Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,252
8
Washington D.C
I agree with everything said up to this point.

I know a guy who I'm trying to convince to buy a MP and it's really freakin hard when Apple refuses to lower prices like this.

I told him to wait till the 8 cores to buy so he could by a quad 2.66 at a discount.

I had him waiting 6 months to buy, and for what?

There prices are stilll cheap...I looked on Dells site...a 2 Dual Core 2.66Ghz Chips( Same number of cores as the 2.66Gh Mac Pro) for 3078.

Find me a PC with the same specs as the Mac Pro for cheaper! Not one people built themselves, those types of computer are always cheaper.
 

suneohair

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2006
2,136
0
I agree with everything said up to this point.

I know a guy who I'm trying to convince to buy a MP and it's really freakin hard when Apple refuses to lower prices like this.

I told him to wait till the 8 cores to buy so he could by a quad 2.66 at a discount.

I had him waiting 6 months to buy, and for what?

I will have to dig for it, but I said a long time ago that Quad core chips would not drop the price of the duals.

Quad is not meant to replace dual by any means. It will be another 2 years before quad is a common place. Quad chips are a premium part. It is your fault that you friend has waited this long, instead of assuming Apple would drop the prices you should have analyzed the market.
 

ohalexis

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 16, 2006
21
0
Wow, this topic is hot! hehe, I am surprised that so many people responded.
:)

Okay, I admit that I was a bit overreacted this morning when I saw the news, I was just too disappointed not to see a price drop on those 2X3.0 DUAL Mac Pros I have been waiting for a while. Guess I'll have to be more patient next time.

Re: "childish" video card options on Mac Pro

My statement still stands. The current GPU offerings from Apple are very disappointing considering how good/updated the other components are.
 

suneohair

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2006
2,136
0
Wow, this topic is hot! hehe, I am surprised that so many people responded.
:)

Okay, I admit that I was a bit overreacted this morning when I saw the news, I was just too disappointed not to see a price drop on those 2X3.0 DUAL Mac Pros I have been waiting for a while. Guess I'll have to be more patient next time.

Re: "childish" video card options on Mac Pro

My statement still stands. The current GPU offerings from Apple are very disappointing considering how good/updated the other components are.

Your comment is rather "childish" without offering suggestions for what you would change and why.

This isn't a question of what you want or think you want, but actual reasoning as to what should change and why. That ideal is certainly lacking here. So I challenge you to offer suggestions for change and the reasoning for that change.
 

GFLPraxis

macrumors 604
Mar 17, 2004
7,152
460
The new octo Mac Pro was just announced, but all they did was just add a 2x3.0 Quad option to the top and charge us a ridiculous high amount!



You know, after the announcement I went over to Dell.com and specced out the same machine...

It came out to over $5000. With a considerably weaker video card and only 2.66 GHz, I might add.

Stop complaining.
 

slughead

macrumors 68040
Apr 28, 2004
3,107
237
Your comment is rather "childish" without offering suggestions for what you would change and why.

How about more NVidia cards, for starters.

By the way, I was watching my GPU temps a few days ago and noticed that ATI (I verified that it WAS ATI and not Apple) has made the fans on the X1900 INCREDIBLY slow to keep (by default) noise down. The only problem is, obviously, now the computer is prone to overheating if the ambient room temp isn't 72. Luckily I found a way to manually set fan speeds to avoid GPU life reduction, but now the fan is obnoxiously loud whenever I actually use the GPU for anything.

ATI did the same thing with the 9800's and a lot of people's cards self-destructed and the fan melted and fell off.

NVidia cards have better cooling, cost less (usually), and are WAY better at OpenGL, so it's strange to see why Apple's best card for the Mac Pro (discounting the useless Quadro) is an ATI.

There are 3rd party drivers that can get many NVidia cards (with PC BIOS!) running pretty well on the Mac Pro under OS X. There's no reason Apple couldn't rewrite and improve those drivers and allow for more video selection.... Oh, but then Apple's most expensive Add-On would have competition! Can't have that!

There prices are stilll cheap...I looked on Dells site...a 2 Dual Core 2.66Ghz Chips( Same number of cores as the 2.66Gh Mac Pro) for 3078.

Find me a PC with the same specs as the Mac Pro for cheaper! Not one people built themselves, those types of computer are always cheaper.

