or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Screw SLI, when do we get this in our Macs...?!?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Screw SLI, when do we get this in our Macs...?!? - Page 3

post #81 of 162
well, i am tending towards the otherway. here are the challenges with the above 6800gt dual and 6600gt dual from gigabyte:

1. no distinct improvements over 2 separate SLI'ed cards in benchmarks (it benches the same as two separate SLI'ed cards)
2. you can only use a gigabyte motherboard AFAIK
3. the dual is big, heavy and noisy, compared with say, two MSI 6600gts which have the 'copperflower big-fan' type of heatsink design which IMHO is the best and quietest type of design around. eg. my zalman pure-copper-flower-big-fan cpu cooler.

admittedly, the dual-gpu is slightly cheaper-per-GPU than two cards.......

edit: the dual-gpu on one card still is only the equivalent of dual x8 down a 1x16 pci express slot (which one would think, of course, since there is no 1x32 pci express slot at the moment)
post #82 of 162
It's cheaper, but unlike in gaming if your using it for 3D apps you very well may need the extra Memory per card. Although if you are using SLI for 3D you would probably be going with a quadro anyway. But if you soft quadro (which isn't possible on the mac yet - neither is quadro, or SLI for that matter) the memory would be your big bonus. I don't think games can address that much of it yet.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #83 of 162
Thread Starter 
Rather than start another thread...

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thum...2005/9/13/1215

But this is the dual 8x channel mode...

What we want from Apple is the Delux-o SLI v2.1 dual 16x channel mode...!

;^p
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #84 of 162
yup the intel is nice but...

"The 975X will come with a built-in PCIe x16 interface, which will allow motherboard makers to design boards with dual PCIe x8 slots to support dual-graphics technology, the sources noted."
-only dual x8 SLI/crossfire as macronin said

"The 975X will come with a 65nm version of the dual-core Pentium Extreme Edition 955 processor, which supports 1066MHz FSB speeds and 2x2MB of L2 cache (4MB of L2 cache per central processing unit in total), according to the sources."
-that is a nice bus speed and some fat (phat) cache.
but dual-core with hyperthreading Intel pentium is going to be (a)expensive (b)quite hot
post #85 of 162
Intel has had Dual 8x PCI-E boards for over a year. What they need is Dual 16X
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #86 of 162
anyone got a link for amd/asus/whatever dual 16x boards? none shipping yet IIRC, but i could be very wrong...
post #87 of 162
Tyan has been shipping them. They are in BOXX, and Alienware computers.

Dual PCI Express x16 slots with FULL SPEED x16 lanes on each slot to support NVIDIA SLI technology at unprecedented speeds.


[EDIT] = BTW, this is also dual core ready. 2x dual core processors.


Quote:
Answering the call for more power to meet the demands of customer applications, the Thunder K8WE (S2895) delivers new heights of performance never before available in the workstation market. Based on the NVIDIA nForce Professional 2200 and 2050 core-logic solutions, the Thunder K8WE (S2895) also features support for dual AMD Opteron 200 series processors with 32-bit and 64-bit power, Dual PCI Express x16 slots with FULL SPEED x16 lanes on each slot to support NVIDIA SLI technology at unprecedented speeds. Other features such as USB 2.0, FireWire, Serial ATA-II with NVRAID, audio, and NVIDIA nTune support, the Thunder K8WE (S2895) provides speed and capabilities for next generation worksation systems.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #88 of 162
If Apple enters the Pro market I hope they can match that.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #89 of 162
edit: is that board very expensive? hmm i'll check out the link, thanks.
edit2: i'm waiting for an nForce-4 quad cpu board (dual athlonx2) with dual-pciexpress16x
edit3: what i would do with it i have no idea unless of course mac os x can run on it
post #90 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
edit: is that board very expensive? hmm i'll check out the link, thanks.
edit2: i'm waiting for an nForce-4 quad cpu board (dual athlonx2) with dual-pciexpress16x
edit3: what i would do with it i have no idea unless of course mac os x can run on it

I didn't think there was dual Athlon board. Isn't the Athlon only suited, and made for single processor boards?
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #91 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
... Isn't the Athlon only suited, and made for single processor boards?

i think you're correct! i'm new to this whole AMD thing. only got my first *ever* AMD two months ago. i only used to own intels back in the day, then macs for the past 5 years. now i'm back to messing around with different stuff.

