Radeon vs nVidia

[mojohanna]

All,
I have an older 64mb Radeon 9000 that i bought after market for my G4 450 (AGP). It is approximately a year old. My question is as follows: Is this a better performing card that my GeForce FX5200 that came in my G5?

I have attached what I could find on the Radeon card.
ATY,RV250:

Type: display
Bus: AGP
Slot: SLOT-A
VRAM (Total): 64 MB
Vendor: ATI (0x1002)
Device ID: 0x4966
Revision ID: 0x0001
ROM Revision: 113-99703-112

Display:

Type: display
Display Type: CRT
VRAM (In Use): 64 MB
Resolution: 1280 x 1024 @ 75 Hz
Depth: 32-bit Color
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes

ATY,Radeon9000i_B:

Thanks for the help.

[neoelectronaut]

I'm not up to speed on video card stats, but I would guess they're around equal.

[Little Endian]

The Geforce FX5200 Ultra is about equal to the Radeon 9000pro however I would say the Geforce FX5200Ultra should be slightly faster depending 0n what you are doing with it. I don't know for sure How they compare but I know the Radeon 9000PRO was about equal to the Geforce 4MX 460 chipset at least in the PC world it is. The Geforce FX5200 Ultra is Marginally Faster the Geforce 4MX 460. However I don't think that your G4 450MHZ even comes close to maxing out the Radeon 9000PRO you have in it.

[Mord]

the 9000 is faster but the 5200 is a core image card so supports loads of features and it's agp 8x

[crazzyeddie]

The 5200FX will be faster than the 9000 hands down. The 5200 has many features and better OpenGL speeds than the 9000, plus its just plain faster.

[JOD8FY]

I'd also say the FX5200 is better. It has many features the ATI doesn't (one of which is the 8x AGP).

Side note: In general who would you say is better - NVIDIA or ATI? Just curious to know what you think.

JOD8FY

[Vlade]

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...charts-06.html

Take a look at some other tests than just Quake 3 too.

[vraxtus]

To all the people that thought a Rad9000 was as fast as a 5200FX U...

wow.

Anyhow, the 5200 is a generation newer than the 9000 and has better support for pixel shading. Unfortunately the Mac versions are 8X AGP only and they don't fit into older comps. So if you are hoping to try that... sorry.

Either way, though, they're both pretty crappy cards... like ballin' on a budget.

[MacsRgr8]

A G4 450 MHz won't push a Radeon 9000....no need for something faster.
IMHO the 9000 is a perfect card for the low-end G4s.

As for the question, who is better: ATi or nVidia?
I love ATi's products, especially their 3D override settings. The nVidia cards which came to the Mac were crappy cards, except for the GeForce 4 Ti. But this card had some issues with the MOHAA series, which was very annoying.

Enter the 6800.
This card is the best. No word from ATi bringing thier flagship (X800 XT) over to the Mac.
So, nVidia is in the lead now!

[Maclarny]

Originally Posted by JOD8FY

Side note: In general who would you say is better - NVIDIA or ATI? Just curious to know what you think.

JOD8FY

Nvidia hands down. With their latest 6800 series of Graphics cards they have introduced a completely knew architecture implementing the latest and greatest of graphics cards tech (i.e. Ultra Shadow II, Shader 3.0). They have prepared this lineup for the future.

ATI, on the other hand, has instead chosen to rework their RV360 core to attain the most power and have added relatively little new technologies.

This round goes to Nvidia.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Maclarny

Nvidia hands down. With their latest 6800 series of Graphics cards they have introduced a completely knew architecture implementing the latest and greatest of graphics cards tech (i.e. Ultra Shadow II, Shader 3.0). They have prepared this lineup for the future.

ATI, on the other hand, has instead chosen to rework their RV360 core to attain the most power and have added relatively little new technologies.

This round goes to Nvidia.

