Quad iMac undercuts Quad Mac Pro

[gotzero]

Anyone that is even considering dumping a Mac Pro for an iMac was probably one of the ones caught by Apple's desktop gap. If the iMac makes more sense for you, go for it!

Better iMacs will cannibalize aspirational/reluctant Mac Pro sales, but they will not even be a blip on the radar for those considering 8-core models.

The range seems much more filled out than it has been since the days of $1,500 Powermacs. This can only be seen as a good thing from a user standpoint.

 

[Umbongo]

I don't understand that either ? The cpus in the Mac Pros are great.

It's the video cards that are absolutely embarrassing. GT120 & 4870 ?

What are low end consumer cards doing in a workstation ?

Only two choices and no "professional" cards. Excuse me, ATI and Nvidia make a couple of dozen professional video cards that are bto options from any pc manufacturer, Tiger Direct or New Egg.

Why does Apple hate high performance video cards and not allow their customers to get them in their Mac "Pros" ? Any ideas ? Please no flames. I really would like to know.

It comes down to profitability, but there are a number of things that make it so. First of all the main reason you can't just get any card is because of the driver development required for OS X. With the gpu being more integral than on other OSes and Apple's limited resources and market it means limited options.

Apple can offer everything you get from a professional card, besides the extra memory some have, on a consumer card as they use the same hardware. It makes no sense for them to pay for professional cards when they get the same results with consumer hardware.

There was never a reason for the Quadro cards in a Mac Pro unless you were going to use them in Windows or could really make use of that memory (unlikely). I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't offer an option of a Quadro in 2009 due to some issue relating mini DisplayPort.

So let's look at the cards they do offer from the consumer space. They have their bases covered with just two cards. One that is low power/heat and so can be used in multiples to drive 8 displays and one that is more powerful. Ok the GT 120 isn't the greatest but it gets the job done. The 4870 was from the top tier of cards available just as the 8800GT and 1900XT were. They won't go with the highest end from the top tier because they don't need it to sell systems and then users would be paying a large premium for a small performance increase.

The dual GPU cards are out because of the driver development required and they aren't going to release a new graphics card before a new system update as it isn't worth doing.

Also let's face it, most demanding 3D applications are not available on OS X and those that are have terrible performance and bugs (Maya for example) compared to their Windows versions. So while there are uses for higher powered 3D cards in OS X, especially as GPU gets utilized for calcualtions, it isn't a key selling point. Maybe as software that has traditionally not relied on the GPU starts to use it Apple will offer more options, but I can still see "low end on the high end" consumer cards being the top offering.

 

[Macinposh]

Why does Apple hate high performance video cards and not allow their customers to get them in their Mac "Pros" ? Any ideas ? Please no flames. I really would like to know.

Could it be that they are of no use with the normal apple application palette?

CS3/4 : practically nothing uses gpus except few filters.
FCP : motion uses to something to certain extent,color uses a bit..
Aperture: Mmeh. Maybe some redraws but otherwise,havent seen a lot of benchmarks which would support their worth.
LR: The same.
Maya other 3Ds : Well,there is support for the preview but otherwise how much does the gfx card ad to the render times?
Logic/ProTools: Hmm..


I mean,apple maybe has prioritized their resources that way that if it does not produce certain % of benefits for the $ invested = we.go.the.cheap.way .and.make.obscene.amounts.of.profits.

Cant figure any other reason.

 

[bigwig]

According to a friend of mine who works at Apple, there will be no change to the mac pro line until late 2010 -2011.

That's very believable. The 32nm Nehalem won't be much of an improvement over the current part. The real boost comes with Sandy Bridge, currently scheduled about that time (though that's really late when compared to Intel's original timeline).

 

[Dreamail]

I don't understand that either ? The cpus in the Mac Pros are great.
Why does Apple hate high performance video cards and not allow their customers to get them in their Mac "Pros" ? Any ideas ? Please no flames. I really would like to know.

The main issue is a lack of real need from a customer point of view.

Mac Pros are not the typical gamer machines. So how many high-end gamer GPUs could Apple ever hope to sell?

My guess: surely some but not enough to warrant the effort by Apple.
Remember if Apple offers a GPU as a BTO option they'd be responsible for the drivers to some extent. More so than in the Windows world because Apple prides itself of the flawless hardware-software integration. They cannot as easily say the GPUs they bundle aren't their concern... Customers would expect the drivers to work out of the box, and not just with a few games.

Somewhat similar on the Nvidia Quadro side.
The main incentive for Windows users to buy Quadro cards are the optimized drivers. Nvidia, sacrificing speed to some extent, ensures the drivers display images without artefacts.
This is no real concern for 60fps video games as you would not necessarily mind nor see a few frames with artefacts.
But it is an issue with 3D modeling and rendering. Hence the Quadro cards and their better drivers. But these drivers wouldn't be suited for gamers as they trade speed for accuracy. It's really a small market, hence the higher price.

On the Mac GPU drivers are programmed with the help if not fully by Apple itself. As a result out of the box any Nvidia card renders far less artefacts in Maya on a Mac than the same card on a Windows PC.
So the reason for buying a Quadro card on a Mac is not really there.
In fact latest reviews of the current 3rd party Quadro card on the Mac are rather disappointing. The speed and quality improvements are not warranted by the vastly higher expense - much contrary to the Windows or Linux experience.


In the end it's kind of a double-edged sword. On the one hand cheap GPUs give much better results on a Mac than they might on a Windows PC, but due to this the market for higher quality GPUs is even smaller.

And lastly it's also a matter of market share.
An Nvidia representative once told me that their incentive to tweak drivers on Windows is so much higher than on the Mac that even if they were to release Mac versions of their high-end Quadro cards, those drivers would never be as good as their Windows counterpart simply as Nvidia has to put its resources where the market is.

And so it perpetuates...

 

[emt377]

10Gig Ethernet?? LOL! Unless someone is crazy enough to make a GRID cluster of Mac Pros, I don't know why one would ever need 10GbE in a desktop/workstation.

I disagree - I'd love tgbe ports in my MP. Regular gbe runs at about 75MB/s, tgbe gets up at least to raid disk speed. So copying a VM image, DB test dataset, and other corresponding data from a NAS or a server (like a production system) onto my workstation would at least run at platter speed. Instead of waiting ten minutes I'd wait one or two minutes, or even less. That's quite significant and well worth paying for.

 

[smacman]

Although there is some debate about the new iMac undercutting the Mac Pro, for me there is none.

I'm a previous iMac user (been through 4 machines in 4 years) who recently joined the Mac Pro "dark side". The maximum one can expect to get out of an iMac is 2 years (maybe 3 with apple care). I know from experience that these machines are made with questionable quality control standards. Just google the words "iMac_Logic_Board_Failure" to better understand. Apple does a great job of making these things look pretty, and they even manage to stuff some pretty respectable hardware inside (even more so lately). But this comes at a cost! You can't have your cake and eat it too. There is a cost to stuffing that much hardware in such a sexy case. As I speak, my quad 2.93 Mac Pro is purring under my desk, and I have the utmost confidence in it's quality. I can't say I felt that way with my iMacs. 2 fried logic boards, 1 dead display, and a hard drive failure in 4 separate machines really left a bad taste in my mouth. I know that there are probably lots of people that have had much better luck with iMacs than I did. Perhaps they didn't use the system as heavily as I did, or maybe they were/are just lucky. Consider this though, if a component like a display or hard drive do fail outside of warranty, it is a major repair operation.

Yah I spent a lot of money on this new beast, but I love it. The build quality and engineering that went into the Mac Pro is more than worth it in my opinion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For me there was a very good reason. I have a NEC 2690WUXi2 wide gamut MATTE LCD that I wouldn't trade for a shine-box even if you paid me to do so.

100% Agree... I had a 24" iMac 1gen Aluminum model and no matter what anyone says, the reflection is noticeable at the very least and completely annoying at the worst. Once I got my Mac Pro and my HP LP2475w, I truly breathed a sigh of relief. The all in one form factor is enticing and very convenient for a clean desktop, but I'll never go back to a glossy screen. If I felt inclined to simplify my setup I'd do a Mac Mini before a glossy iMac.

That said, IF they had a matte option in the 27", I'd consider it. Heaviest thing I do these days is ripping h.264 mkv's in handbrake and 4 cores would be ok for that. I would miss my SSD setup though....

 

[Johns12]

It seems to me that many people here just don't get the Mac Pro market. There are many people who buy Mac Pros, but don't really need them (don't use the expandability, etc). Those people would and should do just fine with an Imac. Many professional Pro users need Pci cards. You just can't do that with an Imac.

I personally use a Mac Pro in my recording studio, and need to use Pci cards. I am not talking about using better graphics cards, as I have never changed one in any Mac Pro I have owned. My audio interface is based around a Pci card. That is one of the true markets for the Pro. Apple is happy if others buy it even if they don't really need it, but they have a professional market that does need it, and they will not do anything to lose that small but necessary market.

I have a 2.8 octo and that machine was the sweet spot for price and performance.

 

[NJRonbo]

I can relate to that.

I first got into Mac back in 2007 after
being a PC user for more than a decade.

I went in blindly. Since I was used to
buying $3-4k PC systems it seemed a
no-brainer my first Mac should be a PRO.

Spent about $3k (if not more) on it.

Been incredibly happy with it, and it's
true that if not for the introduction of
the 27" iMac this past week I probably
could have gone an additional 2 years
with this Mac Pro (for a total of 5).

Meanwhile I was replacing Windows
PCs every two years.

Now mind you, for what I do, I think
the Mac Pro was overkill. I have too
much power at my hands for my needs.

Going to the 27" iMac is a smart move
in my opinion for several reasons. First,
it cuts the cords. I have too much
cordplay going on across and under my
desk. I have a huge computer case and
two screens hooked up to it side-by-side.

Yes, I will lose the two screens. Yes,
I will lose upgradeability. Yes, I expect
only to get 2 years out of the iMac compared
to 5 out of the Pro. Yes, there will be no
expandability options.

However, I gain simplicity and a gorgeous
27" display that I wasn't getting with my
30" Dell display. I get just the right amount
of power I will need and 8GB of ram on my
i7 will hold me for the next few years.

I cannot recommend a Mac Pro enough.
It is the ultimate computer rig. You buy
one of these and it will outlast any iMac
on the market. Easily a 5-year computer
as it is upgradeable.

However, for the price of a high-end Mac
Pro, I can buy 2 iMacs in two years for a
little bit more and stay current with the
latest technology. I am certain there will
be arguments for that kind of thinking, but
what we can possibly all agree on is that
this new iMac has enough power and appeal
to satisfy many of us who were dedicated
Mac Pro users.

 

[belvdr]

I disagree - I'd love tgbe ports in my MP. Regular gbe runs at about 75MB/s, tgbe gets up at least to raid disk speed. So copying a VM image, DB test dataset, and other corresponding data from a NAS or a server (like a production system) onto my workstation would at least run at platter speed. Instead of waiting ten minutes I'd wait one or two minutes, or even less. That's quite significant and well worth paying for.

GigE will go up to 125MB/sec in theory, but 100-110MB/sec is easy enough to obtain over one GigE link. I'm thinking something else is causing your bottleneck, such as the device you are writing to, which is usually the case. Many people believe the network is their bottleneck and usually it is not. On the write device, you can use vmstat or top and monitor CPU wait time. Usually the CPU at the other end is waiting on the write device, and thus transfers are slowed.

I highly doubt using 10Gb links is going to reduce your wait time that much.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

GigE will go up to 125MB/sec in theory, but 100-110MB/sec is easy enough to obtain over one GigE link. I'm thinking something else is causing your bottleneck, such as the device you are writing to, which is usually the case. Many people believe the network is their bottleneck and usually it is not. On the write device, you can use vmstat or top and monitor CPU wait time. Usually the CPU at the other end is waiting on the write device, and thus transfers are slowed.

I highly doubt using 10Gb links is going to reduce your wait time that much.

Can definitely confirm this as my network transfers went from ~35mb/sec to my old ReadyNAS NV to 100mb+ sustained to my new QNAP TS-509. The target device makes all the difference in the world. Interestingly enough, when I had my dual band airport extreme as my primary switch, I got ~95 mb/sec max. I recently upgraded to the new Netgear WNDR3700 and my rate averages at ~105 mb/sec. The 3700 has a beefier processor (one of it's drawing features) and it certainly has helped my Gbit traffic speed.

 

[parakiet]

100% Agree... I had a 24" iMac 1gen Aluminum model and no matter what anyone says, the reflection is noticeable at the very least and completely annoying at the worst. Once I got my Mac Pro and my HP LP2475w, I truly breathed a sigh of relief. The all in one form factor is enticing and very convenient for a clean desktop, but I'll never go back to a glossy screen. If I felt inclined to simplify my setup I'd do a Mac Mini before a glossy iMac.

I have an eizo CE240W.. and i use it as primary monitor on my imac.
glosy or not.. now i have an extra 24", handy

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I have an eizo CE240W.. and i use it as primary monitor on my imac.
glosy or not.. now i have an extra 24", handy

That is a good alternative... use a matte as the primary screen and the iMac's built in as the secondary. Dual 27" screens... hooahhh...

 

[lali]

A word of caution...

A word of caution for Mac Pro owners thinking of switching to a new iMac.

It does not happen often, but here I get to write about stuff I know about !

I have an iMac (2.4/4gb purchased in Oct '07). When I purchased it I wanted to switch from Windows boxes, wires everywhere, I wanted simplicity and performance, and OSX of course.

But you folks have Mac Pros, and hang out in Mac Pro forums.. This means you are enthusiasts who need the performance that a pro provides, and enjoy the upgradeability of the product, even though it is limited....

Yes, I agree, the new iMacs are very compelling. They will perform super well. But as I, in 2 years down the road, you will find yourself with no upgrading capability. (As a matter of fact I believe an SSD is in the plans for me, but that's a project in itself.)

If you know you are of "the upgrading breed", think about it !

Anyways what I am really trying to say, please think about what you really want before buying. I adore my iMac but let's be honest it's not an encoding beast. The news ones are a different story. For now!

For me, my "upgrade fix" might be to spend $900 on a dedicated windows encoding box and keep my iMac but upgrade to SSD. I get an urge to separate the encoding from my main computer.

François

 

[RebootD]

That said, IF they had a matte option in the 27", I'd consider it. Heaviest thing I do these days is ripping h.264 mkv's in handbrake and 4 cores would be ok for that. I would miss my SSD setup though....

I completely agree with you. My main area is print design and photography, web comes next and video editing a distant 3rd so the Mac Pro technically is overkill for me but I didn't have much choice imho.

Now if Apple released this quad core 27in iMac with a matte screen earlier this year (with 4 ram slots etc) I would have picked one up and probably still be using it today. As I said before I tried to see past the glare and reflections but my dumb eyes weren't smart enough to learn how to! (I envy the rest of you who can)

 

[RebootD]

I have an eizo CE240W.. and i use it as primary monitor on my imac.
glosy or not.. now i have an extra 24", handy

I did that as a fix for my 2007 iMac situation (I bought a refurb LG 24in PVA screen) and attached it as my primary. It worked for a while.

 

[SimonMW]

I got my Quad core MP 2 months before the first Octo core was released. I expected it. No doubt that since my machine is a late 2007 MP (first gen Intel) the new iMac will be faster.

However I have my own rule that I will not upgrade until 16 core MP's are available at least. I am a video producer and video editing and related activities are the main uses for it. Time is money and rendering is a pain. But even with the current Octo's the price of upgrading compared to the speed increase simply is not viable. To make an upgrade viable for myself I would need a 16 core at least AND I would need Final Cut Studio to use GPGPU processing extensively.

My current machine edits all flavours of XDCAM just fine. Complex Motion comps are a pain, but they would still be a pain even if they rendered 200% faster. Given that this sort of stuff is some of the most processor intensive application this side of 3D rendering I am at pains to understand why so many people are chasing down so much processing power.

The new iMac looks stunning as a family machine. But let's put a bit of perspective on it. The glossy display is a big minus for long periods of serious work. The lack of expandability is also a huge hinderance. How loud will the quad core iMac be when it is rendering a complex 3D raytraced scene, or when using all cores rendering out HD H264 video?

The iMac is a great machine, and I have to say that even though the 27" version costs a lot, try pricing up an equivalent Windows based machine with a monitor that big! You'd have to go to at least 30" to match it, and that would cost $1k alone! But for professional use the Mac Pro still trounces it. Even my 2007 quad core model. Processing speed is only one part of the equation.

 

[Bubba Satori]

It comes down to profitability, but there are a number of things that make it so. First of all the main reason you can't just get any card is because of the driver development required for OS X. With the gpu being more integral than on other OSes and Apple's limited resources and market it means limited options.

Apple can offer everything you get from a professional card, besides the extra memory some have, on a consumer card as they use the same hardware. It makes no sense for them to pay for professional cards when they get the same results with consumer hardware.

