Some Snow Leopard features not work on recent Macs
Snit
-----
QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
-----
OpenCL
NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS,
Geforce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce
GT 130. ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870
-----
A little bummed that my relatively new iMac, a model sold as recently as
April 2008, will not benefit from these technologies. Still, I am happy
with the machine and look forward to Snow Leopard... and am happy I bought
the computer I did and not an older one as Steve Carroll repeatedly insisted
I should.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [X] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [ ] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
18 [ ] Dig up arguments from the past
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Objective Troll Criteria
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/20/09 1:56 PM:
> In article <C6B2F914.42AF7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
>> -----
>> QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
>> requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
>> -----
>> OpenCL
>> NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS,
>> Geforce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce
>> GT 130. ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870
>> -----
>>
>> A little bummed that my relatively new iMac, a model sold as recently as
>> April 2008, will not benefit from these technologies. Still, I am happy
>> with the machine and look forward to Snow Leopard... and am happy I bought
>> the computer I did and not an older one as Steve Carroll repeatedly insisted
>> I should.
> 2 [X] Antagonizing threads
Sandman find the above to be *antagonizing*.
What? Who the heck am I antagonizing? What sane person would react with
hostility to my comments?
Sandman... your agenda is showing. You just want to lash out against my
every comment.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-69837B.22560220082...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/20/09 1:56 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <C6B2F914.42AF7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
> >> -----
> >> QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
> >> requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
> >> -----
> >> OpenCL
> >> NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS,
> >> Geforce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce
> >> GT 130. ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870
> >> -----
>
> >> A little bummed that my relatively new iMac, a model sold as recently as
> >> April 2008, will not benefit from these technologies. Still, I am happy
> >> with the machine and look forward to Snow Leopard... and am happy I bought
> >> the computer I did and not an older one as Steve Carroll repeatedly insisted
> >> I should.
> > 2 [X] Antagonizing threads
>
> Sandman find the above to be *antagonizing*.
It undoubtedly tries to... but he forgot 8, 13, 16 and 18.
Fact: I 'insisted' nothing, I suggested options to you (laptop, tower,
current iMac model). Notably, in that thread you stated:
"The current iMacs would serve my needs well."
and
"Getting a new iMac should meet those needs well. The current crop
would do
quite well, but I suspect the new ones (when they come out) will serve
even
better (if nothing else they will be faster). "
and
"The current iMacs would serve my needs well - I suspect the new ones
will serve it even
better, with greater speed if nothing else."
Obviously... you just "wanted" a faster machine by choosing the newer
iMac over the then current crop.
Snit
ab39f98f-dab9-4f6a...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com on 8/20/09
2:08 PM:
...
>>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
>>>> � � -----
>>>> � � QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
>>>> � � requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
>>>> � � -----
>>>> � � OpenCL
>>>> � � NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS,
>>>> � � Geforce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce
>>>> � � GT 130. ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870
>>>> � � -----
>>
>>>> A little bummed that my relatively new iMac, a model sold as recently as
>>>> April 2008, will not benefit from these technologies. �Still, I am happy
>>>> with the machine and look forward to Snow Leopard... and am happy I bought
>>>> the computer I did and not an older one as Steve Carroll repeatedly
>>>> insisted I should.
>>>>
>>> �2 [X] Antagonizing threads
>>
>> Sandman find the above to be *antagonizing*.
>
> It undoubtedly tries to... but he forgot 8, 13, 16 and 18.
Huh?
> Fact: I 'insisted' nothing,
You said I "shouldn't be buying an iMac at all".
You were very insistant on this point. And wrong, as I figured then... and
the iMac has been a great machine.
> I suggested options to you (laptop, tower, current
> iMac model). Notably, in that thread you stated:
>
> "The current iMacs would serve my needs well."
>
> and
>
> "Getting a new iMac should meet those needs well. The current crop would do
> quite well, but I suspect the new ones (when they come out) will serve even
> better (if nothing else they will be faster). "
>
> and
>
> "The current iMacs would serve my needs well - I suspect the new ones will
> serve it even better, with greater speed if nothing else."
>
> Obviously... you just "wanted" a faster machine by choosing the newer iMac
> over the then current crop.
You have just spend a bkazillion posts whining about someone who was not
pleased that an older-style Mac was not fully supported (by running the
newest OS, for example). Now you can not think of a single reason why
someone might want the newer model other than speed.
