|
|
Video card for Quicksilver 2002
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hi,
Just purchased a QS2002 @ 933Mhz. Want to play Halo, UT2003/4 and MoH.
Was wondering what you all recommend as the best price/performance video card to upgrade to with this box.
In a month or so I plan to add a Giga dual 1.2Ghz upgrade. Box has 1.2GB RAM.
Thanks in advance for advice.
|
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've got a Radeon 8500 64MB. It performs very well in all of the games you listed at 1024x768. I run UT2004 with every graphic option cranked up and it plays perfectly.
(
Last edited by Lateralus; Aug 3, 2004 at 04:43 PM.
)
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
And I think that has to do with the dual processors, using no bots, or just playing smallish maps. I have a single processor 1.33 GHz G4 with a Radeon 9800 and the larger maps still run slowly even when turning down many of the graphical options. It's better than with a Radeon 8500, but still not that great. I can indeed crank it up quite a bit on the small maps intended for CTF, Deathmatch, etc, but large maps for Assault or Onslaught are slow no matter what I do.
So, perhaps it's your dual CPUs working their magic, or maybe you're basing your performance assessment on a different situation than me - if you're playing a LAN game with no bots, on a small map, I would indeed expect either of our systems to play the game really well. I also believe that UT2004 is more CPU-bound than GPU-bound, so my better graphics card doesn't help as much as your dual processors.
Anyway, the 933 Quicksilver shipped with a 64 MB GeForce 4MX. Not exactly a very good video card. A Radeon 8500 would make a nice upgrade, at around $100 for a pretty nice improvement. You can go for a GeForce 4 Titanium (about $200 on eBay) or even a Radeon 9800 (about $250), but those are quite expensive. Performance is awesome, but probably not quite enough to justify the price. SHAMELESS PLUG: If you're interested, I'm selling a Radeon 8500 right now.
By the way, there are some other games, notably Call Of Duty, that run super-well on Mac hardware. That game, on my G4 with the highest detail settings enabled, runs like butter. In fact, it should run pretty nicely even with a GeForce 4MX.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
None of the games listed (Halo, UT2003/4 and MoH) take advantage of dual procs except maybe in sound, and that's not that big of a performance hit. Halo won't run that great on the 8500. Halo's Vertex Shader performance sucks on Radeon 8500s-9200s. I'd recommend running in No Shader mode. Won't look as good, but gameplay is much better than Vertex Shader. The other games should run fine though. You can get a Radeon 9000 128 MB VRAM for less than $150.
I love my Radeon 9800 Pro, but that's probably a bit out of your price range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
The 128 MB Radeon 9000 is a terrible deal considering what's available these days. $150 for a very slight performance increase over a 64 MB GeForce 4MX. The extra VRAM doesn't even count for anything unless you're using dual monitors. A Radeon 8500 for < $100 is much better). And if he's spending $150 for a Radeon 9000, why not go for a GeForce 4 Titanium for $50 more than that? Performance would be much, MUCH better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by a2daj:
None of the games listed (Halo, UT2003/4 and MoH) take advantage of dual procs except maybe in sound...
Which is enough to make a dramatic increase in performance.
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status:
Offline
|
|
Maybe a dumb question...but..
Would adding a sound card to the box offload sound processing from the CPU?
|
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes.
I recently added an M-Audio Revolution 7.1 card to my G4 and have noticed a speed boost in most of the games I play. Including Unreal 2004, which makes me think that the engine offloads more than just the sound processing to the second CPU in an MP system.
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Uh, hello, demo version. Known bug with sound code which is fixed in the retail version...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Maybe a dumb question...but..
Would adding a sound card to the box offload sound processing from the CPU?
No. Not with OS X. Sound is still processed by the OS. At this point sound cards are just viewed as an output device, not a processing device.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
The 128 MB Radeon 9000 is a terrible deal considering what's available these days. $150 for a very slight performance increase over a 64 MB GeForce 4MX. The extra VRAM doesn't even count for anything unless you're using dual monitors. A Radeon 8500 for < $100 is much better). And if he's spending $150 for a Radeon 9000, why not go for a GeForce 4 Titanium for $50 more than that? Performance would be much, MUCH better.
