But that's the past which was the original problem with SLI motherboards. Apples current G5 has a single 16X PCI-E slot, and I think it also has an 8X slot so you could already do what it is your suggesting.
To have dual 8x slots is no better than to have one single 16x slot, and I'm not sure that your seeing that.
The future of high-speed, and high-end graphics is to have two Full speed 16X PCI-E slots if you want them. There is no better solution. SLI-2X cards in one single slot are a substitute, but they don't compare to the dual slots because you can use two SLI-2x cards into a true SLI configuration and simulate a Quad SLI configuration if your graphics needs are that demanding.
The single 16X slot is old cow.
The two real questions here, though, are:
What percentage of tower buyers would buy a machine that had those two 16 lane slots that wouldn't have bought one otherwise?
And, what would it cost Apple to do this?
Ok, three things.
What other features would we lose (other than some slots because of the two slots that high end cards take up) in order for this accommodation to be made?
I 100% agree. But that's too much to ask of a dual-processor motherboard in a computer line not targeted to gamers. In a gamer targeted line (like an XPS or an Alienware) you can get away with 2 x16 slots and nothing else, but you can't do that in a workstation, because people have need of 2-3 non-graphics slots, and they can't all be 1x.
I suppose a riser is possible, like what Dell and Alienware do for Quad SLI, but only in one x16 slot. That'd provide SLI reasonably, and is an option I somehow forgot.
Interestingly I think they just need to improve the technology so they are all 16X slots. But until then what about setting them manually in system preferences. What if you could jump into SP, and regulate the speed of your PCI-E slots? That could be an immediate solution. You could possibly even reduce your main graphics slot to 8, 4 even 2X if you needed speed elsewhere for some reason or another. Maybe a power hungry PCI-E card running to an Expansion Chassis that was needed for PCI, and PCI-X ports for musicians hardware that was not yet updated to PCI-E. - Bullseye. An often mentioned concern of many friends of mine.
I really think that it would be over-complicated. I can see timing issues. Many extra traces would be needed on the board. The chipset would have to be able to handle this.
Express 2 will be out, perhaps in a year. That will take care of many issues. It will be four times faster per lane. Long term, forget SLI and the rest. This is just an interim solution. I'm not really sure it's worth all of the chatter, and money.
Can I just combine melgross' last three replies and say Amen.
Bloody gamers. Most PowerMac users buy PowerMacs for other reasons than somewhere to stick the most L337 graphics boards daddy can buy so wasting slots to get 10fps more in UltraDeathRunAround IV is such a minority demand that I do hope Apple aren't listening.
Can I just combine melgross' last three replies and say Amen.
Bloody gamers. Most PowerMac users buy PowerMacs for other reasons than somewhere to stick the most L337 graphics boards daddy can buy so wasting slots to get 10fps more in UltraDeathRunAround IV is such a minority demand that I do hope Apple aren't listening.
I have a non computer question for you.
Why do you say "Apple aren't listening", rather than "Apple isn't listening"
We regard institutions as a singular entity, therefore "isn't". How does that work there?
Can I just combine melgross' last three replies and say Amen.
Bloody gamers. Most PowerMac users buy PowerMacs for other reasons than somewhere to stick the most L337 graphics boards daddy can buy so wasting slots to get 10fps more in UltraDeathRunAround IV is such a minority demand that I do hope Apple aren't listening.
The funny thing is I have yet to see a gamer in here talking about this yet, so what the hell are you all on about?
What percentage of tower buyers would buy a machine that had those two 16 lane slots that wouldn't have bought one otherwise?
And, what would it cost Apple to do this?
Ok, three things.
What other features would we lose (other than some slots because of the two slots that high end cards take up) in order for this accommodation to be made?
1) And, what would it cost Apple to do this?
? What would it cost? It seems like nothing really.
2) What percentage of tower buyers would buy a machine that had those two 16 lane slots that wouldn't have bought one otherwise?
?_3D, and probably some switchers, but the more important question is what would it change, or matter to those who didn't use it? Nothing at all.
3) What other features would we lose (other than some slots because of the two slots that high end cards take up) in order for this accommodation to be made?
?_Just because there are two slots that can run at 16X doesn't mean that you need to have a 16X card in there. If you not using the second slot it's the same as it would be if it were an 8X, 4X, 2X, or 1X slot. There is nothing for anyone to loose other than the user that doesn't have it available to them if they want it.
Apple is listening to discussions on AppleInsider, MacRumors and ThinkSecret. WRONG
Apple are listening to discussions on AppleInsider, MacRumors and ThinkSecret. RIGHT.
That's interesting. It's the opposite of the way we do it here. I've noticed it before. To us, it would refer back to Apple, not the sites it would be listening to.
? What would it cost? It seems like nothing really.
