Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug Wanker · May 10, 2005, 01:05 AM

http://www.macworld.com/2005/05/news...arks/index.php

"The one test result that puzzles us is the top-of-the-line dual-2.7GHz model�s Unreal Tournament 2004 score. With 256MB of video memory, we expect the ATI Radeon 9650 to beat the older 128MB Radeon 9600 XT found in the dual-2.5GHz system. But even after removing the 9600XT from the dual 2.5GHz Power Mac and installing it in the new system, the older card still bested the new one, even at higher resolutions."

On the PC side, assuming the 9650 is RV351, then the 9650 = 9600 Pro, and is slower than the 9600 XT.

On the Mac side, the 9600 Pro was slower than the PC version, and ditto for the 9600 XT. Thus, we theorized that the Mac's slower 9600 XT was equivalent to the new 9650.

However, it seems that on the Mac side too, the 9650 is also slower than the 9600 XT.

If true, that's kinda lame, but not as lame as the fact that you can't spec a 9800 Pro or standard X800. The only option available is the $450 GeForce 6800U DDL.

eddiecatflap · May 10, 2005, 03:16 AM

i think this iteration of the pmac deserves to go in the same league as the infamous yikes

ie: total disaster

Link · May 10, 2005, 03:23 AM

That's disturbing to say the least. My $70 video card performs better than what's in the top end g5....

reminds me of how my g4 came with a 2mx.

eddiecatflap · May 10, 2005, 07:18 AM

i still don't understand apple's logic in making such a crappy card available for their supposed high end products , especially in the wake of the graphics intensive tiger

doesn't core image require something a bit more 'meaty' ?

i seem to recall both the 9800 and X800 being available for the G5 in previous revisions

what on earth has happened ?

Todd Madson · May 10, 2005, 07:37 AM

Perhaps there is some substance to the rumor that Apple got a deal on a bunch of
not-new but not completely old ATI cards. ATI gets rid of old stock and some ATI
employee gets a bonus and Apple finds a way to get rid of them for ATI.

nick_coday · May 10, 2005, 10:29 AM

Apple is charging ridiculous amounts of $$ for a computer with this video card???

I just bought an ATI radeon x700Pro for my PC and it kicks this card's butt!

This card is almost the same as the ones in the powerbooks ain't it?? Thats pitiful.

videian28 · May 10, 2005, 10:32 AM

probably because the performance gains from having the high end cards (see below at sig) is not all that great, cause apple drivers for these cards suck a$$ =(

Eug Wanker · 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Todd Madson

Perhaps there is some substance to the rumor that Apple got a deal on a bunch of
not-new but not completely old ATI cards. ATI gets rid of old stock and some ATI
employee gets a bonus and Apple finds a way to get rid of them for ATI.

That rumour makes no sense at all. The 9650 is a relatively new card. It does seem to be RV351, and RV351 is a new tweaked 110 nm rehash of RV350. Now RV350 IS old, but that's a different thing.

Undoubted Apple DID get a good deal on the 9650, but the idea that Apple is simply clearing out 2 year-old stock for ATI as a favour is completely ludicrous.

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

i still don't understand apple's logic in making such a crappy card available for their supposed high end products , especially in the wake of the graphics intensive tiger

doesn't core image require something a bit more 'meaty' ?

i seem to recall both the 9800 and X800 being available for the G5 in previous revisions

what on earth has happened ?

I perfectly understand Apple's reasoning for using a low end card in the high end Power Mac. Many Power Mac customers simply do not need a high end card. Furthermore, basic Tiger use is fine with such a card.

However, it's disappointing they've downgraded the stock GPU from the XT to the 9650. And it's even more disappointing that the ONLY other BTO option is the $450 upgrade to the 6800U DDL. As you suggest, they really need a cheaper in-between card, like the 9800 XT or even the X800 XT.

FWIW, at least it's better than the Radeon 9600 I'm getting in my iMac.

riotge@r · May 10, 2005, 12:08 PM

Why all the bitching? If Apple did include a better card, they would also raise the price. You know how Apple does it.

BTW - The X800 XT isn't an inbetween card. It is better than the Nvidia 6800 in every benchmark (sans Doom3).

riotge@r · May 10, 2005, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by nick_coday

Apple is charging ridiculous amounts of $$ for a computer with this video card???

I just bought an ATI radeon x700Pro for my PC and it kicks this card's butt!

This card is almost the same as the ones in the powerbooks ain't it?? Thats pitiful.

No it is worse than the card in the PowerBooks.

powertrippin · May 10, 2005, 12:37 PM

I don't get the bitching either. It's a cheap card. If youw ant a better one, upgrade. Anyway, the title of this thread is really really horribly written.

Link · May 10, 2005, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by riotge@r

No it is worse than the card in the PowerBooks.

The MR9700 is pretty much a radeon 9550, same goes for the MR9600. (I think)

Eug Wanker · May 10, 2005, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by riotge@r

Why all the bitching? If Apple did include a better card, they would also raise the price. You know how Apple does it.

The stock card before was the 9600 XT, at the same price point.

BTW - The X800 XT isn't an inbetween card. It is better than the Nvidia 6800 in every benchmark (sans Doom3).

It's an in-between card in the sense it doesn't support dual dual-link, and it's cheaper. However, the in-between card I'm mostly talking about is the 9800 XT.

Originally Posted by powertrippin

I don't get the bitching either. It's a cheap card. If youw ant a better one, upgrade.

The only upgrade Apple offers is $450.

I guess 3rd party is the only option.

Leonard · May 10, 2005, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by powertrippin

I don't get the bitching either. It's a cheap card. If youw ant a better one, upgrade. Anyway, the title of this thread is really really horribly written.

I have to agree. I always hate the statement ".... sucks". Why does it suck? In fact it's not that bad of a card. It's a low-end card that drives a 30" display. Before it was introduced we had people asking why they had to buy such an expensive card just to drive a 30" display. Well now there is a low-cost alternative.

What the title of this thread should be is "9650 - Low-cost Video Card for a 30" Display.

Leonard · May 10, 2005, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

It's an in-between card in the sense it doesn't support dual dual-link, and it's cheaper. However, the in-between card I'm mostly talking about is the 9800 XT.

The only upgrade Apple offers is $450.

I guess 3rd party is the only option.

Yeah, it's a little disappointing that Apple doesn't have a few more BTO options. But you could always buy retail and sell the Radeon 9650. There is probably a few people that wouldn't mind buying it.

Eug Wanker · May 10, 2005, 01:58 PM

That's a reasonable point. One big advantage of the 9650 over the 9600 XT is the support for the 30" display. It still lame that it's not as fast as the 9600 XT though, especially since the 9600 XT isn't a terribly fast card either by today's standards.

Big Mac · May 10, 2005, 02:44 PM

This card does represent a downgrade in performance, with the only consolation being its ability to drive two 30" displays - something that most will not be doing. ATI must have refused to produce additional 9800XTs or even 9800 Pro cards for Apple, because there is no other justification for Apple pulling it as a BTO option. Those who want decent graphics performance now essentially have to upgrade after purchase.

Lateralus · May 10, 2005, 04:04 PM

There is already an existing thread with more than enough graphics bitching.

There was no need to create another, Eug.