Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rstevens · May 25, 2003, 08:18 AM

i've got a G4 DP800 with a 64 meg twinview Geforce 2mx card in it. i use OS X, a lot of Photoshop and zero games.

are there any video cards out there now that support 2 monitors and would give me a noticeable speed increase?

BurpetheadX · May 25, 2003, 10:40 AM

Radeon 9000, some Geforce 3's, PC Flashed Radeon 8500's.

mac freak · May 26, 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by BurpetheadX:
PC Flashed Radeon 8500's.

OmGzz!!111!! He sed teh flaeshd Ridaeon 85OO, teh kingscottmod iz teh gonna ban j00!111!!!!1!

Leonard · May 26, 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by mac freak:
OmGzz!!111!! He sed teh flaeshd Ridaeon 85OO, teh kingscottmod iz teh gonna ban j00!111!!!!1!

You've gotta slow down when your typing. I think there is only one real English word in that sentence.

As for cards to upgrade to, there's the Mac Radeon 8500 available in retail. You may find some old Mac Geforce 3's available on e-bay. They may give you some improvement in 2D graphics, but they're main improvement is 3D Graphics and Quartz Extreme.

joe · May 26, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Leonard:
You've gotta slow down when your typing. I think there is only one real English word in that sentence.

He's trying to pass himself off as a hacker, er haxor (whatever).....joe

docholiday · May 27, 2003, 01:16 AM

I am interested in upgrading my graphics card from my geforce2mx, as well.
My system is a DA-G4 733.

Also, I wanna know whether there is any performance gain in OS X (b/c of Quartz Extreme for example). I do some gaming, and make use of corel and finalcutexpress..

DrBoar · May 27, 2003, 05:27 AM

Well the gain in gaming is quite easy to evaluate. If you run your games at the lowest resolution and get a usefual speed increase get a better card. If there is no speed increase the games are CPU bound and a card upgrade will not improve the games! A G4/733 hardly is a powerhouse CPU, but it really come down to at what resolutions you run the game and what games you run

terrancew_hod · May 27, 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by DrBoar:
A G4/733 hardly is a powerhouse CPU, but it really come down to at what resolutions you run the game and what games you run

The 1.42GHz is not really that much of a powerhouse either IMO...I doubt many games are CPU bound; i would imagine since the majority of macs would have the geforce 2mx on them, game designers would optimize their code for that. If you have a better card that's great. But game designers would lose out on a lot of sales if it required a more powerful graphics card and processor to run their games.

I think a better video card would work for quartz extreme and especially for any new UI features coming in Panther.

If will be interesting how the designers will write their code when the 970s come out...

a2daj · May 27, 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by terrancew_hod:
The 1.42GHz is not really that much of a powerhouse either IMO...I doubt many games are CPU bound; i would imagine since the majority of macs would have the geforce 2mx on them, game designers would optimize their code for that. If you have a better card that's great. But game designers would lose out on a lot of sales if it required a more powerful graphics card and processor to run their games.

I think a better video card would work for quartz extreme and especially for any new UI features coming in Panther.

If will be interesting how the designers will write their code when the 970s come out...

Actually, many of the newly released Mac games are CPU bound, like Jedi Knight II, Soldier of Fortune II, Dungeon Siege, etc. None of the current selling Macs can push the Radeon 8500 and GF4Ti to their limits, so none are going to push the faster cards. The porters do what they can to optimize the games for Macs but they can't work miracles. The fact of the matter is that Games push hardware evolution and hardware sales (on the PC side).
I've noticed many non gamers seem to think that all game developers design games for the lowest common denomitator but it's actually the opposite. Game developers like to push the envelope. Look at any of the A-list games over the last few years. They require higher and higher system requirements as the years pass. Sure, there are some game development studios which focus on casual gaming, but the big name games tend to require big time hardware when they're released. If the latest greatest FPS can run on a computer that's 3 years old, great, but most big name game developers design games for mid to high end gaming rigs of today. Many of the games nowadays require a Radeon and GeForce MX card as a bare minimum.

terrancew_hod · May 27, 2003, 07:17 PM

But you're talking about PC games. Sure they (PC developers) push the limit (especially since I'm saving up for the hardware required to run Doom III), but when you talk about many Macs that are more or less locked into a set graphics set, the developers have to write to the common denominator, not the latest hardware.

