Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > is the 128mb version of the ATI 9700 just for gaming improvements?

is the 128mb version of the ATI 9700 just for gaming improvements?
Thread Tools
striker100
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 09:34 AM
 
Or does it mean anything in normal applications compared to the 64mb version?
     
Squozen
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 10:11 AM
 
Useful for dual display machines if you have a LOT of windows, besides that, not really. It doesn't cost much to get 128Mb though, you might as well spend the money.
     
Voch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 10:18 AM
 
Actually, I've kinda wondered about this too...would Quartz Extreme take advantage of more VRAM or is it something that really just helps when you have multiple displays? Maybe this is a good question to pose in the Mac OS X forum, but it seems appropriate here as the VRAM expansion is now an option on the new PowerBooks...

Voch
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 10:43 AM
 
It's for Super Quartz Extreme Pro II.
     
anaphora68
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 11:15 AM
 
More VRAM is the same as more RAM the more you have the better off you are. If you do a lot of Photoshop work or video editing it will help. You might notice a marginal improvement in day to day operations, but doubtful.
     
WizOSX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 11:17 AM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX

It's for Super Quartz Extreme Pro II.

Which is slated for shipping on October 8, 2006. However, as everyone knows, you'd be crazy to run it on anything less than an 8ghz G6 Powerbook with 2gb of VRAM. So the question of whether to buy 128 or 64mb today probably doesn't depend too much on Super Quartz Extreme Pro II.
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 11:43 AM
 
Originally posted by WizOSX:
Which is slated for shipping on October 8, 2006. However, as everyone knows, you'd be crazy to run it on anything less than an 8ghz G6 Powerbook with 2gb of VRAM. So the question of whether to buy 128 or 64mb today probably doesn't depend too much on Super Quartz Extreme Pro II.
LOL...and G4 owners won't be able to run 10.6 leading to a number lawsuits from people with machines deemed 'out of date'.
     
jewing80
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Whittier, Ca
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 12:21 PM
 
At the risk of nay saying, I�m not overly impressed with the performance of the Radeon 9700 128MB. I�ve only spent an hour or so gaming, but the boost from my 1GHz Ti (64MB Radeon 9000) while noticeable is not what I had expected.

Even the Open GL test in Xbench only yields a 15% frame rate increase over the 9000. Seeing as the 9700 is, by my count, three generations (9200, 9600, 9700) ahead of the 9000 and has double the VRAM I was hoping for at least a 25-30% boost.

In defense of the graphics card the overall performance of my 1.5 Al seems a bit off, at least form the other benchmarks I have seen. On paper the machine is 50-60% faster, or better equipped, than my stock Ti. Judging by the other Benchmarks I have seen, results seem to be in line with this figure. My Ti scores consistently 100-100.5 on Xbench, so far the best score I�ve managed with the 1.5 is 124.5; twice my scores were below 115. I originally thought this had to do with optimization for the new processor� i.e. maybe there was some kind of interaction problem with Xbench. I�ve seen at least three scores that fall in line with my expectations, 150s, so it may just be my machine.

Maybe my expectations were set too high� oh well the 1.5 Al is still an awesome machine� in the end I might end up keeping my Ti and selling the Al, for some reason I just can�t seem to find happiness in any other notebook! That coupled with the fact I will be needing a pc notebook fairly soon (forced to, not my choice) makes the additional spending seem unjustified.
     
dennis88
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 03:41 PM
 
You must remember to set the performance setting to highest.
     
yoyoman
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cali
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 04:03 PM
 
4x vs 8x how sad for a video card most pc' notebooks have 8x video cards now.
     
bradoesch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 04:25 PM
 
Originally posted by yoyoman:
4x vs 8x how sad for a video card most pc' notebooks have 8x video cards now.
It depends on whether the mobile video card can saturate a 4x bus or not. I'm not really sure.
     
yoyoman
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cali
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 04:27 PM
 
I know bench mark wise on a pc a 8x graphics card makes a difference of like 60% starting and up if i remember correctly. Go to toms hard ware etc. 8x doubles it remember.
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 11:56 PM
 
Originally posted by anaphora68:
More VRAM is the same as more RAM the more you have the better off you are. If you do a lot of Photoshop work or video editing it will help. You might notice a marginal improvement in day to day operations, but doubtful.
Not really true. More VRAM will not help Photoshop or video editing. These are all 2D/CPU limited functions. They don't use any more VRAM than what is required to hold the frame buffer in memory - less than 7MB for 1920x1200 @ 24-bit.

