From what I read it supports OpenGL 1.4 and parts of it. Tiger OpenGL is 1.5 and Core Image which requires > 32MB of VRAM (my iBook G4 1Ghz with 32MB VRAM doesn't support Core Image) most likely will then need a video subsystem GPU that supports > 64MB VRAM, OpenGL 1.5 and most likely actually be targeted for OpenGL 2.0.
afaik, the requirement to fully enjoy hardware acceleration is (quasi-officially) a shader model 2.0 capable gpu. (kind of fishy to use directx-definitions, but still...)
the gma 950 does that, but im not sure if the (lacking) t&l-engine is considered...?
anyhow, the way coreimage is built, it will use whatever hardware features at your disposal and i guess t&l isnt very significant (if at all) when it all comes around.
Can't argue with your data, although I don't see the 2x speed in the numbers (ie 171 is not 2x 128 )
That's the old Dothan Pentium M. The Celeron M 4xx is based on the Core Solo. Since the Core is a little faster than the Dothan, I think it may reach 2x a G4 1.4.
And that's what they've done. The new imacs are faster than the previous. Apple has yet to release an intel machine that's slower than the one it's replacing, I doubt they will.
On the whole I'd agree although in some tests the G5 2.1Ghz iMac was quicker than the Intel at native apps.
I doubt that they will release something that isn't quicker but they've yet to release a machine faster than the PowerMacs. If speed is what you're after then PPC is it. The reason they've not is that Intel doesn't have anything faster than the dual core G5.
If you're running anything from Adobe, a G5 iMac is still quicker than an Intel iMac.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
Is that comparing the original price of the PPC, or after they put it on the clearance discount? Here in the states the prices are the same.
Original price. At launch the Intel iMac was £929 as opposed to £899 for the G5 despite Jobs standing on stage saying 'Same Price'.
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
[BYou're talking about the speed of the apps, not the machine. Logic pro has already shipped (a pro app), and it runs very well on the intel boxes, way faster than the old imacs and powerbooks. The other apps are due to ship in a month tops. And just because you don't know any "pros" that use laptops doesn't mean they don't exist. You think people are dropping $2500 or more on a laptop so grandma can email pix of the grandkids? [/B]
Ultimately it's the speed of the apps that determine the experience and without native apps, currently the Intels aren't as fast as PowerPCs. I work in web design, programming and graphic design not sound. I don't know anyone professionally using a laptop that doesn't also have a desktop for real work. That's maybe just my sphere of users. The only laptop users I know are indeed the ones that use them for emailing grandma and general net use or they're road based so are stuck with a laptop.
LOL, over the weekend I took my machine over to my girlfriend (hardcore PC user) to get some work done and she was so impressed that she is switching to Macs .
She couldn't believe that while she was dealing with pop ups - she didn't even know where they came from, no browsers were running - had to reboot twice, constantly closing messages that her virus scanner prevented another virus attack ... etc., in the mean time I was just WORKING ... LOL. I also showed her that I run Windows 2000 Pro (Virtual PC version) to test my websites for Windows compatibility and also can run UNIX (she also works with UNIX at work). All that on one single machine that works and free of the frustrating she deals with every day. She also coudn't believe that in the past ten years I never even had a virus protection program installed. I told her many people just ignore Macs without even looking into how powerful they really are.
On the whole I'd agree although in some tests the G5 2.1Ghz iMac was quicker than the Intel at native apps.
Those are pretty rare, and almost always functions that aren't optimized for dual processors. Once those few get optimized, they'll be faster as well.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
If you're running anything from Adobe, a G5 iMac is still quicker than an Intel iMac.
[/B]
That's better. People tend to forget that there are pro users who don't depend on Adobe.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Ultimately it's the speed of the apps that determine the experience and without native apps, currently the Intels aren't as fast as PowerPCs. [/B]
As you say, it comes down to your apps. You're better off waiting. But many people are either good to go already, or will have their updates shortly. It doesn't make sense to make generalizations for all "pro users" (whatever that means) since it's different for everyone.
I guess I'm a 'Pro user', I design websites for entrepreneurs and small businesses so I am more concerned with the speed of my apps, or how fast I can get my work done. That is why I am interested in performance on the higher end models and the performance of the pro apps on these.
