Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

warnergt · Jan 10, 2002, 06:58 AM

ATI just announced the Radeon 7000 Mac Edition PCI video card. Will this card give me the necessary acceleration for Unreal Tournament? I have a 300 MHz PowerMac 8600 that I was hoping to use for UT.

starman · Jan 10, 2002, 07:50 AM

That kind of machine isn't going to be good for UT. I have a 733/G4 and I get pathetic performance out of it compared to my 1.4 GHz P4 (32 fps on my Mac, 65 fps on my PC). The 8600 doesn't have nearly the horsepower to run UT in those close corners of Facing Worlds where it gets messy.

Mike

xyber233 · Jan 10, 2002, 09:04 AM

It might help but your system is holding the card back. UT can get pretty rough.

Jansar · Jan 10, 2002, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by starman:
<STRONG>That kind of machine isn't going to be good for UT. I have a 733/G4 and I get pathetic performance out of it compared to my 1.4 GHz P4 (32 fps on my Mac, 65 fps on my PC). The 8600 doesn't have nearly the horsepower to run UT in those close corners of Facing Worlds where it gets messy.

Mike</STRONG>

Somebody must have sold you a bad computer. Check to make sure the chip is a G4. They could have slipped in a 233 MhZ G3 or something.

starman · Jan 10, 2002, 09:55 AM

Gee whiz, Jansar, I think I know what I bought.

Mike

Jansar · Jan 10, 2002, 10:13 AM

Well, that's very hard to believe that UT struggles on your G4 733. For such a powerful computer, there's GOT to be something wrong. UT runs 50+ FPS on my Cube. The specs are on my signature, and that was when I used a Radeon. I'm sure the chip in your minitower is much better.

blizzard · Jan 10, 2002, 01:08 PM

I got 35 fps on my old G3/266 with a Voodoo2. Not in the middle of action, of course, and I don't know what your base for measuring your performance is...but that sounds really low. And the same goes for the PC...it should be able to crank out higher framerates than that. What kind of settings are you running?

starman · Jan 10, 2002, 01:19 PM

1200x1024, 32-bit. Maybe that's why?

Jansar, you running 640x480 or something?

Mike

rampant · Jan 10, 2002, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Jansar:
<STRONG>

Somebody must have sold you a bad computer. Check to make sure the chip is a G4. They could have slipped in a 233 MhZ G3 or something.</STRONG>

No. My brother's 867Mhz ~640 ram with a GF2MX with twinview at 1024 x 768 in 32 bit gets horrible FPS in Unreal Tournament. Something like 40-49 fps in Oblivion, and 29 in the as_overlord assault level.

rampant · Jan 10, 2002, 01:47 PM

1200 by 1024 is a bad resolution. Not only does it mess up your aspect ration (which messes up your aiming) but it's too high. 1024 x 768 is the max you should run games at.

starman · Jan 10, 2002, 02:02 PM

1280/1024 = 1.25
1024/768 = 1.33

First off, the aspect ratio difference is SO SMALL that it shouldn't affect your game.

Also, how the hell does it screw up your aiming? Regardless of your resolution, you're still pointing in the same place.

Mike

Leonard · Jan 10, 2002, 02:13 PM

I'd have to side with Jansar. My old G3/400 with a PCI Radeon averaged around 35 fps at 1024x768 on UT at 32 bit (got some highs of 70, some lows of 30 maybe when it's super hectic).

My G4 dual-800 with Geforce 3 was getting fps generally in the 60-70 fps with highs over 100 at 1024x768 at 32 bit. UT doesn't use the second processor so that isn't bad considering I'm not goinng to spend the time fooling with the config.

SteveJobs · Jan 10, 2002, 02:34 PM

I guess I have the ultimate answer to your problems:
The rave drivers of the Geforce cards are crap. You may get better fps with an ATi Rage 128 sometimes, with a Radeon you get at least twice the performance in UT. Apple won't change that, because Rave was OS 9-only, and since this is an old OS that sux anyway, the OpenGL support of the Geforce cards is pretty good.

