Mac OS X 10.5.7 may have Nehalem, Radeon HD 4000 support

2

Comments

  • ltcommander.dataltcommander.data Posts: 327member
    It's doubtful that Apple will include SLI or Crossfire to combine 2 or more GPUs to output graphics since as others have pointed out, the benefit is mainly constrained to the Mac Pro and for games. For the MacBook Pro, some type of Hybrid SLI is inefficient anyways since the GPUs are different requiring even more overhead than normal SLI for load-balancing further reducing the benefits. Further SLI and Crossfire requires per game optimization to actually work, otherwise there could be no benefit or even worse performance than a single GPU. Given Apple's slow turn-around on graphics drivers for games, the chances of them dedicating an entire driver team to go through each game to write an SLI profile for it and a separate Crossfire profile, is highly unlikely.



    As Marvin mentions, what Apple will be doing in Snow Leopard in Grand Central is allowing multiple GPUs to work in parallel for GPGPU tasks with OpenCL. SLI and Crossfire try to make multiple GPUs appear like a single GPU for games which is inherently inefficient do to synchronization. With Grand Central and OpenCL, OS X will be able to assign different tasks or applications to different GPUs which allows them to work independently. So people with 4 HD2600XT in their Mac Pro, may be able to accelerate 4 OpenCL rendering jobs at a time. This doesn't directly benefit games in raw fps, but will allow for more realistic games. For example, on a MacBook Pro a game could render it's graphics on the 9600M GT and use the 9400M for the physics engine using OpenCL.
  • mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    With iMac inventories getting smaller by the day, if this rumor is true then we should see 10.5.7 with the new iMacs, Mac Minis and Mac Pros in a week or two. Awesome!



    I'm looking forward to getting a new Mac Mini with the latest OS and all.
  • hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 11,884member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTel View Post


    With iMac inventories getting smaller by the day, if this rumor is true then we should see 10.5.7 with the new iMacs, Mac Minis and Mac Pros in a week or two. Awesome!



    I'm looking forward to getting a new Mac Mini with the latest OS and all.



    Yes 10.5.7 looks to be the OS the can bring forth these new iMacs and Mac mini as well as the Mac Pro. It's about time.
  • outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTel View Post


    With iMac inventories getting smaller by the day, if this rumor is true then we should see 10.5.7 with the new iMacs, Mac Minis and Mac Pros in a week or two. Awesome!



    I'm looking forward to getting a new Mac Mini with the latest OS and all.



    Heh, you and me both. Yesterday my iMac G5 died. It went in last november to have the PSU replaced under extended recall, and now I think the current issue is the logic board capacitors problem afflicting these iMacs. \ I've heard of Apple fixing these for free so I'm bring it in to the Apple store to see if they will fix for free under last year's expired recall program but if they don't fix it, I'm getting a new Mac soon. This 12" PowerBook won't suffice for long. Bring on the new machines already!
  • outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Yes 10.5.7 looks to be the OS the can bring forth these new iMacs and Mac mini as well as the Mac Pro. It's about time.



    Agreed, this looks to be the best evidence to date for new desktops soon. In the past they have released new machines with a new OS before other computers get it through system update. I hope this is the case this time.
  • amac4meamac4me Posts: 282member
    Hopefully 10.5.7 will be out soon in conjunction with desktop updates!
  • sapssaps Posts: 4member
    I've been hearing "evidence" of upcoming hardware releases for a while now (like the rest of you). I just hope this really is an indicator and that it is sooner rather than later.
  • jcarcinogenjcarcinogen Posts: 1member
    If anyone is interested, the new ATI framebuffer (motmot) does fully work with one monitor and no glitches. The video card's bios must be modified so that all of the memory clock speed is 993. More info can be found at insanelymac for educational/enthusist purposes.



    http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/ind...720&start=720#
  • mrenglish(tm)mrenglish(tm) Posts: 29member
    I really do hope the desktop updates come out soon. I'm dying to upgrade my trusty 3yr old PowerMac G5 Quad for a new 24" iMac - hopefully featuring either a Core 2 Quad or Core i7. Even if the iMac doesn't go Quad core I'm gonna pull the trigger and upgrade from PowerPC to Intel.



    Next I plan to upgrade my 3yr old 12" PowerBook G4 to a 13" MacBook Aluminum.



    Later this year I hope to buy a 17" MBP... just waiting for Apple to offer a Quad core MBP



    2009 will be the year I make the transition from PowerPC to Intel - It's been a long time coming for me
  • winterspanwinterspan Posts: 605member
    Just to correct some of the information in the post:



    1) Core i7 is just a brandname for only ONE type of "Nehalem" CPU. It refers specifically to the current consumer-targeted single-CPU, quad-core desktop model that still has a separate northbridge and southbridge on the chipset. This will in all likelihood NOT find use in an iMac as it consumes way to much power.



    2) In the near future, Intel will release the next two consumer models of Nehalem condenamed "Clarksfield" (laptop) and "Lynnfield" (desktop). These may be known as "Core i5". These are quad-core CPUs similar to the Core i7, but unlike the Core i7 they are more integrated with the "northbridge" part of the chipset built-in to the CPU. These will use a lot less power, particularly the laptop models, and would be ideal for the iMac (and possibly the MB Pro, although they use slightly more power than the current top-end C2D in the MB Pro ).



