Even if the cards do have custom flashes for the EFI motherboard, EFI is set to become the next PC standard anyways! Eventually GPUs will have to be EFI compatible as motherboards become EFI compatible and Vista supports it.
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.
You're setting your precedent based on the way it was, which is no longer the way it is. There was previously virtually no way of uprading Mac mini and iMac G5 processors. Now you can do it with an off-the-shelf or even unreleased Intel chips.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
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".
I think it'll be pretty close to that. This is Intel and they are making a PC; do you think they're going to make custom parts for every single function when they can drop in something they already have? And what components do you even mean? The CPU is the only thing that really matters, and it's been proven that those are easily swappable in even low-end Macs.
Even if that is the case, EFI is set to become the next PC standard, so eventually GPUs will have to be EFI compatible as motherboards become EFI compatible and Vista supports EFI.
No argument there. However, note that:
1) EFI has been out for years and Gateway was the only company to make much use of it in the consumer space. Manufacturers are extremely slow to adopt it.
2) Worse yet, OS manufacturers so far haven't been great about adoption either. Again, they mostly focused on the enterprise/server space so far (e.g., Windows for Itanium has supported this for a long time, whereas Windows Vista for x86 and x64 still won't; likewise for Linux, whose EFI version of lilo was, until Intel Macs started rolling out, mostly designed for Itanium).
This will, of course, change over time. Perhaps even by next year.
]You're setting your precedent based on the way it was, which is no longer the way it is.
You're only giving one counter-example, namely the Intel-based Mac mini.
Quote:
There was previously virtually no way of uprading Mac mini and iMac G5 processors.
I was under the impression that CPU in the iMac Core Duo is soldered on?
Quote:
I think it'll be pretty close to that. This is Intel and they are making a PC; do you think they're going to make custom parts for every single function when they can drop in something they already have? And what components do you even mean?
I named some of them: fan, heatsink, perhaps liquid cooling, heatpipes, etc.
Quote:
The CPU is the only thing that really matters, and it's been proven that those are easily swappable in even low-end Macs.
Is it in the iMac? I'm really quite unsure right now.
I'm pretty sure the iMac CPU is in a standard socket. It's only soldered on in the laptops.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the upgrade market will look like, and if I'll be able to upgrade my iMac to a higher end merom for a reasonable price in a year or so.
Intel doesn't have a chipset with enough PCIe lanes to feed two full 16x slots. It's not a question of motherboard design but of chipset design.
I have already found conflicts with what are the assumed PCI-E Express lanes for intels new chipsets.
#1) I can not get one definite answer anywhere because what I read tells me otherwise, and
#2.) There is probably a Protomac MCH for the Apple board. This would be probably the only thing that could keep MacOS X only on a Mac anyway.
First off it's becoming clear that most people have no idea how many PCI-E lanes there are on the intel chipsets. The general consensus on the internet is 20 PCI-E lanes. (the Nforce has 46 for crying out loud)
Starting with the Blackford Volume server MCH, and the Blackford Value Server MCH. Or if you prefer the Bensley platforms. The blackford Volume server comes with three 8X PCI-E Express ports. 8 x 3 = 24. Obviously not 20 PCI-E lanes.
However the Glidewell, or Greencreek MCH supposedly has the same 20 lanes, but again that leaves us with the single 16X PCI-E Express lane, and then what? 4x PCI-E Express Lanes? That would give us a configurable four 1x slots. I'm doubting it. I am getting the idea that the Greencreek MCH has the additional 16 PCI-E Express lanes for the one 16X PCI-E Port, and the other 24 (8 X 3) Configurable PCI-E Express lanes totaling 40 PCI-E Express lanes. That would leave us with the possible Two 16X PCI-E ports, One 4X PCI-E port, and Three 1x or 2x PCI-E ports with one, or two lanes to spare.
But truthfully my real guess is that Apple has it's own Protomac MCH. Reason being is that I can not think of a better way to keep Mac OS X on Macs, and only Macs. And that I am sure is part of intels deal with Apple. " Must keep our OS off the rest of PC's."
They (intel) would have had to have agreed on something like that before Apple would have made their deal. Or Apple could have gone through IBM to AMD just as easily.
That's my opinion.
But, even if the Glidewell - Greencreek MCH did only have (20) 24 PCI-E Lanes. I am betting that there is a Macintosh - Protomac MCH of their own. At least I hope so. Apple and intel didn't each set aside an engineering design team to this project to work on this cooperatively together for nothing.
