Apple's thrust into the high-end 3d video market MUST include new hardware!
Reply 41 of 80
July 22, 2002 4:20PM
[quote]Originally posted by Nonsuch:
He wasn't being disapproving, merely pointing out that this gives strong indication of Apple releasing its own multi-button mouse. Cool yer jets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, exactly. Thanks for the defense.
Reply 42 of 80
July 22, 2002 4:36PM
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
Doesn't George Lucas have some relationship with the Star Wars movies and some relationship with Industrial Light and Magic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A tiny relationship - he owns it
Reply 43 of 80
lemon bon bon
July 22, 2002 5:28PM
"EDIT: ooopos, sorry Lemon Bon Bon, I didn't see your post in that other thread!"
No problem, JD.
"Anyways, this topic needs its own thread, it's much different from discussing powermac photos....."
Agreed. I thought about making it a new thread...but knowing how anal retentive some of the mods have been of late...
Still, as you say, deserves discussion in own thread. Not many people actually 'bit' when I posted. I was mainly thinking about Dell beating Apple on price and getting into the markets Apple's after. But credit to JD for posting the whole thing. It has many different slants in light of the 'Shake' link that I saw after the macminute post.
"I didn't know about Shake being available for OS X."
Me neither. I didn't think they'd have it ready this soon. Hope this indicates good hardware on the way.
"Too bad Apple doesn't have any competitive hardware to run it on. Surely the top brass at Apple understand the problem, and are doing something about it????"
That's the six million dollar question.
I wonder if they will tier the 'power'Mac line up?
DDR G4s to dual 1.4 gig. An ultimate top end 'G5' style.
'There is no G5' seems to speak with alarming conviction that there 'is no G5'.
In fact, the register articles point to a 'mere' G4 on Rio for Jan' next year...at 1.6 gig plus...and some other improvements.
I'm sorry. I just don't see a G4 on superior throughput competing with a Clawhammer which will be clocked higher and at least 30% better at same mhz!!!
The G4 needs making wider. Yes. But it needs the single fpu addressing as well. The Athlon is already using DDR. It's already clocked higher with the same work per clock as a G4.
To get to where the Athlon is at....DDR and 1.4 gig still puts it behind the Athlon in my book.
Both going to Hyper or/and Rio respectively sees them on similar bandwidth but the Athlon is doing 30% more per cycle! Where is Apple going to get that kind of improvement short of a new CPU which the Clawhammer is?!?!
I have nothing against the G4. It's just the debacle clearly set it back and the x86 powerstruggle on mhz between Intel and AMD only put the boot in.
Apple haven't recovered in terms of performance...and pricing for that performance. They've just worked with what they've got.
Yeesh. At least make the next line up completely dual.
But that didn't help the Dual 1 gig against the 2.5 Pentium 4 on the digital video benches and Photoshop where the Mac is supposed to do well.
Sigh. Sorry. Started whinging again.
Love Apple software. Hardware specs still suck.
Lemon Bon Bon
Reply 44 of 80
July 22, 2002 6:00PM
Macintosh system requirements
800MHz Power PC G4 processor
Mac OS X v10.2 or later
QuickTime 5.0.4 or later
256MB of RAM
1GB disk space for caching and
Graphics card with 32MB of video
memory and OpenGL hardware
acceleration, such as the NVIDIA
GeForce2 MX or GeForce4 MX or the
ATI Radeon 7500
Display with 1280-by-1024-pixel
resolution and 24-bit color
Last item is interesting...also the fact that the Mac version requires 800Mhz, and the P3 version only 550 tells me something that obviously contradicts what Steve's been telling us for a few years.
Reply 45 of 80
July 22, 2002 7:01PM
Wow. Looking at apple.com/shake I am very disapointed. I will better hope that in the next month that website will look like all of their other software sites because there is nothing there. Why don't they sell Shake 2.5 through the Apple Store online?
Reply 46 of 80
July 22, 2002 7:26PM
That's called marketing, the reason Shake needs a Quadro is because it uses a ton of OpenGl for everything including the interface (which is how you write graphics programs on SGI boxes, which is where Shake started). Run it on slow hardware and it crawls. A Geforce3 or 4 will probably be ok, using Shake on a machine with an MX will be like torturing dumb animals
Well, it`s marketing and most likely a typo. Shake 2.4 (and 2.2/2.3) run just fine on a Geforce 2 MX. It´s not intensive on the OpenGL at all. In fact, there is NO OpenGL code in Shake that requires much more than a cheap card. I´ve run it on Linux with the Mesa libraries, and they are software only. On a P3-450. Works fine. The thing is that Shake is incredibly good. Simple as that. Why they wrote that it needs a Quadro, I don`t know. It`s BS.
Reply 47 of 80
a random walk
July 22, 2002 7:30PM
This is just a thought and I make no claims to know WTF I'm talking about, but...
The minimum system for Shake is OSX v10.2 which introduces Quartz Extreme. The minimum GPUs for both Shake and Extreme are the same. Both are also available come August as are the new PMs.
My guess is that "awesome hardware" will be defined by Apple as Jaguar, a Radeon 7500 and a G4+ at 1.2Ghz.
