Is next MP likely to be a gaming giant? [Archive]

Hellhammer

May 21, 2010, 10:39 AM

The complaints are usually on price and then later turn in to it being outdated and the usual sentiment towards Apple only revising graphics cards when they launch new systems.

I agree. 600$ ATI 5870 isn't really worth it plus people will anyway complain because they are forced to buy that, no option for e.g. 5850 or 5970. The fuss starts again when ATI releases Northern Islands in early 2011 as it again takes a long while before Apple adopts them. Apple doesn't even drop the price of GPUs, ATI 4870 can be bought for 120€ while Apple asks 349€ for it

aiqw9182

May 21, 2010, 10:41 AM

I agree. 600$ ATI 5870 isn't really worth it plus people will anyway complain because they are forced to buy that, no option for e.g. 5850 or 5970. The fuss starts again when ATI releases Northern Islands in early 2011 as it again takes a long while before Apple adopts them. Apple doesn't even drop the price of GPUs, ATI 4870 can be bought for 120€ while Apple asks 349€ for it

5850 would be confused with the iMac when it likely gets a mobility 5850 and I never stated that there wouldn't be an option to upgrade to a 5970.

The fact of the matter is, PC gaming isn't advancing as fast as it has in the past due to consoles. You don't need to have a new GPU every year to be able to play recent games.

Hellhammer

May 21, 2010, 10:46 AM

5850 would be confused with the iMac when it likely gets a mobility 5850 and I never stated that there wouldn't be an option to upgrade to a 5970.

The fact of the matter is, PC gaming isn't advancing as fast as it has in the past due to consoles. You don't need to have a new GPU every year to be able to play recent games.

I know you didn't but I doubt we'll see 5970 and if we are, it's going to be something like 999$!

That's true though. Most games are made for consoles so PC versions are pretty poor. If you're going to play with e.g. Apple 30" CD, then the GPU really matters as playing games @2560x1600 is pretty demanding. Most players are stuck with 1920x1200 or lower so it's not a surprise that a weaker card is okay. Of course, if you are used to have the newest and shiniest to get the best FPS (as most HC PC gamers are), then Mac Pro isn't the best choice at all

aiqw9182

May 21, 2010, 10:54 AM

I know you didn't but I doubt we'll see 5970 and if we are, it's going to be something like 999$!

That's true though. Most games are made for consoles so PC versions are pretty poor. If you're going to play with e.g. Apple 30" CD, then the GPU really matters as playing games @2560x1600 is pretty demanding. Most players are stuck with 1920x1200 or lower so it's not a surprise that a weaker card is okay. Of course, if you are used to have the newest and shiniest to get the best FPS (as most HC PC gamers are), then Mac Pro isn't the best choice at all
I don't think folks like that would ever go near a Mac Pro anyway.

Hellhammer

May 21, 2010, 11:01 AM

I don't think folks like that would ever go near a Mac Pro anyway.

That's what I meant with the last words ;) If you have the money to bang for the 2.93GHz quad with GTX 285, then it might be okay but seeing what you could get with that money in PC world, it's not worth it.

xgman

May 21, 2010, 11:09 AM

I can't imagine buying a mac pro for the primary purpose of gaming. You could build 3 gaming pc's for the price of a mac pro. There may be some mac pro users who play games on it, but xeon and registered ram aren't needed for gaming and hard core gamers tend to want to overclock.

aiqw9182

May 21, 2010, 11:16 AM

That's what I meant with the last words ;) If you have the money to bang for the 2.93GHz quad with GTX 285, then it might be okay but seeing what you could get with that money in PC world, it's not worth it.

I'm saying that if the Mac Pro had as many GPU options as the PC side of things, they still wouldn't touch it but that's besides the point. There's no doubt about it that the current Mac Pro is ridiculously outdated and overpriced.

