I'm not sure what you mean by keep up. The big problem on the Mac would be suitable drivers.
Nvidia has drivers on their website.
The problem is EFI support, so even with the Nvidia drivers there is no boot screen support. Just buy a flashed Nvidia card with a 64-bit EFI ROM and you're good to go.
Apple could be offering Mac versions of these cards and making some money on them if they didn't have their heads up their arses. It's really a shame that Apple is pulling out of professional computing.
I would say the 680MX will last you at least 2 years if not 3 years. By then you are ready for a new computer and you're not simply throwing out your iMac. You can still probably get good money on the trading block for it.
The problem is EFI support, so even with the Nvidia drivers there is no boot screen support. Just buy a flashed Nvidia card with a 64-bit EFI ROM and you're good to go.
Apple could be offering Mac versions of these cards and making some money on them if they didn't have their heads up their arses. It's really a shame that Apple is pulling out of professional computing.
Is it Apple pulling out or professionals pulling out of Apple? I want to say neither as there are a number of factors impacting the market for so called Pro machines. One factor is that laptops are often a "better" solution.
Welcome to every computer ever made ever by any company ever.
Get off your kick.
LOL, you really are a fanboy. Virtually every computer company but Apple offers a consumer desktop computer. Owners of such computers can update their optical drives, HDDs, and video card in a matter of minutes. CPU upgrades might take an hour. Such practicality from Apple costs a minimum of $2500.
Is it Apple pulling out or professionals pulling out of Apple? I want to say neither as there are a number of factors impacting the market for so called Pro machines. One factor is that laptops are often a "better" solution.
The Final Cut debacle suggests that Apple is pulling out. That's the belief among the pro users I've spoken with, none of whom rely on a laptop as their primary content creation machine.
The Final Cut debacle suggests that Apple is pulling out. That's the belief among the pro users I've spoken with, none of whom rely on a laptop as their primary content creation machine.
Some people seem to like it now. I wouldn't need it often, and Premiere is part of Creative Suite. Due to those two things, I have no motivation to learn it.
The Final Cut debacle suggests that Apple is pulling out. That's the belief among the pro users I've spoken with, none of whom rely on a laptop as their primary content creation machine.
My recollection was the original FCP was a bit buggy and incomplete as well. And FCP X was pretty much rebuilt from the ground up and is up to 10.0.7. The features added (or re-added back as the case may be) aren't consumer features either.
Who puts in that kind of effort just to pull out?
Plus Boris released their plugin pack not long ago. At $995 I guess they are bullish that there will be enough pro users of FCPX to have made that effort worth while.
This is an extremely poor example if you ask me. Final Cut X may have upset a few immature video professionals but it should not have been a surprise to anybody that the software had received a major overhaul. It was pretty clear well before release that FCX was a total rewrite so anybody expecting a package that was exactly like the original FCP is frankly an idiot.
Now I'm not going to say that Apple handled the release of FCX well but that is a far cry from saying that they are giving up on professionals. The fact is the original FCP didn't get to the point it was instantly and was the result of multiple releases, FCX is following a similar path with missing features carefully being rolled in and other enhancements being made. Software of this type is more of a service than a product as it is never fixed functionality wise.
The Final Cut debacle suggests that Apple is pulling out.
Nope the reaction to FCX suggest that many people in the video industry are self centered, in mature and don't have a clue when it comes to the technology they use. It also suggests that they are not malleable and adaptable to changes in technology.
That's the belief among the pro users I've spoken with, none of whom rely on a laptop as their primary content creation machine.
Yep, that pretty much supports my theory on these so called Pros. Mean while real professionals have adapted to and have learned to leverage FCX to their advantage. It is all about evolution where the ability to use tools speed along human evolution, in most cases, Of course even today you have humans that have trouble adapting to new tools and remain stuck to the tools of their youth.
The Mac Pro is an interesting case of neglect and circumstance that does make Apple look less than committed to the Mac Pro. However this doesn't mean they lack commitment to Pros. The reality is that video professionals are an extremely tiny portion of the Pro market. I suspect that 1% would be a stretch.