There was never a reason for the Quadro cards in a Mac Pro unless you were going to use them in Windows or could really make use of that memory (unlikely). I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't offer an option of a Quadro in 2009 due to some issue relating mini DisplayPort.

So let's look at the cards they do offer from the consumer space. They have their bases covered with just two cards. One that is low power/heat and so can be used in multiples to drive 8 displays and one that is more powerful. Ok the GT 120 isn't the greatest but it gets the job done. The 4870 was from the top tier of cards available just as the 8800GT and 1900XT were. They won't go with the highest end from the top tier because they don't need it to sell systems and then users would be paying a large premium for a small performance increase.

The dual GPU cards are out because of the driver development required and they aren't going to release a new graphics card before a new system update as it isn't worth doing.

Also let's face it, most demanding 3D applications are not available on OS X and those that are have terrible performance and bugs (Maya for example) compared to their Windows versions. So while there are uses for higher powered 3D cards in OS X, especially as GPU gets utilized for calcualtions, it isn't a key selling point. Maybe as software that has traditionally not relied on the GPU starts to use it Apple will offer more options, but I can still see "low end on the high end" consumer cards being the top offering.

"Apple's limited resources" ? What company has unlimited resouces ?

Apple is a hugely profitable, very large computer company with $34 billion in the bank. It's absurd to believe that they can't hire some engineers to write drivers for all of Nvidia's and ATI's video cards. Sorry, it's a lame excuse.

Apple wouldn't be as profitable if they offered the same range of video cards as every other workstation vendor ? Those cards have higher margins than the left over, year old, lowend cards you have to chose from in the Mac Pro.

It boggles the mind that a workstation that sells for $2,500-$23,000 can only be equiped with a $40 or $60 consumer video card. Unless you get the EVGA285 from a third party for $450 that costs $300 for PCs.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

The single socket Mac Pros aren't much to talk about.

Lynnfield and even Bloomfield are relavtively affordable compared to the total unit cost.

You should wait for Springfield ... although it only really works well in the Lisa.

 

[Umbongo]

"Apples limited resources" ? What company has unlimited resouces ?

Apple is a hugely profitable, very large computer company with $34 billion in the bank. It's absurd to believe that they can't hire some engineers to write drivers for all of Nvidia's and ATI's video cards. Sorry, it's a lame excuse.

Apple doesn't have an abundance of engineers and those that are talented enough are in demand by many companies. I'd say it is a combination of the lack of talent that could be put to use on other projects and not being worth it to find new talent to work on such projects.

Apple wouldn't be as profitable if they offered the same range of video cards as every other workstation vendor ? Those cards have higher margins than the left over, year old, lowend cards you have to chose from in the Mac Pro.

It boggles the mind that a workstation that sells for $2,500-$23,000 can only be equiped with a $40 or $60 consumer video card. Unless you get the EVGA285 from a third party for $450 that costs $300 for PCs.

That $450 285 is better than the $1,799 Quadro FX 4800 under OS X because Nvidia do not write application specific drivers for OS X. Same for the Radeon 4870 vs the FireGL 8700. While both cards have more memory without the driver support there is no real performance gain in viewport rendering.

There just isn't a market for professional graphics cards for the Mac as evidenced by the lack of product from Apple, AMD and Nvidia.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Apple doesn't have an abundance of engineers and those that are talented enough are in demand by many companies. I'd say it is a combination of the lack of talent that could be put to use on other projects and not being worth it to find new talent to work on such projects.

They don't need an "abundance of engineers" to write drivers for professional video cards. Would it bankrupt Apple to hire a dozen programmers to do the job. It's a multi-billion dollar megacorporation. I don't believe I've read that there is a shortage of programmers.

That $450 285 is better than the $1,799 Quadro FX 4800 under OS X because Nvidia do not write application specific drivers for OS X. Same for the Radeon 4870 vs the FireGL 8700. While both cards have more memory without the driver support there is no real performance gain in viewport rendering.

Of course you use the example of one of the most expensive Quadros. Nvidia and ATI have many pro cards in the $400-$900 price range. Sorry, that's a weak red herring. Have you seen all the threads where Mac Pro users are desperately tying to hack better video cards for their rigs.

