I'll be getting two immediately (well, as immediately as 3 to 5 weeks -- which is how long my configurations will take). One for work, one to play around with at home. I'll load more ram myself and also extra drives. If they are waiting for Vista SP1/UEFI, then at that time there should be more graphics cards if I need them later. If not, the 8800's will work fine for me.
It's a workstation, not a gaming machine. It will be great for me.
I agree. As well for a machine of this caliber, the 3800 series from ATI makes more sense. The 2600 is not a very good card and is in Apples consumer iMac.
The 2600 XT is great baseline gaming card, and all around graphics card for a non enthusiast, but the 8800 GT Nvidia Card overall outperforms the best of the 3800 HD series from ATI. Here is some benchmarks from Toms Hardware. As you can see the 2600 can actually outperform both cards in a few situations. But the 8800 GT is the dominant card.
Call Of Duty 4
Crysis
Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion
Supreme Commander
Unreal Tournament 3
World In Conflict
Age Of Empires 3
Test Drive Unlimited
Resolutions to FPS #'s
I don't see why the HD 3800 series ATI cards should be included as BTO for any reason. If it were the same price as the 8800 GT it would get schooled, but it is (best Price) $239.99, when the Nvidia 8800 GT $259.99 there is no point. The 2600 XT is a fine baseline card, and a smart move on Apples part IMO. The #'s say it all.
In the end Toms Hardware rated the card below the 2600XT anyway. ATI's 3800 HD is a POS line of cards and they said they were another disappointment from ATI. Either your a sucker for punishment, or you really had no idea how ATI's cards have performed over the past few years. So I'll tell you. Like ass, and way behind Nvidia. Every Time.
I don't see why the HD 3800 series ATI cards should be included as BTO for any reason. If it were the same price as the 8800 GT it would get schooled, but it is (best Price) $239.99, when the Nvidia 8800 GT $259.99 there is no point. The 2600 XT is a fine baseline card, and a smart move on Apples part IMO. The #'s say it all.
In the end Toms Hardware rated the card below the 2600XT anyway. ATI's 3800 HD is a POS line of cards and they said they were another disappointment from ATI. Either your a sucker for punishment, or you really had no idea how ATI's cards have performed over the past few years. So I'll tell you. Like ass, and way behind Nvidia. Every Time.
Well according to Ars the 3850 and the 3870 blew away the 2600 and were compettive with the 8800gt (at least the 3870).
The 3850, IMO, would be an excellent entry level card for the Mac Pro. While not as powerful as the 8800gt it still would be excellent for many PROs whom the machine is made for. Its cost is less than $200 at newgg.
Its not a big deal, the new Mac Pros otherwise look pretty nice. Eight cores for under 3k is actually quite a good value. But if the 2600 card is adequate for your needs do you really need a machine with fb dimm memory? Do you really need a Mac Pro?
ps. I don't see any results for 2600 cards in the TH tests. You sure you aren't looking at the 2900xt?
another ps. Did you get one? If so what card did you choose?
I'm still stunned by this release. Having the same case after this many years is odd, but fine. Blu-Ray being left out is understandable (Warner's announcement only happened days ago.)
But where are the accompanying display upgrades? And where's the new Firewire standard?
ps. I don't see any results for 2600 cards in the TH tests. You sure you aren't looking at the 2900xt?
another ps. Did you get one? If so what card did you choose?
Oops.. (2600/2900) My bad. My dyslexia got the best of me. Needless to say the stats are all right there for every game you'll need to realize that the 8800GT is a better card. The 2600 XT is still a great entry level card. That's why it's the entry level. If you want to upgrade the 8800 GT is the better card. Why bother with another ATI disappointment?
The card I chose was the 8800 GT. I didn't order yet. I want to see what happens at MacWorld and the FCP meeting the day after first.
I'm still stunned by this release. Having the same case after this many years is odd, but fine. Blu-Ray being left out is understandable (Warner's announcement only happened days ago.)
But where are the accompanying display upgrades? And where's the new Firewire standard?
Yeah but it's a great case, and it was actually redesigned from the inside when Apple switched to intel. It's new features, like the hot swappable drives, are pretty cool compared to the original G5 water-cooled freakshow.
