My biggest gripe about all the gripeing about the 7300gt.

[omfgninja]

First of all. I have seen alot complaining about the 7300gt.
Everyone cries. Oh, its a crappy card, why did apple do this to us? They should a put in a <Insert Whatever Graphics card here>!

I know the 7300gt is kinda a sucky graphics card. Its a very sucky graphics card. BUT, theres a very good reason they chose it.

But first, let me give a stroll down memory lane...
My first "Professional" level mac was a "PowerTower Pro 225"

http://www.lowendmac.com/power/towerpro.html
http://news.com.com/Mac+clones+with+Power/2100-1001_3-259380.html

For thouse of you that dont know what model that is. Its a Mac that came from the company "Power Computing". It was one of the Mac Clones from way back when.

Now, I could have just told you the specs, and not shown you thouse 2 links, but they are important, and they help me illustrate a point. That computer, at its time, was bleeding edge macintosh technology. It was, by all means, a Workstation Computer.
Also, notice the Graphics Card. It was its own PCI card for 2D acceleration.
It had absolutely ZERO 3D acceleration.
But, there was 3D acceleration, even cards with both 2D and 3D on them.

So why would this bleeding edge Mac have a non-3D accelerated card? Because it doesnt need it.



The Mac Pro is the same way. If your not gunna use 3D, you dont need it.... sorta.
If your buying a Mac Pro for your recording studio, and its office equipment, and the only things that will ever run are Audio programs, are you ever gunna need to use that 3D? Nope*.

What if your a Programmer that needs the fastest processors money can buy so you can compile your code quicker. Will he need 3D? Nope*.

How about if your going to use this computer to run a "Video-Bank" of 8 monitors, You gunna need it then? Nope*!

Now, how many other situations are there where thouse people will not benifit from it at all? There are alot im sure.


Heres what im getting at.
Putting a better video card in the system as its "Default" card, will raise the temp, and the power consumption as well as the total cost.
Alot of people dont need that extra OOMPH of 3D, they just dont.
In fact, Im HAPPY Apple chose that card. You should be too. Because it addresses two of the biggest issues that alot of people have with Apples (esp G5).

Its Too Hot/Noisy, It costs too much.

For a guy like me, whos gunna buy that computer with the default card, just so I can rip it out. It doesnt make sense to put anything more powerful in there. Thank you for not putting a more expensive card in there apple, you saved me money.
All the other people out there that are happier that this is a quieter computer too, say thanks to apple. Because with a bigger card, comes more heat, comes more cooling, comes more of that noise you hate so much.
In fact, all the people that dont really need all that 3D stuff, they should be happy as well.


But here comes the question, Why the 7300? Why not something even cheaper and more replaceable? Also, you may have noticed I astrick'ed the fact that people dont need 3D.

Well... they sorta do.

Without looking at any of the numbers on how fast that card runs. I wouldnt be supprised if this card is the lowest level card that can run a 30" ACD and do all the 3D animations in the GUI reasonably fast.
And im sure that this card was one of the top choices in the Price to Preformance to Heat ratio.
Also keep in mind, Apple has a configuration for 4 of thouse things in there. I dont know how much hotter the next step up was... but lets say its a measly 2 degrees warmer.
The final temp for a 4 card setup gets another 8 degrees added to it. 8 Degrees isnt a deal breaker by itself, but considering heat issues from before... a few degrees here and there, and all of sudden, they will have to ship it with even more fans, which means more R&D in the end, more cost for parts, which in the end means a more expensive computer.

You see... apple isnt selling you a 3D card in this computer. They are really selling you a 2D card that has just enough 3D to animate the GUI.

Of course, you could read what apple has to say about graphics cards...

"The NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT, which comes in our standard configuration, provides excellent all-around performance for creative applications. If you’re working in motion graphics, animation, digital photography, or 3D design and visualization, the faster ATI Radeon X1900 XT may suit your needs perfectly.

Or choose the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 graphics card. One of the most advanced graphics cards available, the Quadro FX 4500 provides a 3D stereo graphics port for stereo-in-a-window applications, making it an excellent choice for high-end scientific visualization."

http://www.apple.com/macpro/graphics.html

So, the first paragraph is saying.
"If you wanna just do whatever on your computer, you can stick with the 7300. But if you are gunna do anything more than that, well you better upgrade."






So can we please stop complaning about the 7300? If you need a better video card, buy one, end of story.

 

[extraextra]

I agree! (I kind of skimmed it, but whatever I read I agreed with).


However, my gripe is the bad typing that seems to be all too common. I'm not pointing you out specifically. But is it hard to hit the apostrophe key? Can we maybe briefly go over what we've typed before hitting post? (I'm talking about those "unfoprtunately mhy internet broce wut do i do???????" posts)

 

[omfgninja]

I agree! (I kind of skimmed it, but whatever I read I agreed with).


However, my gripe is the bad typing that seems to be all too common. I'm not pointing you out specifically. But is it hard to hit the apostrophe key? Can we maybe briefly go over what we've typed before hitting post? (I'm talking about those "unfoprtunately mhy internet broce wut do i do???????" posts)

I would, but that would all require too much effort, since so many people will ignore me anyway.
Im also intoxicated.

 

[DMPDX]

If someones running 8 monitors, I think they might want a little more graphics horsepower. Or atleast I would.
-dsm

 

[Sun Baked]

If someones running 8 monitors, I think they might want a little more graphics horsepower. Or atleast I would.
-dsm

But you have a limit on how big a card you can put in the machine's 4 slots, those darn wattage issues -- but playing around with the Slot Manager you can get better performance by allocating PCI Express channels.

 

[milozauckerman]

Sorry, when I lay out $2500 I expect a stock graphics card that cost Apple more than $25.

I know a lot of people here like to pretend that suddenly Apple pwns the server and business world, but that doesn't really explain the dozens of G5 towers used by macrumors users who don't appear to fit that mld.

 

[Sun Baked]

Sorry, when I lay out $2500 I expect a stock graphics card that cost Apple more than $25.

And you don't even get a DVI capable card in the competition from Dell for $2500 ... you get a 128MB dual VGA card.

This isn't a gaming machine, it is a Server/Workstation where CPU may matter more than GPU power.

 

[milozauckerman]

So all the people who've posted to MR with their Mac Pros are secretly running e-commerce servers?

 

[Chone]

First of all the Mac Pro is not necessarily a server workstation, its merely labeled as a workstation because Intel prefers (I wouldn´t be surprised if DEMANDS) that computers with Xeon processor be labeled as servers/workstations, Xserve is the true server solution. Now Mac Pro is just a high end desktop from Mac, the Xeon processor is just Conroe with a faster bus and multi processor capacity, so its just a better Conroe, now I might use my Mac Pro for graphic intensive apps which go beyond gaming (and even so, games are still of interest to Mac Pro consumers) and there is no reason I should pay 2500$ to get a 7300GT, apple can do better and put a decent midrange card in there, something like a 7600GT would have been great and would have met everyone´s needs.

I´m definitely getting my Mac Pro with a X1900XT, I just can´t see myself with all that powerhouse of a computer and a wimpy videocard.

I see your point but still a 7300GT is far to lowend for a high end desktop, even if its a "workstation" because as far as Xeon goes, its just a faster, more capable Core 2 Duo and you know there are just as much uses for graphic intensive apps in a "workstation" enviroment than there are non graphic intensive uses so we need to spring an extra 350$ for an overkill app when a GOOD midrange card would have been enough and would have kept prices down.

The best solution would be putting a 7600GT as default for the 2500 model and the 7300GT as an option for users who don´t need graphics. I´m sorry, its a high end computer and some of its uses are going to be graphics oriented, it just has to be prepared with a decent videocard.

 

[THX1139]

Sorry, when I lay out $2500 I expect a stock graphics card that cost Apple more than $25.

I know a lot of people here like to pretend that suddenly Apple pwns the server and business world, but that doesn't really explain the dozens of G5 towers used by macrumors users who don't appear to fit that mld.

I wonder if you would be happy if Apple put a higher-end video card and then charged more for the computer? Maybe they are able to sell at $2500 BECAUSE they used a cheap solution, realizing that most people don't need a specialty card and shouldn't be forced to buy it. Or if they do buy it, they wouldn't bitch about paying more. My guess is that if you can't afford to upgrade the card, you probably can't afford the Macpro to begin with!

 

[quruli]

First of all the Mac Pro is not necessarily a server workstation, its merely labeled as a workstation because Intel prefers (I wouldn´t be surprised if DEMANDS) that computers with Xeon processor be labeled as servers/workstations, Xserve is the true server solution. Now Mac Pro is just a high end desktop from Mac, the Xeon processor is just Conroe with a faster bus and multi processor capacity, so its just a better Conroe, now I might use my Mac Pro for graphic intensive apps which go beyond gaming (and even so, games are still of interest to Mac Pro consumers) and there is no reason I should pay 2500$ to get a 7300GT, apple can do better and put a decent midrange card in there, something like a 7600GT would have been great and would have met everyone´s needs.