I used to build computers for a living. When the Mac Pro came out, the 2.66 standard config was actually CHEAPER than a homebuilt with the same parts (I looked it up). Now that is not the case.

Apple should have at least put in more RAM or a larger HD. Keeping the same config for this long is insulting.

It's possible they're waiting for WWDC to introduce more changes to the product line, but that's another 2 months.

You know, after the announcement I went over to Dell.com and specced out the same machine...

It came out to over $5000. With a considerably weaker video card and only 2.66 GHz, I might add.

Stop complaining.

O'RLY? Well that's interesting, I guess somehow, because Dell is totally retarded on high-end stuff, I'm supposed to ignore what Apple is doing (or not doing)?

I don't care if Dell charges a million dollars for an 8 core machine, or ships the case full of flapjacks. It doesn't affect me because I'm not buying from them.

I find it amazing that people use relativism to argue: "Hey, don't complain about high prices from Apple. If you were a Dell user, Michael Dell would probably break into your house and shoot you in the face! Stop complaining!"

Do you have any idea how little I care about what Dell does? Am I supposed to be scared into buying a Mac because Dell sucks butt through a hose? That's a stupid argument when talking about my personal decisions. Dell may be Apple's top competitor, but they have nothing to do with me or my choices.

Apple isn't competing with just Dell for my business (or the business of my friend who is currently in the process of abandoning the MP idea). Apple has to compete against many different options, ESPECIALLY on the high end products, where there's enough money to buy your way around certain obstacles.

----------------------------
Edit:
I will have to dig for it, but I said a long time ago that Quad core chips would not drop the price of the duals.

Quad is not meant to replace dual by any means. It will be another 2 years before quad is a common place. Quad chips are a premium part. It is your fault that you friend has waited this long, instead of assuming Apple would drop the prices you should have analyzed the market.

I said the same thing, just about! I have looked at the market, and I was merely looking for a $100-200 price drop or better standard config. I was envisioning either a $2500 3.0x4 model or a $2200 2.66x4 model. Or maybe a BluRay reader + Superdrive.

Prices HAVE gone down on those components by more than $200. With Apple's bulk pricing, the profit margins on the Mac Pros are $200-300 higher on these models than when they first came out.
 

princealfie

macrumors 68030
Mar 7, 2006
2,517
1
Salt Lake City UT
-airmac

Yes. Because Apple doesn't wish to recreate the product confusion that was present in the Spindler years. It nearly killed them last time.

IMHO, Apple is doing a terrific job maintaining a taught, focused product offering, and though it's not pleasing all of the people all of the time, it is pleasing some of the people all of the time.

dang it, what the smartest answers I've heard here in a long time.
 

suneohair

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2006
2,136
0
How about more NVidia cards, for starters.

By the way, I was watching my GPU temps a few days ago and noticed that ATI (I verified that it WAS ATI and not Apple) has made the fans on the X1900 INCREDIBLY slow to keep (by default) noise down. The only problem is, obviously, now the computer is prone to overheating if the ambient room temp isn't 72. Luckily I found a way to manually set fan speeds to avoid GPU life reduction, but now the fan is obnoxiously loud whenever I actually use the GPU for anything.

ATI did the same thing with the 9800's and a lot of people's cards self-destructed and the fan melted and fell off.

NVidia cards have better cooling, cost less (usually), and are WAY better at OpenGL, so it's strange to see why Apple's best card for the Mac Pro (discounting the useless Quadro) is an ATI.

There are 3rd party drivers that can get many NVidia cards (with PC BIOS!) running pretty well on the Mac Pro under OS X. There's no reason Apple couldn't rewrite and improve those drivers and allow for more video selection.... Oh, but then Apple's most expensive Add-On would have competition! Can't have that!



I used to build computers for a living. When the Mac Pro came out, the 2.66 standard config was actually CHEAPER than a homebuilt with the same parts (I looked it up). Now that is not the case.

Apple should have at least put in more RAM or a larger HD. Keeping the same config for this long is insulting.

It's possible they're waiting for WWDC to introduce more changes to the product line, but that's another 2 months.



O'RLY? Well that's interesting, I guess somehow, because Dell is totally retarded on high-end stuff, I'm supposed to ignore what Apple is doing (or not doing)?

I don't care if Dell charges a million dollars for an 8 core machine, or ships the case full of flapjacks. It doesn't affect me because I'm not buying from them.

