Well, Apple's drivers respond to specific PCI signatures, but those could probably adjusted easily; plus, there's no reason Apple would deliberately lock out third parties.
But they do just that and have done for years. Google for it. There's lots of hacks out there to convince MacOSX it's got a Quadro card instead of a cheaper card that isn't supported. Barefeats have been doing it for years with various test setups. There's a whole bunch of hacks to stop screen spanning and to switch Quartz Extreme support on in cards that are capable but which Apple never shipped as standard in Macs.
Ask anyone trying to get 3rd party DVD writers to work with Apple software.
Whether they do it deliberately or just because they only have resources to support a limited number of tested hardware, Apple lock out some 3rd party hardware.
Architectures in the fat file: /System/Library/Extensions/ATIRage128.kext/Contents/MacOS/ATIRage128 are: ppc i386
Quote:
Or what if you want to use a card from Matrox? EFI doesn't help you get anything but basics.
So, go ask Matrox to create a driver? After all, you paid them money to get your card.
Quote:
High end features like Core Graphics and Quartz. EFI doesn't get you that.
Core Graphics and Quartz are the same thing. And yes, they do work with EFI; through CPU acceleration.
Of course, there is no point in buying a $600 omgwtfgamerzoverclocked GPU, no matter what brand and chipset, then using it exclusively in EFI mode. Nobody is arguing that, however.
What is being argued is: if more vendors move to EFI, will that make it easier and more likely for a GPU market to become accessible to Mac Pros? And the answer is: yes, it will.
Core Graphics and Quartz are the same thing. And yes, they do work with EFI; through CPU acceleration.
CPU 'acceleration'? LOL!
You mean 'because it's not supported by the EFI driver, we do everything the hard way and fire it at a frame buffer'.
Not everything is emulated using the CPU by Quartz should the hardware not support it. See the change from Quartz to Quartz Extreme or when Core Graphics was introduced that it required at least an FX5200 or the effects didn't appear at all. Run iPhoto on an iBook G3 and most of the effects aren't available at all.
Aperture wouldn't run on my G5 because it didn't support the FX5200 I have. No emulating with a CPU there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
Of course, there is no point in buying a $600 omgwtfgamerzoverclocked GPU, no matter what brand and chipset, then using it exclusively in EFI mode. Nobody is arguing that, however.
What is being argued is: if more vendors move to EFI, will that make it easier and more likely for a GPU market to become accessible to Mac Pros? And the answer is: yes, it will.
And I'd say No. Vendors aren't likely to move to EFI without Windows supporting it and they aren't more likely to produce Mac specific hardware and drivers any more than they were before EFI. Having EFI doesn't get them instant Mac compatibility beyond a completely pointless basic fallback level. Why are card manufacturers going to go the extra mile to support EFI and write Mac drivers now when they didn't support Open Firmware and Mac before. The Windows situation hasn't changed and neither has the Mac Pro market share. They don't need EFI to sell to 99% of the market.
Not everything is emulated using the CPU by Quartz should the hardware not support it. See the change from Quartz to Quartz Extreme or when Core Graphics was introduced that it required at least an FX5200 or the effects didn't appear at all. Run iPhoto on an iBook G3 and most of the effects aren't available at all.
You really need to look up "Core Graphics". It's another name for Quartz. Perhaps you mean Core Image? Or Core Video? Even then, you'd be wrong; most Core Image features work without a GPU.
And yes, I've run iPhoto on an iBook G3. The fact that most of the features don't work on there is due to the lack of AltiVec, not due to lack of a fast GPU.
Quote:
Aperture wouldn't run on my G5 because it didn't support the FX5200 I have. No emulating with a CPU there.
I'm still trying to get your point.
Obviously, GPU acceleration is useful, and OS X has many areas where it makes strong use of it. But basic operation of the OS works just fine without. The fact that Apple now ships several Macs with shared graphics attests to that as well.
Quote:
And I'd say No. Vendors aren't likely to move to EFI without Windows supporting it
Uh, nobody disagrees with that.
Quote:
and they aren't more likely to produce Mac specific hardware and drivers any more than they were before EFI.
And switching to BIOS would change this situation exactly how?
Quote:
Having EFI doesn't get them instant Mac compatibility beyond a completely pointless basic fallback level.
Nobody disagrees with that either, but it's still better than nothing.
Quote:
Why are card manufacturers going to go the extra mile to support EFI and write Mac drivers now when they didn't support Open Firmware and Mac before.
Why are card manufacturers going to go the extra mile to write Mac drivers at all?
Uh, let's see.
Maybe manufacturers have one tiny little bit of interest of SELLING their products and making REVENUES?
Quote:
The Windows situation hasn't changed and neither has the Mac Pro market share. They don't need EFI to sell to 99% of the market.
They don't sell to 99%. They sell to a small minority who actually ever buys graphics cards. The rest sticks to whatever the OEM vendor put in there, which increasingly is just shared graphics anyway, which are even lower-margin for manufacturers, and third-party card makers get nothing at all.
Okay... I'm no uber-genius about chips and processors... but 65nm to 45nm sounds like a MAJOR JUMP! So with this new 45nm technology being ready by Q4 2006 when do you think we'll see Apple Mac Pro's with these in them?
