With regard to Blu-ray and Apple, wasn't Apple first to market with their DVD burning Superdrive?
I couldn't recall the manufacturer but google shows that it was a Pioneer, is this correct?
I also noticed that engadget has a blurb on the Pioneer BDR-101A Blu-ray burner (backward compatable with DVD burning but not CD burning). It appears as "BDR-101A" in the photos at akihabaranews, but even they text it as "BRD-101A", which appears to have propagated to other websites (blu-ray.com shows it as "BDR-101" along with several other "prototypes"). It appears that the first mention of this on the web dates to 08/23 (see http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=146842 which references the source at dvdrwinfo.net (in Korean!)), is this correct? I thought that they (Japanese) were already marketing Blu-ray in their country?
Searching pioneerelectronics.com (US) and pioneer.co.jp (Japan) shows no hits via google, there are also no PR's on these sites WRT this burner.
I also didn't see this drive being sold anywhere, I may have missed it.
I also searched AI for this keyword "BDR-101A" (and "Pioneer" in the two most recent threads WRT specific Blu-ray burners) with no hits, thinking you guys would know (or have discussed) this burner.
Seeing as (I presume) that Apple (and Pioneer) were first to the desktop market with the Superdrive, could this happen again, with the PM's next week? With the BDR-101A?
Maybe AI's sources got it wrong on the PB Blu-ray burners and meant PM's?
Could this in fact be "The year of HD" (at least for content creators) as CIJ suggested at MWSF05?
This would make the PM's best of class (in my opinion, with Apple's HW panache, OS X, and assuming 970MP dualies (4-way), PCI-e, DDR2, etcetera)).
I can dream can't I?
Thoughts? Comments?
Panasonic says that all of their BR recorders will also play and burn all formats of DVD and CD. They, along with others, will be out second quarter next year, hopefully a bit earlier.
Yes Apple made the Superdrive, a Pioneer, available on the Digital Audio model, which I bought. My machine, the 733, cost the same as the machine before without one. At the time the Pioneer drive cost $1,000 as a standalone unit. This was the first machine to come with a General Purpose DVD burner. The others were turnkey systems for quite a bit more (like ten times more).
Considering that Apple never made an Imac with better specifications than Powermacs, the Powermac will be certainly announced the 19.
Will it make sense to have A DDR2 PCI express Mac with a X600 video card when the powermac has an old generation mobo ?
I really hope that will see a dual MP powermac. I will buy one for sure. I use DxO optics pro, and the later release will support MP. This software is currently damn slow on my imac G5 1,8. A quad dual MP 2,3 ghz will rock.
Considering that Apple never made an Imac with better specifications than Powermacs, the Powermac will be certainly announced the 19.
Will it make sense to have A DDR2 PCI express Mac with a X600 video card when the powermac has an old generation mobo ?
I really hope that will see a dual MP powermac. I will buy one for sure. I use DxO optics pro, and the later release will support MP. This software is currently damn slow on my imac G5 1,8. A quad dual MP 2,3 ghz will rock.
Yes, I made that point to my wife last night. She's been wondering why I haven't bought a new machine yet, and I've been telling her that I'm waiting for Express. I felt that if very unexpectedly, an iMac - a home consumer machine - came with the Express bus, could the PM be far behind?
I hope I'm on track for a January order. Though I wouldn't order one right away. Better to give Apple some time to get a bunch out the door first.
. Though I wouldn't order one right away. Better to give Apple some time to get a bunch out the door first.
It's certainly a wise decision. My 1,6 powermac G5 has many bugs, and it freeze all the time at my office (it's the one of my secretary) . It do not come from the HD, nor the OS. I will check the memory, but it worked fine for the first 18 months.
I think that Apple will never accept to repair this computer, because it do not freeze all the time with every software. I am very disapointed. Buying a new brand is not always a good idear.
There aren't any Hi-def players available yet in mass production. That is supposed to start in the first quarter to early second quarter.
