Apple Ditches Nvidia, Goes ATI-only for Desktops

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good move by Apple. Why would anyone in their right mind want an Nvidia graphics card when an AMD/ATI graphics card can play Crysis better? AMD's Catalyst drivers are the most reliable drivers ever created for a graphics card. Unlike Nvidia, no version of Catalyst has ever destroyed a GPU when used with its stock settings (no overclocking). As for CPU's, Apple is better off sticking with Intel. At least this gives Apple a valid reason for charging a premium for their overpriced crap.
 
[citation][nom]luke904[/nom]i find it really funny how apple words things... they make it seem like you can only get that sort of graphics power on a mac[/citation]
Apple uses special graphics cards that nobody else can get their hands on. The differences between Apple's GPU's and other GPU's may be minor, but Apple is right. You can't get quite the same graphics experience on any other computer.
 
[citation][nom]davewesh[/nom]Im sorry but this just screams "we want to charge the same price for cheaper made computers" and When/IF they pick AMD cpu's up on the desktop line, It will just make the "Apple Premium" cost even more. I mean with Intel CPU's at least you get a decent Horsepower with the computer, AMD's have price/performance on their side which is what makes them great when you slap "price/performance" in a "premium brand" you aren't really getting "price/performance".....Then again this hinges on the idea that they dont change the prices >_>[/citation]

You forgot add less power required and less head created, thus better cooling and less noise for AMD.

Amd CPUs are not that much behind Intel performance, difference is just several percents.
 
[citation][nom]techguy378[/nom]AMD's Catalyst drivers are the most reliable drivers ever created for a graphics card.[/citation]

You can't possibly mean that ? Currently I'm using 10.5 and in that version all OpenGL games crash on startup. For the time being, I'm using an older opengl driver from 9.10 to play that stuff.

The only graphics driver I've never had problems with is from Matrox, and they don't do performance parts anymore.
 
Apple is smart to do this at least for the short term because Nvidea is banned from import of its technology into the USA due to infringement on Rambus patented technology for memory controllers. Nvidia was banned by a recent ruling by the US International Trade Commision just last week. ATI through its parent AMD has had a licence for Rambus technology for some years and renewed the licence just last year. Nvidea has been fighting the licensing of Rambus Technology patents for some time.
 
[citation][nom]matt87_50[/nom]this may have something to do with valve being massive ATI fanboys? no? steam on mac ect?anyway, I recently did the same thing. I dono, I just get this feeling ATI are more reliable.[/citation]
Actually from a (slightly flawed) programming perspective ATi's most recent hardware would be easier to optimize as far as drivers/games for the Mac when compared to Nvidia's...
 
[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]nVidia, your GTX 460 might just not be that good from apple's point as 8800 GT was.[/citation]
Well atleast the GTX 460 is double slot and doesn't cook eggs as well as some of those terrible cooling solutions they had(have) for the 8800 GT
 
[citation][nom]L0tus[/nom]Apple customers must be chumps.21-inch LCDi3-5404GB RAM500GB HDD$1200 Apple Mac$600 Windows PC (max)Even with the free shipping on the Apple option, this is an utter joke.Please tell me why this company is still posting profits.[/citation]
... it may be, but there is one more thing... nobody counts in the software package and high quality materials the iMac is build from... the osx is equal, may be better than Win7... i talk about optimization for the hardware... so the hardware is about 500 + Win7Ultimate 272 + antivirus + customer care, if there is one for pc... when you build your own, it's cheaper... but when you optimize and give it a high finish... it's just a bit cheeper...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116718
 
You guys make it sound like this is the first time ATi graphics have been inside a Apple product, which is hardly the case.

In fact I found that ATi was the graphics supplier of choice after Steve Jobs returned(1997) until http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/00/07/19/apple_turns_cold_shoulder_towards_ati_at_macworld.html happened, and Steve Jobs choose nVidia chips as a punishment. Since then Apple have made the switch between the two several times and even offered products from one as a upgrade to the others standard solution.


As for Apple using AMD processors I don't see it as entirely unlikely. If Bobcat, found in the Ontario APU, can match the Core2Duo found in the MacBook Air it would be a reasonable and cheap upgrade for Apple, after all the battery life should improve considerably. The two Llano designs should also be able to match Intels offerings, up to the i5 core, and give a good bump in graphics performance with OpenCL ready IGPs.
 
[citation][nom]Wittermark[/nom]i don't understand why there still so many people out there thinking AMD is POS, at my company, which we use workstations for 3d modelling/design, I currently sport a x6 1090T and its heaps faster than our i7's for graphic renderings. the i7 930 pulled 1min30secs rendering a scene while my 1090T did it under a minuite. so i'd say yes, good move on the AMD switch[/citation]

Yah the 1090t can give quad i7s a run for its money but looking at the high performance side intel is still king with the hexacore 970 & 980. Same applies for the xeon processor which tomshardware did a recent review.
 
[citation][nom]L0tus[/nom]Apple customers must be chumps.21-inch LCDi3-5404GB RAM500GB HDD$1200 Apple Mac$600 Windows PC (max)Even with the free shipping on the Apple option, this is an utter joke.Please tell me why this company is still posting profits.[/citation]
Because average consumers think a better-looking PC = better-performing PC. Apple's designs have undeniable mass appeal.

I sometimes hear customers at the local Micro Center asking the salesperson about computers, and they'll start saying "I want a 3 megahertz processor" or "2 megabyte RAM" then hold a smug smile thinking they know something about computers. Then the salesperson overloads them with actual PC specs, some bait and switch, and boom they walk out the store with an overpriced Sony or Apple that they don't need.

These situations genuinely make me sad - these people work hard for their money but are sometimes just too stupid to know how to spend it.
 
I dumped NVidia when Nvidia dumped on me. I have an $800 brick due to Nvidia GO graphics adapters in my HP laptop. I am no ATI fanboy, but I AM an Nvidia hater.
 
[citation][nom]matt87_50[/nom]this may have something to do with valve being massive ATI fanboys? no? steam on mac ect?anyway, I recently did the same thing. I dono, I just get this feeling ATI are more reliable.[/citation]

I also get that feeling after seeing millions of dead laptops thanks to dud nvidia chips
 
Good for Apple on finding cost/performance winner. AMD's graphics (ATI) are really doing well in this area. Nvidia needs to get off their high horses and start making GPUs with cost/performance that makes sense.
 
You can say all the bad you want about Apple, but they are making sure that their computers have respectable graphic performance. On the PC side of things, the situation is far more bleak. PC manufacturers are hitting amazingly low price points, but only delivering Intel-Integrated graphics. All of this low-end graphics hardware is gonna make it difficult for Microsoft to innovate in the OS - remember Vista?. There must be some reason Apple is so concerned about graphics performance. I'll bet we'll see why with the next Major release of OS X.
 
Im sure most people dont read comments down this far and next page... (i didnt read all)....

Typically MAC=Production with production ADOBE is hugely popular. CS5 + NVIDIA Quatros utilize CUDA to rapidly make changes on the fly. For video you can live edit RAW 4k video files. 4k!!!! thats 4 times more resolution than 1080p. My CS4 + low end quatro cant handle 1080p without converting and rendering each effect.

There is no plans to support ATI as ATI doesnt have CUDA. O well this is probably Apples stab at Adobe because of flash.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom