[nycdunz]

i'm in a tough position... i'm going to purchase the dual 2.7ghz G5, and was wondering which of these 2 cards are better? Both can drive the 30" cinema. I use my computer mostly for graphic designs... light gaming, plan on playing The Sims 2 when it comes out. And also like to mess with video stuff like Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iDvd, garageband on the side for fun, nothing serious though. So can you guys help me point me in the right direction on what card I should opt for?
If there isn't much difference, I'll just get the ATI Radeon 9650... cause I noticed that 6800GT is a $599 card... but if it makes a tremendous difference, I'll just order my g5 custom built with the 6800GT. So confusing.

[Scotttheking]

Seeing how Apple doesn't post specifications, there's no way to know, but I'd suggest just going with the 9650, as you don't list anything that would warrant spending all the extra money on the faster card.

[chibianh]

the 6800 GT is a MUCH better card than the radeon 9650. I suspect the 9650 is just a regular 9600 that's able to drive the 30". If you're a big gamer, I'd get the 6800. But from ur looks of ur uses, save urself some money and just go with the 9650. You can always get the 6800GT at a later time if needed.

[Eug Wanker]

I suspect the 9650 is fanless.

I've heard reports that the 6800 can sound like a vacuum cleaner.

In your shoes, I'd definitely go for the 9650, especially considering the money saved, unless you want to use Motion.

[Luca Rescigno]

I think if you don't even know the difference then you should get the 9650. They're completely different video cards, in totally different leagues. Hence the huge price difference.

The 6800 Ultra is one of the fastest video cards money can buy, and the 9650 is a budget-priced low end video card. I think it's strange that Apple removed the 9800XT option, not offering a middle-of-the-road choice, but oh well. Get the 9650; unless you're doing Motion or hardcore gaming, you probably won't notice a difference between the two.

[deboerjo]

I wouldn't call the 9650 "low-end", that title is reserved for the likes of the 9200 and 9550, and the GeForceFX 5200, 5500, and 5700LE. The 9650 a mid-range card, in the same class as the 9600/9700, GF FX5700, or GF 6600. The 6800 is certainly faster, but I definitly wouldn't consider it worth the price, or the power draw and noise. Generally speaking, when shopping for video cards, aim for the mid-range. It'll meet all your needs now and in the near future, and even if you have to upgrade in a few years you'll end up with a better card at less total money than if you had spent wads of cash on a high-end card.

[krove]

Personally, I might get the lowest-end card offered and buy an ATI X800 to replace it. Nvidia produces extremely loud cards. The 6800 also takes up the room of the adjacent PCI-X slot.

[jamil5454]

I'd get the X800 as well. It's supposed to be a little faster in games (especially with AA turned on).

[Amacapart]

9600 has 128 bit RAM interface. 9700/9800 have 256 bit, as does 6800 & X800.

Is a very decent mid-end (is that a word?) card, and likely to make you happy 85% of the time.

Unless you do heavy 3D work or want to become "Mac Doom 3" champ, it will be fine.

[zed57]

Originally Posted by deboerjo

The 9650 a mid-range card, in the same class as the 9600/9700, GF FX5700, or GF 6600.

The 9650 is not in the same class as the GF6600, not even the same generations of GPU's. I believe even ATI's 9800 series is bested by the GF6600.

[BZ]

I am considering dropping my $49 upgrade of the 9650 and buying the X800 from NewEgg for $480 or so. I know both have 256MB of RAM, but know nothing else about the 9650.

BZ

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by BZ

I am considering dropping my $49 upgrade of the 9650 and buying the X800 from NewEgg for $480 or so. I know both have 256MB of RAM, but know nothing else about the 9650.

BZ

This is a wise decision.

The X800XT Mac Edition has one dual-link DVI port and one (single-link) ADC port. Thus it'll drive one 30" display and another "normal" display. And its faster than a 6800 Ultra in many benchmarks (on the Mac at least).

Plus, you get all the retail ATI goodies like display rotation (although ATI says all these features are coming to even Apple's OEM ATI products in a forthcoming software update for OS X 10.4 users).

And the X800XT only occupies ONE slot, unlike the beastly 6800 Ultra or 6800GT (though I've got a 6800GT in my PC, and its a single-slot solution like the X800XT is. And it overclocks past Ultra speeds, too. Why Apple went with a dual-slot design for the 6800GT is a mystery).

I've been most pleased with the X800XT in my DP2.5, except for this recent firmware debacle... which ATI says they will have fixed within a few days.

UT2004 at 1600x1200, 6xAA and 16xAF is a sight to behold.

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by zed57

The 9650 is not in the same class as the GF6600, not even the same generations of GPU's. I believe even ATI's 9800 series is bested by the GF6600.

The 6600 is NOT faster than the ATI 9800 series, and even the 9800/Pro has moved into the mid-range as the X800 series take the high-end. Unless you're thinking of the 6600GT (which is like twice as fast as the 6600), that's kinda borderline between midrange and high-end. The 6600 is definitly faster than the 9650, but it's in the same general class.