Ya, I'm probably jumping the gun. But with the forecoming HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war about to commence (Were the format discussions simply a delaying tactic by Blu-ray, to level the playing field timeline?). I'd expect the desktop data drives to preceed the set top players (due to a lack of HD content), since the Blu-ray burners already exist as stand alone units. If not now, then maybe MWSF06? But I do (vaguely) remember the MWSF01 introduction of the Superdrives. It seems in this day and age the timelines and price points are substantially shorter/lower than in the past?
Ya, I'm probably jumping the gun. But with the forecoming HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war about to commence (Were the format discussions simply a delaying tactic by Blu-ray, to level the playing field timeline?). I'd expect the desktop data drives to preceed the set top players (due to a lack of HD content), since the Blu-ray burners already exist as stand alone units. If not now, then maybe MWSF06? But I do (vaguely) remember the MWSF01 introduction of the Superdrives. It seems in this day and age the timelines and price points are substantially shorter/lower than in the past?
I believe that Panasonic had announced that they were going to begin manufacture of BR half size drives in January, and 12.5mm drives in March. I don't remember if any other manufacturer has given as definite a time frame.
Everything benefits to some extent with two cores or chips. OS X, unlike OS 9 and before, is much better at using two (and finally!) four chips. The OS is much snappier with two. It also allows the program more cpu time, thus speeding it up, if only slightly.
Few programs will gain much, if anything, from four cpu's even if they are written to take advantage of more than one.
But, as you point out, multiple app usage will be much faster. Remember though that most apps in the background are NOT doing anything. They are just sitting there waiting for your input.
So, if you are like me, you might have Photoshop, Illustrator, and Indesign open at once, but you are only actually using one at a time. The others are doing nothing. You can check Activity Monitor" to see what;'s happening.
Only programs that are working, such as a FCP render will be using appreciable cpu time. Others such as Safari use some as well because they are also working.
As to which way is better, dual cores or dual chips, each seems to have its advantages and disadvantages. IBM increased the L2 cache for the PM chips so maybe that will help.
While often I may have Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign open and idle, when I most need extra CPU speed is when I'm multitasking and I've got one or more apps running in the background (especially batch operations) and I'm using the frontmost application as well. I can see a 4 core system helping in this instance; however, at that point the HDs will likely become the bottleneck. Four core systems will make fast storage and RAID systems more important, I'm thinking.
There aren't any Hi-def players available yet in mass production. That is supposed to start in the first quarter to early second quarter.
Apple wouldn't include HD-DVD or Blu-Ray to facilitate distribution of HD movies. They would do it because they need higher capacity removable media. The fact that an HD movie could be (easily?) encoded by a 2x2x2.5 G5 PM for playback on some systems somewhere would be an added benefit. The drive manufacturers would rush their products to market if someone would buy them. No one will buy a stand alone player because there's nothing to play on them. As others have pointed out, there could be considerable value in being first to have any sort of high definition recorder on the market.
ATI and nVidia have been going back and forth for years now. They flip-flop for the performance crown about every 6 months. nVidia is on top at the moment, but ATI will bounce back and take the crown again. Up until February, I was solely a PC user and always partial to ATI.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Not in any of the benches I've seen.
The Nividia still hands teh Ati card it's a**
ATI is late to the party.
And cost more. At least on the PC side. But it does seem to do Shader 3 very well.
Either card would be good. But face facts. GL on the Mac needs a big boost whether ATI or Nvidia. Because both are 100% behind their PC equivalents on the driver front.
I thought Tiger was going to fix that. Hmmph.
When Doom 3 scores on a Dual 2.7 suck compared to an 'average' PC you have to ask what's going on?
I'm starting to believe that this will actually happen. The refurb store is loaded with machines of every kind. You can get a G5 iMac for under $800. The Powerbooks are marked way down, too. The PowerMacs are not marked down as much, but they are all there (except for 2.5's and 2.7's).
Early reports suggest the ATI x1800 XL (w/ recent driver update) bests the nVidia 7800. Sadly, I can't find the link I read right now.
