What will be the new specs for the next PM line?

1356715

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 281
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    AFAIK - They are rated as GeForce, not Quadro's.



    GeForce = Gaming, and standard graphics support.



    Quadro = ProGraphics.



    If I new for a fact that the 6800 Ultra DDL had the all the Quadro GPU, Firmware, and drivers, and was getting QuadroFX 4000 #'s I would have bought the dual 2.5GHz PowerMac already.




    Please excuse my ignorance but can you explain the difference. The 6800 is the fastest card I believe, so if that is true what would a "Quadro" card do that is different?
  • Reply 42 of 281
    jerombajeromba Posts: 357member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Addison

    Please excuse my ignorance but can you explain the difference. The 6800 is the fastest card I believe, so if that is true what would a "Quadro" card do that is different?



    Maybe a wrong but from memory the difference on PC between GeForce/Quadro and Radeon/FireGL are only 2 things : Dual Digital Interface and Better Drivers (for 3D/CAD). From what I read somewhere the drivers for Mac OS X are closer to Quadro/FireGL that GeForce/Radeon.

    So basically we have PRO cards.
  • Reply 43 of 281
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    At least on some of the later cards a simple firmware flash turned normal cards into Pro cards. GeForce to Quadro it was, I think.
  • Reply 44 of 281
    Quote:

    If I was a moderator



    Stop dreaming.



    Go eat some chocolate.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 45 of 281
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,408member
    After hearing rant after rant after rant after rant after rant after rant after rant after rant after rant after rant from onlooker..........



    I gotta agree... apple does need a quadro GPU. Even though I still don't agree the demand would be that high and could possibly cost apple $$... a few things make this pathetic that they dont.



    1. Graphics card in the powermacs are weak. I did upgrade mine to 9600xt (bought a dual 2.0 rev b). This in turn has a direct impact on the other computers apple offers. The iMacs have to revert to Geforce 4mx!!! That card is approaching 3 years of age.



    It should be this:



    Powermacs have: 6800 ultra, 9800xt, 9600xt

    iMacs have: 9200, 5200, and 9600xt.

    Powerbooks.. 9800.



    2. Apple does have some of the best software and not a graphics card to really harness it. The 6800 ultra is awesome (I don't care what anyone says), but a quadro would be nice. We have Maya unlimited... isn't it time?



    You happy now onlooker :P



    You won.
  • Reply 46 of 281
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,408member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jeromba

    Maybe a wrong but from memory the difference on PC between GeForce/Quadro and Radeon/FireGL are only 2 things : Dual Digital Interface and Better Drivers (for 3D/CAD). From what I read somewhere the drivers for Mac OS X are closer to Quadro/FireGL that GeForce/Radeon.

    So basically we have PRO cards.




    They also have more rendering pipes.
  • Reply 47 of 281
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Don't be hate'n.



    Who ever said we have pro cards someone has been pulling your leg, and are probably joking. There are some important differences in screen rendering capabilities. if they are as fast as Quadro I would like to see a HUGE poly Scene comparison next to an Alienware with similar processor specs, and a Quadro FX 4000 just moving a 7+ million poly dragon model in a mountain environment around the screen in Maya like it was a poly plane.



    I would rather see the comparison done by toms hardware, and a lot more tests than just that, but if it's true then prove it. I have not seen Apple go there, or prove it.
  • Reply 48 of 281
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,408member
    I would like to see it too. I would like to see the difference between the current 6800 ultra on a mac... and a high end pc GPU card. Right now the macs get their asses beat by PC cards of the same caliber in Cinema 4d for OpenGL... so explain that one?



    If you don't believe me... go here http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbogl.php and sort by opengl benches.



    Shows how far back the mac hardware really is when it comes to hardcore multimedia.
  • Reply 49 of 281
    moazammoazam Posts: 136member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by emig647

    I would like to see it too. I would like to see the difference between the current 6800 ultra on a mac... and a high end pc GPU card. Right now the macs get their asses beat by PC cards of the same caliber in Cinema 4d for OpenGL... so explain that one?



    If you don't believe me... go here http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbogl.php and sort by opengl benches.



    Shows how far back the mac hardware really is when it comes to hardcore multimedia.




    I'm not sure I understand....the Quadro is about 12-15 rankings below the Radeon 9800 Pro? Isnt this a gamer card? Shouldnt the Quadro be faster if indeed these 'Pro/Workstation' cards are the way to go?



    Also, how in Lords name does a nVidia Ti4200 in a PC do OpenGL faster than an nVidia 6800 Ultra in a Dual G5????



