My point was that they should offer SLI to fully utilize Core image, and take it to it's limits. In 1 1/2 years as you say you'll be able to put those 2 "new cards" in there. What seems to be nonsense is to think just because your probably not getting it, is that it's useless.
But I guess SLI could be hacky for Gamers (I don't actually know about that), but Nvidia didn't develop it for games. They intended it for Pro use, but I hear it works in games. I just didn't see a game played on it. It rocks the house with a set of Dual Quadro FX 3400's. ! I've seen it in action. The speed is amazing. I can't even imagine how awesome it would be with dual 4400's.
SLI will come when its appropriate. I don't think any current mac software would utilize it currently. Apple isn't going to want to release a product that can't be taken advantage of. Hopefully they are in collaboration with another company like alias (are they still alias?).
----------------
My rant: the 9200's. Get rid of them. Releasing those in current computers is insane! I mean come on, they won't even be taken advantage of in Tiger. Everyone knows about tiger, and for a current computer to lack tiger support (less than 4 months away) is absolutely crazy.
So at least ditch those. Put a higher end card (9700 maybe?) in an iMac Pro (don't say heat problems because the powerbooks have them) and put at least a 5200fx in the ibook.
Powermac needs a 6600gt / x700 to replace the 9600 and 5200. (though there isn't much of a difference between the 6600gt and x700 (both are 128-256mb and 128bit cards that are neck and neck in benches).
Also, the mini... put a 5200fx in there. CoreImage support... btw I'm too lazy to correct what I wrote above about tiger not being supported... I meant CoreImage/CoreVideo.
Its time for some serious upgrades and to get NVidia / ATI on the train for PCI-Express, which i'm sure will be in the next rev.
Beware of non-Ultra parts, though, as some of them are only equipped with much slower 64 bit memory modules.
While the chipsets that Apple chooses may not be the best they should be alright. However, as far as I can tell they have a strong tendency to only use 64bit memory paths. If you look at a PC card with one of these chips you will see that it has two memory chips. The eMac, and Mini both have only one memory chip, limiting the most important factor in video performance - memory bandwidth. I can understand the Mini only having one memory chip, it is very space constrained. My eMac however, actually has the pads on the motherboard to mount the second memory chip, that would double its video performance. I havent had a chance to see a new iMac, anyone got some good motherboard images???
Although it isnt clear, until recently full DX9 shader support was required for Quartz 2d. This will accelerate actual drawing procedures ( not just composition like QE ). I think it would be the cheapest way to make a low end Mac feel really snappy. Shame low end Mac gpus arent likely to be supported.
I checked out the numbers from your link and it turns out I was correct and you have some sort of mixup there. X800 XT runs at an engine clock of 500MHz, X800 XT Mac runs at 475MHz. The Mac edition is a slightly underclocked XT sold with a higher price and that's it. As a reference, the X850 XT PE:s engine clock is 540MHz, again similar design clocked differently.
No no, the X800 Windows has a memory bus speed of 450 Mhz. The Mac has a memory bus speed of 500 Mhz. They both have a clockrate of 475 Mhz. You need to look a little closer :P
The X850 hasn't been released yet, and I so I've just been comparing the X800's. Like I said, there likely won't be a Mac X850, so the Mac X800 is somewhere in between the PC X800 and the X850.
The Mac version is $500, or $450 after a discount directly from ATI, the Windows version comes in to flavors: $450 for the VGA and $500 for the DVI, according to buy.com. So, the Mac version is faster, and cheaper with the discount considering it's got DVI and ADC out.
Quote:
The X800, which I'm talking about and which is too new to show in ATi pages yet, has 12 pipelines vs the XT:s 16, and a 350MHz engine clock. It's in a significanly lower price segment and should offer good price/performance.
What does this have to do with anything?