In my PC experience, nVidia has been much more reliable driver-wise, while ATI has had the edge visually. Regardless of opinion, one things is certain. Their frantic arms race is a blessing for all of us in user land.
Quote:
Originally posted by steppenwolf
ATI and nVidia have been going back and forth for years now... nVidia is on top at the moment, but ATI will bounce back and take the crown again. Up until February, I was solely a PC user and always partial to ATI.
That's great. If I still owned a PC, I would be interested in that, but since I only own a Mac mini at home now, I'll be hoping the chip that card is based on makes it into a Powerbook someday.
Regarding the comment about drivers, I did hear that early on about ATI's drivers, but I've never had any stability or performance issues with them myself, and this is going back 4 or 5 years.
Quote:
Originally posted by imiloa
Early reports suggest the ATI x1800 XT (w/ recent driver update) bests the nVidia 7600. Sadly, I can't find the link I read right now.
In my PC experience, nVidia has been much more reliable driver-wise, while ATI has had the edge visually. Regardless of opinion, one things is certain. Their frantic arms race is a blessing for all of us in user land.
I just saw it recently; and it doesn't best the NVidia so much as level the playing field a bit. The driver update as far as I saw was an optimization specific to OpenGL games, and doesn't effect other games' performance. Also, while Doom3 performance was higher (assuming AA was on and at res higher than 1024x768, without AA the 7800 was still faster), other recent OpenGL games showed NVdia still had a small lead.
That's great. If I still owned a PC, I would be interested in that, but since I only own a Mac mini at home now, I'll be hoping the chip that card is based on makes it into a Powerbook someday.
Regarding the comment about drivers, I did hear that early on about ATI's drivers, but I've never had any stability or performance issues with them myself, and this is going back 4 or 5 years.
re: ATI drivers, I've been an ATI fan in general (visually) and seen the issues many times. My last ATI card, a 9800pro, had all kinds of random issue with Battlefield. Twice, when I upgraded game patches, I needed to upgrade ATI drivers as well, and once it took ATI two months to get a driver that was stable with the new game patch. To be fair, might not really be ATI's fault that the BF patch needed driver tweaks. But that the same issue did not (evidently) arise with nVidia drivers suggests the ATI driver architecture a wee less robust.
re: Mac versions of the cards, that raises a question I've been wondering about. With the move to Intel chipsets, will the Macintels be able to use stock PC video cards finally? Given that the current Mac cards are still more expensive, even tho they share AGP/PCI bus tech with PC counterparts, I've been assuming the extra cost is due to OS X driver dev alone (ie: R&D costs/unit), so maybe not?
I suspect you are correct, that driver cost (and it's a cost spread over a smaller market) is the defining difference. The two platform's cards really are quite similar, to the point were you can firmware flash some PC cards to work on Macs. Also note I believe the ATI 9600 or some such similar model had a hardware switch that would allow either Mac or Windows functionality.
I should have mentioned that I'm not really as big a gamer as I used to be, so not having issues is probably relative to the number of games I'd install, which isn't all that many.
But, that's an interesting question regarding Mac versions. I would think it's entirely probable and just about definite the need for Mac versions of graphics cards is at its end. Good news for all.
Quote:
Originally posted by imiloa
re: ATI drivers, I've been an ATI fan in general (visually) and seen the issues many times. My last ATI card, a 9800pro, had all kinds of random issue with Battlefield. Twice, when I upgraded game patches, I needed to upgrade ATI drivers as well, and once it took ATI two months to get a driver that was stable with the new game patch. To be fair, might not really be ATI's fault that the BF patch needed driver tweaks. But that the same issue did not (evidently) arise with nVidia drivers suggests the ATI driver architecture a wee less robust.
re: Mac versions of the cards, that raises a question I've been wondering about. With the move to Intel chipsets, will the Macintels be able to use stock PC video cards finally? Given that the current Mac cards are still more expensive, even tho they share AGP/PCI bus tech with PC counterparts, I've been assuming the extra cost is due to OS X driver dev alone (ie: R&D costs/unit), so maybe not?
