Chone said: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.
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?
Ok. Small scale 3D modeling. A 7600GT or any other consumer card will not give you the performance you need. There are lower end Quadro that will handle that task much better and much cheaper than getting the best 3D consumer gaming cards. So to recap, a consumer gaming will not help you are all in real time 3D rendering apps, a Quadro 1500 would be better suited for that, and I feel Apple should make that an option. So there goes your credibility. Anyhow.
Now, since when do consumer gaming cards encode video? I would really like some literature on that one.