[ul1984]

Im thinking of buying a new dual 1.25, and im planning on connecting 2 1600x1200@85Hz CRT monitors to it...

ive heard nVidia cards have worse picture quality compared to ATI, especially at high resolutions, anyone know if thats true?

second question... does the gf4mx have good enough fillrate to be able to run QE fast enough. for example what happens if i take a fullscreen transparent terminal window, and try moving it around at 1600x1200, if the fillrate of the card is too low, i suppose it wouldnt be very snappy.
i dunno really, all experice ive had with QE is on a iMac 800 with gf2mx and if i try to move a fullscreen transparent terminal window on that machine, its not fast at all

what do u guys think, is the rad 9000 pro worth the extra money?
all i really want is fast QE, and good picture quality.

thanks.

[DBvader]

i have a dual 867/9000, and any and all window resizing/movement/extras are slow.

[ul1984]

Originally posted by DBvader:
i have a dual 867/9000, and any and all window resizing/movement/extras are slow.

thanks for the reply

i find it hard to believe that all resizing/movement is slow, on my iMac(with gf2mx) window resizing and moving big transparent windows are slow, but moving non transparent windows and small transparent windows are smooth.

so are u saying that if u for example move a finder windows it moves slow? i mean even on my old G3 without QE moving non transparent windows is fast.

[danengel]

I got the new Dual 1.25 with the Radeo 9000 64 MB, and everything is super smooth. Games run at 1280x1024 with all settings on high -- it rocks.

-- Daniel

[Zimmerman]

Just so you know, the GF4 MX440 is an upclocked GeForce 2 chip (DX7 genereation) where as the Radeon 9000, 9000pro, 9100 are a Direct X8 chips (R200) like the 8500. Now I know Macs don't do DX, but the texture and lighting engine and other advanced features are there, making it your best option; games will look better. Also, ATI 2D acceleration is reputedly crisper and a little brighter then the GeForce cards.

You can thank nVidia for smoke and mirrors marketing. The MX440 is only about 30-40& faster than a Geforce 2 Pro.

[Eug]

I wouldn't classify my TiSD Radeon 9000 as slow, but it's not exactly lightening fast for Finder/Window activities either. I'd say it's not bad.

Also, ATI 2D acceleration is reputedly crisper and a little brighter then the GeForce cards

If you're talking about 2D image quality ATI=nVidia if the card is manufactured correctly. The problem is the design for PC nVidia cards. With some manufacturers, the 2D quality is consistently bad. With others it's consistently at least pretty good and AFAIK, Apple's version would fall into the latter category.

[Kenneth]

I'm using the dual 1.25Ghz/1.25GB RAM plus Apple 17" Studio Display for >24hrs. I'm very nice and neat. Since you are planning to drive 2 CRT displays off the tower, you need a ADC to VGA(supplied) and buy the DVI to VGA adapter. I heard that that adapter is expansive.

So far, I don't have any game to test this bad dog.. I'm happy with the fanless Radeon 9000 Pro card.

[CatOne]

Originally posted by Kenneth:
I'm using the dual 1.25Ghz/1.25GB RAM plus Apple 17" Studio Display for >24hrs. I'm very nice and neat. Since you are planning to drive 2 CRT displays off the tower, you need a ADC to VGA(supplied) and buy the DVI to VGA adapter. I heard that that adapter is expansive.

So far, I don't have any game to test this bad dog.. I'm happy with the fanless Radeon 9000 Pro card.

DVI to VGA adapter is like $10.

[headbox]

Originally posted by Kenneth:
...and buy the DVI to VGA adapter. I heard that that adapter is expansive.

$8 with shipping at pricewatch.com

[ul1984]

Thanks a lot for the answers everyone.

Originally posted by Zimmerman:
Just so you know, the GF4 MX440 is an upclocked GeForce 2 chip (DX7 genereation) where as the Radeon 9000, 9000pro, 9100 are a Direct X8 chips (R200) like the 8500. Now I know Macs don't do DX, but the texture and lighting engine and other advanced features are there, making it your best option; games will look better. Also, ATI 2D acceleration is reputedly crisper and a little brighter then the GeForce cards.

You can thank nVidia for smoke and mirrors marketing. The MX440 is only about 30-40& faster than a Geforce 2 Pro.

yes i know about the GF4MX being a DX7 class card, but correct me if im wrong, QE doesnt take any advantage of those T&L features.
i dont play many games, (only game i play is Lineage and thats a 2D game), so the most important thing for me is that the fillrate/bandwidth of the card is fast enough to accelerate QE fast enough for 2 1600x1200 monitors. again correct me if im wrong, im not a QE expert.

If you're talking about 2D image quality ATI=nVidia if the card is manufactured correctly. The problem is the design for PC nVidia cards. With some manufacturers, the 2D quality is consistently bad. With others it's consistently at least pretty good and AFAIK, Apple's version would fall into the latter category.

Sounds good, then GF4MX would be good enough for me, would save me 1250 SEK(swedish kroner) thats about $147 according to Apple Calculator.

funny thing i just noticed doing that calculation, i went to both the swedish and the US apple store.
and at the US applestore downgrading from rad900pro to gf4mx only saved me $50, and in sweden $147.
that got me thinking, so i also compared the price between upgrading from rad9000 to gf4ti/tad9700:
in the US i would have to add $300 for that.
and in sweden 3120 SEK or $368.

so the diff is not as big there.

this is really strange. but now u might see why i want to buy the GF4MX over the rad9000, saving $147 is pretty nice. if the cards are comparable.

this must be some sort of error on apples part, if i order the machine with a gf4mx in sweden i wonder if id save $50 or $147.