The 2009 (Gainestown) Mac Pro: Everything We Know

[kabunaru]

24GB is enough for the foreseeable furture :rolleyes:

Why not 1TB of RAM to last you a life time? :)

[nanofrog]

While I know nothing about the design and manufacture of Apple's board, I can guarantee that it is *NOT* based on an existing Intel board. (Because I know all about the Intel boards.)

The Mac Pro uses the 5400X chipset. Intel has two boards that use the 5400-series chipset.

The S5400SF (http://support.intel.com/products/server/motherboards/s5400sf/s5400sf-overview.htm) server board, which has 16(!) DIMM slots flat on the board, and a single PCI-e x16 slot, since it's meant to be used in a 1U rack-mount chassis. (Indeed, it is sold exclusively as the "SR1560SF" server system, not as a lone board.)

The D5400XS (http://support.intel.com/products/desktop/motherboards/d5400xs/d5400xs-overview.htm) is the ultra-high-end dual-socket desktop board, which has only four memory slots, flat on the board; but a raft of expansion slots, including four PCI-e x16 slots.

Neither one looks *ANYTHING* like the Mac Pro's motherboard. And neither one uses a memory riser.

Oh, and 4 GB sticks of DDR-3 are available. So six sticks would be 24 GB. Eighteen sticks (three per channel, per processor,) would be 72 GB. I commented that it would be funny to have that much RAM in a system with three of the new 32 GB ultra-extreme Intel SSDs in a RAID-5. You wouldn't even have enough space to suspend-to-disk, much less hold an OS or data.
I'm thinking in terms of systems engineering, not appearance. A few modifications due to custom specs can make a significant difference. Risers, repositioning the CPU sockets for additional PCIe socket length, and the location of the ODD_SATA ports would. Then there's the color selection of the solder mask and silk screen legend. ;) Add in a few other changes, such as firmware, and possibly a different component here and there (i.e. NIC chip, etc), and you have a custom board that physically resembles nothing else made by the same company, but is still very similar as far as a schematic diagram (not layout). Modified reference design. :D

I guess it depends on how you look at it; schematic, or final product. ;) :p

[VirtualRain]

"640k of RAM is enough for anyone"

That quote is always so safe and effective....but seriously, expandability never hurt anyone. It improves the machines useful lifespan, if nothing else.

I agree that more expansion is better, but a product manager has to make trade-offs... 6 DIMM slots, 12 DIMM slots, 18 DIMM slots... all have trade-offs associated with them.

So what's the most RAM anyone here would consider running in their MP?

6GB for me.

[8CoreWhore]

[QUOTE=sidewinder;7126713]That's pretty funny. Just how big do you think the molecules in air are exactly? Hole size isn't the issue.....it's the ratio of open area to closed area.

Well, the open amount looks to me to be inadequate to provide enough flow. You knew that's what I meant, smartass, not the size of air molecules. My position is it doesn't "look" to be enough. Are you able to prove it does? My position doesn't need to be proved or disproved.It looks too constricting. You won't even say if it is or not.

[sidewinder]

Well, the open amount looks to me to be inadequate to provide enough flow. You knew that's what I meant, smartass, not the size of air molecules. My position is it doesn't "look" to be enough. Are you able to prove it does? My position doesn't need to be proved or disproved.It looks too constricting. You won't even say if it is or not.

To be quite honest, I didn't know what you meant. You said the "holes are too small to pull enough air thru" and that is all I had to go on.

Looking at the image, it is impossible to tell if the ratio of open area to closed area is less, the same, or greater. We would need to see a closeup of the pattern to know for sure.

S-

[robinp]

To be quite honest, I didn't know what you meant. You said the "holes are too small to pull enough air thru" and that is all I had to go on.

Looking at the image, it is impossible to tell if the ratio of open area to closed area is less, the same, or greater. We would need to see a closeup of the pattern to know for sure.

S-

I actually disagree. Air, as any fluid, has viscosity and is also subject to friction. This means that the smaller the holes get, the greater the overall area of holes vs solid to achieve the same capacity of flow. Air particle size is virtually irrelevant... besides, which part of 'air' are you referring too? Oxygen, Nitrogen, CO2... etc etc?

Oh, and it is pretty easy to see from that image that the overall area of holes is significantly less than the current design, not to mention the fact they are smaller...

[diamond.g]

That's a crapload of SATA connectors.

What is interesting is I can't find either board on ASUSs website at all. I was wanting to see if the colors meant anything. I would assume they have to do with the on board RAID, but am not positive.

[wisty]

Just wondering, is there any reason why a 285 or 295 graphics card is off the table?

I know that Apple has historically used lower end cards (except the pro option). Apple products aren't game machines, they are for digital lifestyle, or work. But CSS4 (and similar apps) now use CUDA. CUDA (or openCL - the big feature in SL) is a pretty huge deal, and a good graphics card will give a lot of bang for your buck.

Given how good GPUs are at handling graphics, and given how much better a 295 is than the 260, would a single socket i7 with a 295 be able to run CSS as fast or faster than a dual socket Gainstown MacPro with a 260?

[Tallest Skil]

Just wondering, is there any reason why a 285 or 295 graphics card is off the table?

1. They are gaming cards.
2. They're over Apple's self-imposed power draw limit.

[wisty]

CUDA / openCL is not just for gaming. Photoshop, CAD programs, it's going to be everywhere.

The 285 has lower TPD to the 260 (182W vs 183W), and lower idle power use, doesn't it? The 295 might be a bit hot though, at 289W.

[diamond.g]

CUDA / openCL is not just for gaming. Photoshop, CAD programs, it's going to be everywhere.

The 285 has lower TPD to the 260 (182W vs 183W), and lower idle power use, doesn't it? The 295 might be a bit hot though, at 289W.

So far, Apple has never used high end consumer cards. You may be able to get the GT200 core through Apple maybe offering a quardo card, but that will be about it. It is mostly due to Apple's insistence on including video drivers as apart of the OS and not as a separate downloadable. While this makes for better stability it also means features a card can do go unused for a long time. Plus since Apple only updates video drivers every once and a while new cards are made unusable (where as on a PC at least you get some sort of basic compatibility mode). The ones they do write are for specific cards, which seems silly because if Apple were using OpenGL you should be able to use any card.

[Umbongo]

Just wondering, is there any reason why a 285 or 295 graphics card is off the table?

I know that Apple has historically used lower end cards (except the pro option). Apple products aren't game machines, they are for digital lifestyle, or work. But CSS4 (and similar apps) now use CUDA. CUDA (or openCL - the big feature in SL) is a pretty huge deal, and a good graphics card will give a lot of bang for your buck.

Given how good GPUs are at handling graphics, and given how much better a 295 is than the 260, would a single socket i7 with a 295 be able to run CSS as fast or faster than a dual socket Gainstown MacPro with a 260?

I believe it is a case of Apple not needing to offer a large range of GPUs to sell systems to the customers they are targetting. There are downsides to offering more options for Apple, though they may seem irrelevant to us as consumers wanting choice. The 295 is basically ruled out as they would need SLI drivers (I believe) which don't seem like something Apple are willing to deal with.

Maybe we will see things change with the change in role of the GPU, but I wouldn't expect anything this year.

[Umbongo]

So far, Apple has never used high end consumer cards. You may be able to get the GT200 core through Apple maybe offering a quardo card, but that will be about it. It is mostly due to Apple's insistence on including video drivers as apart of the OS and not as a separate downloadable. While this makes for better stability it also means features a card can do go unused for a long time. Plus since Apple only updates video drivers every once and a while new cards are made unusable (where as on a PC at least you get some sort of basic compatibility mode). The ones they do write are for specific cards, which seems silly because if Apple were using OpenGL you should be able to use any card.

I guess it depends what you consider high end. The 7800GT (G5), 1900XT and 8800GT were in the high end bracket of cards as defined by the manufacturers at the time of release. They just weren't the highest end in those brackets, which makes sense as such cards have a huge premium for little performance gain.

[wisty]

I believe it is a case of Apple not needing to offer a large range of GPUs to sell systems to the customers they are targetting. There are downsides to offering more options for Apple, though they may seem irrelevant to us as consumers wanting choice. The 295 is basically ruled out as they would need SLI drivers (I believe) which don't seem like something Apple are willing to deal with.

Maybe we will see things change with the change in role of the GPU, but I wouldn't expect anything this year.

So high-end consumer graphics cards are a "nascent" market?

[Bubba Satori]

I agree that more expansion is better, but a product manager has to make trade-offs... 6 DIMM slots, 12 DIMM slots, 18 DIMM slots... all have trade-offs associated with them.

So what's the most RAM anyone here would consider running in their MP?

6GB for me.

32GB. HDR Photoshop, 3D animation and multi track audio with lots of synths.

[Bubba Satori]

1. They are gaming cards.
2. They're over Apple's self-imposed power draw limit.

Yes, and the reason the iMacs I sell have two generation old ATI 2600 video cards in them. And quite frankly, my customers could care less. I care. Which is why I won't buy one.

[Umbongo]

So high-end consumer graphics cards are a "nascent" market?

Just some areas. I would say CUDA/OpenCL and SLI/Crossfire (for non-games at least) are. Those areas are ones that could see Apple change their current ideology towards the GPU.

[BenRoethig]

Just some areas. I would say CUDA/OpenCL and SLI/Crossfire (for non-games at least) are. Those areas are ones that could see Apple change their current ideology towards the GPU.

SLI/Crossfire would be very useful with OpenCL.

[robbieduncan]

SLI/Crossfire would be very useful with OpenCL.

No it wouldn't. In fact it would be totally pointless. SLI/Crossfire allow the cards to work together to render scenes faster. OpenCL allows the use of the cards for general purpose computing: it can already use multiple cards rather like having multiple CPUs: it doesn't need SLI or Crossfire support.

[diamond.g]

I guess it depends what you consider high end. The 7800GT (G5), 1900XT and 8800GT were in the high end bracket of cards as defined by the manufacturers at the time of release. They just weren't the highest end in those brackets, which makes sense as such cards have a huge premium for little performance gain.

True, Apples biggest problem is they write drivers for specific cards versus using the family of cards.

[diamond.g]

No it wouldn't. In fact it would be totally pointless. SLI/Crossfire allow the cards to work together to render scenes faster. OpenCL allows the use of the cards for general purpose computing: it can already use multiple cards rather like having multiple CPUs: it doesn't need SLI or Crossfire support.

OpenCL like OpenGL would only be able to handle multiple cards (in SLI or otherwise) if the OS is aware of the cards, just because Snow Leopard has OpenCL doesn't mean that the GTX 295 is all of a sudden going to start working. It doesn't work now and OpenGL has been able to support SLI since it first came back (read: a while).

[robbieduncan]

OpenCL like OpenGL would only be able to handle multiple cards (in SLI or otherwise) if the OS is aware of the cards, just because Snow Leopard has OpenCL doesn't mean that the GTX 295 is all of a sudden going to start working. It doesn't work now and OpenGL has been able to support SLI since it first came back (read: a while).

At an OS level the OSX is aware of the cards. OpenCL is designed to scale across the cards by default; OpenGL is not: the drivers "trick" OpenGL (and DirectX) into thinking that they pair (or more) of cards are actually one card. OpenCL doesn't need this.

[diamond.g]

At an OS level the OSX is aware of the cards. OpenCL is designed to scale across the cards by default; OpenGL is not: the drivers "trick" OpenGL (and DirectX) into thinking that they pair (or more) of cards are actually one card. OpenCL doesn't need this.

At a hardware level the system knows there is a card in it. At an OS level it know there is a card in it. It doesn't know what the card is thus the OS either doesn't boot or it kernel panics. Or is Apple finially getting with the time and providing a generic driver that any GPU would run with a la Windows?

[VirtualRain]

Based on my experience with SLI on a PC, I would never use it again. Don't wish for it on Apple. It's just trash marketing designed to put more money into Nvidia's coffers at the expense of your sanity. Crossfire is not much better from what I've read.

Another aspect people here are overlooking is that crappy 3rd party video (and other) drivers are one of the main reasons PC's have stability issues. Be thankful that you can't download new video drivers for OSX every week, otherwise you would be diminishing one of the key strengths of OSX vs. Windows.

[diamond.g]

Based on my experience with SLI on a PC, I would never use it again. Don't wish for it on Apple. It's just trash marketing designed to put more money into Nvidia's coffers at the expense of your sanity. Crossfire is not much better from what I've read.

Another aspect people here are overlooking is that crappy 3rd party video (and other) drivers are one of the main reasons PC's have stability issues. Be thankful that you can't download new video drivers for OSX every week, otherwise you would be diminishing one of the key strengths of OSX vs. Windows.

From a technical standpoint Apple's drivers are thrid party drivers. Unless you are now claiming that Apple knows more about Nvidias and ATIs GPUs than they do...

Besides ATIs recent X2s fixes the problems associated with SLI and profile support of applications by only showing up as 1 GPU to begin with.

[robbieduncan]

At a hardware level the system knows there is a card in it. At an OS level it know there is a card in it. It doesn't know what the card is thus the OS either doesn't boot or it kernel panics. Or is Apple finially getting with the time and providing a generic driver that any GPU would run with a la Windows?

None of what I have said suggests that. A current Mac Pro will happily boot with multiple Apple supplied graphics cards. They will not work together to render images; there is no SLI or Crossfire support in the drivers. But OpenCL will be able to use all such cards to split the work load of the OpenCL kernels in use.

[diamond.g]

None of what I have said suggests that. A current Mac Pro will happily boot with multiple Apple supplied graphics cards. They will not work together to render images; there is no SLI or Crossfire support in the drivers. But OpenCL will be able to use all such cards to split the work load of the OpenCL kernels in use.

Ah, I see. I think part of the original problem was the lack of support of newer cards. It was said that Apple did include high end cards, just not the cream of the crop. Which is true, Apple no longer does so though, looking to use the mid range cards. Which is fine, if they gave an option for higher end. They don't and the one system that can take high end cards can't use them unless you boot Windows. I think this is due to Apple writing drivers for specific cards. Which would be fine if it was a card that didn't share roots with any other but there is no reason why an 8800GTX (or the entire 9800 GXX line) shouldn't work in the Mac Pro. They are all based on G9x cores which share the same code, just differing shader units and memory (bandwidth and size). If Apple were truly using OpenGL and OpenCL to power special effects then they should be able to write a generic VGA driver that would allow any VGA compatible card to at least run. From there they should be able to determine what abilites the card has (through querying the card) and scale the special effects from there.

[Anonymous Freak]

I guess it depends what you consider high end. The 7800GT (G5), 1900XT and 8800GT were in the high end bracket of cards as defined by the manufacturers at the time of release. They just weren't the highest end in those brackets, which makes sense as such cards have a huge premium for little performance gain.

Not to mention Apple was the 'launch customer' for both the GeForce 3 and the GeForce 4.