I find it amazing that people use relativism to argue: "Hey, don't complain about high prices from Apple. If you were a Dell user, Michael Dell would probably break into your house and shoot you in the face! Stop complaining!"

Do you have any idea how little I care about what Dell does? Am I supposed to be scared into buying a Mac because Dell sucks butt through a hose? That's a stupid argument when talking about my personal decisions. Dell may be Apple's top competitor, but they have nothing to do with me or my choices.

Apple isn't competing with just Dell for my business (or the business of my friend who is currently in the process of abandoning the MP idea). Apple has to compete against many different options, ESPECIALLY on the high end products, where there's enough money to buy your way around certain obstacles.

----------------------------
Edit:


I said the same thing, just about! I have looked at the market, and I was merely looking for a $100-200 price drop or better standard config. I was envisioning either a $2500 3.0x4 model or a $2200 2.66x4 model. Or maybe a BluRay reader + Superdrive.

Prices HAVE gone down on those components by more than $200. With Apple's bulk pricing, the profit margins on the Mac Pros are $200-300 higher on these models than when they first came out.

You really haven't expressed a need for a new GPU. They could write new drivers if they wanted to, but guess what they didn't, and there no new GPU for the Mac Pro.

Change for the sake of is a ridiculous notion and that seems to be what most people here want. Apple added 8 core goodness, yet that isn't good enough. It is "too much money." Guess what, if you think that you probably don't need a Mac Pro let alone eight cores.

And I will say it again, you don't buy a Mac Pro for gaming. If you are doing so, you are wasting your money.

If you are up on Apple, you know they aren't like other manufacturers. They don't drop prices dynamically. Just because new chip comes out doesn't mean you are going to get it cheaper on the base config. Going to Intel has solidifed that ideal. And it bugs people because they thought it would be different.

One day, Apple will lower the price, just like they just lowered the cinema displays. I personally don't care how much Apple makes on an item. If it is within my budget and I find it reasonable, what does it matter if they make 50%? GOod for them! They are business.

Drawing comparison to Dell is ridiculous they operate very differently. Apples moves here aren't new and whining about them isn't going to change them. Say I am taking it up the arse or whatever, but again, Apple is a business and I expect them to operate as such. If I was a share holder and Apple started letting its margins slip to say 5%, I would sell.

I really don't know how else to explain this. The GPU offerings are fine, they offer a great low end card, which is still more than most need, the middle card is heaps better and does even more, and the top is a card that satiates the need for a specific need, real time 3D rendering.

When Apple sees fit to upgrade, they will do so. If you don't want what they have, don't buy. It is really that simple.
 

slughead

macrumors 68040
Apr 28, 2004
3,107
237
The reason Apple didn't do anything to improve MP pricing or GPU selection is because they didn't. I consider this to be "logic," somehow.

If you can't afford to pay 10% more than it's worth, you shouldn't be a Mac Pro user! MP's are only for eccentric billionaires and trust fund babies! Stop complaining, peasant!

If you have a problem with anything Apple does, keep your mouth shut! This board is for Kool-Aid drinkers only!

^^ that's all I got out of your post.

Plus, you agreed with me that comparing Apple to Dell is stupid, but you said it in a way that made it look like I thought otherwise. I donno what that was about.

You did have somewhat of a point that I didn't mention why we need more than 3 video card choices. Here is why:

1) The 7300 is a good card for the money, and if you don't need a better GPU then it's fine
2) The Quadro is a great card but is a generation behind and is incredibly expensive with little performance boost over the X1900 in Pro Apps and performs worse in most games.
3) The X1900 is a DIRECT X GAMING CARD. Let's break this down:
  • THERE IS NO DirectX for Mac!
  • The Mac Pro isn't a gaming machine
  • Being optimized for DX gaming, it's not especially good at anything else including:
    - OpenGL tasks such as THE ENTIRE MAC OS X GUI
    - Rendering assistance in video editing applications and anything that uses Apple's new CoreAnimation technology
    - 3D modeling applications​
  • The X1900 is 1 generation behind

So, as you can see, there's something lacking here.
 

suneohair

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2006
2,136
0
You did have somewhat of a point that I didn't mention why we need more than 3 video card choices. Here is why:

1) The 7300 is a good card for the money, and if you don't need a better GPU then it's fine
2) The Quadro is a great card but is a generation behind and is incredibly expensive with little performance boost over the X1900 in Pro Apps and performs worse in most games.
3) The X1900 is a DIRECT X GAMING CARD. Let's break this down:
  • THERE IS NO DirectX for Mac!
  • The Mac Pro isn't a gaming machine
  • Being optimized for DX gaming, it's not especially good at anything else including:
    - OpenGL tasks such as THE ENTIRE MAC OS X GUI
    - Rendering assistance in video editing applications and anything that uses Apple's new CoreAnimation technology
    - 3D modeling applications​
  • The X1900 is 1 generation behind

So, as you can see, there's something lacking here.

