[ltcommander.data]

http://www.appleinsi...or_mac_pro.html

Appleinsider reports that nVidia has told them that a GTX 285 Mac Edition is coming and will be produced by EVGA. I think this is great news, because while the 512MB HD4870 is a great GPU, with a MSRP of $150 for the PC version, it's a mid-range part. While at $350 for the PC version, the GTX 285 is definitely a high-end GPU. At the same time, with the Mac version of the 512MB HD4870 priced at $350 up from $150 on PC, I'd hate to see what price the GTX 285 will have. Although if nVidia prices it aggressively, say at $400, which still allows them a $50 premium over the PC version, the GTX 285 could seriously undercut the HD4870.

And having a consumer GPU with 1GB is very useful. Certain GPU accelerated applications like Mudbox already complain of insufficient memory with a 512MB GPU. This will only get more common with OpenCL applications and it shouldn't be necessary to go all the way to a Quadro to get more than 512MB of VRAM. I always wondered why Apple didn't choose 1GB for their HD4870, but if the intention was always to eventually have the 1GB GTX 285, it makes sense now. I guess they were just waiting on the drivers since the GT200 GPU is quite distinct from the previous 8xxx and 9xxx series. For one thing the GT200 GPU can now do 64-bit double precision floats, useful for OpenCL, just as ATI HD3xxx and HD4xxx GPUs can do.

My next bet is that ATI might hit back with a Mac & PC version of the new HD 4770. There is definitely room for a ~$200 GPU to replace the HD 3870 and this is probably the most popular segment anyways. The 512MB HD4770 is cheap to make, because of it's 40nm process, has great performance, still has decent performance separation with the higher-end 512MB HD4870, yet can use the same drivers so there is very little additional development effort. Although the reference design is dual-slot, single-slot should definitely be possible. Even if they have to underclock slightly, a ~$200 HD4770 would still be a much better buy than the $150 that Apple charges to buy a GT 120 separately.

[iEvan]

Crossing my fingers for this one just like I did back in 2006 when XFX was supposed to release a GeForce 6600 GT AGP for G4 Macs. My Mac Pro will believe it when it sees it.

[bobbob]

iEvan, on April 30th 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

in 2006 when XFX was supposed to release a GeForce 6600 GT

Oh... yeah... whatever happened to that?

[Frost]

About f'ing time. Without a serious GPU option my next computer will NOT be a Mac. My G5 will be able to handle regular use and pre-Intel Only gaming for the forseeable future without issue, so gaming will be the biggest concern on my next purchase.

Granted the 285 will probably be mid-range or lower by the time I actually make another purchase, but it's good to see Apple hasn't completely gone off the deep end as I thought they had when their "high end" was a bargain bin card.

If Apple wants to guarantee they'll get my next purchase, they're going to have to add a BD drive, though. The new format has been the standard for a year now, has been the de facto standard for two years, and despite the naysayers is still being adopted faster than DVD was. It's time to stop pretending it doesn't exist.

[Dark_Archon]

The Quadro FX 4800 is a bigger deal. I'm surprised Apple didn't have a real workstation card lined up when they released the new Mac Pro.

[Sneaky Snake]

This news is official, unlike the 6600 GT. I've seen it on PC hardware sites as well as mac sites

my guess is $500 for the price

[Mr. Selvetarm]

What's to prevent someone from simply popping in a normal version of one of these cards? It's the same drivers right?

[ltcommander.data]

Mr. Selvetarm, on April 30th 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

What's to prevent someone from simply popping in a normal version of one of these cards? It's the same drivers right?

Normal as in PC version? I think the Mac versions are specifically designed to work with EFI instead of BIOS.