[robbieduncan]

...If Apple were truly using OpenGL and OpenCL to power special effects then they should be able to write a generic VGA driver that would allow any VGA compatible card to at least run. From there they should be able to determine what abilites the card has (through querying the card) and scale the special effects from there.

There is no need for a VGA driver for OpenCL to work: it has absolutely nothing to do with the display pipeline at all. It is not for graphical special effects or similar (at least not directly). It allows the power of the GPU to be used for general purpose computing: some of the stuff that normally runs on the CPU. As long as a card has an EFI firmware (which normal PC cards don't: they still have antiquated BIOS firmware) then it could potentially be used by OpenCL, even without graphics level drivers. This would require OpenCL support for the card though.

Note that OpenCL, rather like CoreImage and CoreVideo today does not have to run on the graphics card. If the library decides that it would be faster to execute on a CPU core it can: the point is to allow the spreading of load across all the processors in the system. The clever part is that the developer does not need to worry about this, or write different code for the CPU, the GPU or whatever else comes along...

[diamond.g]

There is no need for a VGA driver for OpenCL to work: it has absolutely nothing to do with the display pipeline at all. It is not for graphical special effects or similar (at least not directly). It allows the power of the GPU to be used for general purpose computing: some of the stuff that normally runs on the CPU. As long as a card has an EFI firmware (which normal PC cards don't: they still have antiquated BIOS firmware) then it could potentially be used by OpenCL, even without graphics level drivers. This would require OpenCL support for the card though.

Note that OpenCL, rather like CoreImage and CoreVideo today does not have to run on the graphics card. If the library decides that it would be faster to execute on a CPU core it can: the point is to allow the spreading of load across all the processors in the system. The clever part is that the developer does not need to worry about this, or write different code for the CPU, the GPU or whatever else comes along...

I think understand what you are saying, but I think you miss what I am saying. It has nothing to do with OpenGL/CL initially. It is all about getting more than just the Apple supplied cards to even work. That is what some people were complaining about.

[diamond.g]

By the by, it is looking like Snow Leopard is going to support the GT200 series and the 48xxX2 line. Not quite clear on GTX295 support, but it should be possible since it is just two GTX 260s. All gleaned from Insanely Mac (http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=147149).

[Tallest Skil]

By the by, it is looking like Snow Leopard is going to support the GT200 series and the 48xxX2 line. Not quite clear on GTX295 support, but it should be possible since it is just two GTX 260s. All gleaned from Insanely Mac (http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=147149).

Gonna say the 4600 line, making the 4670 a candidate for the base card.

Where's the evidence for the 48xxX2, seeing as that card is obscenely out of Apple's range?

[diamond.g]

Gonna say the 4600 line, making the 4670 a candidate for the base card.

Where's the evidence for the 48xxX2, seeing as that card is obscenely out of Apple's range?

Rumor based on post 11. The person claimed that Snow Leopard will support the 4870x2.

[Tallest Skil]

Rumor based on post 11. The person claimed that Snow Leopard will support the 4870x2.

With absolutely no proof.

On the other hand, we have a screenshot of Snow Leopard kexts with 4600 support.

Hang on... WHERE in J the Ninja's post do you get anything about the 48xxX2 series?

[Eidorian]

With absolutely no proof.

On the other hand, we have a screenshot of Snow Leopard kexts with 4600 support.

Hang on... WHERE in J the Ninja's post do you get anything about the 48xxX2 series?There's mention of HD48xx support as well in Snow Leopard.

[diamond.g]

With absolutely no proof.

On the other hand, we have a screenshot of Snow Leopard kexts with 4600 support.

Hang on... WHERE in J the Ninja's post do you get anything about the 48xxX2 series?

There's mention of HD48xx support as well in Snow Leopard.

I didn't.

[sidewinder]

Post 11 is J the Ninja's post....Post 11 is where you said you got the rumor..

S-

[Tallest Skil]

I didn't.

1,285 ≠ 11. :D

It's cool.

Incredibly strange, though, but it's Eidorian, so it's probably true. :)

[dansheppy52]

is this fake?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem-2-8Ghz-LGA-1366-CPU-Gainestown_W0QQitemZ320341290700QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item320341290700&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

[Eidorian]

I didn't.I just did. At least for the HD48xx Series.

[Tallest Skil]

is this fake?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem-2-8Ghz-LGA-1366-CPU-Gainestown_W0QQitemZ320341290700QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item320341290700&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

The price certainly is, but the chips do exist.

I just did. At least for the HD48xx Series.

Okay, I went back and read these posts in the correct order, and I'm confused now.

Where was it that it was shown that the 48xx series had support in Snow Leopard? A link to a screenshot of the kext or something similar is preferable.

It wasn't post 11; that's for sure.

[diamond.g]

I just did. At least for the HD48xx Series.

Okay, I went back and read these posts in the correct order, and I'm confused now.

Where was it that it was shown that the 48xx series had support in Snow Leopard? A link to a screenshot of the kext or something similar is preferable.

It wasn't post 11; that's for sure.

Post 11 in the Insanely Mac forum post I linked to. Sorry for the confusion.

[Eidorian]

Okay, I went back and read these posts in the correct order, and I'm confused now.

Where was it that it was shown that the 48xx series had support in Snow Leopard? A link to a screenshot of the kext or something similar is preferable.

It wasn't post 11; that's for sure.Lack of faith is disturbing...

(http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009-02-09/#9587)

[Umbongo]

is this fake?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem-2-8Ghz-LGA-1366-CPU-Gainestown_W0QQitemZ320341290700QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item320341290700&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

Probably not, engineering samples have been out there since December.

[Tallest Skil]

Lack of faith is disturbing...

(http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009-02-09/#9587)

Okay, got it now.

*selffacepalm*

Well, this is confusing. I thought we had our cards figured out. Great. Now what? :confused:

[mongorama]

...Great. Now what? :confused:

Now we get even more anxious for the release of a new Mac Pro. :)

[tom.]

I think it is going to drive me insane. I'm beginning to find it odd that all the mac desktops are so long overdue - doesn't anyone else get an eerie feeling about that? What are they planning?

[Tallest Skil]

I think it is going to drive me insane. I'm beginning to find it odd that all the mac desktops are so long overdue - doesn't anyone else get an eerie feeling about that? What are they planning?

Discontinuation of all three models.

Honestly, I don't expect the Mac Pro to live past the next few.

[VirtualRain]

Does anyone really understand the graphics driver development process with Apple?

Does Nvidia and ATI develop the OSX drivers? If so, why aren't they updated more frequently (they both offer new unified drivers covering their entire range of cards regularly for the PC)? If not, why not? What role does Apple play in this? Certifying and packaging the drivers with the OS?

I gather OSX support for graphics cards also requires an EFI supportable bios on the GPU... is this one of the main limiting factors in more graphics cards being supported on OSX?

Help me understand how this works on the Apple side of the business.

[Tallest Skil]

ATI makes their own drivers, Apple writes nVidia's.

Explains a lot, I think.

[nanofrog]

ATI makes their own drivers, Apple writes nVidia's.

Explains a lot, I think.
It does to me. ;)

[kabunaru]

ATI makes their own drivers, Apple writes nVidia's.

Explains a lot, I think.

So, in that sense, ATI cards are better than Nvidia for Mac. Apple is just lazy to make the most out of the Nvidia cards.

[sidewinder]

So, in that sense, ATI cards are better than Nvidia for Mac. Apple is just lazy to make the most out of the Nvidia cards.

Or maybe Apple does not know the NVIDIA hardware as well as the engineers at NVIDIA.

What's with all the contempt towards Apple here?

S-

[diamond.g]

Or maybe Apple does not know the NVIDIA hardware as well as the engineers at NVIDIA.
S-
Then why not let Nvidia write their own drivers?

[Eidorian]

Then why not let Nvidia write their own drivers?I fail to see why Apple would prevent them from doing so.

[Tallest Skil]

Then why not let Nvidia write their own drivers?

Someone wrote an e-mail to Steve Jobs about the long wait on an 8800 GT that worked on the 2006 Mac Pro.

His response? "nVidia didn't come through, so we're having to do it. It'll be a month or so."

Either nVidia just doesn't care, or they really can't do it, so Apple has to.

[nanofrog]

Or maybe Apple does not know the NVIDIA hardware as well as the engineers at NVIDIA.

What's with all the contempt towards Apple here?

S-
No contempt here.

You elaborated on my reasoning. It's just a matter of experience/familiarity. :)

Apple doesn't work on nVidia drivers at every working moment, and would expect the development time is brief, in comparison to the entire project. ATI does their own OS X drivers, and obviously, are familiar with their own hardware.

Conversely, similar issues would almost certainly exist if nVidia began designing the MP. :eek: ;) :p

I'm leaving ATI/AMD out of it at this point. :D :p :p

[t0mat0]

Someone wrote an e-mail to Steve Jobs about the long wait on an 8800 GT that worked on the 2006 Mac Pro.

His response? "nVidia didn't come through, so we're having to do it. It'll be a month or so."

Either nVidia just doesn't care, or they really can't do it, so Apple has to.

Maybe wrestling CUDA down, and getting OpenCL was in most peoples interests. Doesn't nvidia seem the first port of call for graphics for Apple for their new models? If so, both their previous driver problems (hardware problems) and Intel's spat with them are blots on the horizon.

[tom.]

Discontinuation of all three models.

Honestly, I don't expect the Mac Pro to live past the next few.

Why? You say the next few - that could be 4 years. Anything could happen between now and then. What makes you think they will phase it out in that timespan?

Seems like a bit of a stab in the dark!

[VirtualRain]

Someone wrote an e-mail to Steve Jobs about the long wait on an 8800 GT that worked on the 2006 Mac Pro.

His response? "nVidia didn't come through, so we're having to do it. It'll be a month or so."

Either nVidia just doesn't care, or they really can't do it, so Apple has to.

Bizarre. Especially since they just released drivers for Linux... http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Nvidia-Video-Drivers-for-Linux-Bring-OpenGL-3-0-Support-104336.shtml

However, if ATI writes their own drivers for OSX, it doesn't explain why there aren't more current ATI graphics card supported on the current MP. I guess the market is so small or the driver development so complicated that it's not worth their while. The MP is a tiny niche (high end workstation) within a tiny niche (OSX) of the market.

[iMacmatician]

Discontinuation of all three models.Or at least slower update cycles (1 year for iMac, longer for others) and fewer models.

The next thing to complete discontinuation would be an 28" iMac "replacing" the Mac Pro and a whiteBook-like 20" iMac "replacing" the Mac mini. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I don't expect the Mac Pro to live past the next few.Don't get your hopes up for that Haswell Mac Pro then. :D

[alanlindsay]

Any idea on what the base RAM configuration will be? Assuming triple channel we're looking at either 3GB or 6GB I would say.

[nanofrog]

Any idea on what the base RAM configuration will be? Assuming triple channel we're looking at either 3GB or 6GB I would say.
I wouldn't expect a triple channel configuration in the base model. Likely too expensive as standard configuration. As an option, yes. ;)

[aaquib]

Any idea on what the base RAM configuration will be? Assuming triple channel we're looking at either 3GB or 6GB I would say.

I say 2GB standard on both retail SKU's w/ a BTO option to go up to 4GB.

[m1stake]

My money's on 3GB.

Also, I was just thinking that it would be very Apple to use 1066Mhz memory instead of giving a real bump to 1333. I know what the Wiki says, but this is Apple, not a manufacturer that cares about performance.

[nanofrog]

I say 2GB standard on both retail SKU's w/ a BTO option to go up to 4GB.
2GB would probably be right in the base model(s), but I would think BTO would offer additional variations. A few possibilities with dual and triple channel configs, using 1 or 2GB sticks. Possibly even a 4GB stick will be made available.

[iMacmatician]

My money's on 3GB.Same here. BTO to 2 GB possible but w/e.

Also, I was just thinking that it would be very Apple to use 1066Mhz memory instead of giving a real bump to 1333. I know what the Wiki says, but this is Apple, not a manufacturer that cares about performance.Didn't they use 1600 MHz for the Harpertown Mac Pros?

[m1stake]

Didn't they use 1600 MHz for the Harpertown Mac Pros?

That's the FSB speed, the memory is clocked at 800Mhz (2:1).

[nanofrog]

My money's on 3GB.

Also, I was just thinking that it would be very Apple to use 1066Mhz memory instead of giving a real bump to 1333. I know what the Wiki says, but this is Apple, not a manufacturer that cares about performance.
3GB? Can you explain?

I based 2GB on the presumption that Apple would sue a 1GB stick in a single channel per CPU.

Like you though, I'm beginning to wonder about the 1333MHz clocked variety. 1066 is cheaper, and Apple, despite the statement of reduced margins, might opt for this to retain a little more profit. ;)

[m1stake]

I wasn't thinking of the dual QPI lanes, because I'm dumb. Remember that.

[Anonymous Freak]

is this fake?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320341290700

Oh, dear...

This guy is *SO* screwed... (The eBay seller, not dansheppy52.) Intel isn't *TOO* picky about engineering sample procs being sold; but only AFTER they have actually been released, since everyone who has a pre-release proc is under some form of NDA.

Oooh, and he's been selling other Gainestowns, (as well as plenty of other production procs,) as well.

[grue]

Or maybe Apple does not know the NVIDIA hardware as well as the engineers at NVIDIA.

What's with all the contempt towards Apple here?

S-

Besides the fact they couldn't write tight code if it would save the world?

[sidewinder]

Besides the fact they couldn't write tight code if it would save the world?

That's an idiotic comment.....

S-

[nanofrog]

I wasn't thinking of the dual QPI lanes, because I'm dumb. Remember that.
:cool:
We all have our off days. :eek: I know I do... :p

Sidewinder; Would you weigh in on the memory speed we might see?
(Not asking in terms of breaking any NDA, but you personal thoughts).

[sidewinder]

Sidewinder; Would you weigh in on the memory speed we might see?
(Not asking in terms of breaking any NDA, but you personal thoughts).
To be honest, I haven't given it much thought. I find all this speculation to be interesting, but not interesting enough to invest time in it myself. Apple is going to release what they are going to release. I am content to wait and see. My current Mac Pro is more than fast enough.

I am much intrigued by Snow Leopard!

S-

[nanofrog]

I am much intrigued by Snow Leopard!

S-
As am I. :)

I've been following T0mat0e's thread. He's put a lot of time into posting his research. :D

[VirtualRain]

:cool:
We all have our off days. :eek: I know I do... :p

Sidewinder; Would you weigh in on the memory speed we might see?
(Not asking in terms of breaking any NDA, but you personal thoughts).

If it's less than 1333 or if you want more than the default configuration, I'm guessing it makes most sense to buy the least memory you can from Apple and replace it all with more higher performing memory.

The other factor is the default memory timings... hopefully they don't choose totally slack timings.

