I'm not interested in this petty talk. You're either going to respond to my post, or forget about it.
Your post was petty. You're in no position to blame me for replying to your snarky little post in a petty manner.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Bootcamp is going to be our only salvation here for the time being. With that in mind I find that two slot SLI in a Mac Pro has about a %25 chance of being in the computer. But even without that we'll still be able to game. I just don't expect Quad SLI Mac systems to be blasting through games. Reality bites sometimes.
Why should Apple bother converting gamers to the Apple side on Mac OS X when Windows does it better?
The Mac Pro is set to be a boutique PC that runs Windows and its games, no doubt just as quickly as a PC with the same motherboard. This is not Apple handing out money begging developers to make games for OS X; it's Apple saying "you can install Windows on a Mac, and it will run your games incredibly well because the Mac Pro is a high-end PC".
What about those rumors or reports in October that Intel was working on a board with Apple for the Mac Pro (then called the Intel Powermac)? I mean, that sort of implies that this isn't a stock motherboard, unless that report meant that Intel was working on a general mobo that would likely find its way into the Mac Pro...
Oh wait, you mean to encourage gaming in Mac OS X? I meant in Windows. Few people are going to game in OS X ever again with a nicely specced Mac Pro. Mac OS X isn't really made for gaming; Windows is. The Mac Pro is set to be a boutique PC that runs Windows and its games, no doubt just as quickly as a PC with the same motherboard. This is not Apple handing out money begging developers to make games for OS X; it's Apple saying "you can install Windows on a Mac, and it will run your games incredibly well because the Mac Pro is a high-end PC".
What about those rumors or reports in October that Intel was working on a board with Apple for the Mac Pro (then called the Intel Powermac)? I mean, that sort of implies that this isn't a stock motherboard, unless that report meant that Intel was working on a general mobo that would likely find its way into the Mac Pro...
Again That's what I'm talking about. I don't think Apple is going to have it's usual update. They are playing a whole new game, and if they don't at least try to capitalize on some of what they can now offer they are going to be out some seriously big money. I think the ability to play windows games is the most appealing aspect to the majority of Mac users, and potential Mac users. I don't really play games at all anymore, but I'm not blind, and I do see the potential, and gaming is just one aspect they can use. I'm sure it will be a subtle thing, but it will also be a new era.
Some of us older folks have followed Apple before the Macintosh even existed.
At times Apple would offer cursory support for gaming but it always felt like a "back burner" thing. We remember the game sprockets that eventually got old and decrepit. Thus when Chucker says the Mac Pro isn't made for gamers he's right. Apple isn't going to prevent gaming but they don't exactly encourage it either.
Bootcamp is going to be our only salvation here for the time being. With that in mind I find that two slot SLI in a Mac Pro has about a %25 chance of being in the computer. But even without that we'll still be able to game. I just don't expect Quad SLI Mac systems to be blasting through games. Reality bites sometimes.
Absolutely!
In the beginning, Apple was trying to be taken seriously, so they discouraged games.
After that, they fidgeted about it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I Rremember game sprockets well. There were many special bits of software apple came up with, particularly in System 9, to make it easier for game developers. But, Apple always lost interest after a while.
Since games have been driving PC sales for years, Apple has had to think about it again. But they were too involved with getting OS X out the door, then advanced enough to stay alive. The Mac game market has gone the way of Apple's marketshare.
Intel Mac's are likely the only way Apple will gain sales from gamers.
While I also think that Apple cares little, publicly, about gamers buying, and using Apple's towers for games, I think that internally, they welcome it.
After all, Alienware's machines cost just as much as Apple's when decked out. A lot uglier, of course! I don't know how these gamers will deal with that aspect here in MacLand. But, I assume they will continue to deck their machines out with neon and flashing LED's as before. I just hope they don't feel the need to cut the cases up as well!
This also ends the "rumor" status of the article I posted before.
Intel does not support SLI. Period. Guess whose chipsets do? And guess whose chipsets Apple won't be using?
Where does it say intel does not support SLI period? And why would that effect Apple. Apple is still calling all the shots on their computers. intel is their manufacturer, and technology advisor, or whatever on the board, but intel didn't buy them. if Apple says we want two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes in there Apple will get it. It's still their computer.
Where does it say intel does not support SLI period? And why would that effect Apple. Apple is still calling all the shots on their computers. intel is their manufacturer, and technology advisor, or whatever on the board, but intel didn't buy them. if Apple says we want two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes in there Apple will get it. It's still their computer.
