[asergi]

I just purchased a leftover Dual 2-Gigger. I'd like to upgrade my card with something more reasonable than a 6900DDL or X800. But there are so many options and versions of cards that I can't keep up. I'll try to keep my request simple:

In what order do these cards fall in terms of performance? (All are Mac versions, and probably only available in retail version)

Radeon 9600 Pro
Radeon 9600 XP
Radeon 9800 Pro
Radeon 9800 Pro Special Edition
Are the retail versions different than the OEM version?
Any other card you might suggest in this price/performance range?

I'm not a gamer, but I do lots of video editing and graphics (mostly 2D).
Any insight would be great because I just found a deal on Buy.com for a 9800 Pro (not SE) for about $175.

Thanks in advance for any insight!!

[Luca Rescigno]

Good question. There are a lot of variants of these video cards, especially the 9800. Let me try to lay it out for you. Their performance, in order, goes like this:

Radeon 9600 Pro (OEM only)
Radeon 9600 XT (OEM only)
Radeon 9800 Pro (OEM only)
Radeon 9800 Pro Mac Special Edition (Retail)
Radeon 9800 XT (OEM only)

The 9600 Pro and 9800 Pro are both OEM cards that shipped with Rev. A PowerMac G5s. The 9600 XT and 9800 XT are the updated OEM cards that shipped in the Rev. B PowerMac G5s (the 9800 XT was later dropped from the lineup). The 9800 Pro Mac Special Edition is a 256 MB, G5-only version of the 9800 Pro that is sold through retail outlets.

Just because a card is OEM doesn't mean you can't get one, though. Most of the OEM cards there are available through www.macsales.com or at least on eBay. Just make sure not to pay too much. Don't pay over $100 for a 9600 variant, and don't pay over $200 for a 9800 variant. You should be able to get them for a bit less than those prices even.

Things are further complicated because there is an OEM version of the 9800 Pro that shipped with the Rev. A G5s, and there's also a retail version of the same card that goes with PowerMac G4s. The retail G4 version has a red board (as opposed to a blue one), an auxiliary power connector, and VGA and DVI ports. The G5 version has a blue board, no power connector, and an ADC port in addition to a DVI port, and it will only work in a G5. The retail version might work in a G5, but I'd avoid it anyway because I'm not sure and because you'd have to mess around with the power connector.

EDIT: Whoa, how do you have ZERO posts?

[powertrippin]

If you only do video editing and 2d graphic work, a video card won't help ANYTHING. Just get a cheap Radeon 9600, 64 meg. Anything else would be pointless.

[crooner]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

If you only do video editing and 2d graphic work, a video card won't help ANYTHING. Just get a cheap Radeon 9600, 64 meg. Anything else would be pointless.

This is an interesting point as I'm about to upgrade to Tiger and want to take advantage of Core Image. However, if you're saying that unless I'm doing serious 3-D or gaming or using apps like Motion I won’t see a difference from the GForce 4 MX that came with my dual 1Ghz QuickSilver, I won't bother spending $$$ on a new card.

What can you offer as to insight into my quandary, kind sir? (Please keep in mind that if a new card will even speed up normal screen redraws and Finder activity, it's worth it to me. Thanks.)

[Leonard]

I created a list of the G5 cards just lately due to all the confusion:

http://discussions.info.apple.com/we....2@.68af5050/1

[gangster]

there are $50 rebates on both the 9800pro 128 and 256 now. these do NOT require the purchase of any software.

[Luca Rescigno]

Leonard, I responded to your list over at the Apple discussions. The only error is that the 9600 Pro is exactly the same as the other 9600 variants (9600, 9600XT, and 9650) for compatibility. All of them require the tape mod to work in G4s.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by crooner

This is an interesting point as I'm about to upgrade to Tiger and want to take advantage of Core Image. However, if you're saying that unless I'm doing serious 3-D or gaming or using apps like Motion I won’t see a difference from the GForce 4 MX that came with my dual 1Ghz QuickSilver, I won't bother spending $$$ on a new card.

You're generally correct. You want to upgrade your video card if you're more into 3d games or apps or you use Motion. The other instance you want to upgrade is if you want to take advantage of Core Image - powertrippin said a 9600 64MB card for a reason, it supports Core Image. I haven't heard much of Core Image other than the dashboard ripple effect is done via core image, so if you don't have a supported card, you don't see the ripple effect of dashboard in Tiger.


And thanks Luca for the clarification. You are correct that the 9600 needs modding.

[asergi]

Wow--thanks to all for the info. So should I conclude that any 9800 variant is preferable to any 9600 variant? I thought the XT cards (ie 9600XT) are generally superior to non-XT cards. (That is, might a 9600 XT perform better than, say, a 9800 Pro?)

As for cards for video/graphics: don't you need to take into account some on-the-fly rendering, or previewing, of 2d graphics? For example, wouldn't Motion, AE, or real-time effects in an editing package (FCP, XPress) benefit at all from the graphics card?