2) What percentage of tower buyers would buy a machine that had those two 16 lane slots that wouldn't have bought one otherwise?
?_3D, and probably some switchers, but the more important question is what would it change, or matter to those who didn't use it? Nothing at all.
3) What other features would we lose (other than some slots because of the two slots that high end cards take up) in order for this accommodation to be made?
?_Just because there are two slots that can run at 16X doesn't mean that you need to have a 16X card in there. If you not using the second slot it's the same as it would be if it were an 8X, 4X, 2X, or 1X slot. There is nothing for anyone to loose other than the user that doesn't have it available to them if they want it.
I'm not so sure those assumptions are correct.
For the last point. If you do use two cards, you lose the other two slots. At least that's the way other mobo's are set up.
You also lose the lanes for other functions. They are tied up in that slot, even if you never use them.
Sunilraman, why in hell can't you quote normally like the rest of us?
Heh Congratulations. You're the first one to bring that up, actually, and I've hit almost 4900 posts...!!!111!!!!1!1!
Long story short, the quoting typography and indentation offends my design sensibilities... I can't control the layout of the page (which is not too bad) and I can't control the style of other posts, but I like leaving *my post* in a nice neat little package which I like.
By the way, I'm saddened to see the gamers have taken over the thread again. W[ho]TF cares if you can run dual gamer cards in a Pro mac?
Well, some people (not naming names) have been dilligent about bringing up SLI (and by association Crossfire) in the Mac Pros. One person has claimed this is to run SLI'ed NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500s for workstation-class 3D modelling and animation. Actually the Quadro 4500X2 is out (http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_fx_4500_x2.html) and if you can SLI two of those you get 4-Core GPU power in your Mac Pro**. Whoa. I just wet my pants. The Quadro 4500X2 page talks more about having four dual-link DVI outs in the one card to drive four very high-res displays. **Remember Quad-core via 2 SLI'ed nVidia 7950GX2's is not fully functioning yet, AFAIK, and is not as mindblowing as 2 SLI'ed nVidia Quadro 4500X2s. Although, SLI Quadro4500X2 is unknown at this stage.
So, SLI two Quadro 4500X2's each with it's delicious x16 PCIExpress lane set, and I can't see the Mac Pro being anything less than an ABSOLUTE BEAST of workstation-class 3D work. Particularly with Universal 3D apps on a Quad Woodcrest.
For 3D Applications, okay?
Now, let's talk about games. Yes, there is the "WTF just play PS2 or XBOX or XBOX360. End of Story."
But that is not where the story ends, because with the X1600 in the MacBookPro and iMac CoreDuo, BootCamp Windows gaming gives you access to the latest and greatest PC games. Yes, there are UltraDeathFragFest titles, then there's HalfLife2, then theres souping up your car and running it fast and escaping from cops (NeedForSpeed:MostWanted) --- but there's similar if not ported titles for PS2 and XBOX360 anyway.
So my position is, let's not think about the titles of the games and their genres (since there's a wide range across PC, PS2 and XBOX/360 platforms) - the important thing to note is that for the Mac Pro, MacBookPro, iMac, gaming is going to be a legitimate, enjoyable and satisfying experience for those that would enjoy PC gaming. How many people will give it a try? 1% of those users, taking a break from income-producing work or from downloading pr9n?
I would not support people that say the Mac Pro should have SLI for gaming reasons. That sounds crazy, to me. But even with just one card, with the ATI X1600 or higher and nVidia 7600GT or higher class of video cards extremely likely to be in the Mac Pro (default or option), and with Conroe or Woodcrests, via Bootcamp Windows, the Mac Pro is *also* a PC gaming rig. I would wonder why, if some people think that that "dirties" the Mac or Mac Pro somewhat.
So, SLI two Quadro 4500X2's each with it's delicious x16 PCIExpress lane set, and I can't see the Mac Pro being anything less than an ABSOLUTE BEAST of workstation-class 3D work. Particularly with Universal 3D apps on a Quad Woodcrest.
Not without Apple vastly improving it's OpenGL performance and someone writing SLI capable drivers, neither of which seem forthcoming.
Not without Apple vastly improving it's OpenGL performance and someone writing SLI capable drivers, neither of which seem forthcoming.
Yeah, well, that's why I think SLI for Mac Pro is not going to happen despite some people (oh say, usrname starts with "on", ends in "looker" ...er oops...) still hoping for it
Comments
Originally posted by Joe_the_dragon
They have board that do that.
Who is "they"?
Originally posted by onlooker
But that's the past which was the original problem with SLI motherboards. Apples current G5 has a single 16X PCI-E slot, and I think it also has an 8X slot so you could already do what it is your suggesting.
To have dual 8x slots is no better than to have one single 16x slot, and I'm not sure that your seeing that.
