or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors - Page 11

post #401 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by irondoll View Post

Saw this question over on macrumors and it seemed pertinent here, perhaps someone knows the answer:



Sounds like some problem on the 2.26ghz nehalems to me...

Either the testing contains errorsnot the first time this has happened, or the amount of memory was very different, though memory is usually less important for video editing, when 8 cores are being used, that can change. The 2.26 is no different from the rest other than the speed it's running at.

The last is whether the numbers supplied in that post from MR are correct in themselves.
post #402 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Some tests here show why these machine ARE worth their price tags in performance, esp if you need high performance in many pro video editing apps etc., when these apps are properly written as many of them are. Note the performance of the 2.26 8 core model as compared to the 3.2 GHz and 2.8 GHz older 8 core models.

For pro video editing, an 8 core 2.26 GHz model is better in most tests than the 8 core older 3.2 GHz model.

http://www.barefeats.com/nehal03.html

We should be seeing a lot more tests shortly.

Well, that barefeats page is recycling the same cinebench (which is a 3D not video test) data from the macrumors thread, I'm curious why he didn't show the single threaded graphs (it would reveal the very poor 2.26 point). I think we have to assume that cinebench data is wrong in some way considering the spurious result og the lowend octocore nehalem (note, it is beaten by a Macbook Pro 2.4 core 2 duo!!!!):

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_...10_Numbers.jpg

I suppose we can break down the geekbench numbers for single threaded tests and do a similar ghz normalisation to see if the 2.26 is still abnormally under-performing there too...

EDIT: perhaps it is differences in graphics cards, as cinebench I assume taxes OpenGL too. We do know that the previous generation 8800GT should stomp on the new Nvidia 120, which could explain the harpertown dominance over the 2.26 nehalem. Still doesn't explain why it is beaten by a laptop, how can the 9600M be faster than the NVidia 120?
post #403 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by irondoll View Post

Well, that barefeats page is recycling the same cinebench (which is a 3D not video test) data from the macrumors thread, I'm curious why he didn't show the single threaded graphs (it would reveal the very poor 2.26 point). I think we have to assume that cinebench data is wrong in some way considering the spurious result og the lowend octocore nehalem (note, it is beaten by a Macbook Pro 2.4 core 2 duo!!!!):

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_...10_Numbers.jpg

I suppose we can break down the geekbench numbers for single threaded tests and do a similar ghz normalisation to see if the 2.26 is still abnormally under-performing there too...

They state very clearly where they have gotten the information from, but that doesn't make it any less valid than anything that has been posted here by others.

What you have to remember is that single threaded applications are becoming rarer as time goes by. Two years from now, when these machines will still be very viable, it will be difficult to find a single threaded app.

I don't know of a single pro video editing app, including Windows apps, that is not efficiently multithreaded. The same thing is true of pro 3D apps.

I think the concern about single threaded performance affects the GUI more than anything else. but 10.6 should make that less important as well.

The focus on single threaded apps is misplaced. Even AMD has gone to favoring multithreading in its CPUs.
post #404 of 505
Oh I agree about betting the house on multithreading for the future (assuming the non-linear cinebench result with the 2.26 is an anomoly I'd go for an octocore 2.26 over a quadcore 2.66), though I think it will take longer than we idealistically hope; often it is a "hard-problem" to divide a task into useful parts (many filters in PS work on the whole image, you cannot just tile the image into N tiles and spit each to a thread). Snow leopard can help in places, though it cannot perform magic on "hard-problem" tasks.

I am annoyed that Apple didn't take advantage of "multithreaded" (technically prarallel computation) graphics for OpenCL in the Mac Pro. I would have thought enabling the support for SLI/crossfire in the reference designs from Intel, and a dual-GPU card by default would have allowed stellar Snow Leopard performance values when it is announced soonish. We bet our house on multithreading, but still fail to parallelise GPU computation, old technology available in cheap PC architectures...
post #405 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by irondoll View Post

Oh I agree about betting the house on multithreading for the future (assuming the non-linear cinebench result with the 2.26 is an anomoly I'd go for an octocore 2.26 over a quadcore 2.66), though I think it will take longer than we idealistically hope; often it is a "hard-problem" to divide a task into useful parts (many filters in PS work on the whole image, you cannot just tile the image into N tiles and spit each to a thread). Snow leopard can help in places, though it cannot perform magic on "hard-problem" tasks.

I am annoyed that Apple didn't take advantage of "multithreaded" (technically prarallel computation) graphics for OpenCL in the Mac Pro. I would have thought enabling the support for SLI/crossfire in the reference designs from Intel, and a dual-GPU card by default would have allowed stellar Snow Leopard performance values when it is announced soonish. We bet our house on multithreading, but still fail to parallelise GPU computation, old technology available in cheap PC architectures...

Adobe is working on the very problem you mentioned. Thee are ways of doing it.

The new Mac Pro, unlike the ones before, has two 16 live lane slots. The second one isn't a double space slot though. Who knows what is possible with that?

I would have liked to see the 4870x2. I would have gone for it.

ATI's newest pro boards are coming with Displayport, so it's possible that we will see one of them before too long.

Nvidia has a ($2,000) board that's tuned for Photoshop. I'd like to see that here as well.
post #406 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I would have liked to see the 4870x2. I would have gone for it.

ATI's newest pro boards are coming with Displayport, so it's possible that we will see one of them before too long.

Nvidia has a ($2,000) board that's tuned for Photoshop. I'd like to see that here as well.

Indeed I'm keeping my fingers crossed that there is nothing on the motherboard which stops multi-GPU cards for a future update. I'd love to see a 4870X2 board (and Quadro FX and Adobe friendly Quadro CX) announced when snow leopard comes, and a CS5 preview showing 64bit PS with OpenCL support. Oh and Final Cut Studio finally dragged out of the carbon age, it is embarassing that Apple's own Pro apps are languishing in 32bit carbon antiquity...

Lets dream on!
post #407 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If they left the second socket, the machine would have cost even more.

I'm not so sure how much more it would have cost.

At the moment they've had to pay for the development and testing of two separate daughter boards (or two variations of a single board), not to mention the costs of setting up two different production lines (tooling etc.). There are then the on-going costs of maintaining two separate components and the logistics of how many of each need to be manufactured. Somebody somewhere has to monitor and manage two separate parts, and co-ordinate which go where and when. Factor in that the two separate daughter cards can't be cross purposed if required, and you start to see why one of the Golden Rules taught to product designers is 'Commonality'.

Commonality teaches us that it's often more cost effective in the long term to manufacture a single component that is marginally more expensive, than manufacturing and managing multiple lower cost devices.

It's entirely likely that at some point or another Apple are going to have thousands of dual-socket daughter cards sitting on the shelf, and have to order more single-socket boards when they could have just used a common part (or vice-versa). Extrapolate this out to the worldwide spare parts infrastructure and there is a very compelling argument for the adoption of Commonality from the get-go.

For the sake of the 'cost' of a second processor socket from Foxconn, Apple has sure made a rod for it's own back. Then there's the cost of the single-processor heatsink, which is a different design to the dual-processor heatsinks again Commonality would suggest that it was simpler and more cost effective to develop a single part that would function either way.

No, I believe that if there are any cost benefits, they will be extremely thin or indeed non-existent once everything is factored in. I believe that Apple has introduced the two-tier approach to ensure that if you buy cheap you stay cheap.

In virtually every other product design the world over, where a consumer isn't expected to upgrade internal components after the fact, you'll find that the manufacturers will design a common chassis that can accommodate multiple parts. This is true whether you are designing the engine bay for a car or the frame of a mountain bike. The only reason to go out of your way and incur the extra costs of developing unnecessary variations is if you want to ensure that customers aren't able to upgrade certain components after the fact thereby forcing them into paying a premium for the product that hasn't been artificially limited.

Just my thoughts!
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #408 of 505
It looks like Abster2Core better get out his drill bits because the memory and processor board is mounted on a metal tray. And according to Abster2Core, putting a board on a metal tray is a pain and you need drill bits in order to replace the board. So I would expect him to dismiss and criticize the new tray design of the Mac Pro, just like he dismisses and criticizes the idea of motherboard trays for PCs. But I guess those comments only apply to computers that are not Macs.
post #409 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

I'm not so sure how much more it would have cost.

At the moment they've had to pay for the development and testing of two separate daughter boards (or two variations of a single board), not to mention the costs of setting up two different production lines (tooling etc.). There are then the on-going costs of maintaining two separate components and the logistics of how many of each need to be manufactured. Somebody somewhere has to monitor and manage two separate parts, and co-ordinate which go where and when. Factor in that the two separate daughter cards can't be cross purposed if required, and you start to see why one of the Golden Rules taught to product designers is 'Commonality'.

