I think we are at a crossroads here, in terms of the graphics. Apple may have segmented out a market where Mac Pros and XServes with 1600mhz FSB, 3GHZ 45nm Quads/Octos, and 16-32GB is important... where individual workstation graphics not so important. We really need more information on this market.
I agree that graphics aren't important for servers generally. But workstations are for different purposes, and graphics are normally important in that space.
But, even there we have differentiation. There is a good deal of work being done in the 2D space, where cards have long ago delivered the required power.
Of course, where the future will be with that is anyone's guess, now that PS has the extended edition with more 3D capabilities than ever before. The two worlds seem to be intertwining to some extent.
But, we will never get a satisfactory selection until sales warrant other manufactures to look at Apple again. And with Apple limiting card capable machines to the one, expensive line, that may not happen.
ATI, which was Apple's most loyal partner no longer offers cards for the new machines, if I'm not mistaken. That's sad. We have to rely on Apple, and they are not interested in giving us much choice for the same reasons other manufacturers are not here at all—sales.
Nvidia to the rescue. I always thought Nvidia was Apple's best partner in graphics, but that's neither here nor there. I imagine Apple will have better graphics cards this time around, and better graphics capabilities in their Mac Pro at the least because of the outcry from users, and the decline of what were loyal users buying Macs because of it. That decline will continue on to what were new to the Mac users, and all this market share growth will dissipate unless Apple realizes users think computing is serious, and some (many) want serious schematics, upgradability, options, and power. It's not a one size fits all world. Every user has different needs, and Apple computers are hindered, and limited in their capabilities from many users standpoints.
Why no talk about the rest of the platform and just the CPUs? No one actually thinks it will be dual quad core 3.2 Ghz top to bottom do they?
They are probably just buying up a bunch of the 3.2s because with a new Mac Pro platform (not just a simple refresh), 10.5 installed by default, and Adobe CS3 being native they are gonna have a lot of those "old" G5 boxes needing replacement and those high end content creation people are usually on two to three year refresh cycles. Apple needs to secure enough to make sure they can feed any demand these people may have with this perfect storm.
Besides the new workstation platform includes such fun things as PCI-Express 2,0, 800 Mhz FB-DIMMS (vs 667 today), and an increase in PCI-E lanes among other fun things.
my predictions:
"oct core" top to mid range with cheaper "quad core" in the lower range
2 GB 800 FB-DIMM standard (with the lower end perhaps having 1 GB)
8x00, HD 2x00, and Quadro graphics options
Steve jobs quoted with another unbelievably high number of configuration options (Adding AppleCare and a USB modem shouldn't be counted)
What I think wont be in it:
more USB ports \
any blue diode based optical storage option (Dont think apple would invest in throwing in Blue Ray when there are cheaper and more compatible alternatives for mass storage)
Why no talk about the rest of the platform and just the CPUs? No one actually thinks it will be dual quad core 3.2 Ghz top to bottom do they?
They are probably just buying up a bunch of the 3.2s because with a new Mac Pro platform (not just a simple refresh), 10.5 installed by default, and Adobe CS3 being native they are gonna have a lot of those "old" G5 boxes needing replacement and those high end content creation people are usually on two to three year refresh cycles. Apple needs to secure enough to make sure they can feed any demand these people may have with this perfect storm.
Besides the new workstation platform includes such fun things as PCI-Express 2,0, 800 Mhz FB-DIMMS (vs 667 today), and an increase in PCI-E lanes among other fun things.
my predictions:
"oct core" top to mid range with cheaper "quad core" in the lower range
2 GB 800 FB-DIMM standard (with the lower end perhaps having 1 GB)
8x00, HD 2x00, and Quadro graphics options
Steve jobs quoted with another unbelievably high number of configuration options (Adding AppleCare and a USB modem shouldn't be counted)
What I think wont be in it:
more USB ports \
any blue diode based optical storage option (Dont think apple would invest in throwing in Blue Ray when there are cheaper and more compatible alternatives for mass storage)
What about some new stellar Geforce options? What about Nvidia *****X2 SLI Card drivers? Graphics options and capabilities is why the Apple workstation is so frowned opon. It has limits. What kind of workstation has limits?