The faster video processors & higher VRAM capacities will only be beneficial for OpenGL-dependent applications - games, certain 3D rendering/modeling apps and perhaps Apple's new Motion graphics/animation package.

At the moment, Quartz Extreme functions wont be significantly faster either (measurable, perhaps, but pretty minimal). A faster CPU is still more important here. It'd be one thing if you were running two Cinema HD monitors off one card and wanted silky-smooth Expos� animations, but since you can't run two of these beasts off a PowerBook, its a moot point anyway.

Unless I was a die-hard game player (which I personally am not) and I had to make a choice between a faster CPU and a faster/bigger video card, I'd take the faster CPU.

Now, if you are a serious game player, then perhaps you'd want to spend the extra $ (or �) on the graphics upgrade.
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 11:59 PM
 
Originally posted by yoyoman:
I know bench mark wise on a pc a 8x graphics card makes a difference of like 60% starting and up if i remember correctly. Go to toms hard ware etc. 8x doubles it remember.
Also not really true. There is a very small benchmark difference between a 4x card and an 8x card. You'd be saturating any G4 processor & bus well before you could fill the AGP 4x bandwidth. A 2GHz G5 with a 1GHz FSB would be a different story of course.
     
arekkusu
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 01:51 AM
 
1) More VRAM = good for the window manager. Maybe good for OpenGL apps (games.) Regular apps (Photoshop) won't care at all.

2) AGP bus bandwidth is completely unrelated to CPU & main bus. Vertex/texture uploading can be completely DMA driven over AGP, so you can easily take advantage of any extra AGP bandwidth regardless of CPU. How much difference it makes depends completely on the application of course. Most games try to keep the majority of geometry/textures static.

I've not yet looked at one of the 9700 Mobility machines first hand; from the benchmarks it looks like ~%30 improvement in shaders. My question: is there any fillrate improvement??
     
riotge@r
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 01:51 AM
 
Originally posted by Cadaver:
Not really true. More VRAM will not help Photoshop or video editing. These are all 2D/CPU limited functions. They don't use any more VRAM than what is required to hold the frame buffer in memory - less than 7MB for 1920x1200 @ 24-bit.

The faster video processors & higher VRAM capacities will only be beneficial for OpenGL-dependent applications - games, certain 3D rendering/modeling apps and perhaps Apple's new Motion graphics/animation package.

At the moment, Quartz Extreme functions wont be significantly faster either (measurable, perhaps, but pretty minimal). A faster CPU is still more important here. It'd be one thing if you were running two Cinema HD monitors off one card and wanted silky-smooth Expos� animations, but since you can't run two of these beasts off a PowerBook, its a moot point anyway.

Unless I was a die-hard game player (which I personally am not) and I had to make a choice between a faster CPU and a faster/bigger video card, I'd take the faster CPU.

Now, if you are a serious game player, then perhaps you'd want to spend the extra $ (or �) on the graphics upgrade.
A serious gamer wouldn't buy a PowerBook to play games.
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
     
Link
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hyrule
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 02:28 AM
 
Originally posted by yoyoman:
4x vs 8x how sad for a video card most pc' notebooks have 8x video cards now.
Bad grammar. Must be a PC fanboy.
Aloha
     
Peter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England | San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 04:00 AM
 
the speed improvements were disapointing (see Mac Gaming Forum)
we don't have time to stop for gas
     
Peter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England | San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 04:01 AM
 
Originally posted by yoyoman:
I know bench mark wise on a pc a 8x graphics card makes a difference of like 60% starting and up if i remember correctly. Go to toms hard ware etc. 8x doubles it remember.
You would not notice the difference between the AGP speeds...
we don't have time to stop for gas
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 06:01 AM
 
Looking at the benchmarks the 9700 offers such little improvement over the 9600 in Powerbooks that it must have been underclocked to keep the battery life the same as previous generations of Powerbooks. AGP 4X doesn't help either. I'm disappointed.
     
Thain Esh Kelch
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 10:08 AM
 
Originally posted by yoyoman:
I know bench mark wise on a pc a 8x graphics card makes a difference of like 60% starting and up if i remember correctly. Go to toms hard ware etc. 8x doubles it remember.
*LOL* Your videocard has almost 0% effect on your startup, no matter the speed.
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 10:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch:
*LOL* Your videocard has almost 0% effect on your startup, no matter the speed.
He's talking about games duh.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,