Now the Motorola chip used only 7 pipelines (or steps) for graphic processing vs. Intel had to go through 20 (!). There was a major difference there and that is one of the reasons graphic processing with apps like Photoshop is (was?) faster. So now with the Intel switch I really need to look what cost savings I get and what performance improvements I get for my money.
Now as a home geek of course graphics for gaming, video editing and the performance of other apps are also important for me.
So sounds like all in all I better stick with the PowerPC machines for now.
If you rely heavily on Adobe software, buy a new PowerPC Mac, and get an Intel Mac next year.
Of course if you're upgrading from an older G4, get an Intel Mac, because even under Rosetta (which is quite impressive), your Adobe software will still run at least as fast or faster.
So what are Apple's plans for switching the desktops to Intel? Anyone has good info on that?
It'll depend on Intel releasing a decent desktop chip. At the moment, the roadmap says it's probably a chip codenamed 'Conroe' running up to 2.66Ghz and shipping 2nd half of 06, probably nearer the end than the the beginning.
The one fly in the ointment is that Intel traditionally limits desktops to only two cores so Conroe replaces the bottom and middle PowerMacs. They have a server chip codenamed 'Woodcrest' which may be the replacement for the Quad G5 chip. Or perhaps Intel will stop limiting their desktop chips.
Around the same time is 'Merom' which is the replacement for today's Intel 'Yonah' based Core chips.
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest are Intel's 64bit Next Generation Architecture. Yonah is the last of the old Pentium M 32bit architecture
Around the end of the year we may also see OSX 10.5 Leopard. A smart person might wait out for both Intel's next chips, Apple's second attempt at an Intel box and the new OS. That's if they don't need new kit now. If you're running Adobe software as I said earlier, and you've a decent G5 now, there's little point in upgrading now.
Thanks aegisdesign, yes I think it's sounds like a good idea for me to stick with the PowerPCs for a while. It makes me feel confortable that I wont have to worry about investing in upgrades for a while yet.
It'll depend on Intel releasing a decent desktop chip. At the moment, the roadmap says it's probably a chip codenamed 'Conroe' running up to 2.66Ghz and shipping 2nd half of 06, probably nearer the end than the the beginning.
The one fly in the ointment is that Intel traditionally limits desktops to only two cores so Conroe replaces the bottom and middle PowerMacs. They have a server chip codenamed 'Woodcrest' which may be the replacement for the Quad G5 chip. Or perhaps Intel will stop limiting their desktop chips.
Around the same time is 'Merom' which is the replacement for today's Intel 'Yonah' based Core chips.
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest are Intel's 64bit Next Generation Architecture. Yonah is the last of the old Pentium M 32bit architecture
Around the end of the year we may also see OSX 10.5 Leopard. A smart person might wait out for both Intel's next chips, Apple's second attempt at an Intel box and the new OS. That's if they don't need new kit now. If you're running Adobe software as I said earlier, and you've a decent G5 now, there's little point in upgrading now.
I'm even questioning the assumptions that Apple will use Conroe for the new Powermacs. This seems to be the mainstream guess. If cost is the issue, maybe. Those chips are definitely faster than the laptop versions, the Yonah, and the Merom.
But, nevertheless, they are midrange chips. The PM doesn't compete against midrange machines. Not in the pro area.
I just can't see a Conroe PM stacked up against a Woodcrest machine. Right now, and for the last several years, PM's have gone up against Xeons and Opterons in the video editing arena. Also, for scientific uses, Apple would need something better than Conroe.
I think that it's at least 50/50 that Apple will go with Woodcrest, possibly, at least, for the top machine, if not the whole line.
By the way, I don't think that it's whether a quad core exists for it that will matter this year. The Quad has two dual core G5's, not a single quad core chip.
With Intel's memory bus problems, I think that two dual core chips will prove better than one quad core chip, especially as the Woodcrest uses up to a 1.333GHz memory bus, considerably faster than Conroe's max of 1.066GHz.
The one fly in the ointment is that Intel traditionally limits desktops to only two cores so Conroe replaces the bottom and middle PowerMacs. They have a server chip codenamed 'Woodcrest' which may be the replacement for the Quad G5 chip. Or perhaps Intel will stop limiting their desktop chips.
There's not much of a tradition for dual core yet. It really isn't a desktop/server dichotomy, the previous Xeon DPs were workstation and server chips for systems that had up to 2 processors. The MPs were almost exclusively server chips, generally for systems that have up to four processors. The PowerMac line is, IMO, clearly a workstation type machine so I would expect it to use the workstation chips.