Commonality teaches us that it's often more cost effective in the long term to manufacture a single component that is marginally more expensive, than manufacturing and managing multiple lower cost devices.

It's entirely likely that at some point or another Apple are going to have thousands of dual-socket daughter cards sitting on the shelf, and have to order more single-socket boards when they could have just used a common part (or vice-versa). Extrapolate this out to the worldwide spare parts infrastructure and there is a very compelling argument for the adoption of Commonality from the get-go.

For the sake of the 'cost' of a second processor socket from Foxconn, Apple has sure made a rod for it's own back. Then there's the cost of the single-processor heatsink, which is a different design to the dual-processor heatsinks again Commonality would suggest that it was simpler and more cost effective to develop a single part that would function either way.

No, I believe that if there are any cost benefits, they will be extremely thin or indeed non-existent once everything is factored in. I believe that Apple has introduced the two-tier approach to ensure that if you buy cheap you stay cheap.

In virtually every other product design the world over, where a consumer isn't expected to upgrade internal components after the fact, you'll find that the manufacturers will design a common chassis that can accommodate multiple parts. This is true whether you are designing the engine bay for a car or the frame of a mountain bike. The only reason to go out of your way and incur the extra costs of developing unnecessary variations is if you want to ensure that customers aren't able to upgrade certain components after the fact thereby forcing them into paying a premium for the product that hasn't been artificially limited.

Just my thoughts!

I understand the issues. But it would still have cost more. how much is a different question. But as the price is already high by some people's reckoning, and Apple's boards are always expensive, even a bit more might seem too much.

I'm not impressed by the argument that those machines need 32 GB RAM. Entities buying that machine have more modest needs to begin with, and it's not likely they would be purchasing $5,000 memory for a $2,500 computer. I wouldn't be surprised if it did take 16 Gb though, which is plenty, and far cheaper.
post #410 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

It looks like Abster2Core better get out his drill bits because the memory and processor board is mounted on a metal tray. And according to Abster2Core, putting a board on a metal tray is a pain and you need drill bits in order to replace the board. So I would expect him to dismiss and criticize the new tray design of the Mac Pro, just like he dismisses and criticizes the idea of motherboard trays for PCs. But I guess those comments only apply to computers that are not Macs.

Drill bits? Screwdrivers, maybe. I'll find out Friday.
post #411 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not impressed by the argument that those machines need 32 GB RAM. Entities buying that machine have more modest needs to begin with, and it's not likely they would be purchasing $5,000 memory for a $2,500 computer. I wouldn't be surprised if it did take 16 Gb though, which is plenty, and far cheaper.

To my mind, expansion is all about future proofing, rather than how much you can stuff in it on day one. My take on it is that if you have to stuff it to the gills on day one you've bought the wrong machine. This is especially true of a professional machine.

If I want to retain the option of 8GB+ it will cost me £2,499 today, whereas with the previous generation Mac Pro it would only have cost £1,749. That's a £750 premium to retain that option.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #412 of 505
Just to note that the cinebench numbers for the 2.26ghz Nehalem were updated, and it is now inline with the other Nehalem processors when correcting for frequency:

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_...10_Numbers.jpg

(you may need to reload this image if you already saw it elsewhere). We now have:

4074/2.93 = 1390 per ghz
3572/2.66 = 1343 per ghz
3142/2.26 = 1390 per ghz

The multithreaded test is up to 20,138 clearly outpacing the 2.8 harpertowns...
post #413 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

To my mind, expansion is all about future proofing, rather than how much you can stuff in it on day one. My take on it is that if you have to stuff it to the gills on day one you've bought the wrong machine. This is especially true of a professional machine.

If I want to retain the option of 8GB+ it will cost me £2,499 today, whereas with the previous generation Mac Pro it would only have cost £1,749. That's a £750 premium to retain that option.

I've not noticed "real" workstations coming down in price the past few years, if anything they are all increasing.

This reminds me of when people ask me which camera to buy. It's almost always a Canon or Nikon. Now I use Canons, so have nothing against them, and Nikon is a fine camera as well. But that's not why people ask about them it turns out. It's often because both have dozens of lenses available.

Considering that most people asking are amateurs, who will never but more than two or three cheaper lenses from any camera company, or third party lens makers, it's odd that they should care how many are available from the maker of the camera they want. but, there's that "just in case" about the $20,000 tele that only Canon or Nikon makes to special order.