Oops.. (2600/2900) My bad. My dyslexia got the best of me. Needless to say the stats are all right there for every game you'll need to realize that the 8800GT is a better card. The 2600 XT is still a great entry level card. That's why it's the entry level. If you want to upgrade the 8800 GT is the better card. Why bother with another ATI disappointment?
The card I chose was the 8800 GT. I didn't order yet. I want to see what happens at MacWorld and the FCP meeting the day after first.
The 8800gt is supposed to be an excellent card. Nice choice.
My point is that the 3800 series from ATI isn't a disappointment. They're pretty nice cards that can be had for under $200 (3850). They probably aren't much more than the 2600xt.
That's more fitting as an entry level card for the Mac Pro IMO.
The 8800gt is supposed to be an excellent card. Nice choice.
My point is that the 3800 series from ATI isn't a disappointment. They're pretty nice cards that can be had for under $200 (3850). They probably aren't much more than the 2600xt.
That's more fitting as an entry level card for the Mac Pro IMO.
How do you know if it's any better than the $110.00 2600 XT?
I can't find the direct comparison but check this link out at Anand.
The 3850 crushes the 8600 from NVIDIA. Anand called it a 'massacre'. In this review the ati 2600 xt was considered inferior to the nvidia 8600 gt. The 3850 is on par with the old high end cards the x1950 xtx and 7950 gt.
It's an extrapolation but the 3850 is much faster than the 2600 series.
You don't get it. Apple still has only 3 cards ... Three cards to certify for I/O Kit is embarrassing. We did a dozen back when we were pissant NeXT and had 3 devs doing it.
Oh please. Step back and look at the benchmark numbers from a distance. The deltas aren't particularly earth shaking. Not even a rumble. So what's the point in having more than 3 cards? They have the major points on the curve covered, and adding more does little beyond complicating the supply chain and testing/certification process. Sure they could provide more, but is it really a win? I don't think so. Sure we can measure the performance deltas programmatically but in subjective testing the additional variants beyond the 3 they are providing are hardly noticeable.
Guess what platforms developers like developing for? Those with fewer configurations to test against. The Windows market is a nightmare, and the only real gain is that it gives the spec jockies and reviewers more to talk about. As if that's a win.
On the other hand, being able to drive 6 big monitors is pretty cool.
The most interesting is not the speedbump or new GPUs both very expected but the "octacoring" in the ads.
Octa core: Mac Pro, Xserver
Quad core:...
Dual core: iMac. Minimac, Macbook and Probook.
I am not saying that they will but there is room for a single quad core box that use the ordinary (Not fully bufferd) DIMMs that cost 1/2 of the DIMMS in the server and pro.
There is an option for that in the Mac Pro configuration page that will lower the cost of the machine by 450 euros. Still too expensive (a little above 2000 euros for the computer alone) but the option is there. Besides, near the end of this year or the beginning of the next one, the iMac will eventually go quad core with the future Intel mobile chips.
I don't think Apple intends to release this xMac ghost any time soon. It will remain a ghost for some time yet, and probably die as a ghost.
Oh please. Step back and look at the benchmark numbers from a distance. The deltas aren't particularly earth shaking. Not even a rumble. So what's the point in having more than 3 cards? They have the major points on the curve covered, and adding more does little beyond complicating the supply chain and testing/certification process. Sure they could provide more, but is it really a win? I don't think so. Sure we can measure the performance deltas programmatically but in subjective testing the additional variants beyond the 3 they are providing are hardly noticeable.
Guess what platforms developers like developing for? Those with fewer configurations to test against. The Windows market is a nightmare, and the only real gain is that it gives the spec jockies and reviewers more to talk about. As if that's a win.
On the other hand, being able to drive 6 big monitors is pretty cool.
I think you've got Stockholm syndrome when it comes to Apple and video cards.
While the choices and number of cards doesn't diminish the new machines (at least not much), they aren't exactly bragging point either. The Nvidia 8800 gt and Quadra 5600 are excellent choices, but the ati 2600 is a very pedestrian and weak choice. Especially since there are other better entry level cards that aren't much more expensive, like the 3850 or nvidia 8600. I 'm not aware of any positive reviews of the 2600 series of cards.
This is, after all, Apple's most powerful and technically advanced machine. And why not both or all three (3850, 2600 and 8600) to go with the high end cards? Is it that hard to develop drivers for these?