are they planning to have dualcore opterons? i saw the intel dev forum keynote webcast so i'm familiar with their roadmap, hmm i'm gonna check out the AMD roadmap...
post #92 of 162
yup... dualcore opteron workstations are here:
"Dual-Core AMD Opteron Processors Power New Workstation Series From Fujitsu Siemens Computers

Fujitsu Siemens Computers unveils quiet, green-friendly dual-processor workstation CELSIUS V830 workstation with AMD64 technology

MUNICH, GERMANY -- August 30, 2005 --AMD (NYSE: AMD) today announced that Fujitsu Siemens Computers, a leading European IT provider, is offering a new series of workstations based on the AMD Opteron processor. The CELSIUS V830 supports the Dual-Core AMD Opteron processor Models 275, 270 and 265, which offer the best overall performance and performance-per-watt available in the market1.

This 64-bit workstation is expected to bring leading-edge calculation and graphics performance to users operating in compute-intensive and memory-demanding environments, including engineering, digital content creation, visualization, virtual reality and scientific computing.

AMD and Fujitsu Siemens Computers have worked closely together to design a powerful and energy-saving platform leveraging AMDs technology leadership in dual-core processing to address the specific requirements of the professional user, said Alberto Macchi, vice president of sales, AMD EMEA. The Dual-Core AMD Opteron processor with Direct Connect Architecture provides the computing capacity to support the growing number of applications typically required by this market segment. Additionally, AMD64 technology protects companies software investments by enabling a seamless migration from 32-bit to 64-bit and single- to dual-core computing as business needs evolve.

AMD64 technology, the gold standard for 64-bit computing, is designed to deliver the higher performance of a multi-core processor in the same power envelope and the same infrastructure as a single-core AMD64 processor. For workstation customers, this means the Dual-Core AMD Opteron processor provides the best performance-per-watt ratio in the industry1.

The CELSIUS V series offers system performance up to 32 GB DDR SDRAM. The CELSIUS V830 from Fujitsu Siemens Computers consists of a RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) compliant base unit and a significantly improved housing and thermal management system over prior Fujitsu Siemens Computers workstations. According to information provided by Fujitsu Siemens Computers, this leads to a noise-level reduction of approximately 50 percent over competitive systems. "

now where's the quad (dual cpu dualcore) opterons with 4GPU SLI full 4x 16xpci express it just never bloody ends does it?
post #93 of 162
A couple days ago I was at a friend's place and got to try FarCry at 1920x1200 with a single 7800GT.

Runs perfect.

What was the rationale for the whole SLI deal again?
post #94 of 162
Originally posted by Gon
What was the rationale for the whole SLI deal again?


It's like having sex with two somewhat hot twins instead of one really hot person.
Or, in the case of SLI'd 2x7800gtx, having sex with two really hot twins.
post #95 of 162
Dual core Opterons have been available. LIke I have been saying for months. BOXX, and Alienware are both selling them.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #96 of 162
okay here ya go: intel pentium D dual core with full 2 x 16x nvidia 7800 gtx SLI. from our friends at dell. i wonder what mobo they are using, anyone know?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/feature_xps_x16.html


review is here:
http://extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1845014,00.asp

somewhat less expensive than a tyan-board-based system if i am not wrong. here's a paragraph that references the Opteron stuff. so, i would like to say, hats off to you folk that have been talking about dual-opterons and dualcore opterons all along. i hope that opterons get more marketshare and glamour, particularly now that sun is offering them in their server lines to go up against dell? hmm...

"If this looks vaguely familiar, it should. It's pretty much the same layout as used in AMD Opteronbased workstations using Nvidia's Nforce4 Professional core logic. The CK804 chip, which is actually being used as a southbridge (or I/O controller hub, if you prefer), is actually the same chip as the Nforce4 Professional 2050. The Nforce4 SLI for Intel chip (labeled C19 in the diagram) is connected to the CK804 chip via a HyperTransport link. So this system is really a workstation in disguise. Perhaps a better way to look at it is that the workstation stuff is moving down into the high end of the consumer segment.

The net result is a total of 40 PCI Express lanes. Of the 40, 32 are used for the two graphics card slots, leaving eight for other purposes, such as networking or expansion slots. One of the PCIe x16 slots hands off the MCP while the other one hangs off the "southbridge". The HyperTransport link, plus Nvidia's SLI link card offers enough bandwidth to enable the two graphics card to communicate with each other.

