ATI, and NVidia + New Fire GL PCI Express
ATI released a New FireGL® PCIeXpress Card Today that is a great improvement over their current FireGLX2.
Here is the supported feature list:[list=1]
[*] API and Operating systems support
[*] OpenGL® 1.5 + extensions
[*] OpenGL Shading Language[/list=1]
[*] DX9 HLSL
[*] Windows® XP/Windows® XP64/Windows 2000
[*] Linux® 32/Linux 64[/list=1]
Here is the supported feature list:[list=1]
[*] API and Operating systems support
[*] OpenGL® 1.5 + extensions
[*] OpenGL Shading Language[/list=1]
- * [note] * Xcode 1.2, and earlier came with OpenGL Shader templates.
[*] DX9 HLSL
[*] Windows® XP/Windows® XP64/Windows 2000
[*] Linux® 32/Linux 64[/list=1]
- How hard would it be to write the code these cards for OS X, and a G5 while you were doing Linux 32, and Linux 64 bit, firmware, and drivers?
- My 2¢ = Most Linux code is practically OS X native. Your most of the way there already.
- * [note} * Not Part of the provided ATI List.
- Here is why::
- Apple has been in need of this option for a long time, but now they need it more than ever. Without equal graphics they will quickly fall forever into the abyss. Their pro software performance, and superiority can no longer be used as an argument with this kind of power at the helm of PC's.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
[*] My 2¢ = Most Linux code is practically OS X native. Your most of the way there already.
How is Linux code "practically OS X native"? Application code with cross-platform libraries maybe. But both use different kernels running on different platforms with different boot codes (Firmware/ROM).
I don't see how not providing high-end cards will hurt them in an area they haven't ventured into. It would be one thing if they offered high-end cards last year, intending to gain ground in 3D Animation for instance, and haven't refreshed them.
The cards you want are niche, not providing them isn't going to kill them unless millions of PC people decided spending a grand on a video card would be a great idea.
I agree with you though. Apple _should_ offer high-end cards. They now have a very powerful solution in their CPUs. Up to the point of them being used in niche markets (64-bit UNIX Workstations). Why not add to that equally high-end (niche) GPU options.
Originally posted by me
b. FCP, Shake, DVD SP, and Motion look great, but if your in production using Apple's competitors products in these areas on a PC with this kind of graphics, and rendering performance all the leverage just went to the PC products, and Apple will not stand a chance.
I do see it hurting them in the end because of what I listed above, and what others are offering, and sometimes not offering because of this graphics card situation.
The #1 requested feature for Maya is Maya Unlimited on OS X. That request is more asked for than the #2, and #3 requested features put together. And that is from everybody using Maya. Not just Maya for Mac users. That will not happen without high performing graphics cards for G5's, and beyond. It will make Alias's industry leading 3D software look very bad.
It's no surprise that Pixar does not announce things louder when they are being made available for OS X for the same reason as well. Pixar's RenderMan Artist tools which are the rest of the plugins made to accompany renderman server are finally being made available for OS X sometime in the near future. It was pre-announced a few weeks ago. RenderMan artist tools include the plugin to use RenderMan with Maya.
A new Version of RenderMan server was also recently announced.
Pixar unveils features for RenderMan Pro Server 12
In any case. Apples Pro Software will no longer hold up in TV, production compared to what the PC has to offer now over Apple. Like I said. There is a strong need for this so called niche market you speak of. Apple, and the Macintosh are a niche market. They have opened doors, and taken strides in this niche market. They can either go for it, or get those doors slammed back in their face.
When you put 3 niche markets together (TV DCC, 3D, and the Mac itself ) you have just tripled your sales. If they stay where they are those doors will shut them out, and that a big loss in sales, and in face. IF Apple keeps loosing face by not offering computers that can do it all just like the competition Apple users are going to migrate elsewhere.
BTW, most Linux plugins for maya work fine without any recompile.
Originally posted by onlooker
BTW, most Linux plugins for maya work fine without any recompile.
So your comparing program code to hardware code? Like I said above, programs (not scripts, they are NOT programs) may be executable for OS X if their libs are similar. But hardware code goes deeper then that. I'm no developer, and I doubt you are, so I will leave it at that.
I hear you about the "niche thing" but Apple is also a niche, they have to plan on spending money where they are sure they will score big (successful). I at one time wanted to go into 3D Animation. Tinkering around with 3D Studio back in the day, but problems arouse during school and things fell through.
If I was in need of a 3D workstation today, I wouldn't be looking at Apple. Maya for OS X aside, I've never seen them big in that field. Alias is helping Apple along, but notice Apple hasn't given a great deal back to them (High-end 3D cards)? You should always use the right tool for the job, and Apple has never appealed to me in that regard. I'd just get a BOXX or similar.
Like I said, they _should_ offer these cards. But then there are many things Apple should do. The trick is they can only pick a select few things to go after, and we (consumers) all need to fall in line or notch another failure on Apple's record.
On top of that, Apple supplies the OpenGL implementation, so the OS X graphics card drivers only need to hook into that and take care of any vendor specific extensions. Since 90% of the cost of a pro card is to pay for a robust OpenGL implementation and support for same, it's redundant on the Mac.
I understand that OS X's OpenGL implementation is there, as far as support for pro apps. The only thing in the way is a check in the 3D software itself for what kind of card it's running on, and that's nothing a driver will fix (unless the driver lies about the kind of card it's driving...).
Apple has to provide full support and compatibility with ALL professional video cards from now on.
Apple has do something to get Maya Unlimited on OSX along with Houdini, 3D Studio, Solidworks and AutoCAD.
Not an easy thing, but if Apple did that...if only Apple did THAT.....
Originally posted by aemv
Apple has do something to get Maya Unlimited on OSX along with Houdini, 3D Studio, Solidworks and AutoCAD.
3D Studio!? Hahaha
Sure, they could do something. Purchase Discreet. Barring that I see no chance in hell. From what I've heard discussed about the 3DS codebase, think as strung together and old school as Photoshop, but never cross platform. It would take a "from the ground up" re-write and a few hail marys to see that Mac side.
Then FPS communities would suffer because all the character modelers are warezing it and have to go elsewhere. Hehe.
MAYBE ... Apple asked them not to mention this ??? ... at WWDC, Steve will announce new powermacs with PCIexpress ? ... THEN we will discover that these cards will, in fact, be supported ??
Sounds reasonable ... I have NO IDEA if it would happen this way, and don't really care... but it would seem possible.
So don't look at the name of the card; look at the features.
Originally posted by aemv
There is really not much to say except
Apple has to provide full support and compatibility with ALL professional video cards from now on.
Apple has do something to get Maya Unlimited on OSX along with Houdini, 3D Studio, Solidworks and AutoCAD.
Not an easy thing, but if Apple did that...if only Apple did THAT.....
Apple can not do any of those things, the products that you are speaking about are not put out by Apple. They can try to influence those companies to support Apple hardware and help out with programing and driver support, but the only way they could make those things happen is to buy the companies.
Originally posted by @homenow
Apple can not do any of those things, the products that you are speaking about are not put out by Apple. They can try to influence those companies to support Apple hardware and help out with programing and driver support, but the only way they could make those things happen is to buy the companies.
Well They were able to get Maya Complete on OSX, and AutoCAD could someday support OSX.
The problem is money...These companies are not willing to invest in an OSX version because there is not enough market, at least they seem to think that.
If these companies saw a real profit poetential they would do it. I agree it is not up to Apple to do this, but like you said, they could influence these companies to do it.
Originally posted by aemv
If these companies saw a real profit poetential they would do it. I agree it is not up to Apple to do this, but like you said, they could influence these companies to do it.
And there has been talk of Apple doing this, especially for corporations that would switch to the Mac. I remember reading news articles about Apple approaching corporations, especially those using some version of Unix and office apps (those having two machines, one for Unix and one for the offie apps), and seeing if these corporations needed any other apps that are currently not on the Mac. Apple would then try to see if they could get the developer to bring that app to the Mac.
I'm worried that they will just stick in the x800 pro with less bandwidth and only 12 pixel pipelines. Apple needs to avoid compromises of this kind.
Originally posted by aemv
There is really not much to say except
Apple has to provide full support and compatibility with ALL professional video cards from now on.
Apple has do something to get Maya Unlimited on OSX along with Houdini, 3D Studio, Solidworks and AutoCAD.
Not an easy thing, but if Apple did that...if only Apple did THAT.....
I'm all for some of what you said here, only a few things stand out as unreasonable.
You'll never see 3D studio Max on the Mac, and from what I've seen of it in comparison to Maya I don't like it anyway. XSI is a great looking Application, but that probably won't happen unless something drastic were to happen like ILM, and Weta digital requesting it, because they were planning on migrating to G5's on OS X, or something crazy like that.
And lastly
Originally posted by Amorph
I understand that OS X's OpenGL implementation is there, as far as support for pro apps. The only thing in the way is a check in the 3D software itself for what kind of card it's running on, and that's nothing a driver will fix (unless the driver lies about the kind of card it's driving...).
Amorph, I never did figure out exactly what that meant. Could you rephrase that?
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
If ATI were to announce that the card will work in macs, wouldn't that be giving away the info that new macs will have PCIexpress ???
MAYBE ... Apple asked them not to mention this ??? ... at WWDC, Steve will announce new powermacs with PCIexpress ? ... THEN we will discover that these cards will, in fact, be supported ??
