The 2009 (Gainestown) Mac Pro: Everything We Know

[VirtualRain]

Does anyone really understand the graphics driver development process with Apple?

Does Nvidia and ATI develop the OSX drivers? If so, why aren't they updated more frequently (they both offer new unified drivers covering their entire range of cards regularly for the PC)? If not, why not? What role does Apple play in this? Certifying and packaging the drivers with the OS?

I gather OSX support for graphics cards also requires an EFI supportable bios on the GPU... is this one of the main limiting factors in more graphics cards being supported on OSX?

Help me understand how this works on the Apple side of the business.

 

[Tallest Skil]

ATI makes their own drivers, Apple writes nVidia's.

Explains a lot, I think.

 

[nanofrog]

ATI makes their own drivers, Apple writes nVidia's.

Explains a lot, I think.

It does to me.

 

[kabunaru]

ATI makes their own drivers, Apple writes nVidia's.

Explains a lot, I think.

So, in that sense, ATI cards are better than Nvidia for Mac. Apple is just lazy to make the most out of the Nvidia cards.

 

[sidewinder]

So, in that sense, ATI cards are better than Nvidia for Mac. Apple is just lazy to make the most out of the Nvidia cards.

Or maybe Apple does not know the NVIDIA hardware as well as the engineers at NVIDIA.

What's with all the contempt towards Apple here?

S-

 

[diamond.g]

Or maybe Apple does not know the NVIDIA hardware as well as the engineers at NVIDIA.
S-

Then why not let Nvidia write their own drivers?

 

[Eidorian]

Then why not let Nvidia write their own drivers?

I fail to see why Apple would prevent them from doing so.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Then why not let Nvidia write their own drivers?

Someone wrote an e-mail to Steve Jobs about the long wait on an 8800 GT that worked on the 2006 Mac Pro.

His response? "nVidia didn't come through, so we're having to do it. It'll be a month or so."

Either nVidia just doesn't care, or they really can't do it, so Apple has to.

 

[nanofrog]

Or maybe Apple does not know the NVIDIA hardware as well as the engineers at NVIDIA.

What's with all the contempt towards Apple here?

S-

No contempt here.

You elaborated on my reasoning. It's just a matter of experience/familiarity.

Apple doesn't work on nVidia drivers at every working moment, and would expect the development time is brief, in comparison to the entire project. ATI does their own OS X drivers, and obviously, are familiar with their own hardware.

Conversely, similar issues would almost certainly exist if nVidia began designing the MP.

I'm leaving ATI/AMD out of it at this point.

 

[t0mat0]

Someone wrote an e-mail to Steve Jobs about the long wait on an 8800 GT that worked on the 2006 Mac Pro.

His response? "nVidia didn't come through, so we're having to do it. It'll be a month or so."

Either nVidia just doesn't care, or they really can't do it, so Apple has to.

Maybe wrestling CUDA down, and getting OpenCL was in most peoples interests. Doesn't nvidia seem the first port of call for graphics for Apple for their new models? If so, both their previous driver problems (hardware problems) and Intel's spat with them are blots on the horizon.

 

[tom.]

Discontinuation of all three models.

Honestly, I don't expect the Mac Pro to live past the next few.

Why? You say the next few - that could be 4 years. Anything could happen between now and then. What makes you think they will phase it out in that timespan?

Seems like a bit of a stab in the dark!

 

[VirtualRain]

Someone wrote an e-mail to Steve Jobs about the long wait on an 8800 GT that worked on the 2006 Mac Pro.

His response? "nVidia didn't come through, so we're having to do it. It'll be a month or so."

Either nVidia just doesn't care, or they really can't do it, so Apple has to.

Bizarre. Especially since they just released drivers for Linux... http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-...r-Linux-Bring-OpenGL-3-0-Support-104336.shtml

However, if ATI writes their own drivers for OSX, it doesn't explain why there aren't more current ATI graphics card supported on the current MP. I guess the market is so small or the driver development so complicated that it's not worth their while. The MP is a tiny niche (high end workstation) within a tiny niche (OSX) of the market.

 

[iMacmatician]

Discontinuation of all three models.

Or at least slower update cycles (1 year for iMac, longer for others) and fewer models.

The next thing to complete discontinuation would be an 28" iMac "replacing" the Mac Pro and a whiteBook-like 20" iMac "replacing" the Mac mini.

Honestly, I don't expect the Mac Pro to live past the next few.

Don't get your hopes up for that Haswell Mac Pro then.

 

[alanlindsay]

Base RAM

Any idea on what the base RAM configuration will be? Assuming triple channel we're looking at either 3GB or 6GB I would say.

 

[nanofrog]

Any idea on what the base RAM configuration will be? Assuming triple channel we're looking at either 3GB or 6GB I would say.

I wouldn't expect a triple channel configuration in the base model. Likely too expensive as standard configuration. As an option, yes.

 

[aaquib]

Any idea on what the base RAM configuration will be? Assuming triple channel we're looking at either 3GB or 6GB I would say.

I say 2GB standard on both retail SKU's w/ a BTO option to go up to 4GB.

 

[m1stake]

My money's on 3GB.

Also, I was just thinking that it would be very Apple to use 1066Mhz memory instead of giving a real bump to 1333. I know what the Wiki says, but this is Apple, not a manufacturer that cares about performance.

 

[nanofrog]

I say 2GB standard on both retail SKU's w/ a BTO option to go up to 4GB.

2GB would probably be right in the base model(s), but I would think BTO would offer additional variations. A few possibilities with dual and triple channel configs, using 1 or 2GB sticks. Possibly even a 4GB stick will be made available.

 

[iMacmatician]

My money's on 3GB.

Same here. BTO to 2 GB possible but w/e.

Also, I was just thinking that it would be very Apple to use 1066Mhz memory instead of giving a real bump to 1333. I know what the Wiki says, but this is Apple, not a manufacturer that cares about performance.

Didn't they use 1600 MHz for the Harpertown Mac Pros?

 

[m1stake]

Didn't they use 1600 MHz for the Harpertown Mac Pros?

That's the FSB speed, the memory is clocked at 800Mhz (2:1).

 

[nanofrog]

My money's on 3GB.

Also, I was just thinking that it would be very Apple to use 1066Mhz memory instead of giving a real bump to 1333. I know what the Wiki says, but this is Apple, not a manufacturer that cares about performance.

3GB? Can you explain?

I based 2GB on the presumption that Apple would sue a 1GB stick in a single channel per CPU.

Like you though, I'm beginning to wonder about the 1333MHz clocked variety. 1066 is cheaper, and Apple, despite the statement of reduced margins, might opt for this to retain a little more profit.

 

[m1stake]

I wasn't thinking of the dual QPI lanes, because I'm dumb. Remember that.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

is this fake?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320341290700

Oh, dear...

This guy is *SO* screwed... (The eBay seller, not dansheppy52.) Intel isn't *TOO* picky about engineering sample procs being sold; but only AFTER they have actually been released, since everyone who has a pre-release proc is under some form of NDA.

Oooh, and he's been selling other Gainestowns, (as well as plenty of other production procs,) as well.

 

[grue]

Or maybe Apple does not know the NVIDIA hardware as well as the engineers at NVIDIA.

What's with all the contempt towards Apple here?

S-

Besides the fact they couldn't write tight code if it would save the world?

 

[sidewinder]

Besides the fact they couldn't write tight code if it would save the world?

That's an idiotic comment.....

S-