PDA

View Full Version : Apple OEM 9600XT


daveL
Oct 18, 2004, 06:38 PM
I normally don't post negatively about Apple, so I'm not trolling.

That said, I discovered today, while researching the ATIcceleratorII utility, that the 9600XT in the PM G5 is running the GPU @ 400 MHz and the graphics memory @ 310 MHz. The utility mentioned above lets you change these clocks on the fly, but people are reporting that they really can't get stable operation much above 460/355 MHz GPU/memory, respectively. OK, now I go to the ATI page for the 9600xx family, and I find that a standard 9600XT runs the GPU @ 500 MHZ and memory @ 600 MHz! Not only is the GPU and memory down-clocked, but the relationship between the GPU and memory clocks are inverted! Since the stock (ATI) card runs the memory clock faster than the GPU, one would conclude that the GPU is stalling badly on the Apple 9600XT due to a *much* lower memory bandwidth.

All this would be fine and dandy if Apple didn't make a point of calling this card a 9600XT. Again, going back to the ATI page for the 9600xx, I find that the 9600SE, the *really* cheap one, runs the GPU @ 400 MHz and memory @ 325 MHz. The only difference between the ATI 9600SE and the Apple 9600XT is that the Apple card has a 128-bit memory path vs. 64-bit for the SE, although Apple runs that at an even slower clock speed. In my mind, this is simply false advertising, since Apple is very clearly *not* providing a 9600XT, but rather something with *much* less performance.

Comments? If I'm missing something, I'd really like to hear about it (benchmarks, for instance). I'm seriously considering pitching a hissy fit with Apple over this. After all, we're talking about a US$ 3000 machine here!

daveL
Oct 18, 2004, 07:05 PM
In case anyone's interested, here's the ATI 9600xx product spec page.

http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9600/radeon9600pro/compare.html

Dr. No
Oct 20, 2004, 07:57 PM
I have noticed this too. Just look at hardmac.com (English Macbidouille).

Revised-- How is the actual performance of this card?? Is it much faster than the FX 5200??






Any thoughts :confused:

daveL
Oct 20, 2004, 10:16 PM
I have noticed this too. Just look at hardmac.com (English Macbidouille).

Revised-- How is the actual performance of this card?? Is it much faster than the FX 5200??


Any thoughts :confused:
No idea. I have no experience with the FX 5200.

I've been surprised by the lack of interest in this thread. I would expect the trolls to come rushing in, if nothing else. I certainly feel short-changed, and I'm a *very* big Mac fan (from a Unix background). An ATI 9600XT is an ATI 9600XT or it isn't, and the Apple OEM 9600XT isn't. At a minimum of a 20% performance hit (GPU clock frequency only, not memory), we are not talking about a trivial difference here.

Does this make me feel good about buying the Apple OEM nVidia 6800 Ultra at US$ 600? How do I know it isn't crippled as well? This is one of those cheap shots that just changes the way you perceive a brand (no, I have *no* intention of switching back to M$). I understand Apple's concerns about heat, fan noise, etc. but if you are going to down-spec a product (model #) you should be forthright enough to say so and justify your reasoning. I know, I'm a purist, idealist or whatever, but give me a break: I just want accurate information.

Dr. No
Oct 20, 2004, 11:17 PM
I have heard that the geForce 6 Mac products are NOT crippled.

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/nvidia_Mac_6800_ultraQandA.html#storytop


As for the 9600, it looks like it was underclocked so it will use a passive coling solution (no fan). But ATi says the difference between the 9600 family is only the clockspeed, so I don't exactly get why it is called 9600XT. But there could be a reason...

That makes me wonder if the 9800XT is underclocked (???), but it has a large fan. Maybe it isn't. Anyone have any insight on that?????

invaLPsion
Oct 21, 2004, 12:05 AM
I normally don't post negatively about Apple, so I'm not trolling.

That said, I discovered today, while researching the ATIcceleratorII utility, that the 9600XT in the PM G5 is running the GPU @ 400 MHz and the graphics memory @ 310 MHz. The utility mentioned above lets you change these clocks on the fly, but people are reporting that they really can't get stable operation much above 460/355 MHz GPU/memory, respectively. OK, now I go to the ATI page for the 9600xx family, and I find that a standard 9600XT runs the GPU @ 500 MHZ and memory @ 600 MHz! Not only is the GPU and memory down-clocked, but the relationship between the GPU and memory clocks are inverted! Since the stock (ATI) card runs the memory clock faster than the GPU, one would conclude that the GPU is stalling badly on the Apple 9600XT due to a *much* lower memory bandwidth.


Mmmkkkk...

Apple's 9600XT card's GPU is downclocked by 100MHz, but the memory is actually operating at 621MHz because the DDR must be taken into account. I plan on modding by graphics card with an ATi Silencer to allow for an overclock to 540 GPU, 800 Memory. I'll let everyone know how it goes.

daveL
Oct 21, 2004, 11:33 AM
Mmmkkkk...

Apple's 9600XT card's GPU is downclocked by 100MHz, but the memory is actually operating at 621MHz because the DDR must be taken into account. I plan on modding by graphics card with an ATi Silencer to allow for an overclock to 540 GPU, 800 Memory. I'll let everyone know how it goes.
With DDR it's difficult to tell what specs are being given. From what you said, it appears the ATI 9600XT specs, which say 600MHz memory clock, are already taking DDR into account, while ATIccelerator reports a 310 MHz memory clock for the Apple OEM card. Seems a bit strange that Apple would actually run the memory clock 3.3% faster while they down-clock the GPU by 20%. What's the point? The OC stuff I've read on this card seems to show there's no gain in performance when you boast the GPU clock without a proportional increase in the memory clock (makes sense to me). This indicates, however, that the GPU is stalling on memory accesses. So, why run DDR memory @ 620 MHz (vs stock 600), but down-clock the GPU by 20%? This doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, I guess I've managed to beat this one to death.

7on
Oct 21, 2004, 11:39 AM
Apple also requires their video cards to be "optimised" for graphic/video work. As in I guess fast 2-D draw time. Because of this, game performance goes down.