POST A COMMENT

48 Comments

Back to Article

  • rpmurray - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    So, is there going to be a follow-up on how to upgrade the card to 2GB? Reply
  • RawOysters - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    Now if Mac users can only find a game to play. Reply
  • DKant - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link

    Ergh. Still not used to or able to ignore trolls.

    The 100$ premium can be attributed to one simple fact I think - lower expected volume of shipping so higher premium per SKU.

    And all that wolf in sheep's clothing talk? Anybody heard of Windows 7? Hundred plus dollars for a freaking SPITnSHINE? THAT is overpricing! The only reason MS is charging so much is that - again - it makes it want to look like a different OS and not just an upgraded and FINALLY polished Vista. Maybe 40$ is all it was actually worth, if not less.

    And why don't people ever get that Apple charges for the OS + the hardware. My theory for Snow Leopard upgrade being priced at a ridiculous 30$ (ESPECIALLY considering Snow Leopard comes with some ACTUAL upgrades, and not just tweaks) is just that - Apple has already recovered some of the cost of the OS from the hardware sales, plus this simply is the best possible way of extending the service promised to their high-paying customers. There is a loyalty there that MS simply cannot hope to emulate any time in the short run, and that's not a fanboy talking. The ONE time they did extend some kind of good support was when they shelled out 1 billion to extend the warranty of 360's, and even THAT was done because they really didn't have a choice - people would have simply walked away otherwise.

    Windows is a money-minting device. Apple actually cares about what they build and put thought into it. If I have to pay a gazillion dollars for that, it is fine. I don't mind paying a premium to reap the results of somebody else's hard work. :)

    I'm not saying that because I'm an Apple fanboy or something. I'm infact a long-time Windows customer who is just FED up with all the bull I have to put up with. 100+ $ for an OS UPGRADE?! Insane amounts of money for an Office suite that I cannot even make a half-decent presentation (for people with taste) with? I have had to design a custom background, spend several costly minutes configuring the fonts and their positioning because the defaults are just SO arcane and butt-ugly. And so are the fonts they use everywhere. Ugh. UI changes that do not even make any sense (can you seriously read those transparent top-bars in Vista? SERIOUSLY? All that transparency only hurts my eyes) 30% red-ringing hardware (I know, old news). Nah. I have had enough of Microsoft. Thank you. (please don't) Come again.
    Reply
  • OptimusP83 - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link

    I use both Vista and Leopard, though I FAR prefer Leopard. I am a Graphic Designer and hence use OS X at work. Each OS has its ups and downs, but what really irks me about Windows is its lack of snappiness. Blame it on Vista if you want, but With OS X programs launch faster, basically everything I need to be productive in doing, happens faster in OS X. Now Clearly GPU performance has yet to catch up and I blame this on Apple as well as the GPU manufacturers.

    Also in regards to the FUD about OMG my i7 machine can roxxors yourz Mac Pro... They are machines with fundamentally different purposes. Yes you could most likely do the same work in the same amout of time on an i7 box, but Workstations are meant for very specific purposes in PRODUCTION environments. Yes there are people who would buy a MacPro to play games. They are idiots. I could build a Core2Quad box for 1/2 the cost of a MacPro and it would run games just as fast. But can you build an 8 core desktop machine? no. You have to PAY LAVISHLY to get a Xeon dual socket workstation for that. Yes the majority of applications wont run any faster from 4 cores to 8 cores (all else being equal) but for that tasks that do, machines like the MacPro are essential for maintaining productivity.

    Having said that, the majority of the people posting on here would be much better served sticking to a consumer level desktop machine. Its really not worth the extra cost for them to get a dual socket machine. Hell even 4 cores are just finally being able to be utilized well...
    Reply
  • Hxx - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link

    "Windows is a money-minting device. Apple actually cares about what they build and put thought into it. If I have to pay a gazillion
    dollars for that, it is fine. I don't mind paying a premium to reap the results of somebody else's hard work. :) "

    You cant compare apple with windows, its just doesnt make sense. Apple developes their own software assembles their own boxes and sells you the finished product. They use high quality components and they charge a little extra for them just because they offer a finished product.Does it make sense? it depends on the user i'd say. Microsoft on the other hand is a software developer. It is up to the user to either build a box or buy a prebuilt one. One can buy the highest quality hardware available and built one of the best and most expensive systems out there... or not. People dumb enough to criticize either OS are either not familiar with one of the two or just plain trolls.
    Reply
  • OptimusP83 - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link

    ... are out in force today.