The ATI card is there probably just to keep ATI in the loop. And because Apple probably got them in a package deal because it's also in the iMac. The more you order the cheaper they are. Sure they could have used an 8600 Nvidia, but now ATI will probably keep developing aftermarket cards for the Mac. If you want an ATI card that isn't available drop them an email. They are the only graphics card manufacturer that actually makes cards specifically for Macs. You have to give them that. As long as that ATI card is there, there is always the chance of an aftermarket crossfire release for Macs.
The ati 2600 is a very pedestrian and weak choice. Especially since there are other better entry level cards that aren't much more expensive, like the 3850 or nvidia 8600. I 'm not aware of any positive reviews of the 2600 series of cards.
As I said, you need to step back and get some perspective here. Does the delta between the 2600 and its competitor's really matter? From the viewpoint of a user who doesn't care about the GPU, no. The 2600 is an amazingly powerful device just like pretty much every graphics chip you can currently buy, and no doubt Apple is getting a great deal on a plentiful supply of them. Using its positively reviewed competitors would add very little (if anything at all) to how the MacPro is going to do in the market. People that care about the GPU should fork over the extra $200 and step up to the nVidia GPU, this is better than making all MacPro buyers who don't care spend more.
A decade ago when Apple was using the ATI Rage vs. the ATI Rage Pro there was a huge difference in capability between the two (i.e. what the card could do, as opposed to how fast it could do it), and they weren't offering the Pro as even an option. This was a big problem and was holding back the platform from making a step into the 3D realm. These days the picture is quite different. The 2600 vs. 3850 or 8600 is a matter of a few percent on an artificial performance benchmark that you're simply not going to notice in practice if your GPU's main task is running CoreAnimation code in the latest Leopard app. And 40 vs 45 FPS in your favourite game isn't going to be noticeable either... you'll get a far bigger benefit by running in the next lowest resolution. And the capability differences are so esoteric there probably isn't any software on the market that would notice. And if you're coding your own then pay for the $200 upgrade.
I think you've got Stockholm syndrome when it comes to Apple and video cards.
While the choices and number of cards doesn't diminish the new machines (at least not much), they aren't exactly bragging point either. The Nvidia 8800 gt and Quadra 5600 are excellent choices, but the ati 2600 is a very pedestrian and weak choice. Especially since there are other better entry level cards that aren't much more expensive, like the 3850 or nvidia 8600. I 'm not aware of any positive reviews of the 2600 series of cards.
This is, after all, Apple's most powerful and technically advanced machine. And why not both or all three (3850, 2600 and 8600) to go with the high end cards? Is it that hard to develop drivers for these?
It's not a matter of developing for these other cards. Apple does get the complete OEM specs and Assembly Code/API calls for these cards.
If Apple can't meet an artificial minimum for these OEMs to develop UEFI specific cards then they won't get them.
It all hinges on Microsoft releasing SP1 for Vista.
That is the last hurdle--business and not technical.
As I said, you need to step back and get some perspective here. Does the delta between the 2600 and its competitor's really matter? From the viewpoint of a user who doesn't care about the GPU, no. The 2600 is an amazingly powerful device just like pretty much every graphics chip you can currently buy, and no doubt Apple is getting a great deal on a plentiful supply of them.
I don't want to blow it out of perspective because the Mac Pro is a powerful machine that is probably ideal for those who need the ultimate in processing power.
But if a user is unable to discern the difference between a 2600 card and the 'competitors' then do they really need a Mac Pro? Why not offer cheaper IDE drives on the entry level model? With the other components of the Mac Pro being of a professional caliber the 2600 card seems out of place and overmatched. If the 2600 series of cards have received positive reviews, I'm unaware of them.
For the iMac the 2600 is a fine and appropriate choice. But for the Mac Pro, no, not IMO. I would agree that Apple probably got a good deal on them and that is why they are there.
I don't want to blow it out of perspective because the Mac Pro is a powerful machine that is probably ideal for those who need the ultimate in processing power.
But if a user is unable to discern the difference between a 2600 card and the 'competitors' then do they really need a Mac Pro? Why not offer cheaper IDE drives on the entry level model? With the other components of the Mac Pro being of a professional caliber the 2600 card seems out of place and overmatched. If the 2600 series of cards have received positive reviews, I'm unaware of them.