Quote:
Some cards are PCIe only (I think both X800 and X850 XT PE) and that would obviously be a barrier of entry to the Mac for ATi - they aren't likely to go out of their way to hardware design yet another card with PCIe-AGP bridge chip, especially when they already have the most reasonable midprice segment card on the Powermac, the 9800XT. It is my opinion that Apple needs to get PCIe in Powermacs ASAP. That would let ATi immediately release X850 XT PE for Mac, since the drivers already exist for X800 XT. X800 would probably work with little change as well. [/B]
The X850, which hasn't been released yet, is PCI Express, not the X800. Ultimately PCIe will be really helpful, but at the present, it offers nothing over AGP. PCI Express is a big transition and it probably won't happen for a bit. No one is going to pay $600 for an X850 just because Apple felt like using a new, undersupported technology. When there's cheaper cards for PCIe (I suspect nVidia will supply these, since the 6200 is PCIe compatible), then Apple will switch.
so clearly right now iMac g5 is minimum required to play any flagship FPS games eg UT2004, HL2, Doom3, etc... CounterStrike Source ???
you know, on a side note, this is the first time ever that an "iMac" can actually be said to be able to play the latest and greatest FPSs from the PC world
I think a little fact check is in order here. There is no HL2 for the Mac. There will be no HL2 for the Mac. There's no CS:S for the Mac. There will be no CS:S for the Mac. Mac release of Doom3 is not out, and we don't know how it will actually run. There is no FarCry on the Mac, and I think other top FPS's are missing as well. UT2004 is not new, even on the Mac, where it was published alot later than the Windows version if I recall correctly.
Quote:
eMac and Mac mini can handle C&C:generals, WoW, etc....
come one people, it's not that bleak, is it? Gaming is just not Apple's target market right now compared to what the PC world is pushing? Especially this year if you are looking at trying to get the stock up to $85+
if you all know so much about graphics cards, how come you don't have just a Gaming rig for gaming?
I have a PS2 and I'm going to get a gaming rig. On the Mac only thing I have played is Starcraft.
Quote:
but good point, kids buying eMac and Mac mini must be informed so they have a realistic expectations of their gaming enjoyment... hell i think Apple dealers should sell a nice phat PS2 alongside the eMac and Mac mini if kids are really into gaming but need a decent computer for education, web surfing, and email, etc...
like you can use your Mac mini and a PS2 together with 1 monitor:
I had that VGA box hooked up to a 19" CRT and oh man did the picture suck. Went back to playing at a friend's place on TV. Now I'm debating with myself whether to buy a Dell 2001FP or Benq FP2091 that has SVHS and composite inputs. I hear those give you decent picture, but I'm still not sure - they just might suck also and then I'd be pissed for spending the extra over a similar Viewsonic without inputs.
Anyway, there's enough places to buy a console, Apple doesn't need to sell them. The only thing they could do IMO is to provide good inputs in, say, iMac for hooking up a game console. I'd hate to have a 20" flatscreen display just sitting there, and have a bulky 20" TV just to play some PS2.
No no, the X800 Windows has a memory bus speed of 450 Mhz. The Mac has a memory bus speed of 500 Mhz. They both have a clockrate of 475 Mhz. You need to look a little closer :P
The X850 hasn't been released yet, and I so I've just been comparing the X800's. Like I said, there likely won't be a Mac X850, so the Mac X800 is somewhere in between the PC X800 and the X850.
The Mac version is $500, or $450 after a discount directly from ATI, the Windows version comes in to flavors: $450 for the VGA and $500 for the DVI, according to buy.com. So, the Mac version is faster, and cheaper with the discount considering it's got DVI and ADC out.
I'm looking at the ATi comparison page and it has the following info.
card - GPU clock/memory clocks in reference card
X800 XT - 500/500
X800 XT Mac - 475/500
The normal XT may be overclocked by card builders or the user, though I don't know how often this is done in practice, and how successfully. Anyway the Mac card which is built under ATi's own brand is underclocked from the factory. Anandtech confirms this in plain english so you can quit dragging out wrong numbers:
And as far as I know, ATi doesn't make a VGA only X800 card. I'll believe otherwise when I see a link to a credible source. "X800 Windows" can mean any of the following: X800, X800 Pro, X800 XT and X800 XT PE. There are also three different X850 models announced already.
Quote:
The X850, which hasn't been released yet, is PCI Express, not the X800. Ultimately PCIe will be really helpful, but at the present, it offers nothing over AGP. PCI Express is a big transition and it probably won't happen for a bit. No one is going to pay $600 for an X850 just because Apple felt like using a new, undersupported technology. When there's cheaper cards for PCIe (I suspect nVidia will supply these, since the 6200 is PCIe compatible), then Apple will switch.
nVidia 6600GT's, which have arguably the best price/performance from nVidia right now, cost significantly more as AGP versions. This is because they are PCIe cards with an AGP bridge chip. Meanwhile, ATi is moving even more rapidly to PCIe than nVidia, and a big part of their lineup is not available as AGP anymore. This includes all X300 cards, all X600 cards, all X700 cards, X800 (not sure about this), X800 XL, all X850's. If missing out on all that is not a big deal for Apple graphics technology department, I don't know what is.