I'm preparing to buy a new Mac Pro in Q2 2007 as soon as Adobe announces Unviversal Binary verisons of Creative Suite. Any chance they'll be available at that time?
Okay... I'm no uber-genius about chips and processors... but 65nm to 45nm sounds like a MAJOR JUMP! So with this new 45nm technology being ready by Q4 2006 when do you think we'll see Apple Mac Pro's with these in them?
I'm preparing to buy a new Mac Pro in Q2 2007 as soon as Adobe announces Unviversal Binary verisons of Creative Suite. Any chance they'll be available at that time?
Calender Q4 2007, is when we'll see 45 nm.... not Q4 '06. I doubt you'd see a 45 nm MacPro in the timeline you are looking at. Intel is going quad-core on 65 nm though.
And all this chatter about the "other" GPU manufacturers.... who cares?! Everybody else has been squashed out of any significnat market share by nVidia, ATI, and Intel. Having more GPUs on the Mac would just mean more support and testing issues to deal with. On the PC that is a #$%^ing nightmare, you do not want to bring the same thing to the Mac. Yes it would be nice if more of the ATI and nVidia options were available on the Mac, but the current offerings aren't that bad... don't let all the benchmarks and graphs fool you, they are quite marginal improvements over what is on the Mac already. A significantly bigger factor would be Apple/ATI/nVidia improving the optimizations on the OpenGL rendering pipeline and drivers.
Obviously, GPU acceleration is useful, and OS X has many areas where it makes strong use of it. But basic operation of the OS works just fine without. The fact that Apple now ships several Macs with shared graphics attests to that as well.
Apple has claimed that the integrated graphics chips do perform GPU acceleration, and for the mini, touted this as an advantage over what the G4 mini had.
You really need to look up "Core Graphics". It's another name for Quartz. Perhaps you mean Core Image? Or Core Video? Even then, you'd be wrong; most Core Image features work without a GPU.
No, you mean it's another name for Quartz Extreme. The original Quartz had no GPU acceleration or effects, it was merely a PDF compositor. There is a difference and its diverged in every release with more processing on the GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
And yes, I've run iPhoto on an iBook G3. The fact that most of the features don't work on there is due to the lack of AltiVec, not due to lack of a fast GPU.
Totally not true as you can drop a Rage128 card in a G4 and still not get the effects in iPhoto. They aren't due to AltiVec. We've an old Sawtooth G4 with an 8MB Rage 128 card. There's no fancy dashboard effects, no fancy iPhoto realtime effects. Quartz just doesn't support those effects whereas Quartz Extreme does. Apple chose not to emulate those GPU driven effects in older systems where the GPU isn't capable. Same as they aren't going to do it with an even less capable EFI generic bootstrap driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
Obviously, GPU acceleration is useful, and OS X has many areas where it makes strong use of it. But basic operation of the OS works just fine without. The fact that Apple now ships several Macs with shared graphics attests to that as well.
No it doesn't. Intel GMA 950 still has GPU acceleration. The CPU isn't doing the heavy lifting like you think it is. The performance issue is it's use of slower RAM taken from main memory instead of dedicated RAM and that whilst it's doing some GPU work, it's just a $4 chip not a $70 card. EFI drivers DO NOT provide you with graphics acceleration generally. The two are not equivalent. Relying on an EFI driver would be as effective as relying on the old Forth drivers in Open Firmware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
And switching to BIOS would change this situation exactly how?
I never said they should. I said they're no more likely to create Mac products now than before. That doesn't mean their going to use BIOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
Nobody disagrees with that either, but it's still better than nothing.
How is basic EFI support better than nothing?
You seem to think it gets you a full on modern OS capable display driver. It doesn't. It only provides a basic generic driver you'd use during a traditional POST process. It's not intended to be the main driver. There's simply no room on the card for it. You'd still have to download a full driver from somewhere for full performance. There's no incentive to create hardware drivers based on EFI bytecode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
Why are card manufacturers going to go the extra mile to write Mac drivers at all?
Uh, let's see.
Maybe manufacturers have one tiny little bit of interest of SELLING their products and making REVENUES?
They haven't so far. So you think having to add EFI support just for Mac users and writing drivers is that extra kick they needed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
They don't sell to 99%. They sell to a small minority who actually ever buys graphics cards. The rest sticks to whatever the OEM vendor put in there, which increasingly is just shared graphics anyway, which are even lower-margin for manufacturers, and third-party card makers get nothing at all.
LOL! And who do you think sells cards to the OEMs that build the machines with the cards in already? Answer - graphics card manufacturers.
Intel would love to see EFI in PCs, after all, it's their standard, but we're back to Windows supporting it again aren't we? If they don't, why would anyone add that cost to their hardware development?
No, you mean it's another name for Quartz Extreme.
No, I mean it's another name for Quartz.
Quote:
The original Quartz had no GPU acceleration or effects, it was merely a PDF compositor. There is a difference and its diverged in every release with more processing on the GPU.
Yeah, and?
Quote:
Quartz just doesn't support those effects whereas Quartz Extreme does.
Quartz Extreme has nothing to do with the effects. Core Image does. Some Core Image effects are not available without GPU acceleration.
Quote:
No it doesn't. Intel GMA 950 still has GPU acceleration.
I know that.