I´m definitely getting my Mac Pro with a X1900XT, I just can´t see myself with all that powerhouse of a computer and a wimpy videocard.

I see your point but still a 7300GT is far to lowend for a high end desktop, even if its a "workstation" because as far as Xeon goes, its just a faster, more capable Core 2 Duo and you know there are just as much uses for graphic intensive apps in a "workstation" enviroment than there are non graphic intensive uses so we need to spring an extra 350$ for an overkill app when a GOOD midrange card would have been enough and would have kept prices down.

The best solution would be putting a 7600GT as default for the 2500 model and the 7300GT as an option for users who don´t need graphics. I´m sorry, its a high end computer and some of its uses are going to be graphics oriented, it just has to be prepared with a decent videocard.

"Graphics oriented" is much too broad of a classification to warrant the use of a better graphics card.

Lets look at the facts:

2-D graphics: Photoshop, FCP - so basically photo editing and video editing which is a large part of the market for Mac Pro's.
The 7300GT is overkill for these, you could get by on a Radeon 9200. The graphics power is not necessary here.

Gaming: For the casual gamer the 7300GT covers them. Now for the hardcore gamer, Apple gives you the option of a X1900XT one of the best card on the market. Apple didn't skimp here. Even if a 7600GT was an option or standard, most of the gamers would flock to the X1900XT as they feel that they need all the power. That is illustrated in this statement from you "I´m definitely getting my Mac Pro with a X1900XT, I just can´t see myself with all that powerhouse of a computer and a wimpy videocard."

Which also screams "I have to have to the best video card, even if I won't ever use it because I have to have the best so that my e-peen will be larger". I for one, would not spend another $350 on an upgrade that I don't need just so I can feel as if I don't have a wimpy video card. Don't get me wrong, maybe you want to game, but you reason for getting the X1900XT is one of ego and not function.

3D Graphics: Here we have things like Maya. Chances are if you are running these apps you are going for the Quadro. 7600GT, 7950GX2, X1900XT, OMGWTFBBQ bestest gaming card doesnt matter. No consumer card will give you the real time rendering performance of a Quadro. That is why these card exist. So for someone who is doing this kind of work knows what to do, and surely isn't going to get the 7300GT or whine about the Quadro not being standard.

So as you can see there are many categories within "graphic oriented" uses. The 7300GT offers exactly what 2D artists need, with the ability to have 8 displays. The X1900XT offers the best gaming performance for users who want that. And the Quadro covers the 3D artists.

There are also those whom don't deal in graphics at all and the OP mentioned some of them: Audio, scientific calculation, programming. For these people the 7300GT is fine. If they have other uses, well Apple offers cards that can give them the gaming or 3d rendering performance they may need.

So maybe you can come up with another reason as to why the 7300GT isn't necessary? It keeps the cost down and probably allowed for Apple to offer up the Dual 2.66Ghz Xeons at such a nice price point.

But, we can't look at the machine as a whole. It is necessary to pick out the things we don't like

 

[macenforcer]

You know why I love the 7300GT? NO FAN. Those who bought the x800xt for the g5 know what I am talking about. Besides its faster than the X1600 thats in the imac and I don't hear people complaining about that card.

Do people have any idea how quiet the MacPro is? SILENT. A faster card would change all that.

 

[KingYaba]

Good posts omfgninja I read them completely and I agree.

 

[nylon]

Besides its faster than the X1600 thats in the imac and I don't hear people complaining about that card.

The 7300GT comapres with the X1300 series of cards not the X1600. The X1600 is more powerful card. Check the reviews on the web.

 

[quruli]

The 7300GT comapres with the X1300 series of cards not the X1600. The X1600 is more powerful card. Check the reviews on the web.

More powerful, yes. But price to performance clearly goes to the 7300GT.

http://www.benchmark.co.yu/article.php?sid=11157&oliver=3625&quale=5

 

[furious]

i have never had nor will ever need a computer with a graphics card so for me the MacPro is overkill thats why i have a MB

 

[quruli]

i have never had nor will ever need a computer with a graphics card so for me the MacPro is overkill thats why i have a MB

Wow, how can you use the computer without a graphics card? Must be tough....

 

[macenforcer]

The 7300GT comapres with the X1300 series of cards not the X1600. The X1600 is more powerful card. Check the reviews on the web.

Maybe you should.


OWNED

 

[Mav451]

Here's some benches from Techspot that will clarify the misconception further:
http://www.techspot.com/review/7-nvidia_geforce_7300gt_vs_ati_radeon_x1600pro/page3.html

Needless to say, I'm pleasantly impressed.

Yes, I know the page I referenced are nVidia-friendly games, but this falls in line with Apple's benches, that are focused on only D3/Q4.

 

[nylon]

Maybe you should.


OWNED

That's an X1600 Pro the lowest end of the X1600 series of cards and is not included in the iMac or the MBP .

Why don't you do the comaprison that was under discussion which was the X1600 in the iMac and the MBP vs the 7300GT in the Mac Pro. Who's 'owned' now?

Hell lets's just make it simple. Someone run graphics benchmarks on both cards.

 

[quruli]

That's an X1600 Pro the lowest end of the X1600 series of cards and is not included in the iMac or the MBP .

Why don't you do the comaprison that was under discussion which was the X1600 in the iMac and the MBP vs the 7300GT in the Mac Pro. Who's 'owned' now?

Hell lets's just make it simple. Someone run graphics benchmarks on both cards.

So which X1600 is included in the iMac/MBP? It is just labeled X1600 and from what I have read it is clocked down as well.

Anyhow, this argument is pointless. In comparison to an X1600 the 7300GT is a good card and offers great price/performance as well as the ability to run 4 of the cards.

Those who are going to game are going to spend the extra for the X1900XT, or would you rather have that in the stock config as well? Apple put in the 7300GT as it will perform well in all categories yet keeps the cost of the Mac Pro lower.

But again, it is necesary for some of you to pick out one thing and complain about it while ignoring the other things you are getting in the Mac Pro. All in an effort to make the Mac Pro seem too expensive for what Apple is offering to you.

Let's look at this in a fair manner without bias, please.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

The performance of the 7300GT speaks for itself. The price of 7300GT is what under a 100 bucks I get pretty sick of those who argue that no one needs a good graphiocs card. Pure Spin from the Mac fan club. Its like how Integrated graphics were crap until Apple used them then we got 1 million excuses why we should love that integrated p.o.s.. Apple has gone Cheapo on its graphics is the bottom line. A under $100 Graphics in a $2500 machine is kind of a joke in my view. Let the spin continue.

 

[quruli]

The performance of the 7300GT speaks for itself. The price of 7300GT is what under a 100 bucks I get pretty sick of those who argue that no one needs a good graphiocs card. Pure Spin from the Mac fan club. Its like how Integrated graphics were crap until Apple used them then we got 1 million excuses why we should love that integrated p.o.s.. Apple has gone Cheapo on its graphics is the bottom line. A under $100 Graphics in a $2500 machine is kind of a joke in my view. Let the spin continue.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that no one needs a good graphics card. However, the 7300GT keeps the cost of Mac Pro down, while offering good performance for those who don't need 3D. Which covers photographers, video and audio editing, scientific apps, and programmers. They don't need a good graphics for what they do. However if they do need better graphics for something else Apple offers choices to suit there needs.

The cost of the card does not give an indication if its peformance. Any smart shopper knows this.

As far as integrated, it has always been crap. Apple didn't change that, those who say they did are the brightest crayons in the box. However, integrated keeps down cost and offers decent perfomance in 3d games.

Fact is, some people don't need a X1900XT, so why make everyone pay for it?

 

[milozauckerman]

Apple put in the 7300GT as it will perform well in all categories yet keeps the cost of the Mac Pro lower.

Bollocks.

When Apple skimps out on a component - be it the GPU or bluetooth or 802.11 wireless, the savings doesn't go back into our pockets, it goes into Apple's margin.

 

[Chone]

"Graphics oriented" is much too broad of a classification to warrant the use of a better graphics card.

Lets look at the facts:

2-D graphics: Photoshop, FCP - so basically photo editing and video editing which is a large part of the market for Mac Pro's.
The 7300GT is overkill for these, you could get by on a Radeon 9200. The graphics power is not necessary here.

Gaming: For the casual gamer the 7300GT covers them. Now for the hardcore gamer, Apple gives you the option of a X1900XT one of the best card on the market. Apple didn't skimp here. Even if a 7600GT was an option or standard, most of the gamers would flock to the X1900XT as they feel that they need all the power. That is illustrated in this statement from you "I´m definitely getting my Mac Pro with a X1900XT, I just can´t see myself with all that powerhouse of a computer and a wimpy videocard."

Which also screams "I have to have to the best video card, even if I won't ever use it because I have to have the best so that my e-peen will be larger". I for one, would not spend another $350 on an upgrade that I don't need just so I can feel as if I don't have a wimpy video card. Don't get me wrong, maybe you want to game, but you reason for getting the X1900XT is one of ego and not function.