My recollection was the original FCP was a bit buggy and incomplete as well. And FCP X was pretty much rebuilt from the ground up and is up to 10.0.7. The features added (or re-added back as the case may be) aren't consumer features either.
These sorts of software packages are never really complete. FCX was basically a total reset of the code base so in effect starting from ground zero. Considering that FCX never deserved the crap it got from the so called Pros out there.
Who puts in that kind of effort just to pull out?
Beyond that the refactored FCX is in many ways a vastly improved Pro product that Pros with an open mind and a willingness to learn quickly discovered.
Plus Boris released their plugin pack not long ago. At $995 I guess they are bullish that there will be enough pro users of FCPX to have made that effort worth while.
The flight from FCX has been greatly exaggerated. Many see it as a vastly improved product.
It isn't that simple. The $999 machine is marketed as a server thus no real need for GT3. This is in fact one of the issues I have with Apples marketing of the Mini as the server designation screws up tiering.
On the other hand GT3 graphics in a Mini would be fantastic. Cooling may be a problem but they need to address that anyways. Couple one of Hesse "H" series processors with a lot of RAM and you end up with an ideal Mini.
It isn't that simple. The $999 machine is marketed as a server thus no real need for GT3. This is in fact one of the issues I have with Apples marketing of the Mini as the server designation screws up tiering.
On the other hand GT3 graphics in a Mini would be fantastic. Cooling may be a problem but they need to address that anyways. Couple one of Hesse "H" series processors with a lot of RAM and you end up with an ideal Mini.
Hopefully not too ideal or we wont get it.
The only reason the mini lost discrete graphics was because it's become a CPU powerhouse. The only things that the iMac does significantly better is anything GPU accelerated.
If the $799 2.3Ghz Core i7 Mini had the GT 630M I think a lot of folks wouldn't be buying the iMac. Especially given the lack of supply. Heck even as an extra $100 BTO option for the top end $899 2.6Ghz Core i7 model to push it to $999 and a lot of folks would be doing that over an iMac.
It's just one of those things that Apple does. It's smart for them even if it is annoying.
That still doesn't make sense. Intel demoed Heaven at 17W and they said it was targeting Ultrabooks. Also why would the M line start at 37W when it only has GT2 but still offers dual-core?
A Q3 launch is late too, it was supposed to be April:
"Haswell therefore arrives substantially later than originally anticipated and it appears that Intel's product cadence has become much more elastic recently. The original tick-tock model that was introduced in 2006 predicted die shrinks in uneven years and new architectures in even years. With the June launch date, Intel is about six months behind its own plan."
:applause: Intel, you've done it again. So nothing until WWDC basically.
Final Cut X may have upset a few immature video professionals
Hardly, I'm not sure why this keeps coming up when there were clear problems that had to be addressed and major workflow changes. Every other program tries to work in native formats and that was the goal everyone was working towards. Apple instead decided everything should be transcoded to ProRes. Drop an hour long Motion JPEG clip into FCP 7 and you can edit it natively, chop it around and export to Motion JPEG, almost zero CPU usage and very fast. Do it in FCPX and it will try to transcode the entire thing to ProRes - even if you stop it doing that, your only export options are limited or you have to convert through Compressor. Sure it's an ideal world to use ProRes with fixed aspects as an edit codec and H.264 for delivery but we don't live in an ideal world.
This applies to consumers too. Apple makes an iPhone that lets you (for whatever reason) shoot video in portrait when it should really shoot widescreen video no matter how you hold the phone (and crop it horizontally on the portrait display for preview) but you can't edit that video easily because FCPX likes standard widescreen video formats.
Sure people can adapt to it just like people adapted to the many FCP 7 flaws but when people have legitimate concerns about software they base their entire careers around, it's not justified to say they are just being immature. Not allowing migrating old projects was a huge mistake and they've still just left it to 3rd parties.
People should be receptive to change and putting up immediate barriers before the change is presented is immature but there's no problem complaining about things they can and should fix. I'm not sure they fully appreciate how important Quicktime is to the media world.
