[KidRed]

Any speed test outs for these two? Anyone know the solid numbers for mostly 2D work? I have the QS dual gig with GF4MX and want to know about upgrading. ATI's 8500 didn't beat the GF4MX in all the tests and the GF4Ti actually lost a few to the 4MX. So I was wondering about the 9000 and 9700 (?) that will be coming out or even the next nvidia release.

[Little Newton]

it should be ok for your porn!

[KidRed]

uh, ok

[Evangellydonut]

read anandtech.com for PC benchmarks.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by KidRed:
and the GF4Ti actually lost a few to the 4MX.

How is THAT possible?!

From everything I've read over the years at sites like XLR8Yourmac.com, ATI cards have much better 2D clarity, the 2D performance is pretty comparable.

Wait til that site does a big performance test, that'll be your best Mac-centric benchmarks.

[CheesePuff]

Remember, the Radeon 9700 will be the graphics card for the Mac in competition of the GeForce4 Ti, not the 9000 Pro, even though its a great card.

[KidRed]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:


How is THAT possible?!

From everything I've read over the years at sites like XLR8Yourmac.com, ATI cards have much better 2D clarity, the 2D performance is pretty comparable.

Wait til that site does a big performance test, that'll be your best Mac-centric benchmarks.

Actually, the GF4MX beat the 8500 in quite a few tests and bested the GF4Ti n one or two but was on par on a lot of tests. So the Ti isn't much an upgrade from the GF4MX and neither is the 8500.

So I guess I'll wait for the 9700 or the next card from nividia.

[driven]

Originally posted by KidRed:


Actually, the GF4MX beat the 8500 in quite a few tests and bested the GF4Ti n one or two but was on par on a lot of tests. So the Ti isn't much an upgrade from the GF4MX and neither is the 8500.

So I guess I'll wait for the 9700 or the next card from nividia.

And if I order a box soon I'll get the GF4MX ... (It sounds like that's the best short term solution.)

[X_RuLeZ]

It goes in this order from slowest to fastest;

GeForce4 MX, Radeon 9000, Radeon 8500, GeForce4 Ti, Radeon 9700.

This is purely from PC benchmarks though as those are most widely availible, but generally the GeForce4 MX is a much less capable card than any of the rest.

On the subject of graphics cards the biggest disadvantage of the GeForce4 MX is that it is a DirectX 8 lite card and does not fully support DirectX 8, or course everyone knows that DirectX has nothing to do with macs because they use openGL but my point is this; the other cards support the newer advanced graphics features (pixel and vertex shaders) in hardware. OpenGL is also meant to make use of these feature but it does not currently on the Mac. But I heard OpenGL in 10.2 would support these features, does anyone know if this is true.

[jonn]

Radeon 9000 Pro benchmarks are here

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by jonn:
Radeon 9000 Pro benchmarks are here

So Apple are still sticking Geforce 4MX level graphic cards in machines that cost an arm and a leg. I thought the crippled DDR, slow ATA bus, lack of monitor included in the price and the mono-speaker were bad enough.

[olePigeon]

ATI makes a MUCH better 2D card than nVidia, in my experience. I'd suggest going with the Radeon.

Not only that, but I pull three times the frame rates on Unreal Trounament with a Radeon than with an nVidia. I've had absolutely NO luck in getting an nVidia to work correctly, or anything even remotely considered "fast."

Probably even worse driver support than ATI, which is hard to believe.

Originally posted by KidRed:
Any speed test outs for these two? Anyone know the solid numbers for mostly 2D work? I have the QS dual gig with GF4MX and want to know about upgrading. ATI's 8500 didn't beat the GF4MX in all the tests and the GF4Ti actually lost a few to the 4MX. So I was wondering about the 9000 and 9700 (?) that will be coming out or even the next nvidia release.

[nana4]

Originally posted by KidRed:


Actually, the GF4MX beat the 8500 in quite a few tests and bested the GF4Ti n one or two but was on par on a lot of tests. So the Ti isn't much an upgrade from the GF4MX and neither is the 8500.

So I guess I'll wait for the 9700 or the next card from nividia.

The GF4 Ti is a MUCH better card than the G4MX. The MX has nothing Gf4 about it other than the name. There are several speed grades of the GF4MX, the one in the Macs is undoubtedly the slower version, given the 32MB of DDR. This just widens the gap. The GF3 Ti500 is infact a better choice than the gf4MX. The GF4 440 Go in my laptop is probably faster lol. Pretty sad when it is comparable to the latest machine form Apple.

