On my 1.5ghz 128mb vram pBook, it was enabled recently by something (not me, I used debug to try it a few times but a restart stops it, i.e. after a security update), but the v1.1 of the last one turned it off again.
The redraw speeds were excellent in a one-monitor setup but it slowed down significantly with two monitors connected. Maybe you need a 9800 with 256MB or higher to get adequate performance out of large or multi monitor systems.
Also, the apple menu at the top left corner turned into some unknown blob once but it went away after I restarted the computer. Hopefully these types of bugs will be fixed soon.
Although the small bugs may be the reason why Apple is not enabling Q2DExtreme, I think it's because Apple doesn't want to disappoint all the users out there when they announce that it will require a 9600 with 128MB for single monitor setups or a 9800 with 256MB for dual or large monitors.
With requirements such as these, 90% of the mac users will not be able to take advantage of Q2DExtreme. People will go to forums and complain that brand new Mac minis, eMacs, ibooks, non-BTO Powerbooks, and one-year old iMacs are obsolete.
Perhaps Apple is waiting for the transition to Intel which will allow Apple to use x86 ROM (cheaper and more abundant) graphics chips. After the intel transition Apple can upgrade all systems with faster graphics cards at a reasonable price.
The ROM has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU architecture.
PowerPC and x86 processors handle endian-issues differently. That's why Radeon cards with x86 ROMs don't work on Macs. ATI and NVIDIA need to program special ROMs to make the cards work in Macs. Naturally they are reluctant to spend a whole lot of resources on a relatively small market. Hence, we always get the best graphics chips late and they are usually more expensive than their PC counterparts.
Once the Mac moves over to x86, they should be able to use standard PC cards thereby reducing the time-to-market, supply, and cost.
If any real engineer out there can disprove this please go ahead. But for the time being, I believe that the ROM is absolutely dependent on CPU architecture.
PowerPC and x86 processors handle endian-issues differently.
Yes, but the ROMs on graphics card, as I have said, have nothing to do with the CPU architecture.
Quote:
That's why Radeon cards with x86 ROMs don't work on Macs.
No, that's not the reason.
Quote:
ATI and NVIDIA need to program special ROMs to make the cards work in Macs. Naturally they are reluctant to spend a whole lot of resources on a relatively small market. Hence, we always get the best graphics chips late and they are usually more expensive than their PC counterparts.
All true.
Quote:
Once the Mac moves over to x86, they should be able to use standard PC cards thereby reducing the time-to-market, supply, and cost.
The move to x86 has nothing to do with that.
Quote:
If any real engineer out there can disprove this please go ahead. But for the time being, I believe that the ROM is absolutely dependent on CPU architecture.
Alright, I'll explain.
Let's assume for a moment that PowerPC-based Macs, as in every Mac since late 1994, were to use something compatibe with the traditional x86 BIOS. That's entirely possible; it would require some adjustments, but that's it. Today's PCs don't exactly use the original BIOS of the late 70s / early 80s anyway; they just use something that's compatible on the outside.
So, if that were true, then your average PC graphics card would work on a Mac. It would require a driver, it wouldn't immediately have the full resolution when you boot (instead, it would have some crippled resolution of 512x384 or whathaveyou) and it would have other issues that graphics card have when they come with a BIOS ROM. But it would work. So why doesn't Apple do that? Because they want something better. That better thing, as of the first PowerPC-based Mac, is OpenFirmware. Before PowerPC, Apple used their own type of ROM, which was in no way similar to the BIOS either, but it was very limited compared to OpenFirmware.
(Someone pedantic is going to note that the first generations of PowerPCs, before PCI was introduced, didn't use OpenFirmware, and that every New World Mac, since the first iMac, actually uses a vastly more enhanced OpenFirmware, but let's leave that out for this argument.)
OpenFirmware introduced many niceties to the architecture of a Mac, the important graphics card-related one being that the graphics card provides the driver. That's right. The driver is right there on the ROM. And it's not, like on a PC card, a driver for a craptacular resolution at 256 colors or less, no, it offers full support for, say, 1920x1080 at 24-bit color. Right from the moment you boot your computer. That's why, when you boot a PC, you start at a low resolution, then once Windows or whatever OS you use has loaded the proper drivers, it switches to a better resolution. On a Mac, from the moment you actually see graphics output (e.g. the grey Apple), you have the full resolution.