3D Graphics: Here we have things like Maya. Chances are if you are running these apps you are going for the Quadro. 7600GT, 7950GX2, X1900XT, OMGWTFBBQ bestest gaming card doesnt matter. No consumer card will give you the real time rendering performance of a Quadro. That is why these card exist. So for someone who is doing this kind of work knows what to do, and surely isn't going to get the 7300GT or whine about the Quadro not being standard.

So as you can see there are many categories within "graphic oriented" uses. The 7300GT offers exactly what 2D artists need, with the ability to have 8 displays. The X1900XT offers the best gaming performance for users who want that. And the Quadro covers the 3D artists.

There are also those whom don't deal in graphics at all and the OP mentioned some of them: Audio, scientific calculation, programming. For these people the 7300GT is fine. If they have other uses, well Apple offers cards that can give them the gaming or 3d rendering performance they may need.

So maybe you can come up with another reason as to why the 7300GT isn't necessary? It keeps the cost down and probably allowed for Apple to offer up the Dual 2.66Ghz Xeons at such a nice price point.

But, we can't look at the machine as a whole. It is necessary to pick out the things we don't like

Well first of all, I'm not getting the X1900XT for the "ego" factor, believe it or not, 2D graphics can be very demanding, I've noticed performance increases in graphic and video editing tools (like Photoshop or Final Cut Pro) from just upgrading the videocard (and the original videocard was already far more capable than the 9200 you put as an example), additionally I want the X1900XT because for 3D intensive apps (like games) the 7300GT simply won't cut it, I would prefer a good midrange option like a 7600GT but if the 7300GT isn't not going to be enough, I have to get the X1900XT. Videocards also have video and video encoding acceleration, a X1900XT can encode videos faster than a Pentium EE with the correct AVIVO and driver support, I'm trying to make a point here as to why a high end card can be given a lot of uses in a high end computer, obviously there are a lot of people who aren't happy so that means many Mac Pro consumers could use a better card.

And I agree with your Quadro point, thats why people buy Quadros BUT if I'm, not going to run Maya or EPIC or any of those demanding programs but I AM running other 3D applications like say a smaller scale 3D Modeling program or will be doing personal video editing AND lots of digital work as well as games like in my case... I don't need a 1000$ Quadro but a 100$ 7300GT is too little, even for the non gaming related uses, the 400$ X1900XT is good for all that... but I could do well with a 300$ 7900GT or 200$ 7600GT instead.

See the 7300GT on the Mac Pro isn't much different than the X1600 on the iMac, graphics card are becoming more and more important pieces of hardware nowadays and Apple needs to realize that, the xserve having a crummy card is good but the Mac Pro needs some more graphics juice.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that no one needs a good graphics card. However, the 7300GT keeps the cost of Mac Pro down, while offering good performance for those who don't need 3D. Which covers photographers, video and audio editing, scientific apps, and programmers. They don't need a good graphics for what they do. However if they do need better graphics for something else Apple offers choices to suit there needs.

The cost of the card does not give an indication if its peformance. Any smart shopper knows this.

As far as integrated, it has always been crap. Apple didn't change that, those who say they did are the brightest crayons in the box. However, integrated keeps down cost and offers decent perfomance in 3d games.

Fact is, some people don't need a X1900XT, so why make everyone pay for it?

Now you are just BSing everyone, the cost of a card does not give an indication of its performance but it does give you an idea of what category it is in, a sub 100$ card is low end, however you want to look.

I see your first point but the truth is, some 2D and 3D users do need more thana 7300GT and thats a fact, they need more than a 7300GT but less than a super expensive Quadro, thats why the default card should be something better, if Apple put a 7600GT in there, they could still keep the cost at 2500$ and offer a 7300GT for people who want it even cheaper, at least Apple should give us more options, I'm choosing the X1900XT because the 7300GT simply won't suffice my needs but I would be just fine with something less expensive like a 7900GT/X1900GT, etc, see what I'm saying?

And you lost all credibility to me when you said integrated offers decent performance in 3D games, thats just some big BS, integrated slows down the entire OS, Mac OS X's GUI is very video card dependant and the overall "quick" feel of the system relies on a good videocard, integrated leeches system memory and is roughly as fast as the cards that came with the late G3s/early G4s, the Mac Mini should have something like the 9200 it used to have, Apple keeps downgrading us, we used to have a midrange card with the G5, now we just have a lowend card... why?