[X_RuLeZ]

I didn't even know nVidia made a 32Mb GeForce4 MX, they must have made it specially for apple so they could pi$$ us off

ATI having superior 2D technology was only true when the GeForce3 was out. The GeForce4 Ti has caught up alot in that area. Again this is true on the the PC platform but may now be true for Mac; I am not sure because nVidia's macintosh drivers are fairly bad.

[iamnid]

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but didn't the last generation of powermacs have a 64mb geforce4mx?

[Graymalkin]

The GF4MX is a derivitive of the GF2 so it is basically a GF2MX with a couple of improvements and a new name slapped on top of it. Feature wise the MX chips suck, they have no pixel shaders or vertex shaders and skimps on the number of rendering pipelines. It might crank out the frames in older games like Quake 3 which have no hardware shading to speak of but in forthcoming games like UT:2003 and Doom 3 it will look like crap. If you want to stick to old featureless game engines the GF4MX is a fine choice. The Radeon 9000 was designed as an MX killer.

The Radeon 9000 (R250 core) is meant to be the new low end with the 9700 being the new high end in the market. The performance of the 9000 compares pretty well versus the GF4MX and definitely has more features than the MX does. The 9000 is a fully DirectX 8.1 part which means it has a fully programmable pixel shader and vertex shader, while DirectX doesn't mean much on a Mac, this means OpenGL games can use this ability as well.

Later this year ATi will be releasing the Radeon 9500 which like the 9700 will be a fully DirectX 9 part (second generation pixel and vertex shaders and 8 pixel pipelines). The 9500 will be a scaled down (4 pixel pipelines and a lower core clock) version of the 9700. The really cool chips will be coming out later this year (actually very soon for the Radeon 9700) and early next year. It sucks Apple released their Powermacs without offering Radeon 9700s, instead opting for the relatively low end 9000 Pro.

Bottom line, if Jedi Knight 2, MoH:AA, UT, and Quake 3 are your thing the GF4MX won't give you any problems at all. If you're rabidly waiting for UT:2003 and Doom 3 you might want to think about saving your pennies for a Radeon 9700 or 9500 or even wait until nVidia releases their NV30 core (GF5 I think).

[The Placid Casual]

I'm really tempted to get the GF 4MX in my new Powermac, and then upgrade to a 9700 later, but does anyone know if the 9700 will need 8x AGP?? or will it be OK on 4X?...

Marc

[jcadam]

The 9000 Pro is slightly slower than a Radeon 8500 (a little faster in some tasks, though), so I would compare the 9000Pro to a Geforce3 Ti200 probably.
The 9000 is a derivative of the 8500, though ATI claims that it is a new chip.

I plan on getting the 9000pro in my DP867.

If you want the best, buy a new mac with the GF4mx, so you can dump it and upgrade to the Radeon9700 when it is released.

[nana4]

Originally posted by Marc2211:
I'm really tempted to get the GF 4MX in my new Powermac, and then upgrade to a 9700 later, but does anyone know if the 9700 will need 8x AGP?? or will it be OK on 4X?...

Marc

The 9700 will work fine in a 4X AGP slot.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by nana4:


The 9700 will work fine in a 4X AGP slot.

Thanks for the info

Marc

[Peabo]

I find it bizzare that the Geforce 3 outperforms the 4MX. I think nVidia need to rethink the way they name their products.

[ratlater]

When will we be able to buy the Radeon 9000 Pro? I want to buy one for my DP G4 500.

thanks,
-matt

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by X_RuLeZ:
they must have made it specially for apple so they could pi$$ us off

Actually, Apple makes the cards themselves, they just use the nvidea chips.

Originally posted by ratlater:
When will we be able to buy the Radeon 9000 Pro? I want to buy one for my DP G4 500.

thanks,
-matt

Check ATI.com because i thought you could buy them now.

[ichad]

Hi - to ask a silly question, I'm looking at PC graphics cards in the mag and thinking about my dated 32MB nvidia in my PM G4 466, would either of these PC cards work in the mac and utilizing the AGP port?

GeForce 4 Ti440 128MB DDR AGP or the
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB DDR AGP

Cheers, Chad

[edddeduck]

Originally posted by X_RuLeZ:
OpenGL is also meant to make use of these feature but it does not currently on the Mac. But I heard OpenGL in 10.2 would support these features, does anyone know if this is true.

In Jaguar the version of OpenGl is the most advanced in any operating system and is close to the 2.0 standard.

There are certain calls which you can call in jaguar which improve the graphics with NO speed hit as they are direct calls. Also OpenGl has been optimized alot so in Jaguar OpenGl does rock.

A game we are working on at the moment should have special Jaguar calls in it to improve the look of the game.

Cheers Edwin