For the iMac the 2600 is a fine and appropriate choice. But for the Mac Pro, no, not IMO. I would agree that Apple probably got a good deal on them and that is why they are there.
Then your talking about making a 3rd entirely different motherboard just for IDE drives; and for what configuration? The solo processor configuration, or the Dual Proc-config? Both? You just can have that much inventory laying around.
Comments
It's a workstation, not a gaming machine. It will be great for me.
I agree. As well for a machine of this caliber, the 3800 series from ATI makes more sense. The 2600 is not a very good card and is in Apples consumer iMac.
The 2600 XT is great baseline gaming card, and all around graphics card for a non enthusiast, but the 8800 GT Nvidia Card overall outperforms the best of the 3800 HD series from ATI. Here is some benchmarks from Toms Hardware. As you can see the 2600 can actually outperform both cards in a few situations. But the 8800 GT is the dominant card.
Call Of Duty 4
Crysis
Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion
Supreme Commander
Unreal Tournament 3
World In Conflict
Age Of Empires 3
Test Drive Unlimited
Resolutions to FPS #'s
I don't see why the HD 3800 series ATI cards should be included as BTO for any reason. If it were the same price as the 8800 GT it would get schooled, but it is (best Price) $239.99, when the Nvidia 8800 GT $259.99 there is no point. The 2600 XT is a fine baseline card, and a smart move on Apples part IMO. The #'s say it all.
In the end Toms Hardware rated the card below the 2600XT anyway. ATI's 3800 HD is a POS line of cards and they said they were another disappointment from ATI. Either your a sucker for punishment, or you really had no idea how ATI's cards have performed over the past few years. So I'll tell you. Like ass, and way behind Nvidia. Every Time.
I don't see why the HD 3800 series ATI cards should be included as BTO for any reason. If it were the same price as the 8800 GT it would get schooled, but it is (best Price) $239.99, when the Nvidia 8800 GT $259.99 there is no point. The 2600 XT is a fine baseline card, and a smart move on Apples part IMO. The #'s say it all.
In the end Toms Hardware rated the card below the 2600XT anyway. ATI's 3800 HD is a POS line of cards and they said they were another disappointment from ATI. Either your a sucker for punishment, or you really had no idea how ATI's cards have performed over the past few years. So I'll tell you. Like ass, and way behind Nvidia. Every Time.
Well according to Ars the 3850 and the 3870 blew away the 2600 and were compettive with the 8800gt (at least the 3870).
The 3850, IMO, would be an excellent entry level card for the Mac Pro. While not as powerful as the 8800gt it still would be excellent for many PROs whom the machine is made for. Its cost is less than $200 at newgg.
Its not a big deal, the new Mac Pros otherwise look pretty nice. Eight cores for under 3k is actually quite a good value. But if the 2600 card is adequate for your needs do you really need a machine with fb dimm memory? Do you really need a Mac Pro?
ps. I don't see any results for 2600 cards in the TH tests. You sure you aren't looking at the 2900xt?
another ps. Did you get one? If so what card did you choose?
But where are the accompanying display upgrades? And where's the new Firewire standard?
ps. I don't see any results for 2600 cards in the TH tests. You sure you aren't looking at the 2900xt?
another ps. Did you get one? If so what card did you choose?
Oops.. (2600/2900) My bad. My dyslexia got the best of me. Needless to say the stats are all right there for every game you'll need to realize that the 8800GT is a better card. The 2600 XT is still a great entry level card. That's why it's the entry level. If you want to upgrade the 8800 GT is the better card. Why bother with another ATI disappointment?
The card I chose was the 8800 GT. I didn't order yet. I want to see what happens at MacWorld and the FCP meeting the day after first.
I'm still stunned by this release. Having the same case after this many years is odd, but fine. Blu-Ray being left out is understandable (Warner's announcement only happened days ago.)
But where are the accompanying display upgrades? And where's the new Firewire standard?
Yeah but it's a great case, and it was actually redesigned from the inside when Apple switched to intel. It's new features, like the hot swappable drives, are pretty cool compared to the original G5 water-cooled freakshow.
The card I chose was the 8800 GT. I didn't order yet. I want to see what happens at MacWorld and the FCP meeting the day after first.
Smart man.
