or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Mac OS X 10.5.7 may have Nehalem, Radeon HD 4000 support
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
In addition to expected fixes, Apple's upcoming 10.5.7 update to Mac OS X Leopard is now claimed to recognize Intel's newer Nehalem architecture as well as AMD's ATI Radeon HD 4000 graphics chipsets.

The reported discovery by netkas has produced just five kernel extensions for the video cards and doesn't appear to work perfectly in a bootleg installation for 10.5.6 meant for hacked Mac OS X installations. The retrofitted version doesn't recognize DVI ports fully and doesn't even recognize widescreen resolutions without third-party utilities to force the expanded screen area.

However, the extensions are enough to not only identify the mid-range Radeon HD 4850 and high-end 4870 chipsets by name but to enable Core Image and Quartz Extreme acceleration of the Mac OS X interface, which would require the direct involvement of AMD, Apple or both firms to work. They also support the full OpenGL 2.1 specification for 3D graphics.

And while screen captures aren't available to support the claims as with the video hardware, the slip also hints that 10.5.7 is the first edition of Mac OS X to recognize Intel's Nehalem architecture.


Radeon HD 4800 series cards in the OpenGL Extensions viewer and Apple System Profiler. | Image credits: netkas.

The structure is a major overhaul of Intel's approach to processors and abandons the conventional system bus in favor of an interface that lets the processors talk directly to memory, peripherals and each other.

While it's not known when or even if Apple will definitively expose the new hardware support in the formal release of 10.5.7, such add-ons will eventually be necessary. It's commonly thought that Apple will use Nehalem-based Xeon processors at the heart of its next Mac Pro workstations and will eventually filter the technology down to its portables and mainstream desktops through Core i7 processors, which share the same essential design.

Apple has also remained comparatively dormant in its support for AMD's ATI Radeon graphics and hasn't used hardware newer than the Radeon HD 2600 found in the iMac and as an option for the Mac Pro; the technology is now approximately two generations old.

In either case, new hardware entries if corroborated would put greater significance into 10.5.7 than was initially spotted with the initial discovery by those aware of the update, which at first signaled primarily a maintenance release.
post #2 of 57
first
post #3 of 57
I guess this would suggest the new machines will ship with 10.5.7. Therefore people who buy refreshed hardware next month will have to fork up the $129 for SL or maybe a cheaper upgrade disc when it arrives 2-3 months later. Probably best as Leopard is tried and tested fully.

New ATI support is interesting given the Nvidia move but it will probably be a BTO on the Mac Pro. It will likely ship with a 9800GT or something and have a quadro option too. Possibly a GTX 280.
post #4 of 57
I'm disappointed that, by all appearances, machines carrying ATI 2600 will not be addressed by SL and Grand Central. I've got a perfectly good 24" Aluminum iMac with an ATIHD2600 and would love to tap into Grand Central's power...
post #5 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post

...and would love to tap into Grand Central's power...

Oh, you will...you will.
post #6 of 57
Looks like Apple is getting ready to deliver new hardware.

This could be very good as the ATI hardware might be a better choice for some OpenCL users.


Dave
post #7 of 57
@BigE So long as you're running Intel hardware, you can get into the Snow Leopard goodness, which likely will be released around WWDC this summer.

If this is true, it would be good news indeed. I was a bit concerned about ATIs future on the Mac platform, and find it especially lame that Apple themselves still doesn't offer a 3870 BTO option.

So long as the 4870 comes with at least one Dual-Link DVI (not requiring the broken Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link adapter), I'll be happy.

Looks like we're just waiting for the Nehalem EP's end of March launch, which seems like sufficient time for 10.5.7 to get out the door.

I'm highly optimistic :-)
post #8 of 57
I have always thought the next GT160M and GTX280M are going to be used in the next iMac....

Looks like ATI still have something to offer for Apple

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply
post #9 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Looks like Apple is getting ready to deliver new hardware.

This could be very good as the ATI hardware might be a better choice for some OpenCL users.