Also, can anyone offer a bit more insight into Core Image and what benefits, if any, it will bring to graphic designers and video editors?

BTW: Luca, I'm new to the MacNN forums, but I sometimes post to Apple's FCP and Avid's Xpress Pro fourms...sometimes by other handles ;-)

_________
G5 DP2.5, 4GB ram, GeForce 6800 Ultra, 600GB Huge Sys Array, Atto UL4D, Yeeeehaaa!!!

[Luca Rescigno]

The little extensions at the end of the card name are generally less important than the number (unless the extension is SE, in which case the card sucks balls no matter what). In the case of the 9600, the standard, Pro, and XT variants are just the same card with progressively higher clock speeds. The 9800s are a step up, with 8 rendering pipelines instead of 4. So a standard, non-Pro Radeon 9800 should be a bit faster than a 9600XT.

Again, the exception is SE. A 9600SE is worse than a Radeon 9200, and a 9800SE is worse than a Radeon 9600. There aren't any Mac versions of the SE cards, though... the Radeon 9800 Pro Mac Special Edition is not the same thing.

PS. Welcome to MacNN! I'm just confused that under your name, it says you have just one post (earlier it said you had zero) when you have clearly posted twice here. It's kinda strange.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by crooner

This is an interesting point as I'm about to upgrade to Tiger and want to take advantage of Core Image. However, if you're saying that unless I'm doing serious 3-D or gaming or using apps like Motion I won’t see a difference from the GForce 4 MX that came with my dual 1Ghz QuickSilver, I won't bother spending $$$ on a new card.

You'll see a difference. The Geforce 4 MX is crap, even compared to cards that came out at the same time. Even a Radeon 9000 with 128 mb would be much better.

[Abit667]

Originally Posted by chris v

You'll see a difference. The Geforce 4 MX is crap, even compared to cards that came out at the same time. Even a Radeon 9000 with 128 mb would be much better.

How so? Redeon 9000 doesn't have pixel shaders, so no CoreImage, so you won't be seeing anything new. Neither card is terribly fast, but they'll both get the job done just the same. If you want to get the biggest upgrade for your money get a 9600 class card in there.

[Luca Rescigno]

Yeah, that's what I'd recommend. On the other hand, it's true that the GeForce 4MX is an especially slow card. I've heard from a few people that performance even in Quartz Extreme (which only requires a Radeon or GF2MX), its performance is subpar. But upgrading from a 4MX to a Radeon 9000 is not a great idea... you won't see much benefit. Get at least a Radeon 9600 so you can enable real-time Core Image effects.

[bowwowman]

Originally Posted by asergi

Wow--thanks to all for the info. So should I conclude that any 9800 variant is preferable to any 9600 variant? I thought the XT cards (ie 9600XT) are generally superior to non-XT cards. (That is, might a 9600 XT perform better than, say, a 9800 Pro?)

As for cards for video/graphics: don't you need to take into account some on-the-fly rendering, or previewing, of 2d graphics? For example, wouldn't Motion, AE, or real-time effects in an editing package (FCP, XPress) benefit at all from the graphics card?

Also, can anyone offer a bit more insight into Core Image and what benefits, if any, it will bring to graphic designers and video editors?

BTW: Luca, I'm new to the MacNN forums, but I sometimes post to Apple's FCP and Avid's Xpress Pro fourms...sometimes by other handles ;-)

_________
G5 DP2.5, 4GB ram, GeForce 6800 Ultra, 600GB Huge Sys Array, Atto UL4D, Yeeeehaaa!!!

The REAL advantages of Core Video are yet to be exploited much.

Once we get to a generation of (Mac) video cards with the power to actually do real-time 3D rendering (freeing up the cpu to do what it is best at, feeding data to the rest of the system) and the true 64-bit OS & applications that will empower that take over, then we will REALLY be amazed.....

[asergi]

Thanks to all for your help. I got every question answered and all within a few hours! Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me the extent to which some people know their stuff inside and out. I think I need to spend more time in this forum. So it looks like I'll push for a 9800 Pro Mac Ed or a 9800 Pro Mac Special Ed (haha). Thanks again!!

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by crooner

This is an interesting point as I'm about to upgrade to Tiger and want to take advantage of Core Image. However, if you're saying that unless I'm doing serious 3-D or gaming or using apps like Motion I won’t see a difference from the GForce 4 MX that came with my dual 1Ghz QuickSilver, I won't bother spending $$$ on a new card.

What can you offer as to insight into my quandary, kind sir? (Please keep in mind that if a new card will even speed up normal screen redraws and Finder activity, it's worth it to me. Thanks.)

If you want a core image capable card, get a 64 meg radeon 9600. They're cheap and plentiful on ebay, but no, none of the cards are going to speed up your screen 'redraw' to a noticeable extent. Think of the GPU as a super high performance exhaust system. If your heads aren't ported and you don't have a good intake, it won't do anything. Getting a new graphics card for 2d work is totally and utterly pointless in your case.