    4870s insanely easy to flash with an EFI capable rom provided you get the right model.
    Reply
  • trochevs - Sunday, July 19, 2009 - link

    There is FOSS test suit that I believe supports Mac OS X and series of OpenGL test. Have you try to run it?

    http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/">http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/
    Reply
  • vailr - Sunday, July 19, 2009 - link

    The Intel Northbridge chip (?) on the Mac Pro motherboard photo has no heatsink?
    That would seem to be an Apple design error, no?
    Or: does it not get "too hot to touch"?
    Reply
  • Demon-Xanth - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    One thing I just noticed, is that the TV out that's common with PC cards isn't there. Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    I must say, I'm surprised that Photoshop manages the video memory that way. To have to quit the app and not close the picture to recover the video memory? Terrible! Many people buy Macs for the professional photoshop work, and this has to be a serious drag on productivity once the RAM is gone. Do you think it's Adobe's fault, or could it be a limitation where OSX doesn't know what to do with window-in-window closing? Reply
  • bohhad - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    Will installation instructions be standard on all hardware reviews? Being Anandtech readers, I'm sure most all of us have no clue how to even take the sides of our cases off. Or was this a 'special' feature for our equally 'special' Mac-using members? Reply
  • utdman53 - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    Cost of a Mac pro configured with the two Xeon @ 2.93 is $6000.00 or more. What an absolute waste of money to match a core i7. If you want a computer that bad I'll build you one and myself one with that money.

    In life there are but kings and pawns, Apple clearly lives off the pawns.
    Reply
  • archer75 - Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - link

    I was looking at the price of the processors and ram and newegg and believe it or not it's cheaper from apple. We are talking about workstations here and as they go the mac pro is indeed priced well. Reply
  • ViRGE - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    Bear in mind that you're looking at a workstation system. The price on any of those is astronomical, it's not just an Apple thing. The chipset costs a small fortune, the Xeon processors cost a small fortune, etc.

    Apple's is still more expensive yet, but not by whole orders of magnitude like it is when comparing it to a desktop system.
    Reply
  • ipay - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    I'd say there are clever people and stupid people, and that Apple makes its money from the latter. Reply
  • thurston - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    Why is the $100 price premium ridiculous? It seems to be in line with Mac pricing in general. Reply
  • JimmiG - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    "The first step to install the card is actually to install the drivers. If you fail to do so, you’ll be greeted with a kernel panic once you get the card installed and fire up the machine."

    That made me LOL after seeing those ads about how Macs don't need drivers and how they're so easy to use. At least a PC will load up Windows even without drivers. In fact, since Vista, it will even work at fairly high resolutions and in full 32-bit color. Just another example of how Apple's advertising is based on lies, exaggerations and misconceptions.
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    But, but, I thought Macs just work and used "The World's Most Advanced operating system"! Reply
  • 529th - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    The 4870 is also a working GPU for a Hackintosh. Also sold in the new Mac Pros. Apparently it is supported in Leopard 10.5.7 OS X Reply
  • psonice - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    Any chance of some core image tests of some kind? CI has traditionally been nvidia's very weak spot (ATI 2600 outperforming nvidia 8800 anyone?) and it's important for some apps. Reply
  • SiliconDoc - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    Yeah... boy a GTX285 seems pretty weak.
    (good lord!)
    Reply
  • psonice - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    Well, a radeon 2600 is very weak compared to a gf8800. Yet it kills it in core image tasks (probably bad nvidia drivers, seeing as core image is based on GLSL, and the 8800 is way faster for that).

    My advice for people running CI heavy apps has been "avoid nvidia" for the last year or two, I'd like to know if that should change :)
    Reply
  • Lanska - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    On MacOSX there isn't too enough games, but World of Warcraft from Blizzard is availaible. So you can test GTX 285 as a game accelerator card for Mac. I think many Mac gamers want to buy it as a game card, but not to display more windows in Photoshop or similar. After all you can even compare perfomance of World of Warcraft in Mac and in Windows on the same MacPro system (in Windows for more competition truth you can also use OpenGL mode instead of DirectX, as Mac version is OpenGL only).

    Game have testing command /timetest to benchmark system.

    World of Warcraft client for both systems can be freely downloaded from Blizzard, trial accounts are also availaible. So you willn't pay any charge for testing, but this review will be more interesting, without games game card review not so nice :)
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    You think WoW needs a GTX anything? Reply
  • ipay - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    It always sends me into fits of laughter when Anand acts surprised at the absurd price premiums on Apple products - as if Apple's strategy from their inception has been anything else than putting shit in a box and selling it as gold to gullible idiots with lots of money.

    I also got some kicks from reading the description of how to install the video card (something that any self-respecting PC owner can do in their sleep), as well as the fact that the Mac motherboard uses an Intel chipset of some sort.

    Keep the lulz coming Anand, I really appreciate it!
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    Laughter?

    More like his credibility.

    Stuff like he still hasn't done any more research into why a MacBook "Pro" has better battery life under OSX than Windows, or why we should spend $2k more on a Mac Pro just to add a video card that can work with a $100 motherboard. I'm sure the average Mac user spends $2400 minimum on a machine for OSX, only to have to dual boot anyhow Windows to play Crysis, adding another $100 to the price, minimum.

    "The other change is firmware. In order to get your PC video card to work under OS X it needs firmware with a few EFI hooks in it. It’s not a huge change, but for whatever reason the PC specific cards don’t have it."

