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

Macpro lame graphics!

portent said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL, and I'll bet Maya just screams with that 7300, doesn't it?

The 7300 will slow down every app that depends on the GPU, whether it's Doom 3, or whether it's Core Image, or whether it's Maya or Final Cut. It's a bad graphics card, period. Are you saying pros don't need good graphics cards, at least better graphics than are present in the iMac? The "pro users" are getting a bad graphics card unless they pay to upgrade it, and they're paying quite a lot already. Why not make the baseline at least decent?
 
eva01 said:
Yes i do believe that is cheap, especially for what it is used for.
Click to expand...
I'm buying one. I'm having it shipped to my department though. No way in hell that sucker is showing up at my apartment door. :eek:
 
Mac Pros are cheap for the money. I've heard comments all day expressing the surprise at the low price.

The money you spend on a faster hard drive, or a better graphics card could probably be spent by a professional on:

More storage space for the enormous amounts of creative content they generate.

More memory so they can run more tasks than just one game.

More or bigger monitors so they can see more work at once.

More processor power so their CPU intensive rendering will be done sooner.

A better GPU is good, but the money can probably be used elsewhere better by a professional. Or they make so much money, they can afford more than the stock card.

I see all these gaming people complain about how a Mac will not run the latest FPS at blistering framerates, but it makes me think "How come, with all that graphics power, they can't run two games at once?"
 
Super Macho Man said:
LOL, and I'll bet Maya just screams with that 7300, doesn't it?

The 7300 will slow down every app that depends on the GPU, whether it's Doom 3, or whether it's Core Image, or whether it's Maya or Final Cut. It's a bad graphics card, period. Are you saying pros don't need good graphics cards, at least better graphics than are present in the iMac? The "pro users" are getting a bad graphics card unless they pay to upgrade it, and they're paying quite a lot already. Why not make the baseline at least decent?
Click to expand...

Dude, being from Hollywood, you of all people should know that people who use Maya can AFFORD to bump it up to the X1900 or the Quadro.

Argument...debunked
 
Emrtr4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This machine was made for those who work with pro level applications and require a system that has high-speced components that all work together. Gaming mainly relies most heavily on the GPU. In my case, working with uncompressed HD video editing, I need the full processing power of multiple CPUs combined with the speed of multiple HDs in a RAID configuration to sustain the high data rate of the material I work with along with as well as a lot of RAM, especially when I do transcoding between multiple codecs.

For me, this machine is a godsend. But then again, I am the targeted audience this machine is for, so I'm not surprised ...

The G5 offered those cards you mentioned, but they were not the standard card, but BTO orders as well. There structure with their GPU offerings is no different this time around as well (although, I too wish there base offering was a little better).
 
Emrtr4 said:
(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)
Click to expand...

Have fun with your 360 and don't come whining here when it breaks. If you don't like it DON'T BUY IT. End of story.
 
I love how events like WWDC brings out the best in people. Serious, get a life. If a MacPro is such a 'rip-off', don't get one. You whining on an internet forum will do nothing, except annoy people.
 
i showed my boss the new Mac Pro's today, and she bought me one for work

i am certainly not complaining about the graphics card, as i currently use a Dual 1.8 Ghz G5 with an ATI Radeon 9600 with 128 MB RAM to do Digital PrePress for a large format printer

this new 2.66 Ghz Xeon that I am getting, will definently have a good enough graphics card for what i do, and then some

if you want a gaming computer, then fine, upgrade the card, that is why the BTO option is there
 
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.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that Pixar and university researchers are driving Apple sales? Do you really think that Apple can afford to segregate its product lines completely, given that it offers absolutely nothing in the middle-ground between a mini and a Mac Pro unless you want to pay for an LCD screen that will be useless in a couple of years?

More to the point, do you really think Apple doesn't want to sell these to any consumer who can throw down $2500 - of whom there are any number at CompUSA every day? Apple has to be in a position to sell these to everyday users who want more than iMac or they're just throwing sales down the drain.

Switchers are lured by the promise that they can have their cake (oooooh, pretty OS X) and eat it too (oooooh, games). To do that, they need a usable graphics card.

