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

quruli

macrumors regular
Aug 11, 2006
154
0
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.
 

omfgninja

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 9, 2006
42
0
Chone said:
I see your first point but the truth is, some 2D and 3D users do need more thana 7300GT and thats a fact

Prove it.
You said "thats a fact" I want you to prove it to me.
I already gave a very compelling argument as for why the 7300 is in there.

I also want to know, how they would beable to put 4 7600GT's in there, and not have it be alot hotter.
Heres the referance card for the 7600gt. Notice the big heatsink and the fan.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=908
You honestly think by sticking 4 of thouse in a case, its not gunna effect the temp, and then, by extension, everything else?

Apple figures, if someone is willing to drop $2500 on a PROFESSIONAL level Computer, they wouldnt skimp on just putting a $250 graphics card in there.
They figure.... Either you need good video, or you dont.
If you do, and your already gunna spend $2500, you might as well get a great video card. And if you dont need it, then you can simply just live with the 2D card (with enough 3D for the GUI).
 

wyatt23

macrumors 6502a
Mar 7, 2006
539
0
Forest Hills, NY
quruli said:
Fact is, some people don't need a X1900XT, so why make everyone pay for it?


that is the point that everyone is missing. if the x1900xt was in every computer, then there wouldn't be a 2499 mac pro, there'd be a 2849 mac pro.


what boggles my mind is why people are up in arms over this. especially people about gaming. i love gaming. yes it's important. but for real people, are we really arguing about video cards? just add it.
 

portent

macrumors 6502a
Feb 17, 2004
623
2
Personally, I'm glad Apple isn't ramming a glitzy gaming card down my throat.

For the hard-core gamers, no stock card will satisfy. For the workstation crowd, no consumer gaming card has what it takes. And for me, my pathetic GeForce 5200 is about ten times as much power as I need.

Apple should really go back to the MacII-era and ship machines with no graphics support at all. Let the gamers satisfy their lust however they want, without bitching about how lame the lowly stock cards are.
 

Gurutech

macrumors 6502
Jan 22, 2006
268
2
Obviously, the problem here is lack of options.
Apple clearly doesn't give that many options so that they can make more profit out of each Mac Pro.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,055
6
Yahooville S.C.
portent said:
Personally, I'm glad Apple isn't ramming a glitzy gaming card down my throat.

For the hard-core gamers, no stock card will satisfy. For the workstation crowd, no consumer gaming card has what it takes. And for me, my pathetic GeForce 5200 is about ten times as much power as I need.

Apple should really go back to the MacII-era and ship machines with no graphics support at all. Let the gamers satisfy their lust however they want, without bitching about how lame the lowly stock cards are.
Sounds like your a Mini customer or a grandma.:D
 

spicyapple

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2006
1,724
1
Gurutech said:
Obviously, the problem here is lack of options.
You can build the Mac Pro to over 4,000,000 configurations. I'm just quoting Phil. :)

I'm perfectly happy with the video card. It's 1000x faster than the $700 I paid for my FireGL card 10 years ago. :p
 

RedTomato

macrumors 601
Mar 4, 2005
4,161
444
.. London ..
omfgninja said:
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.

Optical drive + hd + NINE (9) expansion bays and six PCI slots :eek: :eek:

mmm they don't build desktop macs like that any more....
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,941
162
RedTomato said:
Optical drive + hd + NINE (9) expansion bays and six PCI slots :eek: :eek:

mmm they don't build desktop macs like that any more....
And think of all the blood, sweat, tears, and cursing you will miss out on making use of all that expansion with the new Macs. :p
 

Mantishead

macrumors newbie
Aug 16, 2006
21
0
Confusion

I have read all of your comments and have learnt a great deal about the issue but I find myself deeply confused.

Apple can ship my Mac Pro in 3 days if I choose the nVideo card or 6 weeks if I opt for the ATI card. My first impressions, after reading Apple website and some user comments was that I absolutely needed the ATI card for what I would be doing. But having read some comments here I am no longer sure.

I will be using FCP, Motion, Aperture, Logic Pro, Photoshop and Dreamweaver though I rarely manipulate TIFFs greater than 100MB. I also use Adobe Premiere on my current PC and have never had any issues.

Okay, so I do intend to step up to HD in FCP, and also may require multiple HD streams with real time effects rendering but isn't most of this handled by the dual cores anyway??

I simply want a straight answer, if at all possible, am I likely to sit back and cry when I realise the performance of the nVidia, or am I more likely to think wow this new Mac is great and it's sooo quiet am I glad I saved all that money on a card I didn't need.

I will be doing no gaming, no 3D scientific modelling and given that the Mac Pro blitzes the specification of my current PC, which handles Photoshop and Premiere admirably, do I really need the ATI board. And hey, if after 6 months I think I do, can I not just buy a new graphics card as I am used to doing to my PC every couple of years anyway?

Please, please, please tell me... do I need an ATI card.

PS - The Apple Sales guy advised me to wait the 5 weeks and get the ATI card, but hey - come on, that's hardly an impartial piece of advice. And what does a sales guy know about real world requirements - he's just reading off his marketing blurb.
 

Evangelion

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2005
3,376
184
omfgninja said:
So why would this bleeding edge Mac have a non-3D accelerated card?

Because back then, Macs were not used for 3D-stuff. If you were in to 3D, you most likely used a SGI-workstation.

The Mac Pro is the same way. If your not gunna use 3D, you dont need it.... sorta.

Why not ship it with integrated graphics then?

So can we please stop complaning about the 7300?

Um, no?

If you need a better video card, buy one, end of story.

I'll do that as soon as the magic fairies conjure the cash needed for the upgrade. Or maybe you will give it to me instead?
 

Evangelion

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2005
3,376
184
Sun Baked said:
And you don't even get a DVI capable card in the competition from Dell for $2500 ... you get a 128MB dual VGA card.

I couldn't care less what Dell offers. And I do believe that it has DVI
 

jaduffy108

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2005
526
0
omfgninja said:
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.

### First...although you make some valid points in general...the fact remains..as you said...it's a crappy card. Why the need to rationalize..apologize on Apple's behalf? I did this for years..and *I* finally found it quite exhausting.

I'm definitely one of those who whines about Apple's poor GPU performance. Example..anyone who buys the FX4500 is wasting their money because the drivers completely cripple the performance. Arguing about whose "fault" that is...doesn't help the person who wants high end graphics performance in a Mac. Period. What does it say about Apple...that they would offer such a card knowing it will NOT remotely provide the performance one reads about on the nVidia website spec sheet???

If I remember correctly...when Stevie compared the Mac Pro to Dell's "comparable" spec'd computer...did you notice the gpu in that Dell??? Anyone? An nVidia Quadro FX card!! That card will clean the floor with the 7300gt. I actually found that comparison dishonest...at best. Also, if Dell replaced the Quadro card with the 7300gt...the prices would have matched, which I think still bodes well for the Mac Pro...but it was a misleading stunt..and showed a lack of integrity on Apple's part. GPU performance, drivers and lack of GPU *choices* are Apple's weakness...and is a primary reason why the VAST majority of digital content creation productions work on PCs. If Apple wants some of that market, they need to improve in this area..and improve a LOT.

Despite all my ranting...I think the Mac Pro is great...just think it should have a better gpu for that price. Apple should also stop ripping people off for extra RAM and HDs. Sure "everyone" knows to buy online, etc...but wouldn't it be nice(!) if you didn't have to? These issues only continue the perception that PCs are a better value...and how is THAT a good thing for Apple???

peace
 

Evangelion

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2005
3,376
184
jaduffy108 said:
If I remember correctly...when Stevie compared the Mac Pro to Dell's "comparable" spec'd computer...did you notice the gpu in that Dell??? Anyone? An nVidia Quadro FX card!!

Well, in all fairness: There are different kinds of Quadro's out there. The one in Dell is relatively low-power (and cheap, IIRC it costs a bit over 100 bucks) model meant for multi-monitor setups. IIRC, the model in Dell was Quadro NVS, not Quadro FX.
 

jaduffy108

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2005
526
0
Evangelion said:
Well, in all fairness: There are different kinds of Quadro's out there. The one in Dell is relatively low-power (and cheap, IIRC it costs a bit over 100 bucks) model meant for multi-monitor setups. IIRC, the model in Dell was Quadro NVS, not Quadro FX.

### Thanks for the correction.

As someone else pointed out..the lack of choices is the real problem here...and i do think it's a "problem". Apple is missing out on making $$ off the various choices too. Will the new Macbook Pro (merom) offer the 512MB NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M? Highly unlikely. Will Apple offer the Go 7900 gtx? Highly unlikely again. At best(!), will they stick an ATI gaming card in there? very likely. For me, it's sooooo frustrating. Just give me the choice. I'll wait 8 weeks for the bto...but for once...please give me the opportunity to experience what Windows people get to experience as a given....ALL on OS X. I would pay big dollars for a machine like an Alienware laptop with the merom chip...running OS X. Apple has the opportunity to offer that and actually live up to their hype. What a business opportunity!!! I sincerely hope Apple proves me wrong...but my guess is I'll be in the all too familiar territory of choosing between a sweet OS and good 3D hardware. The Mac Pro is no exception...cuz the FX 4500 *on the Mac* is *not* a choice. It's crippled. I guess it's fair to say, no company can be great in every arena. The Alienware is a smokin' 3d powerhouse....but some people care more about how thick it is or how much it weighs...or how "pretty" it is. *I* find Apple's priorities of looks over substance misplaced in terms of their laptops. Reading these forums..I appear to be in the minority. Because Apple can't design a 1" thick laptop with a FX 2500M or Go 7900gtx that isn't also a heater...they don't offer it...which says being 1" thick is more important to them than performance. Well, it ain't to me.
 

