You don't throw the computer out the window because you can't upgrade the damn thing ? you can upgrade any computer.
You throw it out the window because you realise that there's a point where it just doesn't make sense financially to upgrade it.
This true of all computers, even of the current top-of-the-range Mac Pro with 16GB of RAM and 8 processor cores will be so long-in-the-tooth some day that it will also be uneconomical to upgrade. That's the price of progress.
It has nothing to do with the iMacs' form factor. Try sourcing a decent card that will work in a 6 year old G4 tower (the most expandable machine at the time) and you'll soon realise that it's an exercise in frustration.
Useless telling people. Ones desires can never be met. Logic is lost on most here.
I've had my Sawtooth for almost six years. You can usually max out a machine's upgradable components by year three or four. After that, you just work with what you have.
The gap between iMac and Mac Pro is so huge you could fit two product lines and semi truck in there.
Really there isn't a good reason not to make an xMac/MacPro Mini/Mac Plus? (aside form your monetary greed, aparently). Intel's CPU offerings include a wide range of processors between those in the iMac and those in the Mac Pro. For prosumers, the iMac is too weak, has crappy graphics an NO EXPANDABILITY, meanwhile the MacPro is a waste for doing anything less than video-editing, 3D rendering and Photoshop filtering, simultaneously. Call it hyperbole if you want, but the main idea is still true. We aren't all either "idiot consumers" or professionals. Ergo, we need a computer that can fit our needs. Desktop-class processor, video card, a PCI slot or two, extra HDD bay, extra optical bay.
It's not too much to ask so for the love of Trogdor, just do it.
Oh yeah, "please."
-Clive
As a Mac Pro user myself I will be the first to say the system is so out of sync. They load up the machine heavy on the CPU end and the rest is really a joke unless you upgrade just about everything.
I mean 999.00 for a raid card? Thats insanity. Something that is just about standard on every pc motherboard over 150.00.
A pro machine with 1gig of Ram standard and a 128bit 7300 video card. Just a bit more salt in the wound is the need for ECC ram.
Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.
If you don't upgrade the system its like having a corvette engine in a 1970 pinto.
I have never understood why Apple has such a hard time understanding that the CPU, Ram and GPU need to compliment each other.
Same goes for the Macbook, even fully loaded the GPU can not perform some basic function using iLIfe applications because they refuse to upgread the GPU. The Macbook to me is nothing more than Apples version of an Emachine.
As a Mac Pro user myself I will be the first to say the system is so out of sync. They load up the machine heavy on the CPU end and the rest is really a joke unless you upgrade just about everything.
I mean 999.00 for a raid card? Thats insanity. Something that is just about standard on every pc motherboard over 150.00.
A pro machine with 1gig of Ram standard and a 128bit 7300 video card. Just a bit more salt in the wound is the need for ECC ram.
Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.
If you don't upgrade the system its like having a corvette engine in a 1970 pinto.
I have never understood why Apple has such a hard time understanding that the CPU, Ram and GPU need to compliment each other.
Same goes for the Macbook, even fully loaded the GPU can not perform some basic function using iLIfe applications because they refuse to upgread the GPU. The Macbook to me is nothing more than Apples version of an Emachine.
Beautifully stated. I don't think there is a better way to describe the current Apple lineup. That said it all.
I agree as well. I think it's insane apple ships the octo mac pro stock with a 7300 128 bit $50 card. OH yah... i forgot... you have some much cpu... who needs a gpu. Screw it. Dont' even include a card. A $50 128bit card is such a slap in the face when spending 2.5k+
I agree as well. I think it's insane apple ships the octo mac pro stock with a 7300 128 bit $50 card. OH yah... i forgot... you have some much cpu... who needs a gpu. Screw it. Dont' even include a card. A $50 128bit card is such a slap in the face when spending 2.5k+
Not for audio pros. I could care less about the GPU and have never upgraded what comes with the tower..
Not for audio pros. I could care less about the GPU and have never upgraded what comes with the tower..
So for that situation it's perfect, and that's why we think the minimalist card should still be an option but there should be some better options for others with different ambitions, desires, or needs.
I agree as well. I think it's insane apple ships the octo mac pro stock with a 7300 128 bit $50 card. OH yah... i forgot... you have some much cpu... who needs a gpu. Screw it. Dont' even include a card. A $50 128bit card is such a slap in the face when spending 2.5k+
Not for audio pros. I could care less about the GPU and have never upgraded what comes with the tower..