[m1stake]

If it's less than 1333 or if you want more than the default configuration, I'm guessing it makes most sense to buy the least memory you can from Apple and replace it all with more higher performing memory.

The other factor is the default memory timings... hopefully they don't choose totally slack timings.

If the bus isn't 1333mhz, you can put in any speed you want and it'll run at 1066. Timing wise they'll use the JEDEC standard, like usual. 7-7-7-20 for 1066, 7-7-7-24 for 1333.

[twoodcc]

very nice thread. i would like to hope that the new mac pro came before wwdc, but you might be correct in that it won't. can't wait to see it though!

[seisend]

umm, Nice Thread.

I think Apple and nvidia are working closer together since a few months. You can see that on the newest MacBook Series. They got the new nvidia technology and the newest nVidia Notebook chip in it. So, I am pretty shure, that they will do something special diffrent with the early new mac pro.

[grue]

That's an idiotic comment.....

S-

Ok, perhaps they're capable and just don't do it. No matter how you slice it, every piece of software coming out of Apple is ridiculously bloated and in need of serious optimization.

[Tallest Skil]

umm, Nice Thread.

I think Apple and nvidia are working closer together since a few months. You can see that on the newest MacBook Series. They got the new nvidia technology and the newest nVidia Notebook chip in it. So, I am pretty shure, that they will do something special diffrent with the early new mac pro.

What, might I ask?

They're not going to use an nVidia chipset and add an integrated GPU, you know. :rolleyes:

(Uh, guys who know about Tylersburg... back me up here... there isn't a nVidia board that supports Gainestown, is there?)

[diamond.g]

What, might I ask?

They're not going to use an nVidia chipset and add an integrated GPU, you know. :rolleyes:

(Uh, guys who know about Tylersburg... back me up here... there isn't a nVidia board that supports Gainestown, is there?)

Sure isn't. In fact Intel is suing Nvidia over QPI licensing. (http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/18/intel-takes-nvidia-to-court-over-chipset-licensing/) So who knows what is going to happen...

[seisend]

What, might I ask?

They're not going to use an nVidia chipset and add an integrated GPU, you know. :rolleyes:



No of course not. For example a GTX 280 supporting CUDA.

Standart: ATI 4XXX
High-End: GTX 2XX (280?)
Professional: FX 5800

edit: OR as I said special. Don't know what, but something special ;-)...

[nanofrog]

If the bus isn't 1333mhz, you can put in any speed you want and it'll run at 1066. Timing wise they'll use the JEDEC standard, like usual. 7-7-7-20 for 1066, 7-7-7-24 for 1333.
Not a bad idea anyway, as 3rd party has been known to be the cheaper way to upgrade. ;)

As far as timings, CL = 7 for Unbuffered ECC, and CL = 9 (9-9-9-24) for Registered (if even offered) will be common, and the most likely used. It will still be rather speedy. ;) Of course, if you want better, and it exists, you could opt to pay $$$ for the fastest you can find. :D

What, might I ask?

They're not going to use an nVidia chipset and add an integrated GPU, you know. :rolleyes:

(Uh, guys who know about Tylersburg... back me up here... there isn't a nVidia board that supports Gainestown, is there?)
Yes there's a licensing method now, but some board makers may opt to use an nVidia chip (likely still have them on hand, and want to use them first). The Asus P6T6 WS Revolution is currently using the N200 chip. ("Nvidia® nForce 200" from Asus's site (http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=179&l3=815&l4=0&model=2697&modelmenu=1)).
Sure isn't. In fact Intel is suing Nvidia over QPI licensing. (http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/18/intel-takes-nvidia-to-court-over-chipset-licensing/) So who knows what is going to happen...
I'm not sure what will happen over this. :confused: Blow over? Blow up?!? :eek: :p

Anyone else care to weigh in here? :D

[BenRoethig]

Yes there's a licensing method now, but some board makers may opt to use an nVidia chip (likely still have them on hand, and want to use them first). The Asus P6T6 WS Revolution is currently using the N200 chip. ("Nvidia® nForce 200" from Asus's site (http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=179&l3=815&l4=0&model=2697&modelmenu=1)).


The N200 is on all x58 boards, but use requires certification by Nividia. Those who don't have their boards certified (Like intel) have it disabled.

[Outsider]

The N200 is on all x58 boards, but use requires certification by Nividia. Those who don't have their boards certified (Like intel) have it disabled.

Intel recently (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12004&Itemid=69) got theirs certified.

[Anonymous Freak]

The N200 is on all x58 boards, but use requires certification by Nividia. Those who don't have their boards certified (Like intel) have it disabled.

Incorrect.

nF200 is a bridge chip that nVidia would like board makers to use; but they don't have to. (And, indeed, many do not.)

I can conclusively say that Intel's DX58SO board does *NOT* have an nF200 chip onboard. nVidia opened up licensing of SLI to 'bare X58' boards, which is what Intel's board is.

X58 supports 36 lanes of PCI Express 2.0. The most common configuration is two x16 slots, and one x4 slot. Some manufacturers make boards with a PCI Express switch that has more than two physical x16 slots, where if you plug in a card into the third slot, it makes two of the slots x8. You could even design a board that did that for four slots by utilizing two such switches. (And four x16/x8 slots.)

Most manufacturers that have four-slot boards do use the nF200 chip, though. It takes a single PCI-e x16 slot, and bridges it into two PCI-e x16 slots. This allows the two cards on the bridge to communicate with *EACH OTHER* at full x16 2.0 speeds; but the two cards *COMBINED* share the single x16 link to the X58 chipset. Net effect: inter-CARD communication is full speed, but card-to-chipset communication is the same as if they were on a non-nF200 x8 slot via switch.

As for memory speed, Intel's official standard for the publicly-released Core i7 is that its onboard memory controller supports 1066 MHz DDR-3. But, board manufacturers are free to declare support for faster memory, it's then up to the motherboard maker to provide support at speeds beyong 1066. Up to 1333 MHz on the non-extreme parts, and "the sky's the limit" on the extreme proc. Indeed, Intel's own DX58SO claims official support for 1600 MHz memory on an extreme CPU, and the board provides support at 1866 MHz, although that is considered to be overclocking.

I'm happily running my board with 1333 MHz RAM at 1600 MHz.

[VirtualRain]

If the bus isn't 1333mhz, you can put in any speed you want and it'll run at 1066. Timing wise they'll use the JEDEC standard, like usual. 7-7-7-20 for 1066, 7-7-7-24 for 1333.

Yeah, I keep thinking I'd just go into BIOS and adjust the memory bus... LOL.

[m1stake]

You can't overclock intel macs save for a few pieces of software, and everyone knows that going from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12 will be almost unnoticeable. Without the ability to tighten the timings yourself, I don't see why someone would bother to get memory that's slightly better than standard.

[diamond.g]

You can't overclock intel macs save for a few pieces of software, and everyone knows that going from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12 will be almost unnoticeable. Without the ability to tighten the timings yourself, I don't see why someone would bother to get memory that's slightly better than standard.

No one that is buying a Mac, that is for sure. With other platforms the better memory should allow for overclocking. How else does anyone think they got the i7 920's running at 965 speeds? ;)

[8CoreWhore]

To be quite honest, I didn't know what you meant. You said the "holes are too small to pull enough air thru" and that is all I had to go on.

Looking at the image, it is impossible to tell if the ratio of open area to closed area is less, the same, or greater. We would need to see a closeup of the pattern to know for sure.

S-

Well then don't comment. Looking at your other posts, all you do is poo poo what people have to say. You don't add much to the conversation.

[sidewinder]

Well then don't comment. Looking at your other posts, all you do is poo poo what people have to say. You don't add much to the conversation.
You don't get to tell me what I can and can't do.

My only comment was that hole size is not a big factor in air flow. It the ratio of open space to closed space in the given area. If you don't like it, say what you actually mean to say next time....

S-

[Tallest Skil]

Well then don't comment. Looking at your other posts, all you do is poo poo what people have to say. You don't add much to the conversation.

You don't get to tell me what I can and can't do.

My only comment was that hole size is not a big factor in air flow. It the ratio of open space to closed space in the given area. If you don't like it, say what you actually mean to say next time....

S-

Keep it in PMs, please.

Or, actually, don't fight at all. :)

[m1stake]

No one that is buying a Mac, that is for sure. With other platforms the better memory should allow for overclocking. How else does anyone think they got the i7 920's running at 965 speeds? ;)

That's true, but if you're settling for 3.2Ghz on a 920, I feel bad for you :p

[J the Ninja]

Hai guyz:

I just realized something fairly important today. As you know, Leopard is not 64bit. It instead uses Physical Address Extension to pull off 4GB+ RAM use. I had recalled reading once that this effectively gives you 36bit memory access, at least as far as total RAM goes. Which begs the question, how much RAM is that?

A quick check of Wiki reveals a problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_address_extension

The answer is 64GB. So 96GB is not happening at launch unless it is released with Snow Leopard (possible). Leopard cannot address it.

[Umbongo]

The answer is 64GB. So 96GB is not happening at launch unless it is released with Snow Leopard (possible). Leopard cannot address it.

Another reason for it not to come with Leopard. Aside from the obvious factor that 10.5 is a proven OS, is there any reason for Apple to ship the new Mac Pros with it? Being that Apple seem to feel their latest OS incarnations are the best versions anyway.

Also can someone point me to any discussion on an expected release date (or post it here) of 10.6?

[sidewinder]

Hai guyz:

I just realized something fairly important today. As you know, Leopard is not 64bit. It instead uses Physical Address Extension to pull off 4GB+ RAM use. I had recalled reading once that this effectively gives you 36bit memory access, at least as far as total RAM goes. Which begs the question, how much RAM is that?

A quick check of Wiki reveals a problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_address_extension

The answer is 64GB. So 96GB is not happening at launch unless it is released with Snow Leopard (possible). Leopard cannot address it.

The 36-bit memory address space gives you:

2^36 = 68,719,476,736 bytes = 67,108,864,000 KB = 65,536 MB = 64 GB

Now, if Snow Leopard is ready when the new Mac Pro is ready to be released, it doesn't make a lot of sense, to me anyway, to go through the effort and expense to fully test and certify Leopard on the new Mac Pro. My guess is that Snow Leapord will ship after the new Mac Pro.

I don't see this as big problem because I don't think anyone is going to want to buy the RAM required to get to 96GB. Are there applications today that need more than 64GB of RAM? Will there be this summer? I don't think so....

S-

[Umbongo]

The 36-bit memory address space gives you:

2^36 = 68,719,476,736 bytes = 67,108,864,000 KB = 65,536 MB = 64 GB

Now, if Snow Leopard is ready when the new Mac Pro is ready to be released, it doesn't make a lot of sense, to me anyway, to go through the effort and expense to fully test and certify Leopard on the new Mac Pro. My guess is that Snow Leapord will ship after the new Mac Pro.

I don't see this as big problem because I don't think anyone is going to want to buy the RAM required to get to 96GB. Are there applications today that need more than 64GB of RAM? Will there be this summer? I don't think so....

S-

From what I gather there are uses for such amounts with certain scientific, analytic and simulation applications and some want to run them on Mac Pros.

[Tallest Skil]

Another reason for it not to come with Leopard. Aside from the obvious factor that 10.5 is a proven OS, is there any reason for Apple to ship the new Mac Pros with it?

Was there any reason for the first aluminum iMac to ship with Tiger?

Money.

Also can someone point me to any discussion on an expected release date (or post it here) of 10.6?

This time (WWDC) next year, like Steve said. I imagine that the release date will be announced at WWDC in June and the software will come out in July.

[Umbongo]

Was there any reason for the first aluminum iMac to ship with Tiger?

Money.

Right, but it isn't purely a case of "sell without then get them to upgrade a month later". There are development costs and issues and whether people actually will buy without it or if you are defering sales by not releasing it. I wouldn't be suprised to ship them with Leopard I guess, but I don't think it will happen unless Snow Leopard is comming in H2.

[Tallest Skil]

Right, but it isn't purely a case of "sell without then get them to upgrade a month later". There are development costs and issues and whether people actually will buy without it or if you are defering sales by not releasing it. I wouldn't be suprised to ship them with Leopard I guess, but I don't think it will happen unless Snow Leopard is comming in H2.

I still see the Gainestown Mac Pro/30" LED Cinema Display at WWDC and Snow Leopard/third-gen iPhone in July.

And for that second pair, let's see which one Apple pays more attention to if they botch the job again.

[Umbongo]

I still see the Gainestown Mac Pro/30" LED Cinema Display at WWDC and Snow Leopard/third-gen iPhone in July.

And for that second pair, let's see which one Apple pays more attention to if they botch the job again.

I can see that too, I hope that the Mac Pros do come with Leopard.

[toonshorty]

nVidia GTX 260! No way!

Now if only I had £1 million to spend, I guess I will just get an iMac...

Then make an iPhone application, put in on app store, make £1 million and then buy the next mac pro after this with an:

ATI HD 5870 X4 (possibly an actual card)

or

nVidia GTX 395 (made up)

[Tallest Skil]

nVidia GTX 260! No way!

Now if only I had £1 million to spend, I guess I will just get an iMac...

Then make an iPhone application, put in on app store, make £1 million and then buy the next mac pro after this with an:

ATI HD 5870 X4 (possibly an actual card)

or

nVidia GTX 395 (made up)

If my calculations are correct, the Gainestown Mac Pro with...

Oh, wait. My calculation is messed up by the fact that I'm getting the best processor.

Um...

A stock Gainestown Mac Pro with just the GPU upgraded to the GTX 260 would be about $3,100; whatever that translates to in pounds.

[toonshorty]

If my calculations are correct, the Gainestown Mac Pro with...

Oh, wait. My calculation is messed up by the fact that I'm getting the best processor.

Um...

A stock Gainestown Mac Pro with just the GPU upgraded to the GTX 260 would be about $3,100; whatever that translates to in pounds.

Of course it's going to be expensive, and yes it is the best CPU with one of the best GPU's. The £1 Million pounds thing was a sort of exaduration although it would be $220,751 New Zimbabwe Dollars, and that translates to $220,751,000,000,000,000 Old Zimbabwe Dollars. But yea, I will GTFO this thread now.

[WATCHDOG]

The 36-bit memory address space gives you:
2^36 = 68,719,476,736 bytes = 67,108,864,000 KB = 65,536 MB = 64 GB

I don't see this as big problem because I don't think anyone is going to want to buy the RAM required to get to 96GB. Are there applications today that need more than 64GB of RAM? Will there be this summer? I don't think so.... +++

Looking behind and ahead, I had a Timex-Sinclair 1000 with 2 kB of RAM that could 'play' a chess program (in machine language) that could beat a human chess player who zigs when they should've zagged... :cool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Sinclair_1000

Many know that 32-bit allows 4 GB RAM.

Less know that 64-bit allows 16 ExaBytes RAM = about 4 Billion times the 4 GB RAM limit of 32-bit

POINT?

