PDA

View Full Version : Radeon 9700 tested. Comaprison between other grfx cards


MacsRgr8
Apr 6, 2003, 03:07 PM
At xlr8yourmac they were able to compare the different leading grfx cards for the MDD G4's.
Check it out here (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/Radeon_9700PRO_OEM/index4.html)

To be honest, I expected more. Many games out there seem to depend far more on the CPU than GPU. Quite different from the PC world, where the Radeon 9700 has been tested on a P3 800 MHz, kicking ass over a P4 1.5 Ghz with the GeForce 3 Ti.

Steradian
Apr 6, 2003, 03:49 PM
True, but I would love to see the specs for a Dual 1.42 :D

Are thouse OEM's available from ATi yet? I want one...heh

currently running a Dual 1ghz tower != MDD

MacsRgr8
Apr 6, 2003, 04:21 PM
I got a Dual 1.25 (FW 800) and I'm waiting for the retail version. I can't find out when (even: if) it's gonna be shipped.
Would you buy one? I expect it's gonna cost alot ($ 300 is the EXTRA cost, to the standard 9000 Pro)... About $ 450?

D*I*S_Frontman
Apr 6, 2003, 06:03 PM
Can this thing drive two Sony GDM W900 24" CRTs w/DVI to VGA & ADC to VGA adapters?

bousozoku
Apr 6, 2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by MacsRgr8
At xlr8yourmac they were able to compare the different leading grfx cards for the MDD G4's.
Check it out here (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/Radeon_9700PRO_OEM/index4.html)

To be honest, I expected more. Many games out there seem to depend far more on the CPU than GPU. Quite different from the PC world, where the Radeon 9700 has been tested on a P3 800 MHz, kicking ass over a P4 1.5 Ghz with the GeForce 3 Ti.

A lot of that has to do with OpenGL and how it works with the video drivers. Direct3D seems to be implemented much better on Windows drivers than OpenGL on Macs. Of course, Apple has responsibility for nVidia optimisations on Mac and ATI is responsible for their own cards, probably with Apple's help, so you'd think there would be better results.

yzedf
Apr 6, 2003, 09:47 PM
also shows off the junky bus speeds of the current Macs...

QCassidy352
Apr 6, 2003, 09:51 PM
Yeah, not that impressive for such a hyped card... kills the earlier ATI cards of course, but really not much better than the GeForce4Ti. Still pretty sweet, but not the stunning results I might have expected.

MacsRgr8
Apr 7, 2003, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by bousozoku
A lot of that has to do with OpenGL and how it works with the video drivers. Direct3D seems to be implemented much better on Windows drivers than OpenGL on Macs. Of course, Apple has responsibility for nVidia optimisations on Mac and ATI is responsible for their own cards, probably with Apple's help, so you'd think there would be better results.

You mean Apple is responsible for nVidia's optimisations but not ATI's? Too bad nVidia doesn't have the better hardware for Mac now...

Dont Hurt Me
Apr 7, 2003, 07:50 AM
Bottom line in that test was the computer could not feed the card, the 9700 was just waiting for data. I wonder if much difference in a dual 1.42 Remember these cards are being used with 3 giger pentium machines. This has been a problem in the mac world. CPU Speed and videocards that cant be feed by the g4.

ramiman
Apr 7, 2003, 01:15 PM
Listen evryone,
Tests of the ATI 9700 on a dual 1,42 ghz have alredy been made and it rocks any geforce 4 ti 4600 which is already an awsome video card, people who bought the ATI 9700 wont be deceived by the graphic results and the performance.

MacsRgr8
Apr 7, 2003, 02:08 PM
Got any links? Does the performance of the 9700 increase more than performance increase of the Dual 1.42 over the Dual 1?
I mean this (bit simplified):
if
Dual 1 Ghz + Radeon 9000 Pro = 100 fps
then
Dual 1.42 Ghz + Radeon 9000 Pro = 142 fps
>now assuming the 9700 must be "fed" more...
if
Dual 1 Ghz Radeon + 9700 Pro = 100 fps
then
Dual 1.42 Ghz Radeon + 9700 Pro = >142 fps???

Abstract
Apr 7, 2003, 02:19 PM
Yes, I'd also rather see a comparison between a dual 1.42GHz and a Pentium 3GHz. It just seems easier to compare the top machines rather than compare 2 machines that are somewhat, and arguably, comparable relative to the respective Mac and PC computer line-ups. A top of the line competing against another top of the line seems like a better idea.

yzedf
Apr 7, 2003, 02:24 PM
the entire point is that Mac's are not top of the line, when comparing all around system performance. where would Apple be without the "Photoshop tests?" SOL, I believe.

MacsRgr8
Apr 7, 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
the entire point is that Mac's are not top of the line, when comparing all around system performance. where would Apple be without the "Photoshop tests?" SOL, I believe.

Ask Adobe.... they're not convinced anymore :mad: