NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200 vs. TI Mobility Radeon 9700 graphics in PB

[Chip NoVaMac]

I know that I am probably opening a can of worms. Looking at maybe going with one of the rev. C PB's. I have a rev. B 12" right now. Want to add a 2nd Mac to the home.

The info on the Apple site:

The new 15-inch and 17-inch PowerBook G4 models sport the new ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. Featuring a number of cutting-edge graphics technologies, including programmable pixel and vertex shading for lighting, the Mobility Radeon 9700 dramatically enhances all aspects of your visual experience in every application. And, here’s the kicker: if you want still better video performance, you can configure your 1.5GHz PowerBook with up to 128MB of fast DDR SDRAM.

It seems to me that this is more important for gamers, than someone liek myself that is more interested in Adobe PS CS (for photo work) and InDesign CS. Or am I wrong?

The other question in regards to these two cards is with Tiger and Core Images. Given the two apps that I am most interested in will it give any additional benefit by have the ATI with 64mb or 128mb RAM? I guess the unanswered question is how quickly will Adobe update to take advantage of Core Images.

Any insight would be helpful.

[BrianKonarsMac]

get the 128mb ati 9700, not only is it used by the core functions of the OS (Core Image, Video, Quartz Extreme) but it will only be further incorporated down the line, increasing your laptops lifespan. the GeForce FX Go5200 is garbage for gaming (it works well enough to drive my 17" at 1280x1024 in Warcraft 3), so i'd suspect it's not that great in other areas either, ATi all the way.

[Chip NoVaMac]

get the 128mb ati 9700, not only is it used by the core functions of the OS (Core Image, Video, Quartz Extreme) but it will only be further incorporated down the line, increasing your laptops lifespan. the GeForce FX Go5200 is garbage for gaming (it works well enough to drive my 17" at 1280x1024 in Warcraft 3), so i'd suspect it's not that great in other areas either, ATi all the way.

I hear you. Games is not something that I play. And if I did I would do a dedicated game box. And with Applecare I look for only 3 years before I would need to buy something new to keep up with emerging technologies.

I guess I am looking for someone to talk about the 9700 features and how Core Image would be affected by what Apple says about the 9700 features. It really seems that the 9700 is geared towards gaming. and with the 5200 Core Images should breath new life in to what some say is a crap video board.

Thanks for the food for thought.

[nyprospect]

i was just about to buy a 12" pb until i read this lol.Is it that bad of a card (5200 nvidia).Also when hooked up to the external how slow and choppy is it?

[kirk26]

Definitely go for the Nvidia card. That's one of the reasons I went with the 12" instead of the 15".

[jdogg707]

The FX5200 is a pretty sad card in terms of performance. ATi has always had better 2D, so if you are hooking an extra monitor to the system, I would want something a bit more powerful. The mobile 9700 is a great performer, not just in games but also in terms of 3D rendering/modeling. If you are getting the Mobile 9700, adding the extra memory is $50, which will improve longevity and will increase the resale value later on. If I were getting it, I would splurge on the extra memory just because it isn't something I can add on later to the system...that and the fact that I already have!

[invaLPsion]

Definitely go for the Nvidia card. That's one of the reasons I went with the 12" instead of the 15".

What are you talking about? The FX5200 isn't even in the same class as the mobility radeon 9700. Hands down go for the 9700.

[psycho bob]

If you want a 12 inch then you have no choice but to go with the Nvidia card. The ATI card is by far the better card but your only driving a 1024x768 screen so it really won't tax it. Even if you have a external screen it won't prove a problem. My Rev A 17 inch has a woeful card considering the market it was aimed at but it works quite happily.
Don't worry about it, all current laptop graphics cards are supported in Tiger. The speed of the CPU is a far more important factor than the graphics card. The longevity of a machine is normally determined by brute horsepower, the GPU just determines how much eye candy you can see.
If you want a larger machine and have the money go with the 15 inch if not get the 12 and plenty of RAM.
As for the difference between 64 and 128MB the difference in most apps especially the adobe ones you mention will be small (less than 10% at the mo), but if you go with the 1.5GHz model than for the minimal amount it costs max it out.