Oops.. (2600/2900) My bad. My dyslexia got the best of me. Needless to say the stats are all right there for every game you'll need to realize that the 8800GT is a better card. The 2600 XT is still a great entry level card. That's why it's the entry level. If you want to upgrade the 8800 GT is the better card. Why bother with another ATI disappointment?
The card I chose was the 8800 GT. I didn't order yet. I want to see what happens at MacWorld and the FCP meeting the day after first.
The 8800gt is supposed to be an excellent card. Nice choice.
My point is that the 3800 series from ATI isn't a disappointment. They're pretty nice cards that can be had for under $200 (3850). They probably aren't much more than the 2600xt.
That's more fitting as an entry level card for the Mac Pro IMO.
The 8800gt is supposed to be an excellent card. Nice choice.
My point is that the 3800 series from ATI isn't a disappointment. They're pretty nice cards that can be had for under $200 (3850). They probably aren't much more than the 2600xt.
That's more fitting as an entry level card for the Mac Pro IMO.
How do you know if it's any better than the $110.00 2600 XT?
How do you know if it's any better than the $110.00 2600 XT?
This link.
My bad. Same mistake you made. Disregard above.
I saw a article somewhere. Let me check Anand.
I can't find the direct comparison but check this link out at Anand.
The 3850 crushes the 8600 from NVIDIA. Anand called it a 'massacre'. In this review the ati 2600 xt was considered inferior to the nvidia 8600 gt. The 3850 is on par with the old high end cards the x1950 xtx and 7950 gt.
It's an extrapolation but the 3850 is much faster than the 2600 series.
You don't get it. Apple still has only 3 cards ... Three cards to certify for I/O Kit is embarrassing. We did a dozen back when we were pissant NeXT and had 3 devs doing it.
Oh please. Step back and look at the benchmark numbers from a distance. The deltas aren't particularly earth shaking. Not even a rumble. So what's the point in having more than 3 cards? They have the major points on the curve covered, and adding more does little beyond complicating the supply chain and testing/certification process. Sure they could provide more, but is it really a win? I don't think so. Sure we can measure the performance deltas programmatically but in subjective testing the additional variants beyond the 3 they are providing are hardly noticeable.
Guess what platforms developers like developing for? Those with fewer configurations to test against. The Windows market is a nightmare, and the only real gain is that it gives the spec jockies and reviewers more to talk about. As if that's a win.
On the other hand, being able to drive 6 big monitors is pretty cool.
Octa core: Mac Pro, Xserver
Quad core:...
Dual core: iMac. Minimac, Macbook and Probook.
I am not saying that they will but there is room for a single quad core box that use the ordinary (Not fully bufferd) DIMMs that cost 1/2 of the DIMMS in the server and pro.
Quad core:...
There is an option for that in the Mac Pro configuration page that will lower the cost of the machine by 450 euros. Still too expensive (a little above 2000 euros for the computer alone) but the option is there. Besides, near the end of this year or the beginning of the next one, the iMac will eventually go quad core with the future Intel mobile chips.
I don't think Apple intends to release this xMac ghost any time soon. It will remain a ghost for some time yet, and probably die as a ghost.
Oh please. Step back and look at the benchmark numbers from a distance. The deltas aren't particularly earth shaking. Not even a rumble. So what's the point in having more than 3 cards? They have the major points on the curve covered, and adding more does little beyond complicating the supply chain and testing/certification process. Sure they could provide more, but is it really a win? I don't think so. Sure we can measure the performance deltas programmatically but in subjective testing the additional variants beyond the 3 they are providing are hardly noticeable.
Guess what platforms developers like developing for? Those with fewer configurations to test against. The Windows market is a nightmare, and the only real gain is that it gives the spec jockies and reviewers more to talk about. As if that's a win.
On the other hand, being able to drive 6 big monitors is pretty cool.
I think you've got Stockholm syndrome when it comes to Apple and video cards.
While the choices and number of cards doesn't diminish the new machines (at least not much), they aren't exactly bragging point either. The Nvidia 8800 gt and Quadra 5600 are excellent choices, but the ati 2600 is a very pedestrian and weak choice. Especially since there are other better entry level cards that aren't much more expensive, like the 3850 or nvidia 8600. I 'm not aware of any positive reviews of the 2600 series of cards.