Mmmkay.

I agree with 1.

2... hmmm. Do you even know what a Quadro is? This is not a gaming card. It is a card which has special drivers allowing it to render 3D in real time at high framerates. The X1900 cannot do that. So I think you should do a little research on what the card is. It is NOT a gaming card. And it is expensive for a reason.

3. Just about every card is a DX card, we live in a DX world. The work coming out of companies working on DX for Mac OS is important stuff. As well as Leopard bringing a new OpenGL.

Even if a card is optimized for OpenGL it still will not perform like it would in DX.

In addition, the X1900 is more than sufficient for Pro apps (aperture, FCP) as well as the gui. Do you really think Apple throws a X1900 in with vanilla drivers? I assure you the X1900 drivers are optimized to handle the specifics including current Core aspects of the OS.

Whats more, Leopard is not here today and this Core Animation is not either. If Apple needs to have a new GPU for core animation, I imagine they will put one in.

You do not do 3D modeling in any serious fashion with a X1900. Sorry to bust your bubble, but again you should research the benefits of a Quadro in relation to a consumer card. If you want to render a few things for fun, sure the X1900 is for you and will do just as good as whatever the current gen will do because it doesnt have the drivers for it. Hope that makes sense.

Also, generation behind.... Big whoop? Since when did Apple really keep up with technology in a fashion most here would want. The mini still has a Core Duo and is coming up on being nearly 2 gens behind. Case in point.

A generation behind does not mean the current generation is obsolete or that the new generation will offer great enhancements.


So, I don't think anything is lacking. You can create any instance you would like, but the fact remains that the offerings are more than capable where they fit into the spectrum.

If my GMA950 can handle the OS X GUI, I am sure any of the Mac Pro offering would be just fine. The 7300GT can handle "pro" apps just fine, the X1900 gives you better gaming and overall performance, the Quadro offers features for a completely different person one I think you should spend some time reading as it will help you understand and not make off base claims about it functions being "incredibly expensive."

And I am pretty sure the Quadro was a generation behind even when it was introduced in the Mac Pro.
 

EvryDayImShufln

macrumors 65816
Sep 18, 2006
1,094
1
If you are that worried about the price you obviously arn't a pro, at least not a successful one.

OWN3D ! But seriously doesn't anybody realise that a huge chunk of the price of computers with high end processors.. are the processors??? The reason macbooks/pros are expensive compared to cheap toshibas is because they have high end processors whereas the toshibas, while also having Core 2 Duos, are the lowest end versions of the processors.

In any case the increase in price is big, but this is not a toy computer that you will surf the net on. This is to do REAL processing, not play some computer games. If you want to game, get the quad, the octo won't help you one bit more anyhow since it's 90% in the videocard.

Anyhow who knows what you need this for considering you have that imac and that MBP mentioned above.
 

princealfie

macrumors 68030
Mar 7, 2006
2,517
1
Salt Lake City UT
OWN3D ! But seriously doesn't anybody realise that a huge chunk of the price of computers with high end processors.. are the processors??? The reason macbooks/pros are expensive compared to cheap toshibas is because they have high end processors whereas the toshibas, while also having Core 2 Duos, are the lowest end versions of the processors.

In any case the increase in price is big, but this is not a toy computer that you will surf the net on. This is to do REAL processing, not play some computer games. If you want to game, get the quad, the octo won't help you one bit more anyhow since it's 90% in the videocard.

Anyhow who knows what you need this for considering you have that imac and that MBP mentioned above.

even pros use imacs too!
 

dartzorichalcos

macrumors 65816
Mar 23, 2007
1,010
0
Atlantis
The new octo Mac Pro was just announced, but all they did was just add a 2x3.0 Quad option to the top and charge us a ridiculous high amount!
Some professional users would buy it and they don't care about the price. They need that much horsepower.