While Dell is first out the chute, Nforce4 SLI X16 will be supporting AMD processors as well as Intel, so AMD enthusiasts won't be left out in the cold. That also means that prices for the older motherboardslet's call them "Nforce4 SLI X8" for clarity's sakewill be dropping a bit. Now buyers will have a full range of SLI solutions available. An upcoming driver release will even enable SLI for mainstream GeForce 6600 cards that don't have the small SLI connector on the top of the card. Instead, data transfers will be handled exclusively over PCI Express. Given lesser capabilities and bandwidth of the 6600, this shouldn't be an issue. "
post #97 of 162
oh, btw, those dell cases are completely retarded. have y'all tried flipping open the front panel, it doesn't open completely, and you have to stick your usb drive up into the usb drive at a very weird and akward angle... maybe it has been fixed on the later revs, but at my school lab the other day, bloody tragic it was

here's the heatsink for the pentium D mmm... chunky and not copper-only \


okay i will stop my dell bashing now. they've got a good 7800gtx solution that reduces noise from the two 7800s
post #98 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I think that is because of Apple needs to use a better understanding between OpenGL, and the OS. I think there will be some big changes in the future with Intel Macs, and graphics which will lead to a new way that the OS has it's OGL structured for gaming, and app specific graphics, but it seems the OS has it's OGL built deep within to compliment the OS's features it self, which is great, but they need both to satisfy the end user sufficiently, and completely.

I'm sorry I saw this thread so late into it it.

Apple's implementation of Open GL is oriented towards pro apps such as CAD/CAM and not gaming.

That is one of the reasons the dual 2.7 machine with a 6800 card performs so poorly against the same setup on a PC. This has been talked to death already on several other sites shortly after Doom 3 came out for the Mac.

Despite what a poster or two said much earlier on this thread (I try to read all posts first) a 9800 board is almost obsolete today. I hate to even think about the 9600 lines.

A 6800 board will shatter a 9800, an 800 will as well. The 7800 far exceeds the 6800 and 800's as do the new 1800's due out shortly.

Make no mistake about it, neither SLI or Crossfire, even if available on the Mac now, would make more than a little improvement in most gaming situations. Unless Apple decides, or even realizes that its Open GL implementation needs to be adjusted none of these solutions will matter.

Is it important to get 32 up to 34fps for double the cost, because that's about all one can expect. Due to the implementation, it's the cpu that limits the performance as much as, or more than, the GPU.

The other point here about the two ways that dual boards are being done is that Nvidia had plenty of time to come up with their scheme. ATI reacted hurriedly. The ATI solution while it has some dubious advantages, has well known problems because of that rush.

By the time Apple MIGHT be in a position to use dual Video cards, ATI at least, will have a much better system in place.

And if Apple solves its GL problems in time for the x86 Powermac launch, remember that Apple likes to do things itself, in its own way. We might see an Apple built-in solution - if they are interested.
post #99 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
It's cheaper, but unlike in gaming if your using it for 3D apps you very well may need the extra Memory per card. Although if you are using SLI for 3D you would probably be going with a quadro anyway. But if you soft quadro (which isn't possible on the mac yet - neither is quadro, or SLI for that matter) the memory would be your big bonus. I don't think games can address that much of it yet.

Here's the other problem I wanted to discuss. ALL gaming boards work poorly in a pro 3D app. No exceptions. They simply aren't designed for that purpose.

I would much rather have one $800 pro graphics board than two $500 gaming boards. Unfortunatly Apple hasn't seen fit to encourage the companies to produce one for them.

This is unfortunate because many companies doing pro 3D work, as well as the software companies producing the software have complained LOUDLY about this lack.

One medium level pro graphics board can significantly out perform any dual gaming card configuration. Easily.
post #100 of 162
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Here's the other problem I wanted to discuss. ALL gaming boards work poorly in a pro 3D app. No exceptions. They simply aren't designed for that purpose.

I would much rather have one $800 pro graphics board than two $500 gaming boards. Unfortunatly Apple hasn't seen fit to encourage the companies to produce one for them.

This is unfortunate because many companies doing pro 3D work, as well as the software companies producing the software have complained LOUDLY about this lack.

One medium level pro graphics board can significantly out perform any dual gaming card configuration. Easily.

And I would rather have Two (2) pro-level OpenGL cards in SLI/CrossFire configuration than anything else...

We (that's the royal We) don't care about gaming...

