[ninahagen]

The new iMac 24" is out, sexy enough to cannibalize a segment of the market for the current Mac Pro.

Also, the Mac Pro just got a price reduction.

Could these two facts point to an impending Mac Pro update?

Does anyone know how the vid card in the iMac stacks up to the ATI1900XT?

[pheonixash]

The Apple US Store still shows the same price, $2,499. Maybe it was an exchange rate fix?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Could these two facts point to an impending Mac Pro update?

Does anyone know how the vid card in the iMac stacks up to the ATI1900XT?

A Mac Pro update has been impending for the last ~4 months, and severely overdue for the last week.

HD 2600XT (in the new higher-end iMacs) is 33 to 66% as fast as the X1900XT.

[MacosNerd]

Why do you say "A Mac Pro update has been impending for the last ~4 months?" It was 4 months ago that apple released the 8 core MP, so I cannot see why its been impending for the last 4 months. I'm not sure its severely overdue either.

Since I own a quad, and quite happy with it, I'm not really interested in buying one but I am looking forward to see what apple produces.

Generally Mac buyers guide is a good rule of thumb for when apple may release an update. They have the MP in mid product cycle which means it may not get updated soon. Of course these are just guestimates.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Why do you say "A Mac Pro update has been impending for the last ~4 months?" It was 4 months ago that apple released the 8 core MP, so I cannot see why its been impending for the last 4 months. I'm not sure its severely overdue either.

Released? Apple hasn't released anything in regard to the Mac Pro since they introduced it initially.

All they did was add the option to BTO quad-core processors. No change in price or specifications. Just a very expensive BTO option.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by mduell 

HD 2600XT (in the new higher-end iMacs) is 33 to 66% as fast as the X1900XT.

Are you sure you're comparing the right "cards". The HD 2600 Pro in the iMac is a mobile GPU not a desktop GPU. My guess is it's slower than a desktop X1900XT.

I saw some figures for the HD 2600 Pro on another forum. I'll have to see if I can dig them up.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Released? Apple hasn't released anything in regard to the Mac Pro since they introduced it initially.

All they did was add the option to BTO quad-core processors. No change in price or specifications. Just a very expensive BTO option.

Some would call that an update, just like I would. As soon as I saw that update I bought my Mac Pro, because nothing was going to be coming for another 6-9 months. I think we'll see an update to the Mac Pro this fall when the new Intel motherboard chipset is announced.

[Chuckit]

I've shown myself to be ignorant of Intel's recent releases before, but it hasn't put out any new Xeons since Clovertown, has it? Apple's probably waiting for that before it updates the Mac Pro.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by mduell 

HD 2600XT (in the new higher-end iMacs) is 33 to 66% as fast as the X1900XT.

Do you mean this card is actually faster than the graphics card in the MacPro? Do you know this for sure?

[Aegis]

He's saying it's 33-66% as fast as a 1900xt, not faster than.

[bballe336]

Originally Posted by Aegis 

He's saying it's 33-66% as fast as a 1900xt, not faster than.

But that is only because it is a mobile GPU. The fullsize desktop 2600xt is far faster than the 1900xt, although the ati GPUs are almost a joke at this point. The $400+ 2600xt is slower than a $120 nvidia 8600gt.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Released? Apple hasn't released anything in regard to the Mac Pro since they introduced it initially.

All they did was add the option to BTO quad-core processors. No change in price or specifications. Just a very expensive BTO option.

Ok I guess I'm wrong, so adding a 8 core macpro does not count as new release or update

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by Aegis 

He's saying it's 33-66% as fast as a 1900xt, not faster than.

Ooops. I guess I read mduell's post too fast.

That makes sense if it's 33-66% the speed of a X1900XT.

[shinji]

Originally Posted by bballe336 

But that is only because it is a mobile GPU. The fullsize desktop 2600xt is far faster than the 1900xt, although the ati GPUs are almost a joke at this point. The $400+ 2600xt is slower than a $120 nvidia 8600gt.

Is it? http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=728&chart=311

Maybe I am missing something here, dunno- I don't really keep up with the ATI/Nvidia battle.

[thag-simmons]

Originally Posted by bballe336 

But that is only because it is a mobile GPU. The fullsize desktop 2600xt is far faster than the 1900xt, although the ati GPUs are almost a joke at this point. The $400+ 2600xt is slower than a $120 nvidia 8600gt.