What about some new stellar Geforce options? What about Nvidia *****X2 SLI Card drivers? Graphics options and capabilities is why the Apple workstation is so frowned opon. It has limits. What kind of workstation has limits?
Most of this is out of the hands of Apple, unless they want to roll their own boards, which they are reluctant to do, which is why we only see a few. As far as limits go, everything has limits.
Within its limits, it does very well (except for the aforementioned boards).
The one thing about a dual 4 core machine is that unlike older machines, you can grow into it. Few apps now can take advantage of the machine's full power, even when multitasking, but that will become less so as time goes by.
With these new machines, we are in a different world than we were ever in, in the past. New versions of programs that take advantage of more cores will actually run faster than their older versions, a reverse from the way it worked before.
It could be cheaper in the long run to buy the most expensive machine.
The one thing almost all high end workstations and servers sold have in common is an INTEL CPU...Dell, hp, Apple, Aleinware, BOXX, and so on...
My point is that Apple isnt able to hoard the entire supply...
It happened with Yonah. Apple also had the top bin of Clovertons, until Intel hit another stepping, and they got new 3.0 versions out there, three months later.
Most of this is out of the hands of Apple, unless they want to roll their own boards, which they are reluctant to do, which is why we only see a few. As far as limits go, everything has limits.
Within its limits, it does very well (except for the aforementioned boards).
The one thing about a dual 4 core machine is that unlike older machines, you can grow into it. Few apps now can take advantage of the machine's full power, even when multitasking, but that will become less so as time goes by.
With these new machines, we are in a different world than we were ever in, in the past. New versions of programs that take advantage of more cores will actually run faster than their older versions, a reverse from the way it worked before.
It could be cheaper in the long run to buy the most expensive machine.
I was talking about their low graphics limitations. Drivers, most wanted cards, etc.. What you can't do. That list is longer than any other manufacturer. And it's at the basic level of what you can't do. Any other workstation you can option in what are now basic things that just can't be done on Mac Workstation. Those are the limits I speak of.
All Apple would have to do is grant both BIOS, and EFI to boot in leopard, and support SLI, and Quadro drivers, and there there would be dozens of new cards available to Mac users. It's a limitation that can be easily remedied, but with the limitation workstation buyers see a brick wall (limit) standing in their way with Mac Pro's.
I was talking about their low graphics limitations. Drivers, most wanted cards, etc.. What you can't do. That list is longer than any other manufacturer. And it's at the basic level of what you can't do. Any other workstation you can option in what are now basic things that just can't be done on Mac Workstation. Those are the limits I speak of.
All Apple would have to do is grant both BIOS, and EFI to boot in leopard, and support SLI, and Quadro drivers, and there there would be dozens of new cards available to Mac users. It's a limitation that can be easily remedied, but with the limitation workstation buyers see a brick wall (limit) standing in their way with Mac Pro's.
This has nothing to do with BIOS, and you know it. UEFI is well characterized. They could write for it as Apple does. It's no big deal. All it is is number of machines sold. SLI isn't a reason either. Not that many people use it, despite the hype. We do have the Quadro card.
If Apple gets the sales up sharply, we'll see some more cards, otherwise we won't.
My betting is that we won't, because Apple needs more than the Mac Pro out there with a graphics slot. It's the gamers that drive all but the highest end 3D card industry.
Without an iMac, or other machine with a slot, Apple is doomed from the start.
What they should do, is to offer to pay for driver development costs. That would be minor, and get some cards for us, but they won't do that, because they can't make money on it, and that's all they seem to be interested in doing these days. They could make it back by insisting that the cards only sell through Apple, but I don't think they care. They give us what they think we need, and that's it.
The report suggests that Apple anticipates selling so many of these niche machines, that other PC manufacturers like Dell and HP would barely have enough supply of the 3.2GHz chips to announce availability of rival offerings.
Maybe I'm just too much of a pessimist, but I find this "selling SO many" notion highly unlikely... Live by the niche, die by the niche! Or something like that
So, what would you guys like to see in the new Mac Pro (enclosure aside)?
It's already got eight processor cores, four-way RAID 0 via dedicated hardware, support for two 30" Cinema Displays, concatenated 1GBps Ethernet and two DVD burners.