I tell them to forget it. Buy a camera that actually meets their needs, not some hypothetical desire that they will never need, or fulfill.

The same thing is true here.

It would be better to buy the dual cpu machinet, and then fill it with cheaper RAM to the 16 GB limit, if the single core really is limited 8 GB (which we still don't know). Even if it's not limited to 2 GM DIMMS, the cost would be prohibitive right now.

It will be much cheaper that way, and will perform much better, and you could do it more quickly.

So no matter how you look at it, wanting to fill a single cpu machine with 32 GB RAM is pointless, and even 16 GB is very expensive.
post #414 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by irondoll View Post

Just to note that the cinebench numbers for the 2.26ghz Nehalem were updated, and it is now inline with the other Nehalem processors when correcting for frequency:

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_...10_Numbers.jpg

(you may need to reload this image if you already saw it elsewhere). We now have:

4074/2.93 = 1390 per ghz
3572/2.66 = 1343 per ghz
3142/2.26 = 1390 per ghz

The multithreaded test is up to 20,138 clearly outpacing the 2.8 harpertowns...

Good you caught that.

I said that the numbers should be wrong.
post #415 of 505
Quote:
I would have liked to see the 4870x2. I would have gone for it.

Would you?

I'm sure you can think of a perfectly valid reason why Apple shouldn't include such a beast in their overpriced 'workstation'?

I can. But then, I love being an Apple apologist.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #416 of 505
Still annoyed at the price hike.

Still annoyed at the lack of high end GPU.

Still annoyed Apple won't use consumer tower cpus.

Still annoyed Apple don't offer consumer quad cpus.

Still annoyed...well. I think you get the idea.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. 'I know Lemon Bon Bon, you ask...but which one are you buying...?'

Uhm. Dunno. Still gestating. I have a team of medics still pulling me out of the coma. Y'know...the price hikes...(*Stares...catatonic...)

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #417 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Would you?

I'm sure you can think of a perfectly valid reason why Apple shouldn't include such a beast in their overpriced 'workstation'?

I can. But then, I love being an Apple apologist.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Oh come on! You are really getting sillier by the day.

You KNOW I'm not an apologist.

So, yes, Apple should have included it. I've been stating for several years now, since third parties aren't offering boards, that Apple should make some effort to give us a wider selection.

Even if it means that they have to PAY board makers to do so!
post #418 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Still annoyed at the lack of high end GPU.

What GPU did you want? I thought that the ATI one was the fastest one out right now (based on toms hardware reviews).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #419 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

What GPU did you want? I thought that the ATI one was the fastest one out right now (based on toms hardware reviews).

GTX295
post #420 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

GTX295

Ughhh!

EDIT:

Added this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...s-losing-money
post #421 of 505
I would have liked to see the Quadra FX 5800 or Quadra CX. \
post #422 of 505
I'd like to see the new Fire Pro's.

My new Mac Pro just arrived 10 minutes ago.

I like the new layout very much.

The sliding, removable processor/memory tray is great.
post #423 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'd like to see the new Fire Pro's.

My new Mac Pro just arrived 10 minutes ago.

I like the new layout very much.

The sliding, removable processor/memory tray is great.


That "is" great. Apple sure knows how to package a product. The case may be
6yrs old in external appearance but there's a whole lot of shifting going on inside.
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 #424 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

That "is" great. Apple sure knows how to package a product. The case may be
6yrs old in external appearance but there's a whole lot of shifting going on inside.

I gotta tell ya, this case is about efficient as I've ever seen as far as cooling ability goes. The external is almost exactly the same as on my old dual 2 GHz G5, but the insides are so much more elegant. The G5 was really crammed.

Most servers and workstations look somewhat like this one, except in black, or have that really ugly Darth Vader vertical slot thing going on.

While It would have been nice to see a new case, just because... the truth is, there's nothing wrong with the old one. How does one improve upon something that's so perfect already. I know that really sounds fanboyish, but, really, what could they have done to make it better (other than to add another removable slot in the front, which would have added height and cost)?

I like the way the cards can be inserted and removed. The captive screws, of course, are always a delight, along with the vibration washers on the HDD trays, but that's old news, mostly.

