Macpro lame graphics!

[Emrtr4]

Can someone please explain Apple's reasoning for me?

Beyond ALL OTHER POINTS IN THIS THREAD. THE MACPRO SHIPS WITH A SUBPAR GPU! PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION. For $2400 all parts should be up to par, including a usable GPU. It is sad that a 12 hour system for $2500 ships with a graphics card not much more powerful than a 2 1/2 year old Powerbook.

I have two powerbooks and want to buy a Macpro, but I may end up buying a Falcon-NW or a Pugetsystem.

The reason? Apple's awful graphics selection. $2300 and it comes with a 7300GT, thats worse than the X1600 in the Macbookpros.

Now I know that it has 4 PCI E slots, but are those 4 PCI E X16?

If so, would it be possible to simply throw in say a 7950GTX?

Does anyone know if it is possible to upgrade to any PCI E 16 graphics card just as easily as a PC?

Also, is it possible in the future to simply add another SATA hardrive, bump the processor up, ect?

And, would such a Mac handle games easily when used with bootcamp and vista?

Would it be possible to add a second hardrive that would run windows or linux only, without having to partition the drives?


(BTW, I own an Xbox 360 and for $400 that system has a GPU that could kick the Macpros ASS which is a total joke considering you spend $2500)

 

[eva01]

I am pretty sure no one has a mac pro yet to answer those questions.

And why not just get the x1900 instead of the 7300?

And I am pretty sure the Mac Pro is not SLI ready

 

[roland.g]

I'm sorry. I understand users who want graphics for high end video, compositing, and other pro uses. But I have read far too many posts related to gaming. It's a $2,500 computer that has unbelievable uses and the biggest concern is whether you can play Doom III or some other kill em all FPS type sim. I think an Xbox or Playstation is like a few hundred dollars.

 

[Sun Baked]

I think Apple went with this graphics card selection, because it is the only one that can be handled as 4 cards (likely it is a 50-75W card.)

Likely the power consumption of the other cards will severely limit the selection of the other cards (they are probably 150W or more.)

If Apple's usual the power available to the other PCI slots will take a nose dive with the other cards.

Now I know that it has 4 PCI E slots, but are those 4 PCI E X16?

The PCI Express slots are system and user configurable. The Mac Pro’s standard configuration is one 16-lane, double-wide graphics slot, two 4-lane expansion slots, and one 1-lane expansion slot.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/Mac_Pro_0608/index.html

 

[GoCubsGo]

I'm sorry. I understand users who want graphics for high end video, compositing, and other pro uses. But I have read far too many posts related to gaming. It's a $2,500 computer that has unbelievable uses and the biggest concern is whether you can play Doom III or some other kill em all FPS type sim. I think an Xbox or Playstation is like a few hundred dollars.

This is the best point ever! I find it HILARIOUS that someone is mad about a system that is less than 12 hours old. I mean seriously from what I could see the graphics card can be upgraded with no hassle at all. I wonder if that person even has the funds or the desire to buy this sytem right now. I think Nintendo Game Cube is on sale.

 

[Sun Baked]

Looks like the 7300 is the only one that can do quad configuration under the 300W limit

Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT, single-link		256 MB (GDDR2)	32 W

ATI Radeon X1900 XT, double-wide 		512 MB (GDDR3)	132 W

Nvidia Quadro FX 4500, double-wide 		512 MB (GDDR3)	110 W

Edit: the damn table is a PIA...

 

[Emrtr4]

Response to all of you

First off why are you flaming me?

I have 2 Powerbooks, a 60 inch Sony Xs955 HDTV, and a newegg built PC currently running two 21 inch Gateway LCDs.

My point is this, I have an Xbox 360, it is stupid for me to spend $3000 (just buying an additional gig of RAM directly from Apple costs a few hundred) for a system that is not much faster than a $400 computer that is in a box 1/6 the size (the Xbox 360 is smaller, is multi core, has half the memory as the Macpro basic config)

Games are the most intensive applications you can run on a PC or a mac. Think photoshop is bad? Do you have any idea what type of hardware it requires to run say Crysis or even Half Life 2 on a large display say above 1680x1050?