So what does that leave? BluRay/HD-DVD and better graphics options? Surely these are realistic as they are simple drop-ins?
So, what would you guys like to see in the new Mac Pro (enclosure aside)?
It's already got eight processor cores, four-way RAID 0 via dedicated hardware, support for two 30" Cinema Displays, concatenated 1GBps Ethernet and two DVD burners.
So what does that leave? BluRay/HD-DVD and better graphics options? Surely these are realistic as they are simple drop-ins?
Well, I'd like to see Apple take advantage of those easy to install/remove drive bays by making them accessable from the outside, in a hot-mount configuration.
I'd like to see a useful raid, such as 5, where we could have reliability, as well as size and speed, which is what we don't get with 1.
Even though few people use Crossfire or SLI, I would like to see the option in a new Express 2 bus, which has more lanes available, though I'm not sure if Express 2 will be fully ready by Macworld.
I'd like to have Apple make available, if Leopard supports it, a Blu-Ray AND and HD-DVD drive (even though I'm not a supporter of HD-DVD), as an upgrade, not as the standard config, unless one could downgrade to DVD.
If someone mentions xMac I will figuratively hurt them
I call your bluff. I keep thinking about the phrase "Timing is everything" and I believe the time for an xMac is here. Mac OS X was developed in parallel for the PPC and x86 so when the time to switch was right, Apple could make the announcement and start the conversion without breaking a sweat, which they did. After Leopard is released then it will be time for the xMac to be unleashed on the public. Why after Leopard? Well, because (1) Boot Camp will be an officially supported feature of Leopard and (2) it will increase Leopard sales.
Comments
Octo Xeons is a very different price class and market to...
Consumer Tower desktop Conroe Quad market.
Why Apple doesn't use the Conroe is beyond me.
As we move to Nehalem, you get the prospect of octo and dual octo systems... Quads will be mainstream.
So we need a mainstream quad product. A mini-tower is it.
It ought to keep Valve quiet if they have a quad consumer tower, open gl v2, Leopard, a decent gpu eg 8800GTX etc.
There's not much wrong with Apple's desktop line up that a mini-tower and a decent gpu wouldn't cure...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Or paint it pink and call it the "Pink Lady" and donate the proceeds to the Breast Cancer association.
A pink Mac would satisfy all those "gaymers" out there...surely.
The qMac?
I think we are at a crossroads here, in terms of the graphics. Apple may have segmented out a market where Mac Pros and XServes with 1600mhz FSB, 3GHZ 45nm Quads/Octos, and 16-32GB is important... where individual workstation graphics not so important. We really need more information on this market.
I agree that graphics aren't important for servers generally. But workstations are for different purposes, and graphics are normally important in that space.
But, even there we have differentiation. There is a good deal of work being done in the 2D space, where cards have long ago delivered the required power.
Of course, where the future will be with that is anyone's guess, now that PS has the extended edition with more 3D capabilities than ever before. The two worlds seem to be intertwining to some extent.
But, we will never get a satisfactory selection until sales warrant other manufactures to look at Apple again. And with Apple limiting card capable machines to the one, expensive line, that may not happen.
ATI, which was Apple's most loyal partner no longer offers cards for the new machines, if I'm not mistaken. That's sad. We have to rely on Apple, and they are not interested in giving us much choice for the same reasons other manufacturers are not here at all—sales.
Why no talk about the rest of the platform and just the CPUs? No one actually thinks it will be dual quad core 3.2 Ghz top to bottom do they?
They are probably just buying up a bunch of the 3.2s because with a new Mac Pro platform (not just a simple refresh), 10.5 installed by default, and Adobe CS3 being native they are gonna have a lot of those "old" G5 boxes needing replacement and those high end content creation people are usually on two to three year refresh cycles. Apple needs to secure enough to make sure they can feed any demand these people may have with this perfect storm.
