NVIDIA prepping GeForce GTX 285 for Mac Pro - Page 2

According to Apple's website, the MacPro only has (1) PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot. The rest of PCI Express 2.0 x4 slots. For a total of 3 PCI Express 2.0 slots.

Cool card but certainly not cheap. My local AASP recently quoted me an exorbitant $550 for a piece of industry-outdated card which was retailing at an already-overpriced $279 on the Apple Online Store. It doesn't look anywhere cool to me, does it...?

If ATI can make their 3870 compatible with both 2006/7 and 2008 Mac Pros, I'm sure nVidia can.

It's time for another class action suit for Apple.

They have 2 x16 slots and 2 x4 slots. That box is only talking about the available slots. One x16 slot is already being used for the graphics card. What is so hard to understand?

Yes, the PCIe power socket is actually on the main board. There are very few stray cables in the Mac Pro, the exceptions that I recall are to connect power & data to the optical drives, everything else is tucked away, tied down or replaced with a direct board connection of some sort.


Note that they say "open", as in the second x16 slot is already occupied with a GFX card.

Personally I am overjoyed that nVidia is going to release the GTX 285. Realistically, the product is distinct from the HD4870 since for the 512MB PC version, ATI has a MSRP of $150 making it a mid-range GPU. THe GTX 285 priced at $350 on PCs is definitively a high-end part. At the same time, with the Mac version of the 512MB HD4870 priced at $350 up from $150 on PC, I'd hate to see what price the GTX 285 will have. Although if nVidia prices it aggressively, say at $400, which still allows them a $50 premium over the PC version, the GTX 285 could seriously undercut the HD4870.

And having a consumer GPU with 1GB is very useful. Certain GPU accelerated applications like Mudbox already complain of insufficient memory with a 512MB GPU. This will only get more common with OpenCL applications and it shouldn't be necessary to go all the way to a Quadro to gt more than 512MB of VRAM. I always wondered why Apple didn't choose 1GB for their HD4870, but if the intention was always to eventually have the 1GB GTX 285, it makes sense now. I guess they were just waiting on the drivers since the GT200 GPU is quite distinct from the previous 8xxx and 9xxx series. For one thing the GT200 GPU can now do 64-bit double precision floats, useful for OpenCL, just as ATI HD3xxx and HD4xxx GPUs can do.

My next bet is that ATI might hit back with a Mac & PC version of the new HD 4770. There is definitely room for a ~$200 GPU to replace the HD 3870 and this is probably the most popular segment anyways. The 512MB HD4770 is cheap to make, because of it's 40nm process, has great performance, still has decent performance separation with the higher-end 512MB HD4870, yet can use the same drivers so there is very little additional development effort.

I was actually speaking from experience, from trying to install the 295 from my gaming rig in my Mac Pro. As JeffDM said, there are very few spare power connectors/dangling cables in a Mac Pro. The only ones I could see were 1 spare optical drive power and the 2 PCIe power connectors.

And even though a 6-pin can sometimes deliver enough power for an 8-pin, on the Mac Pro it doesn't work. The 295 has power connector lights to tell you if it is getting enough power from each of it's connectors, and the Mac Pro 6-pin can not provide enough it's 8-pin plug.

The problem with penny counting is that there is still a cost to developing for the Mac, and the actual market for the cards is small. If we were generous in saying that the Mac Pro is 1% of the upgrade card market, then you have to consider that that's a lot fewer machines to spread that driver & firmware development cost over.

I don't doubt a premium for Mac GPUs is required to justify the additional development costs of a Mac version. But while some Mac GPUs have a reasonable premium, others are approaching price gauging to put it bluntly.

For example, the new Quadro FX 4800 Mac Edition is priced at $1800. The comparable PC version costs around $1600. So a $200 or 12.5% premium. This is reasonable, maybe even a little bit low, considering the very high-price point and small target market.

