PDA

View Full Version : Mac Pro: ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT vs 8800 GT



indiochano
Jun 8, 2008, 04:59 PM
Ok, so I'm a little confused... I've been getting answers from both sides, saying that either the HD 2600 XT will work better and the same way goes for the 8800 GT... I don't plan on playing games with my mac, but I do plan on using my mac for graphic programs such as Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, Final Cut, etc etc... Which card is the best choice?

Thanks in advance!


p.luik
Jun 8, 2008, 05:05 PM
I know Ive already given you some information. While I was looking around on some other websites to help you out with your previous post, I found some things saying that in 10.5.3, Core Image was updated for the 8800 so that it works better than the 2600 in almost all aspects. I think this update solved the problems and the posters that said the 200 is better would now change their mind. I would recommend googling this to find out more for yourself.
nick9191
Jun 8, 2008, 05:12 PM
Definitely no doubt the 2600 XT. Theres some benchmarks on barefeats, the 2600 XT woops ass. Even the X1900 XT beats the 8800 and its two years old.

The reason for this is mainly bad drivers on the Nvidia side. The 8800 is better for 3D applications such as games, and if your booting into Windows a lot.
indiochano
Jun 8, 2008, 05:14 PM
Thanks once again for the quick reply :)

according to this article:
http://www.barefeats.com/imp04.html

the 8800gt still lags a bit behind the 2600 though so that has got me a little puzzled :confused:
indiochano
Jun 8, 2008, 05:16 PM
How about for 3d rendering apps such as maya?
echoout
Jun 8, 2008, 06:10 PM
I mainly use After Effects, Cinema 4D, Lightwave 3D, FCP, Photoshop, Pro Tools and Flash in my job and the 2600 has been great. No issues.
Frozonecold
Jun 8, 2008, 06:48 PM
I mainly use After Effects, Cinema 4D, Lightwave 3D, FCP, Photoshop, Pro Tools and Flash in my job and the 2600 has been great. No issues.
Photoshop and flash don't use the GPU for anything so your graphics card doesn't matter at all.
echoout
Jun 8, 2008, 06:48 PM
Exactly. Someone always asks though.

Photoshop and flash don't use the GPU for anything so your graphics card doesn't matter at all.
indiochano
Jun 8, 2008, 06:56 PM
but how about maya? i mean i dont plan on spending about 1 grand on a quadro fx graphics card... so i wanna see which one will be best for 3d rendering?
echoout
Jun 8, 2008, 07:02 PM
That's what I was saying, on the two major 3D packages I use, it works without issue. I haven't had a big Maya project in two years and haven't used it since then. Most 3D guys I work with do so much in wireframe that it's usually not too much of an issue.

but how about maya? i mean i dont plan on spending about 1 grand on a quadro fx graphics card... so i wanna see which one will be best for 3d rendering?
indiochano
Jun 8, 2008, 07:06 PM
the thing is I was thinking of getting an 8800 and use it with maya under windows through bootcamp... is that a good idea?
indiochano
Jun 8, 2008, 07:07 PM
Photoshop and flash don't use the GPU for anything so your graphics card doesn't matter at all.

From what i heard a few months ago is that the next build of CS4 would include GPU acceleration (filters done in realtime etc. etc.) but im not too sure of this... someone correct me if im wrong.

EDIT:
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37611/140/
MatchFrame
Jun 9, 2008, 10:56 PM
Definitely no doubt the 2600 XT. Theres some benchmarks on barefeats, the 2600 XT woops ass. Even the X1900 XT beats the 8800 and its two years old.

The reason for this is mainly bad drivers on the Nvidia side. The 8800 is better for 3D applications such as games, and if your booting into Windows a lot.

I've been doing the same research (as I plan on doing the same type of work), and everybody seems to have come to the same conclusion. Wait until the end of the week to purchase anything in case the ATI 3870 is announced (as has been heavily rumored).

I do have a question. How much of a performance boost could be expected from having more than one 2600 XT installed on your Mac Pro?

I understand the benefit as far as hooking up 3+ monitors, but does anyone have stats or an explanation of what kind of improvement could be expected?
Infrared
Jun 9, 2008, 11:39 PM
I've been doing the same research (as I plan on doing the same type of work), and everybody seems to have come to the same conclusion. Wait until the end of the week to purchase anything in case the ATI 3870 is announced (as has been heavily rumored).

And then wait another week to see if the first batch are broken ;)
indiochano
Jun 10, 2008, 12:23 AM
so does that mean that nvidia wont be releasing new drivers to correct the coreimage issues and that all 8800gt owners are screwed in that sense?
rpaloalto
Jun 10, 2008, 02:31 PM
How much of a difference is there? Is the 8800 just no good at all, for core imaging.
I will be playing a few games from time to time. I do how ever use cs3 and apple's aperture, as a hobby not a profession. If the 8800 falls a little short when rendering, time wise a few milliseconds or even a second should not be a problem.
Or does the 8800 give bad results, with abnormalities or graphic tears.
Now that wwdc has come, and their is no new cards. I want to order my pro but can't decide which card to get.