Besides the new workstation platform includes such fun things as PCI-Express 2,0, 800 Mhz FB-DIMMS (vs 667 today), and an increase in PCI-E lanes among other fun things.
my predictions:
"oct core" top to mid range with cheaper "quad core" in the lower range
2 GB 800 FB-DIMM standard (with the lower end perhaps having 1 GB)
8x00, HD 2x00, and Quadro graphics options
Steve jobs quoted with another unbelievably high number of configuration options (Adding AppleCare and a USB modem shouldn't be counted)
What I think wont be in it:
more USB ports
any blue diode based optical storage option (Dont think apple would invest in throwing in Blue Ray when there are cheaper and more compatible alternatives for mass storage)
Soo...
Why no talk about the rest of the platform and just the CPUs? No one actually thinks it will be dual quad core 3.2 Ghz top to bottom do they?
They are probably just buying up a bunch of the 3.2s because with a new Mac Pro platform (not just a simple refresh), 10.5 installed by default, and Adobe CS3 being native they are gonna have a lot of those "old" G5 boxes needing replacement and those high end content creation people are usually on two to three year refresh cycles. Apple needs to secure enough to make sure they can feed any demand these people may have with this perfect storm.
Besides the new workstation platform includes such fun things as PCI-Express 2,0, 800 Mhz FB-DIMMS (vs 667 today), and an increase in PCI-E lanes among other fun things.
my predictions:
"oct core" top to mid range with cheaper "quad core" in the lower range
2 GB 800 FB-DIMM standard (with the lower end perhaps having 1 GB)
8x00, HD 2x00, and Quadro graphics options
Steve jobs quoted with another unbelievably high number of configuration options (Adding AppleCare and a USB modem shouldn't be counted)
What I think wont be in it:
more USB ports
any blue diode based optical storage option (Dont think apple would invest in throwing in Blue Ray when there are cheaper and more compatible alternatives for mass storage)
What about some new stellar Geforce options? What about Nvidia *****X2 SLI Card drivers? Graphics options and capabilities is why the Apple workstation is so frowned opon. It has limits. What kind of workstation has limits?
What about some new stellar Geforce options? What about Nvidia *****X2 SLI Card drivers? Graphics options and capabilities is why the Apple workstation is so frowned opon. It has limits. What kind of workstation has limits?
Most of this is out of the hands of Apple, unless they want to roll their own boards, which they are reluctant to do, which is why we only see a few. As far as limits go, everything has limits.
Within its limits, it does very well (except for the aforementioned boards).
The one thing about a dual 4 core machine is that unlike older machines, you can grow into it. Few apps now can take advantage of the machine's full power, even when multitasking, but that will become less so as time goes by.
With these new machines, we are in a different world than we were ever in, in the past. New versions of programs that take advantage of more cores will actually run faster than their older versions, a reverse from the way it worked before.
It could be cheaper in the long run to buy the most expensive machine.
My point is that Apple isnt able to hoard the entire supply...
The one thing almost all high end workstations and servers sold have in common is an INTEL CPU...Dell, hp, Apple, Aleinware, BOXX, and so on...
My point is that Apple isnt able to hoard the entire supply...
It happened with Yonah. Apple also had the top bin of Clovertons, until Intel hit another stepping, and they got new 3.0 versions out there, three months later.
Most of this is out of the hands of Apple, unless they want to roll their own boards, which they are reluctant to do, which is why we only see a few. As far as limits go, everything has limits.
Within its limits, it does very well (except for the aforementioned boards).
The one thing about a dual 4 core machine is that unlike older machines, you can grow into it. Few apps now can take advantage of the machine's full power, even when multitasking, but that will become less so as time goes by.
With these new machines, we are in a different world than we were ever in, in the past. New versions of programs that take advantage of more cores will actually run faster than their older versions, a reverse from the way it worked before.
It could be cheaper in the long run to buy the most expensive machine.
I was talking about their low graphics limitations. Drivers, most wanted cards, etc.. What you can't do. That list is longer than any other manufacturer. And it's at the basic level of what you can't do. Any other workstation you can option in what are now basic things that just can't be done on Mac Workstation. Those are the limits I speak of.
All Apple would have to do is grant both BIOS, and EFI to boot in leopard, and support SLI, and Quadro drivers, and there there would be dozens of new cards available to Mac users. It's a limitation that can be easily remedied, but with the limitation workstation buyers see a brick wall (limit) standing in their way with Mac Pro's.