It is not a mobile chip. ATI does not use the "Pro" designation for mobile chips; only for desktop chips. See their chip lineup at amd.com.

The HD 2600 Pro desktop chip is about 60% of the HD 2600 XT, which in turn is about 60% of the X1900 XT. Its only saving grace is that it uses the unified shader model required by DirectX 10, for the most recent Windows games.

At high-resolutions, which is where you're really testing the video card as opposed to the CPU, the 2600 Pro is much slower than the X1900 XT. It is also only about 60-70% of the speed of the previous BTO chip offered in the iMac, the Nvidia 7600 GT.

Consider also that it's very easy to overclock the X1900 XT in the Mac to give it X1950 XT performance.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

Are you sure you're comparing the right "cards". The HD 2600 Pro in the iMac is a mobile GPU not a desktop GPU. My guess is it's slower than a desktop X1900XT.

I saw some figures for the HD 2600 Pro on another forum. I'll have to see if I can dig them up.

Right, and it may be underclocked too (Apple seems to like doing that). So perhaps 20-50% of the performance, depending on the app.

Originally Posted by bballe336 

But that is only because it is a mobile GPU. The fullsize desktop 2600xt is far faster than the 1900xt, although the ati GPUs are almost a joke at this point. The $400+ 2600xt is slower than a $120 nvidia 8600gt.

No, I was comparing the desktop HD2600XT; follow the link the other poster provided to TomsHardware's comparison.

[Veltliner]

I wonder what the price range will be.

I have the impression they moved the iMac a bit away from serious users, in order to guide those to buy the MacPro: slower graphics card, glossy screen (if that is an issue, is still being discussed)

I wonder if that could mean a 1500$ MacPro.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by thag-simmons 

It is not a mobile chip. ATI does not use the "Pro" designation for mobile chips; only for desktop chips. See their chip lineup at amd.com.

Sorry, but everybody knows the last iMacs had mobile graphics chips in them. There is no way you can fit a desktop graphics chip in that case, with the case now being even smaller.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Ok I guess I'm wrong, so adding a 8 core macpro does not count as new release or update

Apple added an 8-core Mac Pro? Where? I don't see it?

I certainly don't see a model number for said machine. Please, link me.

Nothing about the Mac Pro has changed since it was introduced. Going to CompUSA to pick one up today will provide you the exact same selection you had one year ago. Down to the model number. Like it or not, we are still in the 1st Gen of the Mac Pro.

It's nice that your definition of updating is adding a BTO option. By that logic, all Apple would have had to do was add a new BTO RAM configuration to get away with calling it an update.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

HD 2600XT (in the new higher-end iMacs) is...

Nonsense. There is no HD 2600XT in any Mac at all. The 2.4 GHz iMacs use the HD 2600 PRO which is slower than the XT.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

Sorry, but everybody knows the last iMacs had mobile graphics chips in them. There is no way you can fit a desktop graphics chip in that case, with the case now being even smaller.

Nonsense again. The Radeon X1600, the GeForce 7300GT, and the 7600GT were all not mobile GPUs. The mobile versions go by names of Mobility Radeon (in the first C2D MBP) and GeForce Go or GeForce 8x00M (the one in the second C2D MBP).

You also seem to neglect the fact that the HD 2600 PRO used in the new iMac has a TDP of only 45W. For a non-battery powered desktop computer like the iMac that's perfectly fine. Heck as a PCI Express card it doesn't even need additional power.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

It's nice that your definition of updating is adding a BTO option. By that logic, all Apple would have had to do was add a new BTO RAM configuration to get away with calling it an update.

You're mocking him. It's clear he was trying to say that since Apple offered an 8-core BTO option four months ago they delivered a performance upgrade already. Obviously others here are interested in new and improved BTO options and Apple hasn't delivered there indeed.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I've shown myself to be ignorant of Intel's recent releases before, but it hasn't put out any new Xeons since Clovertown, has it? Apple's probably waiting for that before it updates the Mac Pro.

The fastest Clovertown you can buy from Intel is still the X5365 which Apple released first. A FSB increase to 1600 MHz is also scheduled for this year, but it's not here yet.