    -M
  • Reply 50 of 281
    I Don't care, aslong as it comes with a 56k modem built in, you can count me in
  • Reply 51 of 281
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,408member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by moazam

    I'm not sure I understand....the Quadro is about 12-15 rankings below the Radeon 9800 Pro? Isnt this a gamer card? Shouldnt the Quadro be faster if indeed these 'Pro/Workstation' cards are the way to go?



    Wellllllllll a few things on that. First off I believe those 9800 pros are overclocked. Also that OpenGL score isn't 100% hardware... that is a combined of hardware and software. If you download cinebench03 from www.cinebench.com you will see how it works. But (I don't know how much this makes a difference) but the Quadro FX3000 isn't the newest card... the Quadro FX3400 is. Which adds more pipes. The top card (the X800 xt) is pci-express. Which is a faster connection speed.



    Quote:



    Also, how in Lords name does a nVidia Ti4200 in a PC do OpenGL faster than an nVidia 6800 Ultra in a Dual G5????




    Our drivers suck. Thats why these cards toast ours. If you put a 6800 ultra in a pc and a 6800ultra in a dual g5 mac... it will beat the mac in any program. For some reason its just not as optimized on the mac as pc for drives... perhaps cause they have the 3rd world country 5 year olds programming the mac drivers and 30 american engineers doing the pc drivers. Compare fps in quake 3 and UT2004... our 9800xt does worse than the 9800xt on pcs... *shrugs*.



    One thing you have to remember is they can be overclocked on pc's by anyone. My 5900xt in my pc is equivalent to a stock 9800pro because of how I OC'd it and added a GPU cooler to it. Damn programmers they don't know how to program... including me :P
  • Reply 52 of 281
    moazammoazam Posts: 136member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by emig647

    Wellllllllll a few things on that. First off I believe those 9800 pros are overclocked. Also that OpenGL score isn't 100% hardware... that is a combined of hardware and software. If you download cinebench03 from www.cinebench.com you will see how it works. But (I don't know how much this makes a difference) but the Quadro FX3000 isn't the newest card... the Quadro FX3400 is. Which adds more pipes. The top card (the X800 xt) is pci-express. Which is a faster connection speed.



    Our drivers suck. Thats why these cards toast ours. If you put a 6800 ultra in a pc and a 6800ultra in a dual g5 mac... it will beat the mac in any program. For some reason its just not as optimized on the mac as pc for drives... perhaps cause they have the 3rd world country 5 year olds programming the mac drivers and 30 american engineers doing the pc drivers. Compare fps in quake 3 and UT2004... our 9800xt does worse than the 9800xt on pcs... *shrugs*.



    One thing you have to remember is they can be overclocked on pc's by anyone. My 5900xt in my pc is equivalent to a stock 9800pro because of how I OC'd it and added a GPU cooler to it. Damn programmers they don't know how to program... including me :P




    So basically...it's not that Macs lack good Pro video cards...its that they just have really shitty video card capability in general? So all the people yelling "I dont care about Doom, I'm running X Y Z pro app" are also full of crap cuz other pro apps would run a ton better on a PC?



    I still think there must be something very seriously wrong with the benchmarking utils. If the Mac 3D/OpenGL/graphics are really that bad, well...gawd damn.



    -M
  • Reply 53 of 281
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,408member
    Ask people that work with those programs on a daily basis. I for one notice a huge difference between a 9800pro on a mac and a 5900xt on a pc (9800pro's are better normally).... the pc is way faster in cinema and maya.



    I'm not an expert... I just play around and notice it. Its not the rendering I notice, its the moving of real time in opengl view. Someone back me up with this.
  • Reply 54 of 281
    Yes. I don't have PC but this seems to be well established. Partly it is poor optimization of code during the conversion. Partly it is an (understandable) relutance to take advantage of Mac-only technology. Partly it is slowdowns in the rest of the system (mainly in the G4 days). And partly it is in the drivers. I don't know if Apple is trying to stick closer to spec or what... It seems to me that Apple should be the flag bearer of OpenGL, but if you want 3d and you need performance, it is just quite simply a mistake to go with Apple right now. Hopefully this will change. On the plus side, I have also heard that these programs (maya, c4d, lightwave) are less crash-prone under Mac OS than Windows, so that is certainly a good sign, although maybe apocryphal.



    It used to be that games were considered good benchmarks of overall system performance. Seems to me that should still be true, but now if you dare mention, you are summarily invited to get an XBox or the like.
  • Reply 55 of 281
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    Quote:

    perhaps cause they have the 3rd world country 5 year olds programming the mac drivers and 30 american engineers doing the pc drivers.



    I suspect it is vice versa, which is why the PC drivers are so fast. 30 American engineers is nothing against 500'000 indian math talents.
  • Reply 56 of 281
    Good (link) call my young Padawan.



    Hmmmm. Interesting info'.



    Note:



    G5 2.5 blows all away in rendering bar Xeon machines that are over clocked. Sometimes giving as much as 700 mhz-1.4 gig in speed.



    In that context? Your average AMD/Intel chip isn't going to make the dual G5 2.5 gig sweat.



    When it comes to physics simulation. G5 struts cpu and bandwidth to whup ass on all but the most overclocked (cheat) machines.



    On Open GL. Puzzling.



    The skewing of results with less powerful cards whupping more powerful cards could be a result of cpu/graphic card ratio.



    A Pentium 2.o with Ultra 6800 aint going to beat an AMD 64 3.8 gig rated cpu with ultra 6800.



    The results clearly show this.



    1. Cinebench is beta.

    2. Apple's Open GL still has some way to go. A 'solid' but not brilliant version.

    3. Expect this to change for the better with 'Tiger' and hopefully Open GL 2 adoption.

    4. Big Endian vs Little Endian? Issues?

    5. PC optimisation vs Mac optimisation.

    6. In time, expect this to change as Core Image/Video/QuartzExtreme enter the developer pipleine via X Code 2.

    7. Apple's cpus are still a 'little' behind Wintel's. 'Catch up'.

    8. Expect this to change when Antares murders the opposition.

    9. The rendering and physics benches are good. Antares should pull the 6800 Ultra scores closer to Wintel counterparts.

    10. Further optimisations may well come care of Cinebench, 'Tiger' and Open GL 2.

    11. Appleinsider already carried some info' on Open GL improvements.

    12. 'Panther' is still early days for Apple. It can surely be further optimised. It's far away from being Mac OS 7, 8 or 9. IT will GET there.



    Add all that up and you could really close the gap.



    But yes, it's really humiliating that an ATI x800 xt is on 4000 plus while Apple's 6800 ultra is puffing at 1,700!



    OUUUUUUUUUCH!



    Those are my ideas. Programmer? Care to jump in? You've been far too quiet of late. AI is not same without the voice of reason...



    lemon bon bon
  • Reply 57 of 281
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    Quote:

    4. Big Endian vs Little Endian? Issues?



    Should that turn out to be the reason why Macs have consistantly fallen behind the competition, then there is little hope left for the PPC platform.
  • Reply 58 of 281
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Those cinebench #s don't make much sense. If you say it's on Cinema4D that could be the problem right there. Maybe Cinema4D doesn't handle OpenGL on the Mac very well?. Other than it did note it was all theoretical #'s from beta softwares (on the Mac only). What was beta? THe OpenGL firmware, and drivers in the 6800? Maybe it was a beta version of cinebench? Who knows, but I think a lot of the scores were flubber due to the beta issue.
  • Reply 59 of 281
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    I don't know much about 3D programs but the scene that is used in cinebench for OpenGL looks really, really shitty, yet runs like crap too. I just can't imagine that things have to be that slow for such a low quality scene. I mean, every modern game looks better than that and runs at about 10x the speed.
  • Reply 60 of 281
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,408member
    Don't start attacking cinema 4d and cinebench just yet.



    First off: You asked what was beta about the tests.



    The beta part is Cinebench for g5's. Everything else is final. They have been working to optimize Cinema / cinebench for g5's for about 3 months. Those apps have added about 90-150 to cpu scores and about graphics card scores have kind of hovered. That is the only thing beta. YOu can run the 32 bit version still and get slower results.



    Also lets keep in mind Cinema 4d first came out on mac before PC. Therefore I would hope that code is more optimized.



    And WTF are you saying that cinema 4d has horrible graphics? You obviously have NOT seen what cinema 4d does. I can send you screenshots if you like. Not that this is saying much but its lightyears ahead of lightwave.



    If you don't believe me on the OpenGL scores, use a game as an instance. UT2004. Compare the 9800xt on mac to the 9800xt on pc. Its embarassing! This is CLEARLY a driver or hardware issue.



    Maybe RISC vs. CISC. I've always been taught that RISC is faster because it does more instructions to do the same result which meant fewer clock cycles. So I'm not sure on that one.



    Maybe its Drivers, this could clearly be the case since most code is ported from PC's... perhaps some optimizations have to be lost (can we get an expert in on here).



    Maybe its Big Endian vs. Little Endian... Why? Why would it matter if you have your data in memory opposite of what it would be on a x86 proc? Just reverses stack and heap.



    Maybe its Apple's OS. Big question mark on that one for me.



    Maybe its IBM's stubberness to put on-chip memory on g5's! If you notice, the only procs to beat the g5 have on-chip memory.



    There is WAY too many factors that could be playing in on this. Right now I'm voting on driver optimizations.
Sign In or Register to comment.