Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Earth Mk. II · 01:39 AM

According to Apple's docs and marketing, the 12" PowerBooks should have a 420 Go in them.

However, last night I was playing around with a Gentoo install cd (1.4_rc6 for reference) and when I checked /proc/pci it reported my GPU as "nVidia Corporation NV17 [GeForce4 440 Go 64M] (rev 163)"

Now, I found this a little fishy, as I know I'm supposed to have a 420 Go with 32 Megs of ram.

I checked ASP, and that wasn't very fruitful but it gave me this:

So, I did I google search, and found nVidia's list of device id's. And, according to that list, a device id of 179 is from a GeForce4 440 Go 64M.

0x174 - GeForce4 440 Go
0x175 - GeForce4 420 Go
0x176 - GeForce4 420 Go 32M
0x179 - GeForce4 440 Go 64M

So, is the card incorrectly reporting it's device id (which isn't very likely), or did apple place a more powerful GPU than advertised in my 12" AlBook (also, not very likely)?

[EDIT: Corrected "ASM" to "ASP," darn typos. Apologies for any confusion.]

AHDuke99 · Jul 23, 2003, 09:16 PM

There are control panels on their website, at least with ATI there are, that'll tell you the type and size of yoour video card, go to nvidia.com and check that, then let us know.

Earth Mk. II · Jul 23, 2003, 10:10 PM

Well nVidia has tools.... just not for the Mac.

I've found isolated reports on the 'net from people noticing the same thing while trying to get XFree86 working under linux on the new PB's (there is no official driver for the nVidia cards on PPC based architectures)... but only 1 or 2 reports - nothing conclusive.

I don't really mind much either way, since I'm defiantly not loosing anything, and I'm not gaining all that much if I'm gaining anything at all. Its just a curiosity.

slow moe · Jul 23, 2003, 11:07 PM

I used to have a ALi based motherboard in my PC, and RedHat would always incorrectly identify my ATI Radeon 7000 card as some other Radeon model. I upgraded the motherboard to one that uses VIA chipsets, and now XFree correctly guesses the ATI card. Even WinXP choked at getting the model right until I upgraded, so I wouldn't put to much faith into your card actually being a 440. It's most likely caused, like it my case, a glitch between XFree or some other software, and the Powerbook's motherboard.

Z-4 · Jul 24, 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
According to Apple's docs and marketing, the 12" PowerBooks should have a 420 Go in them.

However, last night I was playing around with a Gentoo install cd (1.4_rc6 for reference) and when I checked /proc/pci it reported my GPU as "nVidia Corporation NV17 [GeForce4 440 Go 64M] (rev 163)"

Now, I found this a little fishy, as I know I'm supposed to have a 420 Go with 32 Megs of ram.

I checked ASM, and that wasn't very fruitful but it gave me this:

So, I did I google search, and found nVidia's list of device id's. And, according to that list, a device id of 179 is from a GeForce4 440 Go 64M.

So, is the card incorrectly reporting it's device id (which isn't very likely), or did apple place a more powerful GPU than advertised in my 12" AlBook (also, not very likely)?

Try going into system profiler in the HD>applications>utilities and run it and see what you get....

MaxPower2k3 · Jul 24, 2003, 12:59 AM

he's right, Apple System Profiler shows the Device ID as 179, and according to nVidia's own list that's a 64MB GeForce 4 440Go. if it had the 'correct' chip in it, it would supposedly show up as Device ID 176...

Earth Mk. II · Jul 24, 2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Z-4:
Try going into system profiler in the HD>applications>utilities and run it and see what you get....

I did. I already posted the text output of Apple System Profiler, but here it is again:

Now, a glitch between Xfree or whatever I can understand and wouldn't confuse me much, but Apple System Profiler itself reports a device ID of 179, supposedly I can trust this. And, if I understand right, a typical 12" Powerbook should report a Device ID of 176 for the graphics card.

It's just odd since two different OS's report that my GPU is something Apple's marketing says it shouldn't be. But, I can't think of any way to be certain without voiding my warranty.

wg2499 · Jul 24, 2003, 01:48 AM

system profiler reports my device id as 179 also ... hmm....

BJPirt · Jul 24, 2003, 03:57 AM

I initially got excited about this as I received my 12" two days ago, but it's not to be it seems.

In the dev tools, launch OpenGL info and it reports the total video memory available as 33554423 bytes, which would seem to be pretty close to the 32 MB we were expecting.

Oh well :-(

MacNStein · Jul 24, 2003, 06:11 AM

My 12" PB also reports 179 as the id in ASP. Very odd.