Quote:
The performance issue is it's use of slower RAM taken from main memory instead of dedicated RAM
I know that.
Quote:
EFI drivers DO NOT provide you with graphics acceleration generally. The two are not equivalent.
I know that.
Quote:
How is basic EFI support better than nothing?
Because it's more than nothing.
Quote:
You seem to think it gets you a full on modern OS capable display driver.
I do not.
Quote:
If they don't, why would anyone add that cost to their hardware development?
How is 300mm^2 tiny? Well, in comparison to a 2000 sf room, yeah, but 300mm^2 is not small.
It's not small if they mean 300mm x 300mm but that is rarely what they mean. 300mm squared would usually mean about 54mm x 54mm = 5.4cm x 5.4cm, which I imagine is about the size CPU chips generally are.
I'm beginning to wonder if multi-core chips will satisfy all our needs. It used to be a clock speed war and trying to push each chip as fast as possible but now it seems to be a race to get as many as possible. I reckon there will be some tasks that are limited to using one processor. I just wonder if they will put less focus on faster cores and more focus on getting as many as possible into a tight space.
It's not small if they mean 300mm x 300mm but that is rarely what they mean. 300mm squared would usually mean about 54mm x 54mm = 5.4cm x 5.4cm, which I imagine is about the size CPU chips generally are.
mm^2 is square millimeters, it is not the total length of a side of a square.
By the way, your math is wrong by a large margin. The die would be about 1.7cm x 1.7cm assuming it is square. It's still fairly large, but the difference is a producible chip because 5.4cm x 5.4cm is way too large to be easily produced.
And all this chatter about the "other" GPU manufacturers.... who cares?! Everybody else has been squashed out of any significnat market share by nVidia, ATI, and Intel. Having more GPUs on the Mac would just mean more support and testing issues to deal with. On the PC that is a #$%^ing nightmare, you do not want to bring the same thing to the Mac. Yes it would be nice if more of the ATI and nVidia options were available on the Mac, but the current offerings aren't that bad... don't let all the benchmarks and graphs fool you, they are quite marginal improvements over what is on the Mac already. A significantly bigger factor would be Apple/ATI/nVidia improving the optimizations on the OpenGL rendering pipeline and drivers.
Granted, the Mac Pro GPU choices aren't all that bad, particularly the X1900XT part versus a similar GPU on the PC side of the fence (~$400 Mac versus ~$320 PC, considering the Mac price permium, this is actually quite good).
OTOH, for the 7300GT, ~$150 Mac versus ~$70 PC, not nearly as attractive, even considering the Mac price premium.
Of course, the Quadro price point ~$1,800 kinda SUCKS! For that price point on the PC side of the fence, I can get a fairly high end SLI or Crossfire duelie for about half that price, or I can get a fairly high end QUAD SLI for about the same price.
However, this OMG setup is only of much use for high end games and 3D rendering (e. g. high end 3D CAD (i. e. SolidWorks (or applications that support these setups))). So arguably probably not of much use on the Mac side of the fence.
But that's not the point, the point is choice, irregardless of support issues, on the PC side of the fence, the PC GPU 3rd party vendors (or ATI/nVidia themselves) should support your purchase (provided it has HW/MB compatibility).
IMHO, that gives me ONE choice that is reasonably fast AND competitive with PC GPU's. Why would anyone choose the other two, IF there are no future upgrade options (see below).
More GPU price point options (that are reasonably PC competitive) would be sweet.
Also, I don't think anyone is considering GPU chipsets other than Intel/nVidia/ATI. And if I want to get GPU drivers for my PC's I go to nVidia or ATI (e. g. Catalyst), not the 3rd party GPU HW vendor (or Microsoft XP update site for that matter). I don't have any experience with Intel drivers though.
So in 12 months time (from the Mac Pro introduction), if no after market PCIE GPU's exist, I would have to conclude that 3rd party GPU vendors don't consider this to be a significant revenue stream (due to low Mac Pro market penetration), or Apple/ATI/nVidia are up to something (insert conspiracy theories here (exclusive contracts/one stop GPU HW/driver shop (Apple does all GPU driver development))).
Given the EFI situation (widespread adoption), given limited PCIE upgradable Apple HW (the market), and given that Apple may be the only one controlling GPU driver SW development (conspiracy), I'm not so sure (anymore) that, in the near term, we will see retail 3rd party PCIE GPU upgrades on the Mac platform.
Oh well, damn the torpedoes, I'm still lusting for a Mac Octo!
Of course, the Quatro price point ~$1,800 kinda SUCKS! For that price point on the PC side of the fence, I can get a fairly high end SLI or Crossfire duelie for about half that price, or I can get a fairly high end QUAD SLI for about the same price.
However, this OMG setup is only of much use for high end games and 3D rendering (e. g. high end 3D CAD (i. e. SolidWorks (or applications that support these setups))). So arguably probably not of much use on the Mac side of the fence.
The Quadro isn't meant for games at all, I really don't think the Mac Pro is really meant for games either, the fact that they can run them is incidental. The Quadro is only meant for high end visual apps that you suggested. Really, what that means is that your real choices are either two or one, two for regular apps or Apple's standard pro apps, or one if it's for an app still generally destined for workstation use that needs the Quadro's features. I'm not totally certain what features are exclusive to the Quadro line, it used to be hardware clipping planes and 3D shutter glasses.
