’s just that the 8800 looks so much better for only another $200.

Plus, if history is to repeat itself, how many people had the last ATI card die on them after just a few months? I heard it was a nightmare.

[ErikAndre]

I'm in the same boat. I'd love to just go to the store and walk out with a new Mac Pro. I've been saving my money for a year and it’s finally here, and I finally have the money. It's so hard to hold on...but for $200, it's worth it.

I've always been an Nvidia fan over ATI. (For no apparent reason other than my first "real" video card was Nvidia.) To spend $3000 dollars and a top-of-the-line machine and settle for entry-level graphics doesn’t seem to make much sense. I'm sure the ATI card would probably have been better than any card I've had before, it’s just that the 8800 looks so much better for only another $200.

Plus, if history is to repeat itself, how many people had the last ATI card die on them after just a few months? I heard it was a nightmare.

My brother-in-law works for nVidia and at his wedding, him and his groom's men made a giant cake with the nVidia logo on the top of it. It was hysterical. Sad thing is, everyone at the wedding (aside from his groom's men and myself) had no idea what nVidia even was (because the wedding was in florida). i'll have to post a picture... but the guys over at nvidia are a riot.

[krye]

My brother-in-law works for nVidia and at his wedding, him and his groom's men made a giant cake with the nVidia logo on the top of it. It was hysterical. Sad thing is, everyone at the wedding (aside from his groom's men and myself) had no idea what nVidia even was (because the wedding was in florida). i'll have to post a picture... but the guys over at nvidia are a riot.

I'd like to see that!

[wafl iron]

because every ati card ive had has caused me issues!

[teleromeo]

I'm not waiting for that graphic card, I'm waiting for updated displays .

[Roy]

I'm not waiting for that graphic card, I'm waiting for updated displays .

And what's your estimated ETA of the new ACDs?

[ErikAndre]

I'd like to see that!

I'll see if I can get a picture tonight uploaded.

I'm not waiting for that graphic card, I'm waiting for updated displays .

As are we all.

[flyingscott]

...NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT and it's driving some of you mad but what exactly is wrong with the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT???

You obviously don't work with motion or aperture... the ATI is a lower end GPU. Its fine for most, but will be a bottle neck for me and others.

[teleromeo]

And what's your estimated ETA of the new ACDs?

oops ...
what's ETA ?
As a matter of fact, when you check the buyers guide it states Don't Buy - Updates soon and it's way over time.

[peejack]

...NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT and it's driving some of you mad but what exactly is wrong with the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT???

THIS IS THE PROBLEM!!! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=419100&goto=newpost)

[mojopixel]

Oh I see, does Apple know about this flickering issue and will upgrading to a 8800 GT mean users will not suffer from the same flickering issue?

[ErikAndre]

Oh I see, does Apple know about this flickering issue and will upgrading to a 8800 GT mean users will not suffer from the same flickering issue?

If 50+ are calling about the same issue, Apple knows.

[mojopixel]

If 50+ are calling about the same issue, Apple knows.

Ok, what are they doing about it?

[peejack]

Ok, what are they doing about it?

Hopefully trying to diagnose the problem and/or write a firmware/software update for it.

[zdobson]

...NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT and it's driving some of you mad but what exactly is wrong with the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT???

First of all, you have to note that many people on here like to spend lots of money to max out their machines whether they actually need it or not. Yes, I realize that many people on this forum are pros and do actually need it, but it can be a little misleading for those of us who don't.

That being said, there are a lot of people like myself who don't need the 8800 and are very happy with their 2600. I have had no problems whatsoever with my 2.8 octo. I am a pro photographer and I don't game, so the 8800 is a waste for me. Personally, I wanted the $200 in my pocket instead of in my machine. I do understand why a lot of people are willing to spend the money, though.

Don't get too caught up in the frenzy. Evaluate what you really need. Reading these forums, I was convinced that I needed at least 8GB of RAM, but for my use, so far I haven't topped 1.3GB of active RAM.

[kem]

After ordering my new machine I regretted not getting the 8800, so I planned on getting it in a few months, and I still might. However the 2600XT is WAY better than I expected. I really only play one game on PC and thats GTR2, which imo is a game that is not very optimized and can really tax your system. My old PC had a 7600GT AGP, which was probably held back by AGP but I had to run the game 1024x768, no AA or AF and low settings to achieve a playable framerate.

Now the on 8core 2.8, I run 1280x1024, 2xAA 4x AF, high settings and get 60fps. Not that bad for a low-end card imo. Admittedly $200 for the upgraded card is pretty cheap and worth it for anyone who plans on gaming.

[kem]

How is that possible? If your in photoshop working on high res photos it's bound to make full use of your 8gb of ram. And yes I know Photoshop can only allocate 4gb of ram, but after that it sends to your swap disk, however in CS3 the system will take what photoshop would normally send to swap and send it to the extra RAM in your system, thus greatly boosting performance.

I've seen more than 1.3GB of active RAM just using mundane desktop apps, not even using any of my pro apps.



Don't get too caught up in the frenzy. Evaluate what you really need. Reading these forums, I was convinced that I needed at least 8GB of RAM, but for my use, so far I haven't topped 1.3GB of active RAM.

[echoout]

I haven't run into anything yet that has made me regret getting the ATI. Most of the work I've done has been in After Effects, Flash, Illustrator, Photoshop, DVD Studio Pro and Motion. Great so far.

[zdobson]

How is that possible? If your in photoshop working on high res photos it's bound to make full use of your 8gb of ram. And yes I know Photoshop can only allocate 4gb of ram, but after that it sends to your swap disk, however in CS3 the system will take what photoshop would normally send to swap and send it to the extra RAM in your system, thus greatly boosting performance.

I've seen more than 1.3GB of active RAM just using mundane desktop apps, not even using any of my pro apps.

I wondered the same thing. I expected it to use much, much more. I have the Photoshop preferences set to allow 1.5 GB, but PS itself hasn't used much over a gig. Granted, the files I've been working with lately are jpegs (converted from RAW), not tiffs and are only 7-9MB. Maybe because I'm coming from using a PowerBook G4, I'm still being conservative in my usage.

I have a wedding I'm about to edit for the next couple days. I took 1750 shots. Obviously I won't be processing all of them, but I'll watch usage as I work. Another thing might be that I tend not do more than levels adjustments and sharpening in PS. That doesn't use much RAM. And RAW conversions and batch processes are mostly using the CPU. I don't do much with layers b/c I'm a photojournalist and don't want to alter the original content of the image.

[Macinposh]

I wondered the same thing. I expected it to use much, much more. I have the Photoshop preferences set to allow 1.5 GB, but PS itself hasn't used much over a gig. Granted, the files I've been working with lately are jpegs (converted from RAW), not tiffs and are only 7-9MB.



A bit off topic, but same here!

Tried to ask about the memory allocation few months ago,but didnt get any definite answers.

I have 2GB of memory and it has never gone above 1.4GB.
Programs shows that 1.4GB used, 600MB free.
I can have 20x72mb TIFFs open,lightroom open,whatever open and it never,never,ever takes that 600MB free memory to use.

It doesnt matter if I have allocated 60% or 100% to photoshop.

Dont know if it is the Menumeter program that shows the allocation incorrectly or is it that the OS X keeps the 600mb´s reserved for something...that never has shown up?

Post it up if you happen to know the answer!