However, you have the 512MB HD4870 where the Mac version is $350 and the PC version has a MSRP of $150. A $200 or 233% premium. It's very hard to see development costs and small market justifying this premium. The development costs of the HD4870 drivers are shared with the HD4850 in the iMac, compared to professional Quadro drivers which should be fairly distinct from even GTX 285 drivers and the combined market of the HD4850 and HD4870 would be much larger than the Quadro FX 4800 Mac Edition. Yet the Quadro manages to have a tiny premium in comparison.

Similarly, the GT120 for the Mac Pro (rebranded 9500GT) retails for $150 while the PC version averages around $60. A $90 or 250% premium. And with the GT120 the standard discrete GPU in both the iMac and Mac Pro the target market is larger than the HD4xxx market and substantially larger than the Quadro market, yet the premium is even higher. What's more, driver development effort is minimal since the GT120 is just a rebranded 9500GT, which is a shrink with upclock of the 8600GT, so the drivers would basically be the same as existing 8xxx and 9xxx GPUs.

I don't mind a premium to account for development effort and small market, but the facts actually point to the exact opposite. The smaller the market, and the more unique the driver, like the Quadro, the smaller the premium, while the large market, little development effort parts, like the GT120, get a huge premium. I guess the reasoning is that the mainstream mass consumer is subsidizing the high-end niche market. I can actually respect that somewhat, otherwise a Quadro card may never have come to Mac at all. Still, it isn't exactly pretty. From my purchases, I guess it's kind of easier to overlook when buying a MacBook Pro since the GPU is built-in and hard to price, but it's just in plain sight when buying a Mac Pro.

As a heavy 3D program user, I bought a Mac Pro for an all out, no compromise system without price being a factor. I'm just glad to see a new graphics card that is actually something useful for the Mac Pro and not a lower end or outdated model. Apple has tended to neglect that area of the Mac Pro for some time by not updating their graphic cards often enough. While I have an '08 Mac Pro and 8800GT, it's nice to know there is an option now if I need more power without going over $1K for it.

Thanks Apple and nVidia for giving us more options, that's why I got my Mac Pro to begin with and hope this is a trend from now on.

These are third party cards. You won't see any MXM upgrades for the iMac.


They just might. This segment doesn't exactly doesn't with the Jobs-Ive mindset and they've done their best to try and marginalize it.

Are you comparing the same product from the same maker though? It seems like some of these cards are made by the graphics chip makers, and most of the PC card market is about the third party companies. Maybe it doesn't make any difference for actual build quality, and being the same general reference design shouldn't make a difference, but I think that could account for some of the price difference.

Still waiting for SLI and Crossfire support.

What will this card mean for Color? We have a guy who is a trained colorist / editor who wants to use Color on professional jobs. However, it isn't real time in HD and we have been hoping that Apple would offer a card that accelerates the rendering in Color. Clients paying high dollar for color sessions expect a certain level of performance from the equipment - Color is close, but not quite what we want it to be.

Did you actually read that carefully?

It says 1 OPEN Express 2.0 x 16 slot.

That's in addition to the 16 x slot used for the graphics card, which is also a double width slot.

There's no way to bypass it and plug right into the psu? If not that blows.

Also, I've been reading about it, and the reason you can't simply plug a pc video card into a mac has to do with the bios on the card. It needs a special bios for the mac motherboard, and also even requires a different bios chip (I think larger in capacity)

Other than the 295, have you ever tried to run a pc video card in the mac pro before? If so what happened when you turned it on?

This might sound completely insane, but are there any kits to upgrade an 'older-than-the-hills' PowerPC G5 Dual 1.8 GHz Mac to an Intel Mac of any sort? I don't follow the technical aspects of computing anymore other than the general specs for RAM, HD size and chip speed. If possible, I'd gut my old computer and install a new motherboard and a few other components... is this even remotely possible?

I have tried a PC version 8800GT. It works if you boot in to Windows but not if you boot in to OS X.

I think this tutorial and chart clears everything up.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...gurations.html

So you went through all the trouble of finding that article but you failed to read it. Amusing.