Don't forget to subtract a PCIe lane for Airport, and maybe one for Bluetooth. The wired networking can be on-board, but few non-laptop boards come with wireless built on, so that's at least one (can they share a lane? speed-wise they should be OK, but is there a control issue?) lane gone to that (I'm pretty sure it'll be standard).
Apple currently has 32 lanes in the PowerMac. They won't go down in lanes. It's currently 16,8,4,4. But all are x16 connectors, it's just how they're wired. Meaning you can have 4 graphics cards on there (if they're 6600s).
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.
I never said it was a standard board. Intel is designing the board. Then Apple approves it or not. So far, supposedly, Intel designed a new small board that Apple turned down. I would imagine that the board was a type "b" (BTX) board. Intel has been pushing the industry to replace the "A" (ATX) type boards, because the "B" board designs offer better cooling and such. They are also smaller than the earlier boards.
Apple apparently wasn't happy with that. They wanted a bigger board. This is gleaned from stories here in Insider, as well as other places. how true it is, I don't know.
If Intel's products can't deliver some feature that Apple desires, then Apple would have to go elsewhere. If Apple thinks it's important.
But, so far, while we have people on these boards who think it's important, we don't know if Apple thinks so as well. And, we still don't know what the fine print in the contract says.
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.
Car companies don't do it all the time. What they do is make alliences with other companies, sometimes. Mainly, these companies invest in each other, and then they use each other's parts. small companies that can'r afford to do the R&D such as Rolls Royce, had for a couplr of decades used GM transmissions. But not the other way around.
In this case, as I've already said, ATI and Intel have agreements about chipsets, and other cross licensing deals. Intel doesn't have that with Nvidia. They have been very reluctent to do those deals. Nvidia, that is.
Don't forget to subtract a PCIe lane for Airport, and maybe one for Bluetooth. The wired networking can be on-board, but few non-laptop boards come with wireless built on, so that's at least one (can they share a lane? speed-wise they should be OK, but is there a control issue?) lane gone to that (I'm pretty sure it'll be standard).
Apple currently has 32 lanes in the PowerMac. They won't go down in lanes. It's currently 16,8,4,4. But all are x16 connectors, it's just how they're wired. Meaning you can have 4 graphics cards on there (if they're 6600s).
Very good! I was going to point that out until I got to your post.
melgross - which part? I make about 3 points there.
Chucker - a PCIe lane is 250MB/s IIRC. Firewire is 50MB/s (400 Mb/s), so in theory you should just need one to a FW400 and a FW800. I've seen PCIe cards that do 2 ports/lane, so it's possible. I bet a Mac Pro could get by with only 1 PCIe lane devoted to Firewire. In the Powermac, didn't they use Hypertransport? I assume that's out, unless they build their own board (Intel doesn't cross-license it, I don't think, or at least they don't use it).
2 PCIe lanes should cover Firewire and wireless stuff. Even if it's APE/BT and 3x FW400 + 1x FW800, two lanes should handle that. Apple will likely also use lanes with 16x connectors, but time them differently. This is the one board I could see them building independently from Intel. A lower-end graphics card can run on 4 or 8 lanes, but cards like the 7800 or 7900 can't, if I understand Apple's webpage.
That seems to suggest that they wouldn't have a problem under-supplying some ports with lanes, and just say "Well, if you're using them all at the same time, you get a bit of a bottleneck."
melgross - which part? I make about 3 points there.
Chucker - a PCIe lane is 250MB/s IIRC. Firewire is 50MB/s (400 Mb/s), so in theory you should just need one to a FW400 and a FW800. I've seen PCIe cards that do 2 ports/lane, so it's possible. I bet a Mac Pro could get by with only 1 PCIe lane devoted to Firewire. In the Powermac, didn't they use Hypertransport? I assume that's out, unless they build their own board (Intel doesn't cross-license it, I don't think, or at least they don't use it).
2 PCIe lanes should cover Firewire and wireless stuff. Even if it's APE/BT and 3x FW400 + 1x FW800, two lanes should handle that. Apple will likely also use lanes with 16x connectors, but time them differently. This is the one board I could see them building independently from Intel. A lower-end graphics card can run on 4 or 8 lanes, but cards like the 7800 or 7900 can't, if I understand Apple's webpage.
Comments
Originally posted by Chucker
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.
You're setting your precedent based on the way it was, which is no longer the way it is. There was previously virtually no way of uprading Mac mini and iMac G5 processors. Now you can do it with an off-the-shelf or even unreleased Intel chips.
Originally posted by Chucker
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".