Dave

Didn't evidence of new iMacs and minis show up in OS X way back in December?
post #10 of 57
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

No offense to nVidia and Apple's judgement in partnering with them, but ATI's current generation graphics cards have the edge over nVidia's. I've said this many times, but nVidia's 8xxx and 9xxx and GT1xx (which is just renamed 9xxx cards) generation don't support 64-bit floats for GPGPU operation while ATI supports them in both their HD3xxx and HD4xxx generation cards. This is exacerbated by nVidia's inability to get the GT2xx series into the mainstream or mobile markets, forcing them to constantly rebrand their older GPUs which were once 8xxx then 9xxx now GT1xx and GT240 and GT250 series.

My ideal configurations for Apple's desktop lineup:

Mac Mini: 9400M
iMac: HD4670 256MB low-end, HD4670 512MB mid-range, HD4850 512MB high-end
Mac Pro: HD4870 512MB low-end, GTX285 1GB high-end

This assumes Apple will stick with single GPU cards while avoiding nVidia 8xxx, 9xxx, and GT1xx series as much as possible to avoid the lack of 64-bit float support.

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.

Following tradition, the iMac GPUs will probably be mobile based. I believe the current HD2600 Pro in existing iMacs is based on the Mobility HD2600XT, while the 8800GS is actually the 8800M GTS. The Mobility HD4850 seems to perform about the same as the 9800GT (renamed 8800GTX) in various 3DMarks, so it's a definite upgrade. I haven't seem benchmarks for the Mobility HD4670 yet, but it'll definitely outperform the 9600M GT in the MBP, judging by the desktop versions, it'll be close to the Mobility HD3850, and probably be 9700M GT class. I believe the kext for the HD4670 was already found in OS X previous to these 10.5.7 builds.

EDIT: I should also note that supposedly the mobile GTX280M is not based on the desktop GTX280, but is rather 55nm G92b based so it is essentially a shrink and rebrand of the existing 9800M GTX. The GTX160M is a rebranded 9800M GTS. Overall, nothing significantly new from nVidia on the mobile GPU front.
post #11 of 57
Core i7 iMacs are coming! Core i7 iMacs are coming! Great news.


post #12 of 57
Very interesting analysis, Itcommanderdata.

PS: This is my first post on Apple Insider. Hi everybody!
post #13 of 57
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
post #14 of 57
Still waiting for SLI and Crossfire support. Every time someone points out that 2 high end Nvidia Geforce 9000 series cards running SLI could outperform a single Quadro card and cost much less, some Apple apologist always responds with "Quadro is for professionals". So according to the Apple apologists, Macs don't support SLI because Quadro is for professionals. Exactly how does that address the issue at all? And what if those "professionals" want more power than a single Quadro card can provide? Oh, that's right. The Quadro is a professional card. Again, not addressing the issue at all. What about the fact that Quadro cards can support SLI, so PCs can run multiple Quadro cards at the same time? Oh, that's right. The Quadro is a professional card. Again, not addressing the issue at all. If one Quadro card is so "professional", then wouldn't 2 or more Quadro cards running SLI be even more "professional"? Oh, that's right. The Quadro is a professional card....

The Mac Pro should not support dual Xeon processors and 8 cores total because the Xeon processor is for professionals.
post #15 of 57
Ha! I totally agree with the "professional" thing, that always made me mad.

I love almost every aspect of my mac, but I just don't get the compatability problem with SLI. With all the capabilities of the mac, wouldn't you want to be able to max out or expand on every part of it. I probably don't need the quadro and nvidia is fine, but I'd rather be able to have the upgrade. Maybe I want to bring my work home for some unknown reason.
post #16 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Still waiting for SLI and Crossfire support. Every time someone points out that 2 high end Nvidia Geforce 9000 series cards running SLI could outperform a single Quadro card and cost much less, some Apple apologist always responds with "Quadro is for professionals". So according to the Apple apologists, Macs don't support SLI because Quadro is for professionals. Exactly how does that address the issue at all? And what if those "professionals" want more power than a single Quadro card can provide? Oh, that's right. The Quadro is a professional card. Again, not addressing the issue at all. What about the fact that Quadro cards can support SLI, so PCs can run multiple Quadro cards at the same time? Oh, that's right. The Quadro is a professional card. Again, not addressing the issue at all. If one Quadro card is so "professional", then wouldn't 2 or more Quadro cards running SLI be even more "professional"? Oh, that's right. The Quadro is a professional card....

