I'd like the chance to toss an nVidia GeForce 8800 in there. And a reasonably priced one at that. I'm sick of, say, a $125 graphics card costing me $350 because someone spent five minutes flashing the firmware for a Mac.
A BIOS modification lets you put a 7900GTX in a Mac Pro.
A BIOS modification lets you put a 7900GTX in a Mac Pro.
I'll assume you mean EFI firmware, since there's no BIOS in a Mac.
In any case, it's not the Mac that is at fault, it's the fact that the graphics card is flashed for a PC. Some cards can be easily flashed for a Mac, but others can't. And so far, I don't believe nVidia is making 8800's for the Mac.
I'll assume you mean EFI firmware, since there's no BIOS in a Mac.
In any case, it's not the Mac that is at fault, it's the fact that the graphics card is flashed for a PC. Some cards can be easily flashed for a Mac, but others can't. And so far, I don't believe nVidia is making 8800's for the Mac.
No, actually the GPU BIOS edit+NVInject=7900GTX in a Mac Pro.
I didn't say I would. We're just using ancient native american tracking methods to determine where the Mac Pro is going.
That's the spirit! Finding the flaws in the distribution system is like locating the pellet of an owl. One can at least learn what the bird is feeding on.
On topic, I really would like to know what is likely to happen in the. I am considering joining the ADC and would hate to spend my assets on a machine about to be replaced. In this I fully agree with fixmdude when he said:
Quote:
Hmmm... I would think that the customers most likely to buy the biggest and best machine out there (the pro line) might also be the least likely people to be "patient" about buying a newer computer. That's a dillema. But I do like the thought of an 8 core instead of a quad core. Software is so far behind in being able to properly utilize 8 cores that I'd be well set for a good while.
Would it just be smart to go whole hog or hold out until September on the MacPro thing?.
The UK site is showing ready to ship in 24 hours for me.
I've been waiting on new hardware all year (I mean REALLY new enough to make me spend) not this incremental stuff we've had to put up with.
Incremental like moving from G5 to Intel Core? Not that Apple should rest on its laurels but other than speed bumps what has Intel put out that drives a massive change?
Santa Rosa? Sure but that's really an incremental improvement except for the GMA X3100 part.
Quad core Penryn would be a nice bump across the board that would be a slight jump above incremental (depends on SSE 4 I guess how big a jump) but really with the Core 2 out we're looking at process shrinks and speed bumps. 45nm is a nice jump but also incremental...not like Pentium 4 to Core 2 (SSE4 not withstanding...which has at least one nice op for HD codecs).
Its not like Apple is ignoring a whole new processor category yet. While slow with Santa Rosa without 802.16 (WiMAX) the new chipset is somewhat more incremental (again except for the GMA X3100 which I wish Apple WOULD hurry up and stick on the MB and Mini but doesn't impact the iMac) than was originially envisioned IMHO...not that WiMAX itself isn't still horizonish as opposed to here. Montevina is soon enough I would think.
On the Mac Pro side there's been...Cloverton. Next up Tigerton with Clarksboro/Caneland. Until Caneland with 4 processor support what isn't just a incremental/speed bump release for the Mac Pro?
16 cores to start...then Dunnington with the rumored 6 cores for 24 and Harpertown with 8 for 32. We'll see how Nehalem pans out.
Really, 45mn isn't that far away and for the Mac Pro the next major change is going 4-way. A box update before doing that isn't needed and that empty space we see in the box today (which could be used for a smaller form factor) is going to get used up.
I would also like to know will there be a major upgrade of Mac Pro till March 2008, I plan to buy a new workstation in March and I think will have not more than 4000 usd for all including 23" monitor, in other words something near 3200 on actual hardware.
I also have a question - is there anyone using up to date Mac Pro (i mean Xeon quad core)running windows + something like Modo or 3DsMax, how is the productivity? productivity in 3DMAX is very important....
I'd like the chance to toss an nVidia GeForce 8800 in there. And a reasonably priced one at that. I'm sick of, say, a $125 graphics card costing me $350 because someone spent five minutes flashing the firmware for a Mac.
Your not kidding. I'd like to throw a GeForce 8800, Geforce 7900GX2, Quadro® FX 4500 X2, or Quadro FX 5600, but Apple went with EFI. They should sell EFI from their site, but support both EFI, and BIOS in their firmware so we can upgrade if we feel we need it. We are really suffering in graphics on the Mac side. I thought the switch to intel would resolve that, but we are still in the same boat.
