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!
My point is you can't compare having a request of intel to requesting something from IBM when it comes asking for anything because IBM wasn't making anything near what Apple was asking for, but intel on the other hand not only makes similar items that Apple is interested in, they make multiple versions of them. Thats my Point. You can't walk up to your peanut suppliers factory, and say I'm pissed becuse you are not willing to supply me with almond butter straight from your factory. That's why I don't understand your point.
Why does it have to be as dramatic as Apple forcing Intel, ATI, and Nvidia to change their business practices?
Why can't it be as simple as Intel helping Apple develop a custom motherboard, Apple requesting SLI on their custom motherboard. Apple could do this on its own.
Apple gaining good deals on Nvidia chipsets because Nvidia would not want to be left out of that fact that media companies can become all Mac shops.
No. Gamers like a PC they can fiddle with. Some high-end PCs, such as random crap from AlienWare, fit that bill. An Apple Power Mac does not. An IBM workstation does not. A Sun workstation does not. A Mac Pro likely will not.
Why does it have to be as dramatic as Apple forcing Intel, ATI, and Nvidia to change their business practices?
Why can't it be as simple as Intel helping Apple develop a custom motherboard, Apple requesting SLI on their custom motherboard. Apple could do this on its own.
Apple gaining good deals on Nvidia chipsets because Nvidia would not want to be left out of that fact that media companies can become all Mac shops.
That's what I was saying originally, but every body says it's Apple being pushy. I don't see it that way. I think it's obviously Apples computer, and motherboard, and intel, and Apple are cooperatively designing it, but I don't see either of them as the sole designers. It's a creative partnership. Intel has an Apple team they put together because they are the only PC manufacturer that I am aware of that is actually in house at intel making a product. But what I was saying was if Apple had a specific need in mind their need could easily be met with the cooperation of intel, with their team in conjunction with Apples.
How this turned into such a big deal is beyond me right now. I'm dead tired here falling asleep at the keys.
It's a buzzword. Apple can't afford to miss a buzzword that other computer manufacturers are a part of. Apple will want a SLI or Crossfire solution as at least an option on their computers. Now that they don't have different processors to fall back on, they have to go with what everyone else is going with.
What this comes down to is the fact that a dual-core, 2-drive bay computer without SLI or Crossfire shipping with 512 MB RAM and a 7600 won't fly for $2000 this round.
Well then we need to know the concrete benefits of having a Quad capable graphics solution.
I'm kinda thinking it makes more sense to just toss in a Quadro FX 5500 and call it a day.
I'm not all that hyped about the quad capable SLI right now. It seems a bit overboard to me. The new dual GPU Nvidia card does not even support it yet, and Nvidia says they are in no rush to do so.
I just don't understand why everybody is against the faster full speed PCI-E sots. It seems like natural PC evolution to me. Apple used to be at the forefront of technology, and people that wanted to take advantage of something could using a Mac. They are obviously not at the forefront on this because the rest of the industry has had it for a while (almost two years) now, but Apple is looking like the old PC guy's when it came to adopting USB. It just seems like they have hesitated on something that is a natural progression.
I agree at the moment there is no absolute need for SLI or Crossfire. In many ways it will come down to having software that is able to take advantage of it.
It appears the trend for software is pushing more of the work off onto the GPU. A trend Apple has been going along with OS X and its imaging APIs for real time rendering.
Apple may not adopt SLI. But it leaves itself quite vulnerable selling $2000 to $3000 workstations that are not SLI capable when its competitors will be selling them.
There isn't much the average computer user can do with 64 bit processing but I've heard of several high end Hollywood VFX houses that have bought lots of AMD 64 bit servers and use 64 bit versions of Linux and 64 bit XP.
Its a natural that visual and media content creators would quickly adopt multiple GPU for faster rendering.
For example:
Quote:
At Skywalker Ranch, Lucas now tells people he's going upstairs ? to JAK ? to shoot a scene. To a large extent this is made possible because of the 100 proc AMD renderfarm and 64-bit AMD workstations tricked out with the latest Nvidia graphic boards hardware advances that cut Maya renders down to size.