I agree with that, what Apple wants, Apple gets?
Hopefully they will go for dual 16x slots with extra spacing to avoid slot loss?
Fill those fat-lane, fat-slot bad boys with two (hypothetical) QuadroFX 5500 X2s in Quad SLI mode? With 2GB of RAM per card? Running a 4k rez 42" ACD? With built-in iSight?
Have two more regular-spaced slots for an A/V I/O card & a Fibre Channel card?
Where does it say intel does not support SLI period? And why would that effect Apple. Apple is still calling all the shots on their computers. intel is their manufacturer, and technology advisor, or whatever on the board, but intel didn't buy them. if Apple says we want two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes in there Apple will get it. It's still their computer.
I don't see what the problem is. Both articles are pretty clear on this., Besides, this is well understood in the PC industry. You don't want to believe it.
You see Intel using an Nvidia chipset? I don't. And I don't think that is is a reasonable assumption to make either
Hopefully they will go for dual 16x slots with extra spacing to avoid slot loss?
Fill those fat-lane, fat-slot bad boys with two (hypothetical) QuadroFX 5500 X2s in Quad SLI mode? With 2GB of RAM per card? Running a 4k rez 42" ACD? With built-in iSight?
Have two more regular-spaced slots for an A/V I/O card & a Fibre Channel card?
23" ACD as a HD output monitor from the A/V card?
Be one hell of a workstation?!
Mmm?
;^p
Apple will get what it wants up to a point. That point is where it clashes with what Intel produces. Intel only designs boards with their own chipsets, and at times, ATI's.
If Apple gets what it wants, what happened at IBM and Freescale? They didn't get what they wanted there either.
I don't see what the problem is. Both articles are pretty clear on this., Besides, this is well understood in the PC industry. You don't want to believe it.
You see Intel using an Nvidia chipset? I don't. And I don't think that is is a reasonable assumption to make either
Actually it wasn't clear that's why I asked. I scanned over all pages of the article and didn't notice intel mentioned once. I may have missed it, but when does having dual 16X PCI-E lanes go outside the scope of inels chipset. I would think that when the technology is available all PCI-E lanes would run at full speed. This isn't an Nforce thing, or an Nvidia / intel thing. It's hurdle that Nvidia has strived to leap because of its need to fully support SLI but I don't see it as a thing with a single purpose .
Apple will get what it wants up to a point. That point is where it clashes with what Intel produces. Intel only designs boards with their own chipsets, and at times, ATI's.
If Apple gets what it wants, what happened at IBM and Freescale? They didn't get what they wanted there either.
Are we forgetting so soon?
Excellent point. Everyone acts like apple has unbreakable balls, but if you look at it they're been slapped around quite a bit over the years.
Apple will get what it wants up to a point. That point is where it clashes with what Intel produces. Intel only designs boards with their own chipsets, and at times, ATI's.
If Apple gets what it wants, what happened at IBM and Freescale? They didn't get what they wanted there either.
Are we forgetting so soon?
What is your example? What did Apple want from IBM - Laptop processors. IBM is in the server, and now, console gaming market, and had no plans to manufacture a laptop processor from the G5 because they couldn't make one cool enough. They tried it, and failed. The only company the were providing this stuff to would have been Apple, and that would not be profitable for them to spend billions of dollars in R&D to supply the laptop processor for a company who's 2% market share's share of laptop processor would have probably equated to about a (point->) .5% share.
I hardly take your argument seriously. because I think Apple didn't stand a chance in getting this done and they already new it when they started using IBM after Motorola blew it. . Intel is another story. They are the worlds leading supplier of semiconductors I believe, and they make numerous kinds of laptop processors so any R&D They do is going to help them in some way or another in the immediate future no matter what.
The Mac Pro is a high-end PC. That's what gamers like. Might as well put it out there and market it in PC Gamer and other magazines just to get the word out.
Actually it wasn't clear that's why I asked. I scanned over all pages of the article and didn't notice intel mentioned once. I may have missed it, but when does having dual 16X PCI-E lanes go outside the scope of inels chipset. I would think that when the technology is available all PCI-E lanes would run at full speed. This isn't an Nforce thing, or an Nvidia / intel thing. It's hurdle that Nvidia has strived to leap because of its need to fully support SLI but I don't see it as a thing with a single purpose .
While the second article doesn't mention Intel directly in this connection, it does say what needs to be said to make it clear. Here is a quote:
"SLI is nifty, but the big problem with it is, well, it's SLI. It requires an SLI motherboard with an nForce chipset. We tend to like Nvidia's motherboard chipsets, but it's still a limiting factor."