Here's a theory... Are there any other architectural differences between the GeForce4 440 and 420, other than the amount of RAM? It very well could be the 440 GPU core, only it has 32MB instead of the standard 64.

Earth Mk. II · Jul 24, 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by BJPirt:
I initially got excited about this as I received my 12" two days ago, but it's not to be it seems.

In the dev tools, launch OpenGL info and it reports the total video memory available as 33554423 bytes, which would seem to be pretty close to the 32 MB we were expecting.

Oh well :-(

Hum... you're right.

This is just... odd. Why would the graphics card report a device ID that leads to incorrect identification in 2 different OS's (one of which being Apple's own) and on Apple's own hardware?

The RAM on the 440 GPU is faster (128-bit DDR vs. 64-bit DDR), but according to this PDF from nVidia thats about the only difference. Core clock speed, fill rate, and all else is equal between the two.

What's more curious is that Apple's Tech overviews for the 12" and 17" claim that the 420 can process "720 million textured pixels per second," and the 440 880 million. Why would the two docs be report different things? Maybe Apple's tech notes are just... old?

It appears that the GPU incorrectly reporting it's Device ID is more likely, but it's still odd that this would happen (you'd think Apple would make sure the chip was reported correctly on its own hardware and inside it's own OS). Also possible is that, for whatever reason, Apple started popping in Go 440 cards with only 32 MB of VRAM on them in lieu of the "official" Go 420 variety. But the GPU defiantly reports itself as a Go 440.

Like I said before, if there's a benefit to having the GeForce4 Go 440 over the 420, it isn't much of one. Either way, my 12" still rocks.

tisoncam · Jul 24, 2003, 07:53 AM

Getting the same info here--strange

slow moe · Jul 24, 2003, 08:19 AM

ASP shows the device ID of mine as 179 as well, but like everyone else, ASP also shows mine as a GeForce4 MX, and not the advertised GeForce4 420/440 Go, XBench also calls it a GeForce4 MX. ...hmm..

So, we have the GPU reporting it's device ID as 179, that according to nvidia is a GeForce4 440 Go, but ASP and XBench also say that it's a GeForce4 MX, which should report a device ID of 170 - 172. This is confusing because it can't be both GPUs at the same time, so which is it, the GeForce4 MX 420/440 or the GeForce4 420/440 Go?

I still think this stems from a software/GPU/motherboard combination because I've had that sorta thing cause misidentified video cards in the past, but the only way to find out for sure just what's in the 12" PB, would be for someone to crack open their PB, peel off the GPU's heatsink or heatshield if it has one, and have a look.

tisoncam · Jul 24, 2003, 08:25 AM

I think that it is supposed to report the 420/440 as a GF4Mx as they are based on the same chipset (the 420/440 is a mobile GF4Mx). The strange thing is that it reads as a 440 instead of a 420.

MaxPower2k3 · Jul 24, 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
The RAM on the 440 GPU is faster (128-bit DDR vs. 64-bit DDR), but according to this PDF from nVidia thats about the only difference. Core clock speed, fill rate, and all else is equal between the two.

What's more curious is that Apple's Tech overviews for the 12" and 17" claim that the 420 can process "720 million textured pixels per second," and the 440 880 million. Why would the two docs be report different things? Maybe Apple's tech notes are just... old?

if you look at the 'consumer' page for the GF4 GO here, there is in fact quite a bit of difference between them. this must be where Apple got its figures for that page.

slow moe · Jul 24, 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by tisoncam:
I think that it is supposed to report the 420/440 as a GF4Mx as they are based on the same chipset (the 420/440 is a mobile GF4Mx). The strange thing is that it reads as a 440 instead of a 420.

Yes, the Go is the mobile version of the MX, but Apple advertises the GPU as a GeForce4 420 Go, its device ID shows it's a GeForce 440 Go, and then it also gets reported as a MX. ASP should report it consistently as a Go GPU, since it's Apple's system profiler, but doesn't, but then again neither does anything else that I'm aware of. My point is there are inconsistencies in ASP and other programs that rule them out as being reliable sources in determining the GPU, and the best way to find out would be to look at the actual GPU on the mobo.

ibook_steve · Jul 24, 2003, 01:18 PM

I can confirm from taking apart many of these machines that the graphics chip is, indeed the 420 Go with 32 MB. Just open your Powerbook and check for yourself.

Steve

tisoncam · Jul 24, 2003, 01:20 PM

Thanks. Good to know.