"The Power Macintosh G5 Quad 2.5 has a four slot PCI Express bus with a fixed total of 32 lanes (with a 16-lane, 4-lane, 8-lane, and 4-lane slot) and the subsequently introduced Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.8 (Early 2008) has a fixed total of 40 lanes (with a double-wide 16-lane PCIe 2.0 slot, single-wide 16-lane PCIe 2.0 slot, and two 4-lane PCIe slots).

The original Mac Pro Quad 2.66, on the other hand, has a four slot PCI Express bus with a total of 26 dynamically allocated lanes. By default, the graphics card occupies a double-wide 16-lane PCI Express slot, the second slot is allocated as a single lane, and the third and fourth slot are each configured as 4-lane slots."

Besides the fact of the cases being completely different on the inside, the only real way is to gut an existing mac pro and put it in that tower . In other words, no.... You'd have to replace everything.

Only if you turn it into a PC based Hackintosh as some have done. But it's not totally compatible that way.

I looked into this a while ago, and although I can't remember the exact wording I can tell you that is has to do with the amount of on-board video cards' bios rom. Basically, any video card built for Apple requires more than a standard pc.

I'll be getting one as soon as it comes out!

I read the article, Kondor. The article doesn't jive with Apple's Spec Diagram. Or are you too terribly important to notice?

I'll be one of those people complaining again. I just got a bit excited when I read we were getting a new NVIDIA card only to become extremely pissed to find out I can't upgrade to it! Jesus H Christ, I love my MacPro and OS X but why should we have to kick and scream to get something like this?!?

Paying the money we do for a professional graphics workstation that can't get a decent video upgrade is totally wrong! I will be writing to Steve again. I suggest you all do the same who care about keeping your Mac investment worth something in the future!

This is the kind of BS that Windows users don't have to put up with, and REALLY makes me consider alternatives when I hear stuff like this.

it's not as good as the GeForce GTX 285 which is so far not an option for 2006 owners who need more.

LOL. Instead of admitting you were wrong you just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole.

That diagram is the default configuration of the four slot PCI Express bus with a total of 26 dynamically allocated lanes that had the original Mac Pro Quad 2.66.

What's the deal again? That diagram you linked is not relevant to the current machine.

What are you talking about? My discussion revolves around Apple not supporting SLI you dweeb. Anything someone else is discussing is orthonormal to my position and concern with the Mac Pro.



From that view I can cram the s*** out of a second double and watch the heat transfer out going right into the ground. The back blower out takes a large portion of the heat out. Side by side I'd love to see someone waste buying two of those cards and see how gloriously useless they are on OS X and Mac Pros.

Show me where I'm going to put 2 GTX295/285 x16 fully accessed and SLI enabled Nvidia cards let alone ATi Crossfire.

Apple doesn't support either configuration you mindless drone.

Everything in this discussion is a hack: http://discussions.apple.com/thread....47622&tstart=0

Trolls like you are so funny. I knew you will end up resorting to personal attacks.

PC people do have to put up with this, and over the years, they have put up with this.

Every time a new way of integrating a graphics card into a machine is invented, the new cards won't work (with some exceptions) in old machines.

We can start with the PCI bus. The first implementation of this bus had no graphics slot. The cards went into a PCI slot. Some manufacturers specified which PCI slot, and some didn't. It depended on how many slots were there, among other issues.

When the AGP bus was invented, the new cards that used that couldn't work in a PCI slot. Each time the AGP bus was improved to be wider, most newer cards couldn't work in the older AGP machines. The few that could, ran slower, and usually no faster than the older cards for the slower slots.

When the industry moved to the Express bus, the same thing happened. You couldn't use AGP cards, and the new cards wouldn't work in older machines.

With Express 2, we have an upgraded standard. Like AGP, some cards from the old machines will work in the new machines, but most won't. Most new cards won't work in old machines, but some will.

This is the way the world goes. It's not just Apple.