The future of high-speed, and high-end graphics is to have two Full speed 16X PCI-E slots if you want them. There is no better solution. SLI-2X cards in one single slot are a substitute, but they don't compare to the dual slots because you can use two SLI-2x cards into a true SLI configuration and simulate a Quad SLI configuration if your graphics needs are that demanding.
The single 16X slot is old cow.
The two real questions here, though, are:
What percentage of tower buyers would buy a machine that had those two 16 lane slots that wouldn't have bought one otherwise?
And, what would it cost Apple to do this?
Ok, three things.
What other features would we lose (other than some slots because of the two slots that high end cards take up) in order for this accommodation to be made?
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
I 100% agree. But that's too much to ask of a dual-processor motherboard in a computer line not targeted to gamers. In a gamer targeted line (like an XPS or an Alienware) you can get away with 2 x16 slots and nothing else, but you can't do that in a workstation, because people have need of 2-3 non-graphics slots, and they can't all be 1x.
I suppose a riser is possible, like what Dell and Alienware do for Quad SLI, but only in one x16 slot. That'd provide SLI reasonably, and is an option I somehow forgot.
Basically, yes. I agree with that.
Originally posted by onlooker
Interestingly I think they just need to improve the technology so they are all 16X slots.
I really think that it would be over-complicated. I can see timing issues. Many extra traces would be needed on the board. The chipset would have to be able to handle this.
Express 2 will be out, perhaps in a year. That will take care of many issues. It will be four times faster per lane. Long term, forget SLI and the rest. This is just an interim solution. I'm not really sure it's worth all of the chatter, and money.
Bloody gamers. Most PowerMac users buy PowerMacs for other reasons than somewhere to stick the most L337 graphics boards daddy can buy so wasting slots to get 10fps more in UltraDeathRunAround IV is such a minority demand that I do hope Apple aren't listening.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Can I just combine melgross' last three replies and say Amen.
Bloody gamers. Most PowerMac users buy PowerMacs for other reasons than somewhere to stick the most L337 graphics boards daddy can buy so wasting slots to get 10fps more in UltraDeathRunAround IV is such a minority demand that I do hope Apple aren't listening.
I have a non computer question for you.
Why do you say "Apple aren't listening", rather than "Apple isn't listening"
We regard institutions as a singular entity, therefore "isn't". How does that work there?
Originally posted by melgross
I have a non computer question for you.
Why do you say "Apple aren't listening", rather than "Apple isn't listening"
We regard institutions as a singular entity, therefore "isn't". How does that work there?
Yes, but I'm referring to a a plural subject.
Apple is listening to discussions on AppleInsider, MacRumors and ThinkSecret. WRONG
Apple are listening to discussions on AppleInsider, MacRumors and ThinkSecret. RIGHT.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Can I just combine melgross' last three replies and say Amen.
Bloody gamers. Most PowerMac users buy PowerMacs for other reasons than somewhere to stick the most L337 graphics boards daddy can buy so wasting slots to get 10fps more in UltraDeathRunAround IV is such a minority demand that I do hope Apple aren't listening.
The funny thing is I have yet to see a gamer in here talking about this yet, so what the hell are you all on about?
Originally posted by onlooker
The funny thing is I have yet to see a gamer in here talking about this yet, so what the hell are you all on about?
Why would anyone not playing games need a dual 16x SLI setup?
Originally posted by melgross
The two real questions here, though, are:
What percentage of tower buyers would buy a machine that had those two 16 lane slots that wouldn't have bought one otherwise?
And, what would it cost Apple to do this?
Ok, three things.
What other features would we lose (other than some slots because of the two slots that high end cards take up) in order for this accommodation to be made?
1) And, what would it cost Apple to do this?
? What would it cost? It seems like nothing really.
2) What percentage of tower buyers would buy a machine that had those two 16 lane slots that wouldn't have bought one otherwise?
?_3D, and probably some switchers, but the more important question is what would it change, or matter to those who didn't use it? Nothing at all.
3) What other features would we lose (other than some slots because of the two slots that high end cards take up) in order for this accommodation to be made?
?_Just because there are two slots that can run at 16X doesn't mean that you need to have a 16X card in there. If you not using the second slot it's the same as it would be if it were an 8X, 4X, 2X, or 1X slot. There is nothing for anyone to loose other than the user that doesn't have it available to them if they want it.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Yes, but I'm referring to a a plural subject.
Apple is listening to discussions on AppleInsider, MacRumors and ThinkSecret. WRONG
Apple are listening to discussions on AppleInsider, MacRumors and ThinkSecret. RIGHT.
That's interesting. It's the opposite of the way we do it here. I've noticed it before. To us, it would refer back to Apple, not the sites it would be listening to.
