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.
Probability of Mac Pro Video Card refresh?
- Thread starter peterg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is incredibly incorrect.
The X1900 XT is twice as fast as the 2600 Pro at most things. The 2600 pro is the newer low range card whereas the X1900 is the older high-end card.
Edit:fixed
I'm quoting this to show how retarded I am
HD2600 Pro is what I meant.. regardless, benchmarks aren't looking good.
I haven't even seen the benchmarks for the 2400 yet.. do I even want to know?
Something to point out: with EVERY major iMac revision, Apple posted graphs on their site with GAMING benchmarks of one verses the previous one.
Those have mysteriously been absent from the latest product page
Frankly, I'm surprised EA games has decided to support Mac. It must be a nightmare releasing C&C3 to people who are going to run it at 800x600 and no effects. Who would buy games to play at that?
Well I run bootcamp and CC3 on my Macbook Pro @ 1920x1080 with no issues at all. I except the Mac version, if any different, to run even better.
Outstanding. You do realize that your video card is 2-5 times as fast as the stock offering on all of the other Mac product lines, right?
The X1900 (only in the mac pro) is the only mac video product that's faster.
I was talking about the iMac. While we're at it though: The macbook (not pro) has an incredibly crappy card as well... and by that I mean it has NO card--just integrated graphics.
Wow Apple, your best selling computers (macbook/imac) have sh*t for video. As I said before, it's a wonder people bother releasing games for mac at all.
On the upside the longer a wait until a refresh of the cards goes on for, the better the refresh will be when it comes. But I have a feeling that the cards will only get updates with complete system refresh. I think Apple prefers to do everything to once ensuring maximum media attention, other then doing piecemeal updates that will only get a passing mention.
The 7-10 week delay is because ATI no longer manufactures the card, as it has reached EOL some time ago. None of the third-party ATI manufacturers make it either.
Apple contracts Foxconn (maker of many things, including motherboards) to make the cards for Apple. The lead time is presumably to accrue enough orders so they can place one or more large orders at a time.
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
^ Mac Pro online feedback submission to Apple.
Great link, I dropped a plea for a new video card as well, has always been a sore spot with me and my Macs.
If Apple continues its current GPU philosophy for the next rev. Mac Pro, excpect to see three tiers of new cards available:
At the top end there will be a workstation card that costs $$$$ - probably the Quadro. Perhaps the current one will soldier on but they should update it. Maybe a FireGL will also show up?
There will then be a high-end GPU in the form of either a Radeon HD 2900-classs card or a GeForce 8800-class card. Prices will exceed identical PC cards by 20%+ as usual, and availability will be through the Apple store or Authorized Reseller only, either as a kit or BTO with a new machine.
The standard card will be a low end card like the Radeon HD 2400XT or GeForce 8400/8500. It will be a crippler for 3D apps but more than sufficient for most everything else.
So <yawn>. I'd like to see them also offer a mid-level card like a Radeon HD 2600XT (not the PRO) or GeForce 8600GT. Even more important, I'd like to see rapid releases of at least one or two Mac compatible GPUs that are fully dual platform but manufactured by a major GPU company (BFG, XFX etc.)and sold retail, making them easy to get. But as the song goes, dre-e-e-e-eam, dream, dream, dre-eam.
At the top end there will be a workstation card that costs $$$$ - probably the Quadro. Perhaps the current one will soldier on but they should update it. Maybe a FireGL will also show up?
There will then be a high-end GPU in the form of either a Radeon HD 2900-classs card or a GeForce 8800-class card. Prices will exceed identical PC cards by 20%+ as usual, and availability will be through the Apple store or Authorized Reseller only, either as a kit or BTO with a new machine.
The standard card will be a low end card like the Radeon HD 2400XT or GeForce 8400/8500. It will be a crippler for 3D apps but more than sufficient for most everything else.
So <yawn>. I'd like to see them also offer a mid-level card like a Radeon HD 2600XT (not the PRO) or GeForce 8600GT. Even more important, I'd like to see rapid releases of at least one or two Mac compatible GPUs that are fully dual platform but manufactured by a major GPU company (BFG, XFX etc.)and sold retail, making them easy to get. But as the song goes, dre-e-e-e-eam, dream, dream, dre-eam.
Yeah, but the X1900 has been EOL'd. ATI don't make it anymore. The source Apple is using is just a placeholder until new cards are brought in.
We just don't know when or what that card will be.
I know, I was just saying it's incorrect to say the iMac's DOWNGRADED video card is faster than the X1900XT
I have a couple of X1900XT 512MB PCIe, already flashed with power cable if anyone is interested.
If Apple put an 8800-class card in any of their machines I'd gladly pick it up. As it stands, I'm almost interested in upgrading my C2D MacBook Pro for the latest revision just to get the 8600 Go.
What?! Its a really fast card. Just because its not the very best card on the market doesn't make it a POS.
It's fast but it has mucho heat issues. Apple detuned their X1900XT's so they wouldn't get so hot.
That's why everyone in the Windows world paid extra to get the X1950XT. Naturally, we can't do this because Apple doesn't let us.
Look it up on Windows gamer forums, everyone replaces the stock cooler in the X1900 with an expensive 3rd party one.
Man... the more 3D cards info there is, the more irritated I get by Apple's disregard of 3D gaming.
Newest iMac as example:
Why MUST the new design be thinner than the already thin enough older iMac?
Because of Steve's desire of ultra-thin, we can't get a Radeon 2600 XT in there becauses it runs too hot.
So thanks to Steve's need to brag about another 1/4 of an inch thinner, we once more go backward in terms of 3D performance.
Ugh.
Newest iMac as example:
Why MUST the new design be thinner than the already thin enough older iMac?
Because of Steve's desire of ultra-thin, we can't get a Radeon 2600 XT in there becauses it runs too hot.
So thanks to Steve's need to brag about another 1/4 of an inch thinner, we once more go backward in terms of 3D performance.
Ugh.
I'm not positive it has to do with cooling, as you say.
The new iMac is made of aluminum, that's got to really bring the temperatures down.
Hm... I was giving Apple a "good reason"
So, why do you think the pretty obvious 2600 XT wasn't placed?
It can't be cost.
Hm... I was giving Apple a "good reason"
So, why do you think the pretty obvious 2600 XT wasn't placed?
It can't be cost.
Sure it can
edit:
They probably profit $500-600 on every iMac, so $15/unit could be 2.5 - 3 % of that.