OK. I accept your weakness there. You really are that lost. One that I
mentioned at the time was 4 GB of RAM (you clearly forgot that). You asked
me why I would need that much - well, turns out I could use more if the
machine could handle it. 4 GB works for me, more would be better. Not
uncommon to see my swap jump up to 4 GB or more. Right now it is at 2 GB.
When I switch programs I sometimes have to wait for the swap file grinding
to finish... and the projects I work on (and my way of working) have me
jumping from one program to another a lot.
But, as I told you at the time:
-----
I expect to be very, very satisfied with my new Mac. �I will
find it, I expect, to be not just satisfactory but
extraordinary. �And that is not contradictory to the idea
that I can imagine a machine that would please me even more.
-----
And here we are, two years after the purchase, and the iMac is *great*. I
am very satisfied with it... as I note at the start of this thread.
Once again, you were just flat out wrong.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 2:08 PM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
> >>>> -----
> >>>> QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
> >>>> requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
> >>>> -----
> >>>> OpenCL
> >>>> NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS,
> >>>> Geforce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce
> >>>> GT 130. ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870
> >>>> -----
>
> >>>> A little bummed that my relatively new iMac, a model sold as recently as
> >>>> April 2008, will not benefit from these technologies. Still, I am happy
> >>>> with the machine and look forward to Snow Leopard... and am happy I bought
> >>>> the computer I did and not an older one as Steve Carroll repeatedly
> >>>> insisted I should.
>
> >>> 2 [X] Antagonizing threads
>
> >> Sandman find the above to be *antagonizing*.
>
> > It undoubtedly tries to... but he forgot 8, 13, 16 and 18.
>
> Huh?
Anyone who can comprehend what they read can "very, very clearly" see
that the things Sandman pointed out were all numbered. I guess that
must explain why you missed it;)
> > Fact: I 'insisted' nothing,
>
> You said I "shouldn't be buying an iMac at all".
>
> You were very insistant on this point.
Here's my full statement... that you are being disingenuous about
here:
"The current iMac crop has iSight and runs Windows. My point is... If
speed is
"central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fea53d41da5cb151?hl=en&dmode=source
See how easy it is to show you being a disingenuous POS?
Not only was I not "insistant" ;) I said the statement in the context
that *you* laid out then (speed)... yo know, the context that you
removed here. Oops!
> > I suggested options to you (laptop, tower, current
> > iMac model). Notably, in that thread you stated:
>
> > "The current iMacs would serve my needs well."
>
> > and
>
> > "Getting a new iMac should meet those needs well. The current crop would do
> > quite well, but I suspect the new ones (when they come out) will serve even
> > better (if nothing else they will be faster). "
>
> > and
>
> > "The current iMacs would serve my needs well - I suspect the new ones will
> > serve it even better, with greater speed if nothing else."
>
> > Obviously... you just "wanted" a faster machine by choosing the newer iMac
> > over the then current crop.
>
> You have just spend a bkazillion posts whining about someone who was not
> pleased that an older-style Mac was not fully supported (by running the
> newest OS, for example). Now you can not think of a single reason why
> someone might want the newer model other than speed.
Correction: I pointed to *you* mentioning only speed. LOL!
Snit
5:45 PM:
....
>>> Fact: I 'insisted' nothing,
>>
>> You said I "shouldn't be buying an iMac at all".
>>
>> You were very insistant on this point.
>
> Here's my full statement... that you are being disingenuous about
> here:
>
> "The current iMac crop has iSight and runs Windows. My point is... If speed is
> "central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all."
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fea53d41da5cb151?hl=e
> n&dmode=source
>
> See how easy it is to show you being a disingenuous POS?
>
> Not only was I not "insistant" ;) I said the statement in the context
> that *you* laid out then (speed)... yo know, the context that you
> removed here. Oops!
My old computer, a G4, was way too slow. Speed was a big factor... though
not the only one.
As you have now quoted (after I did... oddly enough), you said I should not
buy an iMac at all. You can quibble over the word "insisted" and play your
asinine semantic games, but you clearly were against the idea of my getting
the new iMac.
I was smart and ignored the advice of someone as hate-filled as you... and
have been very happy with my purchase.
>
>>> I suggested options to you (laptop, tower, current
>>> iMac model). Notably, in that thread you stated:
>>
>>> "The current iMacs would serve my needs well."