Originally posted by onlooker
1) And, what would it cost Apple to do this?
? What would it cost? It seems like nothing really.
2) What percentage of tower buyers would buy a machine that had those two 16 lane slots that wouldn't have bought one otherwise?
?_3D, and probably some switchers, but the more important question is what would it change, or matter to those who didn't use it? Nothing at all.
3) What other features would we lose (other than some slots because of the two slots that high end cards take up) in order for this accommodation to be made?
?_Just because there are two slots that can run at 16X doesn't mean that you need to have a 16X card in there. If you not using the second slot it's the same as it would be if it were an 8X, 4X, 2X, or 1X slot. There is nothing for anyone to loose other than the user that doesn't have it available to them if they want it.
I'm not so sure those assumptions are correct.
For the last point. If you do use two cards, you lose the other two slots. At least that's the way other mobo's are set up.
You also lose the lanes for other functions. They are tied up in that slot, even if you never use them.
Sunilraman, why in hell can't you quote normally like the rest of us?
Heh
Long story short, the quoting typography and indentation offends my design sensibilities... I can't control the layout of the page (which is not too bad) and I can't control the style of other posts, but I like leaving *my post* in a nice neat little package which I like.
Unfortunately, I have to say good night all, it's almost 4:25 am here.
You wuss. You're pushing, what 2-3 hours of sleep every night? Seems that way. Cut it down to 1, sleepyhead..!!
By the way, I'm saddened to see the gamers have taken over the thread again. W[ho]TF cares if you can run dual gamer cards in a Pro mac?
Well, some people (not naming names) have been dilligent about bringing up SLI (and by association Crossfire) in the Mac Pros. One person has claimed this is to run SLI'ed NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500s for workstation-class 3D modelling and animation. Actually the Quadro 4500X2 is out (http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_fx_4500_x2.html) and if you can SLI two of those you get 4-Core GPU power in your Mac Pro**. Whoa. I just wet my pants. The Quadro 4500X2 page talks more about having four dual-link DVI outs in the one card to drive four very high-res displays. **Remember Quad-core via 2 SLI'ed nVidia 7950GX2's is not fully functioning yet, AFAIK, and is not as mindblowing as 2 SLI'ed nVidia Quadro 4500X2s. Although, SLI Quadro4500X2 is unknown at this stage.
So, SLI two Quadro 4500X2's each with it's delicious x16 PCIExpress lane set, and I can't see the Mac Pro being anything less than an ABSOLUTE BEAST of workstation-class 3D work. Particularly with Universal 3D apps on a Quad Woodcrest.
For 3D Applications, okay?
Now, let's talk about games. Yes, there is the "WTF just play PS2 or XBOX or XBOX360. End of Story."
But that is not where the story ends, because with the X1600 in the MacBookPro and iMac CoreDuo, BootCamp Windows gaming gives you access to the latest and greatest PC games. Yes, there are UltraDeathFragFest titles, then there's HalfLife2, then theres souping up your car and running it fast and escaping from cops (NeedForSpeed:MostWanted) --- but there's similar if not ported titles for PS2 and XBOX360 anyway.
So my position is, let's not think about the titles of the games and their genres (since there's a wide range across PC, PS2 and XBOX/360 platforms) - the important thing to note is that for the Mac Pro, MacBookPro, iMac, gaming is going to be a legitimate, enjoyable and satisfying experience for those that would enjoy PC gaming. How many people will give it a try? 1% of those users, taking a break from income-producing work or from downloading pr9n?
I would not support people that say the Mac Pro should have SLI for gaming reasons. That sounds crazy, to me. But even with just one card, with the ATI X1600 or higher and nVidia 7600GT or higher class of video cards extremely likely to be in the Mac Pro (default or option), and with Conroe or Woodcrests, via Bootcamp Windows, the Mac Pro is *also* a PC gaming rig. I would wonder why, if some people think that that "dirties" the Mac or Mac Pro somewhat.
Originally posted by sunilraman
So, SLI two Quadro 4500X2's each with it's delicious x16 PCIExpress lane set, and I can't see the Mac Pro being anything less than an ABSOLUTE BEAST of workstation-class 3D work. Particularly with Universal 3D apps on a Quad Woodcrest.
Not without Apple vastly improving it's OpenGL performance and someone writing SLI capable drivers, neither of which seem forthcoming.
Not without Apple vastly improving it's OpenGL performance and someone writing SLI capable drivers, neither of which seem forthcoming.
Yeah, well, that's why I think SLI for Mac Pro is not going to happen despite some people (oh say, usrname starts with "on", ends in "looker" ...er oops...) still hoping for it
It will have either two 8x (5000P) slots or one 16x (5000X) slot.
Or does anyone of you know about another chipset that can handle Woodcrest cpus?