This is a natural market where Apple has an advantage but people will choose something else if Apple does not offer what they need.
edit:
On top of all of that this can be a system that run OS X, Vista, and Linux
My point is you can't compare having a request of intel to requesting something from IBM when it comes asking for anything because IBM wasn't making anything near what Apple was asking for, but intel on the other hand not only makes similar items that Apple is interested in, they make multiple versions of them. Thats my Point. You can't walk up to your peanut suppliers factory, and say I'm pissed becuse you are not willing to supply me with almond butter straight from your factory. That's why I don't understand your point.
The problem is that we don't know what Apple and IBM had in their agreements. Jobs referred to the fact that we didn't have a G5 laptop, as an indicator that IBM wasn't up to the job. They did come out with the low power G5 chip, too little, too late. And Freescale wasn't interested at all.
I admit that the situation with Intel is different ? Apple isn't requiring them to make a chipset just for themselves. But, none of Intel's chipsets support SLI, that's my point. And only some chipsets work with certain cpu's. Onboard graphics or no onboard graphics.
I'm saying that if Apple wants SLI, they will have to design and make their own mobo, Intel won't make it for them, because it isn't one of their products. That's almost like asking Intel to make a board with an AMD socket. Not quite, but the same idea.
Why does it have to be as dramatic as Apple forcing Intel, ATI, and Nvidia to change their business practices?
Why can't it be as simple as Intel helping Apple develop a custom motherboard, Apple requesting SLI on their custom motherboard. Apple could do this on its own.
Apple gaining good deals on Nvidia chipsets because Nvidia would not want to be left out of that fact that media companies can become all Mac shops.
Because Intel isn't in the business of helping to sell Nvidia's products over their own. Intel makes boards with their own chipsets, and sometimes ATI's when they have shortages, possibly some other companies rarely, but never Nvidia's. The board also has to be designed to use that chipset.
It's like asking Ford to put a GM transmission in their car.
One possible wrinkle is the fact that the GeForce 7900 SLI on one card does not need an Nvidia chipset.
But you do need the chipset to run Quad SLI which I still think Apple should not totally limit itself from.
That's very true, but it still requires the BIOS to recognise the special "switch" Nvidia uses in the card. I don't know what this means for EFI. It may not work with it.
I agree at the moment there is no absolute need for SLI or Crossfire. In many ways it will come down to having software that is able to take advantage of it.
It appears the trend for software is pushing more of the work off onto the GPU. A trend Apple has been going along with OS X and its imaging APIs for real time rendering.
Apple may not adopt SLI. But it leaves itself quite vulnerable selling $2000 to $3000 workstations that are not SLI capable when its competitors will be selling them.
There isn't much the average computer user can do with 64 bit processing but I've heard of several high end Hollywood VFX houses that have bought lots of AMD 64 bit servers and use 64 bit versions of Linux and 64 bit XP.
Its a natural that visual and media content creators would quickly adopt multiple GPU for faster rendering.
For example:
This is a natural market where Apple has an advantage but people will choose something else if Apple does not offer what they need.
edit:
On top of all of that this can be a system that run OS X, Vista, and Linux
If you are talking about on screen rendering, then it isn't needed in the content business, because all of the content on the screen is 2D. The rendering is done in the cpu's.
While it has been shown that rendering CAN be faster in some high end gpu's, it isn't useful for that kind of production work, because all of the software is written for cpu rendering, using custom software and routines. The rendering done by the boards is not as refined as that required for Pixar, as an example. I doubt that the boards can be linked as a networked rendering farm either. That alone would make them useless for the task.
The problem is that we don't know what Apple and IBM had in their agreements. Jobs referred to the fact that we didn't have a G5 laptop, as an indicator that IBM wasn't up to the job. They did come out with the low power G5 chip, too little, too late. And Freescale wasn't interested at all.
I admit that the situation with Intel is different ? Apple isn't requiring them to make a chipset just for themselves. But, none of Intel's chipsets support SLI, that's my point. And only some chipsets work with certain cpu's. Onboard graphics or no onboard graphics.
I'm saying that if Apple wants SLI, they will have to design and make their own mobo, Intel won't make it for them, because it isn't one of their products. That's almost like asking Intel to make a board with an AMD socket. Not quite, but the same idea.
