I'm waiting for the 7990 to be launched and ill stick it into a PC, I simply have no need for a Mac that powerful and I couldn't afford one anyway (I'm a gamer) 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD Announces New Mac Pro-Suitable Radeon HD 7970 Graphics Card
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I care about my power bill mostly. I don't want or need the best available. I want the best power per watt used available. And I don't want a tower to house that beast on a GPU. I like my slim iMac. This is why I said what I said.
And yes form is as important as function. Apple seem to think so. And I seem to think so too. But I'm not totally obsessed with it though.
Eh, the amount of computational power these GPUs come with nowadays is pretty crazy. If the fan noise is really unbearable, there is always liquid cooling...
Not to anger the fanboys or anything, but if Apple hypothetically licensed Directx from Microsoft, windows games would be MUCH simpler to write, correct?
is there any reason they won't do this?
is there any reason they won't do this?
Tired of eating leftovers? Get a PC.
Not tired of being able to use a computer, with the current OS installed for 5+ years and counting.
Agreed, my MacBook pro from work just died and it's now getting pretty hard to work on the wife's 13" MBP. Not trying to go the iMac route but I do save about $1200 on a maxed out i7 iMac over the anticipated cost of a quad core MacPro.
True, I do have a plethora of machines at the job still churning out media while running Tiger. But I also have a few boxes running Avid Express DV on XP. A 10 year old configuration.
Been there and still dealing but fixed with Nvidia Quadro 4000 for AE and Maya here.
Neither Tiger, nor XP is a current OS. 2006 era PC hardware will not run Windows 7. 2006 era Mac hardware does run Lion.
People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes,
and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. - George Orwell
Oh joy, the PC has 10x better graphics, but 10x worse DRM. I just love me some Origin and Ubisoft's don't save and kick you out the game; if you lose internet DRM. You have to hack the game or pirate it, just to get it to run.
Who cares?
No really, who cares?
If you think Mac is a niche market, that's nothing compared to the custom build gamers market.
If we cared about games, we wouldn't buy Macs. It's like telling me I can't run "X" application on my Mac, I don't give a **** or I wouldn't have bought the machine. If I wanted to run "X" application, I would buy a computer that could run it.
And you're right, if I wanted an amazing graphics card, to do something productive (or sit around and waste my life away shooting 14 year olds), I wouldn't buy a Mac. Mac's don't have good graphics cards most of the time, but for someone like me who does a little programming work, web dev and report writing, it's of no interest.
Just before I sign off, I would like to emphasise that I and the majority of this forum give the least amount possible of care. We really do. I don't think it could be possible for me to care less.
No, I did not.
No, I do not, and I challenge you to produce a quote of mine that says otherwise.
----------
No, they can't. Nobody can. That game in particular runs at 1024 x 600, and is upscaled to 720p or 1080p depending on console and connection.
An actual Mac model may be even higher
I thought that the $549 was for the generic card. This is not a simple card with more memory than on most high end video cards. They 3 GB of on board memory. That's more memory than many people's computer has for RAM.
I thought that the $549 was for the generic card. This is not a simple card with more memory than on most high end video cards. They 3 GB of on board memory. That's more memory than many people's computer has for RAM.
I think you should at least research before you post. The minimum requirements for Windows 7 is 1Ghz and 1gb of ram. As such I was able to instal Windows 7 on my old 2002 Dell Laptop, and it ran absolutely perfectly even with 768mb of ram. No Aero effects since it only had a 64mb GPU, but still looked so much better than XP. It was a one core mobile Pentium 4 processor, so a vastly superior Core 2 Duo from 2006 would be beyond more than enough to run Windows 7 (Especially when you consider that clock for clock a core 2 duo is twice as fast as a Pentium D, so a one core Pentium 4 from 2002 is so, meh yet it ran Windows 7 just fine), and it would be enough to run Modern Warfare 3, a new game.
Last edited:
i don't think its been said yet but its pretty easy to get almost any popular pc graphics card working wiht os x.
What 2006 era PC hardware are you talking about? I have a Xeon workstation from HP crica 2005 (at least I am sure it's 2004) running Windows 7 albeit the 32 bit version.
I agree with you about the longevity of certain machines, although it is something that the PC world is also accustomed to.
Last edited:
EXACTLY.
The PS3 and X-Box 360 have been out for how long now? Over 5 years!!!! Come on people. Do you know how much CPU and especially GPU power increases over that time? With a computer you GET that power NOW. On a game box, you have to wait over a half decade, it seems, to get a lousy graphics upgrade. That's just crap for some of us.
I played Dragon Age Origins on my PC and it RULED at the time. I still say that was the besting gaming experience of my entire life. The PS3/X-Box version looked like CRAP by comparison. And now how much more so will that be true with games coming out in 2012 that utilize modern hardware while the PS3 goes on 6 years old.... For goodness sake, Apple was still making PPC machines in 2006 and you know how antiquated those are starting to look in some areas.
