Mello I've often wondered the same thing. I usually get a laugh when some PC ignoramus tells me "there's so many graphic card choices for PC" and I inform them that ATI and Nvidia both have very similar 4-5 chips lines with reference designs.
It would seem that Apple would just use a reference board...add ADC and tweak the drivers themselves.
Of course apple will have PCI express in the next line of PowerMac G5s. You should not be wasting time concerned about why ATI is not making a new video card for the mac. Does no one remember the fiasco back with the G3 (i think it was the g3) where ATI jumped the gun and announced that they had new cards for the new imac and G3. Apple flipped. it almost cost ATI there contract with apple. do you really think they would make the same mistake again.
Apple has to provide full support and compatibility with ALL professional video cards from now on.
Apple has do something to get Maya Unlimited on OSX along with Houdini, 3D Studio, Solidworks and AutoCAD.
Not an easy thing, but if Apple did that...if only Apple did THAT.....
After the next revision of Max (3DS Max7), which I am told will happen, Discreet is already planning an entirely new generation of this product that will have a different name. It is possible although unlikely that this new version could be ported to OSX. Under the present circumstances dont plan on seeing 3DS Max on OSX...Ever.
I'm surprised nobody has mention the GPU intensive Motion as another motive for Apple to get workstation class video cards available on Macs.
That was my original point to begin with. Not only for use with motion, but what these cards can do for all the Apple pro applications.
What I was saying was basically Adobe Premiere, and Flame will blast a mountain sized hole through FCP, and SHAKE using a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 SDI. I also stated earlier. Apple opened the door in these areas, got their feet wet, whatever you want to call it. To lay down now is a mistake.
Film, TV, and broadcast pro's. Started taking notice of Apples products. FCP was used for Cold Mountain, and Shake was used a lot in LOTR just to name a few off the top of my head. If they want to keep impressing, and gaining ground in these areas the option of highend performing video hardware being available on the Mac if needed is a must IMO.
So this is an application problem. Apple can't fix it, although they can educate developers not to do such silly things.
It's also a graphics card problem. The difference between the "pro" and "non-pro" is a device ID that is now embedded in the GPU, itself. So, technically, there are two different GPUs, but are only differentiated by the ID. In the old days, people would pop of a resistor on the PCB to change the ID and get pro features for the price of non-pro. The driver checks the device ID to determine whether it is pro or not. If it is a pro card then two additional features are enabled: hardware anti-aliase lines and one other I can't remember.
Basically, if you don't use either one of those additional features on a large scale then it is not worth the exctra money for the card because all other performance benefits would be the same.
It's also a graphics card problem. The difference between the "pro" and "non-pro" is a device ID that is now embedded in the GPU, itself. So, technically, there are two different GPUs, but are only differentiated by the ID. In the old days, people would pop of a resistor on the PCB to change the ID and get pro features for the price of non-pro. The driver checks the device ID to determine whether it is pro or not. If it is a pro card then two additional features are enabled: hardware anti-aliase lines and one other I can't remember.
Basically, if you don't use either one of those additional features on a large scale then it is not worth the exctra money for the card because all other performance benefits would be the same.
Based on your description it isn't a card problem, it is a software problem. Take out the device ID check and presto you have a pro card. There is a bit more to it than this, however.
Sure. This is second-hand information, mind you, but I've heard it from a number of people who do work in 3D.
Essentially, the major 3D applications check to see what kind of video card they have to work with, and they only enable the "pro" features if the driver tells them it's a "pro" card - a FireGL, a Wildcat, whatever. So even if Apple ships a pro-quality OpenGL implementation, and even if ATi's Mac driver exposes the full power of the RADEON card underneath (which is nearly identical to a FireGL), the 3D application will treat it as if it were a crippled, consumer-grade graphics subsystem with a sketchy OpenGL implementation because the driver will report back that the card is a "RADEON" rather than a "FireGL".
Or, to put it bluntly, the 3D software vendors support the graphics card vendors by explicitly checking for the expensive pro hardware so that you can't just flash a GeForce and save $1000. On the PC side this makes sense, because there is no standard OpenGL library, and the OpenGL implementations that ship with consumer cards are incomplete and optimized for speed over accuracy. Unless you've paid for the good stuff, the software will assume it's running on consumer-grade crap. Unfortunately, this moots the fact that on the Mac the driver exposes the full functionality of the card, and also the fact that Apple supplies an OpenGL implementation as robust and complete as the one you pay for when you buy a pro card. If the card says it's a "RADEON" or a "GeForce" then the 3D software won't even look for a robust OpenGL implementation.
If there were PCI Express in the new PowerMac, there is no doubt in my mind Apple has a plan to put it to use. I do believe, however, that we are going to be unpleasantly surprised. I don't think PCI Express will be in this revision.
I'd like to add that not all of the high end video cards that are 3D specific are all they are cracked up to be. More specifically they are generally way way overpriced and do not offer enough 3D acceleration to justify the price. Case in point I have three guys around me (on PC's) 2 including me have VP Wildcat 870's ($1200.00 "3D accelerated" video card), 1 has a Quatero I believe, and another in the office has a GeForce FX5200, which believe it or not outperforms all of these in most tests we've run on MAYA, Max, and Soft Image XSI. I dont know what to attribute this to but can tell you that the FX5200 was purchased for $72.00. I see the gap between the higher end consumer cards and the proffessional cards narrowing in every area except price. Do with this information what you will.
Comments
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
I'm surprised nobody has mention the GPU intensive Motion as another motive for Apple to get workstation class video cards available on Macs.
I was thinking that a higher end card might speed up motion but until that day comes we won't know for sure.
pro graphics card? Apple has already competed directly with other Apple
friendly companies (Final Cut Pro vs. Adobe Premiere). Apple won't be
directly competing with Ati or Nvidia since they don't make pro cards for
the mac. And they have enough smart people that could make drivers that
take advantage of all the ins & outs of the G5. Hell, I'd be happy if Apple
licenced a pro-card from Nvidia, Ati, Creative Labs, etc. & just optimize the
crap out of it.
It would seem that Apple would just use a reference board...add ADC and tweak the drivers themselves.
they will be at WWDC. wait and see.
Originally posted by aemv
There is really not much to say except
Apple has to provide full support and compatibility with ALL professional video cards from now on.
Apple has do something to get Maya Unlimited on OSX along with Houdini, 3D Studio, Solidworks and AutoCAD.
Not an easy thing, but if Apple did that...if only Apple did THAT.....
After the next revision of Max (3DS Max7), which I am told will happen, Discreet is already planning an entirely new generation of this product that will have a different name. It is possible although unlikely that this new version could be ported to OSX. Under the present circumstances dont plan on seeing 3DS Max on OSX...Ever.
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
I'm surprised nobody has mention the GPU intensive Motion as another motive for Apple to get workstation class video cards available on Macs.
That was my original point to begin with. Not only for use with motion, but what these cards can do for all the Apple pro applications.
What I was saying was basically Adobe Premiere, and Flame will blast a mountain sized hole through FCP, and SHAKE using a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000 SDI. I also stated earlier. Apple opened the door in these areas, got their feet wet, whatever you want to call it. To lay down now is a mistake.
Film, TV, and broadcast pro's. Started taking notice of Apples products. FCP was used for Cold Mountain, and Shake was used a lot in LOTR just to name a few off the top of my head. If they want to keep impressing, and gaining ground in these areas the option of highend performing video hardware being available on the Mac if needed is a must IMO.
Originally posted by wmf
So this is an application problem. Apple can't fix it, although they can educate developers not to do such silly things.
It's also a graphics card problem. The difference between the "pro" and "non-pro" is a device ID that is now embedded in the GPU, itself. So, technically, there are two different GPUs, but are only differentiated by the ID. In the old days, people would pop of a resistor on the PCB to change the ID and get pro features for the price of non-pro. The driver checks the device ID to determine whether it is pro or not. If it is a pro card then two additional features are enabled: hardware anti-aliase lines and one other I can't remember.
Basically, if you don't use either one of those additional features on a large scale then it is not worth the exctra money for the card because all other performance benefits would be the same.
Originally posted by X X
It's also a graphics card problem. The difference between the "pro" and "non-pro" is a device ID that is now embedded in the GPU, itself. So, technically, there are two different GPUs, but are only differentiated by the ID. In the old days, people would pop of a resistor on the PCB to change the ID and get pro features for the price of non-pro. The driver checks the device ID to determine whether it is pro or not. If it is a pro card then two additional features are enabled: hardware anti-aliase lines and one other I can't remember.
Basically, if you don't use either one of those additional features on a large scale then it is not worth the exctra money for the card because all other performance benefits would be the same.
Based on your description it isn't a card problem, it is a software problem. Take out the device ID check and presto you have a pro card. There is a bit more to it than this, however.
Originally posted by Amorph
Sure. This is second-hand information, mind you, but I've heard it from a number of people who do work in 3D.
Essentially, the major 3D applications check to see what kind of video card they have to work with, and they only enable the "pro" features if the driver tells them it's a "pro" card - a FireGL, a Wildcat, whatever. So even if Apple ships a pro-quality OpenGL implementation, and even if ATi's Mac driver exposes the full power of the RADEON card underneath (which is nearly identical to a FireGL), the 3D application will treat it as if it were a crippled, consumer-grade graphics subsystem with a sketchy OpenGL implementation because the driver will report back that the card is a "RADEON" rather than a "FireGL".
Or, to put it bluntly, the 3D software vendors support the graphics card vendors by explicitly checking for the expensive pro hardware so that you can't just flash a GeForce and save $1000. On the PC side this makes sense, because there is no standard OpenGL library, and the OpenGL implementations that ship with consumer cards are incomplete and optimized for speed over accuracy. Unless you've paid for the good stuff, the software will assume it's running on consumer-grade crap. Unfortunately, this moots the fact that on the Mac the driver exposes the full functionality of the card, and also the fact that Apple supplies an OpenGL implementation as robust and complete as the one you pay for when you buy a pro card. If the card says it's a "RADEON" or a "GeForce" then the 3D software won't even look for a robust OpenGL implementation.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for clearing that up.
We'll see!