PDA

View Full Version : La Radeon 9700 Pro Mac est une bombe !


Mr. Anderson
Apr 3, 2003, 08:06 AM
http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-04-02#5159

Ok, its in French, but the specs are obvious. One thing that gets me is they're running OSX 10.2.5.

I didn't know this was available, anyone know anything about it?

D

mrjamin
Apr 3, 2003, 08:19 AM
Les tests ont été effectués sous Mac OS X 10.2.5 beta

Note the beta tacked on the end!
10.2.5 is due in the first few weeks of april apparently

Mr. Anderson
Apr 3, 2003, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by mrjamin
Note the beta tacked on the end!
10.2.5 is due in the first few weeks of april apparently

ah cool, i didn't see the beta in the top paragraph.

So another question would be how did they get the beta?

D

mrjamin
Apr 3, 2003, 08:23 AM
that, my friend, is a question we all want the answer to! I'm guessing its just some apple seeding thing. I don't know too much about anything really.

In the 70's there was Gentle Ben (the big bear), in the early 80s, Simple Ben (i.e. me!) was born!

Mr. Anderson
Apr 3, 2003, 08:30 AM
Well, I'd be a little surprised if they actually seeded Mac Bidouille - since they were the ones who originally had the pics of the new PowerMac case that got taken down by the Apple cease and desist order.

Very strange.

D

MrMacMan
Apr 3, 2003, 08:33 AM
Simple google translation says

"We had been the first to show you to a photograph of Radeon 9700 Pro Mac. Here of exclusiveness first tests in this chart on line of a mysterious US source (which had already sent us the photographs). The tests were carried out under Mac OS X 10.2.5 beta (the first to have the R9700 pilots) on G4 Bi 1,42 in 1920*1200 (23 "APPLE).
Under Xbench (Summarized): System Info
Xbench Version 1.0
System Version 10.2.5
Physical RAM 1536 MB
Model PowerMac3,6
Processor PowerPC G4x2 @ 1.42 GHz
Version 7455 (Apollo) v3.3
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 256K @ 1417 MHz
L3 Cache 2048K @ 237 MHz
Bus Frequency 167 MHz
Video Card ATY,R300

Quartz Graphics Test 159.07
Line 162.12 4.13 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 155.50 10.94 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 175.85 4.05 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 170.21 1.85 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 137.51 2.24 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 128.33
Spinning Squares 128.33 89.80 frames/sec
User Interface Test 158.28
Elements 158.28 53.85 refresh/sec

the saver of screen Marine Aquarium 720x540x32 = 333fps 1920x1200x32 = 270fps They is more twice better than the 8500 Mac Edition! [ MàJ ] Here to finish the results with the tests of Cinebench 2003.
MHz: 2*1420 Number of CPUs: 2
Operating System: 10.2.5
Graphics Card: ATI 9700 Pro Mac
Resolution: 1920x1200
Color Depth: 32 ****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 135 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 245 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.82
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 165 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 445 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 907 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 5.51

For comparison, here the same test resulting from a dual 1,42 equipped with Radeon 9000 (drawn from the Forums)
Processor : G4 MDD Dual 1.42 Ghz
MHz : 1416
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : X 10.2.4
Graphics Card : Ati Radeon 9000
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 131 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 247 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.88
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 165 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 430 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 581 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 3.51

Note excel it result Open GL Speedup of the 9700!"

mrjamin
Apr 3, 2003, 08:35 AM
hmmm, most odd - my french isn't so good; are the benchmarks/specs actually from macbidouille? could it be that they're just relaying leaked info from ATI who were seeded 10.2.5b?

Mr. Anderson
Apr 3, 2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by mrjamin
hmmm, most odd - my french isn't so good; are the benchmarks/specs actually from macbidouille? could it be that they're just relaying leaked info from ATI who were seeded 10.2.5b?

that seems more likely - since they mentioned that they were given the specs from an unnamed source.

Thanks for doing the translation there MrMacman....

D

G5orbust
Apr 4, 2003, 12:40 AM
yep, that card pictured is the real deal. I thought at first it had to be a 9000, but the 9000 doesnt have a fan. Then I thought it was an 8500, but the 8500 silicon color (is it PCB?) doesnt match up. I also thought it could have been a PC branded 9700 or something. But ofcouse, it isnt.

Just thought Id tell you guys.

sparks9
Apr 7, 2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by G5orbust
yep, that card pictured is the real deal. I thought at first it had to be a 9000, but the 9000 doesnt have a fan. Then I thought it was an 8500, but the 8500 silicon color (is it PCB?) doesnt match up. I also thought it could have been a PC branded 9700 or something. But ofcouse, it isnt.