[Douglas]

ltcommander.data, on April 30th 2009, 08:10 AM, said:

http://www.appleinsi...or_mac_pro.html

Appleinsider reports that nVidia has told them that a GTX 285 Mac Edition is coming and will be produced by EVGA. I think this is great news, because while the 512MB HD4870 is a great GPU, with a MSRP of $150 for the PC version, it's a mid-range part. While at $350 for the PC version, the GTX 285 is definitely a high-end GPU. At the same time, with the Mac version of the 512MB HD4870 priced at $350 up from $150 on PC, I'd hate to see what price the GTX 285 will have. Although if nVidia prices it aggressively, say at $400, which still allows them a $50 premium over the PC version, the GTX 285 could seriously undercut the HD4870.

And having a consumer GPU with 1GB is very useful. Certain GPU accelerated applications like Mudbox already complain of insufficient memory with a 512MB GPU. This will only get more common with OpenCL applications and it shouldn't be necessary to go all the way to a Quadro to get more than 512MB of VRAM. I always wondered why Apple didn't choose 1GB for their HD4870, but if the intention was always to eventually have the 1GB GTX 285, it makes sense now. I guess they were just waiting on the drivers since the GT200 GPU is quite distinct from the previous 8xxx and 9xxx series. For one thing the GT200 GPU can now do 64-bit double precision floats, useful for OpenCL, just as ATI HD3xxx and HD4xxx GPUs can do.

My next bet is that ATI might hit back with a Mac & PC version of the new HD 4770. There is definitely room for a ~$200 GPU to replace the HD 3870 and this is probably the most popular segment anyways. The 512MB HD4770 is cheap to make, because of it's 40nm process, has great performance, still has decent performance separation with the higher-end 512MB HD4870, yet can use the same drivers so there is very little additional development effort. Although the reference design is dual-slot, single-slot should definitely be possible. Even if they have to underclock slightly, a ~$200 HD4770 would still be a much better buy than the $150 that Apple charges to buy a GT 120 separately.

Does anyone know what the chances are this card will work in the 1st generation Mac Pro? I don't buy Radeon cards anymore, but I would consider upgrading my current Nvidia 8800gt if I thought this was a MUCH faster card and my machine supported it.

Douglas

[Sneaky Snake]

Douglas, on April 30th 2009, 09:44 PM, said:

Does anyone know what the chances are this card will work in the 1st generation Mac Pro? I don't buy Radeon cards anymore, but I would consider upgrading my current Nvidia 8800gt if I thought this was a MUCH faster card and my machine supported it.

Douglas

The 285 would blow the 8800 GT out of the water, assuming that your playing Crysis or one of the other two or three games that would actually need the benefit. But whats wrong with Radeon cards? Is their performance per dollar number to high . If I still used the Mac Pro for gaming I would have already picked up a 4850 or 4870 long ago and flashed it for OS X, its quite doable.

[ltcommander.data]

Douglas, on April 30th 2009, 09:44 PM, said:

Does anyone know what the chances are this card will work in the 1st generation Mac Pro? I don't buy Radeon cards anymore, but I would consider upgrading my current Nvidia 8800gt if I thought this was a MUCH faster card and my machine supported it.

Douglas

Well seeing that nVidia had to release a specific version of the 8800GT for first-gen Mac Pros and they specifically mention the 2008 and 2009 Mac Pros in association with the GTX 285, I'm not optimistic that it'll work with first-gen Mac Pros out of the box if at all.

[iEvan]

Douglas, on April 30th 2009, 09:44 PM, said:

Does anyone know what the chances are this card will work in the 1st generation Mac Pro?

Just as a follow-up to the knowledgeable ltcommander.data, the dividing line seems to be the PCI Express slots on the Mac Pro. The first generation has PCI Express 1 slots, and the second (Early 2008) and third (Early 2009) models come with PCI Express 2.0 slots.

The frustrating part is that PCI-E 2.0 video cards are backwards compatible with PCI-E 1.1 slots, however that isn't the case with the original Apple 8800 GT video card that was released. The firmware wasn't compatible and Apple finally released a separate card that would finally work as intended (despite our PC brethren swapping cards willy-nilly). From all the pre-release rumours, it seems this still is the case with the GTX 285 leaving first gen Mac Pro owners feeling scorned.

[Douglas]

Sneaky Snake, on April 30th 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

But whats wrong with Radeon cards?

A few things are wrong with their cards (and please keep in mind I bought the Radeon X1900XT upgrade card for My Mac Pro so I have first hand experience in this matter);

1) Neither Apple or AMD will support the OEM cards with software (i.e. ATI Displays) they each point the finger at the other, in other words you're on your own.

2) The Radeons are prone to overheat and fail (how soon we all forget that bit of fun)

3) Under Bootcamp the Nvidia cards enjoy better support in the games.

4) After "upgrading" my driver for the Radeon under Bootcamp Direct X stopped working and NOTHING I did EVER brought it back (well, buying an Nvidia card fixed everything!!)


Anyways, I'm through forever with Radeons, too much trouble with their stuff..goodbye to bad rubbish as far as I'm concerned, but to each his own!

Douglas

ltcommander.data, on April 30th 2009, 08:32 PM, said:

Well seeing that nVidia had to release a specific version of the 8800GT for first-gen Mac Pros and they specifically mention the 2008 and 2009 Mac Pros in association with the GTX 285, I'm not optimistic that it'll work with first-gen Mac Pros out of the box if at all.

I thought it was APPLE that had to release the update? I didn't buy my card from Nvidia..wasn't that an APPLE thing and they finally folded to all the pressure? Isn't the new card going to be straight from Nvidia? Maybe this will be different??

Douglas

[Eric5h5]

Douglas, on May 1st 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

2) The Radeons are prone to overheat and fail (how soon we all forget that bit of fun)

If you think Nvidia have any better track record in that area, you seem to be forgetting recent class action lawsuits regarding Apple and Nvidia cards.

--Eric

[Sneaky Snake]

Douglas, on May 1st 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

A few things are wrong with their cards (and please keep in mind I bought the Radeon X1900XT upgrade card for My Mac Pro so I have first hand experience in this matter);

1) Neither Apple or AMD will support the OEM cards with software (i.e. ATI Displays) they each point the finger at the other, in other words you're on your own.

2) The Radeons are prone to overheat and fail (how soon we all forget that bit of fun)

3) Under Bootcamp the Nvidia cards enjoy better support in the games.

4) After "upgrading" my driver for the Radeon under Bootcamp Direct X stopped working and NOTHING I did EVER brought it back (well, buying an Nvidia card fixed everything!!)
Anyways, I'm through forever with Radeons, too much trouble with their stuff..goodbye to bad rubbish as far as I'm concerned, but to each his own!

The X1900 is 3 generations old so 1st hand experience with Radeons is somewhat on the eye of the beholder. Having owned a 4670 and 4870, overclocking them both. I can honestly say that there is no overheating problems, but even if there was that is the suppliers falt for putting a crappy heatsink/fan on it. Nothing to do with the card. Do you really need ATI displays in OS X? From your sig it seems that Fallout 1, Quake shouldn't need to much of an overclock to run at acceptable framerates .

A Radeon card will play any game that an Nvidia one will play. Don't let nvidia's PhysX and CUDA fool you. They aren't way ahead of AMD in the techonologies department. Havok is already being used by everyone, (PC's and consoles) for physics. Nvidia is trying desperately with huge money grants to force developers to use their own physics program. OpenCL is an open source version of CUDA, which means that you don't need to buy an 8 series or higher GPU to use something that nvidia plagiarize from OpenCL.

And lastly. There is bad driver updates everywhere on both companies hardware. I've had them with both ATI and Nvidia, but that was before I learned how to properly update my drivers. You wipe the old ones with one of a multitude of driver cleaner programs (I use Driver Cleaner Pro) then you install. Since then I've had zero problems upgrading my drivers.

Also, many MBP pro users had their laptops GPU stop working, which was the 8600M GT. Nvidia inconvienced thousands with this line of bad GPU's. But that wasn't the end of it. The most recent MBP with the 9600M GT suffered overheating problems.

Nvidia is an amazing marketing company, and are trying to make everyone believe that they are they only option in GPU's. But you have to remember that they offer nothing that ATI did not do 1st or already have, except for their Stereo 3D Tech, which is an extremely overpriced luxury in the PC world that requires at least $500 of graphics power to play anything, and only works with a handful of games.


-Snake

[bobbob]

iEvan, on May 1st 2009, 06:53 AM, said:

Just as a follow-up to the knowledgeable ltcommander.data, the dividing line seems to be the PCI Express slots on the Mac Pro. The first generation has PCI Express 1 slots, and the second (Early 2008) and third (Early 2009) models come with PCI Express 2.0 slots.

That shouldn't be the problem since they're designed to be backwards compatible, and work pretty much as expected on PCs regardless of PCIe v1 vs v2. If they don't work then they're broken, which is the same as saying it's Apple's fault. The problem Apple had before was the difference between EFI32 and EFI64, but as evidenced by people swapping PC cards willy-nilly on a Mac Pro under Windows, it's not so much that the card's BIOS/EFI code is a problem as it's Apple not writing some tiny amount of OSX code to make it work. Even at boot time, they could support BIOS cards easily since EFI has BIOS emulation modules for a reason. Pretty much the only other EFI PCs, Itanium servers, ship with BIOS cards by default since EFI is such an albatross, proving the point. EFI64 vs. 32 is only a little different, and is much less a problem than if Apple had shipped any 32-bit Pros.

Sneaky Snake, on May 1st 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

but even if there was that is the suppliers falt for putting a crappy heatsink/fan on it. Nothing to do with the card

The card includes the cooling. Inadequate stock cooling is certainly a problem with the card.

Quote

Do you really need ATI displays in OS X? From your sig it seems that Fallout 1, Quake shouldn't need to much of an overclock to run at acceptable framerates

It would be nice to turn on FSAA, etc. like any worthy person. Even their Linux drivers can do that, so is it just the Mac Ghetto Experience to convince yourself that no one should want it? Do you have no shame?

Quote

OpenCL is an open source version of CUDA, which means that you don't need to buy an 8 series or higher GPU to use something that nvidia plagiarize from OpenCL.

OpenCL is, what, months old? And CUDA is a few years old? And OpenCL still require at least 8-series features to use the GPU like CUDA because it does much the same as CUDA?

[Sneaky Snake]

bobbob, on May 1st 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

The card includes the cooling. Inadequate stock cooling is certainly a problem with the card.

It would be nice to turn on FSAA, etc. like any worthy person. Even their Linux drivers can do that, so is it just the Mac Ghetto Experience to convince yourself that no one should want it? Do you have no shame?

OpenCL is, what, months old? And CUDA is a few years old? And OpenCL still require at least 8-series features to use the GPU like CUDA because it does much the same as CUDA?

ok, hypothetical situation. Saphire makes a 4870 with a quite fan but its doesn't coold the card as well and during long graphics session the card overheats. According to your reasoning this means that the problem is with the 4870 and not saphire fofr putting a less then par fan on .

And about the ATI control panel. I do own a PC and overclock the CPU and GPU, as well as force AA on some games. its a nice feature but you don't really use it that much when 95% of the time your card either can't max the graphics, so forcing AA will just make your framerates worse, or the game has it already built in. I wouldn't dismiss a company as 'rubbish' because you can't have that one feature. and come to think of it i haven't seen the nvidia control panel in OS X.

and about OpenCL, would you rather have nvidia forcing every programmer to program for everyone else and then special drivers for nvidia. CUDA was available on all of like 3 apps of few years ago, and even today there isn't that much that use it because it is so restrictive. OpenCL will be mcuh better as everyone can use the same thing.



-Snake

[bobbob]

Sneaky Snake, on May 1st 2009, 04:27 PM, said:

ok, hypothetical situation. Saphire makes a 4870 with a quite fan but its doesn't coold the card as well and during long graphics session the card overheats. According to your reasoning this means that the problem is with the 4870 and not saphire fofr putting a less then par fan on .

The problem is with the card; specifically its lack of cooling. It's not the chip, but that's not what you said.