However, this is a requirement of OpenFirmware. Graphics cards must provide a proper driver on their ROM. ATi has, it appears, finally figured out how to provide a ROM for both OpenFirmware and BIOS.
It is my understanding that EFI provides similar features to OpenFirmware, maybe even more advanced to some degree. It is unlikely for Apple to switch to BIOS during the x86 move, despite the fact that their developer machine is in fact BIOS-based. Whether they use EFI or OpenFirmware, they will probably end up with a system that will require you to use a Mac-specific video card, unless ATi uses its hybrid technique on all graphics cards from now on and/or licenses that to nVidia (or they figure it out as well).
Too bad Apple didn't adopt the method that Digital took for their Alpha systems, which was to put in enough of a x86 emulator in the system firmware to be able to initialize a video card using it's native x86 BIOS (and then to let the OS take it from there).
Too bad Apple didn't adopt the method that Digital took for their Alpha systems, which was to put in enough of a x86 emulator in the system firmware to be able to initialize a video card using it's native x86 BIOS (and then to let the OS take it from there).
I'm glad they didn't, because I don't want my Mac booting into 512x384 mode at 256 colors with pixelatastication.
Thanks for the detailed response Chucker. But I think that the conversation has shifted a little bit.
From what I read I think you are trying to say that the custom ROMs are necessary because of the way that Apple set up the system firmware and not necessarily the CPU. I appreciate that you cleared that part.
My original point was that there is still a chance that the switch to x86 will make off-the-shelf graphics cards work in our Macs. Sure, Apple might do something with BIOS which might prevent us from doing that but I'm just doing some wishful thinking.
BTW, I know that the x86 transition is not for graphics cards. I thought that it might be a fortunate byproduct.
My original point was that there is still a chance that the switch to x86 will make off-the-shelf graphics cards work in our Macs.
There is, but from previous comments of Apple developers, I would consider that unlikely. I'd rather ATi, nVidia and perhaps even XGi and/or Matrox adopt a hybrid ROM.
Quote:
Sure, Apple might do something with BIOS which might prevent us from doing that but I'm just doing some wishful thinking.
Apple isn't interested in such lock-outs; they are not the motivation. Apple would, I'm sure, prefer to have more, cheaper graphics cards available. It's just not feasible in the current setup, and it's only relevant to one Mac model (the PowerMac), so it's not a major concern.
Quote:
BTW, I know that the x86 transition is not for graphics cards. I thought that it might be a fortunate byproduct.
Yes, it's possible (by Apple moving to BIOS). I merely meant to clarify that the architecture per se is not part of it.
The redraw speeds were excellent in a one-monitor setup but it slowed down significantly with two monitors connected. Maybe you need a 9800 with 256MB or higher to get adequate performance out of large or multi monitor systems.
Hmm, very interesting - window performance was fine with a dual monitor setup on my 9800. We configured two 19' inch LCD panels, both running at native 1280x1024 resolutions, and Quartz performed smooth. Maybe performance drops with higher resolutions, or recent builds of 10.4 actually utilize Q2DE? I was saving for a second display, but after this information, I'll have to hold off.\
Hmm, very interesting - window performance was fine with a dual monitor setup on my 9800. We configured two 19' inch LCD panels, both running at native 1280x1024 resolutions, and Quartz performed smooth.
My card is a 9600. That confirms my theory that a 9800 is needed for a smooth dual-monitor setup. How much VRAM does your 9800 have?
Comments
If you have a higher-end graphics card then it does more stuff on the card and less on the CPU.
All OS X-capable computers are CoreImage capable.
Originally posted by DanMacMan
You should run a search before posting. This topic has been discussed in various threads, beginning with the original here.
Thanks. I did made a search, but didn't found this one.
So any other speculations why Q2E isn't yet enabled ?
