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 Desktops > ATI announces their new cards will be exclusively PCI-Express

ATI announces their new cards will be exclusively PCI-Express
Thread Tools
fizzlemynizzle
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2004, 01:05 PM
 
No more new AGP video cards coming from ATI.

This would be a -very- good reason to wait on buying a G5, you will be limited to the current video card technology with little hope of any improvement, as the G5 currently does not sport PCI-Express (different than PCI-X).

This might also explain why a new G5 has not appeared, they may be trying to incorporate PCI-Express support before the next speed bump.
     
Axo1ot1
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2004, 01:14 PM
 
<snip>
( Last edited by Scotttheking; Feb 26, 2004 at 07:35 PM. )
     
The Placid Casual
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2004, 01:16 PM
 
Hypertransport 2.0 that was announced on Monday is PCI-Express based, and also provides double the bandwidth of the current HT (G5) architecture. Apple is a member of the consortium.

HT 2, and therefore PCI-Express *is* the future for Apple and the G5.

(Also, back on the subject of cards, Nvidia will be using a 'PCI-E -> AGP bridge', ATI will be PCI native... looks like ATI could have the edge for a while...)

All the details on the ATI cards can be found on anandtech.com.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2004, 01:44 PM
 
All the details on the ATI cards can be found on anandtech.com.
Yes, here, and there has NOT been any announcement that ATI's new cards will be exclusively PCI Express. The roadmap includes both PCIe and AGP cards.

For any company to go PCIe exclusively at this time would be suicide. Remember 99.9% of people will not have PCIe for quite some time, and these people still buy video cards.
     
GoGoReggieXPowars
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Tronna
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2004, 02:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
What's the point of having a top of the line graphics card?
playing 3D games.
How much does a high end graphics card run?
usually around $400
How much does a game console cost?
~$150

DO THE MATH
I can't run Maya on my Nintendo 64.
     
gururafiki
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Good question...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2004, 03:08 PM
 
Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:
I can't run Maya on my Nintendo 64.
Hmmm. Neither does PS2 or Xbox.
     
soul searching
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Stuck in 19*53
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2004, 03:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
....
DO THE MATH

YOU ARE WASTING YOUR GOD DAMN MONEY IF YOU ARE SPENDING IT ON A HIGH-PERFORMANCE GAMING MAC. YOU COULD BUY A TON OF GAMES FOR YOUR CONSOLE WITH THE MONEY YOU SAVE YOU RETARDS.
I like first person shooters, that's all I really play. For me, playing Doom 3 on on any current PC will be so much better than playing it on a PS2.

"I think of lotteries as a tax on the mathematically challenged." -- Roger Jones
     
3.1416
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2004, 08:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
What's the point of having a top of the line graphics card?
playing 3D games.
And Quartz Extreme.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2004, 10:35 PM
 
G5s have PCI-X, not PCI-Express.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
another_steve
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2004, 12:19 PM
 
Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
What's the point of having a top of the line graphics card?
playing 3D games.
How much does a high end graphics card run?
usually around $400
How much does a game console cost?
~$150

DO THE MATH

YOU ARE WASTING YOUR GOD DAMN MONEY IF YOU ARE SPENDING IT ON A HIGH-PERFORMANCE GAMING MAC. YOU COULD BUY A TON OF GAMES FOR YOUR CONSOLE WITH THE MONEY YOU SAVE YOU RETARDS.
Ax010t1,

Please do yourself and everyone else in this forum a favor by not preaching about things you don't understand. If it were truly as simple as that, there would be no PC Gaming market and everyone would be playing on consoles exclusively. Let me help you understand a few basic priciples.

1) Historically, consoles have been far more limited than PCs in terms of memory, etc. This translates into more limited gameplay on the console such as smaller levels / playing areas, etc. Though, with newer consoles such as xBox, I concede this is becoming less of an issue.

2) PC Monitors have better resolution than most TVs. This requires more processing power from the PC's video card.

3) Some games play quite well on the console such as sports games, etc. However, some games genre's are better now and always will be better on the PC. These typically include first person shooters, flight sims, general strategy games, etc. Some of this has to do with the controllers that the games are designed for (gamepad vs. keyboard, mouse, joystick). Other factors include the generally different target audience or even hardware capabilities.

