I don't know. I will do this if a moderator or arn asks that we do so. Otherwise, people know that the first half of this thread is a bunch of rambling, so they'll go to the newest posts.
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.
The 2009 (Gainestown) Mac Pro: Everything We Know
- Thread starter Tallest Skil
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I don't know. I will do this if a moderator or arn asks that we do so. Otherwise, people know that the first half of this thread is a bunch of rambling, so they'll go to the newest posts.
Questions
I understand that Leopard doesn't support using two or more graphics cards to output to one display but Vista, or at least Windows for that matter does. Has anyone had experience with this, and if could you possibly enlighten me on the subject?
I understand that Leopard doesn't support using two or more graphics cards to output to one display but Vista, or at least Windows for that matter does. Has anyone had experience with this, and if could you possibly enlighten me on the subject?
There are multiple directions this could go.
Vista cannot handle an ATI and an nVidia GPU in the same machine. XP and Windows 7 can.
You can't do CrossFire or SLI in OS X. You can do CrossFire in Windows, but we don't know if SLI will work.
You can run two displays off of one card.
I was referring if you were just in windows, doing an SLi or as you say a Crossfire setup. I don't suppose you could delve a bit more into that could you?
CrossFire should be possible, but not with the 4870 for two reasons.
We don't know if SLI works, but if it does, the GT 120 won't work.
Keep in mind, at RAID 0, you're running at 3x the risk of a single drive failure. No redundancy with it, so if one goes, all data is gone.
You might do better to add a fourth drive, and go RAID 1+0 (aka 10). Offers both speed, and redundancy. HDD's are cheap, so no real reason not to. Even if you have to mount a drive in the empty optical bay. Quite inexpensive for a single drive. Multiples are another story, unless you like to DIY drive mounts.
Redundancy is not for me. The few pennies I save not having to buy, run, cool, and house the mirror unit/s is more important to me than the data. If I have data I want to keep it's on tape and DVD at least - if not on a HDD unit I keep in a box.
I sure wish BlueRay-like technologies would move a little faster! I want them now (err, 3.5 years ago!) and at <$1 a disk .Thanks though! It's cool when someone shows a caring spirit!
Hmmm. Thanks for the input. So if I'm a gamer (part time, its not the only reason why I want this machine) I should just go with the ATI card instead of the GT 120. It just seems like that is the solution that makes sense. I've just recently searched around Amazon, NewEgg, and did some google searching and it appears that you can't buy this cards yet. Can you only get them from Apple right now?
I suppose its the 4870 with 512MB of DDRR3 memory which is what separtes it from the GT 120. I believe the GT 120 is just DDR2. I think....
I suppose its the 4870 with 512MB of DDRR3 memory which is what separtes it from the GT 120. I believe the GT 120 is just DDR2. I think....
DDR3, but the 4870 is just far better overall.
Having come from the PC world and SLI, I can only recommend you avoid it and hope it's never supported on OSX. It's an absolute driver/application nightmare. From what I understand, Crossfire is no better.
In fact, one of the key failings of Windows is hardware driver instability. You may lament the lack of hardware upgrades such as video card choices available for the Mac Pro, but you have to realize that massive choice comes at the cost of control over drivers. Apple can and has controlled the entire hardware/driver experience on their systems which is the primary reason, OSX is more stable than Windows. One of the major reasons Vista was such a headache when it launched was shoddy drivers despite Microsoft's best efforts and Hardware Quality Labs Certification.
Honestly... save yourself some massive headaches and get the best single card you can and game at a resolution that's appropriate for that card.
Ok, thanks the best advice I've gotten all day. Oh and the ATI has GDDR5 not 3 my mistake, just incase anyone was wondering. Though if you did gaming on the side, what setup would you get? Would you go with the quad core, or the 8 core? I know, my dad keeps telling me its not about the processor clock speed, but more about good I/O controllers and fast buses.
Yes, the ATI 4870 card is great... it uses GDDR5 and several times better for gaming than the GT120 which as someone pointed out is a rebranded 9xxx series card.
I would definitely recommend the quad-core. There are very few apps (any?) that can utilize 8 cores, especially used by the common man... whereas every application can benefit from increased clock speed.
Most modern games are GPU limited and even a slow quad core will be more CPU than any game needs unless you are running at ridiculously low resolutions (unlikely).
Only someone who's time is money for rendering or video encoding should really consider an 8-core in my opinion. For anything else, an 8-core is going to be way too much CPU compared to other bottlenecks in the system (i.e. I/O). Even then, as I said, unless your time is money, you will never get the ROI out of an 8-core system other than bragging rights.
If you have money to burn, you would be much better off with a couple of SSD drives than spending that on another four cpu cores.
Also keep in mind that Nehalem uses hyperthreading which actually allows for 8 threads to execute on a 4 core processor giving you massive parallelism. In addition, OpenCL has proven that using the GPU for parallel tasks is far more effective than more CPU... another endorsement for a good graphics card vs. more CPU.
Good system performance is much more about balance than about spending massive amounts of money in just one area (i.e. CPU or memory).
Thanks a bunch, that has really helped me in deciding. Well, I think I have all my answers. Now I just need to think about it.
Here's a great article on what to expect from a 4870 on a quad core Nehalem... http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3463&p=1
Note that the 4870 was actually ranked as their #1 pick.
Note also that Far Cry 2 offers very playable framerates on this configuration at 1920x1200 resolution and 4xAA which is outstanding.
Note that the 4870 was actually ranked as their #1 pick.
Note also that Far Cry 2 offers very playable framerates on this configuration at 1920x1200 resolution and 4xAA which is outstanding.
You do realize how silly that sounds tho right?
Any app slash common man that can use 4 cores can also use 8. It's the ones that can only use one core you gotta consider here.
And actually about 30% of the apps and rising (!!!) can take good advantage of multicore tech. That's a lot! 2 years ago you were right though. But it's this year now. Errr, I think.
--
Also just out of respect I'm not sure I would recommend the Quad Mac Pro to anyone I liked!
Good article, its very reassuring and puts some things in perspective. On the quad core, is the only reason you can't get to 32GB of RAM is because you only have one processor as where the 8 core, each processor has its own RAM to go to?
Yeah I'm not too sure what to tell people when they ask me. Most of them fall into the "Prosumer" category, so I usually tell them just to buy a 24" iMac. But some of them are gung-ho to spend $2800 on a machine so I point them to the quad with lots of upgrades. Most of my Mac referrals are satisfied with the iMac, but those who have too much $ are never happy
- Status