But, remember the keynote, next spring Mac will have new games (probably DX10) from ID and many others for Mac and that should mean a necessity to give people up-to-date choice of graphic cards available, hope however that that wouldn't be only gaming cards, need new quadro fx/ fire gl cards with dx10 , shader model 4.0 support....
But, remember the keynote, next spring Mac will have new games (probably DX10) from ID and many others for Mac and that should mean a necessity to give people up-to-date choice of graphic cards available, hope however that that wouldn't be only gaming cards, need new quadro fx/ fire gl cards with dx10 , shader model 4.0 support....
What makes you think Apple would use DX10? They have put a lot of weight behind the revamp of OGL.
I caved after quite a wait and dropped on a regular config Mac Pro. Dropped in an extra 4gbs of ram and have the internal drive partitioned with XP and run it through Parallels. tbh, I don't know why I waited.
I was considering dropping in a x1900, but I couldn't justify the added price for an older card. The way I figure, a few years from now when the machine starts to feel it's age, I'll have some more vid card and hard drive options.
I haven't run anything too demanding on the machine since I'm just getting it set up, but things are quite quick, especially with the ram. XP in Parallels runs much faster than I expected and it's quite usable. Apps such as the CS3 suite run like a champ.
In my mind, if you don't really need that extra added edge for production, 3D, etc. I can't see waiting.
My idea is not a DX10 on Mac but a similar DX10 compatible hardware and games?
That would be say: more compatible graphics cards, maybe BIOS enabled? I think that is necessary also. With Boot-Camp, Parallels, and more games coming to the Mac side this year, and next I think the hardware needs to be compatible on both sides. EFI, and BIOS would work in Leopard if I had my way.
I think Apple needs to take a better look at their switchers campaign because many would be switchers just don't come over because of the graphics limitations.
How do I attach a file to this post? I have a screen shot to show you because PC people might not believe it without seeing it. I am (was?) a PC person and I didn't believe it. I went to HPs educator's website and tried to build a comparable PC, to get a 2.66 core2duo you have to pick the 7000 series desktop. When you get down to the DVD burner option, you have two choices, one DVD burner says "not compatible with Vista" after it, and the other one says "Only compatible with Vista". We have been buying our machines with XP until we have time to test Vista and the get the bugs worked out. This means that if we get XP we will not be able to upgrade the new machines to Vista ever without replacing the new hardware with different new "compatible" parts.
Now here's the odd part: You can load both XP and Vista onto a Mac Pro, you can even load both at the same time. So a Mac is even More compatible with Windows than a new HP PC!
How do I attach a file to this post? I have a screen shot to show you because PC people might not believe it without seeing it. I am (was?) a PC person and I didn't believe it. I went to HPs educator's website and tried to build a comparable PC, to get a 2.66 core2duo you have to pick the 7000 series desktop. When you get down to the DVD burner option, you have two choices, one DVD burner says "not compatible with Vista" after it, and the other one says "Only compatible with Vista". We have been buying our machines with XP until we have time to test Vista and the get the bugs worked out. This means that if we get XP we will not be able to upgrade the new machines to Vista ever without replacing the new hardware with different new "compatible" parts.
Now here's the odd part: You can load both XP and Vista onto a Mac Pro, you can even load both at the same time. So a Mac is even More compatible with Windows than a new HP PC!
go to www.imageshack.us and upload the image and then insert it as an image here or just provide a link to it. That is incredibly funny though
It is funny, but it is only about DVD drives, and finally it is about HP, from my point, and I’m a future switcher I guess, but currently working on Asus based workstation, I can say that if you assemble your PC your self from the very beginning you can meet all you needs and dreams, I’m using widows XP x64 which is not the best thing when it comes to drivers, but still I have a pro graphic card, Bluetooth, Wi-fi, DVD-RW, Wacom intous 3, and my favorite software working perfectly. But I still think apple is about the innovation, I love the design, and I think would go for Mac Pro next spring. I hope they will give me the choice of DX10/ shader model 4.0 compatible graphic cards by that time.
...........I think would go for Mac Pro next spring. I hope they will give me the choice of DX10/ shader model 4.0 compatible graphic cards by that time.
Sure, the cards will be there but DX10 wont be. Not on a Mac. It'll be driven on OpenGL 3.0
Comments
I'd like the chance to toss an nVidia GeForce 8800 in there. And a reasonably priced one at that. I'm sick of, say, a $125 graphics card costing me $350 because someone spent five minutes flashing the firmware for a Mac.
A BIOS modification lets you put a 7900GTX in a Mac Pro.
A BIOS modification lets you put a 7900GTX in a Mac Pro.
I'll assume you mean EFI firmware, since there's no BIOS in a Mac.
In any case, it's not the Mac that is at fault, it's the fact that the graphics card is flashed for a PC. Some cards can be easily flashed for a Mac, but others can't. And so far, I don't believe nVidia is making 8800's for the Mac.
I'll assume you mean EFI firmware, since there's no BIOS in a Mac.
In any case, it's not the Mac that is at fault, it's the fact that the graphics card is flashed for a PC. Some cards can be easily flashed for a Mac, but others can't. And so far, I don't believe nVidia is making 8800's for the Mac.
No, actually the GPU BIOS edit+NVInject=7900GTX in a Mac Pro.
I didn't say I would. We're just using ancient native american tracking methods to determine where the Mac Pro is going.
That's the spirit! Finding the flaws in the distribution system is like locating the pellet of an owl. One can at least learn what the bird is feeding on.
On topic, I really would like to know what is likely to happen in the. I am considering joining the ADC and would hate to spend my assets on a machine about to be replaced. In this I fully agree with fixmdude when he said:
Hmmm... I would think that the customers most likely to buy the biggest and best machine out there (the pro line) might also be the least likely people to be "patient" about buying a newer computer. That's a dillema. But I do like the thought of an 8 core instead of a quad core. Software is so far behind in being able to properly utilize 8 cores that I'd be well set for a good while.
Would it just be smart to go whole hog or hold out until September on the MacPro thing?.
I just have one question...
Why in God's name would you purchase a Mac from Best Buy? Hell, I won't buy ANY computer from Best Buy.
Because you can get help from the Geeksquad...
The UK site is showing ready to ship in 24 hours for me.
I've been waiting on new hardware all year (I mean REALLY new enough to make me spend) not this incremental stuff we've had to put up with.
Incremental like moving from G5 to Intel Core? Not that Apple should rest on its laurels but other than speed bumps what has Intel put out that drives a massive change?
Santa Rosa? Sure but that's really an incremental improvement except for the GMA X3100 part.
Quad core Penryn would be a nice bump across the board that would be a slight jump above incremental (depends on SSE 4 I guess how big a jump) but really with the Core 2 out we're looking at process shrinks and speed bumps. 45nm is a nice jump but also incremental...not like Pentium 4 to Core 2 (SSE4 not withstanding...which has at least one nice op for HD codecs).
Its not like Apple is ignoring a whole new processor category yet. While slow with Santa Rosa without 802.16 (WiMAX) the new chipset is somewhat more incremental (again except for the GMA X3100 which I wish Apple WOULD hurry up and stick on the MB and Mini but doesn't impact the iMac) than was originially envisioned IMHO...not that WiMAX itself isn't still horizonish as opposed to here. Montevina is soon enough I would think.
On the Mac Pro side there's been...Cloverton. Next up Tigerton with Clarksboro/Caneland. Until Caneland with 4 processor support what isn't just a incremental/speed bump release for the Mac Pro?
16 cores to start...then Dunnington with the rumored 6 cores for 24 and Harpertown with 8 for 32. We'll see how Nehalem pans out.
Really, 45mn isn't that far away and for the Mac Pro the next major change is going 4-way. A box update before doing that isn't needed and that empty space we see in the box today (which could be used for a smaller form factor) is going to get used up.
Vinea
While it won't represent a significant core change it does offer a nice bump.
1.6Ghz FSB
SSE4 with new instructions
Radix 16 divider
Improved Snoop filter and 4-core cache coherence
Improved hardware virtualization
Those looking for a larger leap will have to wait over a year for Nehalem.
I also have a question - is there anyone using up to date Mac Pro (i mean Xeon quad core)running windows + something like Modo or 3DsMax, how is the productivity? productivity in 3DMAX is very important....
I'd like the chance to toss an nVidia GeForce 8800 in there. And a reasonably priced one at that. I'm sick of, say, a $125 graphics card costing me $350 because someone spent five minutes flashing the firmware for a Mac.
Your not kidding. I'd like to throw a GeForce 8800, Geforce 7900GX2, Quadro® FX 4500 X2, or Quadro FX 5600, but Apple went with EFI. They should sell EFI from their site, but support both EFI, and BIOS in their firmware so we can upgrade if we feel we need it. We are really suffering in graphics on the Mac side. I thought the switch to intel would resolve that, but we are still in the same boat.