Reply 48 of 80
July 22, 2002 7:56PM
Hi all, I have been lurking for a while and finally have a tiny morsel.As per my broker, ATI will be providing the video goods for new Macs. To corroborate, the globe and mail has this, [quote]The Toronto-based company said its new computer-graphics chip, which will be used in Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh computers, will double the power of existing chips <hr></blockquote> I know ATI has blown it before with their loose lips, but I thought Nvidia and Apple were in bed together. If I am not mistaken, ATI only supplies the portables.
Reply 49 of 80
July 22, 2002 9:42PM
[quote]Originally posted by sammy:
<strong>Hi all, I have been lurking for a while and finally have a tiny morsel.As per my broker, ATI will be providing the video goods for new Macs. To corroborate, the globe and mail has this, I know ATI has blown it before with their loose lips, but I thought Nvidia and Apple were in bed together. If I am not mistaken, ATI only supplies the portables.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Apple is pragmatic enough to use the best of whatever is currently available. If the top-of-the-line GPU option is the Radeon9700, so be it. The standard issue could still be an nVidia board -- that will depend on pricing, primarily. I've been hoping that Apple would provide more options in the BTO store, if not in the standard configs. If Apple is really serious about graphics then both the 9700 and the nv30 should be available to the Mac community when they are finally in production.
Reply 50 of 80
July 22, 2002 9:59PM
If apple is going to start using ati cards in their powermacs i wonder if that rules out the possibility of nvidia having an nforce chipset.
Does an ati card take advantage of nforce? Or do you need an nvidia card to go with the motherboard?
The more interesting thing to me about the requirements is that on a mac they require you to have a 3 button mouse.
Either it means that they're telling you so that you buy one. Or it means that the new powermacs are going to ship with 3 button mice. I think its more likely that you'll have to buy one.
Reply 51 of 80
July 22, 2002 11:00PM
[quote]Originally posted by MicrosoftOsXp:
<strong>If apple is going to start using ati cards in their powermacs i wonder if that rules out the possibility of nvidia having an nforce chipset.
I think that "possibilitiy" was ruled out before it became a possibility.
Reply 52 of 80
July 22, 2002 11:22PM
[quote]Originally posted by G-News:
Last item is interesting...also the fact that the Mac version requires 800Mhz, and the P3 version only 550 tells me something that obviously contradicts what Steve's been telling us for a few years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or, it could mean that Apple doesn't sell any PowerMacs that are under 800Mhz, and they really don't care what Intel hardware you try to use. I mean, if you were Apple, would you use your new aquisitions to encourage *new* converts to buy your current line up of machines or would you say recommend discontinued product to encourage them to try and pick up used hardware on eBay. I mean, I don't think anyone would really try and compare a PIII at 550mhz to a G4 at 800Mhz. There is no comparision.
Reply 53 of 80
July 23, 2002 5:39AM
I've been an active reader of these boards for a long time, but this is my first post so I'd like to say "hello" to everybody before I finally contribute to this thread.
[quote]Originally posted by MrSparkle:
<strong>Also, I don't know if this is still the case, but there wasn't a huge difference between the Quadro and the GeForce(2 or 3) Ultra. I'm not sure how much of a real performance difference ther really is between those cards."</strong><hr></blockquote>
I read this in a MacNN thread way back in February that was created by a person called "kalico." I thought it was interesting so I saved it, and I hope all of you will find just as enlightening as I did back then (I'll just quote the message instead of rewording it) :
"You can't compare the Mac version of GeForce to a PC version because the
drivers on the PC turn off key performance parameters inside OpenGL while
Apple doesn't. These are hardware accelerated lines, hardware accelerated
antialiased lines/points, two-sided lighting, shared back buffer and depth
buffer, user clipping planes and some other tweaks. Apple doesn't limit the
chip while on the PC side nVidia requires that card makers do because the
GeForce chip is repacked and sold as a Quadro chip with these features
turned on. Here is a website to find out more about this:
ATI does a similiar thing. Look at their site and notice that when you read
about the Radeon 8500 for the PC there is no mention of workstation class
applications such as Maya, but when you read the Mac Edition pages it's
clearly stated that the card is designed for workstation class
applications. Also, read the FAQ for the FireGL 8800 and the first thing
they say is that it's for workstation class applications.
People, in a nutshell on the Mac these so called "Game Cards" are fully
enabled. I've even spoken with the ATI engineeer who's coding the drivers
for Mac and he's told me they fully optimized for OpenGL, no limiters!!!
Read that again, NO LIMITERS!!!
One last point, I use an 867Mhz G4 with a GeForce3 everyday working with
Maya and in our studio we also have a Wildcat II 5100 inside a Dell
workstation and there is no difference in working performacne! This does
not mean that the Wildcat II is slower, but that the GeForce3 in a Mac is
just as fast as this $2000 card. We've also done some test with a PC
GeForce3 and it's noticably slower when working in Maya."
So thats probably why only a desktop graphics card is a requirement for the Mac version and why the PC version needs a Quadro card.