Just thought Id tell you guys.

Why the **** did you think all that, when you KNOW it is the 9700??

cubist
Apr 7, 2003, 12:12 PM
Anyone know the actual dimensions?

Belgium
Apr 7, 2003, 12:55 PM
Cubist that's a very interesting question!!! :D

Kid Red
Apr 7, 2003, 01:31 PM
Notice the test machine a *bi* 1.42 G4. Those silly french :p

mrjamin
Apr 7, 2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by cubist
Anyone know the actual dimensions?

i didn't think the cube's were that upgradable - do they have AGP slots??

Even if they did i doubt they're 8x AGP

vniow
Apr 7, 2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by mrjamin
i didn't think the cube's were that upgradable - do they have AGP slots??

Yep, only 2x though.


Even if they did i doubt they're 8x AGP


I think that current 8x AGP cards are backwards compatible all the way back to 2x (which hardly gets saturated anywayz) but I may be wrong.

MacBandit
Apr 8, 2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by vniow
Yep, only 2x though.


[b]


I think that current 8x AGP cards are backwards compatible all the way back to 2x (which hardly gets saturated anywayz) but I may be wrong.

The AGP standard in itself is a completely backwards compatible standard. This includes AGP 8x.

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 03:13 AM
I pray that this thing fits in a Cube without too much modification. If so, then I'll be running a Cube at 1.2 GHz with a Radeon 9700 and a 120 GB 7200 RPM HD. Sweet! And it'll all be in an 8"x8" enclosure. I can't wait! :)

mrjamin
Apr 8, 2003, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by wsteineker
I pray that this thing fits in a Cube without too much modification. If so, then I'll be running a Cube at 1.2 GHz with a Radeon 9700 and a 120 GB 7200 RPM HD. Sweet! And it'll all be in an 8"x8" enclosure. I can't wait! :)

that could get a little toasty!

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by mrjamin
that could get a little toasty!

And that's exactly why I've got a big ass heatsink on the G4 and a panaflo fan kicking air through it. It still gets a little warm, but not too bad to handle. :)

MacsRgr8
Apr 8, 2003, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by wsteineker
I pray that this thing fits in a Cube without too much modification. If so, then I'll be running a Cube at 1.2 GHz with a Radeon 9700 and a 120 GB 7200 RPM HD. Sweet! And it'll all be in an 8"x8" enclosure. I can't wait! :)

Over at xlr8yourmac they're stating that even a Dual 1 GHz G4 (133 Mhz bus, 266 Mhz DDR RAM) is hardly capable of feeding the 9700 with enought data...
It'll be nice if you can fit it in a Cube, but it's not really going to help much speedwise.

wsteineker
Apr 8, 2003, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by MacsRgr8
Over at xlr8yourmac they're stating that even a Dual 1 GHz G4 (133 Mhz bus, 266 Mhz DDR RAM) is hardly capable of feeding the 9700 with enought data...
It'll be nice if you can fit it in a Cube, but it's not really going to help much speedwise.

It'll be a damn sight better than my current Radeon, for sure. The advances in vertex and pixel shaders alone will be well worth it. I've also got to imagine that it'll speed up QE performance a bit. I'll also be able to claim a supremely tricked out Cube. :)

MacsRgr8
Apr 8, 2003, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by wsteineker
I'll also be able to claim a supremely tricked out Cube. :)

Yep. :cool:
Wish I had one.... I wish ya luck!

MacBandit
Apr 8, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by MacsRgr8
Over at xlr8yourmac they're stating that even a Dual 1 GHz G4 (133 Mhz bus, 266 Mhz DDR RAM) is hardly capable of feeding the 9700 with enought data...
It'll be nice if you can fit it in a Cube, but it's not really going to help much speedwise.

Not to be picky but the Dual/Ghz/DDR PowerMacs have a 166 MHz bus and 333MHz DDR RAM.

MacsRgr8
Apr 8, 2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
Not to be picky but the Dual/Ghz/DDR PowerMacs have a 166 MHz bus and 333MHz DDR RAM.

Yep, you're right. My bad. Sorry about that.
Got confused with either the Single 1 GHz or Dual 1 GHz QS....
Which makes the statement above even more true.

G5orbust
Apr 8, 2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by sparks9
Why the **** did you think all that, when you KNOW it is the 9700??


why wouldnt I? One should always find ways to prove things, even if you "know" its true.

What if I was to tell you that the picture below was definately a Radeon 8500 Mac Edition. Would you automatically believe me?

Supa_Fly
Apr 11, 2003, 06:23 PM
What difference does it make to any of us if the Radeon 9700 Pro is an AGP 8X or not? The AGP port in any of the current PowerMacs max out at 4X AGP NOT 8X. Gotta wait for the next iteration of the PowerMac to fully enjoy 8X AGP and the full benefits of the 9700 Pro Radeon.

MacBandit
Apr 11, 2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Prom1
What difference does it make to any of us if the Radeon 9700 Pro is an AGP 8X or not? The AGP port in any of the current PowerMacs max out at 4X AGP NOT 8X. Gotta wait for the next iteration of the PowerMac to fully enjoy 8X AGP and the full benefits of the 9700 Pro Radeon.

There will be no benefit in running the ATI9700 or 9800 for that matter in an 8x AGP port neither even comes close to filling the bandwith of a 4x AGP bus. The AGP bus is one of the few places in all computers were the tecnology of the port itself has far exceeded the evolution of the video cards. Basically by going to 8x AGP with the ATI9700 they are basically making sure the card is compatible with any AGP port on any computer. The AGP standard is fully backwards compatible but I am not sure you could say that the other way around. Also it's a way of marketing bigger numbers.

G5orbust
Apr 12, 2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit
There will be no benefit in running the ATI9700 or 9800 for that matter in an 8x AGP port neither even comes close to filling the bandwith of a 4x AGP bus. The AGP bus is one of the few places in all computers were the tecnology of the port itself has far exceeded the evolution of the video cards. Basically by going to 8x AGP with the ATI9700 they are basically making sure the card is compatible with any AGP port on any computer. The AGP standard is fully backwards compatible but I am not sure you could say that the other way around. Also it's a way of marketing bigger numbers.


That is entriely correct. No video card on the planet can fill the expansive AGP 4x bandwidth, let alone AGP 8x.

The newest comings from nVidia and ATI will probably be able to fill the AGP 4x bandwidth eventually, but AGP is a dying standard, which will soon be replaced by the faster PCI-X, or PCI Express.

NOTE TO EVERYONE: Plugging in an AGP 8x card like a Radeon 9[]00 Pro into an AGP 4x slot will not diminish, nor hinder the ability of the card to do its job properly. So, anyone with any AGP equipped Powermac can use it, though AGP 2x will probably hinder it a bit because the Radeon will come quite close, if not exceed, the bottleneck of AGP 2x.

AGP 4x equipped powermacs can run any graphics card availible for the mac today.

kiwi_the_iwik
Apr 12, 2003, 01:53 PM
It looks like the card won't fit the Cube unless you do a little dental work on the case...

The biggest card you can effectively put in the Cube without too much hassle is the Radeon 7500 (fanless), or the nVidia GeForce3. Although, there are some reports of "gutsy" people putting in the Radeon 8500 - and even a 9700!!! (www.cubeowner.com/faq.html - Graphics/Video Card Upgrades)

I've just upgraded my Cube's card with a Radeon 7500 - and it's PHENOMENAL!!! Now, finally, I can run 2 displays side-by-side if required (I haven't checked that out yet - gotta get another monitor.... ....hmmmm). I have, however, tested it out with Medal Of Honor - and I don't have the "Fog of War" effect I had before with the Rage 128. Now, I can see EVERY single BRICK in the walls - and where the baddies are hiding (heh, heh!).

Imagine what you'd get with the 9700...

Whoa!

:D

G5orbust
Apr 13, 2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
It looks like the card won't fit the Cube unless you do a little dental work on the case...

The biggest card you can effectively put in the Cube without too much hassle is the Radeon 7500 (fanless), or the nVidia GeForce3. Although, there are some reports of "gutsy" people putting in the Radeon 8500 - and even a 9700!!! (www.cubeowner.com/faq.html - Graphics/Video Card Upgrades)

I've just upgraded my Cube's card with a Radeon 7500 - and it's PHENOMENAL!!! Now, finally, I can run 2 displays side-by-side if required (I haven't checked that out yet - gotta get another monitor.... ....hmmmm). I have, however, tested it out with Medal Of Honor - and I don't have the "Fog of War" effect I had before with the Rage 128. Now, I can see EVERY single BRICK in the walls - and where the baddies are hiding (heh, heh!).

Imagine what you'd get with the 9700...

Whoa!

:D

whoa congrats on the upgrade. a Rage 128 pro to a Radeon 7500 is a HUGE jump in graphics power. While the Radeon 7500 may seem crappy compared to such heavy Mac graphics hitters as the 9700 and the Geforce 4 Ti, it makes you appreciate the work you put into upgrading the cube. I bet you love seeing all those bricks :D