And as far as I know, ATi doesn't make a VGA only X800 card. I'll believe otherwise when I see a link to a credible source. "X800 Windows" can mean any of the following: X800, X800 Pro, X800 XT and X800 XT PE. There are also three different X850 models announced already.nVidia 6600GT's, which have arguably the best price/performance from nVidia right now, cost significantly more as AGP versions. This is because they are PCIe cards with an AGP bridge chip. Meanwhile, ATi is moving even more rapidly to PCIe than nVidia, and a big part of their lineup is not available as AGP anymore. This includes all X300 cards, all X600 cards, all X700 cards, X800 (not sure about this), X800 XL, all X850's. If missing out on all that is not a big deal for Apple graphics technology department, I don't know what is.
That's a good point that some are not realizing. ATI, and Nvidia are ready to stop making AGP cards all together. Apple really has to switch. I don't remember who said you cant utilize it yet, but that is not true. The only reason I can see that you can't utilize PCI-E is because you don't currently have it. It's more cost effective for Apple to switch sooner rather than later unless they want to keep using outdated cards because most new cards are PCI-E + the AGP Bridge chip which is is just adding cost to the card itself. I doubt the Next PowerMac will have AGP, but I hope it has second PCI-E slot in case you want to utilize an SLI bridge.
The X850, which hasn't been released yet, is PCI Express, not the X800. Ultimately PCIe will be really helpful, but at the present, it offers nothing over AGP. PCI Express is a big transition and it probably won't happen for a bit. No one is going to pay $600 for an X850 just because Apple felt like using a new, undersupported technology. When there's cheaper cards for PCIe (I suspect nVidia will supply these, since the 6200 is PCIe compatible), then Apple will switch.
ATI themselves haven't released the X850xt CARD yet, but others have. ATI has been producing the chips though.
That's a good point that some are not realizing. ATI, and Nvidia are ready to stop making AGP cards all together. Apple really has to switch. I don't remember who said you cant utilize it yet, but that is not true. The only reason I can see that you can't utilize PCI-E is because you don't currently have it. It's more cost effective for Apple to switch sooner rather than later unless they want to keep using outdated cards because most new cards are PCI-E + the AGP Bridge chip which is is just adding cost to the card itself. I doubt the Next PowerMac will have AGP, but I hope it has second PCI-E slot in case you want to utilize an SLI bridge.
You're right, all the manufacturers are producing PCI-Express cards now... except for a few aftermarket manufacturers.
Apple knows this and knows they MUST switch to PCI-Express. The industry will force them to. So don't worry it will be there next rev.
Desktops are finally starting to ship with graphics cards based on PCI Express, the new interface designed to double the transfer rate of AGP 8X. PCI Express's other major advance is the ability to perform bidirectional transfers at the same speed. This means a graphics card can push information back to main memory as fast as it can receive it. AGP isn't good at sending data back to the system. This cool feature can allow a game to modify a texture and then send that texture data back to the system, which could in turn modify the game's environment.
But the rub is that no application today takes advantage of this bidirectional feature. So we're left with the old performance paradox: Does the increased transfer rate really make any difference? The short answer is: Not much, today. But that may change fairly soon. For example, the highest-quality mode of Doom 3 is supposed to require a 512MB graphics card, but no such card currently exists. The faster transfer rate of PCI Express may?and we stress, may?make this mode playable.
As more advanced titles ship in the next year, owners of PCI Express systems will benefit. Even those games will need to be backward-compatible with AGP-based systems, and it's not clear whether designing them specifically for PCI Express will be worth the extra effort. Another major issue is that hardware manufacturers are just starting to implement PCI Express. The only chipsets currently supporting it are Intel's 915P Express, 915G Express, and 925X Express. And PC makers are still tweaking the BIOSs of PCs supporting these chipsets.