It looks like upgrading the CPU's will be far easier than before, and that's a big plus.
post #425 of 505
Melgross,

Out of curiosity, what is your Mac Pro's benchmark with Safari 4.0 on this JS testing site?
http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action The fastest machine tested so far has a score of 2336 points on a Core i7 Processor 920 with Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 with 3GB RAM running Safari 4.0 on Windows XP.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #426 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Melgross,

Out of curiosity, what is your Mac Pro's benchmark with Safari 4.0 on this JS testing site?
http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action The fastest machine tested so far has a score of 2336 points on a Core i7 Processor 920 with Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 with 3GB RAM running Safari 4.0 on Windows XP.

I don't usually benchmark anymore, as there are many fine sites that do a pretty good job. All I usually do it to run some video on FCS that I have around for that, as well as some photo files for Photoshop, and a couple of others.

I just got back to the machine, as I had friends over for the afternoon and evening. I've just now finished getting everything disconnected from my old machine and on to this one, and did the 10 updates and such.

I guess, in a little while I can do that.
post #427 of 505
I figured I would do it right now, as I've got to do the Friday duty of taking out the garbage.

But, guess what? Even though I'm using Safari beta 4.xx on the old machine, since its a beta, the migration assistant didn't bring it over!

I should have realized that. So my first benchmark is with Safari 3.2.1.

It's 1136.

This is with a dual 2.66 with 6Gb RAM on with Apple's 6 sticks. I intend to put in 16 GB from OWC within the week. I'm happy I didn't buy it sooner, as the price already dropped almost 40%!

While I go out now, I'll download 4, and try it with that shortly.
post #428 of 505
Ok, I'm back again. With Safari 4 (5528.16) I got a score of 1851.

Interestingly, I read their notice about one window etc. For the first run, I had left the cursor where the click to start the test was, and got a score of 1843. I don't know if that was why, or if it's just a random difference.

But it's actually good that I had 3.2.1 on the machine at first, as we can now compare them directly. It's a big jump from 1136.

I don't know why that Windows machine is faster, though Macs have always seemed to be a bit slower on the net for some reason. Something in the OS.
post #429 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ok, I'm back again. With Safari 4 (5528.16) I got a score of 1851.

Interestingly, I read their notice about one window etc. For the first run, I had left the cursor where the click to start the test was, and got a score of 1843. I don't know if that was why, or if it's just a random difference.

But it's actually good that I had 3.2.1 on the machine at first, as we can now compare them directly. It's a big jump from 1136.

I don't know why that Windows machine is faster, though Macs have always seemed to be a bit slower on the net for some reason. Something in the OS.

Interesting results. I found that site today through one trustworthy site. Since it outputs results based on your system I feel it offers more real world results.

It's possible that the Cor i7 with Windows and Safari may have been "tuned" specifically for that test. Either way, your results do coincide with Apple's statements about the latest Safari JS engine being significantly faster.

PS: My score of ~1400 was with a late-2008 MacBook (2.4GHz, 3.75GB* RAM) with 10.6 (10a286) running Safari 4 Beta (6530.1).

* 0.25GHz are not showing up under SL.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #430 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Interesting results. I found that site today through one trustworthy site. Since it outputs results based on your system I feel it offers more real world results.

It's possible that the Cor i7 with Windows and Safari may have been "tuned" specifically for that test. Either way, your results do coincide with Apple's statements about the latest Safari JS engine being significantly faster.

I'm sorry I didn't get to the forum with my old dual G5 first. Right now, it's turned off, and disconnected. I even still have a dual mirror door, with 4 that I could try, just for the heck of it. Over the weekend, if I get time.

But I have noticed as has my family, on their machines, that 4 is most definitely faster.
post #431 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

GTX295

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ughhh!

EDIT:

Added this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...s-losing-money

Now now, Mel... Charlie Demerjian at Inquirer is very vocally anti-Nvidia. The original poster asked what is better than the ATI 4870. The GTX295 is.

If by Ughhh you mean you're dissatisfied with Nvidia, in some way so am I. The huge, fat, hot die which they just got to 55nm only recently, GTX260 not flowing down to mainstream resulting in rebranded 9800s which are rebranded 8800s and the so-called "GT120" and "130" basically Nvidia 9500 and 9600s or so...

Very naughty of Nvidia.

On the other hand, the ATI RV770 is an excellent GPU that is kicking ass in the ATI 4870X2, 4870, 4850 and 4830. Excellent value for money and possibly more profitable than Nvidia's offerings around that price range.

