Hey guys, all we Cube owners ask is that the cards be made low-profile. We can flash them if you give us an image, but we don't have room for the tall cards. That's all. Make 'em longer and not so tall, it won't cost you a penny extra.
Hey guys, all we Cube owners ask is that the cards be made low-profile. We can flash them if you give us an image, but we don't have room for the tall cards. That's all. Make 'em longer and not so tall, it won't cost you a penny extra.
Hmmm, lets see, low profile cards use less resources, and hence cost less. You will see low profile cards whenever practical. I think that you will find that the 256 bit memory buses are the problem. Making the bus twice as wide requires a lot more space. The cards require more space.
I am more concerned with the high-end video cards from ATI, NVIDIA and 3DLABS. The consumer cards are gonna be around but where the mac needs to change is in the high-end. The 3DLABS cards push so many polygons that it would make your head swell. Even the Quadro series from nVidia...there is a fair amount of high-end, real-time production apps that utilize the QUADRO FX engine. It would be great to see those cards on the Mac opening the possibility of bringing those high-ends apps to OS X.
I think that is one major weak point for us Mac guys.
Hmmm. I heard ATi had a 'next gen' product ready to go against whatever Nvidia put out this quarter. But they didn't because it would have ridiculously outperformed the opposition.
Now, there's a hilarious reason _not_ to release a product. Do you think _THAT'S_ why Apple didn't release the G5 in 1999?
"Yeah, Steve... But you see, we would 'ridiculously outperform the opposition'. Can't do that." ;-)
It's not a completely stupid reason. It's great to surge ahead but going too fast means they'll get ahead of themselves, and they'll be unable to release a timely update. Look at Intel. They went from 2.4 GHz in April 2002 to 3.06 GHz in November 2002. Since November, they've only gone from 3.06 GHz to 3.2 GHz. It's obvious they're holding back. Sure, they could release even faster chips, but there's no need. They just want to pace themselves.
Now, with ATI vs. nVidia it's a bit different because the difference between them is not so clear. Neither one is way ahead of the other like with Intel vs. AMD, so I don't see why ATI would purposely hold back unless they thought they'd have problems continuing to upgrade their products. Right now the Radeon 9800 XT is the top card in the market but it could change quickly.
It's not a completely stupid reason. It's great to surge ahead but going too fast means they'll get ahead of themselves, and they'll be unable to release a timely update. Look at Intel. They went from 2.4 GHz in April 2002 to 3.06 GHz in November 2002. Since November, they've only gone from 3.06 GHz to 3.2 GHz. It's obvious they're holding back. Sure, they could release even faster chips, but there's no need. They just want to pace themselves.
Now, with ATI vs. nVidia it's a bit different because the difference between them is not so clear. Neither one is way ahead of the other like with Intel vs. AMD, so I don't see why ATI would purposely hold back unless they thought they'd have problems continuing to upgrade their products. Right now the Radeon 9800 XT is the top card in the market but it could change quickly.
The Athlon 64 fx 2,2 ghz is ahead than any P4 avalaible right now. That's why they made a P4 EE with L3 cache. It means that under 130 nm process Intel has reached his clock limit.
It's not a completely stupid reason. It's great to surge ahead but going too fast means they'll get ahead of themselves, and they'll be unable to release a timely update. Look at Intel. They went from 2.4 GHz in April 2002 to 3.06 GHz in November 2002. Since November, they've only gone from 3.06 GHz to 3.2 GHz. It's obvious they're holding back. Sure, they could release even faster chips, but there's no need. They just want to pace themselves.
Now, with ATI vs. nVidia it's a bit different because the difference between them is not so clear. Neither one is way ahead of the other like with Intel vs. AMD, so I don't see why ATI would purposely hold back unless they thought they'd have problems continuing to upgrade their products. Right now the Radeon 9800 XT is the top card in the market but it could change quickly.
Excuuuuuuuse me! Maybe you'd like to tell me why you're shaking your head at my post? At least Powerdoc had the decency to, and he's right, the AMD64 is beating Intel because it's 64-bit and Intel's 64-bit chip (the Itanium) is way behind.
The development cycles on the GPUs seems to be considerably shorter than those of the CPU cycles. This means that ATI can continue to improve their new design so that it is as leading edge as possible when nVidia is ready with their own leading edge design. They want to get to market before nVidia, but not too much before so that they can be sure that theirs is the better GPU.
With the CPUs its a matter of ship it when you can. Intel seems to have made a decade-long strategic blunder and that will cost HP dearly, and give AMD a bit of life before Intel corrects and crushes them.
Excuuuuuuuse me! Maybe you'd like to tell me why you're shaking your head at my post? At least Powerdoc had the decency to, and he's right, the AMD64 is beating Intel because it's 64-bit and Intel's 64-bit chip (the Itanium) is way behind.
Your viewpoint is the continuing urban myth that companies hold on to new products/technologies and deliver them only in response or expected introduction of competitor products. People who hold this viewpoint do not understand the market economy. ATI & Intel & IBM & Nvidia do not hold back. They would love to relegate their competitors to has-beens or niche players by delivering products that can't be touched.
Think about it - if ATI held back, wouldn't Nvidia also have that strategy? Then why would there ever be a new model or an advance? Let's say ATI miscalculated about Nvidia's capability and Nvidia introduced a way better product than ATI's held back product? How well do you think ATI and Intel can ramp up their held-back product when Nvidia and AMD deliver? The new parts and manufacturing capability is not just sitting there waiting for an email to crank out a 100K in the next month.
How do you think the morale would be at ATI if the whiz-bang engineers put their heart & soul into a great product and it was held back? ATI is competitive, and they would love to beat the *&/*? out of Nvidia.
Well sorry for being ignorant, I guess I should be shot now.
Anyway, I already was corrected by Powerdoc, so it's not like you have to be rude to me for not knowing all that you do. Also, in my own post I said that GPUs develop much quicker and that ATI and nVidia were really close so even if there WERE companies that held back anything, they wouldn't be the ones to do that.
Well sorry for being ignorant, I guess I should be shot now.
Anyway, I already was corrected by Powerdoc, so it's not like you have to be rude to me for not knowing all that you do. Also, in my own post I said that GPUs develop much quicker and that ATI and nVidia were really close so even if there WERE companies that held back anything, they wouldn't be the ones to do that.
Don't read so much into a "Smilies"! It was not a personal attack on you! You asked for an explanation, and I gave it to you - nothing personal. The urban myth I explained is rampant on these boards, and it is not unusual for interesting threads to be hijacked by urban myths.
"Next Generation?" The real next generation products will not be AGP at all. They will be PCI Express (due some time in 2H '04) which will have much greater bandwidth than even the 8X AGP that Apple was very, very late in adopting. This will leave all prior machines out in the cold as "legacy devices".
What are the chances of a retail product which will work in AGP machines? Probably not good considering the rotten attitude at ATI toward the Mac community. The choices for AGP machines currently are the Radeon 9000 and the 9800. Period. That's all.
How hard can it be for them to turn out more cards for the Mac based on the versions available for the PC?
Don't read so much into a "Smilies"! It was not a personal attack on you! You asked for an explanation, and I gave it to you - nothing personal. The urban myth I explained is rampant on these boards, and it is not unusual for interesting threads to be hijacked by urban myths.
Comments
Originally posted by cubist
Hey guys, all we Cube owners ask is that the cards be made low-profile. We can flash them if you give us an image, but we don't have room for the tall cards. That's all. Make 'em longer and not so tall, it won't cost you a penny extra.
Hmmm, lets see, low profile cards use less resources, and hence cost less. You will see low profile cards whenever practical. I think that you will find that the 256 bit memory buses are the problem. Making the bus twice as wide requires a lot more space. The cards require more space.
I think that is one major weak point for us Mac guys.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Hmmm. I heard ATi had a 'next gen' product ready to go against whatever Nvidia put out this quarter. But they didn't because it would have ridiculously outperformed the opposition.
Now, there's a hilarious reason _not_ to release a product. Do you think _THAT'S_ why Apple didn't release the G5 in 1999?
"Yeah, Steve... But you see, we would 'ridiculously outperform the opposition'. Can't do that." ;-)
Now, with ATI vs. nVidia it's a bit different because the difference between them is not so clear. Neither one is way ahead of the other like with Intel vs. AMD, so I don't see why ATI would purposely hold back unless they thought they'd have problems continuing to upgrade their products. Right now the Radeon 9800 XT is the top card in the market but it could change quickly.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
It's not a completely stupid reason. It's great to surge ahead but going too fast means they'll get ahead of themselves, and they'll be unable to release a timely update. Look at Intel. They went from 2.4 GHz in April 2002 to 3.06 GHz in November 2002. Since November, they've only gone from 3.06 GHz to 3.2 GHz. It's obvious they're holding back. Sure, they could release even faster chips, but there's no need. They just want to pace themselves.
Now, with ATI vs. nVidia it's a bit different because the difference between them is not so clear. Neither one is way ahead of the other like with Intel vs. AMD, so I don't see why ATI would purposely hold back unless they thought they'd have problems continuing to upgrade their products. Right now the Radeon 9800 XT is the top card in the market but it could change quickly.
The Athlon 64 fx 2,2 ghz is ahead than any P4 avalaible right now. That's why they made a P4 EE with L3 cache. It means that under 130 nm process Intel has reached his clock limit.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
It's not a completely stupid reason. It's great to surge ahead but going too fast means they'll get ahead of themselves, and they'll be unable to release a timely update. Look at Intel. They went from 2.4 GHz in April 2002 to 3.06 GHz in November 2002. Since November, they've only gone from 3.06 GHz to 3.2 GHz. It's obvious they're holding back. Sure, they could release even faster chips, but there's no need. They just want to pace themselves.
Now, with ATI vs. nVidia it's a bit different because the difference between them is not so clear. Neither one is way ahead of the other like with Intel vs. AMD, so I don't see why ATI would purposely hold back unless they thought they'd have problems continuing to upgrade their products. Right now the Radeon 9800 XT is the top card in the market but it could change quickly.
Originally posted by jwdawso
Excuuuuuuuse me! Maybe you'd like to tell me why you're shaking your head at my post? At least Powerdoc had the decency to, and he's right, the AMD64 is beating Intel because it's 64-bit and Intel's 64-bit chip (the Itanium) is way behind.
With the CPUs its a matter of ship it when you can. Intel seems to have made a decade-long strategic blunder and that will cost HP dearly, and give AMD a bit of life before Intel corrects and crushes them.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Excuuuuuuuse me! Maybe you'd like to tell me why you're shaking your head at my post? At least Powerdoc had the decency to, and he's right, the AMD64 is beating Intel because it's 64-bit and Intel's 64-bit chip (the Itanium) is way behind.
Your viewpoint is the continuing urban myth that companies hold on to new products/technologies and deliver them only in response or expected introduction of competitor products. People who hold this viewpoint do not understand the market economy. ATI & Intel & IBM & Nvidia do not hold back. They would love to relegate their competitors to has-beens or niche players by delivering products that can't be touched.
Think about it - if ATI held back, wouldn't Nvidia also have that strategy? Then why would there ever be a new model or an advance? Let's say ATI miscalculated about Nvidia's capability and Nvidia introduced a way better product than ATI's held back product? How well do you think ATI and Intel can ramp up their held-back product when Nvidia and AMD deliver? The new parts and manufacturing capability is not just sitting there waiting for an email to crank out a 100K in the next month.
How do you think the morale would be at ATI if the whiz-bang engineers put their heart & soul into a great product and it was held back? ATI is competitive, and they would love to beat the *&/*? out of Nvidia.
Anyway, I already was corrected by Powerdoc, so it's not like you have to be rude to me for not knowing all that you do. Also, in my own post I said that GPUs develop much quicker and that ATI and nVidia were really close so even if there WERE companies that held back anything, they wouldn't be the ones to do that.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Well sorry for being ignorant, I guess I should be shot now.
Anyway, I already was corrected by Powerdoc, so it's not like you have to be rude to me for not knowing all that you do. Also, in my own post I said that GPUs develop much quicker and that ATI and nVidia were really close so even if there WERE companies that held back anything, they wouldn't be the ones to do that.
Don't read so much into a "Smilies"! It was not a personal attack on you! You asked for an explanation, and I gave it to you - nothing personal. The urban myth I explained is rampant on these boards, and it is not unusual for interesting threads to be hijacked by urban myths.
What are the chances of a retail product which will work in AGP machines? Probably not good considering the rotten attitude at ATI toward the Mac community. The choices for AGP machines currently are the Radeon 9000 and the 9800. Period. That's all.
How hard can it be for them to turn out more cards for the Mac based on the versions available for the PC?
Originally posted by jwdawso
Don't read so much into a "Smilies"! It was not a personal attack on you! You asked for an explanation, and I gave it to you - nothing personal. The urban myth I explained is rampant on these boards, and it is not unusual for interesting threads to be hijacked by urban myths.
Okay, sorry for over reacting.