Also, the graphics of the Macpro have gone backwards. The G5 offered a X800 or a 7900GT which is lightyears beyond the 7300 in terms of power.

So why are flaming me? It is dumb for any Mac user to pay a premium for WINDOWS HARDWARE! OH NO, he said it. Windows hardware! Yup, thats right. Your buying a slightly modified INTEL MOBO with el cheapo 7300GTs that cost under $100 each. On top of that, the Ram is not even 1066, which means it is SLOW!

Do I have the funds to buy one now? Yes, but I would rather spend the $4K that I have ready for my next computer on a Falcon-NW or Puget system where I will actually get my money's worth.

For the price I could build a PC with a Core 2 duo that is twice as fast (I could even build my own AMD opteron system) with many times the graphical power, and hardrives that fly at 10,000RPMS.

MY point is, I was just dissapointed. Because while Apple's laptops and consumer desktops (Imac) are so far ahead, their pro desktop has always lagged far behind company's like Alienware, Voodoo PC, Falcon, Puget and others.

 

[extraextra]

My point is this, I have an Xbox 360, it is stupid for me to spend $3000 (just buying an additional gig of RAM directly from Apple costs a few hundred) for a system that is not much faster than a $400 computer that is in a box 1/6 the size (the Xbox 360 is smaller, is multi core, has half the memory as the Macpro basic config)

MY point is, I was just dissapointed. Because while Apple's laptops and consumer desktops (Imac) are so far ahead, their pro desktop has always lagged far behind company's like Alienware, Voodoo PC, Falcon, Puget and others.

Uh, you're paying $3000 for a pro desktop. Not for a gaming box. I'm pretty sure the pros (for whom this desktop is marketed at) actually do work - not sit around and play Doom III or whatever.

Macs aren't really intended for hardcore gaming. I don't see why you just don't buy a PC instead of complaining about what the Mac can't do? (I don't mean that in a particularly rude way or anything, it's just my honest opinion.)

 

[Orlando Furioso]

(says some nonsense)

Games are the most intensive applications you can run on a PC or a mac. Think photoshop is bad?

(followed by more nonsense)

wow... have you ever used a computer to do like, real work?

 

[Veritas&Equitas]

Uh, you're paying $3000 for a pro desktop. Not for a gaming box. I'm pretty sure the pros (for whom this desktop is marketed at) actually do work - not sit around and play Doom III or whatever.

I think all of you are totally missing the point. You can whine about "Pro desktop" all you want, but for a $3000 system, with that kind of "power," it should definitely be able to play today's top of the line games at a decent fps. Period. Don't flame me about 2d graphic programs, etc. There is no way in hell that a system with those specs should ship with a bottom of the line video card. Period. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply has Apple f4nboy blinders on quite tight. Ask any person in the computer industry, PC, Mac, Linux, whatever about the MacPro configuation, and they would agree with the OP.

 

[portent]

You need to get out more.

Specifically, the Mac Pro is a machine for Professionals. Yeah, you could play games on it, but it's not a "Mac Toy" or "Mac Play." Animators and post-production professionals buy them to run Final Cut Studio, Shake and Maya. Researchers buy them to run 3D simulations. The Mac Pro has four HD bays, dual NICs, and ECC memory. Those aren't gaming features; those are workstation features.

You're talking about Core 2 Duo. You are aware that C2D doesn't work in a quad-core config, right? Which is fine and dandy if you're playing games, but it becomes a bottleneck if you're doing real work.

 

[Eidorian]

Now I know that it has 4 PCI E slots, but are those 4 PCI E X16?

If so, would it be possible to simply throw in say a 7950GTX?

Does anyone know if it is possible to upgrade to any PCI E 16 graphics card just as easily as a PC?

I don't see what's keeping you from using any PC PCIe video card other then OS X drivers.

 

[eva01]

I think all of you are totally missing the point. You can whine about "Pro desktop" all you want, but for a $3000 system, with that kind of "power," it should definitely be able to play today's top of the line games at a decent fps. Period. Don't flame me about 2d graphic programs, etc. There is no way in hell that a system with those specs should ship with a bottom of the line video card. Period. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply has Apple f4nboy blinders on quite tight. Ask any person in the computer industry, PC, Mac, Linux, whatever about the MacPro configuation, and they would agree with the OP.