    3) Finally, sometime during the Q1 2010, Intel will release two dual-core models that integrate the GPU into the processor package. "Arrandale" (laptop) and "Clarksdale" (desktop), these will be ideal for the Mac Mini and Macbook. I don't believe the final marketing name is known for these.



    If anyone sees a mistake or wants to add something, feel free...
  • ltcommander.dataltcommander.data Posts: 327member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winterspan View Post


    Just to correct some of the information in the post:



    1) Core i7 is just a brandname for only ONE type of "Nehalem" CPU. It refers specifically to the current consumer-targeted single-CPU, quad-core desktop model that still has a separate northbridge and southbridge on the chipset. This will in all likelihood NOT find use in an iMac as it consumes way to much power.



    2) In the near future, Intel will release the next two consumer models of Nehalem condenamed "Clarksfield" (laptop) and "Lynnfield" (desktop). These may be known as "Core i5". These are quad-core CPUs similar to the Core i7, but unlike the Core i7 they are more integrated with the "northbridge" part of the chipset built-in to the CPU. These will use a lot less power, particularly the laptop models, and would be ideal for the iMac (and possibly the MB Pro, although they use slightly more power than the current top-end C2D in the MB Pro ).



    3) Finally, sometime during the Q1 2010, Intel will release two dual-core models that integrate the GPU into the processor package. "Arrandale" (laptop) and "Clarksdale" (desktop), these will be ideal for the Mac Mini and Macbook. I don't believe the final marketing name is known for these.



    If anyone sees a mistake or wants to add something, feel free...



    Just to follow up, Gainestown is the Nehalem chip coming to dual processor Xeons and presumably the Mac Pro. It's basically a Bloomfield with both QPI links enabled. Arrandale and Clarksdale are 32nm shrinks of Nehalem based on the Westmere microarchitecture. H1 2010 should see Bloomfield Core i7 and Gainestown Xeon chips be replaced with a 6-core 12 thread Westmere derivative called Gulftown. Supposedly there won't be any further 32nm quad core chips to replace Clarksfield or Lynnfield until the next microarchitecture Sandy Bridge in H2 2010. That's really too bad since 32nm is what's really needed to push the power and heat low-enough to allow quad cores to have widespread use on mainstream thermal requirements, particularly for thin notebooks like the MacBook Pro.



    On another note, I wonder how effective Leopard's scheduler is in handling Hyperthreading? It's always a concern that the OS will schedule 2 resource heavy threads onto the virtual units of the same physical core reducing performance compared to smartly making sure to use individual physical cores first before doubling up. I'm guessing that even if 10.5.7 adds Nehalem support, it'll have to wait until Snow Leopard to fully optimize for things like Hyperthreading. Kind of like 10.2.8 added support for the G5, but 10.3 Panther was needed to really take advantage of it's newer features.



    And if I'm not mistaken the compiler in XCode is currently set to default to SSE2 for both x86 and x64 programs. This is equivalent to Windows where 64-bit programs default to compiling with SSE2 to accommodate the original AMD Athlon 64 chips which had 64-bit support but not SSE3 support. However, since Apple adopted later, all 64-bit supporting chips in Macs, namely the Merom and Penryn based chips, have at least SSSE3 support. It'd be great if Apple defaulting 64-bit Intel programs to compile to SSSE3, since all 64-bit Macs support it anyways, and as a superset it incorporates SSE3 which had specific instructions designed to optimize for Hyperthreading. 32-bit Intel can remain defaulted to SSE2 since although the Yonah Core Duo supports SSE3, the Dothan based CPU used for the AppleTV only supports SSE2, and it'd probably be simpler if Apple didn't change the default settings which could effect existing 32-bit apps. There are fewer 64-bit Intel apps, so if a change in default settings is made it should be done before the market blossoms.
  • vitaflovitaflo Posts: 35member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sausage&Onion View Post


    Well clearly this means that there will be a new type of architecture released BEFORE the Snow Leopard launch. Otherwise the damn computer would launch with Snow Leopard installed and there would be no need to make leopard compatible. Very interesting indeed. I guess thats a final nail in the 'early release' rumor for 10.6



    You're getting ahead of yourself. Lots of IT depts will not upgrade to Snow Leopard even if it comes with the new Mac Pro. Apple has to make the new Mac Pro compatible with 10.5 if it wants to sell it for business. Unlike many of us, businesses do not upgrade the OS as soon as it comes out.



    As an example, our IT dept just upgraded us to Leopard a few weeks ago. I'm due for a new MP end of year. It will not have SL on it when I get it from IT. So the fact that it has this in 10.5.7 is meaningless as to when an architecture will launch. It only points to what it will be when it does.
  • winterspanwinterspan Posts: 605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post


    Supposedly there won't be any further 32nm quad core chips to replace Clarksfield or Lynnfield until the next microarchitecture Sandy Bridge in H2 2010. That's really too bad since 32nm is what's really needed to push the power and heat low-enough to allow quad cores to have widespread use on mainstream thermal requirements, particularly for thin notebooks like the MacBook Pro.



