i think that there will be a dual quad core. big suprise but i also see maybe that the price of the dual cores will go down so that there will be cheaper models. i also see maybe more graphics cards compatibility maybe like an nvidia 8800 for the mac pro. just so that the few mac gamers can game.
I think (hope to god) we will have major graphics drivers for the next revision. Probably drivers for SLI so users can use cards with powerful GPU's like the GeForce 7950 GX2's. The biggest problem with graphics on a Mac right now is switchers, and their friends see that the Mac is somewhat silly to switch to because they can have better graphics cards on Mac using the competing OS in boot-camp. If they were originally just planning on playing windows games in boot-camp, that same gaming graphics card with the power-horse GPU{s) is also going to perform better in photoshop under windows with functioning drivers, That brings to play the question of "Why did I switch in the first place? I'm still constantly using windows for everything." There is no question that graphically demanding applications will outperform under windows right now, and Apple can't have that if they want to be taken completely seriously by prospective switchers.
Frankly I was surprised they did not update the drivers for such things shortly after the Mac Pro's were released. I just assumed they hadn't readied them in time, and it was coming. I'm glad I waited to buy one, and did not rely on that assumption.
Even if Apple offers the 8800 in the Pro, the videocard nuts will still not be satisfied.
I can hear the SLI complaints already.
Sorry I didn't see your post, but your right. Some customers feel they need the best graphics options available to them at all times. The more powerful the computer the faster you can complete the job, and the more work you are able to accept knowing you can make those close deadlines. You need the right tools for the right job. The amount of work, and stuff I am able to accomplish today on my alienware I could not dream of accomplishing on my old 867MHz G4. Speed is definitely a factor in business.
onlooker, are you saying that the Windows version of Photoshop offloads display duties to the graphics card?
I've been working with the understanding that I don't need a fancy graphics card because all of my work is two-dimensional.
I'll replace my main workstation, a single-processor 733MHz G4 with 1.25GB of RAM and two big CRTs, with a new Mac Pro and Cinema Display when Creative Suite 3 ships. Believe it or not, the only speed problem I have with my current workstation is when working with 8MP 16-bit files in Photoshop. After I've done my usual editing routine, I typically have a 95-125MB file and those rascals take upwards of a full minute to save.
Adobe used to write specialized graphics drivers to take advantage of Altivec. That has been migrated to SSE for intel. Apple has also added much in the way of graphics enhancements over their windows counterpart for willing developers to take advantage of. Apples Core image lets developers leverage the power of programmable GPU's with little or no code. This is something Adobe is taking advantage of in CS3 with dynamic filters, and other effects that wont run the same on windows. The extent of GPU leverage they decide to take in the final product is unknown, but it's evident they are using it, and the more available GPU power the faster it will run. And every one knows when it comes to CPU's, and GPU's 2 is better than one.
I think (hope to god) we will have major graphics drivers for the next revision. Probably drivers for SLI so users can use cards with powerful GPU's like the GeForce 7950 GX2's.
Sure. Along with EFI releases of the same cards.
Quote:
The biggest problem with graphics on a Mac right now is switchers, and their friends see that the Mac is somewhat silly to switch to because they can have better graphics cards on Mac using the competing OS in boot-camp. If they were originally just planning on playing windows games in boot-camp, that same gaming graphics card with the power-horse GPU{s) is also going to perform better in photoshop under windows with functioning drivers, That brings to play the question of "Why did I switch in the first place? I'm still constantly using windows for everything."
Mkay...this is for the small number of home users of the Mac Pro using it for gaming...
And according to Adobe Photoshop team members the GPU matters very little. Get more memory and another HD.
Quote:
4) GPU. For now, this doesn't matter that much. A recent video card is good, GPU doesn't really matter. True, GPUs matter more and more, and many applications use GPUs, so having one might help you in the future or it might not, but it really will not do you any good right now. I'd say wait until you know you need one, because by then, the performance per price will be much better. Until then, a video card with fast 2-d will be the biggest win in this area.
We try to make Photoshop do the most the hardware that you have. So, the better the hardware, the better the performance, with the exception of GPU.
There is no question that graphically demanding applications will outperform under windows right now, and Apple can't have that if they want to be taken completely seriously by prospective switchers.
Well yes many will run faster on Windows, at least until they are all intel native on the mac. Then things should even out.
In any case prospective switchers will likely only be swayed if it can be shown that the workflow on the mac is more productive than their current workflow on windows. That depends on the apps and toolchains more than hardware. The difference between a X1900 or FX4500 and 2 x 8800GTS SLI will be eaten if you're missing a timesaver utility on one platform or the other.