[furrina]

I purchased my 15" rev C PB just under 30 days ago, the BTO options were the (I think this was it but I can't find it anywhere) NVdia GForce, ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 pro, or ATI Mobility Radeon 9800 pro.

I went with the 9600 at extra cost since so many people advised that this was a big step up from the NVDIA and I'm going to be using it for video so I wanted to get the best possible card (though it seems the difference betw. the 9600 and 9800 wasn't that big). I also got 128 mb of VRAM.

Now when I look there is no BTO offer for the graphics card and only the 9700 is offered in the PB.
Questions:
Is this new card the snazzy new card that was annouced at WWDC that costs like $600? that couldn't be right.

Anyway, is the card I have as good as the new one that's being offered, or did I miss out on this great new addition to its performance (and what's better about it if it is better) ? I assume also that the card I got is much better than the NVDIA GForce that came standard?



Thanks! :confused:

[crazzyeddie]

I purchased my 15" rev C PB just under 30 days ago, the BTO options were the (I think this was it but I can't find it anywhere) NVdia GForce, ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 pro, or ATI Mobility Radeon 9800 pro.

I went with the 9600 at extra cost since so many people advised that this was a big step up from the NVDIA and I'm going to be using it for video so I wanted to get the best possible card (though it seems the difference betw. the 9600 and 9800 wasn't that big). I also got 128 mb of VRAM.

Now when I look there is no BTO offer for the graphics card and only the 9700 is offered in the PB.
Questions:
Is this new card the snazzy new card that was annouced at WWDC that costs like $600? that couldn't be right.

Anyway, is the card I have as good as the new one that's being offered, or did I miss out on this great new addition to its performance (and what's better about it if it is better) ? I assume also that the card I got is much better than the NVDIA GForce that came standard?



Thanks! :confused:

Uh... there has never been a BTO option for graphics cards on a Powerbook (other than the VRAM on the current model) because graphics cards are not interchangeable on any Apple laptops.

[crazzyeddie]

It seems to me that this is more important for gamers, than someone liek myself that is more interested in Adobe PS CS (for photo work) and InDesign CS. Or am I wrong?

The other question in regards to these two cards is with Tiger and Core Images. Given the two apps that I am most interested in will it give any additional benefit by have the ATI with 64mb or 128mb RAM? I guess the unanswered question is how quickly will Adobe update to take advantage of Core Images.

Any insight would be helpful.

Ok... I'm going to correct everyone in this thread because many of them are wrong. Any current card can drive 2D graphics with NO problem. It doesn't matter if you have an external display, what resolution you're running, etc... 2D is a non-issue with today's graphics cards. However, Core Image may have differences because it is almost 100% graphics card dependent, unlike most 2D graphics programs (read: Photoshop, Illlustrator, InDesign) which are 99% CPU driven. The ONLY way applications like those use the graphics card is via Quartz Extreme, which is also a non-issue with any current computer.

The only reason Core Image does not support cards lower than the Radeon 9600 or FX5200 is because of programable pixel shaders. I don't know how much actual GPU horsepower Core Image uses- but my guess is: not that much. That being said, Apple MAY release newer versions of Core Image, or if you start applying many many filters at the same time, GPU horsepower and VRAM will certainly come into play.

If you want this machine to last, the Radeon 9700 Mobile is currently THE best mobile GPU available, so you can't go wrong with it. The Nvidia 5200 is the minimum graphics card that Apple could use in the 12" Powerbook and get away with it. Its not that powerful at all, and probably will not be useful for as long for high-res complicated graphics.

[soccerfan]

Hold on a minute!

OK, I'm about to buy a 12" PB and and one of the reasons is that my understanding was that the Nvidia is significantly better than what is inside any of the iBooks.

Is this the case or not?

I want to run dual monitors, use 2D applications, use Macromedia Flash (no gaming, no 3D rendering).

I specifically figured that this card would give it more life than any of the iBooks.

You all are making the Nvidia sound like an absolute piece of horse manure - is it really THAT bad?

[absolut_mac]

nVidia all the way if you want lousy unreliable support and performance.

On the other hand, if you want an excellent product backed up by a professional company that actually cares about their customers, then get the ATI.

And yes, I've had both and trust me, there is zero comparison!!!

[Chip NoVaMac]

i was just about to buy a 12" pb until i read this lol.Is it that bad of a card (5200 nvidia).Also when hooked up to the external how slow and choppy is it?