4) Piracy in the PC market. Since you're talking dollars and cents, you might want to consider the amount of piracy that exists in the PC market. You're not going to pirate your console games, but on the PC side, it's much easier copy / steal games. When you're talking about a large library of games, the PC hardware can pay for itself. I'm not in any way condoning such behavior, rather, I'm merely pointing out market realities.

5) You probably don't realize that by building a fast gaming machine, you're also building a machine that's designed to handle things like Quartz Extreme and other OpenGL based software titles, including 3D rendering apps, CAD, etc.

...the list goes on...

Steve
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2004, 02:17 PM
 
Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
No more new AGP video cards coming from ATI.

This would be a -very- good reason to wait on buying a G5, you will be limited to the current video card technology with little hope of any improvement, as the G5 currently does not sport PCI-Express (different than PCI-X).

This might also explain why a new G5 has not appeared, they may be trying to incorporate PCI-Express support before the next speed bump.
ATI has stated, and as reported by AnandTech, that it will maintain two versions of each GPU core - one PCIe, and one AGP.

ATI would rapidly go out of business if they abandoned AGP-based GPUs at this point in time. How many PCs with PCIe are there in the hands of home/game users (the target market for ATI's top-of-the-line game/consumer products)? Not too many. A huge majority of sales will be in the AGP domain for the time being. ATI has no current plans on ceasing AGP support with their top products. I suspect nvidia will behave the same way.

I suspect Apple will wait a (long) while before incorporating PCIe into the G5 architecture (if they ever do). It would require a substantial redesign, and it makes zero financial sense to spend the time and money on a PCI-X design for a single line of G5 machines, then completely abandon it for the next.
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2004, 02:26 PM
 
Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
YOU ARE WASTING YOUR GOD DAMN MONEY IF YOU ARE SPENDING IT ON A HIGH-PERFORMANCE GAMING MAC. YOU COULD BUY A TON OF GAMES FOR YOUR CONSOLE WITH THE MONEY YOU SAVE YOU RETARDS.
OK. Find me a console that supports 1280x1024 progressive-scan resolution on all games and I'll bite.
I've got my PS2 connected to a high-def widescreen plasma via progressive-scan component video cables, and it still doesn't look anywhere as good as a high-quality "PC"-based (Mac included) game on good hardware.

There's a reason consoles cost $150.

[Yes, yes... I know games sales subsidize part of the losses on consoles. But that makes consoles more like $250 actual cost, not $800+]
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2004, 03:57 PM
 
Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
What's the point of having a top of the line graphics card?
playing 3D games.
How much does a high end graphics card run?
usually around $400
How much does a game console cost?
~$150
This game console counter-argument is so old and stoopid.

You can't play high res games on them and you have to use a stoopid game controller in almost all cases. The graphics are always a couple of generations behind the latest PC games too.
     
jcadam
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Colorado Springs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2004, 09:41 AM
 
Originally posted by Cadaver:
ATI has stated, and as reported by AnandTech, that it will maintain two versions of each GPU core - one PCIe, and one AGP.

ATI would rapidly go out of business if they abandoned AGP-based GPUs at this point in time. How many PCs with PCIe are there in the hands of home/game users (the target market for ATI's top-of-the-line game/consumer products)? Not too many. A huge majority of sales will be in the AGP domain for the time being. ATI has no current plans on ceasing AGP support with their top products. I suspect nvidia will behave the same way.

I suspect Apple will wait a (long) while before incorporating PCIe into the G5 architecture (if they ever do). It would require a substantial redesign, and it makes zero financial sense to spend the time and money on a PCI-X design for a single line of G5 machines, then completely abandon it for the next.
Now we'll fall behind (again), like when Apple put that stupid 66MHz PCI slot in the B&W G3s, claiming it was almost as good as AGP.

Now B&W G3s can't (properly) support Quartz Extreme.
Caffeinated Rhino Software -- Education and Training management software
     
biscool
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sri Lanka
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2004, 02:41 PM
 
Apple doesn't have to drop PCI-X to add PCIe, they can coexist....
Every minute is another chance to turn the whole thing around
     
kupan787
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2004, 04:21 PM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX:
This game console counter-argument is so old and stoopid.

You can't play high res games on them
Not quite true. My xbox, hooked to my HDTV plays Enter the Matrix at 1080i (that is 1920x1080), or Amped 2 at 720P (1280x720). There are other games that take advatage of this (most only 720P), but I will admit not all do (probably somethign like 25% can take advantage of an HDTV). However, it is a safe bet that with xbox 2, PS 3, etc more games will take advantage of HDTV resolutions.

Tell me the last time you played a game at 1920x1080, or even 1280x720 (or their equivelent 4:3 ratios).
     
griffman
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2004, 08:34 PM
 
Tell me the last time you played a game at 1920x1080, or even 1280x720 (or their equivelent 4:3 ratios).
Last night, UT2K4 Demo, 1920x1280x32bit, 60+fps with all eye candy on.

-rob.
     
dantley
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bay Area, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2004, 01:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
What's the point of having a top of the line graphics card?
playing 3D games.
How much does a high end graphics card run?
usually around $400
How much does a game console cost?
~$150

DO THE MATH

YOU ARE WASTING YOUR GOD DAMN MONEY IF YOU ARE SPENDING IT ON A HIGH-PERFORMANCE GAMING MAC. YOU COULD BUY A TON OF GAMES FOR YOUR CONSOLE WITH THE MONEY YOU SAVE YOU RETARDS.
Man, you are such a dick! Console games and PC games are not the same sh*thead. There are a small number of PC titles that get ported to the mac. In most cases, these games are not available on any console.
     
dantley
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bay Area, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2004, 03:34 PM
 
Originally posted by kupan787:
Not quite true. My xbox, hooked to my HDTV plays Enter the Matrix at 1080i (that is 1920x1080), or Amped 2 at 720P (1280x720). There are other games that take advatage of this (most only 720P), but I will admit not all do (probably somethign like 25% can take advantage of an HDTV). However, it is a safe bet that with xbox 2, PS 3, etc more games will take advantage of HDTV resolutions.

Tell me the last time you played a game at 1920x1080, or even 1280x720 (or their equivelent 4:3 ratios).
1600x1200 with 4x anti aliasing is > than 1080i on HDTV.
     
kupan787
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2004, 08:34 PM
 
Originally posted by dantley:
1600x1200 with 4x anti aliasing is > than 1080i on HDTV.
Fair enough. I guess I am just living in the past with computer gameing. My desktop is an 867 G4 with a GeForce 3. So I rarely run any FPS over 1024x768. And the only real games I have played recently on my computer have been Lineage (an MMORPG) and warcraft 3. I got tired of FPS...

Maybe its just me, but I like the bigger screen of my HDTV, rather than running a game at 1600x1200 on a 21" monitor. Playing, for example, Tiger Woods golf, or Madden, or NFS:underground, or vice city, or Basketball is just so much better on my console, and especially when it takes advantage of 720P. On a 56" screen, it is just great. I can't imagine trying to play those on a 21" screen, and with a keyboard rather than a controler.

Computers will probably own in FPS for ever, but that is about it. Almost any other game (with the exception of RTS games like warcraft/starcraft) just seems to play out better on a console. And when I can purchase a console for $150, and get a good resolution, why would I think of putting down $350+ on just a graphics card to play at a similar or slightly better level?

I guess it all comes down to what types of games you are into. I am more into RPGs, sports games, and racing games, so a console suites me well.
     
tallscot
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2004, 08:43 PM
 
The advantage the consoles have is game developers can develop a game that maximizes your consoles' abilities. Before games for the PC and Mac started using pixel and texture shading, there were several games on the X Box that were using that technology. Why? Because when you develop a game for the PC/Mac, you have to consider what the average or typical system is. It has to play well on the average system, which is considerably weaker than the supreme gaming PC/Mac. The video cards capable of pixel and texture shading weren't very common at a time when every X Box had that ability. So there were some games on the X Box that looked much better than anything on the PC/Mac.

Now time has passed and the PC/Mac has caught up. At the end of next year, the next version of the X Box will be out (supposedly) and it will have awesome technology that the average PC/Mac doesn't have, and the games will be developed to take advantage of that new technology.

You can pirate console games, even the cartridges for the old Nintendo. You can also rent console games.

Dreamcast had a keyboard and mouse, along with a VGA adapter to connect it to a computer monitor. I don't have a clue why the current systems don't.

But serious gamers have both PC and console.

But I'm a guy who wants the fastest Mac available for my multimedia creation. Having an awesome gaming system is icing on the cake. I wish 1942 was out for the Mac. It's an awesome game. You can build an A64 PC with the best video card for around $1,000.
     
Ken Masters
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In your backyard!!!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2004, 09:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
What's the point of having a top of the line graphics card?
playing 3D games.
How much does a high end graphics card run?
usually around $400
How much does a game console cost?
~$150

DO THE MATH

YOU ARE WASTING YOUR GOD DAMN MONEY IF YOU ARE SPENDING IT ON A HIGH-PERFORMANCE GAMING MAC. YOU COULD BUY A TON OF GAMES FOR YOUR CONSOLE WITH THE MONEY YOU SAVE YOU RETARDS.
OMG U R So DUMB.

If that was true, then we all might as well be on PCI cards with our old 128 rage cards. U R so DUMB.

Anyways, PCI-EXPRES seems like the way to go, with the G5's mammoth BUS, pci-express seems like the best way to put it to some good use.
     
MacOS
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Maltby, WA.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2004, 10:57 PM
 
Don't forget Plamsa TV are fixed resolution displays just LCD's. Although it takes in 1080i, it is scaled down to match resolution of the display panel.

Computer CRT displays are still the best in performance, even over TV CRT displays which are 640 X 480 (NTSC Standard). Ever wonder why computer crt are more money than a TV set?
     
c0d3r4ng3r
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 12:17 AM
 
I really like my Dual G5 a lot and I use it for real work. UNIX rules for tools. It's AGP bus will support lot's of great Maya, Universe, Lightwave, etc. rendering for years to come. LOTR, etc. was not done with PCI-Express need i remind you...not Monster's Inc, etc. etc. And Cold Mountian VidEdits were on G4's, not G5's even let alone PCI-Express. So quit using speeds and feeds as a crutch: you have the right stuff on your desk-top right now: use it and do grat things or no excuses.

But, when you dis consoles, it is obvious you haven't kept up. The next-gen Xbox will have, count 'em, Three G5's. That's right--THREE. Has that one-button mouse impaired your ability to use digital (as in fingers) counting? Consoles are becoming main-stream for gaming and PCs, let alone Macs, are an after thought market. It is all about scale economies and consoles will prevail in the end. Take Bungie as an example: XBox first, PC much later, and Mac so late it didn't matter. I have a G5 1.8GHZ x 2 and a 1.25Mhz PB G4 for real work and an Xbox for fun. Divison of labor through specialization. It works. Try it. Oh wait...you already do...Tv, Cell hone, PDA. Tivo, telephone, microwave, automobile, etc., etc. etc....the problem is this: you just don't get it yet. Oh,m and yes, even Steve get's it--the iPod *is* the portable music console.
     
g3_brandon
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 03:38 AM
 
Originally posted by MacOS:
Don't forget Plamsa TV are fixed resolution displays just LCD's. Although it takes in 1080i, it is scaled down to match resolution of the display panel.

Computer CRT displays are still the best in performance, even over TV CRT displays which are 640 X 480 (NTSC Standard). Ever wonder why computer crt are more money than a TV set?
Not to be anal or anything, but NTSC is 720 x 480, not 640 x 480 (VGA). But your point still stands and is true.
Brandon
--
Dual 2.0GHz G5, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600 Pro
     
Link
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hyrule
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 05:11 AM
 
Ken's um.. 1337ness is so bad it's scary.

CRTs cheaper than TV sets? Oh boy what kinda CRTs are you talking about.. the cheap ones or the good ones?

IIRC sony 20" highends cost more than any 21" CRT .. etc.

Since I play games for fun and not this "pleasure" crap and do mainly text/graphic work I couldn't give a damn about a CRT. I'll take my 2" deep cinema over a 24" 92lb sony.

So this brings me to my next thought.. does this mean that ADC will finally be nixed, or perhaps a new wonder... 4 ADC extensions capable of driving 2 monitors each..? OMG that'd be sick... imagine 8 ADC monitors...

But that'd require a freaking huge power supply.
Aloha
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 06:12 AM
 
Originally posted by kupan787:
1080i (that is 1920x1080)
Wrong. 1080i is only 1920x540.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 06:15 AM
 
I'm so confuzzled.
     
dantley
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bay Area, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 11:50 AM
 
I guess it all comes down to what types of games you are into. I am more into RPGs, sports games, and racing games, so a console suites me well. [/B][/QUOTE]

I play sports games and platformers on my consoles, but I tend to find console RPGs to cartoony. I'm more of a sim buff when it comes to racing, so aside from Gran Turismo, there really isn't much there for me on the consoles.