Two years down the road, when most consumer systems are shipping with PCI Express graphics, all this will change. Once non-Intel chipset companies bring PCI Express to the AMD processor line, we'll see software developers taking advantage of the new standard in earnest.
I'm going out on a limb here and asserting that GPU performance is perfectly fine. Don't jump on me yet though, I grant a few caveats.
Certain types of users are clamoring for more GPU power, but the rest are more than satisfied. So it comes down to the markets that apple is trying to court.
Computer gaming is a large industry, one that apple misses out on by not having cutting edge GPUs. However, it is only a small percentage of gamers that can actually afford apple hardware fast enough to actually game on. Most gamers build cheap but fast rigs, or go the console route. I don't think apple can compete in the price/performance realm unless the advantages of OS X are figured in. OS X means squat to the gaming experience. I honestly believe that Apple has reached the same conclusion as me, that they can't compete in the gaming rig scene.
The other type of user who could use more GPU power, is that of a high-end 3D modeling professional. This is an extremely small market, one which has virtually no overlap. A niche of a niche is dangerous to cater to.
That leaves the rest of us 'normal' mac users. All of the currently shipping GPUs are more than fast enough for our use. How much smoother can a webpage scroll or a movie play?
With that said... sure, I want a faster GPU.
In fact, I spent all of last night trying to get a radeon 9800 flashed and taped properly for use in my dual 1.4 mystic rig.
Lots of excuses,spin and smoke and mirrors but bottom line is apples Gpu's are slow and old technology and its sad that apple doesnt have a medium graphics solution let alone a highgraphics one for any so called consumermachine.
Big brother has said all you need is fx52oo & 9200s Obey mindless masses of Maczealotry and dont look over at that game while im speaking Forget Doom3, Obey ! OBEY!
Unless you want a game machine or 3D render farm, the GPUs in apple machines are indistinguishable from 'faster' ones.
My web page scrolls faster than your web page.
Remember when companies advertised having the faster handheld calculator?
There was such a time. One day we will say the same about GPUs. For many consumers... that day is today.
Today isnt the day and the videocardmarket proves it. Or say for example you want to run 2 of those big Apple displays? sorry FX5200 isnt going to get it done. GPUs are becoming more important not less and apple is using poor,cheap and almostcheap video to seperate all their models since the CPU's arent going anywhere.
Lots of excuses,spin and smoke and mirrors but bottom line is apples Gpu's are slow and old technology and its sad that apple doesnt have a medium graphics solution let alone a highgraphics one for any so called consumermachine.
Well, it all depends on your needs. I for once don't care a damn about any ego-shooter out there, so the latest and greatest in the fps-dicksize contest leave me cold.
I care for a silent computer on my desk and have therefore ordered a Mac mini - as long as it accellerates Quartz Extreme, it will be good for me for the next three years or so . Idiots like my colleagues who use the loudest gfx-card NVidia can offer in their workstations leave me cold. This is not to say I would dislike a X800 in the mini - but as long as it generates more heat than the 9200 (or has one of those god-awful cooling fans), I'd rather stick with the old tech.
Actually, I applaud Apples move to ship the G5 with a "lame" GFX card. Were I to buy one, it would be sufficient - and the gamers can pay for their fps-monsters if the need them.
Computer gaming is a large industry, one that apple misses out on by not having cutting edge GPUs.
The GPUs Apple uses have little or nothing to do why the Mac has no presence in the computer gaming industry. The bulk of the PCs sold don't have GPUs that be considered even close to cutting edge -- usually they don't even match what Apple ships.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
My point was that they should offer SLI to fully utilize Core image, and take it to it's limits. In 1 1/2 years as you say you'll be able to put those 2 "new cards" in there. What seems to be nonsense is to think just because your probably not getting it, is that it's useless.
But I guess SLI could be hacky for Gamers (I don't actually know about that), but Nvidia didn't develop it for games. They intended it for Pro use, but I hear it works in games. I just didn't see a game played on it. It rocks the house with a set of Dual Quadro FX 3400's. ! I've seen it in action. The speed is amazing. I can't even imagine how awesome it would be with dual 4400's.
SLI will come when its appropriate. I don't think any current mac software would utilize it currently. Apple isn't going to want to release a product that can't be taken advantage of. Hopefully they are in collaboration with another company like alias (are they still alias?).