"requires an SLI mobo WITH an nForce chipset." It can't be clearer than that.
Then you can go back to the first article, which, by the way, is NOT a rumor, but fact. They merely stated what every PC gamer already knows. Intel does NOT use nVidea chipsets. They do sometimes use those from ATI, when they run short of their own. Crossfire is licensed to Intel, SLI is not.
With two 16 lane slots, you can run two boards at full speed, but it will not support Crossfire, or SLI, unless the chipset does. Both are supported with two 8 lane slots as well. In fact, all of the first Crossfire/SLI solutions used the 8x solution.
What is your example? What did Apple want from IBM - Laptop processors. IBM is in the server, and now, console gaming market, and had no plans to manufacture a laptop processor from the G5 because they couldn't make one cool enough. They tried it, and failed. The only company the were providing this stuff to would have been Apple, and that would not be profitable for them to spend billions of dollars in R&D to supply the laptop processor for a company who's 2% market share's share of laptop processor would have probably equated to about a (point->) .5% share.
I hardly take your argument seriously. because I think Apple didn't stand a chance in getting this done and they already new it when they started using IBM after Motorola blew it. . Intel is another story. They are the worlds leading supplier of semiconductors I believe, and they make numerous kinds of laptop processors so any R&D They do is going to help them in some way or another in the immediate future no matter what.
I really need to post an example? You haven't taken part in the almost infinity of discussions we have had here over the last few years about what IBM and Freescale weren't supplying vs what Apple needed?
Besides, you supplied your own example for me, and explained my position quite well!
The Mac Pro is a high-end PC. That's what gamers like. Might as well put it out there and market it in PC Gamer and other magazines just to get the word out.
Absolutely! A $3,000 PC is a $3,000 PC, no matter who makes it.
Many gamers have stated, on gaming sites, as well as on ARs, and Anand, that if they can play games on a Mac, any Mac, as well as they can on a "PC", they would buy the Mac instead.
Looking at it from the perspective of visual media. Which is a real and lucrative market for Apple unlike gaming. Visual and graphic media companies will have the option of being totally Mac Pro shops.
Apple has chosen to work with Intel on its mother boards. Unlike IBM CPU or Freescale CPU Apple does have the option of making its own motherboards.
In light of this its difficult to see Nvidia allowing SLI to be left out. The company will make its case that Apple needs to use SLI and offer deals on chip sets and graphic cards.
In light of the fact that visual media and graphics companies can become totally Mac Pro shops its difficult to see Apple putting itself in a position where they do not have the option of using SLI at all. Its possible but its not the wisest decision.
Their is a movement in software giving much of the graphics work to the GPU. Autodesk/Discreet has just announced one of its major software suites which previously required Silicon Graphics workstations will work on personal computers. Much of the work will go to the GPU.
Its difficult to see why Apple would totally limit its option to SLI.
Looking at it from the perspective of visual media. Which is a real and lucrative market for Apple unlike gaming. Visual and graphic media companies will have the option of being totally Mac Pro shops.
Apple has chosen to work with Intel on its mother boards. Unlike IBM CPU or Freescale CPU Apple does have the option of making its own motherboards.
In light of this its difficult to see Nvidia allowing SLI to be left out. The company will make its case that Apple needs to use SLI and offer deals on chip sets and graphic cards.
In light of the fact that visual media and graphics companies can become totally Mac Pro shops its difficult to see Apple putting itself in a position where they do not have the option of using SLI at all. Its possible but its not the wisest decision.
Their is a movement in software giving much of the graphics work to the GPU. Autodesk/Discreet has just announced one of its major software suites which previously required Silicon Graphics workstations will work on personal computers. Much of the work will go to the GPU.
Its difficult to see why Apple would totally limit its option to SLI.
A lot of this depends on the relationship between Nvidia, ATI, and Intel.
So far, while ATI has been eager to license Crossfire, Nvidia, seen as the frontrunner in the dual card business by virtue of them coming out with it first, has shown no interest. Intel has also to make a move. Apple has little influence here.
If Apple succeeds in forcing Intel to supply chipsets that are not their own, and mobo's that are modified to support a technology from that chipset, can other companies be far behind? Much bigger companies than Apple?
Comments
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm not interested in this petty talk. You're either going to respond to my post, or forget about it.
