AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Intel unleashes Mac-bound "Woodcrest" server chip
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel unleashes Mac-bound "Woodcrest" server chip - Page 4

post #121 of 566
7/4/06 at 9:39am
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sunilraman
Quote:
That's very cool. However, any VFX person will immediately point out the jaggies in the foreground (especially left-front) objects. It won't be acceptable for Spiderman 3

In motion, it's virtually unnoticeable, and you could just slap some 16x FSAA on, and it would fix itself.
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 566
7/4/06 at 5:38pm
I think we'll see it play out as a low-end 7800GT to start, followed by a 7900GT or a 7800GTX (they're the same price on newegg). And BTO in a 7900GTX
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 566
7/4/06 at 5:43pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
I think we'll see it play out as a low-end 7800GT to start, followed by a 7900GT or a 7800GTX (they're the same price on newegg). And BTO in a 7900GTX

Is it just me, or is nVidia (and I suppose ATI too) just becoming a digit barf company with respect to model numbers?
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 566
7/4/06 at 5:49pm
Totally. I get really screwed up keeping it straight. At one point in another thread, I was going on about a 7800GTO. Which apparently doesn't exist. But what are you going to call the cards? The Ultimate Super Duper Graphics Card of 1620p Goodness? And then the USDGC of 1620p Goodness + 1?
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 566
7/4/06 at 5:56pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Totally. I get really screwed up keeping it straight. At one point in another thread, I was going on about a 7800GTO. Which apparently doesn't exist. But what are you going to call the cards? The Ultimate Super Duper Graphics Card of 1620p Goodness? And then the USDGC of 1620p Goodness + 1?

I thought that at one time, it was just a number, which didn't have meaningless letters. Am I supposed to count the number of letters to know which one is supposed to be better? All I need is a number, I don't need GT, GTX, GTP, GTO (where's SS and R/T?), Ultra (?), Pro (yeah, right), Ultimate (until the next revision, I guess), Special Edition (is that the the usage that means stripped-down or something good?). They should be running out useless designations soon, so I'm waiting for the Xylophone Edition.
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 566
7/4/06 at 6:20pm
I think the letters refer to what's enabled. I think GTs and GTXs are identical cards, but with GTs having a few pipelines or shaders disabled or the processors clocked lower. This keeps costs down, because if a GTX has a flawed shader, you just disable it and it's neighbor and it becomes a GT. Otherwise, they'd have to toss a lot of cards, which'd kill their yields. It's the same thing Intel and AMD do with chips.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 566
7/4/06 at 9:04pm
Yeah I understand how initially the model numbers are confusing. But just go to tomshardware.com and check their latest "GPU roundup" and you'll have a pretty clear idea of how each card performs.

I'm an nVidia fan, so to me the 6-series and 7-series designation numbers make sense. GTX is the highest, GT is sort of power-and-value-for-money, and LE or SE are low-end not worth considering. 7950 GX2 is the unique card which is essentially SLI on one card. It benches somewhat less than two 7900GTX in SLI at higher resolutions.

You're all smart cookies, you'll work out the numbers. At least nVidia SLI is simple, just take 2 of the same designation and voila (with the exception of 7950, you can't SLI two 7950s to get quad-GPU at this stage). ATI I feel is more confusing with their Crossfire master- and slave- cards and what not.
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 566
7/4/06 at 9:11pm
nVidia numbers part 2: mainly all you need to look at is the 6-series and 7-series. The higher the 6-series number the better in general, eg. 6800 is the best and 6600 is good, 6200 is quite useless nowadays. Same for the 7-series, it has more support for latest features in the latest games, with 7900 and 7950 the best (but note earlier mention of difference between the two)

For the same number, eg. offered by the powermac g5 on apple, 6600 LE is low end, 6600 plain is okay, 6600GT is "mainstream" for games on PC now.

Tomshardware VGA Charts, very useful:
http://www.tomshardware.com/site/vgacharts/index.html

Okay, now with the "Ultra" and various other designations sometimes you have to look at various manufacturers, sometimes it is an official nVidia designation (refer to VGA Charts above for benchmarks), sometimes there are other words tacked on by manufacturers that ship factory-overclocked cards.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 566
7/5/06 at 8:27am
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Yeah I understand how initially the model numbers are confusing. But just go to tomshardware.com and check their latest "GPU roundup" and you'll have a pretty clear idea of how each card performs.