I think it'll be pretty close to that. This is Intel and they are making a PC; do you think they're going to make custom parts for every single function when they can drop in something they already have? And what components do you even mean? The CPU is the only thing that really matters, and it's been proven that those are easily swappable in even low-end Macs.
Originally posted by Placebo
Even if that is the case, EFI is set to become the next PC standard, so eventually GPUs will have to be EFI compatible as motherboards become EFI compatible and Vista supports EFI.
No argument there. However, note that:
1) EFI has been out for years and Gateway was the only company to make much use of it in the consumer space. Manufacturers are extremely slow to adopt it.
2) Worse yet, OS manufacturers so far haven't been great about adoption either. Again, they mostly focused on the enterprise/server space so far (e.g., Windows for Itanium has supported this for a long time, whereas Windows Vista for x86 and x64 still won't; likewise for Linux, whose EFI version of lilo was, until Intel Macs started rolling out, mostly designed for Itanium).
This will, of course, change over time. Perhaps even by next year.
Originally posted by Placebo
]You're setting your precedent based on the way it was, which is no longer the way it is.
You're only giving one counter-example, namely the Intel-based Mac mini.
There was previously virtually no way of uprading Mac mini and iMac G5 processors.
I was under the impression that CPU in the iMac Core Duo is soldered on?
I think it'll be pretty close to that. This is Intel and they are making a PC; do you think they're going to make custom parts for every single function when they can drop in something they already have? And what components do you even mean?
I named some of them: fan, heatsink, perhaps liquid cooling, heatpipes, etc.
The CPU is the only thing that really matters, and it's been proven that those are easily swappable in even low-end Macs.
Is it in the iMac? I'm really quite unsure right now.
I'm pretty sure the iMac CPU is in a standard socket. It's only soldered on in the laptops.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the upgrade market will look like, and if I'll be able to upgrade my iMac to a higher end merom for a reasonable price in a year or so.
Edit:
Yup, definitely socketed!
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/...13185240.shtml
Originally posted by Placebo
I just want the damned thing to come out.
Me too. Enough already with all this talking ...
I want an Intel Mac something...
Too scared to buy a 3rd *defective* MacBook Pro when we are this close to Intel Core 2 Duo (a.k.a. Merom)...
...Same with the iMac C.D...
I would like a tower and display anyway (nevermind also a cool-running, whine-free, evenly illuminated MacBook Pro).
Originally posted by smalM
Intel doesn't have a chipset with enough PCIe lanes to feed two full 16x slots. It's not a question of motherboard design but of chipset design.
I have already found conflicts with what are the assumed PCI-E Express lanes for intels new chipsets.
#1) I can not get one definite answer anywhere because what I read tells me otherwise, and
#2.) There is probably a Protomac MCH for the Apple board. This would be probably the only thing that could keep MacOS X only on a Mac anyway.
First off it's becoming clear that most people have no idea how many PCI-E lanes there are on the intel chipsets. The general consensus on the internet is 20 PCI-E lanes. (the Nforce has 46 for crying out loud)
Starting with the Blackford Volume server MCH, and the Blackford Value Server MCH. Or if you prefer the Bensley platforms. The blackford Volume server comes with three 8X PCI-E Express ports. 8 x 3 = 24. Obviously not 20 PCI-E lanes.
However the Glidewell, or Greencreek MCH supposedly has the same 20 lanes, but again that leaves us with the single 16X PCI-E Express lane, and then what? 4x PCI-E Express Lanes? That would give us a configurable four 1x slots. I'm doubting it. I am getting the idea that the Greencreek MCH has the additional 16 PCI-E Express lanes for the one 16X PCI-E Port, and the other 24 (8 X 3) Configurable PCI-E Express lanes totaling 40 PCI-E Express lanes. That would leave us with the possible Two 16X PCI-E ports, One 4X PCI-E port, and Three 1x or 2x PCI-E ports with one, or two lanes to spare.
But truthfully my real guess is that Apple has it's own Protomac MCH. Reason being is that I can not think of a better way to keep Mac OS X on Macs, and only Macs. And that I am sure is part of intels deal with Apple. " Must keep our OS off the rest of PC's."
They (intel) would have had to have agreed on something like that before Apple would have made their deal. Or Apple could have gone through IBM to AMD just as easily.
That's my opinion.
But, even if the Glidewell - Greencreek MCH did only have (20) 24 PCI-E Lanes. I am betting that there is a Macintosh - Protomac MCH of their own. At least I hope so. Apple and intel didn't each set aside an engineering design team to this project to work on this cooperatively together for nothing.
My 2¢
Apple currently has 32 lanes in the PowerMac. They won't go down in lanes. It's currently 16,8,4,4. But all are x16 connectors, it's just how they're wired. Meaning you can have 4 graphics cards on there (if they're 6600s).
Originally posted by onlooker
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.
I never said it was a standard board. Intel is designing the board. Then Apple approves it or not. So far, supposedly, Intel designed a new small board that Apple turned down. I would imagine that the board was a type "b" (BTX) board. Intel has been pushing the industry to replace the "A" (ATX) type boards, because the "B" board designs offer better cooling and such. They are also smaller than the earlier boards.
Apple apparently wasn't happy with that. They wanted a bigger board. This is gleaned from stories here in Insider, as well as other places. how true it is, I don't know.
If Intel's products can't deliver some feature that Apple desires, then Apple would have to go elsewhere. If Apple thinks it's important.
But, so far, while we have people on these boards who think it's important, we don't know if Apple thinks so as well. And, we still don't know what the fine print in the contract says.
Originally posted by Flounder
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.
Car companies don't do it all the time. What they do is make alliences with other companies, sometimes. Mainly, these companies invest in each other, and then they use each other's parts. small companies that can'r afford to do the R&D such as Rolls Royce, had for a couplr of decades used GM transmissions. But not the other way around.
In this case, as I've already said, ATI and Intel have agreements about chipsets, and other cross licensing deals. Intel doesn't have that with Nvidia. They have been very reluctent to do those deals. Nvidia, that is.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Don't forget to subtract a PCIe lane for Airport, and maybe one for Bluetooth. The wired networking can be on-board, but few non-laptop boards come with wireless built on, so that's at least one (can they share a lane? speed-wise they should be OK, but is there a control issue?) lane gone to that (I'm pretty sure it'll be standard).
Apple currently has 32 lanes in the PowerMac. They won't go down in lanes. It's currently 16,8,4,4. But all are x16 connectors, it's just how they're wired. Meaning you can have 4 graphics cards on there (if they're 6600s).
Very good! I was going to point that out until I got to your post.
Chucker - a PCIe lane is 250MB/s IIRC. Firewire is 50MB/s (400 Mb/s), so in theory you should just need one to a FW400 and a FW800. I've seen PCIe cards that do 2 ports/lane, so it's possible. I bet a Mac Pro could get by with only 1 PCIe lane devoted to Firewire. In the Powermac, didn't they use Hypertransport? I assume that's out, unless they build their own board (Intel doesn't cross-license it, I don't think, or at least they don't use it).
2 PCIe lanes should cover Firewire and wireless stuff. Even if it's APE/BT and 3x FW400 + 1x FW800, two lanes should handle that. Apple will likely also use lanes with 16x connectors, but time them differently. This is the one board I could see them building independently from Intel. A lower-end graphics card can run on 4 or 8 lanes, but cards like the 7800 or 7900 can't, if I understand Apple's webpage.
Apple's developer note claims that it's simply old-school PCI, for both ports.
First take out the 32:
2 - 16x PCI-E
And that could leave you with this.
1 - 4x Lane
2 -1x lanes - anyway that totals 5 PCI-E slots total, but If you took out the 4X slot and switched it to a 1x you could probably do more.
And still leaves 2 PCI-E lanes before reducing the 4x to a 1x for everything else.
You could probably get
1x FW 800,
2x FW 400
3 USB 2.0
2 USB 1.0
And what else would you need?
Would your SATA 2 run through there, or would that be dedicated elsewhere?
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
melgross - which part? I make about 3 points there.
Chucker - a PCIe lane is 250MB/s IIRC. Firewire is 50MB/s (400 Mb/s), so in theory you should just need one to a FW400 and a FW800. I've seen PCIe cards that do 2 ports/lane, so it's possible. I bet a Mac Pro could get by with only 1 PCIe lane devoted to Firewire. In the Powermac, didn't they use Hypertransport? I assume that's out, unless they build their own board (Intel doesn't cross-license it, I don't think, or at least they don't use it).
2 PCIe lanes should cover Firewire and wireless stuff. Even if it's APE/BT and 3x FW400 + 1x FW800, two lanes should handle that. Apple will likely also use lanes with 16x connectors, but time them differently. This is the one board I could see them building independently from Intel. A lower-end graphics card can run on 4 or 8 lanes, but cards like the 7800 or 7900 can't, if I understand Apple's webpage.
Pretty much the whole post.