If Intel could get their **** together this wouldn't a problem. (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/06/widespread-availability-of-hexacore-xeon-processors-for-mac-pro-not-slated-until-late-june/)

cherry su

May 21, 2010, 11:32 AM

Hellhammer

May 21, 2010, 11:35 AM

No, the Mac Pro was built to be a professional workstation like the Dell Precision T series. You don't see those machines being offered with a Radeon or a GeForce card, do you? They're all FireGLs or Quadros.

There aren't FireGLs for Mac Pros ;) Only one Quadro and it's 1800$. Most are either GeForce or Radeon

VirtualRain

May 21, 2010, 12:30 PM

The Mac Pro may not be the best choice for someone who wants a gaming rig, but that's not to say that the Mac Pro can't be a good gaming rig.

nanofrog

May 21, 2010, 01:43 PM

The Mac Pro may not be the best choice for someone who wants a gaming rig, but that's not to say that the Mac Pro can't be a good gaming rig.
If the primary task is work which requires an actual workstation, the owner can then boot into Windows (and use any graphics card they want, assuming they can afford the slot for non-workstation duty) to play games.

Better than buying 2x different systems anyway. :D

cured.not.dried

May 21, 2010, 02:20 PM

if you're talking about boot camp gaming, then the next MP has a chance at being a dream machine if the logic board supports SLI or crossfire (and the PSU has enough 6 and 8 pin cables).

if you're talking about mac gaming, then even most of the current macs can be gaming machines if apple optimizes their drivers to fully support openGL (there's a 4.0 spec nowadays), and they get rid of the GPU memory leaks.

personally I don't think these things fall within the Mac Pro's target market. while steam for mac is a milestone in mac game availability, the games we'll be getting will be ones that could run easily in windoze on an iMac. :apple: doesn't need to build a tower for these games to run well.

bob5820

May 21, 2010, 03:56 PM

Is next MP likely to be a gaming giant

Compared to previous MP's - possibly

Compared to the average PC gaming rig - not a chance

Apple markets the MP as a workstation. Steam, and the possibility of a current (if likely under clocked and over priced) GPU may give the next MP some temporary balls as a gaming rig, but in 6 or 7 months when the PC gaming rigs can upgrade to the latest GPU the MP will be left in the dust. MP's are great workstations but no amount of wishful thinking is going to turn them into gaming giants.

Topper

May 21, 2010, 06:09 PM

Is next MP likely to be a gaming giant?

A gaming giant? No.

But the MP can be a very good gaming machine when using powerful video cards in Windows under Boot Camp.

My Mac Edition GTX 285 when running under WinXP gets very respectable frame rates.
The next MP may have an HD 5870 card. Under Boot Camp, that should kick some butt.

Question for some knowledgable Mac person: If the next MP has a bto HD 5870, can that card be teamed-up with a pc HD 5870 with Crossfire under Boot Camp (WinXP)?
If so, that would be a fantastic gaming machine.

Techguy172

May 21, 2010, 06:14 PM

It's definately not going to be a super gaming machine, will it be powerful? yes, but it won't be designed as a gaming machine. I'm really hoping though that there will be an option for the NVIDA 480GTX, that would make me very happy!

nanofrog

May 21, 2010, 06:34 PM

if you're talking about boot camp gaming, then the next MP has a chance at being a dream machine if the logic board supports SLI or crossfire (and the PSU has enough 6 and 8 pin cables).
SLI = hardware support on the logic board
CrossFire = Software support (hardware is the bridge connector that connects the cards)

Power, is another story. But there is a 5.25" PSU made for graphics cards that can fit into the empty optical bay assuming whatever PSIG connectors are inadequate for the power requirements for a pair of cards (example (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817101044&Tpk=5.25%22%20psu)). Nice clean installation, and not bad for $46USD including shipping, considering what other things cost to make things work (i.e. drive adapters for RAID cards) in a MP. :D

It's also possible to run a normal PC PSU externally by shorting the green and black wires in the main board connector of the PSU (allows the unit to power up). It's not pretty, but it does work. Cheap if you've already got one lying around. If it's to be purchased, the above 5.25" bay type might be a better way to go.