jaduffy108

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2005
526
0
Please, please, please tell me... do I need an ATI card.
[/QUOTE]

### I'll put it this way. If you *need* the Mac Pro, you *need* the ATI card. What you *want* are the latest NVIDIA cards, but alas.... thus this thread :)

Will you survive with the 7300? Absolutely. If you do any 3d or need solid openGL performance..forget the 7300. Hope this helps....

peace
 

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,401
471
Boston, MA
omfgninja said:
First of all. I have seen alot complaining about the 7300gt.
Everyone cries. Oh, its a crappy card, why did apple .........................................................................................................................
So can we please stop complaning about the 7300? If you need a better video card, buy one, end of story.


i hereby nominate this post as the best post i read in the last two month. at least.:)

i'm gonna save it and reuse it on every thread about a new mac that apple releases for the next ten years. at least.:D
 

Krevnik

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2003
4,101
1,312
jaduffy108 said:
Please, please, please tell me... do I need an ATI card.

### I'll put it this way. If you *need* the Mac Pro, you *need* the ATI card. What you *want* are the latest NVIDIA cards, but alas.... thus this thread :)

Will you survive with the 7300? Absolutely. If you do any 3d or need solid openGL performance..forget the 7300. Hope this helps....

peace

He kinda just said he didn't do any heavy 3D or work that relies on OpenGL.

Although I would put it this way: For the work that this guy is doing, the X1900 XT is waste of 350$ added onto the cost of the machine. For 2D or video work, I tend to focus more on the CPU, RAM and HDD over the GPU. In the case of OS X and 2D work, the only 'key' part of the GPU to look at is the VRAM. Of course, with the base card carrying 256MB of VRAM, it will handle a reasonable amount of large windows without needing to have excessive VRAM/RAM swaps for the framebuffer.

I just hope you wouldn't recommend that the 7300GT be swapped out for something better on a Dev box as well (unless that dev box was for game development or the like).
 

jaduffy108

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2005
526
0
omfgninja said:
Prove it.
You said "thats a fact" I want you to prove it to me.
I already gave a very compelling argument as for why the 7300 is in there.

What a lame argument. Go do a radiocity render on a 7300gt and get back to me. The *need* will quickly become crystal clear...and hopefully will provide the proof you seek.
 

jaduffy108

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2005
526
0
Krevnik said:
He kinda just said he didn't do any heavy 3D or work that relies on OpenGL.

Although I would put it this way: For the work that this guy is doing, the X1900 XT is waste of 350$ added onto the cost of the machine. For 2D or video work, I tend to focus more on the CPU, RAM and HDD over the GPU. In the case of OS X and 2D work, the only 'key' part of the GPU to look at is the VRAM. Of course, with the base card carrying 256MB of VRAM, it will handle a reasonable amount of large windows without needing to have excessive VRAM/RAM swaps for the framebuffer.

I just hope you wouldn't recommend that the 7300GT be swapped out for something better on a Dev box as well (unless that dev box was for game development or the like).

### How does Motion(!) and "may require multiple HD streams with real time effects rendering" not benefit dramatically from the ATI card??? If he only works with FCP, then for the most part i agree...focus on the cpu, but Motion? It is designed specifically(!!) to place a load on the gpu...and this is a trend that is growing..making the case for the ATI all the stronger imo. The Mac Pro with 7300gt is "out of balance" in my opinion. You have this monster of cpu power and wimpy gpu. Resembles a server more than a dcc workstation.
 

smeegs

macrumors newbie
Jul 2, 2002
16
0
Edinburgh/Belfast
jaduffy108 said:
What a lame argument. Go do a radiocity render on a 7300gt and get back to me. The *need* will quickly become crystal clear...and hopefully will provide the proof you seek.

The graphics card isn't used for 'radiosity' renders (I presume you mean G.I.) in any professional 3D application I've ever used. All final rendering is done on the CPU as far as I'm aware. Only preview (interactive) rendering is done on the graphics card since OpenGL isn't acurate enough for final output.

Not sure if this has been raised or not, but surely the point is if you would rather have the horsepower (number crunching grunt) of the Quad Core Xeon machine, then the money you save yourself buying from Apple (as opposed to anyone else offering a similar spec) is more than enough to pay for the ATi, or even Quadro.

thanks
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.