Add to that those of us who work with 2D apps like Illustrator and PhotoShop, both of which do not take advantage of the GPU, instead using the CPU and RAM.
Although if Acorn and Pixelmator start to make some inroads into the image editing/manipulation marketplace, maybe then Adobe will start to address GPUs. But for now, your GPU is not that important.
I wouldn't say that I could care less about the GPU, but I don't need the uber-card that many here seem to be clamoring for.
GPU is still used. Doesn't mean you need a crazy high end card, but Leo and future OS X updates will push graphics higher and igher for use JUST in the OS and other applications. A laptop comes with a better card. The iMac comes with a better card. You find that acceptable? At least throw in a 7600gt. It's still ~100 dollar card.
As a Mac Pro user myself I will be the first to say the system is so out of sync. They load up the machine heavy on the CPU end and the rest is really a joke unless you upgrade just about everything.
I mean 999.00 for a raid card? Thats insanity. Something that is just about standard on every pc motherboard over 150.00.
Don't confuse CPU-heavy consumer RAID 0 and 1 capability with true dedicated hardware-based RAID 0, 1 and 5 capabilities. This confusion on your part reduces the credibility of your argument. OS X already offers RAID 0 & 1 built-in.
Quote:
A pro machine with 1gig of Ram standard and a 128bit 7300 video card. Just a bit more salt in the wound is the need for ECC ram.
Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.
It's basically a workstation. Most computers marketed as workstations of that are only available with ECC memory. For example, you can't buy an Opteron-based HP xw9400 without ECC RAM. The same machine's base model only offers 1GB of RAM, another one of your objections.
The base model of most workstations include cards intended for 2D use. The same xw9400's stock card is roughly comparable to the 7300, you have to pay more to get something intended for heavy 3D use.
In short, you are knocking Apple for something that is pretty much common in that particular market. Not all workstations need heavy-duty 3D graphics. 2D image & video work, audio, computational simulations are all tasks that don't necessarily need super powerful 3D. It makes sense to offer something for them. If you want them to make the base model 2GB & the better card standard, the standard model would be $3000 and not $2500.
Apple is not "catering to Pixar", they are offering a workstation configuration that has the cheapest GPU available. If you want more GPU, you pay for it. If you don't, then you don't pay for it. What all these GPU whiners are saying is that Apple shouldn't have its lowest end model, but then a whole other crowd will start whining about how they have to pay for this GPU they don't want and need.
And stop talking about the 7300 like its a useless piece of junk. Its not. Compared to the high end cards of 5 years ago it is a stunningly powerful piece of graphics technology. Keep a little perspective, folks.
Apple is not "catering to Pixar", they are offering a workstation configuration that has the cheapest GPU available. If you want more GPU, you pay for it. If you don't, then you don't pay for it. What all these GPU whiners are saying is that Apple shouldn't have its lowest end model, but then a whole other crowd will start whining about how they have to pay for this GPU they don't want and need.
And stop talking about the 7300 like its a useless piece of junk. Its not. Compared to the high end cards of 5 years ago it is a stunningly powerful piece of graphics technology. Keep a little perspective, folks.
Here are your only options on the Mac Pro if you don't want anything to do with the 7300 card(s):
ATI Radeon X1900 XT $249.00
If you?re working in motion graphics, animation, or 3D design and visualization, the powerful ATI Radeon X1900 XT with 512MB of dedicated GDDR3 memory may suit your needs perfectly. It offers two dual-link DVI ports that can simultaneously support two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays for an incredibly large widescreen workspace.
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 $1649.00
If industrial-strength 3D design work, stereo 3D visualization, or using two large 30-inch displays are on your list of requirements, configure your Mac Pro with the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500. One of the most advanced graphics cards available, it has an integrated stereo 3D port, so you can use stereo goggles for stereo-in-a-window visualization applications. With two dual-link DVI ports, you can connect two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays. The Quadro FX 4500 boasts 512MB of ultrafast GDDR3 SDRAM.