(and, hey, if this is some big RESEARCHERS ONLY machine, why is the comic book program included?)
 
I'll only buy a MacPro if it uses all standard PC Components, i.e.

I can plug a Core 2 Duo Extreme in
Get my own 7900xtx
Get say 4 x 1 gig ram at half Apple price...

anyway.. all i want to keep is the motherboard that allow me to install decent 10.4 not osX86 AND the fancy casing.

Apple is SOOOOO lame...........
and it has been a shame to be a mac fans.
 
Emrtr4 said:
None of you are getting the point.

A LOW END DELL today, one for $800 ships with 7300s.

Anyone could buy a PC from a number of builders under $2K that has multiple 7600 GPUs.

For the price, users are still getting ripped off because of the GPU.

The only way a Mac user could hook up multiple monitors to the Macpro would be to purchase the 7300. But if you do VIDEO editing that may not be enough graphical power. So why is apple putting low end cards in a high end system?

A 7600 would add almost NOTHING to the price. None of you seem to understand that a single Macbookpro X1600 is FASTER than all of the 7300s.

If you believe that paying $2500 and getting a 7300 is FAIR and "well priced" then you are a simple blind fanboy.

ALSo, to respond to the idiot who said that it has things like "multiple hardrives" and ECC ram. Guess what, $1100 for 4 gigs of LOW END ECC 667 RAM IS about $900 too much.

$500 on NEwegg will get you 4 gigs of 1066 ECC OZC or Crucial RAM with heatspreader technology and DDR2 which is many times faster than that memory.
Click to expand...

1) Xeon chips are more expensive than Core 2 Duo desktop chips
2) Photoshop and Final Cut Pro don't require a $500+ graphics card to function at its fullest.
3) There are more 2D graphics designers than 3D
4) Serious 3D designers use dedicated 3D rendering cards
5) People who are serious about their professions opt to upgrade to the correct hardware
6) No one is forcing you to buy Apple RAM
7) Faster ram on a motherboard that cannot support it will cut ram speed back down to what it can take.
8) $1100 - $900 != $500
9) GPU power != overall system usability
10) The Macpro design is all about expandability.

Can someone please explain Apple's reasoning for me?
Click to expand...
We already did. So people can attach many monitors for extra workspace. Accept it.

I would recommend that if you want to save money and have a gaming rig, go Windows/PC. Buying Mac you do pay premiums for convinence and Mac-pretty cases.
 
Emrtr4 said:
The only way a Mac user could hook up multiple monitors to the Macpro would be to purchase the 7300. But if you do VIDEO editing that may not be enough graphical power. So why is apple putting low end cards in a high end system?
Click to expand...
Uh, I usually hide my video editing programs while rendering. The on screen updating and the progress bars are killer. Seriously...
 
Emrtr4 said:
(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)
Click to expand...

Uh, then why don't you spend $400 and get the graphics card you need?

Or maybe you want the Mac Pro to act like an Xbox 360? Sheesh..

Its a good thing, we 'pros' really don't come across lamers like you who make retarded comparisons.
 
MovieCutter said:
Dude, being from Hollywood, you of all people should know that people who use Maya can AFFORD to bump it up to the X1900 or the Quadro.

Argument...debunked
Click to expand...
Really, everyone who wants reasonably fast 3D graphics can afford to upgrade to the X1900? I just checked my pocket and no, there is not $350 more in it than last time I checked. :rolleyes:
 
1) Xeon chips are more expensive than Core 2 Duo desktop chips
Click to expand...
To what end? That's well and good - but the question here is really 'should Apple have offered a configuration with one Xeon or a 2.4GHz Core 2 instead?' (Place it in the future tense if you want to argue what should come later.)

A 2.4GHz Core 2 costs the same as a single 2.0 Xeon and performs essentially the same. It takes RAM that costs half as much and has no downside.

Is there not a market for $1800-2000 computers with multiple drive bays and more than 2GB RAM? Am I crazy?
 