OTOH even w/o new Clovertowns Apple could update the MP easily. The line-up could be switched to dual Clovertowns across the board and/or the GPU, HD, and other BTO options could be beefed up. I get the impression that a lot of people around here are not so much worried about the MP CPU options, but about the other specs. And since Apple hasn't done anything regarding those about a year it's certainly due.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Simon 

OTOH even w/o new Clovertowns Apple could update the MP easily. The line-up could be switched to dual Clovertowns across the board and/or the GPU, HD, and other BTO options could be beefed up. I get the impression that a lot of people around here are not so much worried about the MP CPU options, but about the other specs. And since Apple hasn't done anything regarding those about a year it's certainly due.

Yes, I agree. A top graphics card, some very fast HDs that could be put under Apple care (like a custom, mac-only 10k Raptor option), 6 internal SATA bays (allowing full use of the 6 nodes on the motherboard within one box) would be plenty. I would buy one tomorrow, even without an increase in the CPU clock speed. 8-core 3.0 Ghz is blazing already, and with the superior threading expected in Leopard the MP will optimize even further the speed potential.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Apple added an 8-core Mac Pro? Where? I don't see it?

I certainly don't see a model number for said machine. Please, link me.

My pleasure http://www.apple.com/macpro/


You should really visit apple.com before posting stuff like that, it was easily found

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Nonsense again. The Radeon X1600, the GeForce 7300GT, and the 7600GT were all not mobile GPUs. The mobile versions go by names of Mobility Radeon (in the first C2D MBP) and GeForce Go or GeForce 8x00M (the one in the second C2D MBP).

I think people are confusing the Intel iMacs with the G5 iMacs, which did use mobile cards (9600 Mobility comes to mind) in at least some revisions.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I think people are confusing the Intel iMacs with the G5 iMacs, which did use mobile cards (9600 Mobility comes to mind) in at least some revisions.

There's really nothing to confuse here. The poster was ranting about the "last iMac" and its mobile GPU. That was of course baloney. It's been a while since the iMac had a mobile GPU. Ranting is one thing, spreading misinformation to make a flawed point another. Unfortunately this thread contains quite a lot of both.

[Mister Elf]

Originally Posted by Simon 

There's really nothing to confuse here. The poster was ranting about the "last iMac" and its mobile GPU. That was of course baloney. It's been a while since the iMac had a mobile GPU. Ranting is one thing, spreading misinformation to make a flawed point another. Unfortunately this thread contains quite a lot of both.

He's not spreading fud. There has been a lot of confusion as to whether the new iMac uses the Mobility Radeon 2600XT, or the desktop Radeon 2600 Pro. The part number of the chip itself, from what I remember, is the part number for the Mobility 2600XT, while the clock speed resembles that of a 2600 Pro. This has led many to believe that the chip is a 2600XT, which has been downclocked to Pro speeds for heat and power reasons.

[mduell]

If the desktop version has a 45W TDP, I think that supports the other evidence that it is the mobile card. Why would you pay out the nose for a 44W TDP CPU when cheaper/faster options are available at 65W and then drop in a 45W TDP GPU?

[Simon]

It's already been pointed out by others here that the Radeon HD 2600 PRO is sold as a desktop GPU only. The Mobility version comes in the flavors HD 2600 or HD 2600 XT. It's important to note however that ATI chose to use the same feature set for desktop and mobile GPUs on the 2400 and 2600 series. This also includes the battery conserving PowerPlay 7.0 features. So the low TDP comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with the R600 lineup. Also, to those who wonder why some benchmarks show the HD 2600 PRO perform worse than the 7300 GT and much more so when you compare it to the 7600 GT, look at the power ratings and it becomes very obvious why.

Anyway, this all still doesn't explain IMHO why Apple went for the Radeon HD 2600 on the iMac rather than the GeForce 8600 they're already using on the MBP. It's been suggested that it'd due to UVD, but I'm not so sure about that. What about GPU cost, any hard numbers there?

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Why do you say "A Mac Pro update has been impending for the last ~4 months?" It was 4 months ago that apple released the 8 core MP, so I cannot see why its been impending for the last 4 months. I'm not sure its severely overdue either.

Generally Mac buyers guide is a good rule of thumb for when apple may release an update. They have the MP in mid product cycle which means it may not get updated soon. Of course these are just guestimates.

• First, the reason an MP update has been impending for at least the last ~4 months is because the graphics support and memory handling have been far below state-of-the-art for many months; lame even. Yes we have plenty of CPU, but there is much more to a complete computer architecture than just the CPUs.