If industrial-strength 3D design work, stereo 3D visualization, or using two large 30-inch displays are on your list of requirements, configure your Mac Pro with the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500. One of the most advanced graphics cards available, it has an integrated stereo 3D port, so you can use stereo goggles for stereo-in-a-window visualization applications. With two dual-link DVI ports, you can connect two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays. The Quadro FX 4500 boasts 512MB of ultrafast GDDR3 SDRAM.
I don't know anything about the upper end cards like this one, but is the only problem with it the price? All the people who want a GPU card for gaming, would this suffice... except for price? I looked for comparisons online, but couldn't find much. Honest question. Is this card behind the times? Underpowered?
I don't know anything about the upper end cards like this one, but is the only problem with it the price? All the people who want a GPU card for gaming, would this suffice... except for price? I looked for comparisons online, but couldn't find much. Honest question. Is this card behind the times? Underpowered?
I think It's been superseded.
It's basically an engineering card, not a gaming card, even if it uses the same silicon as some gaming cards. Usually with workstation cards, they enable a couple relatively minor features, usually unimportant for gaming, and at least the Windows drivers have more of a bias towards OpenGL rather than DirectX, compared to the game counterpart. Last I played with such a card, I think it offers a way to use different drivers and settings for different programs, so you can pick the driver version and settings that's "supported" by certain high-end apps.
Basically, you only have one viable GPU choice for high-end gaming on a Mac, and I think that was the point.
It's basically an engineering card, not a gaming card, even if it uses the same silicon as some gaming cards. Usually with workstation cards, they enable a couple relatively minor features, usually unimportant for gaming, and at least the Windows drivers have more of a bias towards OpenGL rather than DirectX, compared to the game counterpart. Last I played with such a card, I think it offers a way to use different drivers and settings for different programs, so you can pick the driver version and settings that's "supported" by certain high-end apps.
Basically, you only have one viable GPU choice for high-end gaming on a Mac, and I think that was the point.
Thanks. I seriously didn't know if we were talking choice because there aren't "any," or choice because there were low-end (price-wise) and only one high-end. Now I have a better feel for it.
Your right though. It's time for some Mac Pro Feedback.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Your right! It does appear they are widening the gap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.
I'm just curious, are there any Mac users who know how to spell "you're" correctly? I've been thinking about getting a Mac for a little while, but if this is how uneducated the community really is... ouch.
I'm just curious, are there any Mac users who know how to spell "you're" correctly? I've been thinking about getting a Mac for a little while, but if this is how uneducated the community really is... ouch.
Comments
You don't throw the computer out the window because you can't upgrade the damn thing ? you can upgrade any computer.
You throw it out the window because you realise that there's a point where it just doesn't make sense financially to upgrade it.
This true of all computers, even of the current top-of-the-range Mac Pro with 16GB of RAM and 8 processor cores will be so long-in-the-tooth some day that it will also be uneconomical to upgrade. That's the price of progress.
It has nothing to do with the iMacs' form factor. Try sourcing a decent card that will work in a 6 year old G4 tower (the most expandable machine at the time) and you'll soon realise that it's an exercise in frustration.
Useless telling people. Ones desires can never be met. Logic is lost on most here.
Apple, take a hint:
The gap between iMac and Mac Pro is so huge you could fit two product lines and semi truck in there.
Really there isn't a good reason not to make an xMac/MacPro Mini/Mac Plus? (aside form your monetary greed, aparently). Intel's CPU offerings include a wide range of processors between those in the iMac and those in the Mac Pro. For prosumers, the iMac is too weak, has crappy graphics an NO EXPANDABILITY, meanwhile the MacPro is a waste for doing anything less than video-editing, 3D rendering and Photoshop filtering, simultaneously. Call it hyperbole if you want, but the main idea is still true. We aren't all either "idiot consumers" or professionals. Ergo, we need a computer that can fit our needs. Desktop-class processor, video card, a PCI slot or two, extra HDD bay, extra optical bay.
It's not too much to ask so for the love of Trogdor, just do it.
Oh yeah, "please."
-Clive
As a Mac Pro user myself I will be the first to say the system is so out of sync. They load up the machine heavy on the CPU end and the rest is really a joke unless you upgrade just about everything.
I mean 999.00 for a raid card? Thats insanity. Something that is just about standard on every pc motherboard over 150.00.
A pro machine with 1gig of Ram standard and a 128bit 7300 video card. Just a bit more salt in the wound is the need for ECC ram.
Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.
If you don't upgrade the system its like having a corvette engine in a 1970 pinto.
