[jrramsey]

My vote is stil for the 9800. Panther AND Tiger compatible...and kicks the 9000/8500 in the tail

[Amacapart]

Originally posted by jrramsey:
My vote is stil for the 9800. Panther AND Tiger compatible...and kicks the 9000/8500 in the tail

Yes, yes. A much faster card than a 5200 to be sure.

But for some, a $60 Tiger card is do-able, while a R9800,even at new lower prices, isn't.

For somebody with an older G4, the 5200 will be a nice step up from whatever they have. $60 is reasonable.

Beyond that, there is a certain thrill when the screen pops up and your G4 shows something truly unique, 128 Megs of RAM on a FX 5200. G5 owners get the bobby-soxer 64 Meg version but here is one place you can do better.

And, like the 9800, this is a DX9/ Shaders 2.0 card. So it will see the same pretty pictures the 9800 will, just not as many of them in any given second. 8500/9000 owners are left with smeary, muddy looking images in Halo & Doom 3. Same story with Dashboard splash in Tiger. 5200 & 9800 will see a splash, most others will not.

[MORT A POTTY]

Radeon 9800 is the best mac GPU out there... this isn't exactly the place for discussion of flashing cards.

at least with a Mac Radeon 9800 Pro you'd have a warranty and would possibly convince ATI to keep supporting the retail Mac GPU segment. EDIT: oh yeah, and you'd have a MUCH better card.

EDIT: fixed a mistake

[Amacapart]

Originally posted by MORT A POTTY:
Radeon 9200 is the best mac GPU out there... this isn't exactly the place for discussion of flashing cards.

Thought you didn't like the 9200. You saw the light?

MacNN went on record last year allowing discussion of card flashing,

[P]

The 9800 is faster than a 9000 or a GF 5200? No ****, Sherlock! Of course it is. It's also a lot more expensive. If you don't game and just want a faster board that supports Expose, a 9800 is overkill. Do you recommend dual 2.5s to people considering Mac minis as well?

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by P:
The 9800 is faster than a 9000 or a GF 5200? No ****, Sherlock! Of course it is. It's also a lot more expensive. If you don't game and just want a faster board that supports Expose, a 9800 is overkill. Do you recommend dual 2.5s to people considering Mac minis as well?

god you're an asshole

[italiano]

The 9800 rocks on ANY G4

[OreoCookie]

No insults, please.

[astepanuks]

Hi,

I have G4 AGP (originally 400 Mhz) with 1.2 Ghz card and 960 RAM running
10.3.8. I also had 2 video cards installed, original AGP ATI 128 Rage Pro
with 16 Meg RAM hooked to 17 inch Apple CRT monitor and 2nd PCI ATI rage
card hooked to 15 inch Apple CRT monitor.

With this set up X Bench was returning Quartz Test 135, Open GL test at 161
and User interface 208.

I upgraded main AGP card to Radeon 9000 Pro with 128 meg RAM and still using
old 17 inch CRT monitor via DVI to VGA converter. I ran X bench and was
surprised to see that Quartz Test increased only to 153, user interface
almost unchanged at 210, but Open GL dropped to 108!

I installed ATI software (latest) from their website to ensure that system
has all drivers.

Any ideas about the lack of increase in video performance?


Cheers
Andy

[a2daj]

Don't rely on Xbench's graphics tests, especially the OpenGL test, for any important statistics. It doesn't stress the video card in anyway shape or form. It's pure crap and I cringe any time someone quotes Xbench OpenGL results. If anything, the 9800 Pro's driver overhead may be contributing to the lower Xbench scores. OpenGL games are much better benchmarks. As you crank up the visual quality, the more powerful cards will shine.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by astepanuks

Hi,

I have G4 AGP (originally 400 Mhz) with 1.2 Ghz card and 960 RAM running
10.3.8. I also had 2 video cards installed, original AGP ATI 128 Rage Pro
with 16 Meg RAM hooked to 17 inch Apple CRT monitor and 2nd PCI ATI rage
card hooked to 15 inch Apple CRT monitor.

With this set up X Bench was returning Quartz Test 135, Open GL test at 161
and User interface 208.

I upgraded main AGP card to Radeon 9000 Pro with 128 meg RAM and still using
old 17 inch CRT monitor via DVI to VGA converter. I ran X bench and was
surprised to see that Quartz Test increased only to 153, user interface
almost unchanged at 210, but Open GL dropped to 108!

I installed ATI software (latest) from their website to ensure that system
has all drivers.

Any ideas about the lack of increase in video performance?

Yes, for one, your CPU is too slow to saturate your video card and furthermore, your AGP might also be among the bottle necks.

[astepanuks]

How do I tell if Quartz Extreme is running on my Mac?
What happens if Mac has 2 video cards: one that supports Quartz and other do not?
Cheers
Andy

[Amacapart]

Congratulations, you have scientifically PROVEN that X Bench is crap.

Even marine screensaver gives a better idea on graphic card speed. Q3, Halo, Doom 3, et all are MUCH better tests of 3D cards.

Te see if Quartz is running properly:

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/mo...c/15911&page=2

You should NOT install ATI software over the software in OS. Only exception are ROM updates and ROM extenders.

[a2daj]

The recent ATI driver installers should be smart enough to detect if you have newer drivers installed and not overwrite them. The current ATI Displays utility can be safely installed on any system running 10.2.8 and above.