The Mac Pro should not support dual Xeon processors and 8 cores total because the Xeon processor is for professionals.

Contrary to what many people seem to believe, one cannot just copy everything that makes sli work on Windows and paste it into OSX. Also, there is currently not a lot of demand for it sli on osx since only the mac pro, which is not a huge seller, would really benefit. (New products or product changes could increase demand)


Geforce and quadro cards are designed for different tasks and should not be directly compared, On paper, 3 geforce cards in sli will beat one quadro fx 5800 (and cost $1500 less), but for many professional applications, the single qfx card will be much faster.
post #17 of 57
I think Apple doesn't think SLI would be worth the effort. Only high end gamers are interested in it they think. And Steve Jobs doesn't see the Mac as a gaming platform. Besides the case may have be be made a bit wider to support the cable linking the video cards. It would not be a big seller anyway.
The MACaholic
Reply
The MACaholic
Reply
post #18 of 57
If the Unibody MBP BSOD issue, http://discussions.apple.com/thread....82489&tstart=0, is related to the NVidia 9600 chipset then hopefully this means good riddance to the NVidia GPUS.

This whole BSOD issue is really disappointing for us relatively 'new to Apple' users.
post #19 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

Core i7 iMacs are coming! Core i7 iMacs are coming! Great news.

Core i7 Mac Pros are coming. There aren't any Core i7s under 130W yet and they won't go in an iMac.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drabbard

I love almost every aspect of my mac, but I just don't get the compatability problem with SLI. With all the capabilities of the mac, wouldn't you want to be able to max out or expand on every part of it.

SLI/Crossfire might not be necessary now. Grand central + OpenCL should be able to initialize and use a variety of compute devices as required. As the Mac Pro can take 4 cards, it should be possible to put in 4 quadros and have them do GPGPU operations. You probably don't even have to match the cards. You could shove in an older Nvidia 8800GT and add a boost to your Quadro.

This might not easily give you the same effect as SLI /Crossfire though but this could be part of how Snow Leopard is designed. The OS could break down GPU calls and dispatch to the best cards.
post #20 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

Didn't evidence of new iMacs and minis show up in OS X way back in December?

Well evidence of a sort to generate rumors, which by the way is what is happening here.

The good news I was referring to was about the use of ATI cards in the new Macs. Well rumor of there use. Ltcommander.data covered why that would be a good thing in a post directly below yours. It all wraps around the ATI GPUs being a better choice for certain types of OpenCL usage. In part that is the ability of the ATI cards to handle 64 bit floats which would be very useful for the acceleration of engineering software.

Obviously which is the better card depends very much upon what your expectations are. I just see this as a very positive indication of what might be coming. Hopefully this includes an i7/ATI based iMac. Yeah maybe I'm reading to much into this, but ibsuspect we are about to see a major rebirthing of Apples desk top line up.


Dave
post #21 of 57
If I'm not mistaken, SLI brings benefits when drawing the screen, splitting the task into even and odd rows. That's for increased frame rates, something the so called "professional" doesn't need as much as gobs of memory, and drivers suited for content creation. Think about it, there are tons of people working on drivers for games, but not as many for applications such as Maya, CAD, etc. That may affect the pricing of such solutions, but I still think it's overpriced.

Anyway, I can't help but feel dismay at the lack of Nvidia support. I thought between OpenCL and Cuda Apple would've had a little more interest in providing (better) support for older and newer Nvidia gpu's, as well as AMD/ATI offerings. ATI's HD 2600 still beats Nvidia's 8800GT in many areas outside games.
post #22 of 57
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.
post #23 of 57
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.
post #24 of 57
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.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 57
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!
post #26 of 57
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.
post #27 of 57
Hopefully 10.5.7 will be out soon in conjunction with desktop updates!
post #28 of 57
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.
post #29 of 57
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#
post #30 of 57
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
post #31 of 57
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...
post #32 of 57
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.
post #33 of 57
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.
post #34 of 57
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.
post #35 of 57
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? \
post #36 of 57
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.
post #37 of 57
Ahh, I suspected so. Thanks for the info, though.
post #38 of 57
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.
post #39 of 57
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
post #40 of 57
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Mac OS X 10.5.7 may have Nehalem, Radeon HD 4000 support