If you are a Photoshop user then the 7300 is fine for you. And the 7600 would be fine for you too, for dollars more. I have an idea, why not just ship the entry-level Mac Pro with a Radeon 7500. What kind of "pros" use the GPU anyway? It's not a gamer machine, and if they're using some GPU-intensive app that needs more power, like Maya or FCP or Aperture or one of those other "pro" apps that ONLY "pros" use and that are not allowed to be used by "normal people," they can simply spend an extra $350 and upgrade it. :rolleyes:
 
extraextra said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your argument is valid; but I wanted to point out that you're not going to be getting 44FPS on oblivion on even medium settings. You MIGHT get that on the lowest settings in that game; at the highest settings you MIGHT get 3 FPS. really, If you are gaming you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT need dual Xeons. If you have a cutting edge graphics card, a core duo is MORE than enough to play any high end game out there. If you want a gaming 'monster' You could get a pc because unfortunatley, apple is not making an effort towards that market.
 
Emrtr4 said:
None of you are getting the point.

A LOW END DELL today, one for $800 ships with 7300s.

Anyone could buy a PC from a number of builders under $2K that has multiple 7600 GPUs.

For the price, users are still getting ripped off because of the GPU.

The only way a Mac user could hook up multiple monitors to the Macpro would be to purchase the 7300. But if you do VIDEO editing that may not be enough graphical power. So why is apple putting low end cards in a high end system?

A 7600 would add almost NOTHING to the price. None of you seem to understand that a single Macbookpro X1600 is FASTER than all of the 7300s.

If you believe that paying $2500 and getting a 7300 is FAIR and "well priced" then you are a simple blind fanboy.

ALSo, to respond to the idiot who said that it has things like "multiple hardrives" and ECC ram for "pros". Guess what, $1100 for 4 gigs of LOW END ECC 667 RAM IS about $900 too much.

$500 on NEwegg will get you 4 gigs of 1066 ECC OZC or Crucial RAM with heatspreader technology and DDR2 which is many times faster than that memory.

And by the way, considering I have $4000 to spend on a new computer, I believe I am Apple's targeted market
Click to expand...


You're the one not getting the point. Apple's market isn't "gamers." Apple's market, for this system, is all manner of corporate customers who need raw performance for what they do....which is not playing Doom.

For print & 2D graphics, the "low-end" video card is great...for those who need more performance, the option is there.

Your complaints seem to miss out on the larger picture.


edit: Oh yeah, & while you're comparing this system to anything comparable to a Dell system (and complaining about how much less expensive, or dare I say cheaper, Dell is)...just remember, a similar Dell costs MORE - at least as of today.
 
Apple is more likely to release the consumer Tower and MacBook upgrades outside of these events like they were trying to do with their Tuesday releases, the Intel transition sort of dragged it back to these dog and pony shows.

EDIT: BTW what is the comparison between the "other" 5000x chipset machines and the Mac Pro.
 
Emrtr4 said:
...None of you seem to understand that a single Macbookpro X1600 is FASTER than all of the 7300s.
Click to expand...

Er, if I remember correctly the MBP's come with an ATi Mobility Radeon X1600. I find it hard to believe that a mobile GPU is faster than a desktop one. Especially since it has been down-clocked by Apple to ensure that it remains within the thermal and power boundaries of the MBP.

As others have already said, the Mac Pro's are predominantly workstation class machines. Comparing the Mac Pro to an X-Box is like comparing a sedan to a Formula 1 car. The X-Box is and always will be a gaming machine which is hooked up to a TV which has a resolution far below that of which the Mac Pro's can handle. The Mac Pro's are workstations for work.

I still don't understand why you are so adamant about this issue since as you have already stated yourself there are alternatives. If you want to game, get a console/gaming rig!
 
I'm amazed when the only acceptable judgment of a GPU's performance in some people's eyes is how well it will do on the latest games (i.e. 3-D benchmarks).

Sure games push GPUs, but there are specialized workstation cards (like the Quadros) that cost more than a gamer's card that would put the 2-D performance on gaming cards to shame. And 3-D performance in a gaming card does not directly translate to 3-D performance in non-gaming applications.

Perhaps Apple decided the extra 3-D performance hardware in cards that did better did not justify the extra expense, because the 2-D performance did not improve significantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back