Well you haven't seen everything. This is new. Anandtech reported on it on the 13th. The tests are from HEXUS which a pretty well known site and often gets preliminary drivers and software from companies shortly before they intro it officially.
Well, I saw plenty of sites. Nvidia was comfortably ahead. That's what I said. I've never heard of Hexus by the way.
The Ati is a good card. But it's late. And expensive compared to the Nvidia's retail price which has settled below RRP.
Sure, the ATI card is innovative. It is being tweaked for Doom 3 and GL performance in the leak you gave. Pulls it ahead in DOom for the first time but not in theother GL game. So they have to tweak on a GL game by game basis. Hmmm. But it will cost you more. You'll get the same or better GL performance from Nvidia judging from those benches. And cheaper too. IN fact, the Nvidia 7800 GT is the sweet spot. Most of the performance of the GTX for lots less. No doubt stuffing ATI's number 2 card in the process.
On the Mac, things aren't so cut and dried. Because GL performance sucks and we don't have years of GL Intel optimisation or decent clockspeeds or optimisation then both cards will probably perform the same...low 60fps... at all resolutions. Seems to be some weird performance cap on PowerMac Doom 3 on ATi/Nvidia cards.
On a Mac. Either card would do.
On the PC. Nvidia still seem ahead in GL in general to me. Direct X scores look nice. But...the Nvidia cards are cheaper. They've been out longer.
Yeah, like I said, ATI is not 'late.' In a year, when ATI is ahead, and nVidia hasn't released a competing card yet, will you say they're late too?
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Well, I saw plenty of sites. Nvidia was comfortably ahead. That's what I said. I've never heard of Hexus by the way.
The Ati is a good card. But it's late. And expensive compared to the Nvidia's retail price which has settled below RRP.
Sure, the ATI card is innovative. It is being tweaked for Doom 3 and GL performance in the leak you gave. Pulls it ahead in DOom for the first time but not in theother GL game. So they have to tweak on a GL game by game basis. Hmmm. But it will cost you more. You'll get the same or better GL performance from Nvidia judging from those benches. And cheaper too. IN fact, the Nvidia 7800 GT is the sweet spot. Most of the performance of the GTX for lots less. No doubt stuffing ATI's number 2 card in the process.
On the Mac, things aren't so cut and dried. Because GL performance sucks and we don't have years of GL Intel optimisation or decent clockspeeds or optimisation then both cards will probably perform the same...low 60fps... at all resolutions. Seems to be some weird performance cap on PowerMac Doom 3 on ATi/Nvidia cards.
On a Mac. Either card would do.
On the PC. Nvidia still seem ahead in GL in general to me. Direct X scores look nice. But...the Nvidia cards are cheaper. They've been out longer.
What else might we be seeing? What do people think are going to be the contenders for the video cards? I'll probably sprint for the 15' model immediately.
Comments
Originally posted by franksargent
With regard to Blu-ray and Apple, wasn't Apple first to market with their DVD burning Superdrive?
I couldn't recall the manufacturer but google shows that it was a Pioneer, is this correct?
I also noticed that engadget has a blurb on the Pioneer BDR-101A Blu-ray burner (backward compatable with DVD burning but not CD burning). It appears as "BDR-101A" in the photos at akihabaranews, but even they text it as "BRD-101A", which appears to have propagated to other websites (blu-ray.com shows it as "BDR-101" along with several other "prototypes"). It appears that the first mention of this on the web dates to 08/23 (see http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=146842 which references the source at dvdrwinfo.net (in Korean!)), is this correct? I thought that they (Japanese) were already marketing Blu-ray in their country?
Searching pioneerelectronics.com (US) and pioneer.co.jp (Japan) shows no hits via google, there are also no PR's on these sites WRT this burner.
I also didn't see this drive being sold anywhere, I may have missed it.
I also searched AI for this keyword "BDR-101A" (and "Pioneer" in the two most recent threads WRT specific Blu-ray burners) with no hits, thinking you guys would know (or have discussed) this burner.