Question for some knowledgable Mac person: If the next MP has a bto HD 5870, can that card be teamed-up with a pc HD 5870 with Crossfire under Boot Camp (WinXP)?
If so, that would be a fantastic gaming machine.
Crossfire would work under Windows, so long as you've attached the bridge connectors and there is sufficient power (Windows drivers have Crossfire support written into them). And there are work-arounds for power if needed. ;)

Gomff

May 21, 2010, 06:58 PM

Personally, I like to keep my gaming on a console. With a PC, there's always a better card and more hardware to spend money on and the PC gaming scene is all about performance, frames per second and anti alias settings.

I prefer the level playing field of a console because games are optimised for exactly the system you're playing on. What's more, if they perform poorly on that system, it usually gets picked up in game reviews and you can swerve them. And I prefer gaming in the living room on the sofa, not in the space where I spend my time working. I like the division between the two.

wisty

May 21, 2010, 09:35 PM

Over the next couple of years, Steam will encourage more people to use Macs as gaming machines (though serious gamers will still avoid them), which will make it worth Apple's while to spend a bit more effort on their 3D cards.

But I wouldn't expect it to happen too soon.

grue

May 21, 2010, 11:15 PM

If Apple were to put at least a 5870 in it, I don't see how people could complain about the GPU.

The 4870 was a pretty damn good card when the 2009 Mac Pro was released.

No, it was a decent card that was crippled by having half as much memory as it's supposed to, and it was/is extremely overpriced even at launch time, PLUS you have to buy an adapter to use a second display because they put the retardport on there.

300D

May 22, 2010, 06:55 AM

The Mac Pro, by definition, is not a gaming computer.

nanofrog

May 22, 2010, 02:27 PM

The Mac Pro, by definition, is not a gaming computer.
No, its a workstation. But it can double as a gaming system if desired (i.e. independent pro that likes to game in their spare time). It won't be the fastest gaming system out there, but it can do it (and has been done by other MR members).

I look at it this way; it's cheaper to get a copy of Windows and a decent card than to get a new system (PC) just to game with.

But it may also be cheaper to get a console, depending on the specific card/s desired combined with the cost of a Windows license (assuming the user is actually willing to consider this route).

Icaras

May 22, 2010, 02:54 PM

I look at it this way; it's cheaper to get a copy of Windows and a decent card than to get a new system (PC) just to game with.

Yes, I agree with this. I do not want the hassle of maintaining two systems, nor the clutter, space, extra peripherals, and heat and energy generated that the second machine will take.

Once I get a Mac Pro, I definitely intend to double it as a PC gaming system.

You could always go the console route, but some games (i.e: WoW) can simply not be had on a console. Personally I enjoy both console and PC gaming alike, and have always found a good balance of options having both platforms.

nanofrog

May 22, 2010, 03:05 PM

You could always go the console route, but some games (i.e: WoW) can simply not be had on a console. Personally I enjoy both console and PC gaming alike, and have always found a good balance of options having both platforms.
You'd pony up the cash for a Windows license and a decent graphic card just to play WOW? :eek: :eek: ADDICT! :rolleyes: :D :p

TheStrudel

May 22, 2010, 04:33 PM

No, it was a decent card that was crippled by having half as much memory as it's supposed to, and it was/is extremely overpriced even at launch time, PLUS you have to buy an adapter to use a second display because they put the retardport on there.

From what I understand of the benchmarks, the memory didn't make that much of a difference. Also, the mini display port will actually become increasingly standard as time goes on (see Eyefinity-6 and Samsung's display built for it), so that won't be such a huge issue. If you have a recent monitor, it'll have Display Port and that's a cheap cable adaptor, so I'm not so fussed about that at this point.

Should  launch a 5870, it'll be $400, not $600 - what they do is sell it at the MSRP at the time of the card's launch, because  does not adjust prices.

PC 5870s are still selling at MSRP, so if  launched one now, it'd actually probably sell at the same price.

But since the new Mac Pros don't seem to be dropping soon, you can count on either a 5890 or 5870 price drop to occur before the new MP's release.