Your post was petty. You're in no position to blame me for replying to your snarky little post in a petty manner.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Bootcamp is going to be our only salvation here for the time being. With that in mind I find that two slot SLI in a Mac Pro has about a %25 chance of being in the computer. But even without that we'll still be able to game. I just don't expect Quad SLI Mac systems to be blasting through games. Reality bites sometimes.
Why should Apple bother converting gamers to the Apple side on Mac OS X when Windows does it better?
The Mac Pro is set to be a boutique PC that runs Windows and its games, no doubt just as quickly as a PC with the same motherboard. This is not Apple handing out money begging developers to make games for OS X; it's Apple saying "you can install Windows on a Mac, and it will run your games incredibly well because the Mac Pro is a high-end PC".
Originally posted by Placebo
Oh wait, you mean to encourage gaming in Mac OS X? I meant in Windows. Few people are going to game in OS X ever again with a nicely specced Mac Pro. Mac OS X isn't really made for gaming; Windows is. The Mac Pro is set to be a boutique PC that runs Windows and its games, no doubt just as quickly as a PC with the same motherboard. This is not Apple handing out money begging developers to make games for OS X; it's Apple saying "you can install Windows on a Mac, and it will run your games incredibly well because the Mac Pro is a high-end PC".
That's what I was talking about too.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
What about those rumors or reports in October that Intel was working on a board with Apple for the Mac Pro (then called the Intel Powermac)? I mean, that sort of implies that this isn't a stock motherboard, unless that report meant that Intel was working on a general mobo that would likely find its way into the Mac Pro...
Again That's what I'm talking about. I don't think Apple is going to have it's usual update. They are playing a whole new game, and if they don't at least try to capitalize on some of what they can now offer they are going to be out some seriously big money. I think the ability to play windows games is the most appealing aspect to the majority of Mac users, and potential Mac users. I don't really play games at all anymore, but I'm not blind, and I do see the potential, and gaming is just one aspect they can use. I'm sure it will be a subtle thing, but it will also be a new era.
Originally posted by hmurchison
actually Chucker is thinking critically.
Some of us older folks have followed Apple before the Macintosh even existed.
At times Apple would offer cursory support for gaming but it always felt like a "back burner" thing. We remember the game sprockets that eventually got old and decrepit. Thus when Chucker says the Mac Pro isn't made for gamers he's right. Apple isn't going to prevent gaming but they don't exactly encourage it either.
Bootcamp is going to be our only salvation here for the time being. With that in mind I find that two slot SLI in a Mac Pro has about a %25 chance of being in the computer. But even without that we'll still be able to game. I just don't expect Quad SLI Mac systems to be blasting through games. Reality bites sometimes.
Absolutely!
In the beginning, Apple was trying to be taken seriously, so they discouraged games.
After that, they fidgeted about it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I Rremember game sprockets well. There were many special bits of software apple came up with, particularly in System 9, to make it easier for game developers. But, Apple always lost interest after a while.
Since games have been driving PC sales for years, Apple has had to think about it again. But they were too involved with getting OS X out the door, then advanced enough to stay alive. The Mac game market has gone the way of Apple's marketshare.
Intel Mac's are likely the only way Apple will gain sales from gamers.
While I also think that Apple cares little, publicly, about gamers buying, and using Apple's towers for games, I think that internally, they welcome it.
After all, Alienware's machines cost just as much as Apple's when decked out. A lot uglier, of course!
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1979449,00.asp
It's still a pain!
This also ends the "rumor" status of the article I posted before.
Intel does not support SLI. Period. Guess whose chipsets do? And guess whose chipsets Apple won't be using?
Originally posted by melgross
Insofar as the single card "SLI" goes, here's an article;
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1979449,00.asp
It's still a pain!
This also ends the "rumor" status of the article I posted before.
Intel does not support SLI. Period. Guess whose chipsets do? And guess whose chipsets Apple won't be using?
Where does it say intel does not support SLI period? And why would that effect Apple. Apple is still calling all the shots on their computers. intel is their manufacturer, and technology advisor, or whatever on the board, but intel didn't buy them. if Apple says we want two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes in there Apple will get it. It's still their computer.
Originally posted by onlooker
Where does it say intel does not support SLI period? And why would that effect Apple. Apple is still calling all the shots on their computers. intel is their manufacturer, and technology advisor, or whatever on the board, but intel didn't buy them. if Apple says we want two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes in there Apple will get it. It's still their computer.
I agree with that, what Apple wants, Apple gets?
Hopefully they will go for dual 16x slots with extra spacing to avoid slot loss?