But Apple isn't using a standard intel motherboard, and Apples motherboard isn't one of their regular products. It's not like everybody has full access to one. Intel isn't going to be supplying DELL with Apple motherboards, because part of the design is coming from Apple. (that's my take on their situation) Like has been said. Intel has a team they put together for their Apple products, and Apple also has engineers, and designers working closely with them. The Apple motherboard isn't a stock intel motherboard. It's not like Apple is pushing intel into doing anything out of the ordinary. They are working together cooperatively on a product for Apple. So if you think that if Apple said we are going to need two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes and added it to their design plan intel would flat turn them down, and say we wont manufacture it if that is in your design then I say we will just have to agree to disagree.
No. Gamers like a PC they can fiddle with. Some high-end PCs, such as random crap from AlienWare, fit that bill. An Apple Power Mac does not. An IBM workstation does not. A Sun workstation does not. A Mac Pro likely will not.
Why won't a Mac Pro? It's a PC pretty much identical to any other high-end PC: the processor is replaceable with a standard socket, videocards etc as well. Apparently it hasn't struck you yet that Macs are PCs.
How do you know that? You and I both would like it to be that way, but do we know it's the case? It's pure speculation at this point.
Judging from Apple's past decisions, it doesn't seem that likely.
"Judging by "Apple's past decisions", the 500-dollar, lowest-end computer that Apple has ever offered has a swappable processor socket. You can put unreleased 64-bit Intel test CPUs in, and it works with little to no configuration. If you can do this with what is essentially the least upgradeable computer in the desktop lineup, do you really think you won't be able to with the Mac Pro? And of course there won't be a high-end Apple machine without an upgradeable GPU; there's never been one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Probably, yes. What about the firmware, though? What makes you think this won't continue to be an issue?
Videocards to the best of my knowledge don't need to be flashed based on EFI versus BIOS, and the videocards in the iMac and Mac Pro are standard X1600 notebook cards with no visible Apple branding or difference from PC versions.
"Judging by "Apple's past decisions", the 500-dollar, lowest-end computer that Apple has ever offered has a swappable processor socket. [b]You can put unreleased 64-bit Intel test CPUs in, and it works with little to no configuration.
Yes, I know. I was obviously, as I'm sure you're aware, referring to Power Macs. How hard are CPU replacements on the Power Mac G5? Oh that's right, there aren't any. For the G4? Available from various suppliers, but extremely overpriced.
Quote:
If you can do this with what is essentially the least upgradeable computer in the desktop lineup, do you really think you won't be able to with the Mac Pro?
Well, hopefully you will, but who knows? What if Apple decides once more to include a humongous heatsink? Let alone a liquid cooling system that spills random green juice out the front? In either case, replacements won't be easy.
Yes, components will be much more widely available. But that doesn't mean that everything CPU-related in the Mac Pro will be "standard components".
Quote:
Videocards to the best of my knowledge don't need to be flashed based on EFI versus BIOS, and the videocards in the iMac and Mac Pro are standard X1600 notebook cards with no visible Apple branding or difference from PC versions.
And yet the only ATi driver to actually work is the one supplied by Apple.
Notice how the XOM user drivers page still says "None" for all X1600-based models in the video category. And while I only skimmed over the XOM developer video drivers page, it states "Following Drivers did NOT work:" as well as "The drivers expect the ATI Bios to be present in order to initialize the chip. Things like clock frequencies, memory frequencies, power management, all the is done through the video bios. The macpro video chip only supports EFI, it has the old BIOS completely stripped out. Thus I find it very doubtful that any video drivers will work out of the box. As I see it there are a couple of possible solutions, from easiest to hardest.", with various flashing or BIOS emulation-related suggestions, and finally: "When asked about using a PC ATI card in a Mac, however, it was pointed out that the Mac cards still feature different firmware sets as well as use different drivers."
So, as far as I can tell, yes, we're still dealing with different firmware here, and yes, it is because of EFI vs. BIOS, much like the earlier OpenFirmware vs. BIOS difference. I have yet to find evidence to the contrary.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
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!
My point is you can't compare having a request of intel to requesting something from IBM when it comes asking for anything because IBM wasn't making anything near what Apple was asking for, but intel on the other hand not only makes similar items that Apple is interested in, they make multiple versions of them. Thats my Point. You can't walk up to your peanut suppliers factory, and say I'm pissed becuse you are not willing to supply me with almond butter straight from your factory. That's why I don't understand your point.