You can stuff a lot into 16 ExaBytes: it will change the world; Mr. Obama!

And by the time we bore of 64-bit, the 128-bit world should be fully ready to fly..

128-bit allows for 274,877,906,944 YottaBytes of RAM

DISCUSS!

+++

fingers, toes, abacus...

[macsForLife]

+++

And by the time we bore of 64-bit, the 128-bit world should be fully ready to fly..

128-bit allows for 274,877,906,944 YottaBytes of RAM

fingers, toes, abacus...



I think I might need more than that...:rolleyes: Interesting with the whole 36 bit address thing though, since it will clearly limit the RAM available with the Pro, because I don't think they will wait till SL is ready to launch it. In fact, that would be very Apple-like to announce it and ship a thousand or two with 10.5, and a 64 gb RAM option, and then a couple months later, when SL comes out, give it a silent update to 96 gb or something like that. Thoughts?

[m1stake]

In fact, that would be very Apple-like to announce it and ship a thousand or two with 10.5, and a 64 gb RAM option, and then a couple months later, when SL comes out, give it a silent update to 96 gb or something like that. Thoughts?

never

[Umbongo]

I think I might need more than that...:rolleyes: Interesting with the whole 36 bit address thing though, since it will clearly limit the RAM available with the Pro, because I don't think they will wait till SL is ready to launch it. In fact, that would be very Apple-like to announce it and ship a thousand or two with 10.5, and a 64 gb RAM option, and then a couple months later, when SL comes out, give it a silent update to 96 gb or something like that. Thoughts?

I doubt Apple will offer more than 48GB at launch (12x4GB). 96GB, or even may be supported with 10.6 though.

[iMacmatician]

48 GB I'd say is a realistic maximum (Apple-supported, at launch). Interesting what that means for the Xserve though. When they first went to Intel, the Xserve had 2x the maximum RAM as the Mac Pro. So maybe the Mac Pro could be announced at WWDC and released shortly after, while the Xserve could be announced at WWDC and released a while after, after Snow Leopard.

Or, Apple could silently add a 96 GB RAM option like they did with the 750 GB (?) HDD option sometime before the next update (Westmere). And with Gulftown coming in Q2 2010, Apple might just wait until then for the 96 GB RAM option.

[Umbongo]

48 GB I'd say is a realistic maximum (Apple-supported, at launch). Interesting what that means for the Xserve though. When they first went to Intel, the Xserve had 2x the maximum RAM as the Mac Pro. So maybe the Mac Pro could be announced at WWDC and released shortly after, while the Xserve could be announced at WWDC and released a while after, after Snow Leopard.

Or, Apple could silently add a 96 GB RAM option like they did with the 750 GB (?) HDD option sometime before the next update (Westmere). And with Gulftown coming in Q2 2010, Apple might just wait until then for the 96 GB RAM option.

The Xserve having more memory isn't that important, but the Nehalem server platform can easily support 18 DIMMs which would give it 72GB using 4GB DIMMs. It also depends on the state of 8GB DIMMs at launch.

[macsForLife]

Weren't 8gb DIMMs supposed to be in production like, Q1 last year? :confused: What's up with those?

[Umbongo]

Weren't 8gb DIMMs supposed to be in production like, Q1 last year? :confused: What's up with those?

8GB DIMMs have been out for a while, but it isn't clear if DDR3 versions will be when the Mac Pros launch. They probably will be.

[tylerk36]

While all of you are anticipating the new 2009 Mac Pro. It is safe to say that the specs are close to what was posted with one difference being that the RAM will be 128 GB instead of 96 standard blocks (Kingston now sells 16 GB sticks) do a GOOGLE search for 16 GB and 32 GB sticks. A future expansion amount going to 256GB for late 2009 or early 2010 Mac Pro. Consider the 2008 Mac Pro and that it could take 32. The 2007 was stated as only 16. But the 2007 can now handle 32 it doubled and apple didn't advertise that. So 256 is a safe assumption for the late 2009 or early 2010 model. It's coming to the market soon. This technology boost will send ram prices to a new standard. Look out DDR1 and 2.

The GPU cards are a nice change but instead we will see Nvidia holding on in the Mac Pro. SLI and Crossfire are going to be standard from now on with Apple and Mac Pro as well as 10.6 and on. Apple is inserting a new standard for Graphics intensive GUI. 3D Desktop is coming late 2010 or mid 2011 and will far exceed what can be produced by Meh crow sloft. I cant help it. The Mac Pro will have to produce a level of 3D capability that we think is awesome today by present Mac Pro's and their GPU units. I can only say that the future for all that prefer the Macintosh Apple will be very nice. Keep up the enthusiasm. :D

[Tallest Skil]

While all of you are anticipating the new 2009 Mac Pro. It is safe to say that the specs are close to what was posted with one difference being that the RAM will be 128 GB instead of 96 standard blocks. A future expansion amount going to 256. Consider the 2008 Mac Pro and that it could take 32. The 2007 was stated as only 16. But the 2007 can now handle 32. So 256 is a safe assumption for the 2009 model. We just don't have the RAM stick configuration. It's coming to the market soon. This technology boost will send ram prices to a new standard. Look out DDR1 and 2.

Any evidence there for 16GB sticks? Because 8GB barely even exist.

The GPU cards are a nice change but instead we will see Nvidia holding on in the Mac Pro. SLI and Crossfire are going to be standard from now on with Apple and Mac Pro as well as 10.6 and on.

I don't see it, since SLI needs to be licensed out.

Apple is inserting a new standard for Graphics intensive GUI. 3D Desktop is coming late 2010 or mid 2011

Nope. Not in the slightest.

I can only say that the future for all that prefer the Macintosh Apple will be very nice. Keep up the enthusiasm. :D

As true today as it was in 1984. :cool:

[Umbongo]

Any evidence there for 16GB sticks? Because 8GB barely even exist.

I have posted information previously in this thread on 16GB and maybe 32GB DIMMs (I forget). tylerk36 is obviously incorrect in the total amounts as they are not based on 12 DIMM slots. 16GB DIMMs would lead to 192GB and 32GB DIMMs would be 384GB.

[Tallest Skil]

I have posted information previously in this thread on 16GB and maybe 32GB DIMMs (I forget). tylerk36 is obviously incorrect in that his amounts are not based on 12 DIMM slots.

That's insane, man. :p

Just ONE 16GB DDR3 ECC stick... might be more than the entire computer? :D

At any rate, if I get any free time, I'll draw up a new internal layout with RAM slots not based on risers. (because we can't seem to decide whether or not this is possible)

Yes, it will have 12 of them... and yes, it will have to be longer because of this.

[Umbongo]

That's insane, man. :p

Just ONE 16GB DDR3 ECC stick... might be more than the entire computer? :D

At any rate, if I get any free time, I'll draw up a new internal layout with RAM slots not based on risers. (because we can't seem to decide whether or not this is possible)

Yes, it will have 12 of them... and yes, it will have to be longer because of this.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6952207&postcount=74

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/processors/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212903540&subSection=All+Stories

[nanofrog]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6952207&postcount=74

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/processors/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212903540&subSection=All+Stories
I don't doubt we'll see the larger capacity DIMM's, but when they become available, and the cost, are the real questions IMO. :p

It would take some time yet to get these parts through final assembly, and into the supply chain. Ultimately, and certainly for me ;), cost would be the biggest barrier to rapid widespread adoption. :(

I can imagine a 16GB stick (Registered) going for as much as $1k/DIMM USD (PC3-10600). :eek: Unbuffered for as much as $500 USD (also PC3-10600).

I still think Apple would choose to used Unbuffered ECC in the base due to cost. Registered may be an option, if Apple doesn't choose to disable that functionality via firmware.

[rylin]

Interesting with the whole 36 bit address thing though, since it will clearly limit the RAM available with the Pro, because I don't think they will wait till SL is ready to launch it.

64GB is not a limit, at least not on this class of computers.
Scientists, meteorologists etc. are more likely to use clusters at this stage as it's a lot cheaper to get several 16-32GB machines than a 64-128GB machine.

As for 128bit RAM addressing.. allow me to tell it as clear as it gets.
Won't happen.

You might be aware of ZFS, the filesystem Sun developed.
Filling a 128bit storage volume to 100% requires more energy than it would take to boil the world's oceans.

On the low-end scale of what a 128bit storage volume would weigh, we have 136 billion kilo.

Now, keep in mind that 128bit storage pools/volumes are interesting as soon as we near the limit of 64bit ones (i.e., some 16 million terabyte -- a decade or two away).

Storage is one thing though; RAM is another.
Production limitations aside, do you have any idea how mindbogglingly huge 16 million terabytes is?

While I don't doubt that we'll have insane amounts of memory in our "computers" 50-200 years from now, I can tell you that individual devices won't touch the 64bit barrier.

Insanely large clusters might (say 1024 TB memory per node in our lifetime), meaning the system as a whole might need to address more than that.

Lets put things a bit more into perspective, shall we?
Governments are usually the best at wasting resources, because they like keeping track of what you do.

Let's imagine that they keep track of one out of ten people on this planet, or roughly 676 million people as of Feb 2k9.
64bit memory allocation would let them keep a few months (too tired atm. to do the maths properly -- anyone else interested?) of 1080p video of all those people, live and kicking on a single computing node.

Again, for storage, things are different.
There are several companies with petabytes of active data, but even they won't hit the 64bit limit for a decade or so. Meanwhile, anyone can tell you that not even 1/10th of that data is "hot" at any given time.

64GB is plenty of RAM for a workstation, and if you really feel the need to challenge the term "workstation", wait until SL is released, allowing you to put an unnecessary 128GB of RAM in it.

In other words, can we please cut the BS on RAM usage? :cool:

[indiochano]

While all of you are anticipating the new 2009 Mac Pro. It is safe to say that the specs are close to what was posted with one difference being that the RAM will be 128 GB instead of 96 standard blocks (Kingston now sells 16 GB sticks) do a GOOGLE search for 16 GB and 32 GB sticks. A future expansion amount going to 256GB for late 2009 or early 2010 Mac Pro. Consider the 2008 Mac Pro and that it could take 32. The 2007 was stated as only 16. But the 2007 can now handle 32 it doubled and apple didn't advertise that. So 256 is a safe assumption for the late 2009 or early 2010 model. It's coming to the market soon. This technology boost will send ram prices to a new standard. Look out DDR1 and 2.

The GPU cards are a nice change but instead we will see Nvidia holding on in the Mac Pro. SLI and Crossfire are going to be standard from now on with Apple and Mac Pro as well as 10.6 and on. Apple is inserting a new standard for Graphics intensive GUI. 3D Desktop is coming late 2010 or mid 2011 and will far exceed what can be produced by Meh crow sloft. I cant help it. The Mac Pro will have to produce a level of 3D capability that we think is awesome today by present Mac Pro's and their GPU units. I can only say that the future for all that prefer the Macintosh Apple will be very nice. Keep up the enthusiasm. :D

i thought it was samsung who was offering 16 gig ram sticks

[Umbongo]

64GB is plenty of RAM for a workstation, and if you really feel the need to challenge the term "workstation", wait until SL is released, allowing you to put an unnecessary 128GB of RAM in it.

In other words, can we please cut the BS on RAM usage? :cool:

Oh I don't think anyone here is going to be needing such amounts, besides it may not go below $50/GB for a while. Just more of a discussion on possible hardware specifications.

I expect most people will have 6GB or 12GB.

[Umbongo]

i thought it was samsung who was offering 16 gig ram sticks

Samsung, Hynix and Micron all plan to have 16GB DIMMs.

[tylerk36]

Any evidence there for 16GB sticks? Because 8GB barely even exist.

Remember we are not talking about running 256 GB ram in a Mac Pro the first three quarters maybe not even til 2010. But we are talking about technology catching up with apple. So we do see that companies are going to manufacture the large sticks. Here is info on large GB memory. The Link is

http://www.simmtester.com/page/news/shownews.asp?num=9531

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/576/1018576/elpida-preps-16gb-fb-dimm

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39006/135/

32 GB DIMM

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/605401/samsung-paves-way-for-32gb-dimms.html


I don't see it, since SLI needs to be licensed out.

Ok. Have two 8800 Gt's and they are SLI in the machine. System Profiler shows them connected and display shows only two displays capable. Now Games in OS 10.5.6 run in sli mode. So we know it works for us. Snow Leopard will support SLI. Nvidia has a deal working with apple to give that support built in. ATI also. They are eager to sell Graphics cards with Apple being that Apple is such a graphics monger. There are very little computer companies that love to sell huge graphics cards for big time graphics usage. Most Dell and Hp are sold for low end personal use. Also they do sell gaming systems and they do support dual SLI and Crossfire. But Mac Pro's are power house machines made to crunch big numbers to achieve great hurdles and tp produce great results. And by the way Winders Vister Ultermate 64 on the same machine with Nvidia drivers show SLI. We are even running Winders 7 Ultermate 64 Bater and it is SLI. No the spelling was intentional.

http://mac.zicos.com/news.php/n/10053112/NVidia-SLI-Hybrid-Fully-Functional-with-Mac-OS-X-10.5.6

Nope. Not in the slightest.

Ok. Now there has been a patent filed for a 3D desktop in the future. It is no secret. It is even in this companies web site server. Here is a link to tell the facts.

http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/11/apple-exploring-3d-desktop-and-application-interfaces/

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/apple-files-patents-for-3d-desktop-and-application-interfaces/

Now Mycrosloft is coming out with a similar desktop ( http://vista.blorge.com/2007/04/27/vista-and-xp-get-virtual-3d-desktop-cube/ ) ( seems to be a cheap copy of OS X user switching and milti desktop ) but it is limited unlike Apples desire to revolutionize things like Steve wants it to be. All ways anticipate and stay ahead of the competitor.

[seisend]

So, if the new Mac Pro would have SLI technology. The Mac Pro will be released with Snow Leopard because of the SLI support, right? So anyways, when is the WWDC ? thanks.

[Tallest Skil]

t.Ok. Have two 8800 Gt's and they are SLI in the machine. System Profiler shows them connected and display shows only two displays capable. Now Games in OS 10.5.6 run in sli mode. So we know it works for us. Snow Leopard will support SLI. Nvidia has a deal working with apple to give that support built in. ATI also. They are eager to sell Graphics cards with Apple being that Apple is such a graphics monger. There are very little computer companies that love to sell huge graphics cards for big time graphics usage. Most Dell and Hp are sold for low end personal use. Also they do sell gaming systems and they do support dual SLI and Crossfire. But Mac Pro's are power house machines made to crunch big numbers to achieve great hurdles and to produce great results. Google does wonders.

Your quoting is broken; thought you ought to know.

I can't read your sentence fragments; are you saying that SLI works now? It doesn't. How do you know that Snow Leopard will support SLI? I don't believe it will. Neither ATI nor nVidia are eager to sell graphics cards to Apple, because giving Apple more options means more work for them making EFI firmware for each card. Google may do wonders, but if I had any idea what you were even alluding to, I would use it to show you that Apple isn't going to support two gaming technologies in a workstation computer.