I have never understood why Apple has such a hard time understanding that the CPU, Ram and GPU need to compliment each other.
Same goes for the Macbook, even fully loaded the GPU can not perform some basic function using iLIfe applications because they refuse to upgread the GPU. The Macbook to me is nothing more than Apples version of an Emachine.
As a Mac Pro user myself I will be the first to say the system is so out of sync. They load up the machine heavy on the CPU end and the rest is really a joke unless you upgrade just about everything.
I mean 999.00 for a raid card? Thats insanity. Something that is just about standard on every pc motherboard over 150.00.
A pro machine with 1gig of Ram standard and a 128bit 7300 video card. Just a bit more salt in the wound is the need for ECC ram.
Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.
If you don't upgrade the system its like having a corvette engine in a 1970 pinto.
I have never understood why Apple has such a hard time understanding that the CPU, Ram and GPU need to compliment each other.
Same goes for the Macbook, even fully loaded the GPU can not perform some basic function using iLIfe applications because they refuse to upgread the GPU. The Macbook to me is nothing more than Apples version of an Emachine.
Beautifully stated. I don't think there is a better way to describe the current Apple lineup. That said it all.
Beautifully stated. I don't think there is a better way to describe the current Apple lineup. That said it all.
Damn someone agreed......
I agree as well. I think it's insane apple ships the octo mac pro stock with a 7300 128 bit $50 card. OH yah... i forgot... you have some much cpu... who needs a gpu. Screw it. Dont' even include a card. A $50 128bit card is such a slap in the face when spending 2.5k+
Not for audio pros. I could care less about the GPU and have never upgraded what comes with the tower..
Not for audio pros. I could care less about the GPU and have never upgraded what comes with the tower..
So for that situation it's perfect, and that's why we think the minimalist card should still be an option but there should be some better options for others with different ambitions, desires, or needs.
I agree as well. I think it's insane apple ships the octo mac pro stock with a 7300 128 bit $50 card. OH yah... i forgot... you have some much cpu... who needs a gpu. Screw it. Dont' even include a card. A $50 128bit card is such a slap in the face when spending 2.5k+
Yeh. No kidding...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Not for audio pros. I could care less about the GPU and have never upgraded what comes with the tower..
Add to that those of us who work with 2D apps like Illustrator and PhotoShop, both of which do not take advantage of the GPU, instead using the CPU and RAM.
Although if Acorn and Pixelmator start to make some inroads into the image editing/manipulation marketplace, maybe then Adobe will start to address GPUs. But for now, your GPU is not that important.
I wouldn't say that I could care less about the GPU, but I don't need the uber-card that many here seem to be clamoring for.
GPU is still used. Doesn't mean you need a crazy high end card, but Leo and future OS X updates will push graphics higher and igher for use JUST in the OS and other applications. A laptop comes with a better card. The iMac comes with a better card. You find that acceptable? At least throw in a 7600gt. It's still ~100 dollar card.
Unless your [sic] working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.
Remember, Steve Jobs owns Pixar, so he is catering more specifically to them then to anyone else.
As a Mac Pro user myself I will be the first to say the system is so out of sync. They load up the machine heavy on the CPU end and the rest is really a joke unless you upgrade just about everything.
I mean 999.00 for a raid card? Thats insanity. Something that is just about standard on every pc motherboard over 150.00.
Don't confuse CPU-heavy consumer RAID 0 and 1 capability with true dedicated hardware-based RAID 0, 1 and 5 capabilities. This confusion on your part reduces the credibility of your argument. OS X already offers RAID 0 & 1 built-in.
A pro machine with 1gig of Ram standard and a 128bit 7300 video card. Just a bit more salt in the wound is the need for ECC ram.
Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.
It's basically a workstation. Most computers marketed as workstations of that are only available with ECC memory. For example, you can't buy an Opteron-based HP xw9400 without ECC RAM. The same machine's base model only offers 1GB of RAM, another one of your objections.
The base model of most workstations include cards intended for 2D use. The same xw9400's stock card is roughly comparable to the 7300, you have to pay more to get something intended for heavy 3D use.
In short, you are knocking Apple for something that is pretty much common in that particular market. Not all workstations need heavy-duty 3D graphics. 2D image & video work, audio, computational simulations are all tasks that don't necessarily need super powerful 3D. It makes sense to offer something for them. If you want them to make the base model 2GB & the better card standard, the standard model would be $3000 and not $2500.
And stop talking about the 7300 like its a useless piece of junk. Its not. Compared to the high end cards of 5 years ago it is a stunningly powerful piece of graphics technology. Keep a little perspective, folks.
Apple is not "catering to Pixar", they are offering a workstation configuration that has the cheapest GPU available. If you want more GPU, you pay for it. If you don't, then you don't pay for it. What all these GPU whiners are saying is that Apple shouldn't have its lowest end model, but then a whole other crowd will start whining about how they have to pay for this GPU they don't want and need.
And stop talking about the 7300 like its a useless piece of junk. Its not. Compared to the high end cards of 5 years ago it is a stunningly powerful piece of graphics technology. Keep a little perspective, folks.
Here are your only options on the Mac Pro if you don't want anything to do with the 7300 card(s):
ATI Radeon X1900 XT $249.00
If you?re working in motion graphics, animation, or 3D design and visualization, the powerful ATI Radeon X1900 XT with 512MB of dedicated GDDR3 memory may suit your needs perfectly. It offers two dual-link DVI ports that can simultaneously support two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays for an incredibly large widescreen workspace.
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 $1649.00
If industrial-strength 3D design work, stereo 3D visualization, or using two large 30-inch displays are on your list of requirements, configure your Mac Pro with the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500. One of the most advanced graphics cards available, it has an integrated stereo 3D port, so you can use stereo goggles for stereo-in-a-window visualization applications. With two dual-link DVI ports, you can connect two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays. The Quadro FX 4500 boasts 512MB of ultrafast GDDR3 SDRAM.
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 $1649.00
If industrial-strength 3D design work, stereo 3D visualization, or using two large 30-inch displays are on your list of requirements, configure your Mac Pro with the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500. One of the most advanced graphics cards available, it has an integrated stereo 3D port, so you can use stereo goggles for stereo-in-a-window visualization applications. With two dual-link DVI ports, you can connect two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays. The Quadro FX 4500 boasts 512MB of ultrafast GDDR3 SDRAM.
I don't know anything about the upper end cards like this one, but is the only problem with it the price? All the people who want a GPU card for gaming, would this suffice... except for price? I looked for comparisons online, but couldn't find much. Honest question. Is this card behind the times? Underpowered?
I don't know anything about the upper end cards like this one, but is the only problem with it the price? All the people who want a GPU card for gaming, would this suffice... except for price? I looked for comparisons online, but couldn't find much. Honest question. Is this card behind the times? Underpowered?
I think It's been superseded.
It's basically an engineering card, not a gaming card, even if it uses the same silicon as some gaming cards. Usually with workstation cards, they enable a couple relatively minor features, usually unimportant for gaming, and at least the Windows drivers have more of a bias towards OpenGL rather than DirectX, compared to the game counterpart. Last I played with such a card, I think it offers a way to use different drivers and settings for different programs, so you can pick the driver version and settings that's "supported" by certain high-end apps.
Basically, you only have one viable GPU choice for high-end gaming on a Mac, and I think that was the point.
It's basically an engineering card, not a gaming card, even if it uses the same silicon as some gaming cards. Usually with workstation cards, they enable a couple relatively minor features, usually unimportant for gaming, and at least the Windows drivers have more of a bias towards OpenGL rather than DirectX, compared to the game counterpart. Last I played with such a card, I think it offers a way to use different drivers and settings for different programs, so you can pick the driver version and settings that's "supported" by certain high-end apps.
Basically, you only have one viable GPU choice for high-end gaming on a Mac, and I think that was the point.
Thanks. I seriously didn't know if we were talking choice because there aren't "any," or choice because there were low-end (price-wise) and only one high-end. Now I have a better feel for it.
Your in the WRONG thread.
Your right though. It's time for some Mac Pro Feedback.
Your right! It does appear they are widening the gap.
Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.
I'm just curious, are there any Mac users who know how to spell "you're" correctly? I've been thinking about getting a Mac for a little while, but if this is how uneducated the community really is... ouch.
I'm just curious, are there any Mac users who know how to spell "you're" correctly? I've been thinking about getting a Mac for a little while, but if this is how uneducated the community really is... ouch.
Your troll bait?
You're troll bait!