• Second, the Mac Buyers Guide is a lousy rule of thumb. The fact that it puts the MP in mid cycle proves that point. For those of us in the biz of pro graphics or games Mac Pros are currently deficient, and the componentry to make it all right has been available for a while. Perhaps Apple is waiting for OS 10.5 to deliver modern tower hardware. In any event I expect new Mac Pro hardware this month or next.

-Allen Wicks

[Bathrone]

Ofcouse its lame. Not long now till G92 is released. Mac pros are generations behind. This isnt just one cycle. Were talking waaaayy behind here.

The memory too, yes. Good they went ECC ram but no good on bandwidth.

My wife has a macbookpro and Im seriously tipping towards a macpro if they update but I am worried that my investment will be negatively impacted by Apple being too lazy to keep updating efi and doing drivers for new video cards as they are released.

The 45nanometre new intels and all the new cache and ssse4 instructions is coming too.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Bathrone 

The 45nanometre new intels and all the new cache and ssse4 instructions is coming too.

Harpertown (the Penryn-core based Xeon) will arrive this year, but if by "new cache" you're thinking about the multi-level shared cache architecture you're going to have to wait for Nehalem (Harpertown's successor) which won't arrive until 2H08. That's still two MP generations away (at least).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Bathrone 

Ofcouse its lame. Not long now till G92 is released. Mac pros are generations behind. This isnt just one cycle. Were talking waaaayy behind here.

The memory too, yes. Good they went ECC ram but no good on bandwidth.

They're only 1 generation behind on graphics card (X1xxx/7xxx to HD2xxx/8xxx), but it is a pretty big performance gap (over 100%).

FB-DIMMs have both ECC and fantastic bandwidth; their downsides are cost, heat, and latency.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by Bathrone 

Not long now till G92 is released.

What is G92?

[P]

G92: Rumored next-gen nVidia GPU.

SSE4 comes with the Penryn refresh, actually, so Harpertown should have it. The cache is bigger and slightly faster (once cycle shorter latency) but it's not really new.

The Mac Pro is due for a refresh, and I have to wonder - that's an awfully big gap pricing-wise between the 24" iMac and the Mac Pro. Low-end Mac Pro in the pipeline? There isn't really a lot to update, though - price drops and bigger HDs maybe, but the only real gap is the GPU.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

SSE4 comes with the Penryn refresh, actually, so Harpertown should have it. The cache is bigger and slightly faster (once cycle shorter latency) but it's not really new.

Yep, my bad. SSE4 will arrive with Penryn. Nehalem will extend its instruction set.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

The Mac Pro is due for a refresh, and I have to wonder - that's an awfully big gap pricing-wise between the 24" iMac and the Mac Pro. Low-end Mac Pro in the pipeline?

I seriously hope so. A quad-core "Yikes" MP (Kentsfield would be sufficient but Clovertown would allow Apple to continue using the same chipset they have on the other MPs) with four RAM slots at $1799 would close that gap nicely. Although I'd really like to see such a machine, I seriously doubt it'll happen. I'm afraid refurbs and stock models of the rev A MPs will have to close the gap when rev B arrives.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

• Second, the Mac Buyers Guide is a lousy rule of thumb. The fact that it puts the MP in mid cycle proves that point. For those of us in the biz of pro graphics or games Mac Pros are currently deficient, and the componentry to make it all right has been available for a while. Perhaps Apple is waiting for OS 10.5 to deliver modern tower hardware. In any event I expect new Mac Pro hardware this month or next.

-Allen Wicks

Actually, it's a fairly good rule of thumb as it's been following Mac release trends for years.

It's just at about this point, especially when there hasn't been a graphics card update for over a year, the current Mac Pro is getting a little stale. (And I really could use a new video card in a couple of months for my Mac Pro to play UT3).

[cherry su]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

What is G92?

The G92 is an engineering codename for an upcoming chip from NVIDIA, presumed to be the next-generation graphics chip (dubbed GeForce 9) following the GeForce 8 series. The existence of the chip was confirmed on May 2007 during a conference with NVIDIA Vice President of Investor Relations Michael Hara.[1] The G98 is a codename for an upcoming mainstream chip.

Read: GeForce 9 Series - Wikipedia