Steve[/LIST]

a2daj · Jan 10, 2002, 08:18 PM

SteveJobs is right. The problem isn't the computer, but the GeForce video card. I dumped that immediately when I got my G4 867. Dropped my old Radeon in it and it plays UT just fine. I added a Voodoo 5 for better UT and Diablo II performance (they're optimized for 3dfx cards using Glide) and very happy I dumped the NVIDIA card.
I've noticed significant performance increases in the GeForce RAVE drivers when it comes to Unreal Tournament (tested it in my old G4). It's not nearly as good as a Radeon with RAVE, or Voodoo5 with Glide, but it's about on par with the OpenGL renderer.

And 1280x1024 1) isn't a 4:3 aspect ratio (which doesn't matter to some, but annoys me enough that I'd rather use 1280x960) 2) doesn't provide much a major graphical enhancement over 1024x768 (which will give you better performance). Just because I can play at 1600x1200 doesn't mean I WANT to play at that res. I'd say 1024x768 is the sweet spot for game performance/visual quality with GeForce and Radeons on Macs.

seanyepez · Jan 10, 2002, 11:34 PM

1024 by 768 is the ideal resolution for gaming.

I run it on my Athlon XP 2000+ system, and it stays over 100 frames per second constantly.

The 733-megahertz G4 could actually suck at UT. The GeForce2 MX isn't the DDR-enabled version that's in the iMac. The extra memory bandwidth and CPU frequency on the GeForce3 make a big difference, but I still wouldn't upgrade to it from the Apple Store.

warnergt · Jan 11, 2002, 08:09 AM

Nobody answered the original question.

Is a Radeon 7000 good for UT?

warnergt · Jan 11, 2002, 08:12 AM

By the way, I get great UT performance on my 500 MHz G4 with
an ATI AGP Rage128Pro.

Is the Radeon 7000 (PCI) as good as a Rage128Pro (AGP)?
Does it support the necessary acceleration for UT as the
Rage128Pro?

Jansar · Jan 11, 2002, 08:48 AM

I run UT at 1024 x 768 at 32 bit.

xyber233 · Jan 11, 2002, 09:07 AM

I personally wouldn't recommend spending that money on that card because the performance gain won't be that much. When there is a lot of action, it will just poop out.

Leonard · Jan 11, 2002, 12:50 PM

warnergt, no-one will be able to give you a definite answer because no-one has a Radeon 7000 yet. You're also talking about 2 completely different systems here... a PowerMac 8600 which has a G3/300 processor, 50Mhz system bus(is that right?), 33MHz PCI architecture (no AGP)... and a G4/500 with AGP, 100 MHz system bus, and AGP architecture. Yes the Radeon 7000 will give you good acceleration, it may get as good as the G4/500 with an ATI Rage 128 Pro(AGP), but probably no faster. The system bus and processor are gonna hold you back. How much is this card? If it's more than the Radeon or Radeon VE, I'd say it isn't worth it putting it in the PowerMac 8600 unless you want to spend the cash.

Also, will the Radeon 7000 be compatible with a PowerMac 8600, from what I remember of the ATI FAQ on the Radeon, there were some compatibility issues with the Radeon on older machines. Not sure if that includes the PowerMac 8600.

Leonard · Jan 11, 2002, 12:58 PM

Okay, I had second thoughts... I think the system bus and processor speed may hold you back... you may not get as fast as a G4/500 with an ATI Rage 128 Pro (AGP), it may be slower...

mac freak · Jan 13, 2002, 06:37 PM

My suggestion:
Wait a month for the GeForce4.
Hopefully, it'll even be available with a f**kin' ADC port!

warnergt · Jan 23, 2002, 09:44 PM

I just dropped a Radeon 7000 PCI Mac Edition into a PowerMac 8600/300. UT plays fine! I gave the machine a USB card, too, so I can use a multibutton mouse -- absolutely necessary for UT (you know). The Radeon offloads the graphics processing and leaves plenty of PowerPC horsepower for the game.