[Luca Rescigno]

Basically you can divide video cards into three (perhaps four) categories based on the number of rendering pipelines they have. There are tons of factors, but the number of pipelines gives you a general idea of their performance. The low end cards have four pipelines, midrange ones have eight, and the top of the lines ones have twelve or sixteen.

The problem is that people divide things up differently. To some, any video card over $150 would be considered high end, which basically encompasses all 8-pipe cards as well. And realistically, an 8-pipe card will run any modern game very nicely. Meanwhile, there's a fourth, lower end category that covers super low end cards. Video cards with fewer than four pipelines, ones that use 64-bit memory or shared memory; they all fit in this bottom category.

Anyway, if you divide things into these categories, then the Radeons 9200, 9600, X300, and X600 are low end cards and the GeForces 5200, 5600, 5700, 6200, and 6600 are as well. Radeons 9700, 9800, and X700 Pro are midrange, as are the GeForces 5800, 5900, 5950, and 6600GT. High end cards basically encompass GeForce 6800s and Radeon X800s. Prices are in the $50-$100 range for the low end, $100-$200 range for midrange, and $200+ for high end. But you can even start to distinguish between 12-pipe and 16-pipe cards, going for a "high end" and "super high end" category, where super high end cards usually cost $350+.

There's more confusion because there is a bit of a division in the "low end" category as I defined it, between the "old low end" and the "old midrange." A year ago, the 9200 and 9600 were in very different categories, as were the 5200 and 5600. Now they're both lumped into the "low end," but the 5200 and 9200 can be considered "low low end" while the 5600 and 9600 are "high low end."

It's really confusing and honestly I don't know where every single one falls in the grand scheme of things. It gets to be more like a big spectrum, with very few distinct barriers, especially with all the little suffixes (SE, Pro, XT, GT, and so on) and all the even-more-confusing unique variants created by video card manufacturers and not officially sanctioned by nVidia or ATI.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I suspect the 9650 is fanless.

I've heard reports that the 6800 can sound like a vacuum cleaner.

In your shoes, I'd definitely go for the 9650, especially considering the money saved, unless you want to use Motion.

Mine isn't that loud... I run it quite hard with games and such, pretty quiet overall.

[Skypat]

To give you an idea, Apple says on its website that the Nvidia 6800 is 45% faster than the Radeon 9650 with Motion 1.1 so I guess it gives an idea on how good the 6800 is compared to the 9650.

But of course power has a price ... ;-)

[Luca Rescigno]

Apple's site says that the 9650 has a 1.6 billion pixels/sec fill rate, and assuming the memory is clocked the same as the PC Radeon 9600 Pro and XT, it has 9.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It has four rendering pipelines, therefore rendering four textured pixels per unit of clock speed. In other words, a card with eight pipelines would only require half the clock speed to achieve the same fill rate.

The GeForce 6800 Ultra, on the other hand, pushes 6.4 billion pixels/sec, and has a 35.2 GB/s memory bandwidth. That information is provided by Apple if you click the "Learn More" link under the video card when configuring a BTO PowerMac. It's the same as the PC version. The 6800 Ultra has an amazing 16 pipelines, so it renders four times as many pixels/sec despite having the exact same 400 MHz core clock speed as the Radeon 9650. The memory bandwidth is almost quadrupled by virtue of using a 256-bit wide data path (twice that of the 9650) as well as extremely fast 1.1 GHz DDR3 memory as opposed to the 9650's 600 MHz DDR. The Radeon X800XT Mac Edition is equally impressive, with 7.2 billion pixels/sec fill rate and 32 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Long story short, there is a HUGE gap between the Radeon 9650 and the GeForce 6800 Ultra. In this way I don't think you can call the 9650 a mid-range card, because mid-range implies that there isn't a huge gap between it and a high-end card. The 9650 may be towards the top of the low-end cards, but it's still low end.

Not that I think it's a huge problem. If your performance and budget needs are met only by something between the 9650 and the 6800U, you can always buy an aftermarket video card directly from ATI.

[ajprice]

The 9650 will run one 30" screen, the 6800 Ultra will run 2 30" screens through its DDL connections.

Go to Apple Store, pick a G5, in the graphics card options click on the 'Learn More' and scroll down to 'Support for ADC, DVI and VGA'. The 6800 also takes up 2 slots.

[gangster]

order the entry level video card in the g5 to save $$$ and add this:

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.as...dwt=31001&sp=1

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by gangster

order the entry level video card in the g5 to save $$$ and add this:

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.as...dwt=31001&sp=1

I'd recommend the ATI Radeon 9800 Mac Special Edition over the ATI Radeon 9800 Mac Edition, it's a much better card, more video RAM, and made especially for the G5. It doesn't require the extra power connection the ATI Radeon 9800 Mac Edition does.

[Eug Wanker]

Meh. Did you guys read his requirements? The 9650 would do fine, and it's probably fanless.

[Skypat]

I would like to know the difference in terms of performance (2D/3D) there is between a 9600 and a 9650 ... none of them are reported on ATI's website. Any idea ?

[gangster]

Originally Posted by Leonard

I'd recommend the ATI Radeon 9800 Mac Special Edition over the ATI Radeon 9800 Mac Edition, it's a much better card, more video RAM, and made especially for the G5. It doesn't require the extra power connection the ATI Radeon 9800 Mac Edition does.

i'm looking for one now...

edit 1:

is this it maybe? i dont see a special edition reference:

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.as...01&hdwt=0&sp=1

edit 2:

yes, this is it, same number as ati site and $200+ cheaper than an xt800. thanks for the tip!

[gangster]

http://apps.ati.com/ir/PressReleaseT...leaseID=702019

[VukOnCrack]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

going for a "high end" and "super high end" category, where super high end cards usually cost $350+.

Ummm... not quite. You may categorize these cards in this way for "consumer" purposes. However, Apple does not support any "professional" level graphics cards. Yes, the GPU is the same between a Nvidia GeForce 6800 and Quadro FX 4000 series card. However, the features some of us need in those professional cards are not available with any of Apple's hardware. I'm stuck running linux or XP to use a $2500 Nvidia card when I would much rather be using a Mac. Damn shame.

[sokukodo]

I've got a 6800 GT, and it runs fairly quietly

[nycdunz]

would you notice a big difference between an nvidia 6800GT DDL and a ATI RADEON 9650 if all you do is mostly graphic designs? Like, photoshop, illustrator, dreamweaver, flash, quark, indesign?

Also play some games like The Sims 2 or Doom 3? And I also wanna get into sound apps for fun, not for any professional work, just as a hobby, like garage band, reason 3.0, and also video stuff like imovie and final cut pro...

im still having trouble deciding if i should get the g5 with the ati radeon 9650 or upgrade it to the nvidia 6800GT DDL... sigh

[Skypat]

I think the 6800 will only make a difference with 3D/video intensive apps like games or Motion for example.

I'd like to know if there is a real difference between the 9600 and the 9650 in terms of speed. Because I don't want to invest in a 6800 or x800 now, too expensive.

Thanks

[jamil5454]

Originally Posted by nycdunz

would you notice a big difference between an nvidia 6800GT DDL and a ATI RADEON 9650 if all you do is mostly graphic designs? Like, photoshop, illustrator, dreamweaver, flash, quark, indesign?

Also play some games like The Sims 2 or Doom 3? And I also wanna get into sound apps for fun, not for any professional work, just as a hobby, like garage band, reason 3.0, and also video stuff like imovie and final cut pro...

im still having trouble deciding if i should get the g5 with the ati radeon 9650 or upgrade it to the nvidia 6800GT DDL... sigh

With 2d apps, you won't really notice a difference. Both cards have 256mb of VRAM and that's really what matters in 2d. But, in 3d, memory speed and GPU rendering speed are much more important. The 9650 will be able to play doom 3 and (I'm assuming) The Sims 2 but a 6800 would be faster. If you really want good performance, stick with the 9650 for now and see if that's enough. If it isn't, drop the cash on an X800 and replace the 9650. As most would agree, the X800 is generally a better card in all aspects, with one exception: Doom 3 performance. But, it is still fast enough to be a better buy over the 6800.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

HI, i am a graphic designer and bought the 9650 as well. i bought the PM dual 2ghz yesterday.

i figured, it's not worth several hundreds more since i dont do much gaming. i hope the 256 MB will be enough to cache GUI stuff and offer me snappiness. i hope anyway.


600 bucks buys you a mac mini. i cant rock that price, i'd sooner gice up the performance and get an ipod. OR HOOKERS AND CRACK... but i digress. enjoy!

[riotge@r]

the 9650 is good enough for everything but games. The 6800GT is the better card though. Check the PC benchmarks and you'll see that the 6800GT is close to the 6800Ultra in terms of performance. The X800 mops all three cards though.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by riotge@r

the 9650 is good enough for everything but games. The 6800GT is the better card though. Check the PC benchmarks and you'll see that the 6800GT is close to the 6800Ultra in terms of performance. The X800 mops all three cards though.

I would hardly say the X800 "mops" the 6800Ultra... it's a little bit faster in some game apps.. but in OpenGL the Nv40 is going to probably be better, even if Apple can't seem to write a good set of OpenGL drivers.. The Nv40 chip is every bit as good as the X800 in most respects, and both are in a whole different league (two leagues) apart from the 9650.


The original question was 9650 or 6800GT.... money no object, it's a no brainer.. 6800

[Voch]

The Bare Feats review is up and it seems to correlate with the conversation here. I'm not a Power Mac-er myself but I am curious as to the G5's video card options.