And seriously...are the 2 x 8800GTS really going to make your viewports (or whatever in whichever app) run so much faster that the FX4500 will be dog slow in comparison? Not to mention that if you want some of the features nVidia holds back for their Quadro lines you won't have them on a SLI rig. Probably the only one anyone ever notices is the memory management ones for OpenGL. Maybe overlay panes for Maya.
Quote:
Frankly I was surprised they did not update the drivers for such things shortly after the Mac Pro's were released. I just assumed they hadn't readied them in time, and it was coming. I'm glad I waited to buy one, and did not rely on that assumption.
Well there IS the EFI issue that would require Apple to relent and allow BIOS based graphics cards. Odds are this isn't happening as it makes it even easier to hack OSX to run on regular PCs.
Quote:
Sorry I didn't see your post, but your right. Some customers feel they need the best graphics options available to them at all times. The more powerful the computer the faster you can complete the job, and the more work you are able to accept knowing you can make those close deadlines. You need the right tools for the right job. The amount of work, and stuff I am able to accomplish today on my alienware I could not dream of accomplishing on my old 867MHz G4. Speed is definitely a factor in business.
Mmm...yes, because comparing a current Alienware against an old G4 is certainly a level playing field. Pray tell the performance difference between your Alienware and a Mac Pro (either bootcamp'd or native) running either the X1900XT or Quadro FX4500 in your apps?
Will better graphic cards be welcome? Sure thing. Will they happen? Sure thing. Will we get every possible combo? Not likely until Vista goes EFI.
Most GPU output, say from Quartz Extreme, goes to the frame buffer, not back to the data file that the original app is working on. Already-processed fragments are cached for re-display if the programmer knows how not to have them drawn again from scratch. Has Adobe said that they are actually using Core Image Units to work on the original image?
This is something Adobe is taking advantage of in CS3 with dynamic filters, and other effects that wont run the same on windows. The extent of GPU leverage they decide to take in the final product is unknown, but it's evident they are using it, and the more available GPU power the faster it will run. And every one knows when it comes to CPU's, and GPU's 2 is better than one.
There are also a couple of plug ins that are "GPU accelerated" that runs fine even on a Macbook's GMA. Live Filters are likely one of the few things that will get GPU accel in PS. According to one PS dev PS is memory bound, not CPU bound which is why PS never seems to peg more than 1 CPU. That sounded fishy to me but whatever. He also claimed that while GPUs are fast the data pipe is one way...from the CPU to GPU to display and getting data back is slow (GPU back to CPU). True or false, if these are the feelings of the PS dev team getting either full 64bit support or GPU acceleration (except for a few features) ain't likely in the near term.
That may change as nVidia and ATI starts optimizing for doing game physics on GPUs tho' I suspect that PS will be much more demanding from a data movement standpoint. Games will likely pass in a lot of data and get smaller answer back. PS will pass in data, have some transform on the data and have that data sent back out. If they aren't CPU bound now, there's no real reason to hit the GPU if the return data path will remain more anemic than system memory.
It's definitely about time for a refresh. It doesn't need to be a major revision, just a graphics card and cpu add / update. Newer graphics cards have been out for a while (though a x1900xt will still give most cards a run for it's money).
I am foaming at the mouth for a mac pro update. I can't see them waiting a whole lot longer. All of the cpu resellers are offering the quad core for sale. Perhaps apple could offer 5140 (2.33ghz) or 5150 (2.66ghz) as the bottom line for mac pro. Offer the dual quad core for high end.
I'm definitely waiting it out. I can totally picture buying a mac pro now, and a new rev being released next week and losing 400 dollars in value over the next week. I"m too much of a penny pincher to do that.
On the same token the machine i'm on is soo slow. We'll see how it goes. Definitely in the boat to wait.
It's definitely about time for a refresh. I am foaming at the mouth for a mac pro update.
I am in the same boat, but my machine is not bad at all. The quad G5 is a great machine, but I rather sell it now and upgrade it. so I can still get good money for my quad on ebay.
vinea, Core Image is something completely different from Quartz 2D Extreme. Core Image's GPU acceleration does share Quartz 2D Extreme's requirement for Shader 2.0 support however, and Adobe is using it, but exactly how much I don't know.
EFI is inevitable, and if Apple is on top of things with their vendors there will be more EFI ready cards this time around. They got the QuadroFX and there is no reason why there wouldn't be more cards available this time around.