Seeing as (I presume) that Apple (and Pioneer) were first to the desktop market with the Superdrive, could this happen again, with the PM's next week? With the BDR-101A?
Maybe AI's sources got it wrong on the PB Blu-ray burners and meant PM's?
Could this in fact be "The year of HD" (at least for content creators) as CIJ suggested at MWSF05?
This would make the PM's best of class (in my opinion, with Apple's HW panache, OS X, and assuming 970MP dualies (4-way), PCI-e, DDR2, etcetera)).
I can dream can't I?
Thoughts? Comments?
Panasonic says that all of their BR recorders will also play and burn all formats of DVD and CD. They, along with others, will be out second quarter next year, hopefully a bit earlier.
Yes Apple made the Superdrive, a Pioneer, available on the Digital Audio model, which I bought. My machine, the 733, cost the same as the machine before without one. At the time the Pioneer drive cost $1,000 as a standalone unit. This was the first machine to come with a General Purpose DVD burner. The others were turnkey systems for quite a bit more (like ten times more).
Will it make sense to have A DDR2 PCI express Mac with a X600 video card when the powermac has an old generation mobo ?
I really hope that will see a dual MP powermac. I will buy one for sure. I use DxO optics pro, and the later release will support MP. This software is currently damn slow on my imac G5 1,8. A quad dual MP 2,3 ghz will rock.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Considering that Apple never made an Imac with better specifications than Powermacs, the Powermac will be certainly announced the 19.
Will it make sense to have A DDR2 PCI express Mac with a X600 video card when the powermac has an old generation mobo ?
I really hope that will see a dual MP powermac. I will buy one for sure. I use DxO optics pro, and the later release will support MP. This software is currently damn slow on my imac G5 1,8. A quad dual MP 2,3 ghz will rock.
Yes, I made that point to my wife last night. She's been wondering why I haven't bought a new machine yet, and I've been telling her that I'm waiting for Express. I felt that if very unexpectedly, an iMac - a home consumer machine - came with the Express bus, could the PM be far behind?
I hope I'm on track for a January order. Though I wouldn't order one right away. Better to give Apple some time to get a bunch out the door first.
http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-5895841.html
Originally posted by melgross
. Though I wouldn't order one right away. Better to give Apple some time to get a bunch out the door first.
It's certainly a wise decision. My 1,6 powermac G5 has many bugs, and it freeze all the time at my office (it's the one of my secretary) . It do not come from the HD, nor the OS. I will check the memory, but it worked fine for the first 18 months.
I think that Apple will never accept to repair this computer, because it do not freeze all the time with every software. I am very disapointed. Buying a new brand is not always a good idear.
Originally posted by melgross
There aren't any Hi-def players available yet in mass production. That is supposed to start in the first quarter to early second quarter.
Ya, I'm probably jumping the gun. But with the forecoming HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war about to commence (Were the format discussions simply a delaying tactic by Blu-ray, to level the playing field timeline?). I'd expect the desktop data drives to preceed the set top players (due to a lack of HD content), since the Blu-ray burners already exist as stand alone units. If not now, then maybe MWSF06? But I do (vaguely) remember the MWSF01 introduction of the Superdrives. It seems in this day and age the timelines and price points are substantially shorter/lower than in the past?
Originally posted by franksargent
Ya, I'm probably jumping the gun. But with the forecoming HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war about to commence (Were the format discussions simply a delaying tactic by Blu-ray, to level the playing field timeline?). I'd expect the desktop data drives to preceed the set top players (due to a lack of HD content), since the Blu-ray burners already exist as stand alone units. If not now, then maybe MWSF06? But I do (vaguely) remember the MWSF01 introduction of the Superdrives. It seems in this day and age the timelines and price points are substantially shorter/lower than in the past?
I believe that Panasonic had announced that they were going to begin manufacture of BR half size drives in January, and 12.5mm drives in March. I don't remember if any other manufacturer has given as definite a time frame.
Originally posted by melgross
Everything benefits to some extent with two cores or chips. OS X, unlike OS 9 and before, is much better at using two (and finally!) four chips. The OS is much snappier with two. It also allows the program more cpu time, thus speeding it up, if only slightly.