I was talking about their low graphics limitations. Drivers, most wanted cards, etc.. What you can't do. That list is longer than any other manufacturer. And it's at the basic level of what you can't do. Any other workstation you can option in what are now basic things that just can't be done on Mac Workstation. Those are the limits I speak of.
All Apple would have to do is grant both BIOS, and EFI to boot in leopard, and support SLI, and Quadro drivers, and there there would be dozens of new cards available to Mac users. It's a limitation that can be easily remedied, but with the limitation workstation buyers see a brick wall (limit) standing in their way with Mac Pro's.
This has nothing to do with BIOS, and you know it. UEFI is well characterized. They could write for it as Apple does. It's no big deal. All it is is number of machines sold. SLI isn't a reason either. Not that many people use it, despite the hype. We do have the Quadro card.
If Apple gets the sales up sharply, we'll see some more cards, otherwise we won't.
My betting is that we won't, because Apple needs more than the Mac Pro out there with a graphics slot. It's the gamers that drive all but the highest end 3D card industry.
Without an iMac, or other machine with a slot, Apple is doomed from the start.
What they should do, is to offer to pay for driver development costs. That would be minor, and get some cards for us, but they won't do that, because they can't make money on it, and that's all they seem to be interested in doing these days. They could make it back by insisting that the cards only sell through Apple, but I don't think they care. They give us what they think we need, and that's it.
why they are reserving bulk quantities of desktop CPUs for?
They probably aren't.
But, if they are, we are either going to see a madly internally revamped iMac, or the proverbial xMac.
with 45nm chips using less power, and putting out less heat, it is an interesting possiblity.
But the reliability of the site is more than questionable. It's likely a guess, no more.
The report suggests that Apple anticipates selling so many of these niche machines, that other PC manufacturers like Dell and HP would barely have enough supply of the 3.2GHz chips to announce availability of rival offerings.
Maybe I'm just too much of a pessimist, but I find this "selling SO many" notion highly unlikely... Live by the niche, die by the niche! Or something like that
They probably aren't.
But, if they are, we are either going to see a madly internally revamped iMac, or the proverbial xMac.
with 45nm chips using less power, and putting out less heat, it is an interesting possiblity.
But the reliability of the site is more than questionable. It's likely a guess, no more.
i agree, it is just pure speculation from very unreliable source ... nov is not very far away, we get to know soon...
It's already got eight processor cores, four-way RAID 0 via dedicated hardware, support for two 30" Cinema Displays, concatenated 1GBps Ethernet and two DVD burners.
So what does that leave? BluRay/HD-DVD and better graphics options? Surely these are realistic as they are simple drop-ins?
So, what would you guys like to see in the new Mac Pro (enclosure aside)?
It's already got eight processor cores, four-way RAID 0 via dedicated hardware, support for two 30" Cinema Displays, concatenated 1GBps Ethernet and two DVD burners.
So what does that leave? BluRay/HD-DVD and better graphics options? Surely these are realistic as they are simple drop-ins?
Well, I'd like to see Apple take advantage of those easy to install/remove drive bays by making them accessable from the outside, in a hot-mount configuration.
I'd like to see a useful raid, such as 5, where we could have reliability, as well as size and speed, which is what we don't get with 1.
Even though few people use Crossfire or SLI, I would like to see the option in a new Express 2 bus, which has more lanes available, though I'm not sure if Express 2 will be fully ready by Macworld.
I'd like to have Apple make available, if Leopard supports it, a Blu-Ray AND and HD-DVD drive (even though I'm not a supporter of HD-DVD), as an upgrade, not as the standard config, unless one could downgrade to DVD.
If someone mentions xMac I will figuratively hurt them
I call your bluff. I keep thinking about the phrase "Timing is everything" and I believe the time for an xMac is here. Mac OS X was developed in parallel for the PPC and x86 so when the time to switch was right, Apple could make the announcement and start the conversion without breaking a sweat, which they did. After Leopard is released then it will be time for the xMac to be unleashed on the public. Why after Leopard? Well, because (1) Boot Camp will be an officially supported feature of Leopard and (2) it will increase Leopard sales.