It makes sense that with what the 945GM chipset does as a mobile chipset that it be disabled since the iMac is not a laptop, lower-power system. Not to mention it is cheaper to disable this subsystem and conserve on manufacturing retooling costs than have a separate MOBO specific for the iMac tooled by Intel just for Apple.
Now the Mac-mini is a custom form-factor designed motherboard. I don't expect Apple to enlarge this system. I expect Intel to work with the original form factor and design a motherboard that meets Apple's requirements.
Having a disabled 945GM on-board is a waste of space.
Either there is a model that has this enabled for the lowest end possible or there is a model without this on-board and a slot mini-atx form-factor compliant GPU.
I'm in agreement with an earlier poster who pointed out that the Mac-mini will start at $499.
The iMac already limits the Radeon X1600 to 256MB when ATI clearly states it supports up to 512MB DDR3.
Ideally, if Apple wants this to be their entry into the Home Theatre market then to have an X300 upgradeable to the X800 BTO makes the most sense.
If it comes with integrated graphics and gets marketed as their product entry into the Home Theatre it will be the kiss of death.
It makes sense that with what the 945GM chipset does as a mobile chipset that it be disabled since the iMac is not a laptop, lower-power system. Not to mention it is cheaper to disable this subsystem and conserve on manufacturing retooling costs than have a separate MOBO specific for the iMac tooled by Intel just for Apple.
Now the Mac-mini is a custom form-factor designed motherboard. I don't expect Apple to enlarge this system. I expect Intel to work with the original form factor and design a motherboard that meets Apple's requirements.
Having a disabled 945GM on-board is a waste of space.
Either there is a model that has this enabled for the lowest end possible or there is a model without this on-board and a slot mini-atx form-factor compliant GPU.
I'm in agreement with an earlier poster who pointed out that the Mac-mini will start at $499.
The iMac already limits the Radeon X1600 to 256MB when ATI clearly states it supports up to 512MB DDR3.
Ideally, if Apple wants this to be their entry into the Home Theatre market then to have an X300 upgradeable to the X800 BTO makes the most sense.
If it comes with integrated graphics and gets marketed as their product entry into the Home Theatre it will be the kiss of death.
I admit that I'm not terribly familiat with Integrated graphis, so I only know what I've been reading. But, what I wonder is whether a shortly available IG chip will be able to decompress 720p and 1080i H.264.
That's all it had to do for home theater, assuming that whatever cpu chip Apple will put in, can't do it itself, as a Core Duo Yonah 1.83GHz chip can, with ease.
Home theater doesn't require great 3D capability. Any GPU that is programmable, and that can handle core services will suffice for the 3D work.
Home theater requires a good GPU that can handle 2D decoding. If the cpu won't be doing it.
Wrong. Did you not look at the diagrams that Mr Beardsley posted? The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is that it moves the "Drawing Results" pathway (5 GB/s and 2.1 GB/s on each side in the case of Quartz Extreme) from main system RAM, to Video RAM, where the pathways are 30 GB/s both sides. Having an integrated card has plenty to do with that, because there is no Video RAM any more, and therefore no (or very, very little) potential for a speedup by moving the Quartz 2D layer onto the GPU (it'll just reduce CPU usage a bit).
Look at the diagrams again.
Not only has the "Drawing Reuslts" moved over onto the GPU, so has Quartz 2D.
The fact that the results are stored in VRAM as opposed to RAM is a side effect?in AGP systems (remember, that chart pre-dates PCI-E), it was prohibitively slow to move data from the GPU back to regular RAM. Uploading textures to the card isn't a bottleneck, thus storing them in VRAM alone has no benefits. The only benefits are the drawing speedup.
Additionally, you forget one thing about Integrated chips. They're, well, integrated. This means that they access regular RAM almost as fast as dedicated GPU's access VRAM, so even if the VRAM memory store WERE to make a difference, integrated chips wouldn't suffer at all.
And just to be clear, Quartz 2D Extreme isn't enabled yet, anyway.
Surely the X1300 is the obvious canditate for the Mac Mini, or maybe the x600 from the last iMac G5? I bet Apple got those pretty cheaply now they are obsolete, it would still be a hell of an upgrade from the 9200 in the current mini.
Not only has the "Drawing Reuslts" moved over onto the GPU, so has Quartz 2D.
