PDA

View Full Version : what graphics card do you recommend?


MrSugar
Aug 4, 2004, 08:25 AM
So I searched around and couldn't find anything specific so here is my question.

I currently have a G5 with a 23" and a 9600 pro, I am very happy with it. However, I am looking to upgrade my graphics card sometime soon. One of the factors I want to consider is what would be needed to run dual 23"'s--while I may not be able to afford it right now, I would someday like to have that set up.

So what should I be looking into for something like this? I would like to be able to run games like Doom3 and at the same time also have OS X's GUI run smooth even if it's on dual 23" displays.

Your insight is appreciated!

Mord
Aug 4, 2004, 08:28 AM
two choices a 9800se and a 6800ultra the ultra wont come out till late september but you can get the 9800se now from www.macsales.com it's around $380

the 6800 you can get from apple for $600 this card being nearly twice as fast as a 9800se this is the best

FriarCrazy
Aug 4, 2004, 08:34 AM
6800 if you've got the money. There is no way to go wrong with that card.

MrSugar
Aug 4, 2004, 08:35 AM
Okay, so I am curious as to know what people's expiriences are with ATI and NVidia. If the 9800se or XT and the 6800 are my only viable choices right now.

Personally when I was a Win user I used a lot of Nvidia cards and they ran really well, but I have heard on Mac that ATI is better overall in performance and stability (at least when the cards are comparable to each other).

Also, have there been any leaks or plans by ATI to have a X800 come out for Mac, anyone know?

osprey76
Aug 4, 2004, 10:22 AM
On the PC side you have several nVidia manufacturers (PNY, Verto, et al.), but on the Mac only Apple makes nVidia cards and updates the drivers (I would imagine with some input from nVidia.) ATi is the only non-Apple video card maker on the Mac platform.

The X800 is surely coming to the Mac, but there hasn't been any timelines released yet.

neoelectronaut
Aug 4, 2004, 02:18 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say just to get the ATi 9800. It'll be more than sufficient to run Doom3, and unless you plan on getting a 30" display, the 6800 is an extra $250 or so that you don't really need to spend.

In other words, it's rather overkill. Get the 9800, get it's use out of it, and in 2 years of get the 6800, which may be about half the price by then. :)

vraxtus
Aug 4, 2004, 02:55 PM
So I searched around and couldn't find anything specific so here is my question.

I currently have a G5 with a 23" and a 9600 pro, I am very happy with it. However, I am looking to upgrade my graphics card sometime soon. One of the factors I want to consider is what would be needed to run dual 23"'s--while I may not be able to afford it right now, I would someday like to have that set up.

So what should I be looking into for something like this? I would like to be able to run games like Doom3 and at the same time also have OS X's GUI run smooth even if it's on dual 23" displays.

Your insight is appreciated!


After reading these other posts... no offense but some of you guys don't seem to know what you're talking about.

First, the 6800 ULTRA is dual link DVI ONLY.

Secondly, it eats up a PCI slot... not so good.

Third, the Rad9800 SE is IMO a great card... I have it in my SP 1.8, and have very few problems, save for some blue flashing pixel noise which I've yet to reconcile.

Fourth, you can get the 9800 SE at Buy.com for about $350 with the $10 new buyer discount.

Doom 3 won't run *great* on that card but for what you want it's a good option, since I'm assuming you have the ADC 23" and not the new DVI one only.

crazzyeddie
Aug 4, 2004, 02:59 PM
After reading these other posts... no offense but some of you guys don't seem to know what you're talking about.

First, the 6800 ULTRA is dual link DVI ONLY.


After reading that, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Dual Link DVI uses the same connector (shape + pin config) as standard DVI, it just uses all of the pins on the connector. The 6800 is indeed capable and the only card currently able to run two 23" displays without an adapter for one of the two ports.

vraxtus
Aug 4, 2004, 03:00 PM
After reading that, I think you don't know what you're talking about. Dual Link DVI uses the same connector (shape + pin config) as standard DVI, it just uses all of the pins on the connector. The 6800 is indeed capable and the only card currently cable of running two 23" displays without an adapter for one of the two ports.

...And why would he want one with 2 DVI ports when he has an ADC monitor????? (I'm making that assumption)

-_-


The Rad is a much better option for his rig, since it has an ADC AND DVI port. He can just get a newer 23 later on and hook it up. No big deal.

crazzyeddie
Aug 4, 2004, 03:03 PM
...And why would he want one with 2 DVI ports when he has an ADC monitor????? (I'm making that assumption)

-_-


The Rad is a much better option for his rig, since it has an ADC AND DVI port. He can just get a newer 23 later on and hook it up. No big deal.

I'm assuming that he has a new 23", so either one of us could be right. However, the 6800 is still 2 times faster than the 9800se (but twice as expensive). If you want the play Doom3 on one of those 23" displays at native res, you will need a 6800 for anything more than 5fps.