It's a pity, because if it launched right now, it would actually have GPU parity with PCs.

Of course, that doesn't address 's severe OpenGL deficiencies. That's a software fix long overdue.

And speaking of graphics technology and OS X, when can we get proper 10-bit display handling?

Icaras

May 22, 2010, 04:33 PM

You'd pony up the cash for a Windows license and a decent graphic card just to play WOW? :eek: :eek: ADDICT! :rolleyes: :D :p

No no lol, I personally do not play WoW. I am merely speaking for the WoW player in general who works with Macs, and making an example of a game that is only available on PC/Mac and not on console.

And also, WoW is available for Mac OS X, so no Windows license or partition required. And WoW is hardly the game to push your system. This game can be played with the 9400M I'm sure.

Given all this, I still think it is more financially sound to simply use the Mac Pro for gaming needs rather than go through the time and hassle to get another PC machine. But I know many hardcore gamers will surely disagree with me on this. Personally, I prefer consolidating my work and games onto one machine with the least amount of minimal tech and finances.

nanofrog

May 22, 2010, 08:25 PM

Given all this, I still think it is more financially sound to simply use the Mac Pro for gaming needs rather than go through the time and hassle to get another PC machine. But I know many hardcore gamers will surely disagree with me on this. Personally, I prefer consolidating my work and games onto one machine with the least amount of minimal tech and finances.
I was having a bit of fun with you is all (couldn't resist it actually). :p

But like you, it makes better sense financially to either use the MP or a console (depending on the person's acceptable compromises, as there's bound to be games desired that aren't capable of being played on all formats).

So it comes down to what that person is willing to sacrifice to reduce system costs, or if they're willing to put up the funds that would allow them to play anything, no matter the format (covers all bases; Mac, PC and console/s).

2contagious

May 22, 2010, 08:37 PM

I doubt it, Apple's strategy doesn't gel with what PC gamers want.

unless they make a smaller, cheaper gaming mac
http://www.9to5mac.com/New-mac-0439703467

HSJR

May 22, 2010, 11:10 PM

I am using my MP for gaming at win7, games run great at very high resolution, but I do not call it gaming GIANT! because apple is not updating its GPU in regular basis (this is one reason; there are too many other reasons to be honest). I do not recommend MP for gaming; buy PC and save $$$; if you like Mac; just buy MBP and don't waste money on MP.
Last, I hate gaming on console because you can not add Mods. Mods can make games more challenging or fun by adding new customs. Therefore I like playing games on PC more than console.

Cougarcat

May 22, 2010, 11:39 PM

unless they make a smaller, cheaper gaming mac
http://www.9to5mac.com/New-mac-0439703467

Ha, I like how that post started out. I definitely did get emotional. :) That's exactly what I want Apple to make.

300D

May 23, 2010, 12:53 PM

No, its a workstation.
Which is a name for "PRO". Try to get your arguments right.

Hellhammer

May 23, 2010, 01:07 PM

Which is a name for "PRO". Try to get your arguments right.

PRO has been so badly abused by Apple so it has nothing to do with workstations anymore. Or would you call 13" MBP a workstation? :p

300D

May 23, 2010, 01:07 PM

That doesn't change the definition of the word. Your "argument" is pointless.

Hellhammer

May 23, 2010, 01:13 PM

That doesn't change the definition of the word. Your "argument" is pointless.

For Apple products it does. A product doesn't have to be "pro" and meant for professionals anymore to get those three letters. It's just a marketing trick. Mac Pro is workstation and meant for professionals, no argument on that

nanofrog

May 23, 2010, 01:23 PM

For Apple products it does. A product doesn't have to be "pro" and meant for professionals anymore to get those three letters. It's just a marketing trick. Mac Pro is workstation and meant for professionals, no argument on that
Exactly.