Funny thing is, I tried out Madden 2004 on my PC this year and found it to be superior to the PS2 version when using a gamepad.
     
dantley
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bay Area, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 11:58 AM
 
But, when you dis consoles, it is obvious you haven't kept up. The next-gen Xbox will have, count 'em, Three G5's. That's right--THREE. Has that one-button mouse impaired your ability to use digital (as in fingers) counting? Consoles are becoming main-stream for gaming and PCs, let alone Macs, are an after thought market. It is all about scale economies and consoles will prevail in the end. Take Bungie as an example: XBox first, PC much later, and Mac so late it didn't matter. I have a G5 1.8GHZ x 2 and a 1.25Mhz PB G4 for real work and an Xbox for fun. Divison of labor through specialization. It works. Try it. Oh wait...you already do...Tv, Cell hone, PDA. Tivo, telephone, microwave, automobile, etc., etc. etc....the problem is this: you just don't get it yet. Oh,m and yes, even Steve get's it--the iPod *is* the portable music console.
Um excuse me, but the next Xbox will not have any G5s. It will have a specialized version of the 970 processor.

The bungie argument is full of holes, the biggest being Microsoft bought Bungie to make games for the Xbox, therefor it was only natural for the game to be an Xbox exclusive for such a long time.

Can you play Rise of Nations, War Craft 3, Call of Duty, Desert Combat, Battlefield 1942, Combat Mission, etc on the Xbox? No.

I own an Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube. The games made for console and the ones made for PCs are for the most part entirely different. PC gaming is no where near dead. Microsoft has made a commitment to focus on PC gaming for longhorn and there are more PC gamers than console gamers in the US.
( Last edited by dantley; Feb 21, 2004 at 01:19 PM. )
     
loco
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 01:08 PM
 
Originally posted by kupan787:
Not quite true. My xbox, hooked to my HDTV plays Enter the Matrix at 1080i (that is 1920x1080), or Amped 2 at 720P (1280x720). There are other games that take advatage of this (most only 720P), but I will admit not all do (probably somethign like 25% can take advantage of an HDTV). However, it is a safe bet that with xbox 2, PS 3, etc more games will take advantage of HDTV resolutions.

Tell me the last time you played a game at 1920x1080, or even 1280x720 (or their equivelent 4:3 ratios).
And tell me, exactly how much did you spend on that HDTV setup? For those of us who spend more money on Macs than TVs, a console won't come even close. And I think spending $2K on an HDTV setup is a bit of a waste of money JUST TO PLAY GAMES .

Plus, with my G4 DP 1.25, I can play games at 1600x1200 quite often (I have a GF4 Ti).

-d
     
jzman
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
Wrong. 1080i is only 1920x540.
True, because the "i" stands for interlaced. To my understanding, this means 540 lines are rendered on screen per pass, and the other 540 are then rendered on the next pass.
     
real
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ca
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 04:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
What's the point of having a top of the line graphics card?
playing 3D games.
How much does a high end graphics card run?
usually around $400
How much does a game console cost?
~$150

DO THE MATH

YOU ARE WASTING YOUR GOD DAMN MONEY IF YOU ARE SPENDING IT ON A HIGH-PERFORMANCE GAMING MAC. YOU COULD BUY A TON OF GAMES FOR YOUR CONSOLE WITH THE MONEY YOU SAVE YOU RETARDS.

Whats being retarded have to do with either buying a Mac or a game console? And why does it make you retarded?

Just wondering.

real
With some loud music + a friend to chat nearby you can get alot done. - but jezz, I'd avoid it if I had the choice---- If only real people came with Alpha Channels.......:)
AIM:xflaer
deinterlaced.com
     
kupan787
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 05:06 PM
 
Originally posted by tallscot:
can pirate console games, even the cartridges for the old Nintendo. You can also rent console games.
Umm... it is a lot easier to pirate a PC game than a console game. Drop by your friends house, or download it off the net.

To priate a console game, you need to deal with buying a mod chip, disassembling your console, (if you have an xbox) backing up the xbox HD, voiding your warenty, installing the chip, and then install a new loader.

Originally posted by MacOS:
Don't forget Plamsa TV are fixed resolution displays just LCD's. Although it takes in 1080i, it is scaled down to match resolution of the display panel.
Who would get a plasma HDTV? Not only do they put out enough heat to heat an apartment (joking), but once those things "run out" of material you have a nice expensive paperweight (and no, they can't be refilled that is a myth).

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Wrong. 1080i is only 1920x540.
No, the resolution is 1920x1080. It is just interlaced, so it "refreshs" as 1920x540 per second. All of the vertical lines are there, so it is definatly 1080 (if you took a screenshot at any given point, you woudl see all 1080 vertical lines on the screen).

Originally posted by loco:
And tell me, exactly how much did you spend on that HDTV setup? For those of us who spend more money on Macs than TVs, a console won't come even close. And I think spending $2K on an HDTV setup is a bit of a waste of money JUST TO PLAY GAMES .

Plus, with my G4 DP 1.25, I can play games at 1600x1200 quite often (I have a GF4 Ti).

-d
But that is my point. I have an HDTV (not bought for video games), and I have a mac. If I want to play the latest games, I can spend $150 for a console, or $350 for a graphics card. I would much rather, based on my gaming preference, to buy the console.
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 05:30 PM
 
Originally posted by kupan787:
Who would get a plasma HDTV? Not only do they put out enough heat to heat an apartment (joking), but once those things "run out" of material you have a nice expensive paperweight (and no, they can't be refilled that is a myth).
The "run out" bit is also a myth. Plasma displays do not run out of gas. They have what is called a "time to half brightness." This is where the picture becomes half as bright as it was when it was new. The time to half brightness, however, is measured in tens of thousands of hours (read years with normal usage). And since no one I know watches a plasma in their home at full-on brightness, its relatively easy to slowly increase the brightness setting slowly over the lifetime of the display.

CRTs also suffer from this phenomenon in a sense, too, since older CRTs are never as bright as a brand new one. Repairing a high-end CRT projector can be expensive, since there may come a point where if one CRT goes, you'd have to replace all three for a proper picture.

And heat wise, my plasma pumps out about 1/3 the heat as my tube-based RPTV used to.
     
Sam Venning
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2004, 07:23 PM
 
PCI-X or PCI-Express. What is the difference?

This is what I discovered. PCI-X is used in the PowerMac G5. PCI-Express is faster than PCI-X. Just because PCI-Express is faster doesn't necessarily mean better. The second article I found (link below) explains why.

Comparing PCI-X and PCI-Express (PDF)

Network Computing Article
     
i_wolf
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 12:48 AM
 
Personally, i think the biggest thing behing PCI Express is marketing.
Just as last year the move from AGP 4X to 8X was more marketing based than anything else.
The thing to remember is that presently there is nothing that really takes advantage of AGP 8X (games wise im talking... since pci express is being targeted at high end gamers).
Heck only recently are we starting to see full benefits of AGP4x.
Proof.... i have a 9800 pro at home in my dual Xeon 2.8's sitting in an intel E7505 motherboard which supports AGP2 ,4 and 8 X.
Running set of gaming bench's (its normally a work machine but to test what im talking about) from everything like Halo, Command and conquer generals, far cry demo, unreal 2k3, lock on modern air combat)... simply put there was no difference in frames per second between agp 4X and 8X. leading me to believe that all that extra (double the bandwidth) of AGP 4X has yet to be tapped or required.
Obviously in 3d pro apps like Maya where massive textures are being off loading too and from ram the extra bandwidth might be nice but i still reckon that there is really nothing gonna come near to push agp 8X presently or in the near future.
Personally I agree with that article that was linked to. I think PCI -X is a better technology than PCI -express... if only for its great backwards compatibility. It also offers phenominal bandiwdth benefits .. although not as much as PCI express. I seriously doubt that apple are gonna look at PCI -express anywhwer in the next year and a half at least. They seam to have all the bases covered in terms of bandwidth requirements with AGP 8X and PCI X support.
Just my 0.02 though
     
tallscot
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 01:22 PM
 
Re: what you have to do to pirate a console game

Which one is easier to pirate is a different subject than whether you can do it or not. The fact is you can pirate console games. Doing a search on Google will find you directions on how to do it.

Looking at The Good Guys online store, I see a 27" CRT HDTV for $799.