    Yeah, I forgot they killed the 45nm dual-core + GPU and moved up it's 32nm replacement. About the mainstream quad-cores -- I can't imagine the reason why they would do that! Like you said, if anything, Clarksfield would stand to benefit the most from a newer process.

    What do you think they'll do with the MB Pro then? Surely they can't keep using Core 2 Duos until Arrandale?? I hope they would re-engineer it to accept a C2Q or Clarksfield.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post


    On another note, I wonder how effective Leopard's scheduler is in handling Hyperthreading? It's always a concern that the OS will schedule 2 resource heavy threads onto the virtual units of the same physical core reducing performance compared to smartly making sure to use individual physical cores first before doubling up.



    I've always wondered how that was going to be done.. I assume the CPU can tell the kernel which threads fall on which core so it negate that issue? Will this be a major modification to OSX?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post


    32-bit Intel can remain defaulted to SSE2 since although the Yonah Core Duo supports SSE3, the Dothan based CPU used for the AppleTV only supports SSE2, and it'd probably be simpler if Apple didn't change the default settings which could effect existing 32-bit apps.



    Well, shouldn't the ATV be irrelevant as developers don't have access to creating software for it anyways? And as far as existing apps, wouldn't developers just have to check the SSE2-only box anyways.
  • astrakanastrakan Posts: 2member
    Again, first-time poster here. Hi everyone!



    So, I upgrade my Mac Pro (early 2008) to 10.5.7, take out its 8800GT card, put in my HD4870 (that's currently in a Windows machine) and it'll all work flawlessly?



    Or not? \
  • outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by astrakan View Post


    Again, first-time poster here. Hi everyone!



    So, I upgrade my Mac Pro (early 2008) to 10.5.7, take out its 8800GT card, put in my HD4870 (that's currently in a Windows machine) and it'll all work flawlessly?



    Or not? \



    No. What will work is a 4870 card made specifically for the Mac with a Mac and EFI compatible ROM on the card. If this information means that support for the 4000 series is coming then someone (Apple or ATI) is making the video card.



    But it does mean you should be able to flash the ROM of you current card with a ROM from the Mac version and it should work. No guarantees but it's been known to work with other cards like the 8800 series from NVIDIA and I once did it way back in the Radeon 8500 days in my AGP G4.
  • astrakanastrakan Posts: 2member
    Ahh, I suspected so. Thanks for the info, though.
  • nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    Oh, you will...you will.



    Ha! Brilliant Yoda quote. I am half asleep but it popped out at me. Geekness FTW.
  • maury markowitzmaury markowitz Posts: 295member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post


    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

    The 512MB HD4870 is pretty much a mid-range card now at about $175, which is pretty much consistent with the existing HD2600XT's price point when it was originally introduced. The 1GB HD4870 would be better of course, but at $220, it's a bit expensive for what Apple usually bundles as the low-end option. At $225, the GTX260 Core 216 is a bit cheap for a high-end option, so the GTX285 at $350 seems reasonable, and is also the fastest single GPU graphics card available, and is cooler than the GTX280 being on a 55nm process instead of 65nm.



    I'm curious if you might point me to a non-geekish comparison of my current 8800 GT vs. the HD4870? If this is the new mid-range card that will be offered BTO, and there's a version for my first-gen MacPro, I'd be interested to see if it's "worth it" in performance terms.



    Maury
  • futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post


    I'm curious if you might point me to a non-geekish comparison of my current 8800 GT vs. the HD4870? If this is the new mid-range card that will be offered BTO, and there's a version for my first-gen MacPro, I'd be interested to see if it's "worth it" in performance terms.



    Maury



    I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a non-geekish graphics benchmarking review, but on Windows the 4870 is around 50% faster than an 8800GT depending on the game and resolution.



    Here, some guy compared them and made a few pretty easy-to-read graphs.
  • wickedrabbitwickedrabbit Posts: 2member
    So I'm potentially about to become a new Mac customer, but because of the rumors everyone has been telling me to wait at least another month or two before purchasing a system. Primarily, I have my eyes on what the Mac Pro's might be getting because if these two rumors pan out (core i7 and Radeon HD 4800 series card) doesn't that also make the system FINALLY suitable for gaming (so long as you run windows in bootcamp anyway)?



    One thing that's always kept me away from Apple is their limited (or should I say ZERO?) interest in gaming. Granted, the Mac's are "bad" at gaming, but it's pretty budget with what you get and you can't run anything really at medium to max settings or at high resolution.



    I have zero interest in using a Mac Pro for what Apple probably intends other than occasionally editing a few videos here and there for my website, but I was about to either buy a Mac or just build a new Core i7 PC and call it a day.



    People have told me that despite the fact that even the current Mac Pro's are pretty powerful, the CPU is not optimized and designed for gaming and I can look at the graphics card and tell it's budget for gaming. But, a Core i7 and 4800 (not the highest end card on the market currently, but amongst the top) would make for a good system, unless Apple limits it somehow, right?
Sign In or Register to comment.