The Quadro isn't meant for games at all, I really don't think the Mac Pro is really meant for games either, the fact that they can run them is incidental. The Quadro is only meant for high end visual apps that you suggested. Really, what that means is that your real choices are either two or one, two for regular apps or Apple's standard pro apps, or one if it's for an app still generally destined for workstation use that needs the Quadro's features. I'm not totally certain what features are exclusive to the Quadro line, it used to be hardware clipping planes and 3D shutter glasses.
Understood.
I'd never buy a Mac Pro for a gaming rig, heck about the only gamez I have played recently are Myst 3 and Hoyle Casino! And that was 2 years ago!
All that I was suggesting was that if you were to spend ~$1,800 on GPU HW, what could you get on the PC side of the fence. My conclusion, alot! But I would probably stop at the $300-$500 price point for a single card GPU (i. e. similar to the X1900XT Apple has). So all-in-all, a pretty good GPU at a pretty good price point.
And the reviews of the Quadro versus the next fastest Apple GPU alternative, suggests that the price delta isn't worth it. I guess I'm too price concious!
Sorta of the same argument goes for the low end GPU alternative, IF there isn't a future upgrade path, price isn't as competitive and if future apps/OS place greater demands on the GPU I'm kinda stuck with my initial purchase.
Ditto on what the Quadro has to offer versus other 2 GPU options.
mm^2 is square millimeters, it is not the total length of a side of a square.
By the way, your math is wrong by a large margin. The die would be about 1.7cm x 1.7cm assuming it is square. It's still fairly large, but the difference is a producible chip because 5.4cm x 5.4cm is way too large to be easily produced.
One of the problems we have in trying to write formulas on the board is that we can't always write what we mean. for example.
300mm squared is 300mm x 300mm.
300 square mm means 17.32mm x 17.32mm.
300^2 means 300 squared. That's 3 cm on a side. About 1.3 inch!
I'd never buy a Mac Pro for a gaming rig, heck about the only gamez I have played recently are Myst 3 and Hoyle Casino! And that was 2 years ago!
All that I was suggesting was that if you were to spend ~$1,800 on GPU HW, what could you get on the PC side of the fence. My conclusion, alot! But I would probably stop at the $300-$500 price point for a single card GPU (i. e. similar to the X1900XT Apple has). So all-in-all, a pretty good GPU at a pretty good price point.
And the reviews of the Quadro versus the next fastest Apple GPU alternative, suggests that the price delta isn't worth it. I guess I'm too price concious!
Sorta of the same argument goes for the low end GPU alternative, IF there isn't a future upgrade path, price isn't as competitive and if future apps/OS place greater demands on the GPU I'm kinda stuck with my initial purchase.
Ditto on what the Quadro has to offer versus other 2 GPU options.
Workstation boards are far better when doing workstation tasks than game boards are. They are designed so that their functions excel at the tasks that 3D programs, CAD/CAM programs, and scientific programs need. They are not as good as the best game boards at games. there are far less of them sold, and the seperate development causes their prices to be high.
...You can't just slap in an EFI card and expect it to run DOOM 3 at 500 OMG!s per second although it might play Gravitar and that's a better game anyway.
Boy had to look that up on MobyGames.com
"The evil being called Gravitar is out attempting to destroy the universe! With each galaxy he conquers he leaves behind extreme gravitational forces, a powerful, explosive reactor and deadly bunkers. Your job is to stop Gravitar by taking back the twelve solar systems located in four galaxies that are under his control! In each solar system there is a sun, an alien reactor base, and three to four planets. To free the solar system, you have two choices; either visit all of the planets and destroy all enemy bunkers, or activate the reactor at the core of the alien base and escape before it explodes. On each of the planets and the alien base, there will be strong gravitational forces to deal with; make sure you keep your ship in space, since a crash into the ragged landscape will be fatal! After a galaxy has been freed, you then automatically move on to the next galaxy which will be even more difficult to save. The game includes five different skill levels which vary in difficulty by supplying different amounts of ships to begin the game as well as different strengths of gravity."
One of the problems we have in trying to write formulas on the board is that we can't always write what we mean. for example.
300mm squared is 300mm x 300mm.
300 square mm means 17.32mm x 17.32mm.
300^2 means 300 squared. That's 3 cm on a side. About 1.3 inch!
Yeah, you are right, it is hard to explain. As you suggest, 300^2 is very different from 300mm^2, the reason might not be obvious by just looking at it, mm^2 is a unit, 300 is the multiplier, and it certainly doesn't mean (300mm)^2.
I think of mm^2 being mm * mm, based on how unit analysis is supposed to work. And as you say, called "square millimeters". It's a bit counterintuitive. The unit is squared, not the number.
By the way, your math is wrong by a large margin. The die would be about 1.7cm x 1.7cm assuming it is square. It's still fairly large, but the difference is a producible chip because 5.4cm x 5.4cm is way too large to be easily produced.
I typed 3000 instead of 300. You're right it would be 1.7cm x 1.7cm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
300^2 means 300 squared. That's 3 cm on a side. About 1.3 inch!
Wouldn't that be 30cm per side? That's what I was thought the first poster who mentioned the size was talking about alluding to the picture of the guy holding the big disc, which looks about that size.
