ATI Cards changed to Nvidia Cards in the Future?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by chuckee, Jul 24, 2006.

  1. chuckee macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    #1
    I've been hearing recently about how AMD is trying to buy ATI. Well if it does go through...what does this mean for the ATI cards in the current intel macs? Do you think AMD will stop supplying Apple with these gfx cards?

    Could WWDC mean a new processor and a new gfx card for Mac Pros and Macbook Pros?

    I would actually be a little sad if Apple didn't use ATI cards anymore, even though its hard to find differences...I just like ATI graphics cards more :p (Well aren't they suppose to be more energy efficient than the Nvidia counterparts?)
     
  2. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #2
    AMD wouldn't stop providing Apple with graphics processors - what sort of company would deny a profitable client?

    Steve did once have a hissy fit that saw Nvidia cards dropped for ATI cards in I think the G5 PowerMacs the day before they were launched.

    Apple will use graphics processors from whomever can deliver the best performance at the best price, currently that is ATI, tomorrow it could be NVidia, only The Steve really knows.
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
  4. chuckee thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    #4
    I thought Steve was pissed off at ATI once because they leaked info about the cube Mac early....my mac history is lackluster at best... :p
     
  5. mflender macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    #5
    Ati future in macs

    I think that Apple will switch most or all of it's line to Nvidia in order to keep Intel happy. Happy Intel equals a cheaper and friendlier Intel for Apple. I think Apple will do this as a natural progression as they refresh their product line. I don't think we will see new laptops just to change the graphics subsystem. I think ATI will still introduce third party graphics cards for the Mac upgrade market as they always have, but they may be less likely to continue this long term if Apple does indeed OEM only Nvidia in their products to please Intel. My two cents.
     
  6. aafuss1 macrumors 68000

    aafuss1

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Australia
    #6
    Probably be all NVIDA-as the FX4500 did provide Stereo 3D support last year to the G5's-and bet a newer card than that will be an option on Mac Pro's.
     
  7. mmmcheese macrumors 6502a

    mmmcheese

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    #7
    This is of course assuming Intel and Nvidia strike some kind of strategic partnership. Intel may not care either way. Since ATI and Nvidia are fairly even as far as technology goes (they swing back and forth with slight wins on either side as products come out), Apple is likely to use whatever they can get the best deal on.
     
  8. JasonElise1983 macrumors 6502a

    JasonElise1983

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Location:
    Between a rock and a midget
    #8
    I wonder if nVidia is pissed though, since they are the ones that make the nForce chipsets which is what makes AMD's Processors run so damn good. Not a hit on AMD, but with out the nForce chipset they got nothing. Anyway, this whole thing doesn't make any sense to me, but i guess AMD can do what ever they want.
     
  9. Xeem macrumors 6502a

    Xeem

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #9
    I'm actually saddened by AMD's takeover; there have been other attempts to buy ATI over the company's 20 years, but ATI was always able to hold off until now. If this means Apple will be more NVIDIA-centric, so be it. IMO, NVIDIA cards have been at least as good as ATI's since the GeForce 6 series was launched anyway.
     
  10. purelithium macrumors 6502

    purelithium

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Location:
    Kingston, Canada
    #10
    Us canadians have lost a great company to a large conglomerate...
     
  11. psycho bob macrumors 6502a

    psycho bob

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    #11
    I've always preferred NVIDIA over ATI in fact the only cards I've owned by the latter have been built in to my in to my Apple laptops. It is difficult at this moment in time to see an immediate upside to this buyout. Had AMD bought NVIDIA it would have been fully understandable, the Nforce chipsets are superb and work wonders with their CPU's.

    ATI make a significant amount of money from Intel by selling them Xpress 200 chipsets for their budget motherboards, they can kiss that goodbye almost as quickly as Intel can sort the contracts out. As pointed out previously AMD will also lose NVIDIA support, I would expect, this being a loss for the platform as a whole. NVIDIA makes far superior and more complete chipsets then ATI.

    AMD want in house technology and to save money in development costs so they can offer complete packages quickly for there new CPU products. IMHO AMD bought ATI because they couldn't afford NVIDIA who would have offered a lot more as a partner. NVIDIA will form closer ties with Intel, expect to see more SLI chipsets for Core. Longer term it also opens up the possibility of SLI on Apple hardware, I certainly don't see Xfire at this point.

    I wouldn't expect to see a great deal of add on mac cards from ATI now though, nothing in it for AMD. To be honest though ATI's support and enthusiasm has dropped right off anyway. Nice demo of the X1900 for mac but distinct lack of retail products based on it :)
     
  12. progx macrumors regular

    progx

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Location:
    Western NY
    #12
    this may pose as worse news for Intel. as many manufactures of economic PCs: HP, Dell and Gateway, may consider AMD/ATI's offerings for processors and graphics cards. since the companies could offer their consumers cutting edge products at really low prices. rather than sub-par Intel Celeron and Core offerings.

    this works in AMD's favor. since AMD has an edge at innovating the x86 market and ATI does the same with the graphics, i think we're in a huge turning point in the x86 market.

    as for Apple using ATI products, they'll still be there. the new company would be shooting themselves in the foot if they locked out their hardware from a high paying vendor. Intel may try and lock out ATI graphics chips from their motherboards, then shove nVidia down our throats (gag).

    makes me all the more happy that both my Macs have ATI graphics. and even happier that my favorite chip manufacturer saw the potential of owning ATI and the edge it gives them. after all, not to mention, AMD will cash out on the next gen consoles, namely the XBOX 360 (however long that'll last) and the Nintendo Wii (the REAL next gen), all use ATI graphics.
     