I have a rev. B 12" with 32mb. The chop is only evident to me when I switch between the spanning and non-spanning to see what people are talking about. Otherwise I knew nothing when I first started spanning and using Expose.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Definitely go for the Nvidia card. That's one of the reasons I went with the 12" instead of the 15".

Can you elaborate?

The FX5200 is a pretty sad card in terms of performance. ATi has always had better 2D, so if you are hooking an extra monitor to the system, I would want something a bit more powerful. The mobile 9700 is a great performer, not just in games but also in terms of 3D rendering/modeling. If you are getting the Mobile 9700, adding the extra memory is $50, which will improve longevity and will increase the resale value later on. If I were getting it, I would splurge on the extra memory just because it isn't something I can add on later to the system...that and the fact that I already have!

So far in single and spanning modes i have not seen too much of a difference with my 12" rev. B. My concern is one of being able to take advantage of the 9700 today with PS and InDesign (both CS), and next year with Tiger and Core Image. Like I said the open question is how soon would Adobe take advantage of Core Image.

[furrina]

Uh... there has never been a BTO option for graphics cards on a Powerbook (other than the VRAM on the current model) because graphics cards are not interchangeable on any Apple laptops.


ok, oops, I spent so much time comparison shopping that I got confused. I was either thinking of the fact that the 15" has a better one than the 12", or about the BTO options on the G5 that I was going to get. :eek: You know how it works: Put it together, think about it. Put it together, think about it. etc. etc... :rolleyes:

[AngeredTree]

Hold on a minute!

OK, I'm about to buy a 12" PB and and one of the reasons is that my understanding was that the Nvidia is significantly better than what is inside any of the iBooks.

Is this the case or not?

I want to run dual monitors, use 2D applications, use Macromedia Flash (no gaming, no 3D rendering).

I specifically figured that this card would give it more life than any of the iBooks.

You all are making the Nvidia sound like an absolute piece of horse manure - is it really THAT bad?
I believe that the Mobility Radeon 9200 currently in the iBook is inferior to the Nvidia card currently in the 12" PowerBook. I certainly hope that the people in this thread are not suggesting to you that EVERY ATi card is better than EVERY Nvidia card...

[psycho bob]

I believe that the Mobility Radeon 9200 currently in the iBook is inferior to the Nvidia card currently in the 12" PowerBook. I certainly hope that the people in this thread are not suggesting to you that EVERY ATi card is better than EVERY Nvidia card...

No we're not (well I'm not). The 6800 is far better at Open GL tasks than the X800 probably why apple chose for the 30 inch panels. The 9700 mobility is without doubt a better card than the FX5200 I don't think anyone could logically disagree. When it comes to mobile chipsets ATI do seem to have an edge certainly in recent years anyway.

[Chip NoVaMac]

If you want a 12 inch then you have no choice but to go with the Nvidia card. The ATI card is by far the better card but your only driving a 1024x768 screen so it really won't tax it. Even if you have a external screen it won't prove a problem. My Rev A 17 inch has a woeful card considering the market it was aimed at but it works quite happily.
Don't worry about it, all current laptop graphics cards are supported in Tiger. The speed of the CPU is a far more important factor than the graphics card. The longevity of a machine is normally determined by brute horsepower, the GPU just determines how much eye candy you can see.
If you want a larger machine and have the money go with the 15 inch if not get the 12 and plenty of RAM.
As for the difference between 64 and 128MB the difference in most apps especially the adobe ones you mention will be small (less than 10% at the mo), but if you go with the 1.5GHz model than for the minimal amount it costs max it out.

And that is where I am going with my questions - the eye candy factor. Eye candy can also be a productivity factor as well.

Maybe I should explain a bit more my thoughts so far. I love the form factor of the 12" PB. I have a Leeds leather organizer that is perfect for work. My papers and computer are at the ready for my advertising planning meetigs.

The pricing difference between the 15" and 17" (EDU) is minor at this point. There is a wow factor to the 17" screen. But more than that, i plan on upgrading to Tiger ASAP. The OS portions are interesting and "productive' for me maybe. But if it is going to take Adobe 2 years or so to take advantage of Core Image, then I don't see the benefit of the 9700 vs. 5200. I am repeating myself, but it seem that the benefit of the 9700 is for gamers. The Apple statement that I posted originally seems to state that too me (since I am not into 3D graphic creation).