They make consoles for that...
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #101 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
And I would rather have Two (2) pro-level OpenGL cards in SLI/CrossFire configuration than anything else...

We (that's the royal We) don't care about gaming...

They make consoles for that...

We'll just have to see if that happens. It's up to ATI and Nvidia.
post #102 of 162
Actually that depends on Apple. How they decide to design the graphics system around their intel boards is the biggest leap, or mistake they will ever make. If you could plug the majority of standard PC graphics cards into a Mac without a fuss it would completely change the way people thought about Macs. If not. Well, not much would change.
If I were in charge of hardware at Apple I would put everything into making that a possibility.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #103 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Actually that depends on Apple. How they decide to design the graphics system around their intel boards is the biggest leap, or mistake they will ever make. If you could plug the majority of standard PC graphics cards into a Mac without a fuss it would completely change the way people thought about Macs. If not. Well, not much would change.
If I were in charge of hardware at Apple I would put everything into making that a possibility.

It's really not that. ATI just came out with a board that plugs into either a Mac or a PC. It can be done even now. It's not a matter of software. It certainly isn't a matter of hardware.

It's a decision purely based on marketshare. Apple doesn't have it.

No matter what Apple does with their graphics subsystems in the OS, there will still be a need for drivers - just as there is now. That's it!
post #104 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It's really not that. ATI just came out with a board that plugs into either a Mac or a PC. It can be done even now. It's not a matter of software. It certainly isn't a matter of hardware.

It's a decision purely based on marketshare. Apple doesn't have it.

No matter what Apple does with their graphics subsystems in the OS, there will still be a need for drivers - just as there is now. That's it!

I'm not going to go into it deeply, but PC graphics drivers could be hardware/software emulated (Rosetta for PC Graphics) to make it possible, and I have doubts that there would be any perforance hit. We are taking about emulating a driver. How much of a hit could it take? My guess is 0%.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #105 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I'm not going to go into it deeply, but PC graphics drivers could be hardware/software emulated (Rosetta for PC Graphics) to make it possible, and I have doubts that there would be any perforance hit. We are taking about emulating a driver. How much of a hit could it take? My guess is 0%.

kind of like, "ndiswrapper" for osX86, to wrap around the standard windows graphics drivers? that would be tight.
post #106 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I'm not going to go into it deeply, but PC graphics drivers could be hardware/software emulated (Rosetta for PC Graphics) to make it possible, and I have doubts that there would be any performance hit. We are taking about emulating a driver. How much of a hit could it take? My guess is 0%.

Perhaps you could explain your perspective on this a bit more.

The only difference between a graphics board for the Mac or the PC is a driver, and possibly a slight change in the firmware. It really isn't such a big problem to implement. Nevertheless most board manufacturers haven't seen the sales potential as being worth their while.

These boards have to work through the OS. A different OS means different drivers. Linux on x86 has the same problem.

I have no idea what you mean by "emulation". Emulation will slow this down considerably. It's just another layer the board will have to work through. Rosetta doesn't handle something like a graphs board driver anyway. That's internal to the system. Rosetta will have enough trouble dealing with the program's it's being fed even if someone could figure out a way for it to translate a driver.

Besides, what are you saying? If we are talking about Mactel's, then you would be talking about translating MAC drivers over. Isn't this the problem in the first place, not enough boards? PC boards are already x86 oriented and work through Windows. There isn't anything for Rosetta to do there even if it could be made to.

Also, each board needs drivers that work with it. Nvidia's and ATI's drivers work with a large number of boards because they are written to do that. Where is Apple going to get the drivers to do that?

I can't understand this argument. The reasoning seems backwards to me.
post #107 of 162
No your just argumentative, and looking for it., It was generalization not an answer. By looking at what I wrote why you thought I meant "use the existing rosette" . baffles me. It was used as an example. Maybe I should have said "A Virtual PC for the driver", but then you probably would have said "Why would Microsoft write a Virtual PC just for drivers on Apple machines."
Needless to say. Both Boards will be x86 which cuts 70 to 90%% of the problem away right there. If Apple can't get 70% of standard x86 graphics cards to be plug, and play from day one now that they will be running on basically standard x86 motherboards they are a lot less innovative than I thought.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #108 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
No your just argumentative, and looking for it., It was generalization not an answer. By looking at what I wrote why you thought I meant "use the existing rosette" . baffles me. It was used as an example. Maybe I should have said "A Virtual PC for the driver", but then you probably would have said "Why would Microsoft write a Virtual PC just for drivers on Apple machines."
Needless to say. Both Boards will be x86 which cuts 70 to 90%% of the problem away right there. If Apple can't get 70% of standard x86 graphics cards to be plug, and play from day one now that they will be running on basically standard x86 motherboards they are a lot less innovative than I thought.