I am not a fan of the HD4000 at all especially with the HDMI issues though having another subpar discrete graphics card doesn't make it worth the price vs. having none at all.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm not sure what you mean by keep up. The big problem on the Mac would be suitable drivers.
Nvidia has drivers on their website.
The problem is EFI support, so even with the Nvidia drivers there is no boot screen support. Just buy a flashed Nvidia card with a 64-bit EFI ROM and you're good to go.
Apple could be offering Mac versions of these cards and making some money on them if they didn't have their heads up their arses. It's really a shame that Apple is pulling out of professional computing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The one with the 680MX should be able to. Here's it running Battlefield 3 on Ultra at 2560 x 1440, 30-50FPS:
The 680M, which is a bit slower can play pretty much every game on maxmum:
Sure, every current game on maximum. Not in a couple years. But Apple wants you to throw out your iMac in a couple years and buy a new one.
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Sure, every current game on maximum. Not in a couple years. But Apple wants you to throw out your iMac in a couple years and buy a new one.
Welcome to every computer ever made ever by any company ever.
Get off your kick.
Is it Apple pulling out or professionals pulling out of Apple? I want to say neither as there are a number of factors impacting the market for so called Pro machines. One factor is that laptops are often a "better" solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Welcome to every computer ever made ever by any company ever.
Get off your kick.
LOL, you really are a fanboy. Virtually every computer company but Apple offers a consumer desktop computer. Owners of such computers can update their optical drives, HDDs, and video card in a matter of minutes. CPU upgrades might take an hour. Such practicality from Apple costs a minimum of $2500.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Is it Apple pulling out or professionals pulling out of Apple? I want to say neither as there are a number of factors impacting the market for so called Pro machines. One factor is that laptops are often a "better" solution.
The Final Cut debacle suggests that Apple is pulling out. That's the belief among the pro users I've spoken with, none of whom rely on a laptop as their primary content creation machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
The Final Cut debacle suggests that Apple is pulling out. That's the belief among the pro users I've spoken with, none of whom rely on a laptop as their primary content creation machine.
Some people seem to like it now. I wouldn't need it often, and Premiere is part of Creative Suite. Due to those two things, I have no motivation to learn it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
The Final Cut debacle suggests that Apple is pulling out. That's the belief among the pro users I've spoken with, none of whom rely on a laptop as their primary content creation machine.
My recollection was the original FCP was a bit buggy and incomplete as well. And FCP X was pretty much rebuilt from the ground up and is up to 10.0.7. The features added (or re-added back as the case may be) aren't consumer features either.
Who puts in that kind of effort just to pull out?
Plus Boris released their plugin pack not long ago. At $995 I guess they are bullish that there will be enough pro users of FCPX to have made that effort worth while.
Now I'm not going to say that Apple handled the release of FCX well but that is a far cry from saying that they are giving up on professionals. The fact is the original FCP didn't get to the point it was instantly and was the result of multiple releases, FCX is following a similar path with missing features carefully being rolled in and other enhancements being made. Software of this type is more of a service than a product as it is never fixed functionality wise. Nope the reaction to FCX suggest that many people in the video industry are self centered, in mature and don't have a clue when it comes to the technology they use. It also suggests that they are not malleable and adaptable to changes in technology.
Yep, that pretty much supports my theory on these so called Pros. Mean while real professionals have adapted to and have learned to leverage FCX to their advantage. It is all about evolution where the ability to use tools speed along human evolution, in most cases, Of course even today you have humans that have trouble adapting to new tools and remain stuck to the tools of their youth.
The Mac Pro is an interesting case of neglect and circumstance that does make Apple look less than committed to the Mac Pro. However this doesn't mean they lack commitment to Pros. The reality is that video professionals are an extremely tiny portion of the Pro market. I suspect that 1% would be a stretch.
The flight from FCX has been greatly exaggerated. Many see it as a vastly improved product.
It isn't that simple. The $999 machine is marketed as a server thus no real need for GT3. This is in fact one of the issues I have with Apples marketing of the Mini as the server designation screws up tiering.
