Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Buying Up High End Penryn Processors?

How much faster can you get!!!?

One question:Will it be the same in the way of a Dual Processor or is it just so it doesn't need to be?
 
Erasmus said:
Why are people hoping for the 8800GTX? Come on, we can do better than that...
.. How about the "ATI Radeon HD2950"
Click to expand...

Uhh.... No. The review I read said it offered no significant performance over the x2900. It's only positive trait was that it supposedly will use less power.

Regardless, the nVidia 8800GTX stomps the crap out of the x2900xt. And the 8800GTS 640 meg also beats it. But the 8800 GTX beats the 2900xt badly.
 
You know, my dp g5 2.3 is already more power than I need, but these new Mac Pros are sounding extremely tempting. Ok, I guess it's technolust. 😛
 
From what I've been reading in articles and reviews, as well as hearing from forums across the web I don't think ATI cards are a good choice right now for Apple to offer in a powerhouse machine. People are having a lot of overheating issues and not seeing much quality increase over an NVIDIA card.

In the Mac Pro's next revision, I would love to see a GeForce 8600/8800 (256MB/320MB) be the standard, followed by a much cheaper Quadro FX 4500 (512MB) and lastly, but most importantly bring in the bug guns with a Quadro FX 5500 with 1GB on the card.
 
what if....

What if the main reason behind apple never/rarely offering semi-half-decent GPU's is because of image. What if Apple is actually trying to separate itself from being attached to gamers?

Now the handful of EA games released and outdated smash hits do not count: )

I'm not saying it's remotely true, but thinking from that perspective seems interesting sometimes to entertain.... Top end Imac (24" extreme) and mac pro have chokingly disparite GPU's and NO ability to upgrade at any cost. hmmmmm
 
bommai said:
Technology wise, Bluray is superior to HD-DVD.

Take raw storage. Bluray single layer is 25 GB, HD-DVD is 15GB. Double layer is common on both formats 30GB and 50GB. Bluray has scaled to 8 layer 200GB disks already (prototyped). There is a 3-layer 51GB HD-DVD and that's about it.

Now, let us look at transfer rate. Bluray (as in movies) has a peak transfer rate somewhere north of 50Mbit/sec. HD-DVD is limited to about 30Mbit/sec total. I own a PS3 and I can monitor the bitrate while playing movies. I have seen 40+ Mbit/sec for video (H.264) and 6+ Mbit/sec for audio. I have one Bluray disk that has 13.9Mbit/sec audio (5.1 channel 24-bit/96kHz PCM).

While both HD-DVD and Bluray support the same codecs (MPEG2, MPEG4-AVC aka H.264, and microsoft VC-1), the user interface and navigation is done in java (BD-J) in bluray and a microsoft technology called HDi in HD-DVD. Most HD-DVD movies use VC-1 also not AVC. Since Apple has a lot riding on AVC, I think it is in Apple's interest to pursue Bluray.

Microsoft has a lot more input into HD-DVD compared to bluray. I think they are doing this to spite Sony and to also not allow any disk technology to mature.

I would really like bluray to win!!
Click to expand...
When comparing different codecs, bitrate has absolutely NOTHING to do with image quality. Considering Sony STILL insists on filling up 50GB with the ancient MPEG2 codec and uncompressed PCM audio. While HD DVD is using the highly efficient VC-1 codec and achieving equal to superior transfers. Beyond overall "theoretical" storage capacity Blu-Ray has no advantage over HD DVD. In fact, currently HD DVD beats Blu-Ray in capacity by 1GB. You show me those 200GB discs from Blu-Ray outside of some super secret laboratory. When they are actually on the market from consumers, then you can say they have the advantage. From the current crop of HD DVD titles, it's pretty clear that more capacity is NOT needed. Stop spreading your nonsense.
 
Wild-Bill said:
Uhh.... No. The review I read said it offered no significant performance over the x2900. It's only positive trait was that it supposedly will use less power.

Regardless, the nVidia 8800GTX stomps the crap out of the x2900xt. And the 8800GTS 640 meg also beats it. But the 8800 GTX beats the 2900xt badly.
Click to expand...

Which review was that? A link would be nice.

I know it sucks to be using The Inquirer as a resource, but...

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/03/nvidia-admits-defeat-g92-vs

So, yeah, the 8800GTX or Ultra will totally cane the HD2950, but you could get two for less money than the fast nvidias, while staying within sane power requirements, and simultaneously completely blitzing the performance of a single 8800Ultra.

I think 2 HD2950's would be a good choice for Apple. Maybe AMD have found and fixed the problems with the R600 for the RV670?
 
Erasmus said:
Which review was that? A link would be nice.

I know it sucks to be using The Inquirer as a resource, but...

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/03/nvidia-admits-defeat-g92-vs

So, yeah, the 8800GTX or Ultra will totally cane the HD2950, but you could get two for less money than the fast nvidias, while staying within sane power requirements, and simultaneously completely blitzing the performance of a single 8800Ultra.

I think 2 HD2950's would be a good choice for Apple. Maybe AMD have found and fixed the problems with the R600 for the RV670?
Click to expand...

First of all you are using The Inq as a source. Secondly, you are using results from that ridiculous "benchmark" tool. Take a look at ANY real world game benchmarks and you will see that the 8800GTX absolutely slaughters anything ATI has.
 
Why not go for the 512 meg or higher version why live in the past?

QUOTE=KindredMAC;4288619]From what I've been reading in articles and reviews, as well as hearing from forums across the web I don't think ATI cards are a good choice right now for Apple to offer in a powerhouse machine. People are having a lot of overheating issues and not seeing much quality increase over an NVIDIA card.