Few programs will gain much, if anything, from four cpu's even if they are written to take advantage of more than one.
But, as you point out, multiple app usage will be much faster. Remember though that most apps in the background are NOT doing anything. They are just sitting there waiting for your input.
So, if you are like me, you might have Photoshop, Illustrator, and Indesign open at once, but you are only actually using one at a time. The others are doing nothing. You can check Activity Monitor" to see what;'s happening.
Only programs that are working, such as a FCP render will be using appreciable cpu time. Others such as Safari use some as well because they are also working.
As to which way is better, dual cores or dual chips, each seems to have its advantages and disadvantages. IBM increased the L2 cache for the PM chips so maybe that will help.
While often I may have Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign open and idle, when I most need extra CPU speed is when I'm multitasking and I've got one or more apps running in the background (especially batch operations) and I'm using the frontmost application as well. I can see a 4 core system helping in this instance; however, at that point the HDs will likely become the bottleneck. Four core systems will make fast storage and RAID systems more important, I'm thinking.
Originally posted by melgross
There aren't any Hi-def players available yet in mass production. That is supposed to start in the first quarter to early second quarter.
Apple wouldn't include HD-DVD or Blu-Ray to facilitate distribution of HD movies. They would do it because they need higher capacity removable media. The fact that an HD movie could be (easily?) encoded by a 2x2x2.5 G5 PM for playback on some systems somewhere would be an added benefit. The drive manufacturers would rush their products to market if someone would buy them. No one will buy a stand alone player because there's nothing to play on them. As others have pointed out, there could be considerable value in being first to have any sort of high definition recorder on the market.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Not in any of the benches I've seen.
The Nividia still hands teh Ati card it's a**
ATI is late to the party.
And cost more. At least on the PC side. But it does seem to do Shader 3 very well.
Either card would be good. But face facts. GL on the Mac needs a big boost whether ATI or Nvidia. Because both are 100% behind their PC equivalents on the driver front.
I thought Tiger was going to fix that. Hmmph.
When Doom 3 scores on a Dual 2.7 suck compared to an 'average' PC you have to ask what's going on?
Lemon Bon Bon
In my PC experience, nVidia has been much more reliable driver-wise, while ATI has had the edge visually. Regardless of opinion, one things is certain. Their frantic arms race is a blessing for all of us in user land.
Originally posted by steppenwolf
ATI and nVidia have been going back and forth for years now... nVidia is on top at the moment, but ATI will bounce back and take the crown again. Up until February, I was solely a PC user and always partial to ATI.
Regarding the comment about drivers, I did hear that early on about ATI's drivers, but I've never had any stability or performance issues with them myself, and this is going back 4 or 5 years.
Originally posted by imiloa
Early reports suggest the ATI x1800 XT (w/ recent driver update) bests the nVidia 7600. Sadly, I can't find the link I read right now.
In my PC experience, nVidia has been much more reliable driver-wise, while ATI has had the edge visually. Regardless of opinion, one things is certain. Their frantic arms race is a blessing for all of us in user land.
Originally posted by steppenwolf
That's great. If I still owned a PC, I would be interested in that, but since I only own a Mac mini at home now, I'll be hoping the chip that card is based on makes it into a Powerbook someday.
Regarding the comment about drivers, I did hear that early on about ATI's drivers, but I've never had any stability or performance issues with them myself, and this is going back 4 or 5 years.
re: ATI drivers, I've been an ATI fan in general (visually) and seen the issues many times. My last ATI card, a 9800pro, had all kinds of random issue with Battlefield. Twice, when I upgraded game patches, I needed to upgrade ATI drivers as well, and once it took ATI two months to get a driver that was stable with the new game patch. To be fair, might not really be ATI's fault that the BF patch needed driver tweaks. But that the same issue did not (evidently) arise with nVidia drivers suggests the ATI driver architecture a wee less robust.
re: Mac versions of the cards, that raises a question I've been wondering about. With the move to Intel chipsets, will the Macintels be able to use stock PC video cards finally? Given that the current Mac cards are still more expensive, even tho they share AGP/PCI bus tech with PC counterparts, I've been assuming the extra cost is due to OS X driver dev alone (ie: R&D costs/unit), so maybe not?
