Apple made Graphics Cards

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Mhkobe, Mar 27, 2010.

  1. Mhkobe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #1
    I will get yelled at for this, but I am ready, so give your full input and trolling "your stupid cuz you are" comments. Apple has been denied any current powerful graphics technology by Nvidia and ATI over the years as we all know. This despite my highest wishes will not change over the next few years (say what you want about steam pressuring them, but know that apple has had some very powerful pro app companies prepared to pressure them for years). Apple needs to buy a graphics processor company and begin R&D on it quickly. It will take years, however, it will give them a major advantage, and they will be able to release a decent card much before ATI will release a current one, and before Nvidia will release decent mac drivers. I have considered that this could possibly anger Intel, but realized that intel is really only targeting the low end, and notebook markets with their SOCs.

    On another note, Apple is slowly deleting the mac pro, however, it will not be gone until the Imac can run the fastest and most current intel processors. Unfortunately, if this does happen, it will probably lead to the end of dual chips per board as Apple begins to put ix's in their Imacs rather than the xeons.

    cheers
     
  2. carlosbutler macrumors 6502a

    carlosbutler

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    London City
    #2
    Where did that come from? What gave you the idea the Apple are going to get rid of the Mac Pro from their products?

    nVidia do currently do a decent graphics card for mac, and even though it is now not the latest, so what. It is an absolute joke that new graphics cards are being released every month or so (by what I can see) and the fact that you spend £400 on a bit of plastic, and in three months its worth a third of the price is crap.

    If you really, really must have the latest graphics card dont use a mac. If you only want to play advanced games, get a windows box or better yet a PS3/360.
     
  3. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816

    Dr.Pants

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #3
    This has been discussed before. Apple has a woody for their iMac lines and several posters around here think that once Lightpeak reaches maturity that Apple will switch to that for all their i/o needs.

    Try to realise how limited the graphics market is for apple. Its not that much of a problem for ATI or nVidia to make drivers for any demanding platform but they won't waste time on something that has little/no demand to it in addition to writing a ROM with EFI strings. Not enough profit to justify the man-hours. Not to mention dropped profit from all the custom ROMs out there getting dumped and flashed onto less expensive cards.

    Personally I'd rather see the graphics remain third-party. I would hate to have Apple have their own graphics devision and gimp the entire lineup of computers with it. Not to mention I think computer graphics would stay third party, too - come to think of it, its too much time and trouble for Apple to make custom chips that need integration on boards that are designed by other firms to begin with.
     
  4. Mhkobe thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #4
    to bigmanathome24

    I have an xbox and don't game, but i am looking for a strong cinema 4d, mudbox, and photoshop machine. Also, if you are referring to the GeForce GTX 285, then yes, it is a great card, but the drivers supplied by Nvidia for the mac version suck. If you are referring to the quadro 4800, then you are sadly mistaken... I had a friend who just bought a MP 8 core 2.26 w/ 12gb RAM, and decided to just go with the standard GPU, and order a 4800 separately (cost an arm and a leg) only to compare it to a friends identical machine with a 4870 and see his machine beaten in most tests (4800 won in mudbox).
     
  5. Cabbit macrumors 68020

    Cabbit

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Location:
    Scotland
    #5
    A 4870 does not compare to the Quadro at all. Its a different class of GPU and while the consumer card is faster, a Quadro or FireGL will be more stable and less error prone during renders.

    The Quadro/FireGL's usually run well and are certified to run well a handful of specialised applications.
     
  6. Mhkobe thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #6
    babyjenniferLB:

    I suppose you are right that they are focussed on different things.
     
  7. grue macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Somewhere.
    #7
    All Apple has to do is decide they want them. It's not like AMD and NVidia are saying "No, we will not sell you decent GPUs"
     
  8. wisty macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    #8
    Intel has tried and (more or less) failed to break into the 3D card market. OK, they had a weird shoot-the-moon strategy, but it shows it's not easy.
     
  9. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #9
    With other OSes yes, but this isn't the case under OS X. The Quadro is only a logical purchase if you are going to be using applications that will benefit from it under another OS, otherwise the Radeon4870 or GTX 285 are better choices.
     
  10. gotzero macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US
    #10
    This argument never gets old... The Mac Pro is not going anywhere for awhile. It is a high end machine with high end components and a high end price. The Imac, even at the same clock is not going to give you the throughput/graphics options/storage options, etc.

    Saying that a machine that still uses laptop components is going to replace a workstation is simply not true.

    I agree that the graphics situation is somewhat unfortunate, but as GPUs become more important for general computing, I think you will see things change more. I would love to get some FirePros in my MPs, but sometimes patience is required.
     
  11. Mhkobe thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #11
    Wouldn't we all love Firepro or SLI, unfortunately that is one technology that either apple doesn't believe in, or apple believes is not worth the investment compared to the number of people that would utilize it. The irony of this situation is that Jobs said that apple couldn't make a good laptop for under $1000 yet they continue to shift their area of expertise from mac pros and the pro market niche that they occupied throughout the nineties and early '00s to mass bought low cost portable market. The thing is that this makes perfect sense, they are still keeping great mark-up even though the costs of the product to the consumer go down. With lower cost products they get more sales, and overall more money. What do you think all of us pro users would do if apple suddenly dropped the mac pro, and the pro suites? (completely hypothetical and for amusement)
     

Share This Page