Why can't it be as simple as Intel helping Apple develop a custom motherboard, Apple requesting SLI on their custom motherboard. Apple could do this on its own.
Apple gaining good deals on Nvidia chipsets because Nvidia would not want to be left out of that fact that media companies can become all Mac shops.
Originally posted by Placebo
The Mac Pro is a high-end PC.
Yes.
That's what gamers like.
No. Gamers like a PC they can fiddle with. Some high-end PCs, such as random crap from AlienWare, fit that bill. An Apple Power Mac does not. An IBM workstation does not. A Sun workstation does not. A Mac Pro likely will not.
One possible wrinkle is the fact that the GeForce 7900 SLI on one card does not need an Nvidia chipset.
But you do need the chipset to run Quad SLI which I still think Apple should not totally limit itself from.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Why does it have to be as dramatic as Apple forcing Intel, ATI, and Nvidia to change their business practices?
Why can't it be as simple as Intel helping Apple develop a custom motherboard, Apple requesting SLI on their custom motherboard. Apple could do this on its own.
Apple gaining good deals on Nvidia chipsets because Nvidia would not want to be left out of that fact that media companies can become all Mac shops.
That's what I was saying originally, but every body says it's Apple being pushy. I don't see it that way. I think it's obviously Apples computer, and motherboard, and intel, and Apple are cooperatively designing it, but I don't see either of them as the sole designers. It's a creative partnership. Intel has an Apple team they put together because they are the only PC manufacturer that I am aware of that is actually in house at intel making a product. But what I was saying was if Apple had a specific need in mind their need could easily be met with the cooperation of intel, with their team in conjunction with Apples.
How this turned into such a big deal is beyond me right now. I'm dead tired here falling asleep at the keys.
I'm kinda thinking it makes more sense to just toss in a Quadro FX 5500 and call it a day.
What this comes down to is the fact that a dual-core, 2-drive bay computer without SLI or Crossfire shipping with 512 MB RAM and a 7600 won't fly for $2000 this round.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Well then we need to know the concrete benefits of having a Quad capable graphics solution.
I'm kinda thinking it makes more sense to just toss in a Quadro FX 5500 and call it a day.
I'm not all that hyped about the quad capable SLI right now. It seems a bit overboard to me. The new dual GPU Nvidia card does not even support it yet, and Nvidia says they are in no rush to do so.
I just don't understand why everybody is against the faster full speed PCI-E sots. It seems like natural PC evolution to me. Apple used to be at the forefront of technology, and people that wanted to take advantage of something could using a Mac. They are obviously not at the forefront on this because the rest of the industry has had it for a while (almost two years) now, but Apple is looking like the old PC guy's when it came to adopting USB. It just seems like they have hesitated on something that is a natural progression.
It appears the trend for software is pushing more of the work off onto the GPU. A trend Apple has been going along with OS X and its imaging APIs for real time rendering.
Apple may not adopt SLI. But it leaves itself quite vulnerable selling $2000 to $3000 workstations that are not SLI capable when its competitors will be selling them.
There isn't much the average computer user can do with 64 bit processing but I've heard of several high end Hollywood VFX houses that have bought lots of AMD 64 bit servers and use 64 bit versions of Linux and 64 bit XP.
Its a natural that visual and media content creators would quickly adopt multiple GPU for faster rendering.
For example:
At Skywalker Ranch, Lucas now tells people he's going upstairs ? to JAK ? to shoot a scene. To a large extent this is made possible because of the 100 proc AMD renderfarm and 64-bit AMD workstations tricked out with the latest Nvidia graphic boards hardware advances that cut Maya renders down to size.
This is a natural market where Apple has an advantage but people will choose something else if Apple does not offer what they need.
edit:
On top of all of that this can be a system that run OS X, Vista, and Linux
Originally posted by onlooker
My point is you can't compare having a request of intel to requesting something from IBM when it comes asking for anything because IBM wasn't making anything near what Apple was asking for, but intel on the other hand not only makes similar items that Apple is interested in, they make multiple versions of them. Thats my Point. You can't walk up to your peanut suppliers factory, and say I'm pissed becuse you are not willing to supply me with almond butter straight from your factory. That's why I don't understand your point.