Also, who really needs 3 PCI-X slots? The only add-on card you could possibly need on a G5 would be a TV card or 10gb ethernet card (maybe SCSI, but its a dying breed).

vraxtus
Aug 4, 2004, 03:06 PM
I'm assuming that he has a new 23", so either one of us could be right. However, the 6800 is still 2 times faster than the 9800se (but twice as expensive). If you want the play Doom3 on one of those 23" displays at native res, you will need a 6800 for anything more than 5fps.

I'm assuming he has an older one, considering he's using a G5 with a Rad9600 Pro. If he purchased the monitor when he purchased that comp its more likely it's ADC since all the new ones come with the XT version.

And where do you get your facts?

Go read HardOcp or the Anandtech benches... 5fps - No offense but you have no idea what you're talking about there...

And also Doom3 wouldn't run at any of those native resolutions at that AR.

crazzyeddie
Aug 4, 2004, 03:10 PM
Did either of those sites use the 9800SE? The 9800XT is at least 10%, in some cases 25% faster than the 9800SE. Also, did they run their benchmarks at 1920 by 1200? I don't think so, since its incredibly uncommon to find a PC monitor with that res. You have to remember, even if they ran it at 1600 by 1200, you're increasing the res by 384,000 pixels at 1920 by 1200. Thats pretty significant for any graphics card, especially a 9800se (slow edition). On top of that, the PC was using DirectX, which constantly performs better than OpenGL in virtually every game.

Also, don't assume that Doom3 won't run at custom resolutions. Quake3 does (along with every game based off of the Q3 engine).

vraxtus
Aug 4, 2004, 03:13 PM
Did either of those sites use the 9800SE? The 9800XT is at least 10%, in some cases 25% faster than the 9800SE. Also, did they run their benchmarks at 1920 by 1200? I don't think so, since its incredibly uncommon to find a PC monitor with that res. You have to remember, even if they ran it at 1600 by 1200, you're increasing the res by 384,000 pixels at 1920 by 1200. Thats pretty significant for any graphics card, especially a 9800se (slow edition). On top of that, the PC was using DirectX, which constantly performs better than OpenGL in virtually every game.


OK um Doom3 currently is not meant to be run at that aspect ratio. At best you'd get 16x12. For the XT, its more like 15-20% faster... close to 25% but the gain isn't that high because the clock isn't even that much faster than the SE.

Closest they ran it at with a Rad9800 Pro 128 was on a 3200+

http://www2.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA5MDc4NzE0M1RPNjJBTU9FV1hfN185X2wuZ2lm

Avg 47 FPS at 1024x768, hi detail.

Err wow I also didn't notice that it was also using 8x AF... that prolly cost a few FPS also.

Scale that against a Mac, I'd say 15-20 avg at 16x12 medium detail. Even though it's OpenGL, Q3 performance was still up to par with most PC rigs.

Don't forget the Rad9800 SE is a Pro card as well.

crazzyeddie
Aug 4, 2004, 03:19 PM
Quake3 performs about the same on Mac vs PC because both versions use OpenGL. And Quake3 can run at any resolution that you specify. I wouldn't be surprised if id builds this into Doom3 also.

vraxtus
Aug 4, 2004, 03:26 PM
Quake3 performs about the same on Mac vs PC because both versions use OpenGL. And Quake3 can run at any resolution that you specify. I wouldn't be surprised if id builds this into Doom3 also.

It's possible, if you're interested in running it on a widescreen, check this out:
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/doom-3/535138p4.html

Mord
Aug 5, 2004, 02:46 PM
Did either of those sites use the 9800SE? The 9800XT is at least 10%, in some cases 25% faster than the 9800SE. Also, did they run their benchmarks at 1920 by 1200? I don't think so, since its incredibly uncommon to find a PC monitor with that res. You have to remember, even if they ran it at 1600 by 1200, you're increasing the res by 384,000 pixels at 1920 by 1200. Thats pretty significant for any graphics card, especially a 9800se (slow edition). On top of that, the PC was using DirectX, which constantly performs better than OpenGL in virtually every game.

Also, don't assume that Doom3 won't run at custom resolutions. Quake3 does (along with every game based off of the Q3 engine).


dont get the mac 9800se confused with the pc 9800se the pc one is slow edition (with 4 pipelines) and the mac version is an 8 pipeline card that is clocked a bit lower than an xt but uses an xt core (r360 all other 9800's use a r350 and the 9700 uses a r300) so it could be clocked higher if you really wanted to (theres an app that lets you do this).

Horrortaxi
Aug 5, 2004, 05:50 PM
If it's working for you now then I strongly suggest you don't do anything.

You don't have the dual monitors yet.

Doom 3 isn't out yet so you don't know what it'll run on.

Who knows what will happen between now and then? Save your money.