Quote

you don't really use it that much when 95% of the time your card either can't max the graphics, so forcing AA will just make your framerates worse, or the game has it already built in

You were specifically talking about older games, where cranking the AA is not supported by the game nor a problem for the card.

Quote

I wouldn't dismiss a company as 'rubbish' because you can't have that one feature. and come to think of it i haven't seen the nvidia control panel in OS X.

NVidia aren't, and won't be, shipping Mac cards or drivers. Apple does, ATI does, XFX made stupid promises to, and EVGA might even have some follow through, but nVidia is off the hook. And we all agree that Apple's card support is rubbish. EVGA probably won't be doing and can't really be expected to do any favours to the drivers, either.

Quote

and about OpenCL, would you rather have nvidia forcing every programmer to program for everyone else and then special drivers for nvidia. CUDA was available on all of like 3 apps of few years ago, and even today there isn't that much that use it because it is so restrictive. OpenCL will be mcuh better as everyone can use the same thing

Yes, but it's still not like CUDA is plagiarizing OpenCL, or that its 8-series requirement is out of spite. The first accusation is obviously naff, and it requires those features for a reason. You're complaining about all the wrong things.

[Sneaky Snake]

Quote

The problem is with the card; specifically its lack of cooling. It's not the chip, but that's not what you said.

garr , you know what I meant

Quote

You were specifically talking about older games, where cranking the AA is not supported by the game nor a problem for the card.

its looks pretty much the same in the older games with or without AA, I've tried it

Quote

NVidia aren't, and won't be, shipping Mac cards or drivers. Apple does, ATI does, XFX made stupid promises to, and EVGA might even have some follow through, but nVidia is off the hook. And we all agree that Apple's card support is rubbish. EVGA probably won't be doing and can't really be expected to do any favours to the drivers, either.

You think Nvidia should be a loud to do a crappy job on porting their card to OSX, because other companies did that. Imagine if car companies worked that way. It would be a knife fight between North American cars that died at 100,000 km and Japanese cars who saw the crappy american ones and released the same thing. I assume you are not in marketing for any company.

Quote

Yes, but it's still not like CUDA is plagiarizing OpenCL, or that its 8-series requirement is out of spite. The first accusation is obviously naff, and it requires those features for a reason. You're complaining about all the wrong things.

I'm complaining because Nvidia is once again forcing companies to use nvidia's own language in order to have GPU acceleration. Anyone with a Shader Model 3.0 (I belive that's the requirement, correct?) card can use OpenCL, therfore it is way better to support that.

[ltcommander.data]

Sneaky Snake, on May 1st 2009, 11:20 PM, said:

I'm complaining because Nvidia is once again forcing companies to use nvidia's own language in order to have GPU acceleration. Anyone with a Shader Model 3.0 (I belive that's the requirement, correct?) card can use OpenCL, therfore it is way better to support that.

I'm not sure what exactly is the requirements for OpenCL and while I was originally hoping the X1600 in my old MacBook Pro would see some OpenCL support, I think it's increasingly unlikely. Technically, pre-DX10 GPUs are capable of GPGPU operation. After all, the first consumer GPGPU program was really Folding@home on the X1900, X1800, and X1600. However, I'm not hopeful we'll see OpenCL support for SM3.0 generation parts. The Folding@home scientists found nVidia's 7xxx series to be too slow for GPGPU operation and I don't think nVidia would bother making an interface for their older parts. I've actually contacted ATI's Steam Computing team about X1xxx generation OpenCL support when the working group was first convened and they said they are focusing on near-gen parts first before trying to move back that far, but since then the X1xxx series and other DX9 GPUs have been dropped to legacy driver support on PC, with drivers every 3 months, so it's unlikely they are developing new functionality for those older parts anymore. So even if SM3.0 GPUs may be technically OpenCL compliant, albeit slow, I don't think the interest is there to make a driver for them. And without low-level support and Windows driver development from nVidia and ATI, it's unlikely Apple could go it alone. The other player is of course Intel and I'd be pleasantly surprised if they suddenly come up with OpenCL support for the GMA X3100.