Yes, I know that. You still don't get it. The GPU doesn't actually run that Quartz 2D bit that much faster than a CPU. It just means the the CPU doesn't have to do the work, so a few cycles are freed up for the CPU to spend on other tasks.
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Uploading textures to the card isn't a bottleneck,
Correct.
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
thus storing them in VRAM alone has no benefits.
Incorrect. The pathway that was 2.1 GB/s is now 30 GB/s. That is a bottleneck in Quartz, as the output from the "Quartz 2D" block is huge bitmaps - a lot of data. Yes, you are right that the diagram was drawn in the days of AGP, and that PCIe is faster, but system RAM is still DDR2 whilst VRAM is DDR3, so VRAM is still faster.
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Additionally, you forget one thing about Integrated chips. They're, well, integrated. This means that they access regular RAM almost as fast as dedicated GPU's access VRAM, so even if the VRAM memory store WERE to make a difference, integrated chips wouldn't suffer at all.
Again, system RAM and VRAM are one generation apart in terms of speed, so dedicated VRAM does have significantly higher bandwidth.
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
And just to be clear, Quartz 2D Extreme isn't enabled yet, anyway.
Yes, I know. Apple seem to be having a lot of trouble with getting it working I've started to wonder if they're actually going to have to wait until QuickDraw is fully deprecated before enabling it, and that might not happen until 10.6
If you rely heavily on Adobe software, buy a new PowerPC Mac, and get an Intel Mac next year.
Of course if you're upgrading from an older G4, get an Intel Mac, because even under Rosetta (which is quite impressive), your Adobe software will still run at least as fast or faster.
From the two Mac Professionals that I am in constant contact with, Rossetta is not all that impressive. Test showed that when using 3rd party software the PowerPC Macs are running MUCH faster. No matter what you do, if the app is not optimized for the processor you are using, the performance is much slower... Your overall advice is good, though. If you are a Mac Professional and rely on 3rd party apps, buy a PowerPC. You will be just as happy as you would have been even if Apple wasn't chaning chip manufacturers...
Comments
Originally posted by smalM
The fun with GMA is that it runs nicely on a highend system and sucks very bad on a slow system.
right.
the benchmarks posted is more like 'gma and cpu opengl performance' vs. 'ati-gpu opengl performance'.
the point of accelerating the gui with use of the gpu is to free cpu resources, no?
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/
From what I read it supports OpenGL 1.4 and parts of it. Tiger OpenGL is 1.5 and Core Image which requires > 32MB of VRAM (my iBook G4 1Ghz with 32MB VRAM doesn't support Core Image) most likely will then need a video subsystem GPU that supports > 64MB VRAM, OpenGL 1.5 and most likely actually be targeted for OpenGL 2.0.
afaik, the requirement to fully enjoy hardware acceleration is (quasi-officially) a shader model 2.0 capable gpu. (kind of fishy to use directx-definitions, but still...)
the gma 950 does that, but im not sure if the (lacking) t&l-engine is considered...?
anyhow, the way coreimage is built, it will use whatever hardware features at your disposal and i guess t&l isnt very significant (if at all) when it all comes around.
Originally posted by backtomac
Can't argue with your data, although I don't see the 2x speed in the numbers (ie 171 is not 2x 128 )
That's the old Dothan Pentium M. The Celeron M 4xx is based on the Core Solo. Since the Core is a little faster than the Dothan, I think it may reach 2x a G4 1.4.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
There's a 950 in the iMac?
yes. both the imac and mbp got a 945gm-chipset with a gma950 built in.
(there were a lot of 'wtf?!s' when the first images of a gutted imac surfaced, remember?)
Originally posted by minderbinder
And that's what they've done. The new imacs are faster than the previous. Apple has yet to release an intel machine that's slower than the one it's replacing, I doubt they will.
On the whole I'd agree although in some tests the G5 2.1Ghz iMac was quicker than the Intel at native apps.
I doubt that they will release something that isn't quicker but they've yet to release a machine faster than the PowerMacs. If speed is what you're after then PPC is it. The reason they've not is that Intel doesn't have anything faster than the dual core G5.
If you're running anything from Adobe, a G5 iMac is still quicker than an Intel iMac.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Is that comparing the original price of the PPC, or after they put it on the clearance discount? Here in the states the prices are the same.