It still has bugs. Once those are stomped, I'm sure it'll be enabled by default. Right now, it's there for developer testing.
Originally posted by Kali
By default, Quartz 2D Extreme has been disabled by Apple. Is it the same as "Core images" ? And why Apple has disabled this feature ?
I just posted the link to Quartz Debug last night. It's in one of the threads here somewhere.
The redraw speeds were excellent in a one-monitor setup but it slowed down significantly with two monitors connected. Maybe you need a 9800 with 256MB or higher to get adequate performance out of large or multi monitor systems.
Also, the apple menu at the top left corner turned into some unknown blob once but it went away after I restarted the computer. Hopefully these types of bugs will be fixed soon.
Although the small bugs may be the reason why Apple is not enabling Q2DExtreme, I think it's because Apple doesn't want to disappoint all the users out there when they announce that it will require a 9600 with 128MB for single monitor setups or a 9800 with 256MB for dual or large monitors.
With requirements such as these, 90% of the mac users will not be able to take advantage of Q2DExtreme. People will go to forums and complain that brand new Mac minis, eMacs, ibooks, non-BTO Powerbooks, and one-year old iMacs are obsolete.
Perhaps Apple is waiting for the transition to Intel which will allow Apple to use x86 ROM (cheaper and more abundant) graphics chips. After the intel transition Apple can upgrade all systems with faster graphics cards at a reasonable price.
That's when Apple will likely enable Q2DExtreme.
Originally posted by BeigeUser
Perhaps Apple is waiting for the transition to Intel which will allow Apple to use x86 ROM (cheaper and more abundant) graphics chips.
The ROM has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU architecture.
Originally posted by Chucker
The ROM has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU architecture.
PowerPC and x86 processors handle endian-issues differently. That's why Radeon cards with x86 ROMs don't work on Macs. ATI and NVIDIA need to program special ROMs to make the cards work in Macs. Naturally they are reluctant to spend a whole lot of resources on a relatively small market. Hence, we always get the best graphics chips late and they are usually more expensive than their PC counterparts.
Once the Mac moves over to x86, they should be able to use standard PC cards thereby reducing the time-to-market, supply, and cost.
If any real engineer out there can disprove this please go ahead. But for the time being, I believe that the ROM is absolutely dependent on CPU architecture.
Originally posted by BeigeUser
PowerPC and x86 processors handle endian-issues differently.
Yes, but the ROMs on graphics card, as I have said, have nothing to do with the CPU architecture.
That's why Radeon cards with x86 ROMs don't work on Macs.
No, that's not the reason.
ATI and NVIDIA need to program special ROMs to make the cards work in Macs. Naturally they are reluctant to spend a whole lot of resources on a relatively small market. Hence, we always get the best graphics chips late and they are usually more expensive than their PC counterparts.
All true.
Once the Mac moves over to x86, they should be able to use standard PC cards thereby reducing the time-to-market, supply, and cost.
The move to x86 has nothing to do with that.
If any real engineer out there can disprove this please go ahead. But for the time being, I believe that the ROM is absolutely dependent on CPU architecture.
Alright, I'll explain.
Let's assume for a moment that PowerPC-based Macs, as in every Mac since late 1994, were to use something compatibe with the traditional x86 BIOS. That's entirely possible; it would require some adjustments, but that's it. Today's PCs don't exactly use the original BIOS of the late 70s / early 80s anyway; they just use something that's compatible on the outside.
So, if that were true, then your average PC graphics card would work on a Mac. It would require a driver, it wouldn't immediately have the full resolution when you boot (instead, it would have some crippled resolution of 512x384 or whathaveyou) and it would have other issues that graphics card have when they come with a BIOS ROM. But it would work. So why doesn't Apple do that? Because they want something better. That better thing, as of the first PowerPC-based Mac, is OpenFirmware. Before PowerPC, Apple used their own type of ROM, which was in no way similar to the BIOS either, but it was very limited compared to OpenFirmware.