That's IF you can find it for $200. A large percentage of places that still carry the GF4 Ti sell them for ridiculous prices. Sometimes even more than the Radeon 9800 Pro. Previously, the retail Apple Stores had sold their stock of GF4Tis for $99, but I'm not sure if many will have anymore in stock after price savings like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status:
Offline
|
|
Good advice. Thanks
|
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok. So I'm looking at getting the Radeon 9000 Pro since I need the ADC for my Apple display. It's a 128MB card. Passive cooling @ ~280Mhz.
It's $138~
Anyone care to point out the error of my ways and recommend a better card for ~$150 or less?
Thanks for any further information.
|
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
Actually that's pretty good. The 64 MB version will be just as good, because the Radeon 9000 can't possibly take advantage of 128 MB of RAM, but they are rare enough that there's really no point in looking for a 64 MB. They seem to sell for about the same price anyway. Since you need ADC, faster and less expensive video cards like the Radeon 8500 are out.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status:
Offline
|
|
Luca,
Thanks for info/opinions. As for the 128MB RAM....
Will the new CoreImage be able to use it? Seems like 128MB will be the low-end after CoreImage comes out.
|
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
No, CoreImage shouldn't care terribly much about how much VRAM you have. CoreImage will not be able to offload 100% of the work to the graphics card if you have a Radeon 9000, simply because the 9000 isn't advanced enough. The amount of VRAM doesn't matter in this case - whether you have 64 MB or 128 MB, it will not help. A 128 MB Radeon 9000 will not do as much CoreImage work as a 64 MB GeForce FX5200, even though it's both faster and has more VRAM.
I'd say 64 MB is low-end as far as VRAM is concerned, with 128 MB covering about 75% of video cards today, and 256 MB for the ultra high end ones. But as many people have said before, VRAM is not that important. It can sometimes make a difference, generally if there's not enough of it, but you won't see a performance difference between 64 MB and 128 MB on anything but the fastest video cards.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well... craptola.
So what do you/you all suggest for:
1) ADC needs.
2) 100% CoreImage support?
TIA.
**Mods** - I know this is verging on being in the wrong place but it is still oriented towards gaming and gaming support for the future so I hope you let it stay/stay unlocked.
|
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Syracuse
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Well... craptola.
So what do you/you all suggest for:
1) ADC needs.
2) 100% CoreImage support?
TIA.
**Mods** - I know this is verging on being in the wrong place but it is still oriented towards gaming and gaming support for the future so I hope you let it stay/stay unlocked.
So I was recently in your position and really would have loved to put a radeon 9700 in my machine, but it wouldn't work. I ended up going with the Gefoce4 Ti and am quite happy with it. Although it is not listed for coreimage support, tiger will offload as much as it can to the GPU.
|
Imac Core Duo 1.83/1.5 GB/20 inch cinema, ibook G4 1 ghz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
There are plenty of video cards available with ADC. However, the only one that will also take care of 100% of CoreImage functions will not work in your machine. The Radeon 9700 has ADC and supports CoreImage but it's MDD-only.
So you have to make a choice. Get a video card that supports 100% of CoreImage functions and also buy a DVI-ADC adapter, or get one that only supports some CoreImage functions but has ADC built in? It depends on a few things... if you have a really nice ADC monitor like a cinema display, by all means, keep it! Besides, we don't even know how important CoreImage is going to be. Quartz Extreme was a major performance boost for OS X, but CoreImage seems like it may only be used for a few specialized applications. Besides, cards that "don't support CoreImage" actually do, they just won't be able to handle ALL the CoreImage functions. From what I understand, CoreImage is going to be like Photoshop filters built into the OS, that can be partially or completely executed by the graphics card. If you get a Radeon 9000, you won't be incapable of doing CoreImage functions - it just won't let the graphics card handle all of it. Your CPU will have to do some of the work.
I'd say if you can, wait until Tiger actually comes out before you buy a graphics card based on technology in it. You might have no reason to buy a special graphics card for CoreImage.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've been seriously considering a 9800 for my dual 800. Decisions, decisions....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Status:
Offline
|
|
You realize a 9800 would be way out of a dual 800's leauge right? The limiting factor in games for you would be your CPU. Even in a dual 2ghz g5 with a 9800 the CPU is still the limiting factor for most games(Except Halo and Doom 3)!
|
Revenge is a meal best served cold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, but I can't take the Radeon 9000 anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd rather be CPU limited than GPU limited. At least that way I can crank up the visual quality without affecting performance too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by a2daj:
I'd rather be CPU limited than GPU limited. At least that way I can crank up the visual quality without affecting performance too much.