Fill those fat-lane, fat-slot bad boys with two (hypothetical) QuadroFX 5500 X2s in Quad SLI mode? With 2GB of RAM per card? Running a 4k rez 42" ACD? With built-in iSight?
Have two more regular-spaced slots for an A/V I/O card & a Fibre Channel card?
23" ACD as a HD output monitor from the A/V card?
Be one hell of a workstation?!
Mmm?
;^p
Originally posted by onlooker
Where does it say intel does not support SLI period? And why would that effect Apple. Apple is still calling all the shots on their computers. intel is their manufacturer, and technology advisor, or whatever on the board, but intel didn't buy them. if Apple says we want two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes in there Apple will get it. It's still their computer.
I don't see what the problem is. Both articles are pretty clear on this., Besides, this is well understood in the PC industry. You don't want to believe it.
You see Intel using an Nvidia chipset? I don't. And I don't think that is is a reasonable assumption to make either
Originally posted by MacRonin
I agree with that, what Apple wants, Apple gets?
Hopefully they will go for dual 16x slots with extra spacing to avoid slot loss?
Fill those fat-lane, fat-slot bad boys with two (hypothetical) QuadroFX 5500 X2s in Quad SLI mode? With 2GB of RAM per card? Running a 4k rez 42" ACD? With built-in iSight?
Have two more regular-spaced slots for an A/V I/O card & a Fibre Channel card?
23" ACD as a HD output monitor from the A/V card?
Be one hell of a workstation?!
Mmm?
;^p
Apple will get what it wants up to a point. That point is where it clashes with what Intel produces. Intel only designs boards with their own chipsets, and at times, ATI's.
If Apple gets what it wants, what happened at IBM and Freescale? They didn't get what they wanted there either.
Are we forgetting so soon?
Originally posted by melgross
I don't see what the problem is. Both articles are pretty clear on this., Besides, this is well understood in the PC industry. You don't want to believe it.
You see Intel using an Nvidia chipset? I don't. And I don't think that is is a reasonable assumption to make either
Actually it wasn't clear that's why I asked. I scanned over all pages of the article and didn't notice intel mentioned once. I may have missed it, but when does having dual 16X PCI-E lanes go outside the scope of inels chipset. I would think that when the technology is available all PCI-E lanes would run at full speed. This isn't an Nforce thing, or an Nvidia / intel thing. It's hurdle that Nvidia has strived to leap because of its need to fully support SLI but I don't see it as a thing with a single purpose .
Originally posted by melgross
Apple will get what it wants up to a point. That point is where it clashes with what Intel produces. Intel only designs boards with their own chipsets, and at times, ATI's.
If Apple gets what it wants, what happened at IBM and Freescale? They didn't get what they wanted there either.
Are we forgetting so soon?
Excellent point. Everyone acts like apple has unbreakable balls, but if you look at it they're been slapped around quite a bit over the years.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple will get what it wants up to a point. That point is where it clashes with what Intel produces. Intel only designs boards with their own chipsets, and at times, ATI's.
If Apple gets what it wants, what happened at IBM and Freescale? They didn't get what they wanted there either.
Are we forgetting so soon?
What is your example? What did Apple want from IBM - Laptop processors. IBM is in the server, and now, console gaming market, and had no plans to manufacture a laptop processor from the G5 because they couldn't make one cool enough. They tried it, and failed. The only company the were providing this stuff to would have been Apple, and that would not be profitable for them to spend billions of dollars in R&D to supply the laptop processor for a company who's 2% market share's share of laptop processor would have probably equated to about a (point->) .5% share.
I hardly take your argument seriously. because I think Apple didn't stand a chance in getting this done and they already new it when they started using IBM after Motorola blew it. . Intel is another story. They are the worlds leading supplier of semiconductors I believe, and they make numerous kinds of laptop processors so any R&D They do is going to help them in some way or another in the immediate future no matter what.
Originally posted by onlooker
That's what I was talking about too.
The Mac Pro is a high-end PC. That's what gamers like. Might as well put it out there and market it in PC Gamer and other magazines just to get the word out.
Originally posted by onlooker
Actually it wasn't clear that's why I asked. I scanned over all pages of the article and didn't notice intel mentioned once. I may have missed it, but when does having dual 16X PCI-E lanes go outside the scope of inels chipset. I would think that when the technology is available all PCI-E lanes would run at full speed. This isn't an Nforce thing, or an Nvidia / intel thing. It's hurdle that Nvidia has strived to leap because of its need to fully support SLI but I don't see it as a thing with a single purpose .