Ah well. I'm usually not desperate enough to know more about the products to use a site like that. "Hardware enthusiast" sites are generally only slightly better in design and usability than the old Geocities sites, so I try to avoid them.
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 566
7/5/06 at 8:50am
Heh. There's "hardware enthusiast" sites which yeah, give you a heart attack at first, then there's the "extreme overclocking" sites which are only for those WWAAAYY too into their frames-per-second. And not to mention the forums section on those sites, and the "special news" about overclocking achievements: "OMFG I reached XXXXXghz by liquid nitrogen cooling down to -60deg C and super Pi ran XXXXXsecs OMFG I RULZ!!!!!111oneo!!!one"

When I first started to build my PC a year ago, I looked at firstly the AMD.com page and I was, like, hmm, a bit confusing, where should i start, and then it kinda went downhill once you shop for components and try and sort through the component reviews. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, Half -Life 2 makes it all worthwhile

I was looking for a clean chart of 3DMark05/06 benchmarks which include the ATI X1600 and nVidia 7900s but Tomshardware.com actually doesn't have that. And yeah, wading through the enthusiast sites can be tough for you apple weenies

Check this out, it's a chart only dealing with the 7900GT/GTX flavours you get from different manufacturers, only with a certain benchmark..



PC Gaming is a wierd, wonderful world.
Right Placebo?

I don't know about you but the "XFX 7900 GTX XXX Edition" sounds pretty badass and would go nice in a Mac Pro.

Or maybe I'm hanging out for the "VFXGX 7900.999 GTX HARD OC ULTRA OVERCLOCK SUPER DUPER XXXX LIMITED SERIES"
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 566
7/5/06 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
"Hardware enthusiast" sites are generally only slightly better in design and usability than the old Geocities sites, so I try to avoid them.

Eh, I guess you're wrong, really.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 566
7/5/06 at 8:56am
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JeffDM
Ah well. I'm usually not desperate enough to know more about the products to use a site like that....


Just to be snarky, that's why most of you all with MacBook Pros think your factory-underclocked ati x1600 is really fast and new and really worth all that money for the laptop
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 566
7/5/06 at 8:57am
Well, interesting times ahead. With the new edu iMac (dual core), one would obviously say that the Power Mac replacement is going to be a 3/3 or at least 2/3 quad line.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 566
7/5/06 at 9:01am
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
And yeah, wading through the enthusiast sites can be tough for you apple weenies

It's not that, I disliked them well before I touched a Mac. My problem is that those sites are usually pretty brain-damaged. Especially when any given page only has 10% "content", sometimes only one or two paragraphs per page, and the rest of any given page are ads and massive tables of contents.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 566
7/5/06 at 9:02am
HotHardware, TomsHardware, and pretty much every major site is well-organized, pleasing to look at, and comprehensive.
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 566
7/5/06 at 9:04am
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JeffDM
It's not that, it's that those sites are usually pretty brain-damaged. Especially when any given page only has 10% "content".

Yeah, sometimes I wonder about those sites and it can be perplexing to read through them. I suppose for people who deal with Windows in general and are into the scene, they take it as it comes. I for one do NOT get any mobile phone review if it is a phone that does anything more than just being a phone. 3G Wallpaper Smartphone this-that is just, well, rubbish to me. I hate phone gadget reviews.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 566
7/5/06 at 9:06am
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Placebo
HotHardware, TomsHardware, and pretty much every major site is well-organized, pleasing to look at, and comprehensive.


Tomshardware and Anandtech are alright. Tomshardware is comprehensive alright, they have 20-page articles on some stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 566
7/5/06 at 9:08am
Forgot about Anandtech, I like them the most.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 566
7/5/06 at 9:08am
I guess I'm playing both sides of the coin in my comments here. I guess it just depends if I am in a PC-enthusiast mood or in an WebDesign-Apple-esque-Aesthetics mood.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 566
7/5/06 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
HotHardware, TomsHardware, and pretty much every major site is well-organized, pleasing to look at, and comprehensive.

I disagree. It is unnecessary to have five navigation bars on every page of every article. It is unnecessary for every page of every article to have a table of contents for the entire site. Motion ads showing computer parts flying around are unnecessary when the actual content is just static text and images. Most of this type of site has had a tendency to have twenty five page articles with not much information on any given page.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 566
7/5/06 at 9:15am
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JeffDM
Motion ads showing computer parts flying around are unnecessary .....

They pay the bills, though.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by JeffDM
.....Most of this type of site has had a tendency to have twenty five page articles with not much information on any given page....