----------------
My rant: the 9200's. Get rid of them. Releasing those in current computers is insane! I mean come on, they won't even be taken advantage of in Tiger. Everyone knows about tiger, and for a current computer to lack tiger support (less than 4 months away) is absolutely crazy.
So at least ditch those. Put a higher end card (9700 maybe?) in an iMac Pro (don't say heat problems because the powerbooks have them) and put at least a 5200fx in the ibook.
Powermac needs a 6600gt / x700 to replace the 9600 and 5200. (though there isn't much of a difference between the 6600gt and x700 (both are 128-256mb and 128bit cards that are neck and neck in benches).
Also, the mini... put a 5200fx in there. CoreImage support... btw I'm too lazy to correct what I wrote above about tiger not being supported... I meant CoreImage/CoreVideo.
Its time for some serious upgrades and to get NVidia / ATI on the train for PCI-Express, which i'm sure will be in the next rev.
Originally posted by iPoster
Beware of non-Ultra parts, though, as some of them are only equipped with much slower 64 bit memory modules.
While the chipsets that Apple chooses may not be the best they should be alright. However, as far as I can tell they have a strong tendency to only use 64bit memory paths. If you look at a PC card with one of these chips you will see that it has two memory chips. The eMac, and Mini both have only one memory chip, limiting the most important factor in video performance - memory bandwidth. I can understand the Mini only having one memory chip, it is very space constrained. My eMac however, actually has the pads on the motherboard to mount the second memory chip, that would double its video performance. I havent had a chance to see a new iMac, anyone got some good motherboard images???
Although it isnt clear, until recently full DX9 shader support was required for Quartz 2d. This will accelerate actual drawing procedures ( not just composition like QE ). I think it would be the cheapest way to make a low end Mac feel really snappy. Shame low end Mac gpus arent likely to be supported.
Originally posted by Gon
I checked out the numbers from your link and it turns out I was correct and you have some sort of mixup there. X800 XT runs at an engine clock of 500MHz, X800 XT Mac runs at 475MHz. The Mac edition is a slightly underclocked XT sold with a higher price and that's it. As a reference, the X850 XT PE:s engine clock is 540MHz, again similar design clocked differently.
No no, the X800 Windows has a memory bus speed of 450 Mhz. The Mac has a memory bus speed of 500 Mhz. They both have a clockrate of 475 Mhz. You need to look a little closer :P
The X850 hasn't been released yet, and I so I've just been comparing the X800's. Like I said, there likely won't be a Mac X850, so the Mac X800 is somewhere in between the PC X800 and the X850.
The Mac version is $500, or $450 after a discount directly from ATI, the Windows version comes in to flavors: $450 for the VGA and $500 for the DVI, according to buy.com. So, the Mac version is faster, and cheaper with the discount considering it's got DVI and ADC out.
The X800, which I'm talking about and which is too new to show in ATi pages yet, has 12 pipelines vs the XT:s 16, and a 350MHz engine clock. It's in a significanly lower price segment and should offer good price/performance.
What does this have to do with anything?
Some cards are PCIe only (I think both X800 and X850 XT PE) and that would obviously be a barrier of entry to the Mac for ATi - they aren't likely to go out of their way to hardware design yet another card with PCIe-AGP bridge chip, especially when they already have the most reasonable midprice segment card on the Powermac, the 9800XT. It is my opinion that Apple needs to get PCIe in Powermacs ASAP. That would let ATi immediately release X850 XT PE for Mac, since the drivers already exist for X800 XT. X800 would probably work with little change as well. [/B]
The X850, which hasn't been released yet, is PCI Express, not the X800. Ultimately PCIe will be really helpful, but at the present, it offers nothing over AGP. PCI Express is a big transition and it probably won't happen for a bit. No one is going to pay $600 for an X850 just because Apple felt like using a new, undersupported technology. When there's cheaper cards for PCIe (I suspect nVidia will supply these, since the 6200 is PCIe compatible), then Apple will switch.