While the second article doesn't mention Intel directly in this connection, it does say what needs to be said to make it clear. Here is a quote:
"SLI is nifty, but the big problem with it is, well, it's SLI. It requires an SLI motherboard with an nForce chipset. We tend to like Nvidia's motherboard chipsets, but it's still a limiting factor."
"requires an SLI mobo WITH an nForce chipset." It can't be clearer than that.
Then you can go back to the first article, which, by the way, is NOT a rumor, but fact. They merely stated what every PC gamer already knows. Intel does NOT use nVidea chipsets. They do sometimes use those from ATI, when they run short of their own. Crossfire is licensed to Intel, SLI is not.
With two 16 lane slots, you can run two boards at full speed, but it will not support Crossfire, or SLI, unless the chipset does. Both are supported with two 8 lane slots as well. In fact, all of the first Crossfire/SLI solutions used the 8x solution.
Originally posted by onlooker
What is your example? What did Apple want from IBM - Laptop processors. IBM is in the server, and now, console gaming market, and had no plans to manufacture a laptop processor from the G5 because they couldn't make one cool enough. They tried it, and failed. The only company the were providing this stuff to would have been Apple, and that would not be profitable for them to spend billions of dollars in R&D to supply the laptop processor for a company who's 2% market share's share of laptop processor would have probably equated to about a (point->) .5% share.
I hardly take your argument seriously. because I think Apple didn't stand a chance in getting this done and they already new it when they started using IBM after Motorola blew it. . Intel is another story. They are the worlds leading supplier of semiconductors I believe, and they make numerous kinds of laptop processors so any R&D They do is going to help them in some way or another in the immediate future no matter what.
I really need to post an example? You haven't taken part in the almost infinity of discussions we have had here over the last few years about what IBM and Freescale weren't supplying vs what Apple needed?
Besides, you supplied your own example for me, and explained my position quite well!
Originally posted by Placebo
The Mac Pro is a high-end PC. That's what gamers like. Might as well put it out there and market it in PC Gamer and other magazines just to get the word out.
Absolutely! A $3,000 PC is a $3,000 PC, no matter who makes it.
Many gamers have stated, on gaming sites, as well as on ARs, and Anand, that if they can play games on a Mac, any Mac, as well as they can on a "PC", they would buy the Mac instead.
Jobs would be a fool to turn that concept down!
Apple has chosen to work with Intel on its mother boards. Unlike IBM CPU or Freescale CPU Apple does have the option of making its own motherboards.
In light of this its difficult to see Nvidia allowing SLI to be left out. The company will make its case that Apple needs to use SLI and offer deals on chip sets and graphic cards.
In light of the fact that visual media and graphics companies can become totally Mac Pro shops its difficult to see Apple putting itself in a position where they do not have the option of using SLI at all. Its possible but its not the wisest decision.
Their is a movement in software giving much of the graphics work to the GPU. Autodesk/Discreet has just announced one of its major software suites which previously required Silicon Graphics workstations will work on personal computers. Much of the work will go to the GPU.
Its difficult to see why Apple would totally limit its option to SLI.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Looking at it from the perspective of visual media. Which is a real and lucrative market for Apple unlike gaming. Visual and graphic media companies will have the option of being totally Mac Pro shops.
Apple has chosen to work with Intel on its mother boards. Unlike IBM CPU or Freescale CPU Apple does have the option of making its own motherboards.
In light of this its difficult to see Nvidia allowing SLI to be left out. The company will make its case that Apple needs to use SLI and offer deals on chip sets and graphic cards.
In light of the fact that visual media and graphics companies can become totally Mac Pro shops its difficult to see Apple putting itself in a position where they do not have the option of using SLI at all. Its possible but its not the wisest decision.
Their is a movement in software giving much of the graphics work to the GPU. Autodesk/Discreet has just announced one of its major software suites which previously required Silicon Graphics workstations will work on personal computers. Much of the work will go to the GPU.
Its difficult to see why Apple would totally limit its option to SLI.
A lot of this depends on the relationship between Nvidia, ATI, and Intel.
So far, while ATI has been eager to license Crossfire, Nvidia, seen as the frontrunner in the dual card business by virtue of them coming out with it first, has shown no interest. Intel has also to make a move. Apple has little influence here.
If Apple succeeds in forcing Intel to supply chipsets that are not their own, and mobo's that are modified to support a technology from that chipset, can other companies be far behind? Much bigger companies than Apple?
Apple can't wave their wand, and it happens.