No, it wasn't argumentative. No matter how you try to emulate a graphics driver, you will slow the process down considerably. You mentioned Rosetta. It was certainly fair to point out that it wouldn't work. And then to explain why. By saying that you are not going into it too deeply you are telling us that you know more than you are saying. I'm simply trying to see why you think that something I don't see working, will work.

You're being silly now. I understood what you were saying. Certainly if you had said that 'A Virtual PC for the driver" I wouldn't have responded that MS wouldn't write one. I can tell that that wasn't what you would be thinking.

But that doesn't mean that I would agree that it was a workable proposition.

And saying; "Perhaps you could explain your perspective on this a bit more."
is a legitimete question. I'm simply asking you to expand on your point. You now know mine. It's not a challange.
post #109 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No, it wasn't argumentative. No matter how you try to emulate a graphics driver, you will slow the process down considerably. You mentioned Rosetta. It was certainly fair to point out that it wouldn't work. And then to explain why. By saying that you are not going into it too deeply you are telling us that you know more than you are saying. I'm simply trying to see why you think that something I don't see working, will work.

You're being silly now. I understood what you were saying. Certainly if you had said that 'A Virtual PC for the driver" I wouldn't have responded that MS wouldn't write one. I can tell that that wasn't what you would be thinking.

But that doesn't mean that I would agree that it was a workable proposition.

And saying; "Perhaps you could explain your perspective on this a bit more."
is a legitimete question. I'm simply asking you to expand on your point. You now know mine. It's not a challange.


Someone with brains? On an Apple forum? THE SKY IS FALLING< THE SKY IS FALLING!





Anyways, I have to agree with you, emulating a driver is just stupid, it slows the process down too much. And there is no real point (i dont think, correct if wrong), as emulation would take just as much time as building two new drivers.

EDIT: Two drivers, one for nvidia, one for ATI, just to clarify.
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #110 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Someone with brains? On an Apple forum? THE SKY IS FALLING< THE SKY IS FALLING!





Anyways, I have to agree with you, emulating a driver is just stupid, it slows the process down too much. And there is no real point (i dont think, correct if wrong), as emulation would take just as much time as building two new drivers.

EDIT: Two drivers, one for nvidia, one for ATI, just to clarify.


I thought you were actually getting the point until you edited. Multiple drivers is the clear easy solution. A standard graphics driver, a quadro driver, and specialized drivers as they are needed; but when has Apple ever done anything the easy way? I (like many) have been so frustrated with graphics options on Macs for so long I am unable to think that Apple would compile more than one driver. Now that they are x86 it's more than reasonable to have graphics standardized across the board between all x86 computers with the exception of individual OS drivers, and specialty drivers for some specific cards, but the hardware could be. It's all up to Apple how difficult they decide it to be when it comes to graphics options for their users. So call me a pessimist, but I am just so used to them making things difficult in this area for us I can't imagine them doing anything else. The most extreme, and difficult solutions are all that seem to pop into my when it comes to this subject. \
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #111 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I thought you were actually getting the point until you edited. Multiple drivers is the clear easy solution. A standard graphics driver, a quadro driver, and specialized drivers as they are needed; but when has Apple ever done anything the easy way? I (like many) have been so frustrated with graphics options on Macs for so long I am unable to think that Apple would compile more than one driver. Now that they are x86 it's more than reasonable to have graphics standardized across the board between all x86 computers with the exception of individual OS drivers, and specialty drivers for some specific cards, but the hardware could be. It's all up to Apple how difficult they decide it to be when it comes to graphics options for their users. So call me a pessimist, but I am just so used to them making things difficult in this area for us I can't imagine them doing anything else. The most extreme, and difficult solutions are all that seem to pop into my when it comes to this subject. \

But other than to provide the "hooks" that drivers would have to work with, why do you think that Apple would do this for any boards other than the ones they offer for sale?

In the PC world as well it has always been the business of the board or chip manufacturer (as in Nvidia who doesn't supply boards themselves) to supply the drivers for good or for ill.
post #112 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But other than to provide the "hooks" that drivers would have to work with, why do you think that Apple would do this for any boards other than the ones they offer for sale?