Ok. Now there has been a patent filed for a 3D desktop in the future. It is no secret. It is even in this companies web site server. Here is a link to tell the facts.

OS XI won't be around before 2020. They will NOT move to a fully multitouch OS in TWO YEARS.

So, if the new Mac Pro would have SLI technology. The Mac Pro will be released with Snow Leopard because of the SLI support, right? So anyways, when is the WWDC ? thanks.

The new Mac Pro will NOT have SLI, even with Snow Leopard.

WWDC is in June.

[robinp]

The new Mac Pro will NOT have SLI, even with Snow Leopard.

WWDC is in June.

Perhaps it is really that SLI won't be that relevant for anything other than gaming when OpenCL is present. It will use all resources available, so having multiple GPU's will boost performance in Apps that are written for OpenCL... at least that is my understanding of this tech.

[seisend]

Ok thanks tallest skil. I think I can trust in your thread with the Mac Pro 09 Infos. But June is soooo late. I personally don't think that we have to wait for so long.

[Fomaphone]

Ok thanks tallest skil. I think I can trust in your thread with the Mac Pro 09 Infos. But June is soooo late. I personally don't think that we have to wait for so long.


it's sooo late to us... but we're not sitting on $27 billion in cash, we're not arware of production schedules and concerns, and we're not developing everything else (PR/ad campaign, compatibility checks) that goes into a successful product launch

i want the new MP as badly as anybody, but i don't particularly think that apple gives a rip about us (the mac pro market... we're either single-unit buyers or firms with yearly tech budgets) ... certainly not enough to rush. we'll see it in june.

that being said, i'd be elated to cut a check for the new MP in March or sooner. :)

[sidewinder]

Neither ATI nor nVidia are eager to sell graphics cards to Apple, because giving Apple more options means more work for them making EFI firmware for each card.
That is just about the craziest thing I have ever seen written in this thread.

S-

[Tallest Skil]

That is just about the craziest thing I have ever seen written in this thread.

Please explain to me, then, why only seven of the dozens of video cards on the market work in a Mac Pro.

[m1stake]

I don't know why Nvidia and AMD don't produce more cards for the Mac platform. I'd be that the market doesn't work the same way. If you own a mac you're not particularly budget conscious, so filling this gap with a card at the bottom of the high end makes the most sense. Why have tons of cards that all fit into the same bracket? The ecosystem probably isn't big enough to support them.

[BenRoethig]

I don't know why Nvidia and AMD don't produce more cards for the Mac platform. I'd be that the market doesn't work the same way. If you own a mac you're not particularly budget conscious, so filling this gap with a card at the bottom of the high end makes the most sense. Why have tons of cards that all fit into the same bracket? The ecosystem probably isn't big enough to support them.

There's only one system that can use them and it starts at $2300. It's not like the G-Series days where anyone could afford a PowerMac with a graphics card slot. The only way you would see more retail options is if the retail card makers start shipping with dual firmware like the ATI 3780 mac & PC edition.

[diamond.g]

Please explain to me, then, why only seven of the dozens of video cards on the market work in a Mac Pro.
Because the card makers don't follow the reference design (in Nvidias case) in hope of saving some money.
I don't know why Nvidia and AMD don't produce more cards for the Mac platform. I'd be that the market doesn't work the same way. If you own a mac you're not particularly budget conscious, so filling this gap with a card at the bottom of the high end makes the most sense. Why have tons of cards that all fit into the same bracket? The ecosystem probably isn't big enough to support them.
AMD makes its own cards (and allows others to do so) Nvidia doesn't make cards. Since Apple bakes the GPU drivers in OS updates why should the GPU makers spend time/$ to make cards for OS X that may not even work(other than the already working units)? For what is probably seen as a minute market.

[vogelhausdesign]

wow.. this thread is still going strong?? and now we're talking about technology that wont be found in mac for a few years. :apple::apple:

[sidewinder]

Please explain to me, then, why only seven of the dozens of video cards on the market work in a Mac Pro.
Let's look at what you wrote again:

"Neither ATI nor nVidia are eager to sell graphics cards to Apple, because giving Apple more options means more work for them making EFI firmware for each card."

Of course they are eager to sell cards to Apple. They may not be interested in selling cards to consumers that have Apple products because of the limited market.

But those are two very different things.

S-

[robinp]

beginning to wonder...

it's been at the back of my mind, but what if actually Apple are holding out with the iMac and mini for a combined announcement with the Mac Pro in mid March? I thought it was unlikely because it seemed like the mini and the imac would be updated a few weeks ago but haven't been. In some ways it makes a lot of sense to update all the desktops all at once and 6 months (ish) apart from the laptops. Perhaps they'll combine the desktop event with a demo of Snow Leopard particularly with the mac pro having so many logical cores.

[Umbongo]

beginning to wonder...

it's been at the back of my mind, but what if actually Apple are holding out with the iMac and mini for a combined announcement with the Mac Pro in mid March? I thought it was unlikely because it seemed like the mini and the imac would be updated a few weeks ago but haven't been. In some ways it makes a lot of sense to update all the desktops all at once and 6 months (ish) apart from the laptops. Perhaps they'll combine the desktop event with a demo of Snow Leopard particularly with the mac pro having so many logical cores.

There is no need for a combined event, Apple can do what they want with releases and marketing and come out on top. They certainly wouldn't hold the consumer desktops back for the Mac Pros.

[8CoreWhore]

I understand the idea that SLI is for gamers and not the typical Mac Pro customer - but considering that graphics cards are in short supply for the MP, would SLI be a possible solution to this problem? I don't know squat about how SLI works - but is it really just for games or would high end workstation apps such as from Autodesk, or FCP - Motion, After Effects, etc... benefit from SLI? If Apple is unable to supply their MP customers with the GPU power they need - at reasonable cost - would SLI be one solution to that problem?

[Tallest Skil]

Of course they are eager to sell cards to Apple. They may not be interested in selling cards to consumers that have Apple products because of the limited market.

But those are two very different things.

Welcome to SemanticLand, where I couldn't care less because my statement still holds true. :D

[iMacmatician]

beginning to wonder...

it's been at the back of my mind, but what if actually Apple are holding out with the iMac and mini for a combined announcement with the Mac Pro in mid March? I thought it was unlikely because it seemed like the mini and the imac would be updated a few weeks ago but haven't been. In some ways it makes a lot of sense to update all the desktops all at once and 6 months (ish) apart from the laptops. Perhaps they'll combine the desktop event with a demo of Snow Leopard particularly with the mac pro having so many logical cores.I wish. :D

Although the consumer desktops are very separate from the Mac Pro in placement and technologies, more so than the three notebooks.

[sidewinder]

Welcome to SemanticLand, where I couldn't care less because my statement still holds true. :D

SemanticLand? Selling to "Apple" versus selling to "Apple customers" is not a semantic difference. If you meant selling to Apple customers, then I would tend to agree with you. But you didn't provide the context so I was unable to figure that out.

Selling video cards to Apple for inclusion in systems they sell is big business. Selling to Mac Pro customers aftermarket is insignificant.

Both ATI and NVIDIA want desperately to sell to Apple. To Apple customers? Not so much...

S-

[Anonymous Freak]

I understand the idea that SLI is for gamers and not the typical Mac Pro customer - but considering that graphics cards are in short supply for the MP, would SLI be a possible solution to this problem? I don't know squat about how SLI works - but is it really just for games or would high end workstation apps such as from Autodesk, or FCP - Motion, After Effects, etc... benefit from SLI? If Apple is unable to supply their MP customers with the GPU power they need - at reasonable cost - would SLI be one solution to that problem?

So the big benefit of SLI is that it allows multiple GPUs to have a workload spread across them seamlessly by the graphics driver. This matters most to games.

Applications that use the GPU as a processing unit, not as a display unit, actually work *BETTER* with SLI disabled. (For example, when using nVidia's "CUDA" general-purpose GPU architecture.) I would imagine (but have no evidence,) that the Apple-sponsored OpenCL (general purpose computing on GPUs,) would be similar, that non-SLI mode is preferred, because the workload can be spread around by the OpenCL layer itself. So things like FCP, Motion, etc, would be better served by OpenCL multi-GPU than by SLI.

One of the big detriments of SLI (and ATI's equivalent, CrossFire,) is that it causes all information in one GPU's memory to be duplicated to the other. The two GPUs are essentially working on the exact same data. Not even very cooperatively, in fact. The two major ways that they work are to either have one GPU render 'even numbered' frames, and the other GPU 'odd numbered' frames. (Of course, the numbering is completely arbitrary,) or to split the screen in half, and have one GPU render one half, and the other GPU render the other half. (Some implementations have it purely a 50/50 arrangement, some dynamically split the screen to balance workload at a given moment. I know that early SLI or CrossFire (I don't recall which,) drivers would let you have it draw a red line on the screen at the 'break' point.) Separate GPU loads, though, can treat them as two separate computing units, with separate memory caches. That is one of nVidia's options with their PhysX protocol. You can designate one GPU to be the PhysX processor, and the other for actual graphical work. (Indeed, you can have an 'extra' video card that is just doing PhysX, even if you are at a 'max load' of video cards SLIed for graphics work.)

[kabunaru]

The new Mac Pro will NOT have SLI, even with Snow Leopard.


CrossFire will work but in Windows only at least.

[8CoreWhore]

Thanks, EHURTLY, for a great explanation. I'd have to agree that Apple has no reason to supply SLI/Crossfire support for the MP then.

[iMacmatician]

Okay, so it's being said that there are Radeon 4800 series drivers in Snow Leopard. As per the image at the bottom of this post, there are also 4600 series drivers. This is confusing. A 4600 series would fit in well as the stock card, and a 4800 would be okay for a mid-range. Apple has a newfound love for nVidia, so we can probably bet that there will also be nVidia cards in this range. Does this mean that we might have more than three new graphics options?First of all, the presence of drivers in Snow Leopard likely means that the Mac Pro (or at least those GPU options) would come with Snow Leopard.

And isn't the 4800 a high-end card?

There's already an NVIDIA GPU suited for the Mac Pro—the Quadro FX 5800. But regarding "regular" GPUs, I would say a GTX 2xx may be the card above the 4800.

[Tallest Skil]

First of all, the presence of drivers in Snow Leopard likely means that the Mac Pro (or at least those GPU options) would come with Snow Leopard.

Still, not necessarily.

And isn't the 4800 a high-end card?

There's already an NVIDIA GPU suited for the Mac Pro—the Quadro FX 5800. But regarding "regular" GPUs, I would say a GTX 2xx may be the card above the 4800.

High-end consumer. ATI has their own workstation line: FirePro (http://ati.amd.com/products/firepro/ATI_FirePro_V8700_Datasheet_LoRes_102108.pdf).

Which, by the looks of it, is crap.

[kabunaru]

Which, by the looks of it, is crap.

Then what is not "crap" by your standards?

[Tallest Skil]

Then what is not "crap" by your standards?

Not my standards, per se, but comparing their highest-end card to the nVidia Quadro FX 5800.

[m1stake]

Not my standards, per se, but comparing their highest-end card to the nVidia Quadro FX 5800.

Benchmarks.

[Tallest Skil]

Benchmarks.

Oh, I have no idea. :p I was just going spec for spec. :D

Having benchmarks would be nice; I'd like to compare the FirePro and Quadro lines to see why Apple has gone with the Quadro line for the past...

How long has it been now? Since October 2005.

[nanofrog]

Found a review (http://hothardware.com/Articles/ATI-FirePro-V8700-Workstation-Graphics-Card/?page=1) of the V8700.

Benchies included beginning on page 4. :D :p

[m1stake]

Oh, I have no idea. :p I was just going spec for spec. :D

Having benchmarks would be nice; I'd like to compare the FirePro and Quadro lines to see why Apple has gone with the Quadro line for the past...

How long has it been now? Since October 2005.

The 8800GT is a better card than the 3870 before you add OSX to the mix. Without performance numbers, you have no idea whatsoever. The 4870 and the GTX 260 are neck and neck despite the 260 having 384MB more memory.

[Tallest Skil]

Found a review (http://hothardware.com/Articles/ATI-FirePro-V8700-Workstation-Graphics-Card/?page=1) of the V8700.

Benchies included beginning on page 4. :D :p

Nice; thanks.

Looks like it edges out the 5600 in SPEC ViewPerf, GPGPU, and gaming, even.

I wonder what the discrepancy between the V8700 and the Quadro 5800 are...

[nanofrog]

Nice; thanks.

Looks like it edges out the 5600 in SPEC ViewPerf, GPGPU, and gaming, even.

I wonder what the discrepancy between the V8700 and the Quadro 5800 are...
Not sure what you mean by "discrepancy". Could you explain? :confused:

BTW, newegg:
V8700 (1GB) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195079&Tpk=ati%20v8700)
Quadro FX 5800 (4GB) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133253)

The FirePro V8700 looks like a winner for ATI, especially given the street prices available. :D

[Tallest Skil]

Not sure what you mean by "discrepancy". Could you explain? :confused:

I mean in performance, as the 5800 wasn't in those tests.

Yow, price. Still, the 5800 seems to be the better candidate.

What, you didn't think that Apple would want more than seven people to be able to afford the highest-performance card, did you?

[kabunaru]

Found a review (http://hothardware.com/Articles/ATI-FirePro-V8700-Workstation-Graphics-Card/?page=1) of the V8700.

Benchies included beginning on page 4. :D :p

The new Mac Pro should have the ATI FirePRo V8700 instead of Nvidia Quadro FX 5600 as BTO in my opinion.

[nanofrog]

I mean in performance, as the 5800 wasn't in those tests.

Yow, price. Still, the 5800 seems to be the better candidate.

What, you didn't think that Apple would want more than seven people to be able to afford the highest-performance card, did you?
I noticed the lack of a comparison to the 5800 myself. Hmm... :p

Going on a tight budget, the V8700 shines. Though I expect the 5800 to edge it on benchmarks. But it won't be worth it for 3x+ the $$$ for some. Possibly becoming a greater concern, given the current economy.

I've noticed at my company, and others we work with, are suspending what they can, and reducing the rest (equipment purchases). Given this attitude, and I would think it will become common quickly, the V8700 is situated quite nicely I think in the cost/performance ratio. ;)

[tylerk36]

[QUOTE=Tallest Skil;7153431]Your quoting is broken; thought you ought to know.

I can't read your sentence fragments; are you saying that SLI works now? It doesn't. How do you know that Snow Leopard will support SLI? I don't believe it will. Neither ATI nor nVidia are eager to sell graphics cards to Apple, because giving Apple more options means more work for them making EFI firmware for each card. Google may do wonders, but if I had any idea what you were even alluding to, I would use it to show you that Apple isn't going to support two gaming technologies in a workstation computer.