The problem is that we don't know what Apple and IBM had in their agreements. Jobs referred to the fact that we didn't have a G5 laptop, as an indicator that IBM wasn't up to the job. They did come out with the low power G5 chip, too little, too late. And Freescale wasn't interested at all.
I admit that the situation with Intel is different ? Apple isn't requiring them to make a chipset just for themselves. But, none of Intel's chipsets support SLI, that's my point. And only some chipsets work with certain cpu's. Onboard graphics or no onboard graphics.
I'm saying that if Apple wants SLI, they will have to design and make their own mobo, Intel won't make it for them, because it isn't one of their products. That's almost like asking Intel to make a board with an AMD socket. Not quite, but the same idea.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Why does it have to be as dramatic as Apple forcing Intel, ATI, and Nvidia to change their business practices?
Why can't it be as simple as Intel helping Apple develop a custom motherboard, Apple requesting SLI on their custom motherboard. Apple could do this on its own.
Apple gaining good deals on Nvidia chipsets because Nvidia would not want to be left out of that fact that media companies can become all Mac shops.
Because Intel isn't in the business of helping to sell Nvidia's products over their own. Intel makes boards with their own chipsets, and sometimes ATI's when they have shortages, possibly some other companies rarely, but never Nvidia's. The board also has to be designed to use that chipset.
It's like asking Ford to put a GM transmission in their car.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Hhhmm
One possible wrinkle is the fact that the GeForce 7900 SLI on one card does not need an Nvidia chipset.
But you do need the chipset to run Quad SLI which I still think Apple should not totally limit itself from.
That's very true, but it still requires the BIOS to recognise the special "switch" Nvidia uses in the card. I don't know what this means for EFI. It may not work with it.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I agree at the moment there is no absolute need for SLI or Crossfire. In many ways it will come down to having software that is able to take advantage of it.
It appears the trend for software is pushing more of the work off onto the GPU. A trend Apple has been going along with OS X and its imaging APIs for real time rendering.
Apple may not adopt SLI. But it leaves itself quite vulnerable selling $2000 to $3000 workstations that are not SLI capable when its competitors will be selling them.
There isn't much the average computer user can do with 64 bit processing but I've heard of several high end Hollywood VFX houses that have bought lots of AMD 64 bit servers and use 64 bit versions of Linux and 64 bit XP.
Its a natural that visual and media content creators would quickly adopt multiple GPU for faster rendering.
For example:
This is a natural market where Apple has an advantage but people will choose something else if Apple does not offer what they need.
edit:
On top of all of that this can be a system that run OS X, Vista, and Linux
If you are talking about on screen rendering, then it isn't needed in the content business, because all of the content on the screen is 2D. The rendering is done in the cpu's.
While it has been shown that rendering CAN be faster in some high end gpu's, it isn't useful for that kind of production work, because all of the software is written for cpu rendering, using custom software and routines. The rendering done by the boards is not as refined as that required for Pixar, as an example. I doubt that the boards can be linked as a networked rendering farm either. That alone would make them useless for the task.
Originally posted by melgross
The problem is that we don't know what Apple and IBM had in their agreements. Jobs referred to the fact that we didn't have a G5 laptop, as an indicator that IBM wasn't up to the job. They did come out with the low power G5 chip, too little, too late. And Freescale wasn't interested at all.
I admit that the situation with Intel is different ? Apple isn't requiring them to make a chipset just for themselves. But, none of Intel's chipsets support SLI, that's my point. And only some chipsets work with certain cpu's. Onboard graphics or no onboard graphics.
I'm saying that if Apple wants SLI, they will have to design and make their own mobo, Intel won't make it for them, because it isn't one of their products. That's almost like asking Intel to make a board with an AMD socket. Not quite, but the same idea.
But Apple isn't using a standard intel motherboard, and Apples motherboard isn't one of their regular products. It's not like everybody has full access to one. Intel isn't going to be supplying DELL with Apple motherboards, because part of the design is coming from Apple. (that's my take on their situation) Like has been said. Intel has a team they put together for their Apple products, and Apple also has engineers, and designers working closely with them. The Apple motherboard isn't a stock intel motherboard. It's not like Apple is pushing intel into doing anything out of the ordinary. They are working together cooperatively on a product for Apple. So if you think that if Apple said we are going to need two full speed 16x PCI-E lanes and added it to their design plan intel would flat turn them down, and say we wont manufacture it if that is in your design then I say we will just have to agree to disagree.