In the PC world as well it has always been the business of the board or chip manufacturer (as in Nvidia who doesn't supply boards themselves) to supply the drivers for good or for ill.


#1 reason I can think of is that Apple driver updates always come from Apple system updater, and I think Apple likes it that way.

Apples nvidia drivers are tweaked, and compiled by Apple to run on their systems. If a PNY QuadroFX 4400 could be used on a Mac; the chances of Apple selling it from their store are slim. The reason is that nobody would buy one from Apple because of the infamous Apple markup. So Apple probably wouldn't bother selling it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't compile the Nvidia QuadroFX driver code for Mac users. It is certainly a good way to break through into some new territory, while breaking the stigma that Macs can't compare to perform as well as a windows, or linux workstation in 3D, and have no real Pro options in this arena to begin with.

Although you have a valid point about PNY (example) providing compiled Mac drivers themselves. Maybe they have an intel/Mac developer kit. (although I doubt it) It would take one large, or a number of smaller 3DFX houses requesting Mac drivers to get such a push. Or for Apple to donate them one in their best interest. (not a bad idea) I know there are plenty of Mac 3D pro's looking, and wanting to continue use Mac's at their jobs, not just at home, and plenty of others like myself waiting for such a miracle.
I don't think Apple compiling the driver is out of the question knowing how they like to have control over their systems updates. I would take anything at this point, but I do hope I have a chance to upgrade to a Pro level 3D card with intel/Mac's. It would be a shame to not have that chance after All this time.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #113 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
#1 reason I can think of is that Apple driver updates always come from Apple system updater, and I think Apple likes it that way.

Apples nvidia drivers are tweaked, and compiled by Apple to run on their systems. If a PNY QuadroFX 4400 could be used on a Mac; the chances of Apple selling it from their store are slim. The reason is that nobody would buy one from Apple because of the infamous Apple markup. So Apple probably wouldn't bother selling it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't compile the Nvidia QuadroFX driver code for Mac users. It is certainly a good way to break through into some new territory, while breaking the stigma that Macs can't compare to perform as well as a windows, or linux workstation in 3D, and have no real Pro options in this arena to begin with.

Although you have a valid point about PNY (example) providing compiled Mac drivers themselves. Maybe they have an intel/Mac developer kit. (although I doubt it) It would take one large, or a number of smaller 3DFX houses requesting Mac drivers to get such a push. Or for Apple to donate them one in their best interest. (not a bad idea) I know there are plenty of Mac 3D pro's looking, and wanting to continue use Mac's at their jobs, not just at home, and plenty of others like myself waiting for such a miracle.
I don't think Apple compiling the driver is out of the question knowing how they like to have control over their systems updates. I would take anything at this point, but I do hope I have a chance to upgrade to a Pro level 3D card with intel/Mac's. It would be a shame to not have that chance after All this time.

While I agree that it would be nice if Apple did do that, and I would like to have them do it also, I don't think they will. They haven't shown an inclination to do it in the past. As a matter of fact, ATI has been much better at supporting Apple's OEM boards than the other way around.

The other problem here is that Apple, in writing its drivers, has shown a definate lack of interest in supporting anything other than the most basic features of the boards they sell. No control panel, not ability to adjust the functioning of the board, etc.

What bothers me about Apple's attitude here is that I've been told that for very little cost to Apple (but significant income for the board manufacturers), they could finance the writing of those drivers. Other companies have done that, and so can they.

I'm ticked that I can't get a pro level board.

I've been around long enough to remember the days when ALL the pro boards were not only available on the Mac, but most of them were ONLY available on the Mac.

This turn-around is frustrating to say the least.
post #114 of 162
seeing Apples love for frameworks I am willing to venture that they will comeup with a framework that will do a good job of supporting all of the boards, then it will be easier for Apple to add drivers, or for Apple to make such a framework available to the board makers. If you question my logic, witness the acceleration framework that was built to work on either hardware.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #115 of 162
i'm going to be an ass and ask why has no one responded to my question about the possibility of ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows graphics drivers on mac os x86 ??

good point about a framework eg. accelerate.framework
i will call it nvidia-rulz.framework which apple might come up with. seriously though, this still leaves us at the mercy of apple yet again w.r.t. GPU driver compatibility.

so again, is it possible for something like an ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows gpu drivers on mac os x86* ??