However as the Inquirer points out as well, the ATI 4890 was supposed to be an RV790, the last at 55nm before ATI rolls out their 40nm dekstop parts. Instead, the ATI 4890 is seems, according to the Inquirer, an upclocked 4870.

ATI has announced 40nm mobile GPUs but as for desktop no real news yet.

Basically, both ATI and Nvidia need to continue to push volume through this low sales year, Nvidia's rebranding of their 9-series is a very intelligent (if devious) move and offering them at competitive price/performance points will help them sell. The Inquirer is right though, Nvidia's probably going to post several quarters of lousy numbers.

Nvidia has got about a year to (A) sort out their mess and get down to 40nm as fast and economical as possible. (B) seriously start rethinking their monolithic GPU design. In 2010, they could still be depending on GTX280~etc derivatives at 40nm and G92(9-series) at 40nm... But by 2010 ATI could be dominating them with *their* 40nm RV870. Whatever they did with the RV770, they got it right. Mobility wise though I wonder if you see more Nvidia GPUs in laptops than ATI. I don't have the numbers.

I'm sure I haven't got all the facts right but... I think it is an interesting time for GPU manufacturers. The demands on Intel are still big -- cheaper, cooler, quadcore in mobile. The demands on GPU manufacturers can be even bigger, especially if all this GPGPU talk really starts gets integrated into Windows 7 or even XP/Vista apps, and when we start to see "killer apps" from OpenCL in Snow Leopard.

Then again, AMD ain't doin too well so I wonder if that weighs down ATI, and Nvidia, well, we've talked about the challenges they face.

Both AMD-ATI and Nvidia have a tough one this year. In the meantime, I'm perhaps not buying a GPU this year yet... although the ATI 4850 is showing some real good price/performance right now. I'm avoiding the GTX260 or 280 (too long and too big), the 1GB GTS250 has shrunk somewhat but is a rebranded year-old 9800GTX+, and anything less than a 9800GT (GT130 or GTS240 or whatever the heck its called) won't fly at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 resolutions.

So... Just gonna sit back and watch them ATI 4850 prices come a tumblin' down, maybe even the 4870 at 40nm (when it happens) will be at ATI 4850 prices in 3-5 months time.

I might go for a ATI 4850 512MB in my PC build to run at 1680x1050 20" LG/Samsung screen... Then maybe towards the end of the year see what the ATI 5000 series @ 40nm brings...

Then again, I might just save up. Darn' global recession.
post #432 of 505
Only need for Windows is to play latest FPS like Crysis and Far Cry 2 -like to run 25x16 on 30" Cinema Display with settings as high as possible for visual realism.

Will I be able to add 2nd 4870:
- Proper slots available?
- Power requirements?
- Will Crossfire work?
- Will an Apple CTO 4870 and the second Windows 4870 work together under Crossfire?
- XP vs Vista 64 - one better than the other for Crossfire under BootCamp?

Is there a better solution?

Thanks for any advice - extensive Web searching hasn't yielded any answers.
post #433 of 505
"Oh come on! You are really getting sillier by the day.

You KNOW I'm not an apologist.

So, yes, Apple should have included it. I've been stating for several years now, since third parties aren't offering boards, that Apple should make some effort to give us a wider selection.

Even if it means that they have to PAY board makers to do so!"

Bless you my son. There is hope for you yet.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. It wasn't me who made the made your referral to the Apple Apologist Dept. It was in fact my PC owning friend that 'lurks' these boards...

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #434 of 505
"What GPU did you want? I thought that the ATI one was the fastest one out right now (based on toms hardware reviews)."

One that Apple doesn't carry? Eg, A high end one?

eg. 295, x2, any forthcoming ATI 295 beater...?

Something with a mainstream amount of vram on it? eg 1-2 gigs of vram rather than a paltry 512 megs?

My PC owning friend has 2 gigs of vram on his ATI x2 card. It will handle the 'pro' resolutions much better than the single card 4870's 512 meg of vram.

It's just typical of Apple's 'We're pro, honest...' but penny pinching attitude. I walked into PC World the other day...and guess what? A 1 gig of VRAM card 4870 for about the same price as Apple's card. Apple have always been stingy with VRAM. Tight ass company. That's their problem.

Flawed.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #435 of 505
Quote:
While It would have been nice to see a new case, just because... the truth is, there's nothing wrong with the old one.

I'd have to agree with that. It is state of the art. Timeless. Sure a 'skin refresh' would have been nice with 'black accenting'. But really. It says it all that Apple didn't change it. It speaks for itself. Even against the best PC cases over five years after the fact. It looks superbly engineered.

I have to congratulate Melgross on his purchase. It sounds like you're going to be very happy with it.

Enjoy.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #436 of 505
I don't think Crossfire will work with 2 4870s in BootCamp. Like you say, not much info on this in the wild.

25x16 30" Crysis... boy you're talking SLI Nvidia GTX280's or Nvidia GTX295 or ATI 4870 X2 or Crossfire ATI 4870 or Quad SLI (SLI two GTX295's) and so on.

All of which it is dubious will run on your Mac Pro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malenfant View Post

Only need for Windows is to play latest FPS like Crysis and Far Cry 2 -like to run 25x16 on 30" Cinema Display with settings as high as possible for visual realism.

Will I be able to add 2nd 4870:
- Proper slots available?
- Power requirements?
- Will Crossfire work?
- Will an Apple CTO 4870 and the second Windows 4870 work together under Crossfire?
- XP vs Vista 64 - one better than the other for Crossfire under BootCamp?

Is there a better solution?

Thanks for any advice - extensive Web searching hasn't yielded any answers.
post #437 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

I'd have to agree with that. It is state of the art. Timeless. Sure a 'skin refresh' would have been nice with 'black accenting'. But really. It says it all that Apple didn't change it. It speaks for itself. Even against the best PC cases over five years after the fact. It looks superbly engineered.

I have to congratulate Melgross on his purchase. It sounds like you're going to be very happy with it.

Enjoy.

Lemon Bon Bon.

It is still the best PC case out there. For five years now. The Asus Vento's came close but of a very, very different nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

"What GPU did you want? I thought that the ATI one was the fastest one out right now (based on toms hardware reviews)."

One that Apple doesn't carry? Eg, A high end one?

eg. 295, x2, any forthcoming ATI 295 beater...?

Something with a mainstream amount of vram on it? eg 1-2 gigs of vram rather than a paltry 512 megs?

My PC owning friend has 2 gigs of vram on his ATI x2 card. It will handle the 'pro' resolutions much better than the single card 4870's 512 meg of vram.

It's just typical of Apple's 'We're pro, honest...' but penny pinching attitude. I walked into PC World the other day...and guess what? A 1 gig of VRAM card 4870 for about the same price as Apple's card. Apple have always been stingy with VRAM. Tight ass company. That's their problem.

Flawed.

Lemon Bon Bon.

HA HA yeah I forgot the ATI 4870 is only 512MB. That's a bit naughty of Apple to be their "highest end" offering. For the ATI 4850 you can get by with 512MB but the 4870 needs 1GB for really pushing pixels at 1920x1200 and of course 2560x1600...
post #438 of 505
So we have to say, the Mac Pro is not for very high-end PC gaming. Let's accept that fact.

But it is a beautifully engineered desktop, will run very fast, can have huge amounts of RAM... etc. It's for Mac Pro Apps and scientific stuff.

Not sure why they dropped a Quadro option though. Maybe the visualisation/ 3D/ engineering market really went PC big time.
post #439 of 505
Some of this GPU fiasco has to be blamed on Crysis and their makers. The GPU requirements are absolutely ridiculous in comparison with the rest of the industry, for visuals that... well, I would be hard pressed to say are *that* much better than other games.

Far Cry 2 for example, that uses a completely different engine and achieves some good visuals without totally raping framerates.

When Crysis came out, it made everybody start thinking, Oh Sh*t... what if in 1 or 2 years time all games will require this? My GPU will be very very obsolete very fast.

That XBox360 is looking better and better by the day.
post #440 of 505
Quote:
HA HA yeah I forgot the ATI 4870 is only 512MB. That's a bit naughty of Apple to be their "highest end" offering. For the ATI 4850 you can get by with 512MB but the 4870 needs 1GB for really pushing pixels at 1920x1200 and of course 2560x1600...

My point. Apple is raping our wallets with the latest desktop 'updates' and then penny pinch on vram on their 'flagship' 'workstation'.

Not a games machine. *Shrugs. Semantics. Something that costs that much should be able to have a. the option to buy workstation graphics and b. push games around for fun.

*Shakes head in disgust. They aint walking the talk.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors