I just about jizzed my shorts whe the magical word Quadro appeared in the new specs...
Here's the thing though...
Apple has no mention of SLI capabilities...
Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...
And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?
And we all know how Apple likes to cripple capabilities in early revisions, only to enable them as new features in later revisions...
Mmmm... Dual Quadros in SLI mode running quad 30" ACDs... That's what? 5120x3200? I just know those bastards down in the R&D labs at Cupertino have a patch to enable such a beastie... Probably had a custom bezel made for it, and got those LCDs as close as possible...
Or (if running quad GeForce 6600s) one could go either 6720x2100 (with octo 20" ACDs) or 7680x2400 (with octo 23" ACDs)...
I like the idea of the quad 30" ACDs running as one unified display, but in a sort of SLI mode...
You know, big and fast...!
That's what I would do, if my new numbers hit the Lotto...
4 8 14 15 23 42
Yeah...
;^p
whoa. one valium over here, thanks.
but you are right
you could have 16x sli via 2 slots running 8x.
so 1 quadro goes into the 16x slot. "The NVIDIA GeForce FX 4500 graphics card occupies the 16-lane PCI Express slot and adjacent PCI Express slot." as apple says.. so this means you could pop another quadro in the 8x slot and that will take up the space of the 4x slot as well. now, the SLI bridge connector, apple-nvidia quadro sli driver from the secret driver lab, and one is all set to go
....
somewhere in cupertino there is the "secret driver lab" where they are coding this stuff to be used in powermacs. like the underground bunker thingy in Lost
* SLI Frame Rendering: Combines two PCI Express graphics cards with an SLI connector to transparently scale application performance on a single display by presenting them as a single graphics card to the operating system.
o Benefits Visual simulation, broadcast, and video applications that are fill rate?limited will benefit from using the split frame rendering (SFR) mode.
o SPECviewperf 8 and other applications that are geometry?limited will benefit from using the alternate frame rendering (AFR) mode.
Requirements:
o Two identical NVIDIA Quadro graphics cards (4500, 4400, 3450, 3400, and 1400)
o SLI connector
* SLI Multi View: Combines the power of two NVIDIA Quadro PCI Express graphics cards to span a single hardware-accelerated OpenGL application window across multiple displays, run a single application per GPU with multiple display outputs, or enable other flexible usage of two PCI Express graphics cards.
Benefits
o View professional applications over multiple displays to increase visual real estate.
o Run a single application per GPU to offload geometry processing to a second GPU.
Requirements
o Any two NVIDIA Quadro PCI Express graphics cards: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500, 4400, 3450, 3400, 1400, or 540
Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...
And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?
And we all know how Apple likes to cripple capabilities in early revisions, only to enable them as new features in later revisions...
;^p
Quoting myself for public notice, remember this around April/May 2006...
For when Apple announces this "new" feature for the next (last eh-varh!) PowerMac 970MP speed/spec bump... You know, where they go all "Quad" (aka - Dual dual-cores) on us, with very little MHz gain... Probably 2.3GHz/2.5GHz/2.7GHz... Bump the minimum RAM to 1GB, and make the 500GB HDD standard entry trim...
I bet that even if IBM came up with 3GHz 970MPs, at this point Steve Jobs would reserve that "honor" for the first Intel PowerMacs...
Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...
And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?
I think it's for matching cards. There are other PCI-E slots in the PowerMac if you ant to try it. The best you could get would be dual 8x, but a single 16X slot would be better bang for the buck. at $1,600.00 a pop I'd wait for dual 16x to try something like that. But, if a person wanted to be adventureous. They could buy 2x matching Nvidia SLI capable cards like the 6600, or 7800 GT's.
I think it's for matching cards. There are other PCI-E slots in the PowerMac if you ant to try it. The best you could get would be dual 8x, but a single 16X slot would be better bang for the buck. at $1,600.00 a pop I'd wait for dual 16x to try something like that. But, if a person wanted to be adventureous. They could buy 2x matching Nvidia SLI capable cards like the 6600, or 7800 GT's.
I mainly mentioned the whole tawdry affair to throw out the future "new feature" plans by Apple...
But in other news...
In pricing around on current workstations compared to equally equipped units:
Dell is about 1500 bucks more expensive than apple
Boxx and Apple are about even
Alienware is about 500 bucks or so more than Apple...
All Dual dual-cores (max. speed for each company), all with two max. HDDs, all with equal RAM (ECC pricing when required), all with dual-layer DVD burners, and ALL with nVidia QuadroFX 4500 OpenGL cards!
I won't not assume that the current releases would be slower then the ones they replace, but what does a single 2.3 dual-core compare to? A dual 2.3? A dual 2.5?
Processor-wise a 2.3 GHz dual-core falls in between a 2 GHz and 2.5 GHz dual processor. In memory tests it is faster than a 2.5 GHz dual processor and the graphics are even faster than a 6800 Ultra (could be driver related).
I find it strange that Apple is only including PCI-Express slots... this means that everyone who upgrades will need to replace their old PCI cards with new PCI-Express ones.
Fortunately, there is a new PCI-Express Fibre Channel Card, but no Gigabit Ethernet card. Xsan users will have to wait.
The new Powermacs have dual gigabit ethernet.
It does seem pretty odd to abandon the old PCI standard when PCI-express has been around for 9+ months and there's only three I/O expansion boards that I've found. It also leaves the pro audio and video guys in a bind, if they have any PCI capture cards for either they'll have to wait for new cards.
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Ok, there is no point putting a second card in the 8X slot. SLI wont work right like that.
I thought many PC SLI boards used 8x in the second SLI slot.
Apple store page says 1.15 per processor. I assume they mean per chip ...
1 processor = 2 cores. There's 1 1.15 GHz bus per processor or 2 cores. AMD, Intel and IBM's semiconductor division all adhere to the definition 1 processor = x cores on a single piece of silicon so both of Apple's statements are correct except given there is only 1 processor in the 2.0 and 2.3 it's a bit superfluous.
Just a question, but not on the benchmark: look at this picture;
if one dual core processor with its cooling system needs that much space, how they do managed to put in there two of them? I guess the space is just enough, since there would be one and the same cooling system for the two processors, and pehaps this was the reason for the humongous Power Mac G5 case.
I mainly mentioned the whole tawdry affair to throw out the future "new feature" plans by Apple...
But in other news...
In pricing around on current workstations compared to equally equipped units:
Dell is about 1500 bucks more expensive than apple
Boxx and Apple are about even
Alienware is about 500 bucks or so more than Apple...
All Dual dual-cores (max. speed for each company), all with two max. HDDs, all with equal RAM (ECC pricing when required), all with dual-layer DVD burners, and ALL with nVidia QuadroFX 4500 OpenGL cards!
Who's the DCC beotch now, Windoze...!?!
i like this guy...
*meanwhile*
i'm waiting for the athlon x2 dual-cores (socket 939) to come down in price. come down in price dammit!!! so i can boast about having dualcore as well. umm.... yeah.
Just a question, but not on the benchmark: look at this picture;
if one dual core processor with its cooling system needs that much space, how they do managed to put in there two of them? I guess the space is just enough, since there would be one and the same cooling system for the two processors, and pehaps this was the reason for the humongous Power Mac G5 case.
eh? PB no disrespect, but i am confused about what you are talking about? the original powermac g5 case was always designed to take into consideration two g5 cpus, naturally evolving from the two g4 powermacs.
assuming any dualcore chips, eg 1xdualcore2ghz, 1xdualcore2.3ghz, requires liquid cooling, as shown on the 1xdualcore2.3ghz in that link, then i think overall it is more economical to simply use the same liquid cooling/radiator unit for the whole line of the powermacs, with the 2xdualcore2.5ghz maybe having some better thermal characteristics or maybe the fans spin faster.
overall i think in terms of economy (profits!) apple really wanted to keep the powermac g5 form factor mostly untouched and just also standardise the liquid cooling module across the line.
this suggests though that the 1xdualcore2.3ghz will run quiet and cool while the 2xdualcore2.5ghz will have the fans/radiator "sweating" a bit more. or maybe some copper bits in the radiator liquid cooling unit for the 2xdualcore2.5ghz
edit: i do understand if you meant it seems like a waste of space for the single processor dualcore models.
1 processor = 2 cores. There's 1 1.15 GHz bus per processor or 2 cores. AMD, Intel and IBM's semiconductor division all adhere to the definition 1 processor = x cores on a single piece of silicon so both of Apple's statements are correct except given there is only 1 processor in the 2.0 and 2.3 it's a bit superfluous.
i think though that on the apple store page they wanted to make it clear that there is a separate 1MB L2 cache for each core even though there is only 1 frontsidebus from cpu to mobo.
edit: also i think since that was the page where you go "click here to blow thousands of dollars on a shiny piece of metal" apple legal just wanted to make sure everything is clean and clear as you get ready to drop some cash.
OK guys. I just got off the phone with Apple and they have NO IDEA when the 7800 will be available. No idea. It could be two months. So, to cancel my order and two months for the 7800 at $400 more isn't something that sounds appealing.
So my question- I do photoshop 90% of the time, I don't really play games and I only watch video. So, I know the 7800 kills the 6600, but would I see any or enough of the benefit that warrant the wait and $400?
OK guys. I just got off the phone with Apple and they have NO IDEA when the 7800 will be available. No idea. It could be two months. So, to cancel my order and two months for the 7800 at $400 more isn't something that sounds appealing.
So my question- I do photoshop 90% of the time, I don't really play games and I only watch video. So, I know the 7800 kills the 6600, but would I see any or enough of the benefit that warrant the wait and $400?
heh. in this case the $400 and two months wait is definitely not worth it \
Comments
Originally posted by MacRonin
I just about jizzed my shorts whe the magical word Quadro appeared in the new specs...
Here's the thing though...
Apple has no mention of SLI capabilities...
Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...
And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?
And we all know how Apple likes to cripple capabilities in early revisions, only to enable them as new features in later revisions...
Mmmm... Dual Quadros in SLI mode running quad 30" ACDs... That's what? 5120x3200? I just know those bastards down in the R&D labs at Cupertino have a patch to enable such a beastie... Probably had a custom bezel made for it, and got those LCDs as close as possible...
Or (if running quad GeForce 6600s) one could go either 6720x2100 (with octo 20" ACDs) or 7680x2400 (with octo 23" ACDs)...
I like the idea of the quad 30" ACDs running as one unified display, but in a sort of SLI mode...
You know, big and fast...!
That's what I would do, if my new numbers hit the Lotto...
4 8 14 15 23 42
Yeah...
;^p
whoa. one valium over here, thanks.
but you are right
you could have 16x sli via 2 slots running 8x.
so 1 quadro goes into the 16x slot. "The NVIDIA GeForce FX 4500 graphics card occupies the 16-lane PCI Express slot and adjacent PCI Express slot." as apple says.. so this means you could pop another quadro in the 8x slot and that will take up the space of the 4x slot as well. now, the SLI bridge connector, apple-nvidia quadro sli driver from the secret driver lab, and one is all set to go
....
somewhere in cupertino there is the "secret driver lab" where they are coding this stuff to be used in powermacs. like the underground bunker thingy in Lost
http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_sli_faq.html
""
What is SLI for NVIDIA Quadro?
* SLI Frame Rendering: Combines two PCI Express graphics cards with an SLI connector to transparently scale application performance on a single display by presenting them as a single graphics card to the operating system.
o Benefits Visual simulation, broadcast, and video applications that are fill rate?limited will benefit from using the split frame rendering (SFR) mode.
o SPECviewperf 8 and other applications that are geometry?limited will benefit from using the alternate frame rendering (AFR) mode.
Requirements:
o Two identical NVIDIA Quadro graphics cards (4500, 4400, 3450, 3400, and 1400)
o SLI connector
* SLI Multi View: Combines the power of two NVIDIA Quadro PCI Express graphics cards to span a single hardware-accelerated OpenGL application window across multiple displays, run a single application per GPU with multiple display outputs, or enable other flexible usage of two PCI Express graphics cards.
Benefits
o View professional applications over multiple displays to increase visual real estate.
o Run a single application per GPU to offload geometry processing to a second GPU.
Requirements
o Any two NVIDIA Quadro PCI Express graphics cards: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500, 4400, 3450, 3400, 1400, or 540
""
Originally posted by JLL
How many Gigabit Ethernet ports do you need?
more than two, apparently...
Originally posted by 4fx
...but no Gigabit Ethernet card. Xsan users will have to wait.
As they state in their own marketing drivel on the Apple website, the second Gigabit Ethernet port on the new PowerMac is for Xsan users...
Duh...
anyway, do you think the low-end models are upgradeble with a extra dualcore cpu-module..?
Originally posted by MacRonin
Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...
And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?
And we all know how Apple likes to cripple capabilities in early revisions, only to enable them as new features in later revisions...
;^p
Quoting myself for public notice, remember this around April/May 2006...
For when Apple announces this "new" feature for the next (last eh-varh!) PowerMac 970MP speed/spec bump... You know, where they go all "Quad" (aka - Dual dual-cores) on us, with very little MHz gain... Probably 2.3GHz/2.5GHz/2.7GHz... Bump the minimum RAM to 1GB, and make the 500GB HDD standard entry trim...
I bet that even if IBM came up with 3GHz 970MPs, at this point Steve Jobs would reserve that "honor" for the first Intel PowerMacs...
Originally posted by tubgirl
i think you still can get the old pci-x model if you wish really hard...
anyway, do you think the low-end models are upgradeble with a extra dualcore cpu-module..?
1st part yes
2nd part no.
Originally posted by MacRonin
Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...
And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?
I think it's for matching cards. There are other PCI-E slots in the PowerMac if you ant to try it. The best you could get would be dual 8x, but a single 16X slot would be better bang for the buck. at $1,600.00 a pop I'd wait for dual 16x to try something like that. But, if a person wanted to be adventureous. They could buy 2x matching Nvidia SLI capable cards like the 6600, or 7800 GT's.
Originally posted by onlooker
I think it's for matching cards. There are other PCI-E slots in the PowerMac if you ant to try it. The best you could get would be dual 8x, but a single 16X slot would be better bang for the buck. at $1,600.00 a pop I'd wait for dual 16x to try something like that. But, if a person wanted to be adventureous. They could buy 2x matching Nvidia SLI capable cards like the 6600, or 7800 GT's.
I mainly mentioned the whole tawdry affair to throw out the future "new feature" plans by Apple...
But in other news...
In pricing around on current workstations compared to equally equipped units:
Dell is about 1500 bucks more expensive than apple
Boxx and Apple are about even
Alienware is about 500 bucks or so more than Apple...
All Dual dual-cores (max. speed for each company), all with two max. HDDs, all with equal RAM (ECC pricing when required), all with dual-layer DVD burners, and ALL with nVidia QuadroFX 4500 OpenGL cards!
Who's the DCC beotch now, Windoze...!?!
Originally posted by imiloa
So slower, cheaper for Apple (one chip vs two), but the same price, right? My original point, then: Higher margins for Apple for slower hardware.
My sentiment exactly.
Originally posted by KidRed
I won't not assume that the current releases would be slower then the ones they replace, but what does a single 2.3 dual-core compare to? A dual 2.3? A dual 2.5?
Have a look at these xBench results:
http://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/
Processor-wise a 2.3 GHz dual-core falls in between a 2 GHz and 2.5 GHz dual processor. In memory tests it is faster than a 2.5 GHz dual processor and the graphics are even faster than a 6800 Ultra (could be driver related).
Originally posted by 4fx
I find it strange that Apple is only including PCI-Express slots... this means that everyone who upgrades will need to replace their old PCI cards with new PCI-Express ones.
Fortunately, there is a new PCI-Express Fibre Channel Card, but no Gigabit Ethernet card. Xsan users will have to wait.
The new Powermacs have dual gigabit ethernet.
It does seem pretty odd to abandon the old PCI standard when PCI-express has been around for 9+ months and there's only three I/O expansion boards that I've found. It also leaves the pro audio and video guys in a bind, if they have any PCI capture cards for either they'll have to wait for new cards.
Originally posted by onlooker
Ok, there is no point putting a second card in the 8X slot. SLI wont work right like that.
I thought many PC SLI boards used 8x in the second SLI slot.
Originally posted by bjewett
3 - Are we splitting hairs? Tech page at apple says 1.15 GHz frontside bus, period, for the 2.3: http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
Apple store page says 1.15 per processor. I assume they mean per chip ...