I think the whole PCI Express versus AGP argument is premature, as others have stated. If you look at benchmarks, 8X AGP gaming cards aren't any faster than 4X AGP video cards. Considering the fact that we aren't even close to saturating 8X AGP yet, who cares about something that is faster?
     
Xapplimatic
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 01:39 PM
 
Originally posted by dantley:
[B]

Um excuse me, but the next Xbox will not have any G5s. It will have a specialized version of the 970 processor.
<p>Um.. the 970 *IS* a G5. IBM's site makes no mention of alternate or special versions. It wouldn't make business sense for Microsoft to ask for a custom version because IBM would have to retool production every time Microsoft wants them to ship a 'special batch' which could lead to supply shortages and higher pricess. What makes sense is that Microsoft will buy the same chips Apple does even if they don't need all the features (but they should--AltiVec is a great idea for a gaming counsole), because by buying the same chips, it costs IBM less to produce more of the same and they can cut a deal. The official Xbox website story on it mentioned nothing about any special microsoft "version" of the chip.</p>
<br>
<p><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/7849191.htm">The link to the Mercury News Article on it.</a></p>
<br>
<p>If you have more solid information on a special 970 just for Microsoft, please share the link..</p>
{=-Xapplimatic-=}
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 01:52 PM
 
Neither Microsoft nor IBM has said what the chip in the NextBox will be exactly.

Quite frankly, I'd be quite surprised if it were a stock G5 PPC 970FX. I think it will be related, but not identical.

Anyways, WTF is all this about pirating console games or whatever in this thread?
     
CatOne
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 02:01 PM
 
Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
No more new AGP video cards coming from ATI.

This would be a -very- good reason to wait on buying a G5, you will be limited to the current video card technology with little hope of any improvement, as the G5 currently does not sport PCI-Express (different than PCI-X).

This might also explain why a new G5 has not appeared, they may be trying to incorporate PCI-Express support before the next speed bump.
What are you talking about? They showed a 1 year roadmap with details for every chipset, in both AGP 8x and PCI-Express versions.

Are you making this up for blind fearmongering or are you just running blind here?
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 03:11 PM
 
I'll be worried about PCI-express when its on a large number of computers.
For now, its a non-issue. Even NewEgg doesn't carry a single PC motherboard with a PCI-express bus.
     
ahmshaegar
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 03:59 PM
 
I thought PCI Express was going to come out in Intel's new BTX form factor. Also, PCI, PCI-X, and PCI Express are all supported by the PCI consortium for uses in different applications. Ideally, PCI-X is supposed to succeed PCI, while PCI Express is supposed to succeed AGP, at least according to what I heard.
     
kupan787
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 04:40 PM
 
Originally posted by tallscot:
Re: what you have to do to pirate a console game

Which one is easier to pirate is a different subject than whether you can do it or not. The fact is you can pirate console games. Doing a search on Google will find you directions on how to do it.
Of course you can do it, not once did I ever say you couldn't (in fact I went through the basic steps of how you could). I just don't understand why you brought this point up. You can priate computer games, and do it much easier. I would bet (without having any hard data here) that PC games are pirated a whole lot more than console games are.

I just can't really figure out your whole point of mentioning this originally...

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Anyways, WTF is all this about pirating console games or whatever in this thread?
Honestly, I don't know. tallscot (seemingly) made the comment out of the blue.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 09:26 PM
 
Originally posted by kupan787:
No, the resolution is 1920x1080. It is just interlaced, so it "refreshs" as 1920x540 per second. All of the vertical lines are there, so it is definatly 1080 (if you took a screenshot at any given point, you woudl see all 1080 vertical lines on the screen).
That's because it has 540 lines in the first pass, then renders the other 540 in the second pass, giving the impression of 1080 lines. It's still only renderring 540 verticle lines at one time, and it is still only 1920x540.