In the Mac Pro's next revision, I would love to see a GeForce 8600/8800 (256MB/320MB) be the standard, followed by a much cheaper Quadro FX 4500 (512MB) and lastly, but most importantly bring in the bug guns with a Quadro FX 5500 with 1GB on the card.[/QUOTE]
 
KindredMAC said:
In the Mac Pro's next revision, I would love to see a GeForce 8600/8800 (256MB/320MB) be the standard, followed by a much cheaper Quadro FX 4500 (512MB) and lastly, but most importantly bring in the bug guns with a Quadro FX 5500 with 1GB on the card.
Click to expand...

A 5500 would be very nice, but they would probably charge more for it than the base price of the machine. 🙁

Just look at the 4500 upgrade available now.

I checked a couple sites and (excluding 1 card which was "on sale", and half the price of everyone else), a 5500 right now was over 2,000. They'll probably come down, but not at the Apple store.
 
overcast said:
First of all you are using The Inq as a source. Secondly, you are using results from that ridiculous "benchmark" tool. Take a look at ANY real world game benchmarks and you will see that the 8800GTX absolutely slaughters anything ATI has.
Click to expand...

The RV670 has not been released yet...

Just because the R600 did not perform as well as it was supposed to does not mean that derivatives such as the RV670 will also be crap. And considering the ATI products are half the cost of the Nvidia ones, put two in Crossfire, and they will "slaughter" anything Nvidia has.
 
CWallace said:
The last Friday of October could be shaping up to be a major event if all the rumors come true:
  1. Leopard.
  2. New Mac Pros with better CPUs and (please) GPUs.
  3. New AppleTV with larger HDDs and a DVD.
  4. The "Mac Nano" replacing the Mac Mini in a smaller form factor.
Click to expand...

AppleTV with larger HDD and a DVD... that would be, uh, a Mac Mini?

"Mac Nano" Mac Mini in a smaller form factor... that would be, uh, an AppleTV?


xpisnotforme said:
What if the main reason behind apple never/rarely offering semi-half-decent GPU's is because of image. What if Apple is actually trying to separate itself from being attached to gamers?

Now the handful of EA games released and outdated smash hits do not count: )

I'm not saying it's remotely true, but thinking from that perspective seems interesting sometimes to entertain.... Top end Imac (24" extreme) and mac pro have chokingly disparite GPU's and NO ability to upgrade at any cost. hmmmmm
Click to expand...


Whilst I tend to dismiss the "mid-tower" idea, here's a different perspective for you: Apple chose to put such a terrible video card in the new iMacs to ensure that gamers would avoid it, and thus still be potential customers when they unveil a new class of mid-tower Macs that are geared towards (or at least, appealing to) gamers. Complete speculation on my part, and frankly, I'll just be happy if the new Mac Pros come out before November 23 (my birthday)...
 
KindredMAC said:
From what I've been reading in articles and reviews, as well as hearing from forums across the web I don't think ATI cards are a good choice right now for Apple to offer in a powerhouse machine. People are having a lot of overheating issues and not seeing much quality increase over an NVIDIA card.

In the Mac Pro's next revision, I would love to see a GeForce 8600/8800 (256MB/320MB) be the standard, followed by a much cheaper Quadro FX 4500 (512MB) and lastly, but most importantly bring in the bug guns with a Quadro FX 5500 with 1GB on the card.
Click to expand...

THe 4500 and 5500 Quadro FX cards have been replaced with the 4600 and 5600 models offering 768mb and 1.5gb of memory. With the high cost of the FX 5600 (~$3000) it's unlikely Apple will offer it.
 
Erasmus said:
And considering the ATI products are half the cost of the Nvidia ones, put two in Crossfire, and they will "slaughter" anything Nvidia has.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see where you saw that ATI cards cost 50% less than nVidia cards.....😕

Also, there is no "crossfire" nor any "SLI" in a Mac Pro. None.
 
overcast said:
When comparing different codecs, bitrate has absolutely NOTHING to do with image quality. Considering Sony STILL insists on filling up 50GB with the ancient MPEG2 codec and uncompressed PCM audio. While HD DVD is using the highly efficient VC-1 codec and achieving equal to superior transfers. Beyond overall "theoretical" storage capacity Blu-Ray has no advantage over HD DVD. In fact, currently HD DVD beats Blu-Ray in capacity by 1GB. You show me those 200GB discs from Blu-Ray outside of some super secret laboratory. When they are actually on the market from consumers, then you can say they have the advantage. From the current crop of HD DVD titles, it's pretty clear that more capacity is NOT needed. Stop spreading your nonsense.
Click to expand...
I really hope we don't perpetuate the asinine Blu Ray vs HD-DVD debate here. Nevertheless, Hitachi made an interesting announcement today about a 4-layer 100GB Blu Ray disc that may be compatible with existing players through only a firmware change. The disc may come on the market soon, but don't ask me to define 'soon'.

http://www.dailytech.com/Hitachi+De...mpatible+With+Existing+Drives/article9173.htm
 
Man, I´m waiting for these new Mac Pros so much!! I hope they´ll release those around this year. I can´t wait any longer, otherwise, I´ll have to buy the 'old' model, which is also fast.
 
hollywoodmacguy said:
now, if :apple: would just release new cinema displays to go with these new mac pros! 🙄
Click to expand...

If they don't I'm getting a Samsung. No way am I paying Apple's premium on more old stuff.

Similarly, if there's no 8800, no base RAM increase and no Blu-Ray option, I'll probably buy a missile instead and launch it at Jobs. 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back