Vista, and EFI I have no idea about, but I don't think it has it.
Reguardless it is still silly to many that you can get better graphics performance on a Mac using Windows.
Quote:
Mkay...this is for the small number of home users of the Mac Pro using it for gaming...
How do you know what these numbers are? Where do you get this information? internet chatter?
vinea, Core Image is something completely different from Quartz 2D Extreme. Core Image's GPU acceleration does share Quartz 2D Extreme's requirement for Shader 2.0 support however, and Adobe is using it, but exactly how much I don't know.
Yes, but the lack of SLI on the Mac is not likely to have much impact on photoshop users.
Quote:
EFI is inevitable, and if Apple is on top of things with their vendors there will be more EFI ready cards this time around. They got the QuadroFX and there is no reason why there wouldn't be more cards available this time around.
Vista, and EFI I have no idea about, but I don't think it has it.
Nope. Hence the lack of EFI compliant vid cards.
Quote:
Reguardless it is still silly to many that you can get better graphics performance on a Mac using Windows.
Because those cards don't load under OSX because they aren't EFI...
Quote:
How do you know what these numbers are? Where do you get this information? internet chatter?
Because Mac Pro sales are still only so-so and to put it politely buying a more expensive Mac Pro for a gaming rig over a cheaper Conroe machine is "questionable". Except for those who are using it primarily for content creation on OSX (or Windows for whom they can transition to OSX for work) and plays games on the side this is a non-starter.
In other words the number of switchers that would be influenced with better graphics than a X1900 for gaming on a Xeon based machine approaches zero. Mmm...look at all those folks buying Dell Precision 490s and 690s as gaming rigs...they'll all switch to the Mac Pro if only you could get 2x 8800GTX SLI on the Mac Pro (and amusingly get crappy FPS in WoW due to buggy drivers).
My Macs run Bootcamp 75% of the time because I'm a .NET/Managed DX9 dev so I must be an Mac fanatic (actually Linux "unliker"...I don't hate Linux but I do prefer to do Apache/MySql/PHP/etc hacking on OSX than Linux because of the rest of the OS...I guess I'm a OAMP rather than LAMP developer). But there's no way in heck I'm buying a Mac Pro primarily for gaming. I don't care what graphics cards are available.
For work, the X1900 and FX4500 may not be the most uber cards but typically they are good enough.
Because those cards don't load under OSX because they aren't EFI...
Vinea
Quote:
Reguardless it is still silly to many that you can get better graphics performance on a Mac using Windows.
in the rare instance I defend Onlooker ... I do believe he was talking about using the same card from mac to windows. IE a x1900xt gets better performance in Maya in windows than os X on the same machine. Though I do have a feeling this will change or level out with Aero / Vista.
Comments
I can hear the SLI complaints already.
- 3d game developers (Unity users e.g)
- Video/post production editors
- Autocad users (rendering presentation designs etc)
An x1900 would be fine, 8800 would be even better ofcourse.
I think the videocard in the Mac Pro currently (default option) is ridiculous
compared to the system specs.
Check Barefeats and see what an x1900 does with render times in video applications
and you'll want one!
Frankly I was surprised they did not update the drivers for such things shortly after the Mac Pro's were released. I just assumed they hadn't readied them in time, and it was coming. I'm glad I waited to buy one, and did not rely on that assumption.
Even if Apple offers the 8800 in the Pro, the videocard nuts will still not be satisfied.
I can hear the SLI complaints already.
Sorry I didn't see your post, but your right. Some customers feel they need the best graphics options available to them at all times. The more powerful the computer the faster you can complete the job, and the more work you are able to accept knowing you can make those close deadlines. You need the right tools for the right job. The amount of work, and stuff I am able to accomplish today on my alienware I could not dream of accomplishing on my old 867MHz G4. Speed is definitely a factor in business.
What's SLI?
onlooker, are you saying that the Windows version of Photoshop offloads display duties to the graphics card?
I've been working with the understanding that I don't need a fancy graphics card because all of my work is two-dimensional.
I'll replace my main workstation, a single-processor 733MHz G4 with 1.25GB of RAM and two big CRTs, with a new Mac Pro and Cinema Display when Creative Suite 3 ships. Believe it or not, the only speed problem I have with my current workstation is when working with 8MP 16-bit files in Photoshop. After I've done my usual editing routine, I typically have a 95-125MB file and those rascals take upwards of a full minute to save.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/
I think (hope to god) we will have major graphics drivers for the next revision. Probably drivers for SLI so users can use cards with powerful GPU's like the GeForce 7950 GX2's.
Sure. Along with EFI releases of the same cards.
The biggest problem with graphics on a Mac right now is switchers, and their friends see that the Mac is somewhat silly to switch to because they can have better graphics cards on Mac using the competing OS in boot-camp. If they were originally just planning on playing windows games in boot-camp, that same gaming graphics card with the power-horse GPU{s) is also going to perform better in photoshop under windows with functioning drivers, That brings to play the question of "Why did I switch in the first place? I'm still constantly using windows for everything."
Mkay...this is for the small number of home users of the Mac Pro using it for gaming...
And according to Adobe Photoshop team members the GPU matters very little. Get more memory and another HD.
4) GPU. For now, this doesn't matter that much. A recent video card is good, GPU doesn't really matter. True, GPUs matter more and more, and many applications use GPUs, so having one might help you in the future or it might not, but it really will not do you any good right now. I'd say wait until you know you need one, because by then, the performance per price will be much better. Until then, a video card with fast 2-d will be the biggest win in this area.
We try to make Photoshop do the most the hardware that you have. So, the better the hardware, the better the performance, with the exception of GPU.
http://blogs.adobe.com/psperf/2006/0...d_stories.html
There is no question that graphically demanding applications will outperform under windows right now, and Apple can't have that if they want to be taken completely seriously by prospective switchers.
Well yes many will run faster on Windows, at least until they are all intel native on the mac. Then things should even out.
In any case prospective switchers will likely only be swayed if it can be shown that the workflow on the mac is more productive than their current workflow on windows. That depends on the apps and toolchains more than hardware. The difference between a X1900 or FX4500 and 2 x 8800GTS SLI will be eaten if you're missing a timesaver utility on one platform or the other.
And seriously...are the 2 x 8800GTS really going to make your viewports (or whatever in whichever app) run so much faster that the FX4500 will be dog slow in comparison? Not to mention that if you want some of the features nVidia holds back for their Quadro lines you won't have them on a SLI rig. Probably the only one anyone ever notices is the memory management ones for OpenGL. Maybe overlay panes for Maya.
Frankly I was surprised they did not update the drivers for such things shortly after the Mac Pro's were released. I just assumed they hadn't readied them in time, and it was coming. I'm glad I waited to buy one, and did not rely on that assumption.
Well there IS the EFI issue that would require Apple to relent and allow BIOS based graphics cards. Odds are this isn't happening as it makes it even easier to hack OSX to run on regular PCs.
Sorry I didn't see your post, but your right. Some customers feel they need the best graphics options available to them at all times. The more powerful the computer the faster you can complete the job, and the more work you are able to accept knowing you can make those close deadlines. You need the right tools for the right job. The amount of work, and stuff I am able to accomplish today on my alienware I could not dream of accomplishing on my old 867MHz G4. Speed is definitely a factor in business.
Mmm...yes, because comparing a current Alienware against an old G4 is certainly a level playing field. Pray tell the performance difference between your Alienware and a Mac Pro (either bootcamp'd or native) running either the X1900XT or Quadro FX4500 in your apps?
Will better graphic cards be welcome? Sure thing. Will they happen? Sure thing. Will we get every possible combo? Not likely until Vista goes EFI.
Vinea
This is something Adobe is taking advantage of in CS3 with dynamic filters, and other effects that wont run the same on windows. The extent of GPU leverage they decide to take in the final product is unknown, but it's evident they are using it, and the more available GPU power the faster it will run. And every one knows when it comes to CPU's, and GPU's 2 is better than one.
There are also a couple of plug ins that are "GPU accelerated" that runs fine even on a Macbook's GMA. Live Filters are likely one of the few things that will get GPU accel in PS. According to one PS dev PS is memory bound, not CPU bound which is why PS never seems to peg more than 1 CPU. That sounded fishy to me but whatever. He also claimed that while GPUs are fast the data pipe is one way...from the CPU to GPU to display and getting data back is slow (GPU back to CPU). True or false, if these are the feelings of the PS dev team getting either full 64bit support or GPU acceleration (except for a few features) ain't likely in the near term.
That may change as nVidia and ATI starts optimizing for doing game physics on GPUs tho' I suspect that PS will be much more demanding from a data movement standpoint. Games will likely pass in a lot of data and get smaller answer back. PS will pass in data, have some transform on the data and have that data sent back out. If they aren't CPU bound now, there's no real reason to hit the GPU if the return data path will remain more anemic than system memory.