>>
>>> and
>>
>>> "Getting a new iMac should meet those needs well. �The current crop would do
>>> quite well, but I suspect the new ones (when they come out) will serve even
>>> better (if nothing else they will be faster). "
>>
>>> and
>>
>>> "The current iMacs would serve my needs well - I suspect the new ones will
>>> serve it even better, with greater speed if nothing else."
>>
>>> Obviously... you just "wanted" a faster machine by choosing the newer iMac
>>> over the then current crop.
>>
>> You have just spend a bkazillion posts whining about someone who was not
>> pleased that an older-style Mac was not fully supported (by running the
>> newest OS, for example). �Now you can not think of a single reason why
>> someone might want the newer model other than speed.
>
>
> Correction: I pointed to *you* mentioning only speed. LOL!
Never said speed was my only consideration. You simply are lying.
Seriously, Steve, why do you lie so much? Why are you still so filled with
hatred from an event from 2004? Let it go. You are a *married* man, or so
you claim... the events from 2004 should not be a focus of your life. But
by being so filled with hatred, as you clearly are, it is clear you have not
moved on.
I am being nice to you and giving you another chance to show you can move on
and not just be filled with hatred... not just lie and whine and bring up
ancient battles. Not just insist if I do not respond to your lies about
ancient battles you have somehow proved something.
I am being kind to you. I am hoping you can live up to expectations... low
ones at that. Will you please try? Let go of 2004. Live in 2009. Live in
the now and learn to let go of your anger and hatred.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 5:45 PM:
>
> ....
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Fact: I 'insisted' nothing,
>
> >> You said I "shouldn't be buying an iMac at all".
>
> >> You were very insistant on this point.
>
> > Here's my full statement... that you are being disingenuous about
> > here:
>
> > "The current iMac crop has iSight and runs Windows. My point is... If speed is
> > "central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all."
> > n&dmode=source
>
> > See how easy it is to show you being a disingenuous POS?
>
> > Not only was I not "insistant" ;) I said the statement in the context
> > removed here. Oops!
>
> My old computer, a G4, was way too slow. Speed was a big factor... though
> not the only one.
Irrelevant... the statement of mine you quoted was made in a specific
context... one that you saw fit to remove here for the purpose of
trying to fulfill your agenda.
> >>> I suggested options to you (laptop, tower, current
> >>> iMac model). Notably, in that thread you stated:
>
> >>> "The current iMacs would serve my needs well."
>
> >>> and
>
> >>> "Getting a new iMac should meet those needs well. The current crop would do
> >>> quite well, but I suspect the new ones (when they come out) will serve even
> >>> better (if nothing else they will be faster). "
>
> >>> and
>
> >>> "The current iMacs would serve my needs well - I suspect the new ones will
> >>> serve it even better, with greater speed if nothing else."
>
> >>> Obviously... you just "wanted" a faster machine by choosing the newer iMac
> >>> over the then current crop.
>
> >> You have just spend a bkazillion posts whining about someone who was not
> >> pleased that an older-style Mac was not fully supported (by running the
> >> newest OS, for example). Now you can not think of a single reason why
> >> someone might want the newer model other than speed.
>
> > Correction: I pointed to *you* mentioning only speed. LOL!
>
> Never said speed was my only consideration.
Irrelevant... as I never said you did. What I did say way: "I pointed
to *you* mentioning only speed". And that's a fact.
So, when are you going to show me being unable to "think of a single
reason why someone might want the newer model other than speed."??
Will I have to wait long? LOL!
Snit
6:15 PM:
...
>> My old computer, a G4, was way too slow. �Speed was a big factor... though
>> not the only one. �
>
> Irrelevant...
The fact that I wanted a new computer because my old G4 was slow by the
then-current standards was a factor in my decision to buy.
You, Steve, do not get to decide if the speed issue was or was not relevant
to my decision. Speed was a factor. A big factor. Not the only factor.
You can deny that all you want, Steve, or whine that you made your claim in
some context other than my comments, but frankly who cares? You are, again,
flat out wrong to say that speed was not a relevant factor in my moving from
a G4 to an Intel iMac.
You, though, did not want me to buy a then-new iMac:
Steve Carroll:
you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all.
Steve Carroll:
You "need" for a Mac doesn't look like a "need" at all.
Steve Carroll:
Teaching, web design and tech work are performed on non-Mac
PCs all the time.
Steve Carroll:
What things are you "teaching" or do you plan to "teach" on
OSX that can *not* be taught on a PC?
On and on, you tried to talk me out of the decision to buy an aluminum iMac.
I, of course, ignored your "advice" and bought it anyway. Years later you
are still, clearly, pissed.
Get over it and move on.
> the statement of mine you quoted was made in a specific
> context... one that you saw fit to remove here for the purpose of
> trying to fulfill your agenda.
Yeah - your statement was made in some context other than my buying a Mac.
Utter BS. You are full of it, Steve. A flat out liar.
...
>>>> You have just spend a bkazillion posts whining about someone who was not
>>>> pleased that an older-style Mac was not fully supported (by running the
>>>> newest OS, for example). �Now you can not think of a single reason why
>>>> someone might want the newer model other than speed.
>>
>>> Correction: I pointed to *you* mentioning only speed. �LOL!
>>
>> Never said speed was my only consideration.
>
> Irrelevant... as I never said you did. What I did say way: "I pointed
> to *you* mentioning only speed". And that's a fact.
I mentioned much more than speed - as if I have some obligation to tell you
*anything* about my computing needs.
> So, when are you going to show me being unable to "think of a single
> reason why someone might want the newer model other than speed."??
>
> Will I have to wait long? LOL!
Steve Carroll:
Obviously... you just "wanted" a faster machine by choosing the
newer iMac over the then current crop."
The then-new iMacs had other benefits. Read the thread, Steve. Stop
letting your hatred get the better of you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Fact: I 'insisted' nothing,
>
> You said I "shouldn't be buying an iMac at all".
>
> You were very insistant on this point. And wrong, as I figured then... and
> the iMac has been a great machine.
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [ ] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [X] Misinterpretation
17 [X] Creative snipping
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> You, though, did not want me to buy a then-new iMac:
>
> Steve Carroll:
> you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all.
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [ ] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [X] Creative snipping
Snit
8/21/09 12:09 AM:
Sandman Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [X] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [X] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [X] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [X] Role Reversal
13 [S] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [X] Creative snipping
18 [X] Dig up arguments from the past
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandman's antagonistic, dishonest, trolling website
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 12:10 AM:
Sandman Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [X] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [X] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [X] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [X] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
15 [X] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [X] Creative snipping
18 [X] Dig up arguments from the past
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Stuart
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
> -----
> QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
> requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
So this excludes any Mac Pro? That doesn't seem right.
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Steve Hix
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
> > -----
> > QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
> > requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
>
> So this excludes any Mac Pro? That doesn't seem right.
Either h.264 is otherwise handled in software or, judging from the
OpenCL requirements further down the page, the 9400M is the minimum
requirement.
The 9400M may be the lowest-functionality graphics option installed on
Intel Macs so far. The requirements list is, after all, restricted to
intel Macs. And I doubt that any Mac Pros shipped with anything less
than the 9400M chipset.
Tim Murray
>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
>>> -----
>>> QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
>>> requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
>>
>> So this excludes any Mac Pro? That doesn't seem right.
>
> Either h.264 is otherwise handled in software or, judging from the
> OpenCL requirements further down the page, the 9400M is the minimum
> requirement.
H.264 is heavily hardware dependent for anything past molasses performance.
Snit
3:21 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
>> -----
>> QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
>> requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
>
> So this excludes any Mac Pro? That doesn't seem right.
Odd... hmmm....
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Hix
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
Which implies that the 9400M represents a lower performance bound.
David Empson
> In article <1j4snfh.sy45zynkakrgN%m...@privacy.net>,
> m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
> > > -----
> > > QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
> > > requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
> >
> > So this excludes any Mac Pro? That doesn't seem right.
>
> Either h.264 is otherwise handled in software or, judging from the
> OpenCL requirements further down the page, the 9400M is the minimum
> requirement.
The key words are "hardware acceleration". The 9400M is the first
graphics chipset Apple has used which is able to offload H.264 decoding
from the CPU.
The other chipsets mentioned earlier in this thread have other
processing capabilities which can be used by OpenCL, but they don't have
hardware acceleration for H.264. OpenCL is a separate issue.
In any Mac without a 9400M (to date), the CPU has to do all the work to
decode H.264.
A 1.67 GHz Core Duo Mac Mini with no hardware assistance is able to play
1080i H.264 video at 25 fps (broadcast DVB-T used in New Zealand, using
EyeTV), though it is working rather hard to do it: both CPU cores nearly
maxed out.
I expect a 1.5 GHz Core Solo Mac Mini would barely keep up with standard
definition H.264, and definitely can't handle high definiton. Even H.264
standard definition playback is out the question for most PowerPC Macs,
but many could handle smaller frame sizes or lower frame rates.
