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.
Pair of PC and Mac Edition Radeon 9600s
- Thread starter bunnspecial
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For future reference, if you install leopard fresh, with a pc/mac edition 9600 card installed, you will get the crappy grey install screens, but after the first reboot, the card will work mostly normally. Install the driver then to fix the card fully.
There are a lot of reports around the internet about this card not working in Quicksilvers.
I just tried it in my QS2002, and it indeed did not work. This is despite the fact that it worked-with some fiddling-in my Digital Audio. I am using the exact same card as worked in the DA. I also tried the same tricks I used-and are suggested on the internet-including cleaning the contacts with a pencil eraser followed by alcohol and rebooting multiple times.
I didn't have my stash of PCI cards handy, but did SSH into the Quicksilver and system profiler does not register it as being installed.
In parallel with the discussion going on in another thread, the ATI Fire Gl X3-flashed with X800 ROM-that I've confirmed good in my G5 also does not show up in this computer. This is in line with others' experience.
Looks like I'm stuck with the 9600XT in the Quicksilver for the time being, which is overall not a terrible thing to be stuck with. At least it also saves me having to use the external ADC power supply with my Studio display.
Looks like my benchmark comparisons will be dependent on the PC & Mac edition working in an MDD.
I just tried it in my QS2002, and it indeed did not work. This is despite the fact that it worked-with some fiddling-in my Digital Audio. I am using the exact same card as worked in the DA. I also tried the same tricks I used-and are suggested on the internet-including cleaning the contacts with a pencil eraser followed by alcohol and rebooting multiple times.
I didn't have my stash of PCI cards handy, but did SSH into the Quicksilver and system profiler does not register it as being installed.
In parallel with the discussion going on in another thread, the ATI Fire Gl X3-flashed with X800 ROM-that I've confirmed good in my G5 also does not show up in this computer. This is in line with others' experience.
Looks like I'm stuck with the 9600XT in the Quicksilver for the time being, which is overall not a terrible thing to be stuck with. At least it also saves me having to use the external ADC power supply with my Studio display.
Looks like my benchmark comparisons will be dependent on the PC & Mac edition working in an MDD.
I have the pc & mac 9600 in my MDD and it works perfectly.
I did read on a forum once, that the MDD has a higher rated AGP slot than older macs, in that it can supply more watts to the card. This was needed for the mac edition 9700 Pro card that apple offered for a short time on the MDD.
I dont know if this true, but maybe it has something to do with some cards not working in the QS.
I did read on a forum once, that the MDD has a higher rated AGP slot than older macs, in that it can supply more watts to the card. This was needed for the mac edition 9700 Pro card that apple offered for a short time on the MDD.
I dont know if this true, but maybe it has something to do with some cards not working in the QS.
In the other thread about the FireGL we are speculating that there is some difference betweent the AGP slot of the MDD and the QS. It may be what you've heard, but I'll just mention that right now I am running a Radeon 9800 Pro in my Quicksilver's AGP slot.
Not exactly sure how the numbers run, but I presume the 9800 is a later update to the 9700.
After testing serveral Gcards on my powermac army.. i would say that the best way to have enough power and not drain to much from the PSU, is to flash and XFX 6200.
If not possible go with the 9600 mac edition or just flash one.
last option for me is the 9800 pro. cause it needs a lot of watts under load, and if you dont plan to play it doesnt make sense.
If not possible go with the 9600 mac edition or just flash one.
last option for me is the 9800 pro. cause it needs a lot of watts under load, and if you dont plan to play it doesnt make sense.
bunnspecial,
does the Pro model support a resolution of 2560x1600? Because I'm pretty sure the XT doesn't due to lower ram, despite its nominally better performance.
does the Pro model support a resolution of 2560x1600? Because I'm pretty sure the XT doesn't due to lower ram, despite its nominally better performance.
If your referring to the pc & mac edition 9600, it has 256mb ram, and one of the dvi ports is dual link. I have tested it on my 30" cinema and it works perfectly at 2560x1600.
Should do. XT is an equal or better card to the Pro. VRAM would only really affect texture size.
Sorry, I dont have a mac 9600xt to test, so I dont know if it will work with the 30" cinema.
For a card to work with it, does not require 256mb, 128 is more than enough, what it DOES require is a "dual link" dvi port. For example, my Powerbook 17" 1.67 has a 9700M chip with 128mb, and a dual link dvi output. It supports the 30" cinema just fine.
Even if the card does not have dual link dvi, it will still work with the 30" cinema, it will just run it at 1280x800 resolution.
For a card to work with it, does not require 256mb, 128 is more than enough, what it DOES require is a "dual link" dvi port. For example, my Powerbook 17" 1.67 has a 9700M chip with 128mb, and a dual link dvi output. It supports the 30" cinema just fine.
Even if the card does not have dual link dvi, it will still work with the 30" cinema, it will just run it at 1280x800 resolution.
I do have a 9600XT, but no 30" Cinema
If anyone wants to sell me one cheap, I'd be happy to test out the combo
Unfortunately, they still seem to bring big bucks on Ebay.
All this talk of video cards, so I thought I would post that I just got a new in the sealed static bag Apple 9700 Pro! The super rare one that was offered as a BTO option with MDD's. It has the ADC plug, and was in the apple replacment part bag with labels. I put it in my MDD FW400 1.25ghz, and its working perfectly, but gets awefully hot while playing minecraft. I actually achieved 79fps in our ppc minecraft with it in a test.
Special thanks to Bulbfreak for locating it on ebay and telling me about it!
Edit: Added in a screenshot of the info windows for anybody thats curious.
Special thanks to Bulbfreak for locating it on ebay and telling me about it!
Edit: Added in a screenshot of the info windows for anybody thats curious.
Attachments
Last edited:
79 fps minecraft in a G4?!
On what settings though?
Our normal settings we use for best frame rate on ppc, draw distance was set to short.
I just finished migrating over to my "new" Quicksilver, which really is in many ways a duplicate of the main one I've been using(except this one is a legitimate dual 1ghz, so I get the L3 cache...it's actually noticeably faster).
In any case, I also swapped around displays and due to some issues with the DVI port on my 9600XT, I decided to try the 9600 Pro again. Much to my pleasant surprise, it worked the first time without any issues at all in this Quicksilver.
That makes me want to try the X800 in it, but I'll save that for another day
So, with that in mind, here are the promised benchmarks from Xbench. The first is the 9600 Pro, the second the 9600 XT. I should also add the caveat that both cards were driving two display, although with slightly different set-ups. The XT was driving a 17" ADC Studio Display(1280x1024) and a generic(Acer) 20" 1680x1050 panel. The Pro is driving the same 17" Studio, but also a 23" Hi-Def Cinema display(1920x1200).
At least in this particular set-up in a 4x AGP slot, the Pro appears to significantly outperform the XT-at least as per Xbench. Take these results for what you will.
In any case, I also swapped around displays and due to some issues with the DVI port on my 9600XT, I decided to try the 9600 Pro again. Much to my pleasant surprise, it worked the first time without any issues at all in this Quicksilver.
That makes me want to try the X800 in it, but I'll save that for another day
So, with that in mind, here are the promised benchmarks from Xbench. The first is the 9600 Pro, the second the 9600 XT. I should also add the caveat that both cards were driving two display, although with slightly different set-ups. The XT was driving a 17" ADC Studio Display(1280x1024) and a generic(Acer) 20" 1680x1050 panel. The Pro is driving the same 17" Studio, but also a 23" Hi-Def Cinema display(1920x1200).
At least in this particular set-up in a 4x AGP slot, the Pro appears to significantly outperform the XT-at least as per Xbench. Take these results for what you will.
Attachments
I'm quite surprised by your results, is that 9600xt running at its proper clock speeds? I never would have thought the 9600pro would beat it like that.
As I said, I suspect(but can't prove) that the 4x slot is the limiting factor for both cards, and it seems that the greater VRAM of the Pro is making up for some of the difference. As you can see in my second test(where I did everything I could to make the system state as equivalent as possible), the difference really is close. With the numbers that close on only one test, it's really bad statistics to declare the Pro as better, especially since they do vary from trial to trial.
As far as running the XT at its correct clock speed-both cards were used as "plug and play" with the exception of installing the ATI drivers which are necessary for the Pro to work properly. The drivers were installed for both tests in my most recent post. I haven't played around with any of the available settings in the ATI control panel-all are default.
I also don't know how good of a "stress test" Xbench is of GPU performance-I know that many folks use a graphics-intensive game to truly benchmark cards, but as I'm not a gamer I don't have the standard suite of programs used.
All of the benchmarks I've looked at comparing the two cards directly looks at them in 8x slots-generally G5s for the Mac versions of the card. Again, I suspect that the fact that I'm running both in a 4x G4 with a 133mhz system bus is at least making some difference.
The benchmark I like to use for ppc macs, is GeoFX Openmark.
Its a strictly opengl benchmark, and ignores cpu speed. I tried my x850xt card in my G5 dual 2.7, and G5 dual 2.0 and got exactly the same score.
Openmark simply shows rotating textured spheres and keeps adding more and more until the frame rate drops below 10, giving a result.
These are some of my scores:
9600 mac/pc got 5300ish in my MDD dual 1.25
9700 pro mac adc card got 8128 in MDD dual 1.25
7800gt pcie mac edition got 9100ish in G5 quad
Quadro fx4500 mac edition got 15300ish in G5 quad
x850xt adc card got 16500ish in G5 dual 2.0 or 2.7
https://www.dropbox.com/s/otbk05tlbjau30p/GioFX OpenMark.zip?dl=0
Shared a dropbox link for it if you cant find it online.
Its a strictly opengl benchmark, and ignores cpu speed. I tried my x850xt card in my G5 dual 2.7, and G5 dual 2.0 and got exactly the same score.
Openmark simply shows rotating textured spheres and keeps adding more and more until the frame rate drops below 10, giving a result.
These are some of my scores:
9600 mac/pc got 5300ish in my MDD dual 1.25
9700 pro mac adc card got 8128 in MDD dual 1.25
7800gt pcie mac edition got 9100ish in G5 quad
Quadro fx4500 mac edition got 15300ish in G5 quad
x850xt adc card got 16500ish in G5 dual 2.0 or 2.7
https://www.dropbox.com/s/otbk05tlbjau30p/GioFX OpenMark.zip?dl=0
Shared a dropbox link for it if you cant find it online.
That makes me wonder if the pc/mac 9600 is actually clocked as high as the XT mac version is? Interesting results there..
The XT should be clocked higher by default.
In order of speed
9600 (standard) -> 9600 Pro -> 9600 XT
In order of speed
9600 (standard) -> 9600 Pro -> 9600 XT