Some types of games have always been better on a computer, anyway, particularly those that work best with a mouse/keyboard combo.
I don't need the clue since I know it was Colonel Mustard in the Kitchen with the Ketchup Bottle!
Oh, they badly need updated. They don't get updated because that's like tossing out your entire market and praying they come with you to the next one. Sony learned that lesson hard with PS2 to PS3. Their audience didn't all come with them and they are scared to death about PS4 losing even more market. The nice thing about PC gaming is that you don't have to worry about that crap. Most of the best games get made for or ported to the PC regardless, even if there is a delay (like with Star Wars) in some cases. Meanwhile, you still can use your PC for other things whereas buying a PS3 early on, for example was an exercise in frustration at the lack of titles (especially quality ones).
What consoles do have going for them is an even experience. You don't have to worry about a game running slow or buggy on YOUR particular machine because the game was designed and tweaked for your exact hardware. That has always been the bane of PC gaming, but it's also been its strength for moving on. You can always buy a better/faster machine and still play most, if not all your old games (whereas new consoles often don't work with older games).
You think so small that I would guess you haven't even gotten out of high school yet. The market has to do with what I've talked about above, not because better hardware isn't more desirable. You have to consider market share principles and abandoning that for newer probably incompatible hardware and getting developers to actually make games for that platform that has few users in the beginning. It's a chicken/egg situation and it's why consoles are so darn slow to develop. The PS3 and XBox 360 are ANCIENT in technological terms at this point, but they have markets and those markets will have to be risked to move on. Typically, they only do when they feel they HAVE to. Unfortunately for the user, this means the super awesome games you COULD be playing with 2011/2012 technology simply WILL NOT HAPPEN for consoles because they can't handle it. A PC can handle it, though and so you will typically find games for it that blow away the console version (if there even is one), particularly as those consoles simply become unusable as the PC outguns it in every possible area.
Thanks god some of us aren't 'most people'.
Last edited:
PC gaming is too much hassle for people who game say 4-5 hours a week or less. I looked at some surveys to do with online PC gaming and a massive amount was just people playing Facebook type games...
My brother owns a monster gaming PC with some silly amounts of power consumption. Worked out his total consumption per month and showed it to the parents. Lets just say my brother is currently "downgrading" his PC...
To be fair he is a hardcore gamer but the "hardcore" usually have to pay for it somehow, whether it be getting fat gaming all day, not getting laid, or as in this case facing higher bills each month.
If you know anything about the way tech is going, it's all about power consumption i.e. the lower the better. For consumers and businesses fuel prices are going up double digit numbers. Lowering energy consumption is a huge deal especially in financially difficult times.
It always surprised me people buying these huge setups with 1200 watt PSU and not thinking "****, this is going to take a mini powerplant to run!"
Maybe some of us just aren't very green minded. But they will be soon, just like when the Americans traded in their massive cars for the small efficient ones.
My brother owns a monster gaming PC with some silly amounts of power consumption. Worked out his total consumption per month and showed it to the parents. Lets just say my brother is currently "downgrading" his PC...
To be fair he is a hardcore gamer but the "hardcore" usually have to pay for it somehow, whether it be getting fat gaming all day, not getting laid, or as in this case facing higher bills each month.
If you know anything about the way tech is going, it's all about power consumption i.e. the lower the better. For consumers and businesses fuel prices are going up double digit numbers. Lowering energy consumption is a huge deal especially in financially difficult times.
It always surprised me people buying these huge setups with 1200 watt PSU and not thinking "****, this is going to take a mini powerplant to run!"
Maybe some of us just aren't very green minded. But they will be soon, just like when the Americans traded in their massive cars for the small efficient ones.
Can all you guys arguing about pc/mac and console/pc go into another thread, as those topics have nothing to do with this announcement?
I've read through everything here and still not sure whether I can buy this card and pop it into my 2009 MP without issue.
In other news, the price in the UK is a joke - £400 vs 500US state side.
I've read through everything here and still not sure whether I can buy this card and pop it into my 2009 MP without issue.
In other news, the price in the UK is a joke - £400 vs 500US state side.
I put 40 high output solar panels on my roof - so I don't worry about what my GPU consumes. For the last twelve months, the utility owes me $290 for the power that I've uploaded.
And as far as "small and efficient" cars go, I still see lots of brand new SUVs and pickups. (A pickup is fine for a contractor or other person who actually needs to haul stuff everyday - but to see an airhead driving an empty Silverado to the Safeway is such a disappointment.)
I'm sure that your brother really appreciated that.
And he's probably getting laid more often than you are...which is likely your real complaint.
What a nice brother you are.
Did you account for his actual power consumption or did you embellish and just use his system's theoretical top draw ?
Frankly, I hate green people who feel the need to impose their "greeness" on others.