Ok. I see that this is going way beyond what it should. I stated that games in os x are running in SLI. I also gave you a link that confirms that sli is supported in 10.5.6. Simple. We can make it more complicated but I feel I have more than explained my self. I get info from a much higher source. I have already said too much.


OS XI won't be around before 2020. They will NOT move to a fully multitouch OS in TWO YEARS.

Good Job. didn't hear a 3D comment. But hey what do I know.


The new Mac Pro will NOT have SLI, even with Snow Leopard.

Your right. I stand corrected on all accounts. Take care have a nice life.

WWDC is in June.

[Mr.PS]

When is the new Mac Pro stated to debut? Rough guesses? I heard Tuesday (tomorrow). Can anyone confirm this? Some are saying at WWDC in June. This seems quite a ways away. Also, should we expect to see the current 30" Displays removed from the online store prior to seeing a 30" or will they be seemingly sold side by side such as the 15" MBP (redesigned) and 17" MBP (older body-style) were a few months ago?

[nanofrog]

When is the new Mac Pro stated to debut? Rough guesses? I heard Tuesday (tomorrow). Can anyone confirm this? Some are saying at WWDC in June. This seems quite a ways away. Also, should we expect to see the current 30" Displays removed from the online store prior to seeing a 30" or will they be seemingly sold side by side such as the 15" MBP (redesigned) and 17" MBP (older body-style) were a few months ago?
It won't be tomorrow. :(

The CPU's aren't available yet. Intel announced the release March 29, and available the next day. Publicly and to vendors.

Figure 6 - 8 weeks for system vendors to get a machine ready, including Apple, and begin shipping. So very late May or beginning of June. Hence the speculation of a WWDC announcement and release of the MP. ;)

[zenjabba]

It won't be tomorrow. :(

The CPU's aren't available yet. Intel announced the release March 29, and available the next day. Publicly and to vendors.

Figure 6 - 8 weeks for system vendors to get a machine ready, including Apple, and begin shipping. So very late May or beginning of June. Hence the speculation of a WWDC announcement and release of the MP. ;)


Take this with as much salt as you want, but the Mac Pro's just 30 mins ago went into the Apple Australia Referb Box, which has not happened before.

[VirtualRain]

tylerk36... you posted to a link (http://mac.zicos.com/news.php/n/10053112/NVidia-SLI-Hybrid-Fully-Functional-with-Mac-OS-X-10.5.6) suggesting that hybrid SLI would be supported in 10.5.6. The author speculates that "One could now seriously think of a Mac Pro and NVidia SLI fully supported and managed by Snow Leopard." This is just speculation.

It's important to keep in mind that Hybrid SLI support for embedded GPU's does not automatically imply SLI support for multiple discrete GPU's. NVIDIA markets Hybrid SLI as a way of pushing it's chipset business while currently licensing discrete SLI to mainboard manufacturers. Since the Mac Pro will not have an embedded GPU or an Nvidia chipset, the support for Hybrid SLI is of little direct consequence to Mac Pro users.

While Apple could license discrete SLI for it's main-boards in the Mac Pro, I'm not sure there is a lot to be gained by it. I suppose OpenCL could benefit significantly, however, gaming on the Mac leaves a lot to be desired... SLI support is the least of the problems. In fact, ask anyone that's owned an SLI gaming rig running Windows and they will likely say they would never do it again. That's certainly how I feel. Nvidia's drivers are flaky as hell and when you add SLI to the mix, it's a disaster.

OSX users should not be too eager to inherit the mess that graphics has become on the Windows platform. Graphics drivers and API's have been nothing but headaches for Microsoft and users of Windows. I wouldn't wish any of it on OSX users and it's in large part why I'm defecting from Windows. Stability is king and Apple tightly controlling all aspects of the OS and system are the only way's to maintain that. Be careful what you wish for.

[voyagerd]

I'd be fine with a GTX 260, though if Apple offers something faster(not Quadro mind you) I'll be more than tempted to buy the fastest card possible. It will be faster than my 8600M and X800XT combined and faster than my girlfriend's 8800GT. If I had the money, I'd buy a faster card just to use in Windows like people have been doing. *sends Terragen and Vue files to his gf to render on her shiny 4GHz Core i7 that he built*.

[m1stake]

I'd laugh if it was the GTS 250, which is rumored to be a restickered 8800GT (It's the Inq, so that's probably BS). But, if that's true and Apple uses it, not only will I laugh - I'll stab. A lot. :D

[tylerk36]

[QUOTE=VirtualRain;7158369]tylerk36... you posted to a link (http://mac.zicos.com/news.php/n/10053112/NVidia-SLI-Hybrid-Fully-Functional-with-Mac-OS-X-10.5.6) suggesting that hybrid SLI would be supported in 10.5.6. The author speculates that "One could now seriously think of a Mac Pro and NVidia SLI fully supported and managed by Snow Leopard." This is just speculation.

It's important to keep in mind that Hybrid SLI support for embedded GPU's does not automatically imply SLI support for multiple discrete GPU's. NVIDIA markets Hybrid SLI as a way of pushing it's chipset business while currently licensing discrete SLI to mainboard manufacturers. Since the Mac Pro will not have an embedded GPU or an Nvidia chipset, the support for Hybrid SLI is of little direct consequence to Mac Pro users.

While Apple could license discrete SLI for it's main-boards in the Mac Pro, I'm not sure there is a lot to be gained by it. I suppose OpenCL could benefit significantly, however, gaming on the Mac leaves a lot to be desired... SLI support is the least of the problems. In fact, ask anyone that's owned an SLI gaming rig running Windows and they will likely say they would never do it again. That's certainly how I feel. Nvidia's drivers are flaky as hell and when you add SLI to the mix, it's a disaster.

OSX users should not be too eager to inherit the mess that graphics has become on the Windows platform. Graphics drivers and API's have been nothing but headaches for Microsoft and users of Windows. I wouldn't wish any of it on OSX users and it's in large part why I'm defecting from Windows. Stability is king and Apple tightly controlling all aspects of the OS and system are the only way's to maintain that. Be careful what you wish for.

System Profiler shows tethered. when I remove the SLI cable between the two 8800 gt's I get less graphics performance. I know that the sli cable makes the diff. I understand all the issues windows has. But my two 8800 gt's with SLI cable and Winders vista ultimate 64 games run better than they do on my other mac pro running a single 8800. I understand the info you gave me on the link about SLI 10.5.6. Thank you for your reply.

[Umbongo]

I noticed the lack of a comparison to the 5800 myself. Hmm... :p

Going on a tight budget, the V8700 shines. Though I expect the 5800 to edge it on benchmarks. But it won't be worth it for 3x+ the $$$ for some. Possibly becoming a greater concern, given the current economy.

I've noticed at my company, and others we work with, are suspending what they can, and reducing the rest (equipment purchases). Given this attitude, and I would think it will become common quickly, the V8700 is situated quite nicely I think in the cost/performance ratio. ;)

Even the lower cards are more than enough for smooth viewport performance on complex models for many users. A lot of content creation is being done on the consumer cards too as autodesk and others move stuff to D3D. I think it is more of a 3D sound and having a pro card on the line up than offering "a solution" to CAD/CAM users.

[voyagerd]

I'd laugh if it was the GTS 250, which is rumored to be a restickered 8800GT (It's the Inq, so that's probably BS). But, if that's true and Apple uses it, not only will I laugh - I'll stab. A lot. :D

It's not just the Inquierer who is saying that. It's rather a restickered 9800GTX+ which is just a die shrunk overclocked 8800GTS 512. At least it has a theoretical 13% performance game over the 8800GTS 512 based on the FLOPS. If you clocked the 8800 to the same rate, you might get the same result.

A GTS 250 would make me cry, it's not the new chip :(
Sorry chart doesnt quite line up.
http://homepage.mac.com/ericliskay/g92.jpg

[rylin]

@tylerk36: Would you learn to effin' NOT break quotes?
If not, please GTFO as it's very, very annoying.

[Tallest Skil]

Ok. I see that this is going way beyond what it should. I stated that games in os x are running in SLI. I also gave you a link that confirms that sli is supported in 10.5.6. Simple. We can make it more complicated but I feel I have more than explained my self. I get info from a much higher source. I have already said too much.

You still don't know how to quote...

And no, games don't run in SLI in OS X.

When is the new Mac Pro stated to debut? Rough guesses? I heard Tuesday (tomorrow). Can anyone confirm this? Some are saying at WWDC in June. This seems quite a ways away. Also, should we expect to see the current 30" Displays removed from the online store prior to seeing a 30" or will they be seemingly sold side by side such as the 15" MBP (redesigned) and 17" MBP (older body-style) were a few months ago?

Who's the idiot that told you Tuesday? It's impossible.

WWDC.

[grue]

For the record, I want to state that this thread cracks me up every time I see it in the topic list.

Shouldn't it be titled "Everything we think we know" or "everything we speculate"? :)

[Tallest Skil]

For the record, I want to state that this thread cracks me up every time I see it in the topic list.

Shouldn't it be titled "Everything we think we know" or "everything we speculate"? :)

Nope. :D

There are a few things that we DO know for certain. The rest is just windfall.

[diamond.g]

System Profiler shows tethered. when I remove the SLI cable between the two 8800 gt's I get less graphics performance. I know that the sli cable makes the diff. I understand all the issues windows has. But my two 8800 gt's with SLI cable and Winders vista ultimate 64 games run better than they do on my other mac pro running a single 8800. I understand the info you gave me on the link about SLI 10.5.6. Thank you for your reply.

Screenshot of System Profiler showing that please :)

[philius]

Nope. :D

There are a few things that we DO know for certain. The rest is just windfall.

For all we know there may not even be another Mac Pro!!! Did Apple make an announcement yet??? :eek:

[BenRoethig]

For all we know there may not even be another Mac Pro!!! Did Apple make an announcement yet??? :eek:

Unfortunately, I find that a real possibility. Apple's target group is the average consumer now and the MacPro is really in the opposite direction of ive's design philosophy.

[Umbongo]

Unfortunately, I find that a real possibility. Apple's target group is the average consumer now and the MacPro is really in the opposite direction of ive's design philosophy.

Maybe opposite of his design philosophy, not of Apple's attitude to software, OSX and solutions.

[nanofrog]

Even the lower cards are more than enough for smooth viewport performance on complex models for many users. A lot of content creation is being done on the consumer cards too as autodesk and others move stuff to D3D. I think it is more of a 3D sound and having a pro card on the line up than offering "a solution" to CAD/CAM users.
CAD/CAM usage is how I see them. I'm not a graphics pro, but given the use of consumer cards in that field (from many posts on MR), I don't think this market is it's primary target.

Perhaps Open CL might change this.
Unfortunately, I find that a real possibility. Apple's target group is the average consumer now and the MacPro is really in the opposite direction of ive's design philosophy.
It would be foolish at this time, especially given the market/brand they've created for graphics professionals. After this one though, who knows. :eek: :p

[WATCHDOG]

Apple's target group is the average consumer now +++

:apple: peddles many products and services; including Mac's.

As with all bu$inesses, etc., :apple: is (also) in bu$iness to make $!

As far as overall demand of :apple: 's Mac line, the high point on the bell curve has sequed toward the mobile for several reasons; not the least of which is the currently expanding world of Wi-Fi as well as the pros of portability.

Through subtle promotion such as e.g., movies, many potential customers - who do not possess supercomputing needs - wouldn't mind having their own 2009-affordable 'laptop' with a prominent :apple: logo on display, as they play or work in Starbucks and/or Wherever...

I'd be curious to see the "pie-chart" of all Mac computer purchases (in number of units sold) for '07 and/or '08?

What % of Mac computer purchasers purchased Mac Pro's when "times were better"?

What % of people Today would have purchased a new Mac Pro,
IF they were not so Depressed at the moment? (aka - Pro sales may plummet faster than lower price point sales)

POINT?

Because of the increasing availability of WiFi (and therefore the increasing consumer demand for "laptops" & "notebooks"), the producing & promoting of mobile computer systems (Lo-end, Hi-end) will probably increase.

And as for the Mac Pro?

There should be something 'special' out there - even if very pricey - which towers above all PC competition, if even partially just for the sake of keeping :apple: 's corporate 'image' well-polished! :D

However, with that said, I have it from the Highest Source (even higher than you, Skil), that, one day, even Mac Pro, shall be no more.. :eek:

:cool:

+++

[mchalebk]

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Apple will give up the MacPro to concentrate on consumer machines is nuts (at least in the next several years). There is no way Apple would abandon the professional markets that it dominates (graphic arts, music, film,video). Regardless of how many they sell, Apple absolutely has to have a pro-level computer to support a very key segment of the market.

Remember, this isn't only about hardware, but software, too. If they killed the MacPro, it wouldn't be long before their pro apps died also (Final Cut, Logic, etc). Why would you need pro-level apps when there's no pro-level hardware to run them on?

You can take this to the bank: Apple will not kill the MacPro.

[Umbongo]

CAD/CAM usage is how I see them. I'm not a graphics pro, but given the use of consumer cards in that field (from many posts on MR), I don't think this market is it's primary target.

Perhaps Open CL might change this.

The issue with Apple and "pro" cards is that the pro cards are only really better because they have the optimized drivers, certification and support for applications and that most of those apps are not for OS X. And as already discussed the raw power of the GeForce and Radeon cards is often more than enough these days.

As Apple are writing the drivers and supporting the hardware themselves anyway there is no reason for them to offer say a GTX 260 and then write optimized drivers for the Quadro FX 4800 (I think they are pretty much the same, I forget) when they can get the same performance from the GeForce card. The Quadro would benefit someone who wanted to work in other OSes too without switching cards and stuff, but Apple don't seem to fussed on that. Which makes me wonder what sort of support you get from NVIDIA for a Mac Quadro FX 5600 or FX 4500 anyway.

As (my understanding of) OpenCL is tapping in to the raw processing power of the GPU anyway, it doesn't seem to be important if it is a Quadro or GeForce if they have the same hardware. I've seen a few posts saying how can Apple offer Workstations without pro cards over the years, but in the end it is only really important if you want to run another OS too.


It would be foolish at this time, especially given the market/brand they've created for graphics professionals. After this one though, who knows. :eek: :p

Yeah Mac Pros are going to be needed for the pro apps and I don't see them dropping those any time soon, it's a successful part of their business and, far more importantly, their image.

Even if Apple are selling only 100,000 Mac Pros a year, that is likely $300-$400m in revenue and with Apple's margins a fair profit. You don't just stop that to adhere to some image change. Not when you have shareholders.

[BenRoethig]

Maybe opposite of his design philosophy, not of Apple's attitude to software, OSX and solutions.

Not the same Apple it was before the intel transition. The iPhone/iPod, the Macbook line and their target audience is Apple's focus now.

