Apple and Graphics cards
I suppose I probably should be posting this in a PC forum, but does anyone keep tabs on the latest developments in the Graphics Card (GC) market?
I play non-casual games casually and I'm in the market for a new Mac, but I'd hate to be bitten by a jump in Graphics capabilities. In general, it seems to me that Apple is behind on GCs... Anyone else feel that way?
I play non-casual games casually and I'm in the market for a new Mac, but I'd hate to be bitten by a jump in Graphics capabilities. In general, it seems to me that Apple is behind on GCs... Anyone else feel that way?
Comments
pc world has 1900 xtx , 1950 generation , and now 8800 generation.
Bottom line is , if you feel having gpu that is 2 generations behind PC top of the line is Okay , then yes , apple is doing better than "benchmarks jockeys" say.
in my opinion yes apple is patheticly behind in gpu depatment. their highest consumer gpu at the moment is 1900xt.
pc world has 1900 xtx , 1950 generation , and now 8800 generation.
Bottom line is , if you feel having gpu that is 2 generations behind PC top of the line is Okay , then yes , apple is doing better than "benchmarks jockeys" say.
Not exactly a fair comparison. When I ordered my system at the introduction last year, the 8800 was still far away and even the 1950s weren't released to retail until mid-September. The Mac Pros are due for a refresh, and I expect the video cards will be updated then. After all, the 8800s will be "old and slow" next year, too.
I am entirely satisfied with the X1900 XT in my Mac Pro.
Most Mac Pro users, with the X1900 XT card, say that it puts out a lot of heat. That being the only problem related with the X1900 XT. What's your experiences with the heat issue using the X1900 XT?
Not exactly a fair comparison. When I ordered my system at the introduction last year, the 8800 was still far away and even the 1950s weren't released to retail until mid-September. The Mac Pros are due for a refresh, and I expect the video cards will be updated then. After all, the 8800s will be "old and slow" next year, too.
Well it IS fair comparison. Apple should have updated upgrade kits to stay competetive. I think once a year update just doesnt cut it. And yes you're right 8800 will be slow and old next year too , but PC will have next generation whereas you can bet apple will be STILL using GPU's from their previous refresh which maybe 5-7 months old. So again PC will have 1-2 generation newer GPU's available.
I'm not that much into gaming at all so it doesnt matter to me , but it'd still be awesome to have a choice.
But i do feel sorry for ANY soul that buys Mac Pro at the moment with 1900XT in it. 1900XT just seems to be out for eternity.
I'd expect AMD/ATi to make a STRONG play for supporting Apple at this time because Apple is still picking up steam, and if they can get a good foot in the door in the graphics market, they always have an avenue to discuss cpus and platform, but if they get behind in the graphics support areas, there isn't a lot of reason for Apple to keep them around at any rate as both nVidia and AMD/ATi's graphics cards are generally relatively close each generation (since the 9700 clobbered the 5 month late 5800, after a long run against the 4 series).
I'd expect to see Apple shipping R600 based mac pro's this summer, with the 8800 not too far behind, despite the fact that it was to market a LONG time before the R600.
Well it IS fair comparison. Apple should have updated upgrade kits to stay competetive. I think once a year update just doesnt cut it. And yes you're right 8800 will be slow and old next year too , but PC will have next generation whereas you can bet apple will be STILL using GPU's from their previous refresh which maybe 5-7 months old. So again PC will have 1-2 generation newer GPU's available.
I'm not that much into gaming at all so it doesnt matter to me , but it'd still be awesome to have a choice.
But i do feel sorry for ANY soul that buys Mac Pro at the moment with 1900XT in it. 1900XT just seems to be out for eternity.
Isn't it possible for users to update the graphics card themselves, without having to wait for Apple to update? In the MacPro, I mean. I thought that was one of the many good things that would come out of the Intel switch. If so, people can take some initiative and buy a new GPU and install it themselves instead of bitching about how thier graphics card is no longer the newest thing on the market.