I know they are here for profits, but won't they sell more if they lower the prices for the older models and maybe put some more configurations in it, say a 2.6/2.4G Quad option? EDIT: not to mention the GPU choices are so childish.
Like I said, some professionals would buy it. And no, the GPU are not childish.

I'd say I'm totally disappointed after waited it for so long, I guess this is the reason Apple won't become mainstream, because they never ever will get the market until they figure out that we need something performs better than iMac, but not as expensive as a Mac Pro. Yes, basically a headless iMac with upgrades. NO, absolutely not a 2.0G Mac Pro, which is IMO the worst value in the lineup.
Get some PowerMac G4 and mod it like this person did.

My motivation to buy a Mac Pro is now finally over, I'll just build myself a good PC and stick with Ubuntu for now. So long, Apple.
Don't give up on Apple.
 

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,566
We don't know what the 3 GHz chips cost yet - Intel hasn't really announced them. What we do know is they are probably about 700-800 bucks, at least, more than the 3 GHz dual-core chips.

The 2.66 GHz version is $1152. Each. Two of them would be $2304.
 

slughead

macrumors 68040
Apr 28, 2004
3,107
237
2... hmmm. Do you even know what a Quadro is? This is not a gaming card. It is a card which has special drivers allowing it to render 3D in real time at high framerates. The X1900 cannot do that. So I think you should do a little research on what the card is. It is NOT a gaming card. And it is expensive for a reason.

Ah I see what the problem is: You don't know what you're talking about.

Gaming cards can indeed run 3D rendering software! In fact, the Quadro is only a few FPS ahead of the 7900 [e.] (a gaming card) at high framerates in pro applications. I've seen the benchmarks, it's not really a debated issue.

Thanks for playing!

3. Just about every card is a DX card, we live in a DX world. The work coming out of companies working on DX for Mac OS is important stuff. As well as Leopard bringing a new OpenGL.

Even if a card is optimized for OpenGL it still will not perform like it would in DX.

So? It'll still run better than one that isn't.

NVidias are typically geared towards OpenGL, ATIs are geared towards DirectX. Therefore, an OpenGL OS on a professional machine (pros typically use OpenGL) should be using NVidia.

In addition, the X1900 is more than sufficient for Pro apps (aperture, FCP) as well as the gui. Do you really think Apple throws a X1900 in with vanilla drivers? I assure you the X1900 drivers are optimized to handle the specifics including current Core aspects of the OS.

Yes, it's sufficient, but for plain jane video editing, G5's are sufficient. We video editors buy Mac Pros to do our work more quickly. A faster video card means faster processing on certain tasks which offload some of the work to the GPU.


Whats more, Leopard is not here today and this Core Animation is not either. If Apple needs to have a new GPU for core animation, I imagine they will put one in.

So you're saying that users shouldn't think ahead? Leopard is coming out before the end of this quarter, and you're saying we shouldn't think about it?! What are you on???

You do not do 3D modeling in any serious fashion with a X1900. Sorry to bust your bubble, but again you should research the benefits of a Quadro in relation to a consumer card. If you want to render a few things for fun, sure the X1900 is for you and will do just as good as whatever the current gen will do because it doesnt have the drivers for it. Hope that makes sense.

Personally, I don't do 3D modeling at all, but I work closely with some who do. You're right, the X1900 is not the best card for Modeling. You're also right that the Quadro 4500 is better.

However, the GeForce 8800 (a modern gaming card which is cheaper than the Quadro) kicks the Quadro's ass, even though it was just designed for gaming. Maybe it's you who should do the research :)

Also, generation behind.... Big whoop?

OK now I know you're just being reactionary. Apple's charging $4000 for a computer with 8 processors and you don't think it's a big deal that it's a half year behind in readily available video acceleration tech?

No wonder most Maya users are forced to use Windows.

A generation behind does not mean the current generation is obsolete or that the new generation will offer great enhancements.

It does in this case :)

And I am pretty sure the Quadro was a generation behind even when it was introduced in the Mac Pro.

What? How does this support your view that Apple has a "good" GPU selection? Doesn't that prove my point that Apple needs new stuff?... are we in the twilight zone here?

----------

Edit: Correction: the x1900 and 7300 were released in January 2006, making them 16 months old. The Quadro FX 4500 was released a month later.