It would be foolish at this time, especially given the market/brand they've created for graphics professionals. After this one though, who knows. :eek: :p

Unfortunately Apple has figured out the uninformed masses are much more lucrative than professionals. Many more of them and they're much easier to please. Just look at what they've been doing lately. Releases to Pro Apps are infrequent and with little fanfare. Glossy has all but replaced matte screens (over the objection of professionals) and music professionals were left high and dry with the new Macbooks which preferred by many due to its combination of portability with full features. Apple has shown its more than willing to jettison users if they don't match their direction.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Apple will give up the MacPro to concentrate on consumer machines is nuts (at least in the next several years). There is no way Apple would abandon the professional markets that it dominates (graphic arts, music, film,video). Regardless of how many they sell, Apple absolutely has to have a pro-level computer to support a very key segment of the market.

Who thought iMacs were going to replace the strong selling sub-$2000 PowerMacs, once Apple's bread and butter?

Remember, this isn't only about hardware, but software, too. If they killed the MacPro, it wouldn't be long before their pro apps died also (Final Cut, Logic, etc). Why would you need pro-level apps when there's no pro-level hardware to run them on?

There have been those persistent rumors about Apple selling the pro-apps. Apple has a pattern. They go full tilt into something making the best products possible, when they run out of ideas and get bored with it, they move on to something else and leave the thing they were working to neglect. Either full on or full off. Apple is its consumer cycle. Problems for pros is that they've never made this kind of money before and really never had products that could stand up to the level of the Mac as their focus. Apple is making a lot of money on the iPhone/iPod/iTunes sector and selling a lot of consumer Macs because of it.

[WATCHDOG]

Even if Apple are selling only 100,000 Mac Pros a year, that is likely $300-$400m in revenue and with Apple's margins a fair profit. You don't just stop that to adhere to some image change. Not when you have shareholders. +++

I don't think Mac Pros'll vanish tomorrow: Why throw money out the window?; and does anyone have a link to Mac units sold?

Meanwhile, an article related to this sub-topic.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10465188/1/apple-mac-sales-down-you-dont-say.html

[Umbongo]

+++

I don't think Mac Pros'll vanish tomorrow: Why throw money out the window?; and does anyone have a link to Mac units sold?

Meanwhile, an article related to this sub-topic.


The only official numbers are grouped as desktops and notebooks and can be found on Apple's official investor relations page.

[8CoreWhore]

Final Cut Studio has over 50% of the professional market. It runs best on a MP. Most of the other professional suites from Autodesk, etc, run on Mac. Until someone wants to demonstrate that the MP loses money for Apple, I have no reason to think they will discontinue it. Oh, and Pixar uses MP - thank you very much. I can just see Jobs ordering new Dell's for his Pixar artist. :cool:

[8CoreWhore]

Not the same Apple it was before the intel transition. The iPhone/iPod, the Macbook line and their target audience is Apple's focus now.



Unfortunately Apple has figured out the uninformed masses are much more lucrative than professionals. Many more of them and they're much easier to please. Just look at what they've been doing lately. Releases to Pro Apps are infrequent and with little fanfare. Glossy has all but replaced matte screens (over the objection of professionals) and music professionals were left high and dry with the new Macbooks which preferred by many due to its combination of portability with full features. Apple has shown its more than willing to jettison users if they don't match their direction.



Who thought iMacs were going to replace the strong selling sub-$2000 PowerMacs, once Apple's bread and butter?



There have been those persistent rumors about Apple selling the pro-apps. Apple has a pattern. They go full tilt into something making the best products possible, when they run out of ideas and get bored with it, they move on to something else and leave the thing they were working to neglect. Either full on or full off. Apple is its consumer cycle. Problems for pros is that they've never made this kind of money before and really never had products that could stand up to the level of the Mac as their focus. Apple is making a lot of money on the iPhone/iPod/iTunes sector and selling a lot of consumer Macs because of it.

Care to point to these "persistent rumors"?

[nanofrog]

The issue with Apple and "pro" cards is that the pro cards are only really better because they have the optimized drivers, certification and support for applications and that most of those apps are not for OS X. And as already discussed the raw power of the GeForce and Radeon cards is often more than enough these days.

As Apple are writing the drivers and supporting the hardware themselves anyway there is no reason for them to offer say a GTX 260 and then write optimized drivers for the Quadro FX 4800 (I think they are pretty much the same, I forget) when they can get the same performance from the GeForce card. The Quadro would benefit someone who wanted to work in other OSes too without switching cards and stuff, but Apple don't seem to fussed on that. Which makes me wonder what sort of support you get from NVIDIA for a Mac Quadro FX 5600 or FX 4500 anyway.

As (my understanding of) OpenCL is tapping in to the raw processing power of the GPU anyway, it doesn't seem to be important if it is a Quadro or GeForce if they have the same hardware. I've seen a few posts saying how can Apple offer Workstations without pro cards over the years, but in the end it is only really important if you want to run another OS too.

Yeah Mac Pros are going to be needed for the pro apps and I don't see them dropping those any time soon, it's a successful part of their business and, far more importantly, their image.

Even if Apple are selling only 100,000 Mac Pros a year, that is likely $300-$400m in revenue and with Apple's margins a fair profit. You don't just stop that to adhere to some image change. Not when you have shareholders.
Yes, they do have optimized drivers, on the same basic hardware. Generally speaking, I was thinking in terms of the differences, though seemingly minor, might prove worth it technically speaking. As an example, the 5800 having 4GB memory. I'm reserving judgment until a comparison can be made. ;)

You do have a good point with Apple creating the drivers. I do think it possible that this might change, given the recent impression of closer relations between Apple and nVidia. Again it's a big if, but theoretically possible. Provided Apple won't feel like they're losing control. :eek: :p

As ATI writes their own, they might make an OS X version for the V8700, provided they feel there's a market. They dabbled with it (consumer) on the 3870, but I've no idea if it proved profitable. Let alone if the professional side has the numbers to make it tempting. Personally, I think they'd wait for additional apps first, but that's just me. :p

As for apps, absolutely, Windows is the strong player here, and obviously the main target. OS X could see greater support. It's all tied together, and seems to be a "chicken and egg" scenario (apps & hardware+drivers). Not sure, but somehow I'm not holding out much hope. :rolleyes: Proof, in the form of OS X compatible versions would be needed to convince me. ;) :D
Not the same Apple it was before the intel transition. The iPhone/iPod, the Macbook line and their target audience is Apple's focus now.

Unfortunately Apple has figured out the uninformed masses are much more lucrative than professionals. Many more of them and they're much easier to please. Just look at what they've been doing lately. Releases to Pro Apps are infrequent and with little fanfare. Glossy has all but replaced matte screens (over the objection of professionals) and music professionals were left high and dry with the new Macbooks which preferred by many due to its combination of portability with full features. Apple has shown its more than willing to jettison users if they don't match their direction.

Who thought iMacs were going to replace the strong selling sub-$2000 PowerMacs, once Apple's bread and butter?

There have been those persistent rumors about Apple selling the pro-apps. Apple has a pattern. They go full tilt into something making the best products possible, when they run out of ideas and get bored with it, they move on to something else and leave the thing they were working to neglect. Either full on or full off. Apple is its consumer cycle. Problems for pros is that they've never made this kind of money before and really never had products that could stand up to the level of the Mac as their focus. Apple is making a lot of money on the iPhone/iPod/iTunes sector and selling a lot of consumer Macs because of it.
The consumer market is an obvious "gigantic golden carrot" that's just too tempting to leave alone. :p Business is there to make $$$, and that need is always first. Provided they can still make a profit in the professional market, I would think they'd have reason to stay.

But it is :apple:, so who knows. ;) :p

[Eidorian]

At least the GTS 240 is a higher clocked 8800/9800GT. :rolleyes:

[Umbongo]

As an example, the 5800 having 4GB memory. I'm reserving judgment until a comparison can be made.Yeah the 4GB of memory is a lot, but perhaps 1.8GB and the power of two GPUs might outweigh it. I don't really know much about OpenCL (or Cuda) though.

As ATI writes their own, they might make an OS X version for the V8700, provided they feel there's a market.

I would think the market is tiny, like a few thousand users tops. The real market for the pro cards doesn't seem to be for the digital content creation market, but ones like science, finance, engineering. Not really the Mac's forté.

[Pressure]

At least the GTS 240 is a higher clocked 8800/9800GT. :rolleyes:

Well, considering you can already install and use the Geforce 9800GTX+ in both Mac OS X and Windows on the current Mac Pro it doesn't seem all that impressive.

[Tallest Skil]

Well, considering you can already install and use the Geforce 9800GTX+ in both Mac OS X and Windows on the current Mac Pro it doesn't seem all that impressive.

This level of absurdity demands a link to the process! :p

[kabunaru]

This level of absurdity demands a link to the process! :p

Do you need a link with proof for everything? :D

[The Rominator]

Well, considering you can already install and use the Geforce 9800GTX+ in both Mac OS X and Windows on the current Mac Pro it doesn't seem all that impressive.


I too would like to see proof of this.

I have tried writing a ROM to make these work, I have one right now.

Best I can do is scrambled nonsense in OSX....and this after copying all of the RAM timings, softstraps, and clocks over.

BTW...I'm a big fan of Denmark. I Art Directed the last three commercial campaigns for KiMs chips. 5% was my favorite. Go Jorgen !!!

[Tallest Skil]

Do you need a link with proof for everything? :D

When Apple restricts its hardware in the manner that it does, yes. :(

I do remember reading about this, though.

[tylerk36]

For all we know there may not even be another Mac Pro!!! Did Apple make an announcement yet??? :eek:

The new Mac Pro specs are as follows.

32 core Motown
500 GB DDR 9 10 riser cards let's say 20 perts. I mispelled that on purpose. Lets get an english tutor in here.
10 X 4 TB or is that 4 X 10 maybe 4 10 X 4's or 10 4 X 10's Well what the hell does it matter; Hard Drives
4 Red Ray VDV not DVD burners
10 USB 6.0 Ports
4 Firewire 400
4 Fire Wire 800
10 PCI Express 5.0 Graphics ports. All are SLISILSLI Capable
2 PCI Express 2.0 Ports for whatever
8D sound card.
Laser Optical ports because we can. Ooh pretty red lights.
Red Tooth (who needs to brush here)
Built in 19" LCD for kicks and giggles
And finally but not least R2D2 guard dog
Total cost. Well You would have to be Bill Gates.
Oh did I say it has OS 12 oops there goes that stupid English Errroorrrs again. Any one wish to correct me. There was a little red; dog, and, yet; could he; I, and saw; red hat. Grade F-

[The Rominator]

http://325i.org/2009/01/28/howto-use-a-pc-geforce-9800gtx-in-a-real-mac-pro/

When I get done working, I'm gonna try this out.

Did I mention that I also have a 9800GX2 I have been fiddling with?


......

[indiochano]

Unfortunately, I find that a real possibility. Apple's target group is the average consumer now and the MacPro is really in the opposite direction of ive's design philosophy.

there's no way in hell apple will sacrifice their pro line...

they have waaaaaay too much to lose if they do scrap it out... think about the influence apple has in the creative field: graphic design, animation, video and motion, audio, music, science, etc. etc.

[Pressure]

This level of absurdity demands a link to the process! :p

The Rominator already posted the link.

But it can be done quite easily.

[Tallest Skil]

The new Mac Pro specs are as follows.

32 core Motown
500 GB DDR 9 10 riser cards let's say 20 perts. I mispelled that on purpose. Lets get an english tutor in here.
10 X 4 TB or is that 4 X 10 maybe 4 10 X 4's or 10 4 X 10's Well what the hell does it matter; Hard Drives
4 Red Ray VDV not DVD burners
10 USB 6.0 Ports
4 Firewire 400
4 Fire Wire 800
10 PCI Express 5.0 Graphics ports. All are SLISILSLI Capable
2 PCI Express 2.0 Ports for whatever
8D sound card.
Laser Optical ports because we can. Ooh pretty red lights.
Red Tooth (who needs to brush here)
Built in 19" LCD for kicks and giggles
And finally but not least R2D2 guard dog
Total cost. Well You would have to be Bill Gates.
Oh did I say it has OS 12 oops there goes that stupid English Errroorrrs again. Any one wish to correct me. There was a little red; dog, and, yet; could he; I, and saw; red hat. Grade F-

That's pathetic. You can't even get a proper MacProWank; look at you! :mad:;):D

Anyone who is anyone knows that the next Mac Pro will drop FireWire 400 and 800 in favor of 3200. Get your facts straight! :p

[nanofrog]

Yeah the 4GB of memory is a lot, but perhaps 1.8GB and the power of two GPUs might outweigh it. I don't really know much about OpenCL (or Cuda) though.

I would think the market is tiny, like a few thousand users tops. The real market for the pro cards doesn't seem to be for the digital content creation market, but ones like science, finance, engineering. Not really the Mac's forté.
That's what I'm not certain on either. So a comparison would be nice (albeit windows), if it ever happens.

The market is small compared to consumer models, no matter what platform. It's the Mac side I'm unsure of in terms of size. Even science and engineering. I know I've seen a few specialty apps in these, but that's it. No idea of saturation.
Anyone who is anyone knows that the next Mac Pro will drop FireWire 400 and 800 in favor of 3200. Get your facts straight! :p
Yeah, right. I'd love to see that, when there's no parts. :eek: :D :p
Dump the FW400, so that leaves FW800. Deal with it. ;) :D

[amoergosum]

Days since update: 413 (Avg = 217)

[Tallest Skil]

Days since update: 413 (Avg = 217)

518, here we come! :cool:

The average is wrong, you know.

[m1stake]

518, here we come! :cool:

The average is wrong, you know.

It's an average. That's all it is. :rolleyes:

For those who don't know, the average is very low because the PowerMacs were updated faster. It'll be a long time before enough Mac Pro refreshes are able to bring the average into the realm of a decent guess again.

[nanofrog]

It's an average. That's all it is. :rolleyes:

For those who don't know, the average is very low because the PowerMacs were updated faster. It'll be a long time before enough Mac Pro refreshes are able to bring the average into the realm of a decent guess again.
Or if the PowerMac data is removed. :p

[kabunaru]

518, here we come! :cool:


WWDC 2009, here we come! :cool: :p

[Tallest Skil]

It's an average. That's all it is. :rolleyes:

For those who don't know, the average is very low because the PowerMacs were updated faster. It'll be a long time before enough Mac Pro refreshes are able to bring the average into the realm of a decent guess again.

That, and the Buyer's Guide counts the addition of an eight-core option as an update, when it wasn't.

[Eidorian]

Well, considering you can already install and use the Geforce 9800GTX+ in both Mac OS X and Windows on the current Mac Pro it doesn't seem all that impressive.Well if you flash it. :D

[sidewinder]

This thread should be retitled to:

The 2009 (Gainestown) Mac Pro: Everything We Know and a Whole Lot of Guessing

:)

S-

[J the Ninja]

That, and the Buyer's Guide counts the addition of an eight-core option as an update, when it wasn't.