But, remember the keynote, next spring Mac will have new games (probably DX10) from ID and many others for Mac and that should mean a necessity to give people up-to-date choice of graphic cards available, hope however that that wouldn't be only gaming cards, need new quadro fx/ fire gl cards with dx10 , shader model 4.0 support....
What makes you think Apple would use DX10? They have put a lot of weight behind the revamp of OGL.
http://developer.apple.com/graphicsi...l_serious.html
Apple using LLVM in Leopard for OpenGL stack
For those who are interested, Apple announced that they are using the LLVM
optimizer and JIT within their Mac OS 10.5 'Leopard' OpenGL stack (which
was distributed in beta form to WWDC attendees).
LLVM is used in two different ways, at runtime:
1. Runtime code specialization within the fixed-function vertex-processing
pipeline. Basically, the OpenGL pipeline has many parameters (is fog
enabled? do vertices have texture info? etc) which rarely change:
executing the fully branchy code swamps the branch predictors and
performs poorly. To solve this, the code is precompiled to LLVM .bc
form, from which specializations of the code are made, optimized,
and JIT compiled as they are needed at runtime.
2. OpenGL vertex shaders are small programs written using a family of
programming langauges with highly domain-specific features (e.g. dot
product, texture lookup, etc). At runtime, the OpenGL stack translates
vertex programs into LLVM form, runs LLVM optimizer passes and then JIT
compiles the code.
Both of these approaches make heavy use of manually vectorized code using
SSE/Altivec intrinsics, and they use the LLVM x86-32/x86-64/ppc/ppc64
targets. LLVM replaces existing special purpose JIT compilers built by
the OpenGL team.
LLVM is currently used when hardware support is disabled or when the
current hardware does not support a feature requested by the user app.
This happens most often on low-end graphics chips (e.g. integrated
graphics), but can happen even with the high-end graphics when advanced
capabilities are used.
Like any good compiler, the only impact that LLVM has on the OpenGL stack
is better performance (there are no user-visible knobs). However, if you
sample a program using shark, you will occasionally see LLVM methods in
the stack traces.
-Chris
This and no OpenGL 2.1 in Tiger may explain why Apple is seemingly laggard on bringing the fastest Nvidia cards to the Mac Pro.
I was considering dropping in a x1900, but I couldn't justify the added price for an older card. The way I figure, a few years from now when the machine starts to feel it's age, I'll have some more vid card and hard drive options.
I haven't run anything too demanding on the machine since I'm just getting it set up, but things are quite quick, especially with the ram. XP in Parallels runs much faster than I expected and it's quite usable. Apps such as the CS3 suite run like a champ.
In my mind, if you don't really need that extra added edge for production, 3D, etc. I can't see waiting.
My idea is not a DX10 on Mac but a similar DX10 compatible hardware and games?
That would be say: more compatible graphics cards, maybe BIOS enabled? I think that is necessary also. With Boot-Camp, Parallels, and more games coming to the Mac side this year, and next I think the hardware needs to be compatible on both sides. EFI, and BIOS would work in Leopard if I had my way.
I think Apple needs to take a better look at their switchers campaign because many would be switchers just don't come over because of the graphics limitations.
Now here's the odd part: You can load both XP and Vista onto a Mac Pro, you can even load both at the same time. So a Mac is even More compatible with Windows than a new HP PC!
How do I attach a file to this post? I have a screen shot to show you because PC people might not believe it without seeing it. I am (was?) a PC person and I didn't believe it. I went to HPs educator's website and tried to build a comparable PC, to get a 2.66 core2duo you have to pick the 7000 series desktop. When you get down to the DVD burner option, you have two choices, one DVD burner says "not compatible with Vista" after it, and the other one says "Only compatible with Vista". We have been buying our machines with XP until we have time to test Vista and the get the bugs worked out. This means that if we get XP we will not be able to upgrade the new machines to Vista ever without replacing the new hardware with different new "compatible" parts.
Now here's the odd part: You can load both XP and Vista onto a Mac Pro, you can even load both at the same time. So a Mac is even More compatible with Windows than a new HP PC!
go to www.imageshack.us and upload the image and then insert it as an image here or just provide a link to it. That is incredibly funny though
http://img62.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hpdvdsom2.jpg
...........I think would go for Mac Pro next spring. I hope they will give me the choice of DX10/ shader model 4.0 compatible graphic cards by that time.
Sure, the cards will be there but DX10 wont be. Not on a Mac. It'll be driven on OpenGL 3.0
OpenGL 3.0 to bring DX10 features to every OS
It could be part of the reason for Leopards Delay. OpenGL 2.x and 3.0 APIs arrive this year