Originally posted by melgross
It's like asking Ford to put a GM transmission in their car.
I'm not saying it has any validity to this situation at all (I don't think it does), but the funny thing is that car companies do that all the time.
Originally posted by Chucker
Yes.
No. Gamers like a PC they can fiddle with. Some high-end PCs, such as random crap from AlienWare, fit that bill. An Apple Power Mac does not. An IBM workstation does not. A Sun workstation does not. A Mac Pro likely will not.
Why won't a Mac Pro? It's a PC pretty much identical to any other high-end PC: the processor is replaceable with a standard socket, videocards etc as well. Apparently it hasn't struck you yet that Macs are PCs.
Originally posted by Placebo
Why won't a Mac Pro? It's a PC pretty much identical to any other high-end PC: the processor is replaceable with a standard socket
How do you know that? You and I both would like it to be that way, but do we know it's the case? It's pure speculation at this point.
Judging from Apple's past decisions, it doesn't seem that likely.
, videocards etc as well.
Probably, yes. What about the firmware, though? What makes you think this won't continue to be an issue?
Apparently it hasn't struck you yet that Macs are PCs.
Apparently you shouldn't be using the word "apparently".
Originally posted by Chucker
How do you know that? You and I both would like it to be that way, but do we know it's the case? It's pure speculation at this point.
Judging from Apple's past decisions, it doesn't seem that likely.
"Judging by "Apple's past decisions", the 500-dollar, lowest-end computer that Apple has ever offered has a swappable processor socket. You can put unreleased 64-bit Intel test CPUs in, and it works with little to no configuration. If you can do this with what is essentially the least upgradeable computer in the desktop lineup, do you really think you won't be able to with the Mac Pro? And of course there won't be a high-end Apple machine without an upgradeable GPU; there's never been one.
Originally posted by Chucker
Probably, yes. What about the firmware, though? What makes you think this won't continue to be an issue?
Videocards to the best of my knowledge don't need to be flashed based on EFI versus BIOS, and the videocards in the iMac and Mac Pro are standard X1600 notebook cards with no visible Apple branding or difference from PC versions.
Originally posted by Placebo
"Judging by "Apple's past decisions", the 500-dollar, lowest-end computer that Apple has ever offered has a swappable processor socket. [b]You can put unreleased 64-bit Intel test CPUs in, and it works with little to no configuration.
Yes, I know. I was obviously, as I'm sure you're aware, referring to Power Macs. How hard are CPU replacements on the Power Mac G5? Oh that's right, there aren't any. For the G4? Available from various suppliers, but extremely overpriced.
If you can do this with what is essentially the least upgradeable computer in the desktop lineup, do you really think you won't be able to with the Mac Pro?
Well, hopefully you will, but who knows? What if Apple decides once more to include a humongous heatsink? Let alone a liquid cooling system that spills random green juice out the front? In either case, replacements won't be easy.
Yes, components will be much more widely available. But that doesn't mean that everything CPU-related in the Mac Pro will be "standard components".
Videocards to the best of my knowledge don't need to be flashed based on EFI versus BIOS, and the videocards in the iMac and Mac Pro are standard X1600 notebook cards with no visible Apple branding or difference from PC versions.
And yet the only ATi driver to actually work is the one supplied by Apple.
Notice how the XOM user drivers page still says "None" for all X1600-based models in the video category. And while I only skimmed over the XOM developer video drivers page, it states "Following Drivers did NOT work:" as well as "The drivers expect the ATI Bios to be present in order to initialize the chip. Things like clock frequencies, memory frequencies, power management, all the is done through the video bios. The macpro video chip only supports EFI, it has the old BIOS completely stripped out. Thus I find it very doubtful that any video drivers will work out of the box. As I see it there are a couple of possible solutions, from easiest to hardest.", with various flashing or BIOS emulation-related suggestions, and finally: "When asked about using a PC ATI card in a Mac, however, it was pointed out that the Mac cards still feature different firmware sets as well as use different drivers."
So, as far as I can tell, yes, we're still dealing with different firmware here, and yes, it is because of EFI vs. BIOS, much like the earlier OpenFirmware vs. BIOS difference. I have yet to find evidence to the contrary.