The Clovertown ones have a different model number (MacPro2,1).

[ncc1701d]

Anyone who is anyone knows that the next Mac Pro will drop FireWire 400 and 800 in favor of 3200. Get your facts straight! :pNot to mention the R2 unit is high end. You can also get the entry level Wookie in the corner.:cool:;)

[m1stake]

Or if the PowerMac data is removed. :p

Never. :p

[nanofrog]

Never. :p
Why must people be stubborn? :eek: :p

[tylerk36]

Not to mention the R2 unit is high end. You can also get the entry level Wookie in the corner.:cool:;)

Yoda say to Steve.... (you will be you will be).

[tylerk36]

Fire Wire. How about forest fire wire. Or Forest Gump Fire Wire. Maybe instead of serial ATA we can have a lucky charm ATA. That's a kinda serial isn't it? You even get the lucky part as a bonus. :D:p

[nanofrog]

Well if you flash it. :D
Can't that get you arrested for indecent exposure? :eek: :p

[drewsof07]

Fire Wire. How about forest fire wire. Or Forest Gump Fire Wire. Maybe instead of serial ATA we can have a lucky charm ATA. That's a kinda serial isn't it? You even get the lucky part as a bonus. :D:p

I don't know why they keep skipping the most obvious name for a port connection: Super Ultra Connection, or "SUC" for short.
The first company to adopt such a connection will have an immediate marketing advantage :p hahaa

[indiochano]

dell just released this XPS model:
http://i.dell.com/images/global/products/desktop-studio-xps/desktop-studio-xps-highlights/desktop-studio-xps-435-design1.jpg

which looks an awful lot like some mac pro mockups here (mainly the front panel being black while the sides are aluminum)..


now im having my doubts if apple will actually go that route.

[Fomaphone]

dell just released this XPS model:
http://i.dell.com/images/global/products/desktop-studio-xps/desktop-studio-xps-highlights/desktop-studio-xps-435-design1.jpg

which looks an awful lot like some mac pro mockups here (mainly the front panel being black while the sides are aluminum)..


now im having my doubts if apple will actually go that route.

try as they might, dell will never have an :apple: on the side of their machines.

whatever apple does, even if it's very similar, it will be sexier than dell's.

[tylerk36]

I don't know why they keep skipping the most obvious name for a port connection: Super Ultra Connection, or "SUC" for short.
The first company to adopt such a connection will have an immediate marketing advantage :p hahaa

I guess that would mean that you can plug in anything and still cost you lots of money. HehEhEHe Jaja you in deep doo doo. Meesalike this.

[tylerk36]

dell just released this XPS model:
http://i.dell.com/images/global/products/desktop-studio-xps/desktop-studio-xps-highlights/desktop-studio-xps-435-design1.jpg

which looks an awful lot like some mac pro mockups here (mainly the front panel being black while the sides are aluminum)..


now im having my doubts if apple will actually go that route.

Apple like's to be original. Mac pro is getting some attention. What company originally sold an 8 core machine for personal use. Yes the Mac Pro was a power house work station. But I felt it was a good value for what comes in the dang thing. You all know what I mean man. Right on Bra.:o

[jjahshik32]

17" mbp are shipping now.. c'moonnnnn mac pro!!

[BenRoethig]

Apple like's to be original. Mac pro is getting some attention. What company originally sold an 8 core machine for personal use. Yes the Mac Pro was a power house work station. But I felt it was a good value for what comes in the dang thing. You all know what I mean man. Right on Bra.:o

There are no personal use programs that can take advantage of those 8-cores.

dell just released this XPS model:
http://i.dell.com/images/global/products/desktop-studio-xps/desktop-studio-xps-highlights/desktop-studio-xps-435-design1.jpg

which looks an awful lot like some mac pro mockups here (mainly the front panel being black while the sides are aluminum)..


now im having my doubts if apple will actually go that route.

Slap an Apple logo on it, replace one of the USB2.0 ports with firewire and that's basically the machine I want to buy.

[lyzardking]

There are no personal use programs that can take advantage of those 8-cores.

Does Hand Brake count?

;)

[Mr. Anderson]

There are no personal use programs that can take advantage of those 8-cores.

What's your definition of personal use? I'm using FCP for personal use.....

D

[drewsof07]

What's your definition of personal use? I'm using FCP for personal use.....

D

I assume he meant non-Pro apps. If what I've read is true, Snow Leopard will help regular programs use those additional cores.

[diamond.g]

There are no personal use programs that can take advantage of those 8-cores.


Folding@Home (http://folding.stanford.edu/English/MacSMPGuide) says hi! :)

[Eidorian]

Folding@Home (http://folding.stanford.edu/English/MacSMPGuide) says hi! :)You'd much rather use your GPU for that. Seriously...

[kabunaru]

There are no personal use programs that can take advantage of those 8-cores.


Crysis???

[Pressure]

There are no personal use programs that can take advantage of those 8-cores.


Well, rarely one application but many people sure do like to multitask.

Ever try multitasking on a single core computer? Yeah, not so hot.

It enables you to do far more things at the same time.

[diamond.g]

You'd much rather use your GPU for that. Seriously...

True, but the extra CPU power couldn't hurt.

[deze]

dell just released this XPS model:
http://i.dell.com/images/global/products/desktop-studio-xps/desktop-studio-xps-highlights/desktop-studio-xps-435-design1.jpg

which looks an awful lot like some mac pro mockups here (mainly the front panel being black while the sides are aluminum)..


now im having my doubts if apple will actually go that route.

Wow that does look remarkably like my design i posted a while back.
I bet that xps is mostly plastic and a bit of pressed tin :p

[Tallest Skil]

Wow that does look remarkably like my design i posted a while back.
I bet that xps is mostly plastic and a bit of pressed tin :p

They probably thought, "Oh, NO! Look at what Apple is making next! We'd better copy it!" thinking that this thread is a source of direct-from-Apple information.

Because I saw that earlier today and thought, "That thing looks EXACTLY like that one Mac Pro mockup in my thread."

[voyagerd]

I was looking under the Apple Hardware profiler and found some interesting things.

Under
GFX0@0 <class IOPCIDevice, registered, matched, active, busy$
I found
"rm_multiboard_capable" = <01000000>

SLI? Only hoping :P

TeslaGLContext <class TeslaGLContext, !registered, !matc$

Tesla :eek:

[iMacmatician]

I was looking under the Apple Hardware profiler and found some interesting things.

Under
GFX0@0 <class IOPCIDevice, registered, matched, active, busy$
I found
"rm_multiboard_capable" = <01000000>

SLI? Only hoping :P

TeslaGLContext <class TeslaGLContext, !registered, !matc$

Tesla :eek::eek:

Looks like the new Mac Pro will be very interesting… :cool: Would Tesla be a reason to announce the Mac Pro at WWDC and/or ship it with Snow Leopard?

[Trip.Tucker]

Crysis???

No.

[Fomaphone]

when they get here, how much of a performance difference should i expect between the top model and the next best processor? i keep reading that clock speed won't matter as much as architecture in the next generation of models, but i don't know if that means we should expect a lot more bang-per-Hz


for a wee bit o' background, i'm thinking that i'd like the capability to work in uncompressed HD, which means i'll need at least one SAS drive, which will mean i'll need the raid card. the combined cost of these items means two things for me... not much additional RAM at the time of the purchase (probably only 6 or less), and opting for the second best processor option.

then again... i suppose that i could just stick a thousand bucks worth of high speed drive stuff on my credit card if the need ever actually arises to work in 4:4:4 uncompressed 10-bit HD at home. by then i'll either be making decent money or the drives will be cheaper.

... no matter what i'll be able to work in uncompressed SD and ProRes HD, but without fast drives uncompressed 10-bit is not a possibility, let alone 2k or 4k three or four years down the road (for which i'd need way more RAM anyway, not to mention that extra processor power i'm potentially turning down now)

[m1stake]

Yes, more work is done per clock. The existing benchmarks are obvious enough, the only questions left are which parts Apple will use (CPU speed, board options, graphics, memory config), and the release date itself.

[nanofrog]

when they get here, how much of a performance difference should i expect between the top model and the next best processor? i keep reading that clock speed won't matter as much as architecture in the next generation of models, but i don't know if that means we should expect a lot more bang-per-Hz


for a wee bit o' background, i'm thinking that i'd like the capability to work in uncompressed HD, which means i'll need at least one SAS drive, which will mean i'll need the raid card. the combined cost of these items means two things for me... not much additional RAM at the time of the purchase (probably only 6 or less), and opting for the second best processor option.

then again... i suppose that i could just stick a thousand bucks worth of high speed drive stuff on my credit card if the need ever actually arises to work in 4:4:4 uncompressed 10-bit HD at home. by then i'll either be making decent money or the drives will be cheaper.

... no matter what i'll be able to work in uncompressed SD and ProRes HD, but without fast drives uncompressed 10-bit is not a possibility, let alone 2k or 4k three or four years down the road (for which i'd need way more RAM anyway, not to mention that extra processor power i'm potentially turning down now)
If I'm understanding you correctly, you might want to consider the base model then. Use the savings towards upgrades, such as memory, RAID card,... I'm thinking you'd be better served by the increased memory and data throughput (HDD's). At $200USD more (est. on $2999 USD for base), I'd think more bang for the buck than the current model, certainly. 3D rendering, and a lot of it, might be a justification for increasing the clock speed on the CPU's.

BTW, you'd be better off going 3rd party on the RAID card. Check out Areca's SAS cards, particularly the ARC-1680 series.

Hope this helps. :)

[Tallest Skil]

I was looking under the Apple Hardware profiler and found some interesting things.

TeslaGLContext <class TeslaGLContext, !registered, !matc$

http://www.techsurvivors.net/forums/style_emoticons/default/jawdrop.gif

This hurts. SO. MUCH. Because I can't get one anymore.

http://images.nvidia.com/products/tesla_c1060/Tesla_c1060_3qtr_low.png

No video out means that this would be used in conjunction with Snow Leopard ONLY, as you would need another card to display the image rendered by...

Wait for it...

Eight Gainestown Xeon cores and the 240 cores of the Tesla GPU.

[Fomaphone]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you might want to consider the base model then. Use the savings towards upgrades, such as memory, RAID card,... I'm thinking you'd be better served by the increased memory and data throughput (HDD's). At $200USD more (est. on $2999 USD for base), I'd think more bang for the buck than the current model, certainly. 3D rendering, and a lot of it, might be a justification for increasing the clock speed on the CPU's.

BTW, you'd be better off going 3rd party on the RAID card. Check out Areca's SAS cards, particularly the ARC-1680 series.

Hope this helps. :)

thanks, that does help, but my thinking is that if i get the highest-end model now, then I can let the computer grow with my needs... a few hundred bucks invested here and there on RAM or an SAS card if i actually need it, knowing at the very least that i've got the most capable cpu i can get.

plus, since i see now that I should go third party with the SAS card and drives, i think i'll just do that when the need arises.

i guess what my issue boils down to is, is the $700 difference (based on current pricing) between the two options a better investment than the same amount of money spent on RAM at the time of purchase? (espeically considering considering that FCP hasn't been rewritten yet and CS4 is still 32-bit on OS X, and by the time there are new versions of those RAM might be half the price)

[Trip.Tucker]

http://www.techsurvivors.net/forums/style_emoticons/default/jawdrop.gif

This hurts. SO. MUCH. Because I can't get one anymore.

<snip>

How badly do you want one? Would you be willing to pay the full ticket price and shipping?

[Tallest Skil]

How badly do you want one? Would you be willing to pay the full ticket price and shipping?

Willing, yes.

Able anymore, no. :(

[kabunaru]

Willing, yes.

Able anymore, no. :(

So, just how much better is this "Tesla" GPU than the current 8800GT?

[Tallest Skil]

So, just how much better is this "Tesla" GPU than the current 8800GT?

*blinks*

:D

The 8800 GT is trash next to something in the Tesla category. It might not give you better performance in games (though with 4GB of onboard RAM, I'm not sure of what, if anything, it can't do), but it will get its job done better than any 8800 GT would operate in its position.

[kabunaru]

The 8800 GT is trash next to something in the Tesla category. It might not give you better performance in games (though with 4GB of onboard RAM, I'm not sure of what, if anything, it can't do), but it will get its job done better than any 8800 GT would operate in its position.

Do you see all Nvidia cards (on all Macs) and Apple is done with ATI or do you still see some ATI cards being offered as an option?

[nanofrog]

Do you see all Nvidia cards (on all Macs) and Apple is done with ATI or do you still see some ATI cards being offered as an option?
ATI isn't dead yet. 4600 kext is in the first post, and there does now seem to be some substantiation to the 4870 (not 4870X2) making it into Snow Leopard. :D

And I just happen to have one.... :p

[Tallest Skil]

Do you see all Nvidia cards (on all Macs) and Apple is done with ATI or do you still see some ATI cards being offered as an option?

It would be a bad idea for them to drop ATI, even for one full "set" of updates.

Bad relations at one point make it difficult to reconcile afterwards, and we all know that ATI makes FAR better drivers (because they actually write their own drivers) than Apple does for nVidia.

You can have a Tesla, but if the drivers suck enough, you could be better off with a HD 2600 XT for performance.

Apple should really offer one card in each position from each company.

Base: 4670 vs. _______ (something nVidia comparable)
Mid: 4870 vs. GTX 260
Pro: FirePro vs. Quadro/Tesla

And let us choose. This isn't a "choose" in the sense of "oh, offer us EVERY card", but choose in that we get to choose our company at each level, and Apple still gets to have their hardware restrictions.

[voyagerd]

http://www.techsurvivors.net/forums/style_emoticons/default/jawdrop.gif

This hurts. SO. MUCH. Because I can't get one anymore.

http://images.nvidia.com/products/tesla_c1060/Tesla_c1060_3qtr_low.png

No video out means that this would be used in conjunction with Snow Leopard ONLY, as you would need another card to display the image rendered by...

Wait for it...

Eight Gainestown Xeon cores and the 240 cores of the Tesla GPU.

Do you want to see the whole report? You can run Apple Hardware Profiler on your comp too. Have a gander.

/usr/sbin/ioreg -l -w80

[kabunaru]

An analogy:
PowerMac G4 -> PowerMac G5 upgrade as current Mac Pro -> Gainestown Mac Pro upgrade

agreed? :D

[Tallest Skil]

Do you want to see the whole report? You can run Apple Hardware Profiler on your comp too. Have a gander.

/usr/sbin/ioreg -l -w80

The Tesla info comes up under the nVidia 8xxx driver sub... thingy for me.

I don't know if that's just because I'm using a 8600M, or if that is the same for all computers, but...

Okay, I really don't know what that means. :p

We need to find out if there are Tesla kexts in Snow Leopard; that'll tell us for sure.