I think we can safely say that it won't be that big.
Comments
Well, Apple's drivers respond to specific PCI signatures, but those could probably adjusted easily; plus, there's no reason Apple would deliberately lock out third parties.
But they do just that and have done for years. Google for it. There's lots of hacks out there to convince MacOSX it's got a Quadro card instead of a cheaper card that isn't supported. Barefeats have been doing it for years with various test setups. There's a whole bunch of hacks to stop screen spanning and to switch Quartz Extreme support on in cards that are capable but which Apple never shipped as standard in Macs.
Ask anyone trying to get 3rd party DVD writers to work with Apple software.
Whether they do it deliberately or just because they only have resources to support a limited number of tested hardware, Apple lock out some 3rd party hardware.
]But what if they didn't. Do the Intel Macs support ATi all the way back to the Rage128?
Funny that you ask; yes they do.
ataraxy:~ chucker$ lipo -info /System/Library/Extensions/ATIRage128.kext/Contents/MacOS/ATIRage128
Architectures in the fat file: /System/Library/Extensions/ATIRage128.kext/Contents/MacOS/ATIRage128 are: ppc i386
Or what if you want to use a card from Matrox? EFI doesn't help you get anything but basics.
So, go ask Matrox to create a driver? After all, you paid them money to get your card.
High end features like Core Graphics and Quartz. EFI doesn't get you that.
Core Graphics and Quartz are the same thing. And yes, they do work with EFI; through CPU acceleration.
Of course, there is no point in buying a $600 omgwtfgamerzoverclocked GPU, no matter what brand and chipset, then using it exclusively in EFI mode. Nobody is arguing that, however.
What is being argued is: if more vendors move to EFI, will that make it easier and more likely for a GPU market to become accessible to Mac Pros? And the answer is: yes, it will.
Core Graphics and Quartz are the same thing. And yes, they do work with EFI; through CPU acceleration.
CPU 'acceleration'? LOL!
You mean 'because it's not supported by the EFI driver, we do everything the hard way and fire it at a frame buffer'.
Not everything is emulated using the CPU by Quartz should the hardware not support it. See the change from Quartz to Quartz Extreme or when Core Graphics was introduced that it required at least an FX5200 or the effects didn't appear at all. Run iPhoto on an iBook G3 and most of the effects aren't available at all.
Aperture wouldn't run on my G5 because it didn't support the FX5200 I have. No emulating with a CPU there.
Of course, there is no point in buying a $600 omgwtfgamerzoverclocked GPU, no matter what brand and chipset, then using it exclusively in EFI mode. Nobody is arguing that, however.
What is being argued is: if more vendors move to EFI, will that make it easier and more likely for a GPU market to become accessible to Mac Pros? And the answer is: yes, it will.
And I'd say No. Vendors aren't likely to move to EFI without Windows supporting it and they aren't more likely to produce Mac specific hardware and drivers any more than they were before EFI. Having EFI doesn't get them instant Mac compatibility beyond a completely pointless basic fallback level. Why are card manufacturers going to go the extra mile to support EFI and write Mac drivers now when they didn't support Open Firmware and Mac before. The Windows situation hasn't changed and neither has the Mac Pro market share. They don't need EFI to sell to 99% of the market.
Not everything is emulated using the CPU by Quartz should the hardware not support it. See the change from Quartz to Quartz Extreme or when Core Graphics was introduced that it required at least an FX5200 or the effects didn't appear at all. Run iPhoto on an iBook G3 and most of the effects aren't available at all.
You really need to look up "Core Graphics". It's another name for Quartz. Perhaps you mean Core Image? Or Core Video? Even then, you'd be wrong; most Core Image features work without a GPU.
And yes, I've run iPhoto on an iBook G3. The fact that most of the features don't work on there is due to the lack of AltiVec, not due to lack of a fast GPU.
Aperture wouldn't run on my G5 because it didn't support the FX5200 I have. No emulating with a CPU there.
I'm still trying to get your point.
Obviously, GPU acceleration is useful, and OS X has many areas where it makes strong use of it. But basic operation of the OS works just fine without. The fact that Apple now ships several Macs with shared graphics attests to that as well.
And I'd say No. Vendors aren't likely to move to EFI without Windows supporting it
Uh, nobody disagrees with that.
and they aren't more likely to produce Mac specific hardware and drivers any more than they were before EFI.
And switching to BIOS would change this situation exactly how?
Having EFI doesn't get them instant Mac compatibility beyond a completely pointless basic fallback level.
Nobody disagrees with that either, but it's still better than nothing.
Why are card manufacturers going to go the extra mile to support EFI and write Mac drivers now when they didn't support Open Firmware and Mac before.
Why are card manufacturers going to go the extra mile to write Mac drivers at all?
Uh, let's see.
Maybe manufacturers have one tiny little bit of interest of SELLING their products and making REVENUES?
The Windows situation hasn't changed and neither has the Mac Pro market share. They don't need EFI to sell to 99% of the market.
They don't sell to 99%. They sell to a small minority who actually ever buys graphics cards. The rest sticks to whatever the OEM vendor put in there, which increasingly is just shared graphics anyway, which are even lower-margin for manufacturers, and third-party card makers get nothing at all.
I'm preparing to buy a new Mac Pro in Q2 2007 as soon as Adobe announces Unviversal Binary verisons of Creative Suite. Any chance they'll be available at that time?
Okay... I'm no uber-genius about chips and processors... but 65nm to 45nm sounds like a MAJOR JUMP! So with this new 45nm technology being ready by Q4 2006 when do you think we'll see Apple Mac Pro's with these in them?
I'm preparing to buy a new Mac Pro in Q2 2007 as soon as Adobe announces Unviversal Binary verisons of Creative Suite. Any chance they'll be available at that time?
Calender Q4 2007, is when we'll see 45 nm.... not Q4 '06. I doubt you'd see a 45 nm MacPro in the timeline you are looking at. Intel is going quad-core on 65 nm though.
And all this chatter about the "other" GPU manufacturers.... who cares?! Everybody else has been squashed out of any significnat market share by nVidia, ATI, and Intel. Having more GPUs on the Mac would just mean more support and testing issues to deal with. On the PC that is a #$%^ing nightmare, you do not want to bring the same thing to the Mac. Yes it would be nice if more of the ATI and nVidia options were available on the Mac, but the current offerings aren't that bad... don't let all the benchmarks and graphs fool you, they are quite marginal improvements over what is on the Mac already. A significantly bigger factor would be Apple/ATI/nVidia improving the optimizations on the OpenGL rendering pipeline and drivers.
Obviously, GPU acceleration is useful, and OS X has many areas where it makes strong use of it. But basic operation of the OS works just fine without. The fact that Apple now ships several Macs with shared graphics attests to that as well.
Apple has claimed that the integrated graphics chips do perform GPU acceleration, and for the mini, touted this as an advantage over what the G4 mini had.
You really need to look up "Core Graphics". It's another name for Quartz. Perhaps you mean Core Image? Or Core Video? Even then, you'd be wrong; most Core Image features work without a GPU.
No, you mean it's another name for Quartz Extreme. The original Quartz had no GPU acceleration or effects, it was merely a PDF compositor. There is a difference and its diverged in every release with more processing on the GPU.
And yes, I've run iPhoto on an iBook G3. The fact that most of the features don't work on there is due to the lack of AltiVec, not due to lack of a fast GPU.
Totally not true as you can drop a Rage128 card in a G4 and still not get the effects in iPhoto. They aren't due to AltiVec. We've an old Sawtooth G4 with an 8MB Rage 128 card. There's no fancy dashboard effects, no fancy iPhoto realtime effects. Quartz just doesn't support those effects whereas Quartz Extreme does. Apple chose not to emulate those GPU driven effects in older systems where the GPU isn't capable. Same as they aren't going to do it with an even less capable EFI generic bootstrap driver.
Obviously, GPU acceleration is useful, and OS X has many areas where it makes strong use of it. But basic operation of the OS works just fine without. The fact that Apple now ships several Macs with shared graphics attests to that as well.
No it doesn't. Intel GMA 950 still has GPU acceleration. The CPU isn't doing the heavy lifting like you think it is. The performance issue is it's use of slower RAM taken from main memory instead of dedicated RAM and that whilst it's doing some GPU work, it's just a $4 chip not a $70 card. EFI drivers DO NOT provide you with graphics acceleration generally. The two are not equivalent. Relying on an EFI driver would be as effective as relying on the old Forth drivers in Open Firmware.
And switching to BIOS would change this situation exactly how?
I never said they should. I said they're no more likely to create Mac products now than before. That doesn't mean their going to use BIOS.
Nobody disagrees with that either, but it's still better than nothing.
How is basic EFI support better than nothing?
You seem to think it gets you a full on modern OS capable display driver. It doesn't. It only provides a basic generic driver you'd use during a traditional POST process. It's not intended to be the main driver. There's simply no room on the card for it. You'd still have to download a full driver from somewhere for full performance. There's no incentive to create hardware drivers based on EFI bytecode.
Why are card manufacturers going to go the extra mile to write Mac drivers at all?
Uh, let's see.
Maybe manufacturers have one tiny little bit of interest of SELLING their products and making REVENUES?
They haven't so far. So you think having to add EFI support just for Mac users and writing drivers is that extra kick they needed?
They don't sell to 99%. They sell to a small minority who actually ever buys graphics cards. The rest sticks to whatever the OEM vendor put in there, which increasingly is just shared graphics anyway, which are even lower-margin for manufacturers, and third-party card makers get nothing at all.
LOL! And who do you think sells cards to the OEMs that build the machines with the cards in already? Answer - graphics card manufacturers.
Intel would love to see EFI in PCs, after all, it's their standard, but we're back to Windows supporting it again aren't we? If they don't, why would anyone add that cost to their hardware development?
No, you mean it's another name for Quartz Extreme.
No, I mean it's another name for Quartz.
The original Quartz had no GPU acceleration or effects, it was merely a PDF compositor. There is a difference and its diverged in every release with more processing on the GPU.
Yeah, and?
Quartz just doesn't support those effects whereas Quartz Extreme does.
Quartz Extreme has nothing to do with the effects. Core Image does. Some Core Image effects are not available without GPU acceleration.
No it doesn't. Intel GMA 950 still has GPU acceleration.
I know that.
The performance issue is it's use of slower RAM taken from main memory instead of dedicated RAM
I know that.
EFI drivers DO NOT provide you with graphics acceleration generally. The two are not equivalent.
I know that.
How is basic EFI support better than nothing?
Because it's more than nothing.
You seem to think it gets you a full on modern OS capable display driver.
I do not.
If they don't, why would anyone add that cost to their hardware development?
To sell cards.
How is 300mm^2 tiny? Well, in comparison to a 2000 sf room, yeah, but 300mm^2 is not small.
It's not small if they mean 300mm x 300mm but that is rarely what they mean. 300mm squared would usually mean about 54mm x 54mm = 5.4cm x 5.4cm, which I imagine is about the size CPU chips generally are.
I'm beginning to wonder if multi-core chips will satisfy all our needs. It used to be a clock speed war and trying to push each chip as fast as possible but now it seems to be a race to get as many as possible. I reckon there will be some tasks that are limited to using one processor. I just wonder if they will put less focus on faster cores and more focus on getting as many as possible into a tight space.
It's not small if they mean 300mm x 300mm but that is rarely what they mean. 300mm squared would usually mean about 54mm x 54mm = 5.4cm x 5.4cm, which I imagine is about the size CPU chips generally are.
mm^2 is square millimeters, it is not the total length of a side of a square.
By the way, your math is wrong by a large margin. The die would be about 1.7cm x 1.7cm assuming it is square. It's still fairly large, but the difference is a producible chip because 5.4cm x 5.4cm is way too large to be easily produced.
And all this chatter about the "other" GPU manufacturers.... who cares?! Everybody else has been squashed out of any significnat market share by nVidia, ATI, and Intel. Having more GPUs on the Mac would just mean more support and testing issues to deal with. On the PC that is a #$%^ing nightmare, you do not want to bring the same thing to the Mac. Yes it would be nice if more of the ATI and nVidia options were available on the Mac, but the current offerings aren't that bad... don't let all the benchmarks and graphs fool you, they are quite marginal improvements over what is on the Mac already. A significantly bigger factor would be Apple/ATI/nVidia improving the optimizations on the OpenGL rendering pipeline and drivers.
Granted, the Mac Pro GPU choices aren't all that bad, particularly the X1900XT part versus a similar GPU on the PC side of the fence (~$400 Mac versus ~$320 PC, considering the Mac price permium, this is actually quite good).
OTOH, for the 7300GT, ~$150 Mac versus ~$70 PC, not nearly as attractive, even considering the Mac price premium.
Of course, the Quadro price point ~$1,800 kinda SUCKS! For that price point on the PC side of the fence, I can get a fairly high end SLI or Crossfire duelie for about half that price, or I can get a fairly high end QUAD SLI for about the same price.
However, this OMG setup is only of much use for high end games and 3D rendering (e. g. high end 3D CAD (i. e. SolidWorks (or applications that support these setups))). So arguably probably not of much use on the Mac side of the fence.
But that's not the point, the point is choice, irregardless of support issues, on the PC side of the fence, the PC GPU 3rd party vendors (or ATI/nVidia themselves) should support your purchase (provided it has HW/MB compatibility).
IMHO, that gives me ONE choice that is reasonably fast AND competitive with PC GPU's. Why would anyone choose the other two, IF there are no future upgrade options (see below).
More GPU price point options (that are reasonably PC competitive) would be sweet.
Also, I don't think anyone is considering GPU chipsets other than Intel/nVidia/ATI. And if I want to get GPU drivers for my PC's I go to nVidia or ATI (e. g. Catalyst), not the 3rd party GPU HW vendor (or Microsoft XP update site for that matter). I don't have any experience with Intel drivers though.
So in 12 months time (from the Mac Pro introduction), if no after market PCIE GPU's exist, I would have to conclude that 3rd party GPU vendors don't consider this to be a significant revenue stream (due to low Mac Pro market penetration), or Apple/ATI/nVidia are up to something (insert conspiracy theories here (exclusive contracts/one stop GPU HW/driver shop (Apple does all GPU driver development))).
Given the EFI situation (widespread adoption), given limited PCIE upgradable Apple HW (the market), and given that Apple may be the only one controlling GPU driver SW development (conspiracy), I'm not so sure (anymore) that, in the near term, we will see retail 3rd party PCIE GPU upgrades on the Mac platform.
Oh well, damn the torpedoes, I'm still lusting for a Mac Octo!
Of course, the Quatro price point ~$1,800 kinda SUCKS! For that price point on the PC side of the fence, I can get a fairly high end SLI or Crossfire duelie for about half that price, or I can get a fairly high end QUAD SLI for about the same price.
However, this OMG setup is only of much use for high end games and 3D rendering (e. g. high end 3D CAD (i. e. SolidWorks (or applications that support these setups))). So arguably probably not of much use on the Mac side of the fence.
The Quadro isn't meant for games at all, I really don't think the Mac Pro is really meant for games either, the fact that they can run them is incidental. The Quadro is only meant for high end visual apps that you suggested. Really, what that means is that your real choices are either two or one, two for regular apps or Apple's standard pro apps, or one if it's for an app still generally destined for workstation use that needs the Quadro's features. I'm not totally certain what features are exclusive to the Quadro line, it used to be hardware clipping planes and 3D shutter glasses.
The Quadro isn't meant for games at all, I really don't think the Mac Pro is really meant for games either, the fact that they can run them is incidental. The Quadro is only meant for high end visual apps that you suggested. Really, what that means is that your real choices are either two or one, two for regular apps or Apple's standard pro apps, or one if it's for an app still generally destined for workstation use that needs the Quadro's features. I'm not totally certain what features are exclusive to the Quadro line, it used to be hardware clipping planes and 3D shutter glasses.
Understood.
I'd never buy a Mac Pro for a gaming rig, heck about the only gamez I have played recently are Myst 3 and Hoyle Casino! And that was 2 years ago!
All that I was suggesting was that if you were to spend ~$1,800 on GPU HW, what could you get on the PC side of the fence. My conclusion, alot! But I would probably stop at the $300-$500 price point for a single card GPU (i. e. similar to the X1900XT Apple has). So all-in-all, a pretty good GPU at a pretty good price point.
And the reviews of the Quadro versus the next fastest Apple GPU alternative, suggests that the price delta isn't worth it. I guess I'm too price concious!
Sorta of the same argument goes for the low end GPU alternative, IF there isn't a future upgrade path, price isn't as competitive and if future apps/OS place greater demands on the GPU I'm kinda stuck with my initial purchase.
Ditto on what the Quadro has to offer versus other 2 GPU options.
mm^2 is square millimeters, it is not the total length of a side of a square.
By the way, your math is wrong by a large margin. The die would be about 1.7cm x 1.7cm assuming it is square. It's still fairly large, but the difference is a producible chip because 5.4cm x 5.4cm is way too large to be easily produced.
One of the problems we have in trying to write formulas on the board is that we can't always write what we mean. for example.
300mm squared is 300mm x 300mm.
300 square mm means 17.32mm x 17.32mm.
300^2 means 300 squared. That's 3 cm on a side. About 1.3 inch!
Understood.
I'd never buy a Mac Pro for a gaming rig, heck about the only gamez I have played recently are Myst 3 and Hoyle Casino! And that was 2 years ago!
All that I was suggesting was that if you were to spend ~$1,800 on GPU HW, what could you get on the PC side of the fence. My conclusion, alot! But I would probably stop at the $300-$500 price point for a single card GPU (i. e. similar to the X1900XT Apple has). So all-in-all, a pretty good GPU at a pretty good price point.
And the reviews of the Quadro versus the next fastest Apple GPU alternative, suggests that the price delta isn't worth it. I guess I'm too price concious!
Sorta of the same argument goes for the low end GPU alternative, IF there isn't a future upgrade path, price isn't as competitive and if future apps/OS place greater demands on the GPU I'm kinda stuck with my initial purchase.
Ditto on what the Quadro has to offer versus other 2 GPU options.
Workstation boards are far better when doing workstation tasks than game boards are. They are designed so that their functions excel at the tasks that 3D programs, CAD/CAM programs, and scientific programs need. They are not as good as the best game boards at games. there are far less of them sold, and the seperate development causes their prices to be high.
...You can't just slap in an EFI card and expect it to run DOOM 3 at 500 OMG!s per second although it might play Gravitar and that's a better game anyway.
Boy had to look that up on MobyGames.com
"The evil being called Gravitar is out attempting to destroy the universe! With each galaxy he conquers he leaves behind extreme gravitational forces, a powerful, explosive reactor and deadly bunkers. Your job is to stop Gravitar by taking back the twelve solar systems located in four galaxies that are under his control! In each solar system there is a sun, an alien reactor base, and three to four planets. To free the solar system, you have two choices; either visit all of the planets and destroy all enemy bunkers, or activate the reactor at the core of the alien base and escape before it explodes. On each of the planets and the alien base, there will be strong gravitational forces to deal with; make sure you keep your ship in space, since a crash into the ragged landscape will be fatal! After a galaxy has been freed, you then automatically move on to the next galaxy which will be even more difficult to save. The game includes five different skill levels which vary in difficulty by supplying different amounts of ships to begin the game as well as different strengths of gravity."
One of the problems we have in trying to write formulas on the board is that we can't always write what we mean. for example.
300mm squared is 300mm x 300mm.
300 square mm means 17.32mm x 17.32mm.
300^2 means 300 squared. That's 3 cm on a side. About 1.3 inch!
Yeah, you are right, it is hard to explain. As you suggest, 300^2 is very different from 300mm^2, the reason might not be obvious by just looking at it, mm^2 is a unit, 300 is the multiplier, and it certainly doesn't mean (300mm)^2.
I think of mm^2 being mm * mm, based on how unit analysis is supposed to work. And as you say, called "square millimeters". It's a bit counterintuitive. The unit is squared, not the number.
By the way, your math is wrong by a large margin. The die would be about 1.7cm x 1.7cm assuming it is square. It's still fairly large, but the difference is a producible chip because 5.4cm x 5.4cm is way too large to be easily produced.
I typed 3000 instead of 300. You're right it would be 1.7cm x 1.7cm.
300^2 means 300 squared. That's 3 cm on a side. About 1.3 inch!
Wouldn't that be 30cm per side? That's what I was thought the first poster who mentioned the size was talking about alluding to the picture of the guy holding the big disc, which looks about that size.
I think we can safely say that it won't be that big.