Well, usually each page has 5 images of various sets of benchmarks of 5-20 cards/ products.
How informative it is, depends on the "research" you are doing
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 566
7/5/06 at 11:26am
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sunilraman
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
One thing that most people don't think about, is that, at some point, not too far away in the future, we will have finally reached realism. At that point, what more will we need?.....When we can have a computer generated game, or real time movie at 1920 x 1200p that can't be distinguished from a hi def movie, then we will have reached pretty much "The End". I suppose some wags will want to go to 2560 x 1600, or even further, but we won't see large screen displays in that rez for a while, and by the time we do, the boards will do that as well.........


Nope, you're thinking old skool, mel, establishing a film-print photorealistic visual effect as the endpoint for video game experience.

Next stage, let's not forget my friends (as geeks we must keep it in mind..!) Do not be fooled by getting 100,000fps @ 2560x1600 with a 128-core nVidia GPU @ 100ghz and all that...!

Immersive Virtual Reality. THAT, my friends, is the next stage. Star Trek Next Gen's "Holodeck" as the high benchmark. THAT, is what comes next.

Yes, I thought of that when I was finishing my post. But that is a completely different technology, so I wasn't getting into it.

Actually, about five years ago Mercedes asked me to make a holographic display of a car that was actual size, and that you could walk into. I told them to come back to me in fifteen years.

Too bad the Holodeck is impossible. The closest we can come to that is direct brain stimulation, if it is ever possible to build one complex enough, once we (hopefully) learn sufficiently about the brain to do it.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 566
7/5/06 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Heh. There's "hardware enthusiast" sites which yeah, give you a heart attack at first, then there's the "extreme overclocking" sites which are only for those WWAAAYY too into their frames-per-second. And not to mention the forums section on those sites, and the "special news" about overclocking achievements: "OMFG I reached XXXXXghz by liquid nitrogen cooling down to -60deg C and super Pi ran XXXXXsecs OMFG I RULZ!!!!!111oneo!!!one"

When I first started to build my PC a year ago, I looked at firstly the AMD.com page and I was, like, hmm, a bit confusing, where should i start, and then it kinda went downhill once you shop for components and try and sort through the component reviews. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, Half -Life 2 makes it all worthwhile

I was looking for a clean chart of 3DMark05/06 benchmarks which include the ATI X1600 and nVidia 7900s but Tomshardware.com actually doesn't have that. And yeah, wading through the enthusiast sites can be tough for you apple weenies

Check this out, it's a chart only dealing with the 7900GT/GTX flavours you get from different manufacturers, only with a certain benchmark..



PC Gaming is a wierd, wonderful world.
Right Placebo?

I don't know about you but the "XFX 7900 GTX XXX Edition" sounds pretty badass and would go nice in a Mac Pro.

Or maybe I'm hanging out for the "VFXGX 7900.999 GTX HARD OC ULTRA OVERCLOCK SUPER DUPER XXXX LIMITED SERIES"

Of course, the 1900 cards are not there. As the 1900 outruns the 1800 series by 25 to 40%, the chart isn't all that accurate, as it's outdated.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 566
7/5/06 at 11:29pm
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Well, interesting times ahead. With the new edu iMac (dual core), one would obviously say that the Power Mac replacement is going to be a 3/3 or at least 2/3 quad line.

Excellent point.

Everything is dual core, so the PrOtowars11111froooood shall be...more.
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 566
7/6/06 at 2:05pm
why do processor threads always turn into video cards threads?
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 566
7/6/06 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally posted by wwwork
why do processor threads always turn into video cards threads?

Gamers. Bloody obsessed!
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 566
7/6/06 at 7:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Gamers. Bloody obsessed!

Historically. (until recently) Mac's were considered the graphic app users platform of choice.

So when we get going on graphics it's not necessarily about games. It;'s about the way we prefer our hardware. Smokin fast...
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 #148 of 566
7/6/06 at 11:07pm
Quote:
Originally posted by wwwork
why do processor threads always turn into video cards threads?

You need a faster cpu to feed a faster gpu, so they tend to go hand in hand. If one gets too far ahead of the other, the system gets bogged down.

That's assuming the pipes have enough bandwidth.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 566
7/8/06 at 9:44am
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Historically. (until recently) Mac's were considered the graphic app users platform of choice.

Ironically enough, graphics cards mean absolutely nothing in Photoshop, Quark, and practically every graphics program out there other than Apple-made video editing ones.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 566
7/8/06 at 10:38am
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Ironically enough, graphics cards mean absolutely nothing in Photoshop, Quark, and practically every graphics program out there other than Apple-made video editing ones.

So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM?!?

Didn't think so

;^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 #151 of 566
7/8/06 at 10:41am
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM?!?

Didn't think so

;^p

I'll call that a bad argument.

