For some reason my dual processor 2.0Ghz G5 Powermac with a RADEON 9800 Pro Mac SE runs significantly faster than both a 2.16Ghz core 2 duo iMac x1600 128Mb and 2.4Ghz HD2600 256Mb. Why would this be? All have updated firmware, software, etc.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
videocard performance
- Thread starter nickarmadillo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All the games are universal binary - Call of Duty 2, World of Warcraft, Age of Empires III, Galactic Battlegrounds, etc.
First of all the G5 still is really a fast CPU!!! Don't underestimate the G5.
Second: Newer grfx cards are not always faster if they are not of the same "class":
The Radeon 9800 SE is not a bad card either.
The X1600 card, and HD2600 cards are of a newer generation, thus supported newer shaders etc, but if the games don't use them, the raw GPU speed and GPU memory is of more importance.... and the drivers as well.
The 9800 series was top-notch card of its generation. The X1xx series followed it, and the low-end was the X1600, and the high-end the X1800 (later replaced by the X1900).
The HD2xxx series followed the X1xxx series.... and the X2600 is the low-end card...
(explanatory note: from slow to fast: ATI Radeon: x6xx is low-end, x8xx is high-end)
A very simple car-analogy here...
The 9800 was the BMW M3 series 1.
The X1600 was the BMW 320i series 2.
The HD 2600 was the BMW 320i series 3.
Which is fastest? Well.. the M3 series 1 of course!
But the later series had more features and luxuries...
A bit over simplified, I must admit, and the car analogy is a bit crude> but I think my point is clear. Newer is not always faster.
Added to that, maybe porting the games from PPC to UB suffers a performance hit too...
Second: Newer grfx cards are not always faster if they are not of the same "class":
The Radeon 9800 SE is not a bad card either.
The X1600 card, and HD2600 cards are of a newer generation, thus supported newer shaders etc, but if the games don't use them, the raw GPU speed and GPU memory is of more importance.... and the drivers as well.
The 9800 series was top-notch card of its generation. The X1xx series followed it, and the low-end was the X1600, and the high-end the X1800 (later replaced by the X1900).
The HD2xxx series followed the X1xxx series.... and the X2600 is the low-end card...
(explanatory note: from slow to fast: ATI Radeon: x6xx is low-end, x8xx is high-end)
A very simple car-analogy here...
The 9800 was the BMW M3 series 1.
The X1600 was the BMW 320i series 2.
The HD 2600 was the BMW 320i series 3.
Which is fastest? Well.. the M3 series 1 of course!
But the later series had more features and luxuries...
A bit over simplified, I must admit, and the car analogy is a bit crude> but I think my point is clear. Newer is not always faster.
Added to that, maybe porting the games from PPC to UB suffers a performance hit too...
Very interesting. I understand the analogy, but it seems strange that a 4-5 year old computer would be beating out brand new mid-level ones in gaming. So much for Apple's claims of these new machines being several times faster. Even on CPU dependent tasks my G5 feels just slightly slower if not as fast.