They've used PRO on the workstation long enough, it's become a designation that means workstation. But now, they're slapping it on consumer products (laptops), which is nothing more than a marketing gimick. Thus destroying the meaning and subsequent trust of their user base = joke. :(

Pressure

May 23, 2010, 02:47 PM

[B]

Compared to the average PC gaming rig - not a chance

Every Mac Pro or iMac with a Geforce 8800 GT, Radeon HD 4850 or Radeon HD 4870 is already much more powerful than the average gaming PC (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/).

Fiete5401

May 23, 2010, 02:49 PM

They've used PRO on the workstation long enough, it's become a designation that means workstation. But now, they're slapping it on consumer products (laptops), which is nothing more than a marketing gimick. Thus destroying the meaning and subsequent trust of their user base = joke. :(

Ok, we all agree that the Mac Pro is not really a "pro"-machine.
But what kind of features would make the MP a real pro-workstation again?
Latest processor technologies? Hardware raid? Lightpeak? BluRay? SSD-options? More RAM-slots? Pro-graphics?

Hellhammer

May 23, 2010, 02:50 PM

Every Mac Pro or iMac with a Geforce 8800 GT, Radeon HD 4850 or Radeon HD 4870 is already much more powerful than the average gaming PC (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/).

Mac Pro is also 2000$ more...

Ok, we all agree that the Mac Pro is not really a "pro"-machine.
But what kind of features would make the MP a real pro-workstation again?
Latest processor technologies? Hardware raid? Lightpeak? BluRay? SSD-options? More RAM-slots? Pro-graphics?

It is a pro machine, no doubt on that. We were talking about Apple's abuse of "pro" word as they stick it in every product. We just want Apple to update it on time, not when the new tech is already around the corner.

Pressure

May 23, 2010, 03:09 PM

Mac Pro is also 2000$ more...

So?

The iMac is reasonably priced as well.

Icaras

May 23, 2010, 06:58 PM

I was having a bit of fun with you is all (couldn't resist it actually). :p

But like you, it makes better sense financially to either use the MP or a console (depending on the person's acceptable compromises, as there's bound to be games desired that aren't capable of being played on all formats).

So it comes down to what that person is willing to sacrifice to reduce system costs, or if they're willing to put up the funds that would allow them to play anything, no matter the format (covers all bases; Mac, PC and console/s).

Hah, oops, my sarcasm rader must have not been working yesterday. ;)

Yea, the extra PC thing for gaming is definitely not my priority. I'm not lusting for benchmark bragging rights or blistering framerates, just so as long as I can enjoy the games at reasonable settings when I'm not working, I will most definitely be content with the Mac Pro in that regard.

phaedarus

May 23, 2010, 11:20 PM

Hands up anyone for those who want to buy a OSX port that:

1) Is poorly optimized for OpenGL wherein it will take a considerably more powerful Mac to get equivalent performance on a lower spec'd PC;

2) Won't include game editors which are Windows based only; discounting products from Blizzard of course;

3) Will have flaky MP FPS rates or denied access due to incompatible mods or Win-biased anti-cheat programs such as Punkbuster;

4) Includes sub-standard technical support as a result of fewer staff available to service OSX users;

5) Are simply non-existent because the game directors do not like Macs or feels the studio's efforts on such an endeavor would be wasted for the expected return.

As much as I'm all for having the Mac achieve parity with PC gaming, I also know that it's a fantasy and will remain so.

It just doesn't make sense for most companies to deal with yet another graphics API in addition to incurring support costs for a platform with such a minuscule userbase.

Take heart though. Steve Jobs does want Apple customers to be able to fulfill their gaming appetites - he just wants you to buy an iPhone/iPod and visit the App store in order to do it!

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the best approach to address the gaming needs of Mac users is to support a broadband streaming paradigm where platform requirements are irrelevant.

nanofrog

May 24, 2010, 01:53 AM

But what kind of features would make the MP a real pro-workstation again?
Latest processor technologies? Hardware raid? Lightpeak? BluRay? SSD-options? More RAM-slots? Pro-graphics?

Get the newer processors in the systems (W3680 and 56xx)

Additional RAM slots (6 per CPU, which puts it on equal footing with competitors systems)

Hardware RAID on the main board (good for running a mirror for the OS without consuming bandwidth allocated by the ICH in the chipset)
More PCIe slots

Professional graphics cards would also put it on equal footing (though there's less software support on the OS X side). But if Apple were willing to provide such support, software vendors should be willing to do it, and likely a card vendor would as well (usually agreements between the OS, graphics card and software vendors are created). In fact, the Quadro FX4800 already exists in a Mac edition, but I've no idea if it's been successful or not, given the spotty cooperation between various vendors.

BluRay really just needs support in OS X (and it has to be licensed from Sony), but it would be nice. There are graphics professionals that have indicated they've a need for it (currently possible under Windows or Linux on the existing hardware)

eSATA port (nice for backup solutions)

Standard 3yr Onsite warranty - none of this haul it in to the nearest Apple Store crap

USB3 isn't critical IMO, but could be a value-added feature for some users

SSD is possible via 3rd party solutions, and is cheaper that way. Granted, some will pay for it on a CTO, as it gives a single point of contact in warranty situations.

LightPeak isn't possible yet (current status = Evaluation). The 2011 systems OTOH, Yes.

Yea, the extra PC thing for gaming is definitely not my priority. I'm not lusting for benchmark bragging rights or blistering framerates, just so as long as I can enjoy the games at reasonable settings when I'm not working, I will most definitely be content with the Mac Pro in that regard.
Sounds like a logical way to approach it IMO (possible with a single system, and saves $$$ too). ;)

DesmoPilot

May 24, 2010, 03:56 AM

The iMac is reasonably priced as well.

lol?

Icaras

May 24, 2010, 04:18 AM

PRO has been so badly abused by Apple so it has nothing to do with workstations anymore. Or would you call 13" MBP a workstation? :p

Exactly.

They've used PRO on the workstation long enough, it's become a designation that means workstation. But now, they're slapping it on consumer products (laptops), which is nothing more than a marketing gimick. Thus destroying the meaning and subsequent trust of their user base = joke. :(

I don't know. I sorta disagree with you guys. I own a 13" MBP, now watch as I shamelessly defend my purchase. :p I definitely agree that the 13" is not a workstation, but I still believe that the 13" MBP has pro features that set itself apart from the Macbook.

For one, the firewire port allows me to run my firewire audio device for my work, something I can't do with the Macbook or the Air, for that matter. Also, the ability to expand the RAM to 8 GB also allows me to work seriously in Logic Studio. Again, I cannot really hope to achieve this with the Macbook.

It may not have discreet graphics, but as my example points out, not every pro user is in the graphics or animation field.

As for the desktop line, the biggest differences are expandability, the massive cap on RAM, and incredible number of cores that it can go up to.
You can almost compare the differences between the quad Mac Pro/i7 iMac to the Macbook/13" MBP.

There are just certain options that are retained (quad MP: expandibility and 13"MBP: firewire and RAM) that seem valuable to me from a "pro" line perspective.

I don't know. Just my two cents and from my experience with the 13" MBP.

Pressure

May 24, 2010, 04:52 AM

Hands up anyone for those who want to buy a OSX port that:

1) Is poorly optimized for OpenGL wherein it will take a considerably more powerful Mac to get equivalent performance on a lower spec'd PC;

2) Won't include game editors which are Windows based only; discounting products from Blizzard of course;

3) Will have flaky MP FPS rates or denied access due to incompatible mods or Win-biased anti-cheat programs such as Punkbuster;

4) Includes sub-standard technical support as a result of fewer staff available to service OSX users;

5) Are simply non-existent because the game directors do not like Macs or feels the studio's efforts on such an endeavor would be wasted for the expected return.

As much as I'm all for having the Mac achieve parity with PC gaming, I also know that it's a fantasy and will remain so.

lol?

You both do realize we are discussing the merits of the next Mac Pro being a better Mac for gaming.

And that is exactly what it will become.