Apple won't provide the driver support because they just don't care and they known that their captive users aren't going to go out and by PC workstations. Or so they think.

There just isn't a market for professional graphics cards for the Mac as evidenced by the lack of product from Apple, AMD and Nvidia.

How do you explain the EVGA285 and all the threads of Mac Pro users trying to get better video cards to work ?

 

[belvdr]

Apple won't provide the driver support because they just don't care and they known that their captive users aren't going to go out and by PC workstations. Or so they think.

What's really a shame is that Nvidia and ATI won't work on getting their drivers into OS X. Whether that's the fault of them or Apple not letting them do so, I am not sure.

 

[Umbongo]

They don't need an "abundance of engineers" to write drivers for professional video cards. Would it bankrupt Apple to hire a dozen programmers to do the job. It's a multi-billion dollar megacorporation. I don't believe I've read that there is a shortage of programmers.

I'm giving the reasons that I believe are correct. To me it seems perfectly clear that there is not a market that would be worth catering to at this time in regard to professional graphics cards for the Mac. I make this judgement based on Apple, AMD and Nvidia's lack of product, the lack of applications that would benefit on OS X and there already being a fully established and supported market already. I'm not saying I like the situation just how why I think it is how it is.

Of course you use the example of one of the most expensive Quadros. Nvidia and ATI have many pro cards in the $400-$900 price range. Sorry, that's a weak red herring. Have you seen all the threads where Mac Pro users are desperately tying to hack better video cards for their rigs.

My point was that you can get a $450 card and a $1,799 card for the Mac Pro and the $450 has better performance. I use this example to highlight that without the kind of driver development that there is on the Windows platform there is no incentive for a user to buy a professional card for the Mac Pro if they only want to run OS X applications.

Apple won't provide the driver support because they just don't care and they known that their captive users aren't going to go out and by PC workstations. Or so they think.

How do you explain the EVGA285 and all the threads of Mac Pro users trying to get better video cards to work ?

The EVGA 285 is the answer to Nvidia providing a better card. ATI did it with the 3870 too. They have both had a high end card each since June 2008 which makes sense as there is demand for powerful graphics cards on the Mac Pro. This doesn't invalidate my points that there is no market for a larger range or profssional cards.

As for those hacking cards I'm sure the manufacturers would question whether they would receive compensation (in the form of higher prices on Mac cards) from those who are able to take a rom and put it on a PC card. If people are buying their cards anyway, why risk development costs and having to support them.

 

[nanofrog]

Apple doesn't have an abundance of engineers and those that are talented enough are in demand by many companies. I'd say it is a combination of the lack of talent that could be put to use on other projects and not being worth it to find new talent to work on such projects.

Apple's operating very lean, but there's talented engineers available, despite the demand (they can out pay other companies in salaries and benefits to obtain them if they want them bad enough), and they can certainly afford to do so. So it seems the reasoning for not having enough people is they don't want to spend the funds on the additional personel.

That $450 285 is better than the $1,799 Quadro FX 4800 under OS X because Nvidia do not write application specific drivers for OS X. Same for the Radeon 4870 vs the FireGL 8700. While both cards have more memory without the driver support there is no real performance gain in viewport rendering.

There just isn't a market for professional graphics cards for the Mac as evidenced by the lack of product from Apple, AMD and Nvidia.

There's been one major issue with the Quadros: The cards weren't developed with EFI compatible firmware. That's changed now, but only recently with the 4800.

As a result of the lack of working cards under OS X, software developers haven't had the incentive to include support for the features the Quadro line can provide. It's looking up a bit, as I see the 4800 as a test to see if there really is a professional market in the Mac Pro. If it catches on, the software vendors should see it as an advantage, and the situation improve. It's early though IMO. If anything falls short though, it will just be allowed to die out.

What's really a shame is that Nvidia and ATI won't work on getting their drivers into OS X. Whether that's the fault of them or Apple not letting them do so, I am not sure.

ATI does write their own drivers for OS X, but compared to Windows, I'd think it's more of an afterthought. Yet they still do better with things like Core Image atm. nVidia drivers are more of a mess. Apple writes the GT120, while nVidia wrote the Quadro 4800, and the GTX285 drivers as well it seems (I do wonder of EVGA wrote the GTX285 drivers, and posted them on nVidia's site though, as they actually produced the card available; no other vendors with a GTX285 Mac Edition AFAIK).