So mac game designers are writing to Geforce 2 MX, and the lower radeon chipsets. Definitely not the lastest and greatest; especially when PC users are enjoying ATI 9500 thru 9800 and NVidia FX cards.

As far as cpu bound is concerned, I think there is a minimum required speed, but the 3D is still delegated to the video card. Apple needs to work with the video manufactures to offer more of the better video cards and make them standard in even the lower end macs (and retail as well). I'm sure the hard core mac gamers would love to be playing Doom III in all it's glory; but that's not going to happen if all we can get is an ATI 8500 or Geforce 4 Ti retail and we would have to pay for a new mac to get the ATI 9700.

I love the mac I put together but I know I have to keep my PC (which is due for another upgrading) around for the LAN parties.

docholiday · May 27, 2003, 08:22 PM

the question of how day to day work in os x is affected by a better graphics card still needs to be addressed...

thanx,
doc holiday

a2daj · May 27, 2003, 08:31 PM

The majority of the popular games that come to the Mac platform are ports of the PC versions. So talking about the PC game industry is relevant. There's not much the Mac ports can do to lower the requirements.

Now, the Mac only game developers, they're not necessarily pushing the envelope when it comes to technology so yeah, they can target the lower performance Radeons but for the most part I don't think they're worrying about limiting what they're game engines can do and concentrating on playability. The Mac only game development community is relatively small and so you're not going to see millions of dollars spent on Mac only game engines.

The latest and greatest games are CPU bound even on the 1.42 GHz PM. Looking at benchmarks the performance is roughly the same across the board on Radeon 9700s and even Radeon 8500s. It's not soley the responsibility of the vid card manufacturers to get better gaming performance. Apple also has to come out with faster machines. Like I said, current Macs are barely even pushing Radeon 8500s. The CPUs aren't feeding the cards with enough data to make them sweat much.

It's up to Apple to decide what they OEM in their machines. All they have to do is put in orders for the OEM cards and throw them in the lower end machines. The retail market... well, the only official retail cards are ATI cards and they make the majority of their money for their Mac cards on their OEM deals with Apple, so guess what gets the priority...

joe · May 27, 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by docholiday:
the question of how day to day work in os x is affected by a better graphics card still needs to be addressed...

This may give you some idea of what to expect in OSX for the latest Mac graphics cards:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/...EM/index2.html
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/...anium_Mac.html

The GF2MX is in the 2nd link. Personally, I don't think you'll notice too much of a boost over the GF2MX for day to day OSX work. The GF2MX does seem to drag in the Photoshop scroll test. But it's only a few seconds behind the Radeons. Unless you need dual monitor support, real time rendering, or do a helluva lot of close up zoomed in Photoshop docs - the GF2MX will still seem snappy for mundane OSX tasks. 3D games and more demanding 3D OpenGL rendering are another matter. But that's assuming your cpu can keep up

....joe

horrorbiz · May 28, 2003, 01:37 AM

>>>i've got a G4 DP800 with a 64 meg twinview Geforce 2mx card in it. i use OS X, a lot of Photoshop and zero games.

are there any video cards out there now that support 2 monitors and would give me a noticeable speed increase?<<

So anyways.. he said he uses "a lot of Photoshop and zero games."

It is very hard to stay on topic around here eh?

terrancew_hod · May 28, 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by horrorbiz:
>>>i've got a G4 DP800 with a 64 meg twinview Geforce 2mx card in it. i use OS X, a lot of Photoshop and zero games.

are there any video cards out there now that support 2 monitors and would give me a noticeable speed increase?<<

So anyways.. he said he uses "a lot of Photoshop and zero games."

It is very hard to stay on topic around here eh?

You better preach...

rstevens · May 28, 2003, 03:12 PM

hello i am the amazing Topic Originator�! games are for the Dreamcast, the Mac lives for Photoshop.

the gist of what i am getting here is that i might notice a PS speed up with a Radeon card (because i often draw things at about 800-1600X magnification) but it's probably not worth it until faster Macs exist?