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.
No High-End Video Card for the next Mac Pro
- Thread starter Topper
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You've summed up how I feel as well.
Great post!
Yes, in fact. It's is a HUGE testament to just how impressed those in our camp are with OSX the operating system that we are willing to endure such neglect on the hardware front.
As the poster above put it:
Apple Software is the bees knees. The hardware engineers need to step up to the plate and begin offering something that can approach it.
I've said this before in many posts, Apple needs to concentrate more on a well rounded machine Vs. a CPU only power house.
We've seen this with the Mac Pro and now the iMac sporting the X7900.
I MacBook or Mac mini with a X1300/7300 when it switched to Intel would have been a godsend.
Yeah, I'm going to make entire new workflows and purchase/find new software in another operating system.
Alright, at this point you are just trolling.
You obviosuly have NO idea what we have been talking about in the Mac Pro forum for MONTHS now, and your presence here is to rile people up with your ridiculous comments.Run along now.
To be fair guys, a G92 or a RV670 (if thats what they elect to put in the next Mac Pro) is still pretty good, and both should run alot quieter and cooler than a 8800 Ultra or 2900XT. Hell some websites are showing the RV670 as having single slot cooling.
I think the no external power requirements is dependent on PCIe 2.0 as that standard allows 150watts via the PCIe slot (instead of 75watts IIRC). As long as both the card and the new Mac Pro implement PCIe 2.0 then they should be able to do it with no external power.
nVidia & ATI high-end cards on Q1/2008
There is a lot of talk about nVidia and ATI bringing out high-end video cards in Q1/2008.
Rumor has it that the high-end cards may be nothing more (or less) than two G92 chips for nVidia's card and two RV670 chips for ATI's card.
If the next Mac Pro uses either the 8800GT or HD2950, could we use that driver to put the new 2008 (dual) cards in the Mac Pro?
There is a lot of talk about nVidia and ATI bringing out high-end video cards in Q1/2008.
Rumor has it that the high-end cards may be nothing more (or less) than two G92 chips for nVidia's card and two RV670 chips for ATI's card.
If the next Mac Pro uses either the 8800GT or HD2950, could we use that driver to put the new 2008 (dual) cards in the Mac Pro?
If the new Mac Pro has a G92 or RV670 driver, wouldn't that work for the supposedly new "dual" G92 or dual RV670 card in 2008?
A little explanation
I don't think the responses are those from people who understand the situation fully.
The ONLY reason people are upset, is because the foundation is already put down. All the hard work is already done for the ultimate rig. Something that can video edit, photo edit, sound edit, on the OSX side, game on the Windows side as well as do some office-related stuff on the Windows side - is merely a graphics card away from being complete.
Today's gaming requires high-end workstation systems. This is not far fetched, since most other pc related (non gaming) tasks also have begun to require these things, so they are already available when people want to game. The only things that really seperate performance in most of these machines is processor speed and graphics cards.
Mac has the processor speeds and all other groundwork complete. A simple graphics card update would have made the iMac the machine of the century for a TON of people. People would not bitch about the glossy screen if the graphics in the iMac were powered by some variation of / or something on par with an geforce 8800. People around the world would be rejoicing. The machine would be a top tier choice for gamers world round - especially if they kept thier current price point.
Myself, I keep praying every day that a new iMac will get introduced with a great gaming card. I'd be willing to pay more for it, because in one single amazing package I'd have a machine that could do everything I'd want it to do.
I keep seeing these people say "its not for gaming its for work". That's fine... but all this processor speed and power is a tad overkill for a simple "workstation" in most cases. Let it be a workstation, but then should the people who DO want to do stuff outside of just "work" suffer consequences that shouldn't even exist? Why should the people who want more just be told "NO" on principle? It's pretty messed up when we are one computer component away from perfect.
I don't think the responses are those from people who understand the situation fully.
The ONLY reason people are upset, is because the foundation is already put down. All the hard work is already done for the ultimate rig. Something that can video edit, photo edit, sound edit, on the OSX side, game on the Windows side as well as do some office-related stuff on the Windows side - is merely a graphics card away from being complete.
Today's gaming requires high-end workstation systems. This is not far fetched, since most other pc related (non gaming) tasks also have begun to require these things, so they are already available when people want to game. The only things that really seperate performance in most of these machines is processor speed and graphics cards.
Mac has the processor speeds and all other groundwork complete. A simple graphics card update would have made the iMac the machine of the century for a TON of people. People would not bitch about the glossy screen if the graphics in the iMac were powered by some variation of / or something on par with an geforce 8800. People around the world would be rejoicing. The machine would be a top tier choice for gamers world round - especially if they kept thier current price point.
Myself, I keep praying every day that a new iMac will get introduced with a great gaming card. I'd be willing to pay more for it, because in one single amazing package I'd have a machine that could do everything I'd want it to do.
I keep seeing these people say "its not for gaming its for work". That's fine... but all this processor speed and power is a tad overkill for a simple "workstation" in most cases. Let it be a workstation, but then should the people who DO want to do stuff outside of just "work" suffer consequences that shouldn't even exist? Why should the people who want more just be told "NO" on principle? It's pretty messed up when we are one computer component away from perfect.
It depends on the implementation.
I expect the GPU to have a controller that would effectively make it a single GPU while processing in parallel instead of requiring CrossFire/SLI drivers.
HD2950 Is NO more...
Rumor has it that the RV670 will now be called an HD 3800 series.
Not HD 2950 but HD 3800.
It is also rumored that the Pro, XT, GT, XTX suffixes have been discontinued also.
The last 2 numbers of the name will determine it's performance.
For example...
The RV670XT will now be called the Radeon HD 3870.
The RV670Pro will now be called the Radeon HD 3850.
Rumor has it that the RV670 will now be called an HD 3800 series.
Not HD 2950 but HD 3800.
It is also rumored that the Pro, XT, GT, XTX suffixes have been discontinued also.
The last 2 numbers of the name will determine it's performance.
For example...
The RV670XT will now be called the Radeon HD 3870.
The RV670Pro will now be called the Radeon HD 3850.
Have you seen the double slot cooling that topline graphics systems have these days? they're not going to miraculously engineer an 8800 series or a R600 based GPU in an iMac and keep the same slimline all in one formfactor.
That's a good explanation and it makes sense if the one bottleneck for gamers is the video-card.
The thing is, I know quite a lot of people using high end Macs, for Audio, Video, Graphics and Photography and never hear people complaining about the need for a better video card for gaming purposes. It's a complaint I only hear in these kinds of forums, which makes me wonder how big the market really is. Not the size of the gaming market, the size of the market of people putting down money for a MacPro who want to game.
In fact, I'm not alone amongst the 90s switchers I know in prizing the fact that Apple was a non-gaming platform, with the slower hardware changes that implied. I wonder is some of the computers for work not play comments come from people in that same boat.
If people want to game that's their choice - I don't really care. But I do care about Apple keeping their eyes on building solid machines for work, especially in support of their Pro apps (Logic, Final Cut, Apeture).
Man I'm tired of all the Apple noobs out there saying that a Mac Pro is not a gaming machine. This is correct ONLY due to the fact that there is no good graphics card out there, which is why people complain. If you put an OSX bootable 8800 GTX in a Mac Pro (theoretically speaking), it would stomp on all the newest games out there. The Xeon's are built off of the Core architecture and provide similar performance to PC dekstop processors. The ram holds back the Mac Pro a bit, and yes, it wouldn't be the MOST powerful or cheap gaming rig on the planet....but to say it "isn't" a gaming machine is just ignorant. The potential is there, Apple just doesn't spend the time or money on the graphics to make it happen....which noobs...is WHY people are complaining!
Oh the idiocy of that comment.
Oh and fernmeister...now you have heard one high-end Mac gamer complain.
Oh the idiocy of that comment.
Oh and fernmeister...now you have heard one high-end Mac gamer complain.
What an incredibly odd thing to say. Choice is never a bad thing. If Apple started offered just *semi-current* card, it doesn't mean you have to buy them. You can use your 2 year old, discontinued card for as long as you'd like.
Why I find the statement so odd is that it's essentially saying "I, for one, am glad that my platform sucks at application X." Why would anyone be anything but happy that their platform is one of the best on all fronts?
I am happy with the 1900XT and will probably not upgrade it I mean the one game I mainly play are EvE online which I can run in parallels and Xplane which runs fine.
I wonder if the reason apple stays behind a bit is the time involved in writing the drivers etc.. for the videocard and making sure it is rock solid.
I would not be surprised if the new Mac Pros will sport new videocards and that Leopard will have those drivers built in already.
I mean the one game I mainly play are EvE online which I can run in parallels and Xplane which runs fine.I wonder if the reason apple stays behind a bit is the time involved in writing the drivers etc.. for the videocard and making sure it is rock solid.
I would not be surprised if the new Mac Pros will sport new videocards and that Leopard will have those drivers built in already.