Which video card for 2008 Mac Pro?

[gluckstaler]

@akdj: I don't want to disagree with you, but the issue here is that the 8800gt performs worse than a 2600xt. On a MAC.

 

[colincarter]

@akdj: I don't want to disagree with you, but the issue here is that the 8800gt performs worse than a 2600xt. On a MAC.

running aperture (one of apples pro apps which has been widely noted as being very graphics card dependant) on my mac pro and 8800gt, every adjustment slider is instant so how could the 2600xt be better?

 

[xraydoc]

running aperture (one of apples pro apps which has been widely noted as being very graphics card dependant) on my mac pro and 8800gt, every adjustment slider is instant so how could the 2600xt be better?

Some of the benchmarks with Motion, which uses Apple's Core Image effects engine are better on the (slower) 2600XT than they are on the (faster) 8800GT. So either this has something to do with the fact that Apple's Core Image engine is far more heavily optimized for ATI chips, or that OS X's nVidia 8800GT driver's are not very well done. So apps that rely heavily on Apple's Core Image effects may perform better on ATI graphics than nVidia at the moment.

Either way, there is the potential for improvement, since the hardware in the 8800GT is far more capable than the 2600XT - and presumably there are no special commands being used in the ATI chips that the nVidia can't do without expending more cycles.

Whether any improvement is to be developed however is up to Apple (and probably nVidia, too).

 

[fluidedge]

8800GT cards are getting to a price that is very reasonable (~£70/$140) - how good is the flashing process? Is the DIY method of putting an 8800GT in your MP as good as the factory fitted card? I'd only want to replace the card myself if the performance of the flashed card is just as good as the factory fitted card.

 

[Roy]

Some of the benchmarks with Motion, which uses Apple's Core Image effects engine are better on the (slower) 2600XT than they are on the (faster) 8800GT. So either this has something to do with the fact that Apple's Core Image engine is far more heavily optimized for ATI chips, or that OS X's nVidia 8800GT driver's are not very well done. So apps that rely heavily on Apple's Core Image effects may perform better on ATI graphics than nVidia at the moment.

Either way, there is the potential for improvement, since the hardware in the 8800GT is far more capable than the 2600XT - and presumably there are no special commands being used in the ATI chips that the nVidia can't do without expending more cycles.

Whether any improvement is to be developed however is up to Apple (and probably nVidia, too).

What I don't understand is the logic (or absence thereof ) behind why a company would spend their dollars on trying to make the card that you have already bought better? They already have your money. Wouldn't they spend their money on the next great card that would make you want to buy it to replace the card you have?