To be honest for the cost I would do the 128mb VRAM if I can get a better idea that the 9700 is that much better of a card for PS and InDesign.

Thanks to everyone so far for the insight.

[soccerfan]

Bottom line for a guy just about to buy a 12" PB (that's me...) please...

Where am I going to feel pain for having this chip instead of moving up to the 15"?

I guess what I'm asking is this:

Is this a big enough issue to warrant making a sacrifice and trying to move up to the 15"? I really want to go with the 12" but if it's THAT big of a deal, then maybe I'd find a way to do it...

Thoughts? Is this a big enough deal to seriously sink going for a 12"?

[Chip NoVaMac]

If you want this machine to last, the Radeon 9700 Mobile is currently THE best mobile GPU available, so you can't go wrong with it. The Nvidia 5200 is the minimum graphics card that Apple could use in the 12" Powerbook and get away with it. Its not that powerful at all, and probably will not be useful for as long for high-res complicated graphics.

Thanks a great explanation on the stuff that i did not reference back to in this post.

I think that one of my other issues is that in my experience in the PC world if i got 2 to 3 years off a laptop I was doing great. PC desktops were never an issue since i was bale to update the graphics and such.

What I am getting from your post is that I should expect that my rev. B or C PB should last 3 to 6 years without "major" issue. So unless I can be easily tempted by performance gains by the G6 6ghz PB in 2006 or 2007, your statement seems to say that the rev. C 15" or 17" are the best bets for the mobile user that is looking for longer term (I'll admit that I might have made some different choices last Xmas in regards to my PB 12").

As I said in a post above, I really love the 12" PB form factor. Though I see the benefit for me to stay with a notebook (at any screen size) as opposed to going with a PM G5 dual unit (though that would be so sweet) or the rumored iMac G5. Since I have other monitors here, I am just trying to make sure that the $800 is worth it for a .2 processor speed increase and the better video card. For me it would be just a wow factor of the 17" verses the 12".

To be honest if Apple offered the 12' with even just the 9700 at 64mb there would be no question in my mind. I am concerned that in the next year or two that my PS and InDesign performance could be increased by 30 to 50% if I had chosen the 9700 vs. the 5200.

Again many thanks to all that are helping answer my questions here. Apple always seems to give us trade offs. :)

[Chip NoVaMac]

nVidia all the way if you want lousy unreliable support and performance.

On the other hand, if you want an excellent product backed up by a professional company that actually cares about their customers, then get the ATI.

And yes, I've had both and trust me, there is zero comparison!!!

Care to explain further?

I see very few comments here in Mac Rumors complaining about reliability of the graphic cards in iBooks or Powerbooks.

At least for myself when I buy a notebook computer either the graphic card is what I need or or not. Never really concerned myself with the graphics card when buying a PC notebook. It is only now that I am in the Mac Rumors forum that the graphics card choice seems to be so very important.

You mention level of concern for customers as a reason to go with ATI. But for PB users IMO that seems to be a transparent issue. Where is my thinking wrong?

[nyprospect]

It depends what you are going to do with your powerbook.If your not gonna crunch serious numbers then go for it.I thought about going for a 15 maxed.leaving a hole in my pocket and heart.Although i would probably be set for years to come with the 15.I just may go for a 12.If you want it get it.I once used an compaq ipaq internet appliance lcd display of 10 inches and i was all happy about it.5 years ago

[Chip NoVaMac]

No we're not (well I'm not). The 6800 is far better at Open GL tasks than the X800 probably why apple chose for the 30 inch panels. The 9700 mobility is without doubt a better card than the FX5200 I don't think anyone could logically disagree. When it comes to mobile chipsets ATI do seem to have an edge certainly in recent years anyway.

Can you explain further between the 9700 and 5200 for non-gamers as why ATI has the edge?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Bottom line for a guy just about to buy a 12" PB (that's me...) please...

Where am I going to feel pain for having this chip instead of moving up to the 15"?