  13. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #13
    You all do realize that the license ATI has to produce Intel Chipset bus has expired by now?

    I hardly feel that AMD has been innovative. What has happened the last two years for the K8? It got faster, that's all.

    Intel is on the rampage, introduced newer Pentium 4's (I know, not the best performing chip), Yonah and now Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom. Down the road we already see Kentsfield and more by year end.

    Intel is also set to release a new IGP (X3000), which vastly improves performance over their former solutions.

    Intel offers a full package now. AMD can now do the same in some years. I just hope that AMD will not "control" ATI, as they haven't been doing a great job these last two years for themselves - even though they had a great product in their hands.

    What we are seeing is that both companies seek diverse market segments. Intel has been doing it for years and if AMD does not want to go the way of the Dinosaur, they better start doing it now (which they have shown signs of by acquiring ATI).

    Although I am sad to see ATI being acquired by a company with such a bad economy and financial problems . . . not to mention capacity issues and fab equipment.
     
  14. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #15
    Wait wait wait wait wait...aren't AMD chips compatible with Mac OS X? I mean they are x86 processors right? So if Intel goes crap, we could just switch to AMD if things go bad. Also, I don't think Jobs would go back to Nvidia unless he switches to AMD. I don't know, I guess it's just business deals to be dealt with in the future.
     
  15. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #16
    Currently Mac OSX only work with Intel processors, as far as I know.

    Besides, Intel has the far superior product at this time. Wouldn't want to miss out on Conroe and Kentsfield.
     
  16. maxvamp macrumors 6502a

    maxvamp

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Location:
    Somewhere out there
    #17

    I think that SSE3 is now required in OS X. If this is true, then most AMD chips will be lacking when running some things in OS X.

    I may be wrong....

    Max.
     
  17. purelithium macrumors 6502

    purelithium

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Location:
    Kingston, Canada
    #18
    That's technically true, but in most instances, AMD CPU's are architecturally the same as an Intel CPU it would be simple to switch over to them. All that needs to be done is write drivers for the ATI chipsets and such.

    Also, remember that Intel makes it's own Chipsets, but also has allowed Nvidia and ATI (among others) to produce chipsets for intel CPUs as well.

    I doubt that AMD will shut out Nvidia from making chipsets, as that would narrow their prospective userbase, rather than widen it as they are trying to do with this Buyout.
     
  18. screensaver400 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    #19
    You're wrong. Mac OS X will only work legally on Intel chips, but OSx86 Project people have gotten it working on AMD stuff no problem... The only big requirement seems to be SSE3 for Rosetta. If Apple were to switch to AMD, it would be trivial. You wouldn't need to recompile anything... Just maybe some new chipset drivers, as someone else mentioned. It'd be exactly how Windows runs on both Intel and AMD (and Transmeta and Cyrix/VIA, for niche people)

    No dispute there.
     
  19. purelithium macrumors 6502

    purelithium

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Location:
    Kingston, Canada
    #20
    Well, it's always been a swing motion between these two. When the Athlon X2 first came out, it trounced anything that Intel had out at the time. Even the Core Duo chips are inferior to them. The Core Duo chips use more power, produce more heat, and generally less value than the X2's (I own both). The Core 2 Duo will be an amazing leap forward for Intel, but you can be sure that AMD will not be far behind with something new and just as (or moreso) amazing.
     
  20. wonga1127 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    Wishing for a magic bus.
    #21
    I've always liked ATi better than Nvidia, probably because I like simple product names. ATi's GPUs for instance: theres an X, and number (bigger is better), and some letters, the more the better, I guess. NVidia has way to many options with GeForce (6, 7) plus the quadro and the FX and everything else. Thats probably why I've liked Intel better than AMD, INtel is pretty much the series, the core, and the speed. AMD is the same name and this after it: +2623y6231. Yea an exaggeration, but I shouldnt have to decode stuff like that to buy something. Does anybody know if ATi is keeping its name? Like the Alienware/Dell dealio?
     
  21. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #22
    Yes AMD did buy ATI, but that might not nessessarily mean that Macs will no longer use ATI's GPU, unless of course, AMD tells them to :D
     
  22. locovaca macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Iowa
    #23
    Hmm...

    GeForce 6600 GT(X)
    GeForce 6800 GT(X)
    GeForce 7300 GT(X)

    not terribly difficult to figure out.

    And as for the Quadro... you do realize that ATI has the FireGL line? It's the same thing as Quadro. ATI had a time where they had Rage's and Radeon's 9600 Pro's and 9700's and 9700 Pro's, etc.

    And as for Intel... The Core Duo T2300. By your definition that means it it's a second generation that runs at 300 Mhz? 3 Ghz? Oh, that's right, 1.67 Ghz. Thanks.

    I'm not really defending AMD or Nvidia, but just pointing that your logic/argument holds no ground.
     
  23. purelithium macrumors 6502

    purelithium

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Location:
    Kingston, Canada
    #24
    Ok.. without mentioning speed, which is easier to "decode" and tell the general performance of the chip?

    Intel Pentium D 930

    AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+

    Ok, I can't tell anything from looking at the Intel designation, but I can generally tell that the AMD seems to be a 64bit processor, looks like it has 2 cores (x2) and looks like it should be about the power of a 3.8ghz intel single core.
     
  24. purelithium macrumors 6502

    purelithium

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Location:
    Kingston, Canada
    #25

    You beat me to it!
     

Share This Page