Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Betox · Jan 28, 2002, 02:07 PM

ATI Radeon 7500 (PM G4) vs. NVIDIA GeForce2 MX (iMac) ?????

Wish one is better for gamig ????

SteveJobs · Jan 28, 2002, 03:12 PM

The Radeon. Better drivers and way better performance.

Cellery · Jan 28, 2002, 04:05 PM

Yep, the Radeon is better, much better in fact if Apple's frame rate numbers are to be believed.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html

It shows an 800 MHz PowerMac with the Radeon 7500 getting 62 fps, and a Dual Processor 800 with the GF2MX getting 59 fps. Since the machine with the Radeon only has 1 800 MHz processor with no L3 cache as opposed to a machine with an extra processor and the L3 cache, it's safe to assume that the Radeon blows the GF2MX out of the water. That plus I read up on the specs of the cards...

Archangel · Jan 29, 2002, 05:10 PM

Not quite on topic, but is the Radeon 7500 a souped up original Radeon? Or is it something along the lines of Radeon 7000 (for which I can't seem to find the clock speeds).

Ramza · Jan 29, 2002, 08:00 PM

I'm pretty sure it's a stripped down 8500. Much faster than regular Radeon or the GeForce2 MX. Probobly even faster than the GeForce4 MX.

mr. burns · Jan 30, 2002, 12:52 AM

when is the 7500 going to be released? i just went to macmall and they didn't have it.

a2daj · Jan 30, 2002, 03:20 AM

According to an ATI employee the 7500 is basically an original Radeon but clocked faster (smaller die .15 vs. .18 microns) and supports dual monitors. It may also have the truform technology as well. From what I've read, the original Radeon and the 7500 both have 3 texture mapping units (TMU), while the 8500 has 2 (no one uses the 3rd TMU in the original Radeon and the 7500).

Betox · Jan 30, 2002, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by mr. burns:
when is the 7500 going to be released? i just went to macmall and they didn't have it.

It's only available if you order a new Power Mac G4 800Mhz... is not for retail sale.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html

Jan 30, 2002, 06:29 PM

The Radeon 7500 is a souped up Radeon (i.e. faster Chip and Ram clock speeds) where as the Radeon 7000 is a souped down version of the orginal radeon (slwoer Ram & chiop clock speed) the ogoinal Radeon sists in between these two perfomance wise.
The 7500 is only available with a new 2002 QS Tower at present, not seperatley from ATI or Apple at the moment where as the 7000 & 8500 are availble (8500 Mid too late Feb supposedly) as aftermarket graphoics cards from ATI, the 7000 fine as a second monitror card or for those that only do a litttle unstrenous 3D gaming, where as the 8500 is on par performance wise with the Gefoce 3 TI500 (Nvidas fastest card, for now, Geforce4 not with standing) and I think is technologicaly and superior to the Geforce 3 TI500 (but on the PC the drivers are letting it down) wher as on the mac the Nvidia drivers are even worse thanATI's (is this possible!) because Mac graphics drivers are a "load of shite" OpenGL everything (at least comapred to PC ones, although these are about the onlt hting that seems to work well on Windows.
Rant rant etc..... :o

Betox · Jan 31, 2002, 08:22 AM

Do you guys know of any benchmarks for the RADEON 7500 (Mac 2002)????

Arty50 · Feb 2, 2002, 12:36 AM

Mike over at xlr8 is doing a Q3 shoot out between the 7500 and 4MX. So far the 7500 is holding it's own. At 1600x1200/32 it was slightly better than the 4MX, with the 4MX winning at lower resolutions. He's going to post a full comparison by Monday.

godzappa · Feb 4, 2002, 09:29 AM

It's really pretty sad, I'm much rather have the new Radeon in the new iMacs than the GeForce 2mx, which is a proven so so card.

I'd even think twice on the GeForce 4mx, until nVidia release detailed specs on the card and differences between the full GeForce 4.

You'd think that now nVidia is Apples new poster child for video cards, they'd have decent drivers and be using superior cards not nVidias lower end models.. I think ATi has got a bad rap from Apple, I like having more than one card supplier for the platform, but when we cant choose between the two most of the time its kinda pointless.

P · Feb 8, 2002, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by godzappa:
It's really pretty sad, I'm much rather have the new Radeon in the new iMacs than the GeForce 2mx, which is a proven so so card.

I'd even think twice on the GeForce 4mx, until nVidia release detailed specs on the card and differences between the full GeForce 4.

They're pretty huge. The actual GPU in Geforce4 MX (NV17) is not even up to par with the Geforce3 (NV20), it's the old Geforce2 MX GPU without the vertex shader. The difference is that the Geforce4 MX has borrowed the memory controller from the Geforce4 (NV25, if anyone is counting) called Lightspeed Memory Architecture II. It's been downscaled a bit, but it's still a huge step forward.

If you can stand reading a PC site, take a look at Tom's Hardware for a comparison and the details on the two boards:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/...206/index.html

r-0X#Zapchud · Feb 10, 2002, 09:23 AM

The GayForce 4 MX is what should have been GayForce 3 MX, but because it was delayed so much, so much that it was released together with the GF4Ti, they decided to call it 4MX for marketing reasons. Its slightly faster than RADEON7500, but only slightly. RADEON8500 will mess its face up!

P · Feb 11, 2002, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by r-0X#Zapchud:
The GayForce 4 MX is what should have been GayForce 3 MX, but because it was delayed so much, so much that it was released together with the GF4Ti, they decided to call it 4MX for marketing reasons. Its slightly faster than RADEON7500, but only slightly. RADEON8500 will mess its face up!

Of course Radeon 8500 will trash the Geforce4 MX - the MX is the low-cost line of cards, and Radeon 8500 is ATIs flagship.

The naming tactic is a bit confusing and has been widely criticized. The point is that it is essentially a Geforce2 graphics chip with a "strangled" Geforce4 memory architechture. It would have been better to make a real Geforce3 MX, meaning the memory architechture like it looks now but a downclocked Geforce3 T&L with the Vertex shader instead of an overclocked Geforce2. This way the chip is a dead end at the time it's introduced. Oh well, it's cheaper to manufacture this way I guess.

Names aside, the Geforce4 MX 440 (which is what Apple uses) is a bargain chip that rocks today but will grow old a little too fast. If you can find a discounted Geforce3 board instead, snap it up - it'll crush a Geforce4 MX and has a much better life expectancy.

Jansar · Feb 11, 2002, 11:12 AM

BTW for those of you that own a Cube, the Radeon 7500 DOES fit inside and it has been confirmed to work. There is a God after all...

ccrider · Feb 16, 2002, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Jansar:
BTW for those of you that own a Cube, the Radeon 7500 DOES fit inside and it has been confirmed to work. There is a God after all...

Who confirmed it? Does this mean I can finally have dual monitors on my cube? BTW, does the 7500 have a fan? I like my cube the way it is - quiet...

Good news, regardless.

ccrider · Feb 16, 2002, 12:06 PM

doublepost

[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: ccrider ]

Jansar · Feb 16, 2002, 09:50 PM

Keep in mind, it has to be the OEM card. The card that comes out of the G4 computers. Sorry I haven't clarified it before.

Feb 17, 2002, 09:08 AM

I'll wait until someone actually bothers porting the games to the Mac and at the same price as Windows versions before even bothering to think about graphics chips on the Mac. I don't see the point of shelling out more than the price of an X-Box for less power and a few games. The Geforce 4MX I got is more than enough.