But, that's an interesting question regarding Mac versions. I would think it's entirely probable and just about definite the need for Mac versions of graphics cards is at its end. Good news for all.
Originally posted by imiloa
re: ATI drivers, I've been an ATI fan in general (visually) and seen the issues many times. My last ATI card, a 9800pro, had all kinds of random issue with Battlefield. Twice, when I upgraded game patches, I needed to upgrade ATI drivers as well, and once it took ATI two months to get a driver that was stable with the new game patch. To be fair, might not really be ATI's fault that the BF patch needed driver tweaks. But that the same issue did not (evidently) arise with nVidia drivers suggests the ATI driver architecture a wee less robust.
re: Mac versions of the cards, that raises a question I've been wondering about. With the move to Intel chipsets, will the Macintels be able to use stock PC video cards finally? Given that the current Mac cards are still more expensive, even tho they share AGP/PCI bus tech with PC counterparts, I've been assuming the extra cost is due to OS X driver dev alone (ie: R&D costs/unit), so maybe not?
Well you haven't seen everything. This is new. Anandtech reported on it on the 13th. The tests are from HEXUS which a pretty well known site and often gets preliminary drivers and software from companies shortly before they intro it officially.
Well, I saw plenty of sites. Nvidia was comfortably ahead. That's what I said. I've never heard of Hexus by the way.
The Ati is a good card. But it's late. And expensive compared to the Nvidia's retail price which has settled below RRP.
Sure, the ATI card is innovative. It is being tweaked for Doom 3 and GL performance in the leak you gave. Pulls it ahead in DOom for the first time but not in theother GL game. So they have to tweak on a GL game by game basis. Hmmm. But it will cost you more. You'll get the same or better GL performance from Nvidia judging from those benches. And cheaper too. IN fact, the Nvidia 7800 GT is the sweet spot. Most of the performance of the GTX for lots less. No doubt stuffing ATI's number 2 card in the process.
On the Mac, things aren't so cut and dried. Because GL performance sucks and we don't have years of GL Intel optimisation or decent clockspeeds or optimisation then both cards will probably perform the same...low 60fps... at all resolutions. Seems to be some weird performance cap on PowerMac Doom 3 on ATi/Nvidia cards.
On a Mac. Either card would do.
On the PC. Nvidia still seem ahead in GL in general to me. Direct X scores look nice. But...the Nvidia cards are cheaper. They've been out longer.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Well, I saw plenty of sites. Nvidia was comfortably ahead. That's what I said. I've never heard of Hexus by the way.
The Ati is a good card. But it's late. And expensive compared to the Nvidia's retail price which has settled below RRP.
Sure, the ATI card is innovative. It is being tweaked for Doom 3 and GL performance in the leak you gave. Pulls it ahead in DOom for the first time but not in theother GL game. So they have to tweak on a GL game by game basis. Hmmm. But it will cost you more. You'll get the same or better GL performance from Nvidia judging from those benches. And cheaper too. IN fact, the Nvidia 7800 GT is the sweet spot. Most of the performance of the GTX for lots less. No doubt stuffing ATI's number 2 card in the process.
On the Mac, things aren't so cut and dried. Because GL performance sucks and we don't have years of GL Intel optimisation or decent clockspeeds or optimisation then both cards will probably perform the same...low 60fps... at all resolutions. Seems to be some weird performance cap on PowerMac Doom 3 on ATi/Nvidia cards.
On a Mac. Either card would do.
On the PC. Nvidia still seem ahead in GL in general to me. Direct X scores look nice. But...the Nvidia cards are cheaper. They've been out longer.
Lemon Bon Bon
12.1" 1280 x 768 pixels
15.4" 1680 x 1050 pixels\t
17" 1920 x 1200 pixels [/B][/QUOTE]