The reason it is shipping that way is you can put 4 of them in there. Which means you can run EIGHT cinema displays, which is brilliant for the science field (although using 4 Quadros would be better) And it also keeps the price down to be using a 7300

 

[macdaddy121]

First off why are you flaming me?

I have 2 Powerbooks, a 60 inch Sony Xs955 HDTV, and a newegg built PC currently running two 21 inch Gateway LCDs.

My point is this, I have an Xbox 360, it is stupid for me to spend $3000 (just buying an additional gig of RAM directly from Apple costs a few hundred) for a system that is not much faster than a $400 computer that is in a box 1/6 the size (the Xbox 360 is smaller, is multi core, has half the memory as the Macpro basic config)

Games are the most intensive applications you can run on a PC or a mac. Think photoshop is bad? Do you have any idea what type of hardware it requires to run say Crysis or even Half Life 2 on a large display say above 1680x1050?

Also, the graphics of the Macpro have gone backwards. The G5 offered a X800 or a 7900GT which is lightyears beyond the 7300 in terms of power.

So why are flaming me? It is dumb for any Mac user to pay a premium for WINDOWS HARDWARE! OH NO, he said it. Windows hardware! Yup, thats right. Your buying a slightly modified INTEL MOBO with el cheapo 7300GTs that cost under $100 each. On top of that, the Ram is not even 1066, which means it is SLOW!

Do I have the funds to buy one now? Yes, but I would rather spend the $4K that I have ready for my next computer on a Falcon-NW or Puget system where I will actually get my money's worth.

For the price I could build a PC with a Core 2 duo that is twice as fast (I could even build my own AMD opteron system) with many times the graphical power, and hardrives that fly at 10,000RPMS.

MY point is, I was just dissapointed. Because while Apple's laptops and consumer desktops (Imac) are so far ahead, their pro desktop has always lagged far behind company's like Alienware, Voodoo PC, Falcon, Puget and others.

Macs are not meant for gaming. The Xbox 360 is meant for gaming. If you want something to play games on, keep your Xbox 360. If you want a top of the line computer then get the Mac Pro.

By the way, Apple has kindly allowed you to add different graphic cards to the amazing computer they assembled. If you don't like the one they put in there......then change it. Why is everyone complaining about something that they can change by clicking their mouse a couple of times? If they would have put a more impressive video card in the computer than the price would have gone up. So, if you don't like it then change it. You can do that.....5 million ways.

 

[QCassidy352]

Also, the graphics of the Macpro have gone backwards. The G5 offered a X800 or a 7900GT which is lightyears beyond the 7300 in terms of power.

Note the word "offered." The Mac Pro "offers" an x1900 and a Quadro FX 4500. They are optional upgrades, just like the x800 and 7900 GT were.

There are excellent high-end graphics options if you want them. Many people will not want them (photoshop pros). So what on earth are you complaining about?

 

[Veritas&Equitas]

Macs are not meant for gaming.

Then PCs aren't either. Why are games made for Macs? Why are they upping the cpus? Why is everyone going crazy about being able to use Intel for gaming? Why are so many people switching? Part of the answer: They can now play games, which, whether you want to admit it or not, is growing quite fast and more people are gaming than ever before.

If they would have put a more impressive video card in the computer than the price would have gone up.

That's my entire point. Well duh, I could do this with a Falcon-NW or Dell System and make it $5k if I want. The point is, even at the expensive price point the MacPro is at, it doesn't ship standard with a decent video card. I could put 16 cards in SLI on any system, but the point is the expensive system that MacPro is ships with a sub-par graphics card. That's the point.

 

[eva01]

That's my entire point. Well duh, I could do this with a Falcon-NW or Dell System and make it $5k if I want. The point is, even at the expensive price point the MacPro is at, it doesn't ship standard with a decent video card. I could put 16 cards in SLI on any system, but the point is the expensive system that MacPro is ships with a sub-par graphics card. That's the point.

Here is the real point the Mac Pro is not an expensive machine. I am shocked it is so cheap.

And I really don't think apple created this machine with gamers in mind or it would be SLI ready and other things like a 7950 BTO.

No they made it Quadro Stereo 3D workstation graphics BTO and a standard card that you can have 4 of running 8 displays

 

[Super Macho Man]

Emrtr4, George Bernard Shaw once said, "If you tell people the truth, make them laugh or they'll kill you."

 

[MovieCutter]

You need to get out more.

Specifically, the Mac Pro is a machine for Professionals. Yeah, you could play games on it, but it's not a "Mac Toy" or "Mac Play." Animators and post-production professionals buy them to run Final Cut Studio, Shake and Maya. Researchers buy them to run 3D simulations. The Mac Pro has four HD bays, dual NICs, and ECC memory. Those aren't gaming features; those are workstation features.

You're talking about Core 2 Duo. You are aware that C2D doesn't work in a quad-core config, right? Which is fine and dandy if you're playing games, but it becomes a bottleneck if you're doing real work.

Precisely. As a professional video editor and compositor...this thing is a godsend. With the Quadro, it's even better. Those of us whom this machine is MEANT for can afford to go for the professional workstation class GPUs. You want to game??? Keep your Xbox and stay away from my workstation with which I do ACTUAL work.

 

[Eidorian]

Here is the real point the Mac Pro is not an expensive machine. I am shocked it is so cheap.

And I really don't think apple created this machine with gamers in mind or it would be SLI ready and other things like a 7950 BTO.

No they made it Quadro Stereo 3D workstation graphics BTO and a standard card that you can have 4 of running 8 displays

Dual 2.0 GHz Dual Core Woodcrest for $1962? And a free iPod Nano?

Well for education at least.

 

[extraextra]

Note the word "offered." The Mac Pro "offers" an x1900 and a Quadro FX 4500. They are optional upgrades, just like the x800 and 7900 GT were.

There are excellent high-end graphics options if you want them. Many people will not want them (photoshop pros). So what on earth are you complaining about?

That's what I'm saying. If you want better graphics, pay up for the better graphics card! And 44 fps seems like a "decent" amount to me, I'm sure you can get by on your games with that.

I completely agree with portent.

 

[macdaddy121]

Then PCs aren't either. Why are games made for Macs? Why are they upping the cpus? Why is everyone going crazy about being able to use Intel for gaming? Why are so many people switching? Part of the answer: They can now play games, which, whether you want to admit it or not, is growing quite fast and more people are gaming than ever before.

That's my entire point. Well duh, I could do this with a Falcon-NW or Dell System and make it $5k if I want. The point is, even at the expensive price point the MacPro is at, it doesn't ship standard with a decent video card. I could put 16 cards in SLI on any system, but the point is the expensive system that MacPro is ships with a sub-par graphics card. That's the point.

They are not meant for gaming. People are starting to use them for gaming but they aren not meant for it. I believe Apple stated today that they are not at an expensive price point. Right? A similarly speced Dell would be 1000 more. Not everyone needs the MacPro to play HalfLife 8. If you want a nicer card......add one.....they aren't standard because Apple does not see this as a necessity. Maybe it is for you, so they give you the oppertunity to upgrade.

Comparing the Xbox 360 to a Mac Pro is comparing Apples and Oranges.

 

[aristobrat]

Can someone please explain Apple's reasoning for me?

Sure.

Apple knows its market and what its market wants.

Since you're not in the market, you're thinking they made some pretty lame choices.

Meanwhile, they'll have another record fiscal quarter because for folks who used PowerMacs for things other than gaming are going to snatch these new Mac Pros up like hotcakes.

Apple never has made gaming rigs like Alienware, etc. They may have put some configs out that did well with games, but they weren't designed from the ground up (unlike Alienware) to be gaming machines.

Don't be disappointed because you can't get a square peg to fit in a round hole.

 

[Grimace]

It ships with a card that you can use 4x.

If you don't like it -- there are other options like the x1900 -- choose something else. Steve-o isn't reading this thread to change his mind about what card to include.

If it's not sufficient at the baseline -- there are two more Apple-supplied options. You can probably figure out a way to get drivers for another card too.

 

[eva01]

Dual 2.0 GHz Dual Core Woodcrest for $1962? And a free iPod Nano?

Well for education at least.

Yes i do believe that is cheap, especially for what it is used for.