Originally posted by sunilraman
so clearly right now iMac g5 is minimum required to play any flagship FPS games eg UT2004, HL2, Doom3, etc... CounterStrike Source ???
you know, on a side note, this is the first time ever that an "iMac" can actually be said to be able to play the latest and greatest FPSs from the PC world
I think a little fact check is in order here. There is no HL2 for the Mac. There will be no HL2 for the Mac. There's no CS:S for the Mac. There will be no CS:S for the Mac. Mac release of Doom3 is not out, and we don't know how it will actually run. There is no FarCry on the Mac, and I think other top FPS's are missing as well. UT2004 is not new, even on the Mac, where it was published alot later than the Windows version if I recall correctly.
eMac and Mac mini can handle C&C:generals, WoW, etc....
come one people, it's not that bleak, is it? Gaming is just not Apple's target market right now compared to what the PC world is pushing? Especially this year if you are looking at trying to get the stock up to $85+
if you all know so much about graphics cards, how come you don't have just a Gaming rig for gaming?
I have a PS2 and I'm going to get a gaming rig. On the Mac only thing I have played is Starcraft.
but good point, kids buying eMac and Mac mini must be informed so they have a realistic expectations of their gaming enjoyment... hell i think Apple dealers should sell a nice phat PS2 alongside the eMac and Mac mini if kids are really into gaming but need a decent computer for education, web surfing, and email, etc...
like you can use your Mac mini and a PS2 together with 1 monitor:
http://www.the-console-corner.com/ps2_vga_box.htm
I had that VGA box hooked up to a 19" CRT and oh man did the picture suck. Went back to playing at a friend's place on TV. Now I'm debating with myself whether to buy a Dell 2001FP or Benq FP2091 that has SVHS and composite inputs. I hear those give you decent picture, but I'm still not sure - they just might suck also and then I'd be pissed for spending the extra over a similar Viewsonic without inputs.
Anyway, there's enough places to buy a console, Apple doesn't need to sell them. The only thing they could do IMO is to provide good inputs in, say, iMac for hooking up a game console. I'd hate to have a 20" flatscreen display just sitting there, and have a bulky 20" TV just to play some PS2.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
No no, the X800 Windows has a memory bus speed of 450 Mhz. The Mac has a memory bus speed of 500 Mhz. They both have a clockrate of 475 Mhz. You need to look a little closer :P
The X850 hasn't been released yet, and I so I've just been comparing the X800's. Like I said, there likely won't be a Mac X850, so the Mac X800 is somewhere in between the PC X800 and the X850.
The Mac version is $500, or $450 after a discount directly from ATI, the Windows version comes in to flavors: $450 for the VGA and $500 for the DVI, according to buy.com. So, the Mac version is faster, and cheaper with the discount considering it's got DVI and ADC out.
I'm looking at the ATi comparison page and it has the following info.
card - GPU clock/memory clocks in reference card
X800 XT - 500/500
X800 XT Mac - 475/500
The normal XT may be overclocked by card builders or the user, though I don't know how often this is done in practice, and how successfully. Anyway the Mac card which is built under ATi's own brand is underclocked from the factory. Anandtech confirms this in plain english so you can quit dragging out wrong numbers:
http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2313
And as far as I know, ATi doesn't make a VGA only X800 card. I'll believe otherwise when I see a link to a credible source. "X800 Windows" can mean any of the following: X800, X800 Pro, X800 XT and X800 XT PE. There are also three different X850 models announced already.
The X850, which hasn't been released yet, is PCI Express, not the X800. Ultimately PCIe will be really helpful, but at the present, it offers nothing over AGP. PCI Express is a big transition and it probably won't happen for a bit. No one is going to pay $600 for an X850 just because Apple felt like using a new, undersupported technology. When there's cheaper cards for PCIe (I suspect nVidia will supply these, since the 6200 is PCIe compatible), then Apple will switch.
nVidia 6600GT's, which have arguably the best price/performance from nVidia right now, cost significantly more as AGP versions. This is because they are PCIe cards with an AGP bridge chip. Meanwhile, ATi is moving even more rapidly to PCIe than nVidia, and a big part of their lineup is not available as AGP anymore. This includes all X300 cards, all X600 cards, all X700 cards, X800 (not sure about this), X800 XL, all X850's. If missing out on all that is not a big deal for Apple graphics technology department, I don't know what is.
Originally posted by Gon
And as far as I know, ATi doesn't make a VGA only X800 card. I'll believe otherwise when I see a link to a credible source. "X800 Windows" can mean any of the following: X800, X800 Pro, X800 XT and X800 XT PE. There are also three different X850 models announced already.nVidia 6600GT's, which have arguably the best price/performance from nVidia right now, cost significantly more as AGP versions. This is because they are PCIe cards with an AGP bridge chip. Meanwhile, ATi is moving even more rapidly to PCIe than nVidia, and a big part of their lineup is not available as AGP anymore. This includes all X300 cards, all X600 cards, all X700 cards, X800 (not sure about this), X800 XL, all X850's. If missing out on all that is not a big deal for Apple graphics technology department, I don't know what is.
That's a good point that some are not realizing. ATI, and Nvidia are ready to stop making AGP cards all together. Apple really has to switch. I don't remember who said you cant utilize it yet, but that is not true. The only reason I can see that you can't utilize PCI-E is because you don't currently have it. It's more cost effective for Apple to switch sooner rather than later unless they want to keep using outdated cards because most new cards are PCI-E + the AGP Bridge chip which is is just adding cost to the card itself. I doubt the Next PowerMac will have AGP, but I hope it has second PCI-E slot in case you want to utilize an SLI bridge.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
The X850, which hasn't been released yet, is PCI Express, not the X800. Ultimately PCIe will be really helpful, but at the present, it offers nothing over AGP. PCI Express is a big transition and it probably won't happen for a bit. No one is going to pay $600 for an X850 just because Apple felt like using a new, undersupported technology. When there's cheaper cards for PCIe (I suspect nVidia will supply these, since the 6200 is PCIe compatible), then Apple will switch.
ATI themselves haven't released the X850xt CARD yet, but others have. ATI has been producing the chips though.
x850xt
Also, yes they do make x800's in PCI-E form:
x800 in PCI-E form
Though they are a lot easier to find in the x800xt and x800 pro models that are PCI-E.
Originally posted by onlooker
That's a good point that some are not realizing. ATI, and Nvidia are ready to stop making AGP cards all together. Apple really has to switch. I don't remember who said you cant utilize it yet, but that is not true. The only reason I can see that you can't utilize PCI-E is because you don't currently have it. It's more cost effective for Apple to switch sooner rather than later unless they want to keep using outdated cards because most new cards are PCI-E + the AGP Bridge chip which is is just adding cost to the card itself. I doubt the Next PowerMac will have AGP, but I hope it has second PCI-E slot in case you want to utilize an SLI bridge.
You're right, all the manufacturers are producing PCI-Express cards now... except for a few aftermarket manufacturers.
Apple knows this and knows they MUST switch to PCI-Express. The industry will force them to. So don't worry it will be there next rev.
10.19.04 By_Loyd Case, ExtremeTech
Desktops are finally starting to ship with graphics cards based on PCI Express, the new interface designed to double the transfer rate of AGP 8X. PCI Express's other major advance is the ability to perform bidirectional transfers at the same speed. This means a graphics card can push information back to main memory as fast as it can receive it. AGP isn't good at sending data back to the system. This cool feature can allow a game to modify a texture and then send that texture data back to the system, which could in turn modify the game's environment.
But the rub is that no application today takes advantage of this bidirectional feature. So we're left with the old performance paradox: Does the increased transfer rate really make any difference? The short answer is: Not much, today. But that may change fairly soon. For example, the highest-quality mode of Doom 3 is supposed to require a 512MB graphics card, but no such card currently exists. The faster transfer rate of PCI Express may?and we stress, may?make this mode playable.
As more advanced titles ship in the next year, owners of PCI Express systems will benefit. Even those games will need to be backward-compatible with AGP-based systems, and it's not clear whether designing them specifically for PCI Express will be worth the extra effort. Another major issue is that hardware manufacturers are just starting to implement PCI Express. The only chipsets currently supporting it are Intel's 915P Express, 915G Express, and 925X Express. And PC makers are still tweaking the BIOSs of PCs supporting these chipsets.
Two years down the road, when most consumer systems are shipping with PCI Express graphics, all this will change. Once non-Intel chipset companies bring PCI Express to the AMD processor line, we'll see software developers taking advantage of the new standard in earnest.
Originally posted by emig647
You're right, all the manufacturers are producing PCI-Express cards now... except for a few aftermarket manufacturers.
Apple knows this and knows they MUST switch to PCI-Express. The industry will force them to. So don't worry it will be there next rev.
Hmmm, I remember hearing something about the HSI chip from nVidia that allows all their new chips to run on either AGP or PCIe...
I can see PCIe in the next PM rev though...but no in the rest of the lineup...
Originally posted by iPoster
Hmmm, I remember hearing something about the HSI chip from nVidia that allows all their new chips to run on either AGP or PCIe...
I can see PCIe in the next PM rev though...but no in the rest of the lineup...
I don't understand why they would want to be backwards compatible wtih AGP...
On some PC motherboards that have PCI-Express, they have something called a G.E.A.R. slot... which takes modern AGP 8Xpro graphics cards. *shrugs*
Originally posted by emig647
I don't understand why they would want to be backwards compatible wtih AGP...
Because 99.99% of the GPU upgrade business for the next 5-10 years will be AGP motherboards. Heck, there are still some vendors releasing PCI GPU's!
Link to review of an nVidia card wtih HSI.
Certain types of users are clamoring for more GPU power, but the rest are more than satisfied. So it comes down to the markets that apple is trying to court.
Computer gaming is a large industry, one that apple misses out on by not having cutting edge GPUs. However, it is only a small percentage of gamers that can actually afford apple hardware fast enough to actually game on. Most gamers build cheap but fast rigs, or go the console route. I don't think apple can compete in the price/performance realm unless the advantages of OS X are figured in. OS X means squat to the gaming experience. I honestly believe that Apple has reached the same conclusion as me, that they can't compete in the gaming rig scene.
The other type of user who could use more GPU power, is that of a high-end 3D modeling professional. This is an extremely small market, one which has virtually no overlap. A niche of a niche is dangerous to cater to.
That leaves the rest of us 'normal' mac users. All of the currently shipping GPUs are more than fast enough for our use. How much smoother can a webpage scroll or a movie play?
With that said... sure, I want a faster GPU.
In fact, I spent all of last night trying to get a radeon 9800 flashed and taped properly for use in my dual 1.4 mystic rig.
Big brother has said all you need is fx52oo & 9200s Obey mindless masses of Maczealotry and dont look over at that game while im speaking
My web page scrolls faster than your web page.
Remember when companies advertised having the faster handheld calculator?
There was such a time. One day we will say the same about GPUs. For many consumers... that day is today.
Originally posted by dfiler
Unless you want a game machine or 3D render farm, the GPUs in apple machines are indistinguishable from 'faster' ones.
My web page scrolls faster than your web page.
Remember when companies advertised having the faster handheld calculator?
There was such a time. One day we will say the same about GPUs. For many consumers... that day is today.
Today isnt the day and the videocardmarket proves it. Or say for example you want to run 2 of those big Apple displays? sorry FX5200 isnt going to get it done. GPUs are becoming more important not less and apple is using poor,cheap and almostcheap video to seperate all their models since the CPU's arent going anywhere.
Originally posted by Aurora
Lots of excuses,spin and smoke and mirrors but bottom line is apples Gpu's are slow and old technology and its sad that apple doesnt have a medium graphics solution let alone a highgraphics one for any so called consumermachine.
Well, it all depends on your needs. I for once don't care a damn about any ego-shooter out there, so the latest and greatest in the fps-dicksize contest leave me cold.
I care for a silent computer on my desk and have therefore ordered a Mac mini - as long as it accellerates Quartz Extreme, it will be good for me for the next three years or so . Idiots like my colleagues who use the loudest gfx-card NVidia can offer in their workstations leave me cold. This is not to say I would dislike a X800 in the mini - but as long as it generates more heat than the 9200 (or has one of those god-awful cooling fans), I'd rather stick with the old tech.
Actually, I applaud Apples move to ship the G5 with a "lame" GFX card. Were I to buy one, it would be sufficient - and the gamers can pay for their fps-monsters if the need them.
Originally posted by Aurora
Say you want to run 2 of those big Apple displays?
Everyone with two 30" displays raise their hand.
Originally posted by dfiler
Computer gaming is a large industry, one that apple misses out on by not having cutting edge GPUs.
The GPUs Apple uses have little or nothing to do why the Mac has no presence in the computer gaming industry. The bulk of the PCs sold don't have GPUs that be considered even close to cutting edge -- usually they don't even match what Apple ships.