If you actually need the CPU to be doing something else apart from
playing video, or for 1080p, hardware assistance from the video chipset
makes a huge difference. Having a faster computer helps as well.
A Mac Pro would be fine doing H.264 in the CPU - it has at least four
cores, and will be much faster than the Mac Mini mentioned above.
> The 9400M may be the lowest-functionality graphics option installed on
> Intel Macs so far. The requirements list is, after all, restricted to
> intel Macs. And I doubt that any Mac Pros shipped with anything less
> than the 9400M chipset.
The lowest functionality graphics option in any Intel Mac is the Intel
GMA950 chipset (integrated graphics) which was used in earlier low end
models. (It is what is being used by the Mac Mini above, by the way.) It
is OK for 2D graphics but hopeless for 3D.
The Intel GMA X3100 (in some models from late 2007) was somewhat better.
The 9400M is a huge leap: Apple claims a five times improvement over
earlier models. It is still "integrated graphics" (shares main memory)
and isn't the best choice for 3D or high performance graphics, but it
has other benefits such as H.264 hardware acceleration and processing
capabilities which can be used by OpenCL.
For dedicated graphics, Apple started out using mostly ATI chipsets and
more recently have mainly being using NVIDIA. A wider range of NVIDIA
chipsets have additional processing capabilities (which can be used by
OpenCL), which ATI has only added to a few models so far (among those
which Apple has used). None of the dedicated chipsets used so far have
H.264 hardware acceleration, but I expect it will start to appear in the
next round of updates.
Looking back at the list in the original post:
> OpenCL
> NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS,
> Geforce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce
> GT 130. ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870
To take one example: the 8600M GT has been used for a couple of years
(mid 2007 MacBook Pro). I believe the 9400M is regarded as being faster
for most graphics tasks than the 8600M, but the 8600M is probably still
better for 3D. (I can't be bothered hunting down benchmarks to confirm
this.)
The other NVIDIA chipsets are more recent, as are the two ATI ones.
This allows OpenCL to be used on Mac models as follows:
MacBook: Aluminium Late 2008 (5,1), plastic Early 2009 (5,2) and later.
MacBook Air: Late 2008 (2,1) and later.
MacBook Pro: Mid 2007 (3,1) and later.
Mac Mini: Early 2009 (3,1).
iMac: Early 2009 (9,1). The "GeForce 8800 GS" was available as an option
on the high end Early 2008 iMac, but I'm assuming it doesn't qualify as
Apple has gone to the trouble of listing the "GT" and "GTS" variants but
not the "GS".
Mac Pro: all models if the right video card is used. The original Mac
Pro had the 8800 GT as an option, which remained for the Early 2008.
Both standard choices for the Early 2009 are supported. The high-end
Quadro FX cards aren't listed, which is surprising.
Xserve: Early 2009 (3,1).
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Dan Johnson
news:C6B2F914.42AF7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
Hmm. Let's see if I can't add some insult to that injury!
You are suffering the slings and arrows of Apple's product lineup. You'd be
better off with a iMac-level computer, but in a mini-tower case with a bit
of expandability. Then you could swap out your old video card for a new one,
and obtain OpenCL and h.264 goodness.
But no. That might not be as profitable for Apple. So you can't.
Steve Carroll
And that was one of the things I was complaining about at the time I
made my *suggestions* to Snit (still a valid complaint IMO), that
Apple had no such machine.
> But no. That might not be as profitable for Apple. So you can't.
I'm fairly certain Snit was one of the people who said he would
welcome such an offering.
Snit
8/22/09 11:37 AM:
One thing that Apple "pushed" on me was the glass covering for my monitor.
I did not understand the full value of that... and had Apple has a
mini-tower I likely would not have understood the value even now. With that
said, *YES*, I would love to see a mini-tower from Apple. I would like to
be able to swap out my video card. Now, with that said, if the tower cost
about the same as the iMac (minus monitor) I would likely have gotten it...
but if had cost considerably more I would not have.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
wetpixel
Johnson <danielj...@verizon.net> wrote:
No insult there, whoever it applies to.
That is a consequence of buying all-in-one forms which those buyers
accept.
All-in-one buyers also accept that they aren't getting the very fastest
machines, so highest-performance still isn't a loss.
I know, we all like having options for more performance. They just
aren't always there, and that doesn't particularly crtiticze Apple,
even if we were to limit the discussion just to computers.