For exampe, pass one:

L1 ===========
L2
L3 ===========
L4
L5 ===========
L6

Pass two:

L1
L2 +++++++++++
L3
L4 +++++++++++
L5
L6 +++++++++++

Then you see:

L1 ===========
L2 +++++++++++
L3 ===========
L4 +++++++++++
L5 ===========
L6 +++++++++++

It's still only doing half the lines at one time, then weaving them together (hence, interlace) If it were 1080p (progressive) then it'd be 1080 verticle lines. That's why 720p has a better resolution than 1080i.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
kupan787
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 10:44 PM
 
*double post*
( Last edited by kupan787; Feb 22, 2004 at 10:52 PM. )
     
kupan787
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2004, 10:47 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
It's still only doing half the lines at one time, then weaving them together (hence, interlace) If it were 1080p (progressive) then it'd be 1080 verticle lines.
Progressive vs interlace is a whole other argument, one I am not trying to make. You are talking more about refresh rate, not resolution. If you take a screen snap of a 720p image and a 1080i image, the 1080i image has more horizontal lines, and therefor more horizontal resolution.

Take for example a DVD playing back at 480i vs 480p. The 480p image isn't a higher resolution image than the 480i image. They both have the same resolution.

That's why 720p has a better resolution than 1080i.
Even if we to run it as you say:

1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
1920x540 = 1,036,800 pixels
1,036,800 - 921,600 = 115,200 pixels

Thus, 1080i mode has 115,200 more valid pixels than 720p. If the number of pixels alone determines the better resolution, then 1080i resolution is better.

To end with a quote (from http://www.tdk.com/support/howto/dvdguide_part2.html):

The Number & The Letter


So what are those numbers and letters flying around? Well when referring to video resolution, the terms are divided into to two parts -- the number of lines and the method of display. So, in the example above (1080i), the 1080 refers to the total number of horizontal lines of resolution that the television can display and the "i" refers to the method of display -- in this case, interlaced. In the second example (720p) there are a total of 720 lines of resolution, and the image is displayed using progressive (hence the use of "p") scan technology. (To learn more about interlaced vs. progressive scan, read Part 1.)
     
MBD
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2004, 08:36 AM
 
Originally posted by kupan787:
Progressive vs interlace is a whole other argument, one I am not trying to make. You are talking more about refresh rate, not resolution. If you take a screen snap of a 720p image and a 1080i image, the 1080i image has more horizontal lines, and therefor more horizontal resolution.

Take for example a DVD playing back at 480i vs 480p. The 480p image isn't a higher resolution image than the 480i image. They both have the same resolution.



Even if we to run it as you say:

1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
1920x540 = 1,036,800 pixels
1,036,800 - 921,600 = 115,200 pixels

Thus, 1080i mode has 115,200 more valid pixels than 720p. If the number of pixels alone determines the better resolution, then 1080i resolution is better.

To end with a quote (from http://www.tdk.com/support/howto/dvdguide_part2.html):
Sorry Kupan

I'm afraid interlacing was always a resolution bodge; a way of getting the viewer to see all the lines at half the bandwidth and half the frame rate. One frame consists of two interlaced fields of half the vertical resolution, slightly offset. So 60, 540 line fields per second = 30, 1080i frames per second. Unfortunately if you snapshot a high-speed sequence at 1080 you'll get aliasing problems (jaggies) as you're interlacing/interleaving two different images. Not sure about the pixel argument as vertical resolution is so important (something to do with the horizon line)

Take it from the oldest guy on this message board, it's great 1950s technology thwarted by bad 1970 fashion (damn those newsreaders with their chequered ties!) but we can't seem to let it go. Not sure FPS is that relevant a spec anymore with LCD displays or temporally redundant CODECS.

Unsure on the console vs PC arguement, they're both too fast for me but like the bitching.

MBD
     
CIA
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2004, 10:56 AM
 
PCI, AGP, PCI-X, PCI-Express....
Too bad we can't just have 1 single standard that has super bandwidth and is great for both video cards, expansion cards,,, anything we want to stick in our machines. Dedicated bandwidth for each slot, so no worries about saturating busses, and a single connection standard that would help reduce component costs and make everyone happy. (and less confused!)
Work: 2008 8x3.2 MacPro, 8800GT, 16GB ram, zillions of HDs. (video editing)
Home: 2008 24" 2.8 iMac, 2TB Int, 4GB ram.
Road: 2009 13" 2.26 Macbook Pro, 8GB ram & 640GB WD blue internal
Retired to BOINC only: My trusty never-gonna-die 12" iBook G4 1.25
     
lenox
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: united states empire
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2004, 12:21 PM
 
Just wanted to throw in that I hate interlacing. It's flickery and jaggy and hurts my eyes.
     
 
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 10:03 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.,