The topic is not how cheaper "my-own-custom-build-PC" is.

apolloa

May 24, 2010, 09:17 AM

PRO has been so badly abused by Apple so it has nothing to do with workstations anymore. Or would you call 13" MBP a workstation? :p

In my eyes the laptop Pro's should be designed to be able to run Apples Pro apps like Final Cut etc. But that's it, the other Pro options are the specs and casing so in that case it's just branding.

As for the Mac Pro, it IS a pro machine due to the hardware, Xeon CPU's are not consumer grade products are are designed for professional applications and are only sold by manufacturers in servers or workstations. Not consumer products. Not to mention the max memory a Mac Pro can take.

But they are more then up to the task of gaming of course. The next one will be a gaming giant with the processor, but I won't even guess at the graphics. However the idea of using Steam or Mac games natively and/ or bootcamp is great as said one system for all applications.
In fact IMO a Mac Pro with a separate drive for Windows and games makes great sense.

phaedarus

May 24, 2010, 09:30 AM

You both do realize we are discussing the merits of the next Mac Pro being a better Mac for gaming.

And that is exactly what it will become.

The topic is not how cheaper "my-own-custom-build-PC" is.

It would stand to reason that newer hardware would normally yield better FPS scores in gaming - assuming the games you want to play are made available on OSX in the first place.

If you're a professional supplementing your free time with a distraction here and there that OSX's limited library of games can offer, fine.

Steam's entry into the Mac market will certainly provide slightly better conditions for Mac gamers than previously seen. But it is not the monumental push that will make OSX an attractive platform to develop games for than it was before.

But if you're serious about gaming, why on Earth would you utilize a Mac Pro as a primary gaming system apart from the fact you already own a MP for real work? The additional cost for the base system and overpriced but limited GPU selection hardly justify the expense.

Unless Blizzard games are all you plan on playing, you will always be getting an inferior product at a similar price point - for all the aforementioned reasons.

Thus, it's back to Windows bootcamp for most of you where the Mac Pro is slightly less of a "gaming giant".

AAPLaday

May 24, 2010, 09:35 AM

Hellhammer

May 24, 2010, 09:42 AM

I said it in another thread but will repeat it here. I think the imacs are the best gaming options for mac fans at the moment and in the future. The MP is too much for gaming only and really only makes sense if you primarily use it for other uses first.

The 4850 in the previous 24" and current 27" is very good for a mobile card in an Apple system. certainly a lot better than the 330 in the new MBPs. The iMac i believe could become mac Steam gamers machine of choice as long as you choose one with the right GPU. Obviously you cant upgrade it but neither can you on a MBP, and on the MP your choice under OS X is limited.

Biggest issue with iMac is its resolution as 2560x1440 isn't very light resolution for GPU. All games will run but if you want to run the @native resolution, you're stuck with low to medium settings in newer games. I hope Apple includes option for ATI 57xx for 21.5" iMac so that it could become the "gamer's choice".

Macs still aren't for gamers really, mainly because of the lack of upgradeability :(

nanofrog

May 24, 2010, 02:59 PM

I don't know. I sorta disagree with you guys. I own a 13" MBP, now watch as I shamelessly defend my purchase. :p I definitely agree that the 13" is not a workstation, but I still believe that the 13" MBP has pro features that set itself apart from the Macbook.
I realize what you're getting at here, and comparatively speaking, the MBP is a better system than the MB.

But it's not built for professional use in terms of rugged reliability @ 100% core usage across all cores, HDD running full tilt,... (99.9% availability in a 24/7 environment). Laptops are a much harsher environment to provide adequate cooling,... for that level of reliability, not to mention it can be damaged from being dropped (the MP doesn't sit in a users lap; at least I hope not :eek: :p).

For one, the firewire port allows me to run my firewire audio device for my work, something I can't do with the Macbook or the Air, for that matter. Also, the ability to expand the RAM to 8 GB also allows me to work seriously in Logic Studio. Again, I cannot really hope to achieve this with the Macbook.
In this respect, it's a better choice for on-site work. I've known a few that record their camera output directly to the laptop, then upload the files to the MP, and do the heavy work there.

So in a sense, it can be called "Pro". But they could have come up with another way of selling it IMO that indicates what it does without the inference of the reliability levels of a workstation (which it's not capable of). A simple name change could have sufficed.

It may not have discreet graphics, but as my example points out, not every pro user is in the graphics or animation field.
Laptops tend to have fixed graphics, so I see that as part of the compromise for portability. They're not meant to be used as a 3D animation system.

As for the desktop line, the biggest differences are expandability, the massive cap on RAM, and incredible number of cores that it can go up to.
You can almost compare the differences between the quad Mac Pro/i7 iMac to the Macbook/13" MBP.
Workstations are meant to be reliable though, and is one of the biggest selling points. Oddly enough, this expectation is so ubiquitous, that it's not mentioned in sales/marketing literature as the name Xeon denotes this aspect of the system. Simply put, reliability/availability is synonymous with the moniker. So it gets focused on features such as those that have already been mentioned during this discussion. ;)

That's why "Pro" has the same consideration with the MP, as it's a Workstation and uses Xeon processors. That may not have been Apple's intent, but it happened due to the workstation/server environment as a whole IMO.

Topper

May 24, 2010, 04:04 PM

It would stand to reason that newer hardware would normally yield better FPS scores in gaming - assuming the games you want to play are made available on OSX in the first place.

I don't use OS X. I use Windows al a Boot Camp.
The newest hardware adds up to better performance in Windows also.

But if you're serious about gaming, why on Earth would you utilize a Mac Pro as a primary gaming system apart from the fact you already own a MP for real work?

There are three reasons a person may use a Mac Pro as a gaming computer:
1. Just like you said...the Mac Pro is used primarily for work and gaming is a sideline. That's me.
2. Someone has a lot of money and wants the best Mac available for games.
3. Someone does not have that much money but will sacrifice in order to have the best Mac available for games.
.

Cougarcat

May 24, 2010, 04:52 PM

3. Someone does not have that much money but will sacrifice in order to have the best Mac available for games.
.

That person would be an idiot.

HSJR

May 24, 2010, 10:16 PM

That person would be an idiot.

Indeed!

RT2020

May 25, 2010, 09:06 AM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/7E18)

Perhaps a contributor to the delay of the MP is to allow the syngeries with Steam to take hold and then to leverage this to intro some new high gaming and graphics platform

No. The MacPro "delay" is quite possibly because the MacPro is a discontinued product.

Pressure

May 25, 2010, 10:43 AM

No. The MacPro "delay" is quite possibly because the MacPro is a discontinued product.

No, that is most definitely not quite possible.

Final Cut Studio and their other professional products are depending on a workstation. It makes absolutely no sense to discontinue the most important Apple computer for professionals.

RT2020

May 25, 2010, 11:44 AM

No, that is most definitely not quite possible.

Final Cut Studio and their other professional products are depending on a workstation. It makes absolutely no sense to discontinue the most important Apple computer for professionals.

According to this rumour, Final Cut Pro itself is no longer going to be aimed at professionals. Apple denies this with the usual vague corporate statement. They also let go of a good number of FCP support staff a couple months ago.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/19/apple-responds-to-reports-of-final-cut-pro-refocusing/

Icaras

May 25, 2010, 01:04 PM

VirtualRain

May 25, 2010, 03:13 PM

According to this rumour, Final Cut Pro itself is no longer going to be aimed at professionals. Apple denies this with the usual vague corporate statement. They also let go of a good number of FCP support staff a couple months ago.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/19/apple-responds-to-reports-of-final-cut-pro-refocusing/

Not sure what's vague about this, it seems pretty clear they are committed to continued development of this professional tool :confused:

"Final Cut Pro is the first choice for professional video editors, and we've never been more excited about its future," Apple spokesman Bill Evans told CNET. "The next version of Final Cut is going to be awesome, and our pro customers are going to love it."

Link (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20005409-37.html)