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/200..._bitswhen.html
The OP is better off maxing out memory and really fast drives than investing in a high end GPU for Photoshop.
Vinea
I am foaming at the mouth for a mac pro update. I can't see them waiting a whole lot longer. All of the cpu resellers are offering the quad core for sale. Perhaps apple could offer 5140 (2.33ghz) or 5150 (2.66ghz) as the bottom line for mac pro. Offer the dual quad core for high end.
I'm definitely waiting it out. I can totally picture buying a mac pro now, and a new rev being released next week and losing 400 dollars in value over the next week. I"m too much of a penny pincher to do that.
On the same token the machine i'm on is soo slow. We'll see how it goes. Definitely in the boat to wait.
It's definitely about time for a refresh. I am foaming at the mouth for a mac pro update.
I am in the same boat, but my machine is not bad at all. The quad G5 is a great machine, but I rather sell it now and upgrade it. so I can still get good money for my quad on ebay.
Do you guys think they will redesign the enclosure?
It could happen at WWDC.
EFI is inevitable, and if Apple is on top of things with their vendors there will be more EFI ready cards this time around. They got the QuadroFX and there is no reason why there wouldn't be more cards available this time around.
Vista, and EFI I have no idea about, but I don't think it has it.
Reguardless it is still silly to many that you can get better graphics performance on a Mac using Windows.
Mkay...this is for the small number of home users of the Mac Pro using it for gaming...
How do you know what these numbers are? Where do you get this information? internet chatter?
Any news/rumors/speculations on Mac Pro updates?
Can't be long now for the quad cores from Apple.
Dell have 'em up now as an option with a preliminary ship date of 2nd Feb.
http://www.dell.com/content/products...555&l=en&s=biz
Jeez - I hope Apple announce something real soon - I HAVE to buy within the next week to 10 days.
vinea, Core Image is something completely different from Quartz 2D Extreme. Core Image's GPU acceleration does share Quartz 2D Extreme's requirement for Shader 2.0 support however, and Adobe is using it, but exactly how much I don't know.
Yes, but the lack of SLI on the Mac is not likely to have much impact on photoshop users.
EFI is inevitable, and if Apple is on top of things with their vendors there will be more EFI ready cards this time around. They got the QuadroFX and there is no reason why there wouldn't be more cards available this time around.
Vista, and EFI I have no idea about, but I don't think it has it.
Nope. Hence the lack of EFI compliant vid cards.
Reguardless it is still silly to many that you can get better graphics performance on a Mac using Windows.
Because those cards don't load under OSX because they aren't EFI...
How do you know what these numbers are? Where do you get this information? internet chatter?
Because Mac Pro sales are still only so-so and to put it politely buying a more expensive Mac Pro for a gaming rig over a cheaper Conroe machine is "questionable". Except for those who are using it primarily for content creation on OSX (or Windows for whom they can transition to OSX for work) and plays games on the side this is a non-starter.
In other words the number of switchers that would be influenced with better graphics than a X1900 for gaming on a Xeon based machine approaches zero. Mmm...look at all those folks buying Dell Precision 490s and 690s as gaming rigs...they'll all switch to the Mac Pro if only you could get 2x 8800GTX SLI on the Mac Pro (and amusingly get crappy FPS in WoW due to buggy drivers).
My Macs run Bootcamp 75% of the time because I'm a .NET/Managed DX9 dev so I must be an Mac fanatic (actually Linux "unliker"...I don't hate Linux but I do prefer to do Apache/MySql/PHP/etc hacking on OSX than Linux because of the rest of the OS...I guess I'm a OAMP rather than LAMP developer). But there's no way in heck I'm buying a Mac Pro primarily for gaming. I don't care what graphics cards are available.
For work, the X1900 and FX4500 may not be the most uber cards but typically they are good enough.
Vinea
Can't be long now for the quad cores from Apple.
Dell have 'em up now as an option with a preliminary ship date of 2nd Feb.
http://www.dell.com/content/products...555&l=en&s=biz
Jeez - I hope Apple announce something real soon - I HAVE to buy within the next week to 10 days.
Yes, that sucks. I had to buy my MBP pretty much right before the C2Ds came out.
Vinea
Because those cards don't load under OSX because they aren't EFI...
Vinea
Reguardless it is still silly to many that you can get better graphics performance on a Mac using Windows.
in the rare instance I defend Onlooker