This is, after all, Apple's most powerful and technically advanced machine. And why not both or all three (3850, 2600 and 8600) to go with the high end cards? Is it that hard to develop drivers for these?
The ati 2600 is a very pedestrian and weak choice. Especially since there are other better entry level cards that aren't much more expensive, like the 3850 or nvidia 8600. I 'm not aware of any positive reviews of the 2600 series of cards.
As I said, you need to step back and get some perspective here. Does the delta between the 2600 and its competitor's really matter? From the viewpoint of a user who doesn't care about the GPU, no. The 2600 is an amazingly powerful device just like pretty much every graphics chip you can currently buy, and no doubt Apple is getting a great deal on a plentiful supply of them. Using its positively reviewed competitors would add very little (if anything at all) to how the MacPro is going to do in the market. People that care about the GPU should fork over the extra $200 and step up to the nVidia GPU, this is better than making all MacPro buyers who don't care spend more.
A decade ago when Apple was using the ATI Rage vs. the ATI Rage Pro there was a huge difference in capability between the two (i.e. what the card could do, as opposed to how fast it could do it), and they weren't offering the Pro as even an option. This was a big problem and was holding back the platform from making a step into the 3D realm. These days the picture is quite different. The 2600 vs. 3850 or 8600 is a matter of a few percent on an artificial performance benchmark that you're simply not going to notice in practice if your GPU's main task is running CoreAnimation code in the latest Leopard app. And 40 vs 45 FPS in your favourite game isn't going to be noticeable either... you'll get a far bigger benefit by running in the next lowest resolution. And the capability differences are so esoteric there probably isn't any software on the market that would notice. And if you're coding your own then pay for the $200 upgrade.
I think you've got Stockholm syndrome when it comes to Apple and video cards.
While the choices and number of cards doesn't diminish the new machines (at least not much), they aren't exactly bragging point either. The Nvidia 8800 gt and Quadra 5600 are excellent choices, but the ati 2600 is a very pedestrian and weak choice. Especially since there are other better entry level cards that aren't much more expensive, like the 3850 or nvidia 8600. I 'm not aware of any positive reviews of the 2600 series of cards.
This is, after all, Apple's most powerful and technically advanced machine. And why not both or all three (3850, 2600 and 8600) to go with the high end cards? Is it that hard to develop drivers for these?
It's not a matter of developing for these other cards. Apple does get the complete OEM specs and Assembly Code/API calls for these cards.
If Apple can't meet an artificial minimum for these OEMs to develop UEFI specific cards then they won't get them.
It all hinges on Microsoft releasing SP1 for Vista.
That is the last hurdle--business and not technical.
As I said, you need to step back and get some perspective here. Does the delta between the 2600 and its competitor's really matter? From the viewpoint of a user who doesn't care about the GPU, no. The 2600 is an amazingly powerful device just like pretty much every graphics chip you can currently buy, and no doubt Apple is getting a great deal on a plentiful supply of them.
I don't want to blow it out of perspective because the Mac Pro is a powerful machine that is probably ideal for those who need the ultimate in processing power.
But if a user is unable to discern the difference between a 2600 card and the 'competitors' then do they really need a Mac Pro? Why not offer cheaper IDE drives on the entry level model? With the other components of the Mac Pro being of a professional caliber the 2600 card seems out of place and overmatched. If the 2600 series of cards have received positive reviews, I'm unaware of them.
For the iMac the 2600 is a fine and appropriate choice. But for the Mac Pro, no, not IMO. I would agree that Apple probably got a good deal on them and that is why they are there.
I don't want to blow it out of perspective because the Mac Pro is a powerful machine that is probably ideal for those who need the ultimate in processing power.
But if a user is unable to discern the difference between a 2600 card and the 'competitors' then do they really need a Mac Pro? Why not offer cheaper IDE drives on the entry level model? With the other components of the Mac Pro being of a professional caliber the 2600 card seems out of place and overmatched. If the 2600 series of cards have received positive reviews, I'm unaware of them.
For the iMac the 2600 is a fine and appropriate choice. But for the Mac Pro, no, not IMO. I would agree that Apple probably got a good deal on them and that is why they are there.
Then your talking about making a 3rd entirely different motherboard just for IDE drives; and for what configuration? The solo processor configuration, or the Dual Proc-config? Both? You just can have that much inventory laying around.