Sounds reasonable ... I have NO IDEA if it would happen this way, and don't really care... but it would seem possible.
Unless Apple gave up completely on the PM update that was do in early spring, no PCI-Express support will be in the new PMs. I say this because if Apple had released a PM in spring, with that slot, there would have been nothing to put in there. Since that revision did not come out my hopes to see PCI-Express in a PM or any mac before late-fall or winter are very dashed.
This is not to say it will not happen, there is a manufacturer that has released information about a morphed AGP 8x / PCI-Express motherboard. Could Apple do the same, could they have developed this tpye of support for the missing G5 Rev 2, both yes answers. Would Apple do something like this, I doubt it highly.
Originally posted by onlooker
Amorph, I never did figure out exactly what that meant. Could you rephrase that?
Sure. This is second-hand information, mind you, but I've heard it from a number of people who do work in 3D.
Essentially, the major 3D applications check to see what kind of video card they have to work with, and they only enable the "pro" features if the driver tells them it's a "pro" card - a FireGL, a Wildcat, whatever. So even if Apple ships a pro-quality OpenGL implementation, and even if ATi's Mac driver exposes the full power of the RADEON card underneath (which is nearly identical to a FireGL), the 3D application will treat it as if it were a crippled, consumer-grade graphics subsystem with a sketchy OpenGL implementation because the driver will report back that the card is a "RADEON" rather than a "FireGL".
Or, to put it bluntly, the 3D software vendors support the graphics card vendors by explicitly checking for the expensive pro hardware so that you can't just flash a GeForce and save $1000. On the PC side this makes sense, because there is no standard OpenGL library, and the OpenGL implementations that ship with consumer cards are incomplete and optimized for speed over accuracy. Unless you've paid for the good stuff, the software will assume it's running on consumer-grade crap. Unfortunately, this moots the fact that on the Mac the driver exposes the full functionality of the card, and also the fact that Apple supplies an OpenGL implementation as robust and complete as the one you pay for when you buy a pro card. If the card says it's a "RADEON" or a "GeForce" then the 3D software won't even look for a robust OpenGL implementation.
Does that make sense?
Originally posted by Amorph
Sure. This is second-hand information, mind you, but I've heard it from a number of people who do work in 3D.
Essentially, the major 3D applications check to see what kind of video card they have to work with, and they only enable the "pro" features if the driver tells them it's a "pro" card - a FireGL, a Wildcat, whatever. So even if Apple ships a pro-quality OpenGL implementation, and even if ATi's Mac driver exposes the full power of the RADEON card underneath (which is nearly identical to a FireGL), the 3D application will treat it as if it were a crippled, consumer-grade graphics subsystem with a sketchy OpenGL implementation because the driver will report back that the card is a "RADEON" rather than a "FireGL".
Or, to put it bluntly, the 3D software vendors support the graphics card vendors by explicitly checking for the expensive pro hardware so that you can't just flash a GeForce and save $1000. On the PC side this makes sense, because there is no standard OpenGL library, and the OpenGL implementations that ship with consumer cards are incomplete and optimized for speed over accuracy. Unless you've paid for the good stuff, the software will assume it's running on consumer-grade crap. Unfortunately, this moots the fact that on the Mac the driver exposes the full functionality of the card, and also the fact that Apple supplies an OpenGL implementation as robust and complete as the one you pay for when you buy a pro card. If the card says it's a "RADEON" or a "GeForce" then the 3D software won't even look for a robust OpenGL implementation.
Does that make sense?
I may not have asked the question of you but I think I get it. So in the Mac world, is their any need for this type of super graphics card? Does their need to be two levels of graphics cards (pro and consumer/gamer)?
Originally posted by oldmacfan
I may not have asked the question of you but I think I get it. So in the Mac world, is their any need for this type of super graphics card? Does their need to be two levels of graphics cards (pro and consumer/gamer)?
I understand the explanation for cards like the FireGL. How about multi-thousand dollar cards like the old Wild Cats. Full length cards with enough fans and heatsinks you'd think they were complete systems-on-a-card?
Originally posted by IonYz
I understand the explanation for cards like the FireGL. How about multi-thousand dollar cards like the old Wild Cats. Full length cards with enough fans and heatsinks you'd think they were complete systems-on-a-card?
I am not as familiar with the older wildcat products, as some of the new stuff that is out.
Are people still making full length cards?
I have heard of very expensive cards that are highly optimized for a specific task.
Or the lack thereof, I guess...
Maybe it all boils down to hardware overlay planes...
Originally posted by Amorph
Essentially, the major 3D applications check to see what kind of video card they have to work with, and they only enable the "pro" features if the driver tells them it's a "pro" card
So this is an application problem. Apple can't fix it, although they can educate developers not to do such silly things.