- Rob

[asergi]

Just a clarification: the Radeon 9600 is always mentioned when talking about core image. Does that mean that the 9800 doesn't take advantage of core image, or only that you need AT LEAST the 9600?

Rob, are you sure that programs like AE and Motion don't push any realtime/preview rendering to the graphics card? I don't doubt your knowledge, but I'm just left a little dumbfounded as to why high-end video cards have always been so sought after in the graphics/video industry (think Wildcat, Fire GL, Parhelia, Quadro). I'm not a gamer, and do very little 3D work. But at work, we always tend to buy the highest-end card available when we buy new Macs. (We do video editing, graphics, DVD authoring, compression.) Are we wasting money by paying $300, $400, $500 to upgrade our graphics cards for this type of work?

[powertrippin]

9600 onwards. The least expensive core image capable graphics card would be hte 64 meg 9600. Everything higher than that (9650, 9600XT, 9700, 9800, etc) works great. Yes, MOTION does use the GPU for some things, mainly the 3d effects that are overlayed on the top of hte video. That's pretty much it. Final cut, photoshop, iMovie, iDvd, etc NONE of them use the graphics card's power. If you don't do any 3d work, then honestly, anything above a 64 meg 9600 is going to be totally pointless and a waste of money. The one program I'm not sure about is Adobe After Effects, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't use the graphics cards either. Instead of calling them graphics cards, let's call them 3D cards, because that's what they really are. If you don't do anything using 3D, they're pointless to you. The only benefit of having a monster card in your mac is going to be gaming, or 3d modeling/rendering.

- Rob

[asergi]

Got it. At least I can keep a bit more $$ in my pocket where it belongs. Thanks, Rob.

Now go outside and enjoy the weather! It's sunny and 65 here in Philly and I'm on my way to a crawfish boil and BBQ! Yeehaa!

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Abit667

How so? Redeon 9000 doesn't have pixel shaders, so no CoreImage, so you won't be seeing anything new. Neither card is terribly fast, but they'll both get the job done just the same. If you want to get the biggest upgrade for your money get a 9600 class card in there.

Just subjective. I've got two machines in my art room, both G4s. One has a Geforce 4 MX and one has a Radeon 7000. The GeForce 4 MX stutters and stumbles on exposé with any more than 2 or 3 windows open, where the Radeon 7000 handles it pretty decently. I just don't want anybody going around thinking a GeForce 4 MX is anything like a viable video card. It's weak.

[Amacapart]

The 4MX was standard marketing BS. It was a slightly warmed-over GF2. A poor card with poor performance.

[Taipan]

Hi!

BTW, the 9800 Special Edition is supposed to be pretty loud, I don't have any personal experience, though.

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by Taipan

Hi!

BTW, the 9800 Special Edition is supposed to be pretty loud, I don't have any personal experience, though.

Exactly why I went with the 9600XT. Same amount of memory, almost as fast when overclocked, and QUIET (no fan).

[crooner]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

If you want a core image capable card, get a 64 meg radeon 9600. They're cheap and plentiful on ebay, but no, none of the cards are going to speed up your screen 'redraw' to a noticeable extent. Think of the GPU as a super high performance exhaust system. If your heads aren't ported and you don't have a good intake, it won't do anything. Getting a new graphics card for 2d work is totally and utterly pointless in your case.

- Rob

Thanks, powertrippin, Rob and everyone else. The info you've provided is invaluable. From what you've said, it pretty much confirms my held belief that the 4MX that came with my QuickSilver is, indeed, just a notch above a POS.

That concluded, it seems that the best way for me to go would be the 9600. The problem is, from what I’ve been able to find on the web, this card will only work in a G5 and not my QuickSilver. Is this true? If so, what's the least expensive option for me in a Core Image compatible card?

Keep in mind that my display setup is a 22" Apple Cinema Display (ADC connector), an SGI 1600SW connected to the second display port by way of the very cool yet still very expensive MultiLink adapter and a third SGI connected to an ancient Proformance III PCI card. Sure, the card sucks as far as performance goes, but it has the annoying propriety connector that the SGI needs and that display is used only for palettes and extra windows, so fast performance is not a requisite for that one. So the focus is a main card that will let me drive the Apple Cinema Display and one SGI without taking too much of a performance hit running both.

TIA for recommendations on what card may fit the bill.

[powertrippin]

Yeah, the GeForce4mx is pretty awful. You can overclock it pretty far, I overclocked my old one very far before I sold it. As for the cheapest Core Image card, it'd be the 64 meg 9600. While true that it only works in G5s, with 2 small pieces of scotch tape it'll work in G4s:

http://www.techseekers.net/modules.p...tent&id=71

I had to tape off the two small pins to get the 9600XT working in my G4, and you can use both ports if you do a tiny bit of soldering. This really is hte best solution for you, because a 9800 doesn't have an ADC port, so you'd have to spend another $80-100 on a DVI->ADC adaptor.