Probably with the next Mac Pro refresh. It should be noted that we'll be seeing more 8x00 cards bust out in Q1 of 2007, with what I assume will be a GeForce 8300-something and a 8600-something (the low and mid-end of the Geforce 8 range). I wouldn't expect the iMac or MBP to pick those up until they go to FSB 800 Meroms in April or so.
Don't forget that ATi's x2k series is coming in Q1 as well.
nVidia by a mile. ATI are wetting themselves so they have to post specs of their upcoming GPUs long before they are due to come out so users don't abandon them.
I wish they'd find ways to make high end cards use less power though. After all, anyone can make a powerful, expensive computer for consumers but they are not always practical.
nVidia by a mile. ATI are wetting themselves so they have to post specs of their upcoming GPUs long before they are due to come out so users don't abandon them.
I wish they'd find ways to make high end cards use less power though. After all, anyone can make a powerful, expensive computer for consumers but they are not always practical.
Wait, wait...are you saying ATI is making the power-hungry cards?
Well, the market would have to demand that. I'd like to see HPPW cards too, but ultimately, when dropping hundreds on a graphics card, performance trumps watts for a lot of the market.
The "Watt" sector consists of last year's cards made on this year's fab process, which ain't quite the same.
Wait, wait...are you saying ATI is making the power-hungry cards?
Neither of them are low-power. It's getting to the point where an SLI rig needs nearly a 700W or more power supply if it's tricked out.
The reason Nvidia is winning is because their DX10 card came out first. It's a very impressive card, but don't think it'll be as much a slam dunk as it is now when R600 comes out. The x1950xtx is beating the 8800GTS in some high resolution situations.
That said, ATI really needs to put up something good with R600.
Keep in mind that the sales of the high end cards are typically much lower than the amount of emphasis placed on them would indicate. They are fun to benchmark, but the number actually found in "the wild" isn't terribly high. The mid-range and low-end cards are the lion's share of the market and are what most game developers really target.
ATI will leapfrog nVidia again, not to worry. They are still competitive and if they wait a little while they can take advantage of process technology improvements to leap farther ahead. The amount of software that needs DX10 is virtually nil, so their main disadvantage at being behind is the marketing hype.
Keep in mind that the sales of the high end cards are typically much lower than the amount of emphasis placed on them would indicate. They are fun to benchmark, but the number actually found in "the wild" isn't terribly high. The mid-range and low-end cards are the lion's share of the market and are what most game developers really target.
ATI will leapfrog nVidia again, not to worry. They are still competitive and if they wait a little while they can take advantage of process technology improvements to leap farther ahead. The amount of software that needs DX10 is virtually nil, so their main disadvantage at being behind is the marketing hype.
OK, but the issue with that is that most people who buy -300 level or even a lot of -600 level cards get them with their machines, and don't really notice the ATi/Nvidia difference.
I really don't care about this debate, since my x1900xt is lasting me until either a better Mac card is under $200 or 2009 (when I buy a mid-range Mac Pro with CSI and PCIe2 and presumably a x3800 or GF9950 or something)
OK, but the issue with that is that most people who buy -300 level or even a lot of -600 level cards get them with their machines, and don't really notice the ATi/Nvidia difference.
Yes, you're exactly right... it doesn't matter who is slightly ahead in the benchmarks because most people don't care. Both ATI and nVidia swing all sorts of OEM deals, and few of them boil down to who has the best performance.
Also worthy of note is that most reviews post graphs that make the various cards look dramatically different. If you pay close attention to the scales on these graphs, however, you'll see that the differences are a few percent either way... not the 2-4x differences that the bars on the graph try to lead you to believe. The difference between 44 and 47 frames per second is immaterial.
On topic, but away from current conversation. I think Apple will likely have SLI drivers for the mac side and more cards available. I thought it looked pretty bad when you could run windows on a Mac and have better graphics drivers, and performance using an alternate OS, and I think Apple felt the same way.
I am expecting it for the next Mac Pro announcement, and that will likely mark my return to the Macintosh after switching a few years back
Comments
Don't forget that ATi's x2k series is coming in Q1 as well.
Who is winning the war these days?
nVidia by a mile. ATI are wetting themselves so they have to post specs of their upcoming GPUs long before they are due to come out so users don't abandon them.
I wish they'd find ways to make high end cards use less power though. After all, anyone can make a powerful, expensive computer for consumers but they are not always practical.
nVidia by a mile. ATI are wetting themselves so they have to post specs of their upcoming GPUs long before they are due to come out so users don't abandon them.
I wish they'd find ways to make high end cards use less power though. After all, anyone can make a powerful, expensive computer for consumers but they are not always practical.
Wait, wait...are you saying ATI is making the power-hungry cards?
Wait, wait...are you saying ATI is making the power-hungry cards?
Nope, both of them are. I meant they should all try to focus on performance per watt instead of trying to get the fastest cards.
The "Watt" sector consists of last year's cards made on this year's fab process, which ain't quite the same.
Wait, wait...are you saying ATI is making the power-hungry cards?
Neither of them are low-power. It's getting to the point where an SLI rig needs nearly a 700W or more power supply if it's tricked out.
The reason Nvidia is winning is because their DX10 card came out first. It's a very impressive card, but don't think it'll be as much a slam dunk as it is now when R600 comes out. The x1950xtx is beating the 8800GTS in some high resolution situations.
That said, ATI really needs to put up something good with R600.
ATI will leapfrog nVidia again, not to worry. They are still competitive and if they wait a little while they can take advantage of process technology improvements to leap farther ahead. The amount of software that needs DX10 is virtually nil, so their main disadvantage at being behind is the marketing hype.
Keep in mind that the sales of the high end cards are typically much lower than the amount of emphasis placed on them would indicate. They are fun to benchmark, but the number actually found in "the wild" isn't terribly high. The mid-range and low-end cards are the lion's share of the market and are what most game developers really target.
ATI will leapfrog nVidia again, not to worry. They are still competitive and if they wait a little while they can take advantage of process technology improvements to leap farther ahead. The amount of software that needs DX10 is virtually nil, so their main disadvantage at being behind is the marketing hype.
OK, but the issue with that is that most people who buy -300 level or even a lot of -600 level cards get them with their machines, and don't really notice the ATi/Nvidia difference.
I really don't care about this debate, since my x1900xt is lasting me until either a better Mac card is under $200 or 2009 (when I buy a mid-range Mac Pro with CSI and PCIe2 and presumably a x3800 or GF9950 or something)
OK, but the issue with that is that most people who buy -300 level or even a lot of -600 level cards get them with their machines, and don't really notice the ATi/Nvidia difference.
Yes, you're exactly right... it doesn't matter who is slightly ahead in the benchmarks because most people don't care. Both ATI and nVidia swing all sorts of OEM deals, and few of them boil down to who has the best performance.
Also worthy of note is that most reviews post graphs that make the various cards look dramatically different. If you pay close attention to the scales on these graphs, however, you'll see that the differences are a few percent either way... not the 2-4x differences that the bars on the graph try to lead you to believe. The difference between 44 and 47 frames per second is immaterial.
I am expecting it for the next Mac Pro announcement, and that will likely mark my return to the Macintosh after switching a few years back