1 processor = 2 cores. There's 1 1.15 GHz bus per processor or 2 cores. AMD, Intel and IBM's semiconductor division all adhere to the definition 1 processor = x cores on a single piece of silicon so both of Apple's statements are correct except given there is only 1 processor in the 2.0 and 2.3 it's a bit superfluous.
Originally posted by noirdesir
Have a look at these xBench results:
http://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/
Just a question, but not on the benchmark: look at this picture;
if one dual core processor with its cooling system needs that much space, how they do managed to put in there two of them? I guess the space is just enough, since there would be one and the same cooling system for the two processors, and pehaps this was the reason for the humongous Power Mac G5 case.
Originally posted by MacRonin
I mainly mentioned the whole tawdry affair to throw out the future "new feature" plans by Apple...
But in other news...
In pricing around on current workstations compared to equally equipped units:
Dell is about 1500 bucks more expensive than apple
Boxx and Apple are about even
Alienware is about 500 bucks or so more than Apple...
All Dual dual-cores (max. speed for each company), all with two max. HDDs, all with equal RAM (ECC pricing when required), all with dual-layer DVD burners, and ALL with nVidia QuadroFX 4500 OpenGL cards!
Who's the DCC beotch now, Windoze...!?!
i like this guy...
*meanwhile*
i'm waiting for the athlon x2 dual-cores (socket 939) to come down in price. come down in price dammit!!! so i can boast about having dualcore as well. umm.... yeah.
Originally posted by PB
Just a question, but not on the benchmark: look at this picture;
if one dual core processor with its cooling system needs that much space, how they do managed to put in there two of them? I guess the space is just enough, since there would be one and the same cooling system for the two processors, and pehaps this was the reason for the humongous Power Mac G5 case.
eh? PB no disrespect, but i am confused about what you are talking about? the original powermac g5 case was always designed to take into consideration two g5 cpus, naturally evolving from the two g4 powermacs.
assuming any dualcore chips, eg 1xdualcore2ghz, 1xdualcore2.3ghz, requires liquid cooling, as shown on the 1xdualcore2.3ghz in that link, then i think overall it is more economical to simply use the same liquid cooling/radiator unit for the whole line of the powermacs, with the 2xdualcore2.5ghz maybe having some better thermal characteristics or maybe the fans spin faster.
overall i think in terms of economy (profits!) apple really wanted to keep the powermac g5 form factor mostly untouched and just also standardise the liquid cooling module across the line.
this suggests though that the 1xdualcore2.3ghz will run quiet and cool while the 2xdualcore2.5ghz will have the fans/radiator "sweating" a bit more. or maybe some copper bits in the radiator liquid cooling unit for the 2xdualcore2.5ghz
edit: i do understand if you meant it seems like a waste of space for the single processor dualcore models.
Originally posted by Telomar
1 processor = 2 cores. There's 1 1.15 GHz bus per processor or 2 cores. AMD, Intel and IBM's semiconductor division all adhere to the definition 1 processor = x cores on a single piece of silicon so both of Apple's statements are correct except given there is only 1 processor in the 2.0 and 2.3 it's a bit superfluous.
i think though that on the apple store page they wanted to make it clear that there is a separate 1MB L2 cache for each core even though there is only 1 frontsidebus from cpu to mobo.
edit: also i think since that was the page where you go "click here to blow thousands of dollars on a shiny piece of metal" apple legal just wanted to make sure everything is clean and clear as you get ready to drop some cash.
So my question- I do photoshop 90% of the time, I don't really play games and I only watch video. So, I know the 7800 kills the 6600, but would I see any or enough of the benefit that warrant the wait and $400?
Originally posted by KidRed
OK guys. I just got off the phone with Apple and they have NO IDEA when the 7800 will be available. No idea. It could be two months. So, to cancel my order and two months for the 7800 at $400 more isn't something that sounds appealing.
So my question- I do photoshop 90% of the time, I don't really play games and I only watch video. So, I know the 7800 kills the 6600, but would I see any or enough of the benefit that warrant the wait and $400?
heh. in this case the $400 and two months wait is definitely not worth it