Reply 54 of 80
July 23, 2002 7:41PM
Apple bought a graphics card company 'Raycer Graphics' in 1999, and we still haven't heard anything out of that. It was rumored to be a high-end card maker. (shrugs)
Also, as far as hardware worth bringing to the table to compete with: 2x is just not going to do it. And the memory bus is just not large enough right now for 4x.
On the other hand, the price of the actual _chip_ compared to the price of the x86ish chips... With just one G4 compared to just one x86, price comparisons hurt due to the pretty box. Two versus two... and the pretty-box-tax is lessened. If Apple did break out into the higher CPU count boxes for $10,000 or so, it starts to be more competitive.
But something drastic would need to change with regards to the memory bottleneck first.
Reply 55 of 80
July 23, 2002 8:31PM
[[[But something drastic would need to change with regards to the memory bottleneck first. ]]]
Wouldn't this be interesting:
[[[To maximize data bandwidth and reduce memory latency, Motorola Inc. said it will likely integrate a DRAM controller directly onto a future high-end PowerPC processor ... By doing so, the processor could bypass an external bus and have a direct link to the DRAM. ... "It makes a lot more sense to add high-speed memory controllers on processors," ... "Anytime you have a bus, you have to arbitrate for the bus. Rather than let it go hungry, you could feed the processor as fast as it can be fed." ]]]
You can find the original topic discussed here:
Reply 56 of 80
July 23, 2002 10:28PM
VERY interesting notes about the difference between PC & Mac graphics cards...!
And for the naysayers that don't think Macs are a platform worth working on in a professional basis:
I was particularly impressed with the Reality Check Studios clip... I had seen 'Behind Enemy Lines' but I did not know that a lot of the jet stuff was digital... (of course, in retrospect, it makes total sense that it would be digital, because filming those particular sequences would be a bit cost prohibative... and really dangerous...!) But, suspension of disbelief and all that...
And then their sliding into a song and dance about using Maya for bumpers, and showing a bunch of flying logos...! Tounge in cheek towards the whole 3d market and its inflated ego, or what!?! Ha!
But my favorite would be the clip from The Orphanage...
What Mac fan wouldn't rejoice at the sight of a full blown production pipeline running on nothing but Macs & Mac OS X...! Even down to the rack full of PowerMacs...! And the all LCD lineup (TiBooks & Cinema Displays) was also sweet!
Now, if they would add a full rack of xServes...!
Well, those folks seem to be making a living using 'just' Macs for their development & rendering platform of choice...
Apple (Steve Jobs) plans to replace Silicon Graphics (note - I said Silicon Graphics, not SGI... this hearkens back to the days when Silicon Graphics ruled the high-end DCC market...) as the Digital Content Creation platform of choice; providing OS, hardware & software as the total solution...
As an aside, WETA Massive (the new proprietary software turned commercial software, with a free learners version...!) has been announced, and the opening price for a license is a whopping US$40,000.00! WOW! But, Mac OS X was NOT one of its announced platforms...
On the Maya side, Mental Ray also announced an upcoming public beta (v1.5) of its Maya renderer (30-day demo) which WILL be avaiable on Mac OS X ...
Maybe they are hearing something the rest of the market isn't... Maybe Pixar has plans for bringing RenderMan (back) to the Mac platform, on Mac OS X... Maybe that has them a bit afraid...!
Once again (and to the dismay of
...!), I believe Apple needs to buy Maya from Alias|wavefront and release Maya with RenderMan as its new default renderer...
Oh, and if Quartz Extreme works as advertised, Shake should run quite nicely on the next generation of PowerMac,; and should really ROCK on the one after that...!
[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: MacRonin ]</p>
Reply 57 of 80
July 23, 2002 11:55PM
I don't quite understand why they use Mac as renderfarm
If they are using PowerMacs for workstation stuff okay...but for renderfarm?!!!???! Doesn't really make sense. Expensive and sloooooow
Reply 58 of 80
July 24, 2002 12:24AM
Well, you figure they got at least a dozen QuickSilver workstations, if not two dozen; all with flat-panels, and a bunch of Ti Books scattered about...
And about a dozen machines or so set up in the racks... Which, the diligent observer will notice are mainly G4 Graphites, with a few QuickSilvers in there... I even saw a PowerSmurf in there...
I would be willing to bet that the racked machines are the older workstations, replaced by all the QuickSilvers & Cinema Displays...!
Why bother going into the whole multiplatform pipeline thing, if the old workstations turned renderpigs combined with the new workstations at night, can fulfill your render needs just fine...?!?
Reply 59 of 80
July 24, 2002 5:10AM
ATI just released the its Fire GL workstation class card with a Radeon 9700 that's supposed to cost under $1000.
I hope this is for Macs, too.
Reply 60 of 80
July 24, 2002 6:13AM
[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>Once again (and to the dismay of
...!), I believe Apple needs to buy Maya from Alias|wavefront and release Maya with RenderMan as its new default renderer...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I recall correctly someone here or on arstechnica mentioned that a|w was one of the very few parts of SGI generating real profit (trough Studio, though) and I doibt SGI would be selling any of that actually. Besides, I'd prefer Lightwave.