I guess what I'm asking is this:

Is this a big enough issue to warrant making a sacrifice and trying to move up to the 15"? I really want to go with the 12" but if it's THAT big of a deal, then maybe I'd find a way to do it...

Thoughts? Is this a big enough deal to seriously sink going for a 12"?

You and I are in the same place. My rev. B has served me well so far. But as I have already said I have learned from my first purchase. And since we are adding a second machine, I want to make sure that I just don't go with the wrong graphic card.

Like I said in the first post I hoped that I didn't open a can of worms.

[BrianKonarsMac]

my 12" rev c powers a 1280x1024 17 apple lcd with no stuttering, choppiness, etc. It runs absolutely fine. That being said however, anything that taxes the GPU heavily will definitely not run very smooth on a 5200. For instance, when i run the iTunes visuals in full screen (1280x1024) with anti-aliasing, I get low fps (typically in the upper teens to 30, but that's a rare case, it's usually in the mid 20s), on the powerbook itself (1024x768) i get closer to 60. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE 5200 for regular applications and general use of the OS. gaming is another story. the 9700 features are more gaming oriented, but it will also show you some muscle in things such as full screen visuals etc. I chose the 12" for portability (i take it everywhere, and i can't imagine using a 15 or 17" on my actual lap) it handles anything i throw at it and I really have nothing to complain about since it's supported (albeit the bare minimum) by Core Image. I can't help but wish i had a ATI 9700 in here tho. If your just using design apps, and other software, the 9700 is overkill. Upgrading to 128mb will only help high resolution GPU tasks, but for $50, why wouldn't you upgrade?

Consensus:
FX5200Go - not as ****ty as everyone makes it out to be.
ATi 9700 - Clearly better, but overkill for non-gamers (if you play warcraft 3 only, like myself, your not really a mac gamer...just a blizzard fan boy :D)

[BrianKonarsMac]

Can you explain further between the 9700 and 5200 for non-gamers as why ATI has the edge? it's a more "current" chip, but for non-gamers...they'll both do everything fine. I have zero complaints about my 5200.

[bousozoku]

Can you explain further between the 9700 and 5200 for non-gamers as why ATI has the edge?

In that case, there might not be too much of an edge. It depends on how much Quartz Extreme makes use of the GPU and whether DVD Player makes use of it for video decoding.

I was concerned about the video capabilities and, for longevity, the ATI GPU has the edge but I don't think it's going to matter that much. I was planning to use a machine for some graphic design and photography and maybe some gameplay, so I think the 12 inch machine will be more than adequate.

[TDM21]

My my how the tides have turned; Everybody talking praise about Ati and crap about Nvidia. Why I remember back in the day (2 to 3 years ago) when people were talking the opisite; Nvidia rocked and Ati was a load of crap. What could happen next?

[MikeLaRiviere]

This is slighly off-topic, but I am curious whether anyone has noticed any choppiness in Expose with the latest PB 12" (nVidia card). I had an 800 MHz iBook 12" with the ATI 9200, and this PB seems to exhibit choppy Expose functioning. Perhaps I'm imagining it, or it may be an issue with vertical sync, but I'm curious if anyone else has experienced this issue.

To address the vein of the post, I must say that the 12" PowerBook can't be beat for portability. The 15" would be a great desktop replacement/light travel computer. However, I used my 12" iBook on the couch, at the desk, in the car, and in the air. So far I've used the 12" PowerBook on the couch, at the desk, in the car, and at work - it's my primary computer in every sense of the word. I can't imagine that you'd get that kind of versatility with the 15" or 17" PowerBooks.

Mike LaRiviere

[zakee00]

Can you explain further between the 9700 and 5200 for non-gamers as why ATI has the edge?
AKA, ati's top mobile cards have been faster than nvidias top mobile cards in the past few years. looks like its going to stay this way. i am an ati fan, just because i have had some bad experences with defective nvidas. this is with pc's though, i dunno about macs...i would still rather have an ati. yeah..there are some people here that are right, and some people that need to get theyre facts straight...the 9700 IS the fastest MOBILE card available right now. getting a 64mb version is KILLING it IMO, get the 128mb unless you REALLY dont need it. if you are doing mostly 2D work, you really dont need to worry about the graphics cards...the fx5200 does suck, but hey i think its compatable with coreimage. if you are really worried about future compatablity (coreimage), then why are you looking at a 12" in the first place? totally get a 15", they are great. i cant awnser all of your questions here, if you would like to talk, feel free to MSN me, or email me. im pretty much a gaming nerd/mac fan so i know all about this stuff :D

[zakee00]

my 12" rev c powers a 1280x1024 17 apple lcd with no stuttering, choppiness, etc. It runs absolutely fine. That being said however, anything that taxes the GPU heavily will definitely not run very smooth on a 5200. For instance, when i run the iTunes visuals in full screen (1280x1024) with anti-aliasing, I get low fps (typically in the upper teens to 30, but that's a rare case, it's usually in the mid 20s), on the powerbook itself (1024x768) i get closer to 60. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE 5200 for regular applications and general use of the OS. gaming is another story. the 9700 features are more gaming oriented, but it will also show you some muscle in things such as full screen visuals etc. I chose the 12" for portability (i take it everywhere, and i can't imagine using a 15 or 17" on my actual lap) it handles anything i throw at it and I really have nothing to complain about since it's supported (albeit the bare minimum) by Core Image. I can't help but wish i had a ATI 9700 in here tho. If your just using design apps, and other software, the 9700 is overkill. Upgrading to 128mb will only help high resolution GPU tasks, but for $50, why wouldn't you upgrade?

Consensus:
FX5200Go - not as ****ty as everyone makes it out to be.
ATi 9700 - Clearly better, but overkill for non-gamers (if you play warcraft 3 only, like myself, your not really a mac gamer...just a blizzard fan boy :D)
ok i have a few gripes here..."the 9700 is more gaming oriented"
well, coreimage basicly is taking advantage of this. the 9700's shader proformance totally kills the 5200, so it would be much better for coreimage.
"i take it everywhere, and i can't imagine using a 15 or 17" on my actual lap"
i own a 15", and it is great for portability...i use it mostly as a desktop, but it fits fine on my lapthe extra screen space in my eyes is worth it, 12" would kill me even for doing everyday stuff.
"If your just using design apps, and other software, the 9700 is overkill. Upgrading to 128mb will only help high resolution GPU tasks, but for $50, why wouldn't you upgrade?"
when adobe intagrates coreimage into photoshop, then your extra money you spent on a 9700 isnt wasted...its put to good use (if you use adobe products). upgrading to 128mb is mostly for gaming, but i would imagine that in future os upgrades apple will take advantage of GPU's more and put this extra memory to good use. but yes, right now a 9700 is "overkill" for design apps, and probably will be for some time.
"THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE 5200 for regular applications and general use of the OS."
well, with tiger "regular use of the OS" includes expose, and GPU taxing stuff like coreimage and corevideo. the 9700 would fare (much?) better here than the 5200.
i understand your point, but im just saying that in the future GPU's are going to matter more then they do today i think.plus we are talking about laptops, you are stuck with this grafx card till you decide to upgrade. i guess if you must have the 12", then you will have to buy another computer sooner to stay "up to date" then if you bought a 15".
just my point of view.

[zakee00]

This is slighly off-topic, but I am curious whether anyone has noticed any choppiness in Expose with the latest PB 12" (nVidia card). I had an 800 MHz iBook 12" with the ATI 9200, and this PB seems to exhibit choppy Expose functioning. Perhaps I'm imagining it, or it may be an issue with vertical sync, but I'm curious if anyone else has experienced this issue.

To address the vein of the post, I must say that the 12" PowerBook can't be beat for portability. The 15" would be a great desktop replacement/light travel computer. However, I used my 12" iBook on the couch, at the desk, in the car, and in the air. So far I've used the 12" PowerBook on the couch, at the desk, in the car, and at work - it's my primary computer in every sense of the word. I can't imagine that you'd get that kind of versatility with the 15" or 17" PowerBooks.

Mike LaRiviere
mikelariviere@mac.com
again, my 15" is great for portability..i do all of the things you do with your 12". on the plane, its a little bit scrunched but i have a "better viewing experence" then you when im watching DVD's ;)

[zakee00]

My my how the tides have turned; Everybody talking praise about Ati and crap about Nvidia. Why I remember back in the day (2 to 3 years ago) when people were talking the opisite; Nvidia rocked and Ati was a load of crap. What could happen next?
thats because recently ati has cleaned up its act, and nvidia has gotten worse lol. it happens. nvidia isnt a "load of crap", but i like ati more. same proformance essentially, better drivers and support. thats in the windows world anyway, dunno about macs.

[yamabushi]

If you like the 12" PB form factor, then that is what you should use. The main benefit of the 15" or 17" PB for you would be the larger display. The NV5200 has a modern feature set that will allow it to take advantage of Core Image to some degree but its performance is roughly in the same class as the Ati 9200. This is good enough for most 2D work, especially on the 12" display. The Ati will have better perfomance across the board but you may only notice the difference when spanning to a high resolution external display. Apps that use 3D hardware acceleration will have much better performance with either version of the Ati9700, with the 128MB being slightly better than the 64MB.

[Rod Rod]

When I first got my IBM P260 21" CRT last week, I tested it at various resolutions.

I set up my 12" 1.33GHz PowerBook on an iCurve, on top of the monitor with its lid closed.

Here are the various resolutions and refresh rates observed:

2048x1536 @ 60Hz
1920x1440 @ 75Hz
1600x1200 @ 90Hz
1280x1024 @ 100Hz
1024x768 @ 120Hz

Incidentally, IBM specifies the P260's maximum resolution as 1920x1440. But my PowerBook can drive it to an even higher resolution. I'm impressed by the high refresh rates. I run it at 1600x1200.

I'm not a gamer, as the only games on my PB are Chess and Pac the Man 2. Pac the Man 2 sometimes runs choppy on the built-in LCD, but it's perfectly smooth on the 1600x1200 CRT.

In conclusion, the nVidia FX Go5200 isn't total crap, as noted above. Also, if I had a 15" or 17" PB, I'd most likely run it with its lid closed as well, sitting on top of my huge CRT most of the time. My next CRT will hopefully be the 24" widescreen Sony GDM FW900.

[tekno_geek911]

The 9700 is definately superior but the 5200 isnt nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be,I actually think its pretty decent...I use to say it was garbage too when I had a Rev B 12",then I got a new Rev C 12" PB last week...It handles everything I throw at it and it runs all the games I play without any slow downs at all(UT2K4,Call Of Duty,Halo,C&C Generals,RTCW). The 5200 is in allot of the modern portables on the market(Mac&PC) so it cant be that bad!

[johnnyjibbs]

I have the 12" PB rev B (1GHz processor with nVidia 5200 GO 32MB VRAM).

It's ok for games - Sim City 4 is fine, Unreal 2004 runs perfectly well too. However, I'm not much of a gamer (aside from consoles) so I'm not that bothered about games performance.

I've found absolutely no problems with expose, photoshop, Quartz Extreme or dual displays. The only thing I've found is that when you hook up a second monitor and use spanning, the VRAM gets divided into 2, one for each display. In the case of my machine, that means each screen gets 16MB of VRAM to play with, which is the minimum for Quartz Extreme. I've noticed that expose is not quite as fluid, but it's hardly a big deal. The point is, the new rev C 12" PB has 64MB of VRAM now so you'd get double - 32 available to each screen.

The 5200 GO may not be anything compared to the ATI 9700 mobility but it is MORE than adequate for all uses other than perhaps the most taxing games.

Bottom line, the 12" PB is a great computer and offers great performance and portability (and style!). Don't let a few naysayers put you off because it apprently has a "crap" video card. And the 5200 GO does support Tiger CoreImage.

[BrianKonarsMac]

as both you and i have said, the GPU will become more important as apple continues to incorporate it into the core functions of the OS. the 5200 has no problems handling expose, core image, etc. so i don't see your rational for having to upgrade sooner, your 15" will need to be upgraded just as soon to take advantage of the next OS's features (10.5?) such as 64 bit etc. you say WHEN adobe integrates CoreImage? IF they integrate core image that is...don't forget they make software for Windows as well, and CoreImage isn't a windows technology. Not to mention Adobe isn't exactly a huge supporter of Apple since Apple has begun killing several aspects of their business, and even if they do, the 5200 supports CoreImage, so this is a moot point...CoreImage from the Tiger demo runs fine on my 12" currently, you can only assume when it's officially released it will be further optimized. Perhaps the 9700 will "fare better" but it's not as if the 5200 will run CoreImage choppily, when Apple states the card is supported, they tend to mean it can run the features AS INTENDED, not half assed. If you recall you can use hacks to aquire video mirroring and Expose on unsupported graphics cards, but HERE it runs choppily, because they are not supported (doesn't mean they AREN'T CAPABLE, they just aren't capable of running it AS INTENDED without stuttering and dropping frames).

Yes Macs can RUN games, but nowhere near on par with a PC, it's slowly getting better, but we're talking slow like glass (which yes...is a "liquid" :P). I wish it weren't true since i too am a gaming nerd/mac fan, and i'd love to rock out to some Halo (2?) on my 17" lcd, but unfortunately I'm forced to use an xbox to get "decent" gaming (the library is horrible...i own two decent games, halo and ninja gaiden). Alot of it has to do with M$ and DirectX 9 support, because Mac's are excellent at floating point calculations...which is what games use heavily, so a Mac SHOULD crush a PC in a perfect world.

I'm glad you enjoy your 15" it's an excellent computer, but it's not exactly a true portable in my opinion. I'm already cramped as it is on a train with my 12", the 15" wouldn't even fit (the monitor would be pressed up against the seat in front of me) and the 17...well forget about it. I do agree the 15" screen is GORGEOUS (wide aspect ratio) but I travel alot and really appreciate the small size. When i'm not traveling I connect to an external monitor because I have to agree that 1024x768 is FAR TOO SMALL to do serious design work. It does however make an excellent palette screen :D. For web browsing, email, chat, video, etc. it's perfect, but when I have Director open with the stage, score, cast, etc. it can get ugly really quick. the 12" is not what i'd consider a true DESKTOP replacement (meaning no external monitor, keyboard, or mouse) but it makes an excellent slim CPU when i'm at my desk and can hook up to my LCD, Apple keyboard and bluetooth mouse.

To answer Chips question again...both graphics cards support CoreImage and all the features of the current OS (10.3) as well as Tiger (10.4). If you really want a 12" DO NOT FRET OVER THE 5200fx, many people like to crap on it cuz it's Nvidia or its "only" 64mb or whatever, the truth of the matter is it handles all my tasks with aplomb, you'd see a larger speed increase by swapping the hard drive for a mobile 7200rpm. Nvidia also tends to have better OpenGL support, which is what Mac OS X uses, so i'll let you draw your conclusions from that.

i doubt you'll notice the difference between the 12" and 15" graphic cards aside from HEAVILY GPU TAXING TASKS (no expose does not heavily tax the GPU, i'm talking about full screen visuals on an external monitor with anti aliasing where you need above 30fps or it'll look slow) CoreImage isn't exactly GPU taxing either, it requires the latest graphics technology (pixel level shaders) which is why you need a current card.

sry if i came off like a @$$ but i think people give the 5200 alot more flak then it deserves.

[blackfox]

Hey Chip, why might you just not wait till the next PB revision, around the beginning of 2005...only about six months to wait, and depending on timing you may get Tiger included...a revised GPU for the 12" (well, all probably)...(I choose not to speculate about CPU changes)...just a thought. Just in case you were not willing to settle...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Hey Chip, why might you just not wait till the next PB revision, around the beginning of 2005...only about six months to wait, and depending on timing you may get Tiger included...a revised GPU for the 12" (well, all probably)...(I choose not to speculate about CPU changes)...just a thought. Just in case you were not willing to settle...

Actually, I was thinking along those lines. But I was assuming that the next updates would be Sept or Oct of this year.

[BrianKonarsMac]

i wouldn't assume anything, we all expected the G5 to be at 3ghz by now, but they're having issues with the 90nm at 2.5, and that is a full year after they hit 2.0 (while they still sell a 2.0 for mid range). the next powerbook may be delayed until they can get to the g5, which will be much longer than everyone is expecting. although it's sound advice (wait for next revision) you may be waiting a long long time, then again, it cold only be three months, but more likely 9 to 12 until it actually ships.

take this with a grain of salt, im just saying this because i'll be bitter if they come out with Powerbook G5's in september ;), if your not in a rush and have no qualms about waiting, it's always better to hold off until the next revision.