Original price. At launch the Intel iMac was £929 as opposed to £899 for the G5 despite Jobs standing on stage saying 'Same Price'.
Originally posted by minderbinder
[BYou're talking about the speed of the apps, not the machine. Logic pro has already shipped (a pro app), and it runs very well on the intel boxes, way faster than the old imacs and powerbooks. The other apps are due to ship in a month tops. And just because you don't know any "pros" that use laptops doesn't mean they don't exist. You think people are dropping $2500 or more on a laptop so grandma can email pix of the grandkids? [/B]
Ultimately it's the speed of the apps that determine the experience and without native apps, currently the Intels aren't as fast as PowerPCs. I work in web design, programming and graphic design not sound. I don't know anyone professionally using a laptop that doesn't also have a desktop for real work. That's maybe just my sphere of users. The only laptop users I know are indeed the ones that use them for emailing grandma and general net use or they're road based so are stuck with a laptop.
She couldn't believe that while she was dealing with pop ups - she didn't even know where they came from, no browsers were running - had to reboot twice, constantly closing messages that her virus scanner prevented another virus attack ... etc., in the mean time I was just WORKING ... LOL. I also showed her that I run Windows 2000 Pro (Virtual PC version) to test my websites for Windows compatibility and also can run UNIX (she also works with UNIX at work). All that on one single machine that works and free of the frustrating she deals with every day. She also coudn't believe that in the past ten years I never even had a virus protection program installed. I told her many people just ignore Macs without even looking into how powerful they really are.
She was the second person I convinced to switch
Originally posted by aegisdesign
On the whole I'd agree although in some tests the G5 2.1Ghz iMac was quicker than the Intel at native apps.
Those are pretty rare, and almost always functions that aren't optimized for dual processors. Once those few get optimized, they'll be faster as well.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
If you're running anything from Adobe, a G5 iMac is still quicker than an Intel iMac.
[/B]
That's better. People tend to forget that there are pro users who don't depend on Adobe.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Ultimately it's the speed of the apps that determine the experience and without native apps, currently the Intels aren't as fast as PowerPCs. [/B]
As you say, it comes down to your apps. You're better off waiting. But many people are either good to go already, or will have their updates shortly. It doesn't make sense to make generalizations for all "pro users" (whatever that means) since it's different for everyone.
Now the Motorola chip used only 7 pipelines (or steps) for graphic processing vs. Intel had to go through 20 (!). There was a major difference there and that is one of the reasons graphic processing with apps like Photoshop is (was?) faster. So now with the Intel switch I really need to look what cost savings I get and what performance improvements I get for my money.
Now as a home geek of course graphics for gaming, video editing and the performance of other apps are also important for me.
So sounds like all in all I better stick with the PowerPC machines for now.
Of course if you're upgrading from an older G4, get an Intel Mac, because even under Rosetta (which is quite impressive), your Adobe software will still run at least as fast or faster.
Originally posted by blade
So what are Apple's plans for switching the desktops to Intel? Anyone has good info on that?
It'll depend on Intel releasing a decent desktop chip. At the moment, the roadmap says it's probably a chip codenamed 'Conroe' running up to 2.66Ghz and shipping 2nd half of 06, probably nearer the end than the the beginning.
The one fly in the ointment is that Intel traditionally limits desktops to only two cores so Conroe replaces the bottom and middle PowerMacs. They have a server chip codenamed 'Woodcrest' which may be the replacement for the Quad G5 chip. Or perhaps Intel will stop limiting their desktop chips.
Around the same time is 'Merom' which is the replacement for today's Intel 'Yonah' based Core chips.
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest are Intel's 64bit Next Generation Architecture. Yonah is the last of the old Pentium M 32bit architecture
Around the end of the year we may also see OSX 10.5 Leopard. A smart person might wait out for both Intel's next chips, Apple's second attempt at an Intel box and the new OS. That's if they don't need new kit now. If you're running Adobe software as I said earlier, and you've a decent G5 now, there's little point in upgrading now.
Thanks again!
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It'll depend on Intel releasing a decent desktop chip. At the moment, the roadmap says it's probably a chip codenamed 'Conroe' running up to 2.66Ghz and shipping 2nd half of 06, probably nearer the end than the the beginning.
The one fly in the ointment is that Intel traditionally limits desktops to only two cores so Conroe replaces the bottom and middle PowerMacs. They have a server chip codenamed 'Woodcrest' which may be the replacement for the Quad G5 chip. Or perhaps Intel will stop limiting their desktop chips.