In fact, Integrated Graphics is NOT a restraint for this type of program. Here's a test that compares the MB with MBP using parts of Final Cut Studio:

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=43717

Most of the differences are pretty minor.
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 566
7/8/06 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM?!

No, it means you can't read.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 566
7/8/06 at 7:59pm
I would contend that for web design level creative/ production/ coding work Intel Integrated Graphics is sufficient.

Someone posted a link on Video work, cool.

As for print design with massive InDesign, Quark, or Illustrator files, I can't comment on how Intel Integrated holds up in those cases.

As for the gaming issue, it simply comes up because Apple has had a tendency to have very decent CPUs, but generally "dismal by PC/Console gamer standards" GPUs required to run the latest games.

The x1600 128mb vram in the iMac and MacBookPro [256mb vram in MBP 17"] is a good example. It would do well in general web, print and video work, definitely. But please be under no illusions when it comes to booting into Windows and playing the latest games. Or Mac games in OSX. The x1600 (Note: NOT the X1600 XT), certainly in it's underclocked state in iMac and MBP, is considered "midrange mainstream" and plays the latest PC games at "medium" settings in 2006. In 2007 this will slide a bit to playing PC games at "medium-to-lower" settings.

Then suffice to say that Intel Integrated, you can forget about playing any games except for older 3D games at medium settings, and only newer puzzle-type Mac games.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 566
7/8/06 at 8:10pm
[QUOTE]Originally posted by melgross
[CPUs and GPUs in overall system performance...] they tend to go hand in hand. If one gets too far ahead of the other, the system gets bogged down...


Precisely why GPU and CPU specs should be considered collectively when looking at various Macs, just as you would look at Hard Disk speed/space and effects of 512mb-2/4gb/etc of RAM.
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 566
7/8/06 at 8:13pm
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Placebo
In motion, it's virtually unnoticeable, and you could just slap some 16x FSAA on, and it would fix itself.


I'm gonna be an a$$ here Placebo and say that PC/Console gamers are used to a certain "aesthetic" and enjoy the look and progress in better visuals over the past few years.

But film VFX people have a different "photorealistic/ cinematic-wow-factor" view of things. 16x FSAA is a probable first step in that screenshot, next is the texture of the wooden boxes being a bit higher-res, a bit more polygons, and a bit more realistic.

I would even contend that some of the water-splashing effects in Xmen3, eg. Bridge Sequence (which was stunning in general) were slightly not-that-superb. Poseidon's opening sequence was a tour-de-force of VFX IMO. And their water effects was quite spot-on.
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 566
7/9/06 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM?!?

Didn't think so

;^p

I would. Most of the time I'm in Photoshop or Illustrator. Up until a couple of years ago I was using a G3 with 8MB Rage128. It makes very little difference.

Unless Adobe start adding Core Graphics real time rendering to Photoshop, the GPU is pretty irrelevant. A fast blitter and decent 2D line drawing is pretty much all the card has to do.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 566
7/9/06 at 10:48pm
I think we should make it pretty clear here again. When it comes to 2D graphics, the card isn't under any strain at all. Even a modern IG chip will have no problem, unless you're talking 2560 x 1600. But, if you are, why are you then using a machine with an IG chip anyway?

It's 3D apps that need these powerful cards.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 566
7/10/06 at 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
So that means you would be just fine with Intel integrated graphics, or maybe an old ATi Rage128 w/16MB of VRAM?!?

Didn't think so

;^p

Maybe not for OS X, where there's more transparency calculation going on in the GUI than inside the actual Photoshop document you're working on.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 566
7/10/06 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I think we should make it pretty clear here again. When it comes to 2D graphics, the card isn't under any strain at all. Even a modern IG chip will have no problem, unless you're talking 2560 x 1600. But, if you are, why are you then using a machine with an IG chip anyway?

It's 3D apps that need these powerful cards.

It's properly designed 2D apps that can benefit heftily from these cards. Have you ever played around in Core Image Funhouse with a 9800 or better graphics card? Compared to performing the same blurs and distortions in Photoshop or Fireworks, it's ridiculously fast. Literally as fast as you can drag the blur slider.
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 566
7/10/06 at 1:34pm
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No point to it. The performance of a low voltage Woodcrest would be below that of a regular Conroe, and possibly that of the Merom as well, and the only other advantage is that it supports SMP, which Conroe doesn't. So, unless Apple plans to have a dual socket iMac, which would be VERY nice, but unlikely, at least, at this time, there would be no reason to use it.

unless there is a chance of the infamous 23 inch pro-ish iMac surfacing...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Intel unleashes Mac-bound "Woodcrest" server chip