On the other hand GT3 graphics in a Mini would be fantastic. Cooling may be a problem but they need to address that anyways. Couple one of Hesse "H" series processors with a lot of RAM and you end up with an ideal Mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It isn't that simple. The $999 machine is marketed as a server thus no real need for GT3. This is in fact one of the issues I have with Apples marketing of the Mini as the server designation screws up tiering.
On the other hand GT3 graphics in a Mini would be fantastic. Cooling may be a problem but they need to address that anyways. Couple one of Hesse "H" series processors with a lot of RAM and you end up with an ideal Mini.
Hopefully not too ideal or we wont get it.
The only reason the mini lost discrete graphics was because it's become a CPU powerhouse. The only things that the iMac does significantly better is anything GPU accelerated.
If the $799 2.3Ghz Core i7 Mini had the GT 630M I think a lot of folks wouldn't be buying the iMac. Especially given the lack of supply. Heck even as an extra $100 BTO option for the top end $899 2.6Ghz Core i7 model to push it to $999 and a lot of folks would be doing that over an iMac.
It's just one of those things that Apple does. It's smart for them even if it is annoying.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-630M.63761.0.html <--- It doesn't even have a GDDR5 option so to me it would kind of suck and it's Fermi not Kepler.
The best minimum you'd want to offer is 640M though that is already in the iMac so maybe the 640M LE?
That still doesn't make sense. Intel demoed Heaven at 17W and they said it was targeting Ultrabooks. Also why would the M line start at 37W when it only has GT2 but still offers dual-core?
A Q3 launch is late too, it was supposed to be April:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-haswell-cpu-processor,20042.html
"Haswell therefore arrives substantially later than originally anticipated and it appears that Intel's product cadence has become much more elastic recently. The original tick-tock model that was introduced in 2006 predicted die shrinks in uneven years and new architectures in even years. With the June launch date, Intel is about six months behind its own plan."
:applause: Intel, you've done it again. So nothing until WWDC basically.
Hardly, I'm not sure why this keeps coming up when there were clear problems that had to be addressed and major workflow changes. Every other program tries to work in native formats and that was the goal everyone was working towards. Apple instead decided everything should be transcoded to ProRes. Drop an hour long Motion JPEG clip into FCP 7 and you can edit it natively, chop it around and export to Motion JPEG, almost zero CPU usage and very fast. Do it in FCPX and it will try to transcode the entire thing to ProRes - even if you stop it doing that, your only export options are limited or you have to convert through Compressor. Sure it's an ideal world to use ProRes with fixed aspects as an edit codec and H.264 for delivery but we don't live in an ideal world.
This applies to consumers too. Apple makes an iPhone that lets you (for whatever reason) shoot video in portrait when it should really shoot widescreen video no matter how you hold the phone (and crop it horizontally on the portrait display for preview) but you can't edit that video easily because FCPX likes standard widescreen video formats.
Sure people can adapt to it just like people adapted to the many FCP 7 flaws but when people have legitimate concerns about software they base their entire careers around, it's not justified to say they are just being immature. Not allowing migrating old projects was a huge mistake and they've still just left it to 3rd parties.
People should be receptive to change and putting up immediate barriers before the change is presented is immature but there's no problem complaining about things they can and should fix. I'm not sure they fully appreciate how important Quicktime is to the media world.
Quote:
The reality is that video professionals are an extremely tiny portion of the Pro market. I suspect that 1% would be a stretch.
And Corvette buyers are a tiny fraction of Chevy's sales. Guess they should EOL the Corvette, eh?
Apple may as well abandon the pro market, those video professionals don't have any influence anyways. Who cares if Macs are just a consumer toy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Is the GT 630M that much of an improvement over the Radeon 6630M?
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-630M.63761.0.html <--- It doesn't even have a GDDR5 option so to me it would kind of suck and it's Fermi not Kepler.
The best minimum you'd want to offer is 640M though that is already in the iMac so maybe the 640M LE?
I'd rather have the 630M over the HD4000...
I can't comment on the GT2 thing.