(Someone pedantic is going to note that the first generations of PowerPCs, before PCI was introduced, didn't use OpenFirmware, and that every New World Mac, since the first iMac, actually uses a vastly more enhanced OpenFirmware, but let's leave that out for this argument.)
OpenFirmware introduced many niceties to the architecture of a Mac, the important graphics card-related one being that the graphics card provides the driver. That's right. The driver is right there on the ROM. And it's not, like on a PC card, a driver for a craptacular resolution at 256 colors or less, no, it offers full support for, say, 1920x1080 at 24-bit color. Right from the moment you boot your computer. That's why, when you boot a PC, you start at a low resolution, then once Windows or whatever OS you use has loaded the proper drivers, it switches to a better resolution. On a Mac, from the moment you actually see graphics output (e.g. the grey Apple), you have the full resolution.
However, this is a requirement of OpenFirmware. Graphics cards must provide a proper driver on their ROM. ATi has, it appears, finally figured out how to provide a ROM for both OpenFirmware and BIOS.
It is my understanding that EFI provides similar features to OpenFirmware, maybe even more advanced to some degree. It is unlikely for Apple to switch to BIOS during the x86 move, despite the fact that their developer machine is in fact BIOS-based. Whether they use EFI or OpenFirmware, they will probably end up with a system that will require you to use a Mac-specific video card, unless ATi uses its hybrid technique on all graphics cards from now on and/or licenses that to nVidia (or they figure it out as well).
Again: the CPU has nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by nguyenhm16
Too bad Apple didn't adopt the method that Digital took for their Alpha systems, which was to put in enough of a x86 emulator in the system firmware to be able to initialize a video card using it's native x86 BIOS (and then to let the OS take it from there).
I'm glad they didn't, because I don't want my Mac booting into 512x384 mode at 256 colors with pixelatastication.
From what I read I think you are trying to say that the custom ROMs are necessary because of the way that Apple set up the system firmware and not necessarily the CPU. I appreciate that you cleared that part.
My original point was that there is still a chance that the switch to x86 will make off-the-shelf graphics cards work in our Macs. Sure, Apple might do something with BIOS which might prevent us from doing that but I'm just doing some wishful thinking.
BTW, I know that the x86 transition is not for graphics cards. I thought that it might be a fortunate byproduct.
Originally posted by BeigeUser
My original point was that there is still a chance that the switch to x86 will make off-the-shelf graphics cards work in our Macs.
There is, but from previous comments of Apple developers, I would consider that unlikely. I'd rather ATi, nVidia and perhaps even XGi and/or Matrox adopt a hybrid ROM.
Sure, Apple might do something with BIOS which might prevent us from doing that but I'm just doing some wishful thinking.
Apple isn't interested in such lock-outs; they are not the motivation. Apple would, I'm sure, prefer to have more, cheaper graphics cards available. It's just not feasible in the current setup, and it's only relevant to one Mac model (the PowerMac), so it's not a major concern.
BTW, I know that the x86 transition is not for graphics cards. I thought that it might be a fortunate byproduct.
Yes, it's possible (by Apple moving to BIOS). I merely meant to clarify that the architecture per se is not part of it.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that applicaions need to be profiled differently to get any benefit.
So I think apple is giving developers more time to get their apps ready?
Tim
Originally posted by BeigeUser
The redraw speeds were excellent in a one-monitor setup but it slowed down significantly with two monitors connected. Maybe you need a 9800 with 256MB or higher to get adequate performance out of large or multi monitor systems.
Hmm, very interesting - window performance was fine with a dual monitor setup on my 9800. We configured two 19' inch LCD panels, both running at native 1280x1024 resolutions, and Quartz performed smooth. Maybe performance drops with higher resolutions, or recent builds of 10.4 actually utilize Q2DE? I was saving for a second display, but after this information, I'll have to hold off.
Originally posted by semi-fly
Hmm, very interesting - window performance was fine with a dual monitor setup on my 9800. We configured two 19' inch LCD panels, both running at native 1280x1024 resolutions, and Quartz performed smooth.
My card is a 9600. That confirms my theory that a 9800 is needed for a smooth dual-monitor setup. How much VRAM does your 9800 have?