This is why I'm seriously considering a 9800. While I will get some actual graphical muscle in terms of performance�a 9800 has plenty of more punch than a 9000�I will be able to play at higher resolutions with little to no hit to the framerate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status:
Offline
|
|
A Radeon 9000 Pro/9200 should work reallly good
|
iBook G4 933, 640 RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Nacente:
A Radeon 9000 Pro/9200 should work reallly good
He has a 9000 and he's complaining about it, so it's probably not working really good for him. A 9200 would be even worse since it's PCI only for Mac.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status:
Offline
|
|
With a Radeon 9000 Pro and a 933Mhz G4, would the limiting factor be the CPU or the GPU?
What is the next step up from the Radeon 9000 Pro that is bit faster/expensive that still supports ADC and will support a major subset/all of CoreImage.
Thanks for all replies so far, this is a good resource thread on cards.
(
Last edited by Chinasaur; Aug 28, 2004 at 04:52 PM.
)
|
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, the next step is 9800.
|
iBook G4 933, 640 RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Nacente:
Well, the next step is 9800.
True, but keep in mind the 9800 doesn't have an ADC port. The next step in terms of ADC ports (but not full CoreImage support) is a GeForce 4 Ti.
Of course, if you have an LCD ADC monitor, you should be cool with a 9800 and the DVIator. Not if you have the CRT ADC that Apple put out�as is the case with my setup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
But at least the ADC CRT isn't so awesome that you can't get rid of it. It's a shame to have to retire a monitor that is working fine, but if I had a Cinema display I'd be much more hesitant to replace my screen.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've got the 17" Apple LCD. So I'll investigate the Ti.
Seems like the 9000 Pro is the sweet spot price/performance wise for the next six months anyway.
|
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've got a GF4Ti and would swap it for a 9700 or 9800 instantly. The GeForce has absolutely no support for generic fragment programs, so you'll miss out on most of the cool effects.
I've got a Cinema Display and the price for a 9800 + ADC->DVI adapter is just ridiculous: Nearly 500� for a previous generation graphics card... crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hyrule
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah I know what you mean, but coreimage doesn't list the 4ti (yet) either, and the 9800 well.. yeah.. *sigh*..
But 4tis still sell for ~$300. >_<
|
Aloha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hollywood
Status:
Offline
|
|
Any Radeon before 9600 is a waste of time. Aside from everything else, PIXEL SHADERS are going to be a part of life from now on. They will never be implemented in 9000 on down. The 9000 is a half crippled, wheezing 8500 designed when Bill Clinton was still playing Pop-goes-the-weasel with Monica. They removed half the texture units and handed this turd to an EAGER Mac world. Removing capabilities cost money so naturally the price had to be raised.
Newegg has PC 9800 Pro's going for $160 on sale.
Do the solder job, or just flash it with the reduced ROM.
So,
PC Radeon 9800 $160.00
2 pieces scotch tape .02
Mac Radeon 9800 $160.02
Excellent card, works in your G4 today, runs at 8X AGP in your G5 next year.
Or,
Flashed Radeon 8500 from Ebay $140
Mac Radeon 9000 128 $150
Either of which is capable of garbled, muddy slide shows, whenever you want. Neither of which has any business near a G5.
DVI is way of future too. So, DVI to ADC adapter is good investment in future.
Do yourself a favor, get the 9800. Quit playing around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Anywhere but here.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I take it this is what you are talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hollywood
Status:
Offline
|
|
That is in fact the Tape operation I speak of. Exacto is helpful here.
Thomas Perrier wrote that page AND the O/C software that just came out. Has done the Mac world a HUGE favor. ( or 2)
With his first program and the reduced 9800 ROM, you can MAKE YOUR VERY OWN 9800 !!! On your Mac, if you have access to a PCI video card. Or can use remote access. No nasty soldering required.
If ADC support is crucial, modding a 9600 is an elegant way to go. Power switch function is wonky, otherwise a great card. A little light in the RAM dept, unless you find a 9600 XT.
On my Quiksilver, 9600 is about 2/3 speed of 9800. Difference would be greater on a faster machine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|