New iBook Radeon 9550 Benchmarks

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif

Xlr8yourmac has published some video benchmarks of the recently release iBooks. The new iBooks offer the Radeon 9550 graphics card which provides additional performance as well as support for Core Image and Core Video.

In a comparison between a 1.2GHz iBook / Radeon 9200 (old) and a 1.2GHz iBook / Radeon 9550 (new), the Radeon 9550 iBook delivered an 11% frame rate advantage in Quake 3 with sound on and a 22.9% advantage with sound off.

Note: The actual shipping iBooks come in 1.33GHz and 1.42GHz models.

[supergod]

It seems like a nice addition.

I had assumed it was just some kind of underclocked radeon 9600.

[Daveway]

It would be great if someone could make all of that giberish easier to understand.

[supergod]

It's pretty easy to understand. You can expect to see at least a 10% increase in performance in most 3D apps and games. Not breathtaking quality, but okay for a low end laptop from Apple. Also, now the iBook supports the new core image function of Tiger, which renders advanced graphics in real time and is built into the OS.

This means you will see things like the ripple effect on the dashboard, along with more sophisticated usages from new apps that render with core image.

[Daveway]

Originally Posted by supergod

This means you will see things like the ripple effect on the dashboard, along with more sophisticated usages from new apps that render with core image.

This is what I was most concerned about. I think its astonishing that Apple didn't put a Core Image capable card in the Mac mini. Its STUPID!

[supergod]

I don't really mind their lackluster low-end video cards. What I think is silly are the video capabilities of Power Macs and Powerbooks. The cards are okay, but give more options and at least offer some true pro-cards. Also, what is with the prices? Once the Intel macs come out, I hope we won't still see the "Apple tax" on video cards, and they'll start selling them for a reasonable amount.

[JDOG_]

Originally Posted by Daveway

This is what I was most concerned about. I think its astonishing that Apple didn't put a Core Image capable card in the Mac mini. Its STUPID!

Agreed. The latest update to the Mac Mini was laughable. I think they should have also made it possible to do 64mb BTO for an extra $79 or something for both the iBook & Mac Mini-- I'm sure they'd sell like hotcakes.

Why there's not better cards in the entire laptop line astounds me. My girfriend's dad just got a new PC laptop for $750 with an nVidia card in it that would whoop the crap out of the ones in the powerbooks, come on Cupertino!

[longofest]

This is a really money grab from xlr8yourmac. Many props to them for contacting ATI to get these benchmarks.

I too wish though, that Apple had moved to a core-image capable card in the Mac Mini. I know its supposed to be the bottom of the line mac, but it should at least be able to minimally support the feature! Heck, the 5200 Ultra or Go gives piss-poor performance, but is at least compatible! Include that!

[wrburns]

So we're basically looking at a 25-30% improvement, factoring in both the CPU and the GPU upgrade. I'll take it, but I was hoping for more. The Radeon 9550 is a considerably better card than the 9200. But I suppose the real difference is that the 9550 has /much/ better shader support and performance than the 9200, and that's not something that's measured in the Quake 3 benchmark.

[Daveway]

Originally Posted by longofest

Heck, the 5200 Ultra or Go gives piss-poor performance, but is at least compatible! Include that!

Hey! I have a 5200 Ultra. Back off.

[eeboarder]

Everyone is saying that the new iBooks support core image, but according to Apple's website, the ATI Radeon Mobility 9550 is not included in the supported cards list. Can someone clear this up for me?

[wrburns]

Originally Posted by eeboarder

Everyone is saying that the new iBooks support core image, but according to Apple's website, the ATI Radeon Mobility 9550 is not included in the supported cards list. Can someone clear this up for me?

The only two requirements for CoreImage support are a Pixel Shader 2.0-capable card and 32MB of video RAM (maybe only 16, for all I know). The Radeon 9550 included in the iBook satisfies both of these requirements.

[sw1tcher]

What I want to know is how the new 12" iBook with the Radeon 9550 compares to the current 12" PB with the NVidia GeForce FX Go5200.

Anyone have any benchmarks?

[em500]

Ok, there has been plenty of whining about the latest iBook and Mini updates, and IMO most of it is justified. There is little to say about the Mini since it wasn't even an upgrade, it was just a price drop for existing BTO models. Now the iBook with the 9550 seems pretty decent, but why not 64MB? Take a look at this:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/hdgal...endations.html

Obviously the budget machines are not going to be playing 1080p or 720p, but they do not even meet Apple's own recommendations for 480p with 32MB! For machines that were just released that's pretty sad. The last updates of the eMac and iMac were quite generous so few people had anything to complain. Now they're back to penny-pinching again.

[andiwm2003]

Originally Posted by supergod

......... What I think is silly are the video capabilities of Power Macs and Powerbooks. The cards are okay, but give more options and at least offer some true pro-cards. ............

aren't the X800XT and the Nividea 6800 the fastest cards available? I thought both are pro-cards. what am i missing?

andi

[TheSisko]

Originally Posted by wrburns

So we're basically looking at a 25-30% improvement, factoring in both the CPU and the GPU upgrade. I'll take it, but I was hoping for more. The Radeon 9550 is a considerably better card than the 9200. But I suppose the real difference is that the 9550 has /much/ better shader support and performance than the 9200, and that's not something that's measured in the Quake 3 benchmark.

Yeah, because 10% increase in Q3 + 6% CPU clock increase = 30% across the board. Riiiiiight

[evolutioneight]

Atleast Apple gives seperate VPUs to the ibooks!! Lots of PC manufacturers just use the RAM as shared VRAM....now that truly blows!

[TheSisko]

Originally Posted by sw1tcher

What I want to know is how the new 12" iBook with the Radeon 9550 compares to the current 12" PB with the NVidia GeForce FX Go5200.

Anyone have any benchmarks?

It's probably slower since the FX5200 has 128-bit bus (9550 has 64-bit) and twice the RAM.

[TheSisko]

Originally Posted by em500

Ok, there has been plenty of whining about the latest iBook and Mini updates, and IMO most of it is justified. There is little to say about the Mini since it wasn't even an upgrade, it was just a price drop for existing BTO models. Now the iBook with the 9550 seems pretty decent, but why not 64MB? Take a look at this:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/hdgal...endations.html

Obviously the budget machines are not going to be playing 1080p or 720p, but they do not even meet Apple's own recommendations for 480p with 32MB! For machines that were just released that's pretty sad. The last updates of the eMac and iMac were quite generous so few people had anything to complain. Now they're back to penny-pinching again.

Why should entry level consumer machines have support for HD-video???

[geerlingguy]

Ooh... ripple effect...

Maybe I'll trade in my old iBook and pay a few hundred bucks. Just to see the ripple effect on my iBook!

Or maybe I just realized I don't have a few hundred bucks. Darn

[geerlingguy]

Originally Posted by TheSisko

Why should entry level consumer machines have support for HD-video???

It's 'the year of HD'... that's why .

[geerlingguy]

Originally Posted by evolutioneight

Atleast Apple gives seperate VPUs to the ibooks!! Lots of PC manufacturers just use the RAM as shared VRAM....now that truly blows!

An oft overlooked fact. I can't imagine the amount of complaining on these boards if Apple switched to 'Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics'!

[Legacy]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif

Xlr8yourmac has published some video benchmarks of the recently release iBooks. The new iBooks offer the Radeon 9550 graphics card which provides additional performance as well as support for Core Image and Core Video.

In a comparison between a 1.2GHz iBook / Radeon 9200 (old) and a 1.2GHz iBook / Radeon 9550 (new), the Radeon 9550 iBook delivered an 11% frame rate advantage in Quake 3 with sound on and a 22.9% advantage with sound off.

Note: The actual shipping iBooks come in 1.33GHz and 1.42GHz models.

Is there any possibility of playing a game that requires 64MB Vram on the ATI chip if the resolution and detailed r lowered...or is that just pushing it?

PS if the demand of an application on VRAM is larger than 32Megs, does the computer automatically use system ram to compensate?

[supergod]

Originally Posted by andiwm2003

aren't the X800XT and the Nividea 6800 the fastest cards available? I thought both are pro-cards. what am i missing?

andi

No they are not. They are very good gaming cards and they are certainly very fast at 3D apps. For ATI, the FireGL3D is their pro card. It is very different from the X800XT. As for nVidia, the 7800xt is their new fastest card: the 6800 is last years product. And cards like the nVidia Quadro and nForce and their variants are true pro cards. They are for advanced rendering apps.

To be honest, Power Macs are no longer pro machines for anything other than music production and 2D work. Apple has fallen behind year after year since their first release.

[TheSisko]

Originally Posted by Legacy

Is there any possibility of playing a game that requires 64MB Vram on the ATI chip if the resolution and detailed r lowered...or is that just pushing it?

PS if the demand of an application on VRAM is larger than 32Megs, does the computer automatically use system ram to compensate?

Yes, of course. All AGP cards support AGP-texturing, enabling them to use the system ram. Though this is ofcourse considerably slower, and the main reason why integrated chips have incredibly poor performance.