    Yeah, might have something to do with the fact that EFI sucks and PCs are better off without that crap. And even if EFI becomes standard in "PCs", Apple will just change the way OSX works to again kill it from working on any hardware.
    Reply
  • rpmurray - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    I can't help rolling on the floor when some dipwad blames Apple for the high prices of third-party add-ons. Especially when that same company sells it cheaper for the PC, which just goes to show you who's gouging whom. Reply
  • afkrotch - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link

    Actually, it all boils down to being Apple's fault. They make a platform that they locked down a ridiculous amount. They then charge a premium for the trash and this causes elitist bitches to buy it, while no one else cares.

    Because there is such a small platform of users, companies have to charge a markup for having to make a product for a minimal amount of users.

    Personally, Nvidia and AMD should just let Apple rot. Let S3 make their graphics cards.
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    If you are used to buying Macs with pointless markups you are used to buying Mac accessories with pointless markups. Reply
  • Dainas - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    Anything that says apple on it is soo overpriced that there are many many forums dedicated to finding or making pc stuff that doesn't say apple on it work. The evga gtx 285 mac might actually sell boxed as they are only slightly insulting. Reply
  • bupkus - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    For so very long linux never could claim itself a good platform for games. So I'm thinking, admittedly quite wishfully, that the OS X's linux roots could provide a trail for drivers in OS X to become useful in linux.
    What say you experts on this matter?
    Reply
  • erple2 - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    OSX isn't based on Linux. It's based on a BSD flavor. I'm not sure if it's NetBSD or OpenBSD (I think NetBSD). Which is very different from Linux. Reply
  • Kurotetsu - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    Well, according to Wiki (which means you should take it with some salt), it was both:

    Mac OS X is based upon the Mach kernel.[8] Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in Nextstep, the core of Mac OS X. Nextstep was the object-oriented operating system developed by Steve Jobs' company NeXT after he left Apple in 1985.[9]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    Yes, this is true. The BSD part is just for POSIX compliance. Even though OSX is certified UNIX, Apple saying it is UNIX stable is a bit disingenuous, as the part of the kernel doing all the work is all Apple, not UNIX or BSD. Reply
  • 8steve8 - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link

    means can't connect to the LED 24" display apple makes.

    weird.
    Reply
  • Natfly - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    I would think a standard dvi -> mini-displayport adapter would work, right?

    http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id...">http://www.monoprice.com/products/produ...2&p_...
    Reply
  • BrianMCan - Monday, July 20, 2009 - link

    no, that is to connect a DVI monitor to mini-displayport computer.

    to go the other way it would have DVI male, to mini-displayport female.
    Reply
  • Demon-Xanth - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link

    quote:

    "However if you take into account the fact that two PCIe power cables will cost you $60"


    ...the markup on those cables is the most I've seen outside of audiophile or specialty cables.

    Connectors:
    4x Molex 45559-0002 $0.30ea, $0.14/ea in quantities of 5000
    24x Molex 44476-1111 $0.12ea, $0.05/ea in quantities of 4000
    12' 18AWG stranded wire (assuming the cables are 12") $38/100 foot spool, $145 for 1000'
    (prices from Mouser, distributors may be much lower)

    Low quantity cost: About $8 for the pair.
    Higher quantity cost: About $3 for the pair.

    Admittedly, the crimp tool itself runs about $320, so given the $52 profit margin, it should take about 7 sets to end up in the black.
    Reply
  • rpmurray - Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - link

    I'd go with the higher quality pair, according to you they're $5 cheaper then the low quality Reply
  • Demon-Xanth - Thursday, July 23, 2009 - link

    Quantity, not quality.

    The parts are $8 for two if you built one set. $3 for two if you build 1000 sets.
    Reply
  • robco - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    We ordered a set directly from ATI - they sell them as spare parts for $13 each.

    http://shop.ati.com/product.asp?sku=3280778">http://shop.ati.com/product.asp?sku=3280778
    Reply
  • Etern205 - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link

    I wonder how many Mac idiots are now going to boast how cool their are to own a Mac with a GTX 285.



    Reply
  • KeithP - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    Don't worry, as far as idiocy goes I am sure you will still reign supreme.

    -KeithP
    Reply
  • JordanNOLA - Saturday, July 18, 2009 - link

    LOL Reply
  • fmaste - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link

    Why not using both the GTX285 and the GT 120 that comes standard to have more video memory. Is it possible? Has enough power connectors to have two GPUs? Reply
  • Etern205 - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link

    Putting these in SLI will not share the ram across both cards, they're still independent. Also it's a waste to put a lowend along with a highend. Oh crap, I should not have said that as Apple would probably market how good it is to run SLI in this kind of setup and for them to enable SLI at a cost of just $199. Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link

    "OMG, OMG! I don't know what this card is. What do I do? What do I do!" Reply
  • fibbeh - Friday, July 17, 2009 - link

    Lol, I was thinking the same thing. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now