Around the same time is 'Merom' which is the replacement for today's Intel 'Yonah' based Core chips.
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest are Intel's 64bit Next Generation Architecture. Yonah is the last of the old Pentium M 32bit architecture
Around the end of the year we may also see OSX 10.5 Leopard. A smart person might wait out for both Intel's next chips, Apple's second attempt at an Intel box and the new OS. That's if they don't need new kit now. If you're running Adobe software as I said earlier, and you've a decent G5 now, there's little point in upgrading now.
I'm even questioning the assumptions that Apple will use Conroe for the new Powermacs. This seems to be the mainstream guess. If cost is the issue, maybe. Those chips are definitely faster than the laptop versions, the Yonah, and the Merom.
But, nevertheless, they are midrange chips. The PM doesn't compete against midrange machines. Not in the pro area.
I just can't see a Conroe PM stacked up against a Woodcrest machine. Right now, and for the last several years, PM's have gone up against Xeons and Opterons in the video editing arena. Also, for scientific uses, Apple would need something better than Conroe.
I think that it's at least 50/50 that Apple will go with Woodcrest, possibly, at least, for the top machine, if not the whole line.
By the way, I don't think that it's whether a quad core exists for it that will matter this year. The Quad has two dual core G5's, not a single quad core chip.
With Intel's memory bus problems, I think that two dual core chips will prove better than one quad core chip, especially as the Woodcrest uses up to a 1.333GHz memory bus, considerably faster than Conroe's max of 1.066GHz.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The one fly in the ointment is that Intel traditionally limits desktops to only two cores so Conroe replaces the bottom and middle PowerMacs. They have a server chip codenamed 'Woodcrest' which may be the replacement for the Quad G5 chip. Or perhaps Intel will stop limiting their desktop chips.
There's not much of a tradition for dual core yet. It really isn't a desktop/server dichotomy, the previous Xeon DPs were workstation and server chips for systems that had up to 2 processors. The MPs were almost exclusively server chips, generally for systems that have up to four processors. The PowerMac line is, IMO, clearly a workstation type machine so I would expect it to use the workstation chips.
Originally posted by tubgirl
yes. both the imac and mbp got a 945gm-chipset with a gma950 built in.
(there were a lot of 'wtf?!s' when the first images of a gutted imac surfaced, remember?)
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/945gm/
Now taking into account the actual cutout motherboard:
http://www.kodawarisan.com.nyud.net:...c_intel02.html
It makes sense that with what the 945GM chipset does as a mobile chipset that it be disabled since the iMac is not a laptop, lower-power system. Not to mention it is cheaper to disable this subsystem and conserve on manufacturing retooling costs than have a separate MOBO specific for the iMac tooled by Intel just for Apple.
Now the Mac-mini is a custom form-factor designed motherboard. I don't expect Apple to enlarge this system. I expect Intel to work with the original form factor and design a motherboard that meets Apple's requirements.
Having a disabled 945GM on-board is a waste of space.
Either there is a model that has this enabled for the lowest end possible or there is a model without this on-board and a slot mini-atx form-factor compliant GPU.
I'm in agreement with an earlier poster who pointed out that the Mac-mini will start at $499.
The iMac already limits the Radeon X1600 to 256MB when ATI clearly states it supports up to 512MB DDR3.
Ideally, if Apple wants this to be their entry into the Home Theatre market then to have an X300 upgradeable to the X800 BTO makes the most sense.
If it comes with integrated graphics and gets marketed as their product entry into the Home Theatre it will be the kiss of death.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/945gm/
Now taking into account the actual cutout motherboard:
http://www.kodawarisan.com.nyud.net:...c_intel02.html
It makes sense that with what the 945GM chipset does as a mobile chipset that it be disabled since the iMac is not a laptop, lower-power system. Not to mention it is cheaper to disable this subsystem and conserve on manufacturing retooling costs than have a separate MOBO specific for the iMac tooled by Intel just for Apple.
Now the Mac-mini is a custom form-factor designed motherboard. I don't expect Apple to enlarge this system. I expect Intel to work with the original form factor and design a motherboard that meets Apple's requirements.
Having a disabled 945GM on-board is a waste of space.
Either there is a model that has this enabled for the lowest end possible or there is a model without this on-board and a slot mini-atx form-factor compliant GPU.
I'm in agreement with an earlier poster who pointed out that the Mac-mini will start at $499.
The iMac already limits the Radeon X1600 to 256MB when ATI clearly states it supports up to 512MB DDR3.
Ideally, if Apple wants this to be their entry into the Home Theatre market then to have an X300 upgradeable to the X800 BTO makes the most sense.
If it comes with integrated graphics and gets marketed as their product entry into the Home Theatre it will be the kiss of death.
I admit that I'm not terribly familiat with Integrated graphis, so I only know what I've been reading. But, what I wonder is whether a shortly available IG chip will be able to decompress 720p and 1080i H.264.
That's all it had to do for home theater, assuming that whatever cpu chip Apple will put in, can't do it itself, as a Core Duo Yonah 1.83GHz chip can, with ease.
Home theater doesn't require great 3D capability. Any GPU that is programmable, and that can handle core services will suffice for the 3D work.
Home theater requires a good GPU that can handle 2D decoding. If the cpu won't be doing it.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Wrong. Did you not look at the diagrams that Mr Beardsley posted? The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is that it moves the "Drawing Results" pathway (5 GB/s and 2.1 GB/s on each side in the case of Quartz Extreme) from main system RAM, to Video RAM, where the pathways are 30 GB/s both sides. Having an integrated card has plenty to do with that, because there is no Video RAM any more, and therefore no (or very, very little) potential for a speedup by moving the Quartz 2D layer onto the GPU (it'll just reduce CPU usage a bit).
Look at the diagrams again.
Not only has the "Drawing Reuslts" moved over onto the GPU, so has Quartz 2D.
The fact that the results are stored in VRAM as opposed to RAM is a side effect?in AGP systems (remember, that chart pre-dates PCI-E), it was prohibitively slow to move data from the GPU back to regular RAM. Uploading textures to the card isn't a bottleneck, thus storing them in VRAM alone has no benefits. The only benefits are the drawing speedup.
Additionally, you forget one thing about Integrated chips. They're, well, integrated. This means that they access regular RAM almost as fast as dedicated GPU's access VRAM, so even if the VRAM memory store WERE to make a difference, integrated chips wouldn't suffer at all.
And just to be clear, Quartz 2D Extreme isn't enabled yet, anyway.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Look at the diagrams again.
Not only has the "Drawing Reuslts" moved over onto the GPU, so has Quartz 2D.
Yes, I know that. You still don't get it. The GPU doesn't actually run that Quartz 2D bit that much faster than a CPU. It just means the the CPU doesn't have to do the work, so a few cycles are freed up for the CPU to spend on other tasks.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Uploading textures to the card isn't a bottleneck,
Correct.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
thus storing them in VRAM alone has no benefits.
Incorrect. The pathway that was 2.1 GB/s is now 30 GB/s. That is a bottleneck in Quartz, as the output from the "Quartz 2D" block is huge bitmaps - a lot of data. Yes, you are right that the diagram was drawn in the days of AGP, and that PCIe is faster, but system RAM is still DDR2 whilst VRAM is DDR3, so VRAM is still faster.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Additionally, you forget one thing about Integrated chips. They're, well, integrated. This means that they access regular RAM almost as fast as dedicated GPU's access VRAM, so even if the VRAM memory store WERE to make a difference, integrated chips wouldn't suffer at all.
Again, system RAM and VRAM are one generation apart in terms of speed, so dedicated VRAM does have significantly higher bandwidth.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
And just to be clear, Quartz 2D Extreme isn't enabled yet, anyway.
Yes, I know. Apple seem to be having a lot of trouble with getting it working
Originally posted by Robin Hood
If you rely heavily on Adobe software, buy a new PowerPC Mac, and get an Intel Mac next year.
Of course if you're upgrading from an older G4, get an Intel Mac, because even under Rosetta (which is quite impressive), your Adobe software will still run at least as fast or faster.
From the two Mac Professionals that I am in constant contact with, Rossetta is not all that impressive. Test showed that when using 3rd party software the PowerPC Macs are running MUCH faster. No matter what you do, if the app is not optimized for the processor you are using, the performance is much slower... Your overall advice is good, though. If you are a Mac Professional and rely on 3rd party apps, buy a PowerPC. You will be just as happy as you would have been even if Apple wasn't chaning chip manufacturers...