Edit2: I should also note that NVidia's new cards score way better on the new video quality benchmarks than the x1900 series did

Edit3: here is the 8800 beating the pants off the x1900
 

Zwhaler

macrumors 604
Jun 10, 2006
7,267
1,965
I need some help understanding here... how can the choice of video cards be childish? And what in the current line of video cards makes them so childish...Am I missing something here?

Probably because you either have to go with a crappy GPU, a nice (but outdated) one, or another nice (but outdated) one. We need two more graphics cards - a mid range one, like the 7600 or the equivilant, and an ultra high end. We don't have many options.
 

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,252
8
Washington D.C
Probably because you either have to go with a crappy GPU, a nice (but outdated) one, or another nice (but outdated) one. We need two more graphics cards - a mid range one, like the 7600 or the equivilant, and an ultra high end. We don't have many options.

How is that "childish"? Bad for people who need strong GPUs, but childish?
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,934
55
England
Ah I see what the problem is: You don't know what you're talking about.

Gaming cards can indeed run 3D rendering software! In fact, the Quadro is only a few FPS ahead of the 7900 [e.] (a gaming card) at high framerates in pro applications. I've seen the benchmarks, it's not really a debated issue.

Thanks for playing!

However, the GeForce 8800 (a modern gaming card which is cheaper than the Quadro) kicks the Quadro's ass, even though it was just designed for gaming. Maybe it's you who should do the research :)

Please post such benchmarks.

This link: http://www.lostcircuits.com/video/quadro_fx1400/9.shtml (and the next page) shows the 4500 outperforming the X1900XTX (a better card than a 7900) by 2-5 times on SPEC benchmarks. The link you gave for 8800 vs 1900 shows no pro app benchmarks. With FX 5500s $800+ more, and the 4600 and 5600 (the latest) shipping less than a month (IIRC) it's hardly suprising that Apple are still offering the 4500. Things move ALOT slower on pro GPUs and Apple would be foolish to but brand new pro cards in a machine as the only option, it's not how things are done when drivers mean everything.
 

panzer06

macrumors 68040
Sep 23, 2006
3,286
230
Kilrath
Probably because you either have to go with a crappy GPU, a nice (but outdated) one, or another nice (but outdated) one. We need two more graphics cards - a mid range one, like the 7600 or the equivilant, and an ultra high end. We don't have many options.

I agree wholeheartedly!!! Apple needs more current GPU options, especially now that they are using standard Intel compatible components. Even though many diehard Mac fans scoff at the Windows users who buy Macs for double duty, these users exists and their numbers will grow as the benefits of using a Mac (OS X) become more well know to the teeming masses.

The only reason I maintain my PC is to play games that don't do so well on my Macbook CD.
 

Zwhaler

macrumors 604
Jun 10, 2006
7,267
1,965
How is that "childish"? Bad for people who need strong GPUs, but childish?

I never really said that the GPUs were childish, I was just answering kwood's question about why ohalexis called the currently available selection of GPUs for the Mac Pro's "childish". :)
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,934
55
England
I agree wholeheartedly!!! Apple needs more current GPU options, especially now that they are using standard Intel compatible components. Even though many diehard Mac fans scoff at the Windows users who buy Macs for double duty, these users exists and their numbers will grow as the benefits of using a Mac (OS X) become more well know to the teeming masses.

The only reason I maintain my PC is to play games that don't do so well on my Macbook CD.

Apple hasn't really shown a serious interest in gamers hardware ever. However with the move to intel and people showing willingness to buy Apple machines for a single solution it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Apple will begin offering more solutions. The thing is we know currently Apple only ever offer a small range of hardware choices, they do not offer the highest end on things like graphics cards (due to small range) and they do not do minor upgrades very often. There has never been any indication that this will change and as far as Apple are concened logically the cards they currently offer are perfect (they are to me at least when I look at it from Apples business view).

The new generation of Apple products comming in the next few months could very well use the nvidia 8000 series cards across the board for all we know, Nvidia did have job listings for Apple familiar engineers I believe. They have also hinted the Quadro FX4600 and FX5500 (based on 8800s) will likely make it to macs and it will aslo have been enough time for things to be developed and tested. A company like Apple who are selling solutions and focus often on graphics can't afford to have untested (in the public sector) GPUs. Apple don't do things in dribs and drabs, they want to wow with a brilliant up to date new solution and everything is comming together soon.

It's also worth noting that hardware wise, aside from pushing the boundries of gaming, the current cards to their jobs very well indeed.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.