*(i've given up on "great new powerpc products with really fast graphics at a decent price")

EDIT: in fact, since nvidia and ati graphics drivers exist for linux, perhaps it would not be too hard to "ndiswrap" that instead of the windows drivers, so as to provide the required 2D and 3D functionality for mac os x86 with a minimum performance penalty...
post #116 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Brendon
seeing Apples love for frameworks I am willing to venture that they will comeup with a framework that will do a good job of supporting all of the boards, then it will be easier for Apple to add drivers, or for Apple to make such a framework available to the board makers. If you question my logic, witness the acceleration framework that was built to work on either hardware.

The "hooks" I mentioned earlier are part of the framework Apple has setup.

Apple has ALWAYS had unified graphics and sound frameworks for its developers to write to. That has been one of the areas that Apple has been superior to MS in. It's only been recently that MS has used the same concept.

Perviously each program on a PC had to write to each graphics board directly. What a mess. Then MS used Windows drivers. They worked but were lowest common denominator.

Apple avoided this mess from the beginning by having all programs write to Apple's frameworks. Then the board drivers would grab the unified data from there and drive the board.

So essentially your logic is fine because that's what Apple has been doing ever since the original Mac II.

But, as I keep on saying, the companies still have to write the drivers. Now we have Big Endian vs Little Endian issues as well. These aren't major issues, but they do exist.

New drivers will HAVE to be written for an x86 Mac. Can they use XCode to do it? I suppose they can if drivers are written that way. But the truth is; in that area I'm no expert.
post #117 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
i'm going to be an ass and ask why has no one responded to my question about the possibility of ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows graphics drivers on mac os x86 ??

good point about a framework eg. accelerate.framework
i will call it nvidia-rulz.framework which apple might come up with. seriously though, this still leaves us at the mercy of apple yet again w.r.t. GPU driver compatibility.

so again, is it possible for something like an ndiswrapper-equivalent for using windows gpu drivers on mac os x86* ??

*(i've given up on "great new powerpc products with really fast graphics at a decent price")

EDIT: in fact, since nvidia and ati graphics drivers exist for linux, perhaps it would not be too hard to "ndiswrap" that instead of the windows drivers, so as to provide the required 2D and 3D functionality for mac os x86 with a minimum performance penalty...

I have no idea. Isn't this intended for use with wireless network cards?

Has anyone ever used it for graphics cards as well?
post #118 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I have no idea. Isn't this intended for use with wireless network cards?

Has anyone ever used it for graphics cards as well?

yeah so ndiswrapper is for use with wireless network cards and is a real useful thing for linux users who have windows-only-drivers for their wifi cards.

AFAIK, it does not apply for graphics cards, since ati and nvidia make linux drivers. but i am wondering if a similar concept can be applied to graphics cards... for mac os x86
just throwing out ideas here.
post #119 of 162
All this talk about emulated, wrapped, or cross-OS/platform drivers is just nonsense. Drivers are performance critical and intimately tied to how the particular OS works -- supporting somebody else's driver model ties your hands in how you implement your OS, and may run you into copyright/patent issues. Graphics drivers, in particular, are sensitive to the implementation details of the higher level OS graphical services. The new Windows Vista driver model is centered around D3D v10 which makes it impractical for Apple to try and map this to their OpenGL standard.

Really what should happen is that Apple should put together a crack team for building the outline of a GPU driver for their OS, and then work closely with the hardware vendors to rebuild their drivers on this from the ground up. They may have already done this, I don't know. Mostly I just want them to hurry up and get GLSL support into OSX.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #120 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
All this talk about emulated, wrapped, or cross-OS/platform drivers is just nonsense. Drivers are performance critical and intimately tied to how the particular OS works -- supporting somebody else's driver model ties your hands in how you implement your OS, and may run you into copyright/patent issues. Graphics drivers, in particular, are sensitive to the implementation details of the higher level OS graphical services. The new Windows Vista driver model is centered around D3D v10 which makes it impractical for Apple to try and map this to their OpenGL standard.

Really what should happen is that Apple should put together a crack team for building the outline of a GPU driver for their OS, and then work closely with the hardware vendors to rebuild their drivers on this from the ground up. They may have already done this, I don't know. Mostly I just want them to hurry up and get GLSL support into OSX.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Screw SLI, when do we get this in our Macs...?!?