Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Ramey Skies · Jul 23, 2003, 02:23 PM

On ATI's website the MAC RADEON 9800 PRO is a 128 Mb 4x AGP card!

The Windows version is a 256 Mb 8x AGP card.

Is this whats being used to benchmark the G5 ?

Now that the G5 has an 8x slot will we get a true 8x card ?

I want the true 9800pro.

also, this don't look so bad ...

http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcatvp/vppro/index.htm

Busemann · Jul 23, 2003, 02:27 PM

The one in the G5 is the 8X 128MB version. Plenty of power

MindFad · Jul 23, 2003, 02:31 PM

It's 8x -- but I know, it would be nice to have the 256MB version.

teh tenk · Jul 23, 2003, 02:46 PM

The 256MB Radeon is useless. The 128MB and the 256MB cards are the same speed...and there aren't really any games on Mac, let alone the PC that even come close to needing 256MB of video memory.

By the time something actually requires 256MB, you'll need a faster videocard.

Ramey Skies · Jul 23, 2003, 02:59 PM

Fair enough, however a search on cnet shows the Radeon 9800 Pro as a 256 Mb card. If both cards are designated as "9800 Pro" then it should be stated that they are not the same."9800" would have been more accurate. The card would be the same but without any misleading "Pro" designation.

TheMosco · 03:16 PM

As pointed out earlier, The cards that ship with the G5s are 8X. The reason why the retail card is only 4X is because you couldn't have a 8X card and still have it work with all the macs that use 2X. They use different voltages.

And the 256Mb thing is stupid,

http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphi...n_9800-04.html

it only made a difference when running at 1600x1200 running 6X FSAA.

It would not be worth the extra 100 dollars.

TheMosco · Jul 23, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Ramey Skies:
Fair enough, however a search on cnet shows the Radeon 9800 Pro as a 256 Mb card. If both cards are designated as "9800 Pro" then it should be stated that they are not the same."9800" would have been more accurate. The card would be the same but without any misleading "Pro" designation.

No, there are 2 versions of the radeon 9800 Pro on the PC. a 128MB version and 256Mb version. Go to Ati's website, they say "up to 256Mb" of memory.

The 128MB version for the pc retails at 399 and the 256Mb version retails for 499.

a2daj · Jul 23, 2003, 03:10 PM

The Pro designation has nothing to do with how much RAM is on the 9800 Pro cards. The Pro typically designates the feature set. We are getting the "true 9800 pro."

There are two 9800 Pros for macs, ATI's and Apple's (Retail and OEM respectively). The Apple 9800 Pro only works in G5s and uses an 8xAGP Pro slot, which means the Apple 9800 Pro will not fit in older AGP slots. However, older AGP cards should be able to fit in the 8xAGP Pro slot (why you would want one is anyone's guess though).

daydreamer · Jul 23, 2003, 04:09 PM

jeez, don't get over freaked out, the pc version does not have 256mb, well they have but very limited quantities..

CatOne · Jul 23, 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Ramey Skies:
Fair enough, however a search on cnet shows the Radeon 9800 Pro as a 256 Mb card. If both cards are designated as "9800 Pro" then it should be stated that they are not the same."9800" would have been more accurate. The card would be the same but without any misleading "Pro" designation.

There are two cards for Windows. A 128 MB version and a 256 MB version. The latter is $500.

Superchicken · Jul 23, 2003, 11:11 PM

what would you have to use to tap that 256 megs of VRAM?

Kenneth · Jul 23, 2003, 11:36 PM

I want to replace my Radeon 9000 Pro on my DP 1.25 PowerMac...

4x AGP... what's the mid-range card does ATI offer?

MindFad · Jul 24, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
what would you have to use to tap that 256 megs of VRAM?

The next generation of games, for one. We're pretty much in a good transition where it sure won't hurt to have 256MB of graphics card memory. People are somehow making having 256MB cards is a bad thing? It can only benefit in the future.

Ramey Skies · Jul 24, 2003, 02:24 AM

I want to replace my Radeon 9000 Pro on my DP 1.25 PowerMac...

4x AGP... what's the mid-range card does ATI offer?

TRY THE ATI RADEON 9800 PRO !!!

IT'S 4x AGP AND HAS 128 MB !!!

:XI: · Jul 24, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Ramey Skies:
TRY THE ATI RADEON 9800 PRO !!!

IT'S 4x AGP AND HAS 128 MB !!!

Heh...

macrophyllum · Jul 24, 2003, 12:52 PM

So I ordered a G5 with the 9600 Pro card, is that a 128 MB card?

drHo · Jul 24, 2003, 01:39 PM

nope its a 64MB card

i think the the only 128MB card is offering for the G5 is the 9800 Pro

Jermsy · Jul 24, 2003, 03:26 PM

Graphics cards are used for more than just games you know... These are pro machines. People will be using programs like Lightwave and Maya on them.

If it is true that workstation level cards will be available at some point, this is not a big issue. If workstation cards are not coming, that 128mb could be a problem.

DBvader · Jul 31, 2003, 07:40 PM

cards like the 9800 dont work well wtih those types of applications.

has anyone with a MDD used a 9800? i want to see if my gming performance will increase on my dual 867

Thain Esh Kelch · Aug 1, 2003, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by DBvader:
cards like the 9800 dont work well wtih those types of applications.

has anyone with a MDD used a 9800? i want to see if my gming performance will increase on my dual 867

Compared to what? A Radeon 9800 is overkill compared to a Ti4 on that machine.

kkant · Aug 1, 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
The next generation of games, for one. We're pretty much in a good transition where it sure won't hurt to have 256MB of graphics card memory. People are somehow making having 256MB cards is a bad thing? It can only benefit in the future.

It's not that it's a bad thing, but computer stuff should be bought in a balanced manner for the best cost-effectiveness. If games cannot take really effective advantage of 256 MB today, as demonstrated in the link above, why pay extra for it? Future games that actually can use 256 will require a better card than the 9800 anyway, so in the future having 256 MB in a 9800 will not benefit anything.

kkant · Aug 1, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by TheMosco:
And the 256Mb thing is stupid,

http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphi...n_9800-04.html

it only made a difference when running at 1600x1200 running 6X FSAA.

It would not be worth the extra 100 dollars.

Thanks for that link, I hadn't thought of it this way before. This is indeed good news for us. I had initially thought that much of the texture information etc gets stored in the video card's RAM, but even that apparently does not take enough space to make a difference. As someone else mentioned, by the time games need so much texture and buffer space, we will need a new video card anyway.

kkant · Aug 1, 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Jermsy:
Graphics cards are used for more than just games you know... These are pro machines. People will be using programs like Lightwave and Maya on them.

If it is true that workstation level cards will be available at some point, this is not a big issue. If workstation cards are not coming, that 128mb could be a problem.

I don't think so. These video cards are for real time rendering; they don't help non-real-time renders at all. In fact the 9800 128MB is probably overkill for Maya etc, unless the preview modes for those apps have really great graphics...which they might, but who knows.

DeathMan · Aug 1, 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by kkant:
I don't think so. These video cards are for real time rendering; they don't help non-real-time renders at all. In fact the 9800 128MB is probably overkill for Maya etc, unless the preview modes for those apps have really great graphics...which they might, but who knows.

Yeah, gaming graphics cards are just different than 3D graphics cards. Even gamers wouldn't pay $1000 for a graphics card. But Pixar probably would, if it could get the movie out the door any quicker.

a2daj · Aug 1, 2003, 06:49 PM

I'm at the point where I can run most games at 1024x768 with pretty good performance so I'm no longer worried about getting extreme framerates. If you want a card that will allow one to increase the visual quality without the performance penalty, the Radeon 9800 Pro is the way to go. I have one and I'm very glad I bought it. In just about all of my games I am CPU bound so I can run many at 1600x1200 with virtually no performance hit. I can even enable 4x FSAA and Anisotropic Filtering in some with no hit. The Radeon 8500 I was using before hand had issues with 1024x768 with 4xFSAA and someitmes 800x600.

Once ATI releases the Radeon 4.1 drivers, I'll be able to use the 3D overrides in the ATI Displays app so I can enable 16xAnisotrpic filtering and 6xMSAA (multisample FSAA) or 4xSSAA (supersample FSAA using a similar method the Voodoo 5 used Rotated Grid Super Sampling so you can enable FSAA in Diablo II) in any OpenGL game. The Radeon 4.2 drivers should enable the 3D overrides for other Radeons. So one might actually be able to make BloodRayne look decent

Right now I'm limited to only games which have FSAA built in. Even with my dual 1.2 G4 I think the 9800 was worth it. At high resolutions/visual quality it stomps anything else available for Macs. I personally would only recommend it for users with at an least 800 GHz processor. Others might think about ordering one with a BTO G5.

kkant · Aug 2, 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by a2daj:
Right now I'm limited to only games which have FSAA built in.

Even so, this is good news. Glad to see ATI is getting on the ball with its Mac drivers. I hope the OEM drivers in the G5s will include the 4.1/4.2 capabilities. But as I see it this would require a control panel, and Apple doesn't like those it seems.

Sometimes Apple can be maddeningly and irritatingly stupid.

Link · Aug 2, 2003, 07:27 AM

I'm extremely tempted to get one of these r9800s in a few months for my dual 800 g4 :sigh: I could give it something