Then I'd say it's funny you never mentioned SLI in this thread before this post, if anything, it would seem you were beating around the bush if that's what you were really getting at given how much you've been fussing over the slots. It's not as if SLI is necessarily the only reason one would want multiple video cards.

You sir are an ass. The discussion was about whether the slots existed, not what they were used for. There is no reason to attack people like that. It's people like you that ruin reading these boards. get a life.

No, but SLI is the only reason one would want a GTX 295. The 295 is what they call "SLI on a stick;" two GPUs on one card, and it would require an OS X driver that supports SLI to work.

Are you sure about that?

The other x2 cards don't require SLI or Crossfire.

As you could probably tell by the way I worded my query, I had doubts it was possible. Thanks for entertaining my question anyway.

They don't require SLI support on the motherboard (unless you want to use two cards for quad-SLI), but they do need a driver that supports it, otherwise it's a card with two DVI ports that each get their own GPU.

I'm not sure how to explain it. If you stick a GTX 295 or a Radeon 4870 X2 in a Windows PC (or a Mac Pro running Windows) and install the latest driver from the GPU manufacturer, you are going to get SLI or Crossfire. It's not dependent on motherboard support like two separate cards would be.

But the OS X Nvidia driver (who writes it? Apple? Nvidia? Both?) probably doesn't have any code for SLI in it. And if it doesn't, then this is just two GPUs connected to a PCIe switch.

Don't even talk about the technical side. It disgusts me to see myself buying my Mac Pro at a premium price of $4300+ only to find its technology obsolete 6 months later, with almost an impossibility to sell this beast in a bloody third world country without incurring more for the latest and the greatest. We're talking about a Mac here, so let's not compare Apples and Oranges.

It's different on a PC world which you can easily sell separate components without having to turn in a year-old system and reassemble an entire brand new system just to keep up with technology. Apple components are already expensive compared to PC, and yet we as Mac users are being treated third class in terms of upgradability.

I don't know what you're talking about. These machines are not obsolete 6 months later, as you seem to think. You're making a very large exaggeration. All machines lose their top tier status as time goes on. But all of my Macs have held up better than competitive PCs have.

The only thing you might have a legit grouse with, is the lack of a choice in graphics cards. That's purely a result of Apple not having enough open machines on the market to sell into, and the lack of awareness on their part that customers want cards that they don't think necessary to supply.

Maybe, if these cards sell well enough, that might change.


Again, I have no idea of what you're speaking about.

What "components" are you referring to? Graphics cards? No older graphics card holds its value. Memory? You really try to resell your old memory? You're kidding!

HDDs? You think there's a market for someone's old HDD? For pennies, maybe.

Your old mobo? PC third party mobo's have no resale value, and the ones from Hp, Dell, etc, have none either.

Power supply? A joke, right?

Case? No one will buy a used case, new ones are either too cheap, or are better than whatever you have now.

So what components are you talking about? Your hat? You're talking out of that.

Well that's the thing I'm talking about, since you wanna compare Apples and Oranges with your PCI and AGP analogy, and if you can't comprehend what I've just said, don't...! Because you've just turn the thread upside down with all your pathetic component comparison.

Six months in my perspective... I bought mine for 6 months before they abandoned it for a superior PCI-e v2.... And now Apple's pact with nVidia and ATI does not provide any upgrade option to the 1st gen Mac Pro, simply because the latter only uses PCI-e v2 with EFI64 ROM. AppleCare's not helping either, so I've wrote my case directly to Apple's Customer Care instead, but all I met is silence. Local AASP quoted me $550 for a piece of outdated 8800GT when Apple Store is selling it at an already expensive $279. Imagine 6 months, and you're dead in a water.

This is what I'm talking about... I'm not talking about value, I'm talking about upgradeability options. But if value is what you treasure most, how can that hold up if older Mac Pros are not given any chance of compatibility or upgrade options...? You tell me... am I exaggerating...? And I bet you don't even own one...