In my opinion, the only area that Apple is TRUELY behind in is some of the mobile units. The Macbooks only have a 64MB video card. That absolutely sucks. And before anyone posts a reply telling me that Apple wants to reserve the high end graphics specs for the Pro notebooks, that's crap. If they want to keep distinction between the two (other than the incredibly obvious size formats) they could put the 128MB card in the MacBooks and have all of the MBPro's ship with the 256MB card. Or at the very LEAST they could put the 128MB card in the BlackBook so that it would be worth the extra money...
The problem: Microsoft. They new Apple was using next generation EFI instead of BIOS, and MS was going to as well, but they saw that Apple was gaining momentum in all fields so they decided to stick with BIOS. BIOS based cards don't work in new Macs, but most any EFI card would. If Vista had EFI like was planned almost every card that is out would work in a Mac because they would all be using EFI.
So, when will card makers start using EFI? Do we have to wait until vista 2.0?
As a long-time mac user, not being able to upgrade my graphics cards w/top-tier cards has always been a sore spot. We have always had to wait for the Mac version...which is usually old by the time it is rolled out. I had hoped that the Intel switch would fix this problem.
I'm not saying that nobody will notice or care about the difference, but the fact is that most people don't. On neither the Mac or the PC. The GPU makers build these super-highend cards primarily for the reviewers and benchmarkers to rave about, but they represent a tiny percentage of the market and exist primarily to get you to think that "ATI is best!" or "nVidia rules!" when you go to the store to buy your mid-range or low-end card.
Where do we Photoshop users stand on graphics cards now? It's my understanding that all we need are graphics cards that'll drive our huge displays at millions of colors, which means the cheapest card does us all the good that the most-expensive card would do.
I understand that even Photoshop CS3 won't offload anything to the graphics card. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Yes they are. And we hope for the best when Apple releases Leopard and new Macs.
Any ideas on when this will happen? I'd LOVE to buy a Mac right now, but the Mac Pro is too expensive and the iMac doesn't even offer a really good video card.
Rich 8)
Isn't it possible for users to update the graphics card themselves, without having to wait for Apple to update? In the MacPro, I mean. I thought that was one of the many good things that would come out of the Intel switch. If so, people can take some initiative and buy a new GPU and install it themselves instead of bitching about how thier graphics card is no longer the newest thing on the market.
In my opinion, the only area that Apple is TRUELY behind in is some of the mobile units. The Macbooks only have a 64MB video card. That absolutely sucks. And before anyone posts a reply telling me that Apple wants to reserve the high end graphics specs for the Pro notebooks, that's crap. If they want to keep distinction between the two (other than the incredibly obvious size formats) they could put the 128MB card in the MacBooks and have all of the MBPro's ship with the 256MB card. Or at the very LEAST they could put the 128MB card in the BlackBook so that it would be worth the extra money...
the mac books video card uses system ram and can use to 128mb but apple has the drivers set to use 64 + 12 over heard the black book needs a real video card.
Dear Friends
Where do we Photoshop users stand on graphics cards now? It's my understanding that all we need are graphics cards that'll drive our huge displays at millions of colors, which means the cheapest card does us all the good that the most-expensive card would do.
I understand that even Photoshop CS3 won't offload anything to the graphics card. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
You are 100% correct. This is why the Mac Pro's ship standard with an 7300. A crappy, crappy, card that's many times over more powerful than what Photoshop needs.
Any ideas on when this will happen? I'd LOVE to buy a Mac right now, but the Mac Pro is too expensive and the iMac doesn't even offer a really good video card.
Rich 8)
If the Mac pro is too expensive now I really doubt new one will be any cheaper.
Isn't it possible for users to update the graphics card themselves, without having to wait for Apple to update? In the MacPro, I mean. I thought that was one of the many good things that would come out of the Intel switch. If so, people can take some initiative and buy a new GPU and install it themselves instead of bitching about how thier graphics card is no longer the newest thing on the market.
...
You really dont know much about the subject at hand , so if i were you i'd read up on it.
Bottom line is Apple is about 2 generations behind at the end of their update cycle and they were already one generation behind when they finally shipped 1900s.
So answer to OP question is - Definately YES. No questions about it.
If the Mac pro is too expensive now I really doubt new one will be any cheaper.
newer dual-quad cores systems may push the price of the dual-dual core mac pro down