Heh. nVidia paper launches a massive (aka expensive, hard to get) chip that takes 2 slots and has huge fans, while ATI matches their performance while lowering the power usage. Yes, the 6800 has more features, but I still think the X800 is the better card. In the previous round it was much less close, ATI just crushed nVidia. Before that, it was the other way around. Once nVidia shrinks the 6800 to .09 micron manufacturing it might be easier to say which one is better, since it should run cooler then. Also, nVidia should be introducing native PCI-E cards at some point, which will bring them back up to matching ATI there (not useful for macs at this point though).

[mojohanna]

Yea, but would I gain anything by putting the Radeon card into my new G5? Or are the cards close enough that it washes. This is just a temporary solution as I am planning on upgrading video cards later this year.

If the G4 wont push the ATI card to the max, will the G5 and if so is that max higher than what the G5 will do with the GeForce card?

[applekid]

Talk to gamers on IMG and the graphics card of choice had always been the 9000 Pro before the G5 days, if that tells you anything. It was a pretty good card for its time, I'd say. Lasted for a good couple of years.

But, I do think the FX 5200 may be better in this case.

[Bigheadache]

Originally Posted by applekid

Talk to gamers on IMG and the graphics card of choice had always been the 9000 Pro before the G5 days, if that tells you anything. It was a pretty good card for its time, I'd say. Lasted for a good couple of years.

But, I do think the FX 5200 may be better in this case.

Comparing these cards is like arguing that 9fps is better than 7 fps. You are right, but its missing the point, they are both crap!!!!

[JOD8FY]

I've always been a fan of NVIDIA over ATI, especially with the new 6800 Ultra. Do you think ATI is in the works of trying to create something to rival it? Also, for the PC version of the 6800 Ultra, why are there different versions? Like one's made by PNY etc. Which one is the best?

Thanks,
JOD8FY

[Veldek]

Originally Posted by JOD8FY

I've always been a fan of NVIDIA over ATI, especially with the new 6800 Ultra. Do you think ATI is in the works of trying to create something to rival it?

Well, they already did. The X800 is better in almost every task except OpenGL.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally Posted by Veldek

Well, they already did. The X800 is better in almost every task except OpenGL.

That's a huge "Mac" point....

I was always an ATi fan... until this GeForce 6800 Ultra. The absolute OpenGL card, therefore the best Mac (gaming) card.

Although.. seeing is believing. I hope the drivers are on par with the hardware...

[LoadRunner]

New video card can be slower then old video card at rendering poloy gons. New cards may sarafice some speed, to gain other advantages. Those advantages are only usefull in new games programed to use those advantages. Least that's my take on it.

[Veldek]

Originally Posted by MacsRgr8

That's a huge "Mac" point....

Well, the question wasn't about Mac cards, just if ATI is "in the works". And he/she mentioned cards on the PC, so my answer took that into account. But you're right, of course. Who knows if ATI will bring out this card in the next time for the Mac...

[vraxtus]

Originally Posted by Maclarny

This round goes to Nvidia.

Exactly.

*THIS* round.

Typically however in the past, ATI has pretty much always blown out nVidia when it comes to their graphics chips. ATI still leads in mobility GPUs with nVidia trailing FAR behind.

That said there are nVidia cards that are still decent. The 6800 is one powerhouse, and I'm wondering if they'll ever introduce SLI onto our platform.

However, my vote has and always will go to ATI. There's just something about the fact that nVidia doesn't actually produce the cards, but only the chipsets, that I find unnerving. I really enjoy the fact that I can get an actual card from ATI and *made* by ATI.

[Bigheadache]

Originally Posted by vraxtus

Exactly.

However, my vote has and always will go to ATI. There's just something about the fact that nVidia doesn't actually produce the cards, but only the chipsets, that I find unnerving. I really enjoy the fact that I can get an actual card from ATI and *made* by ATI.

Not sure what the big deal is here, the vast majority of ATi's manufacturing is outsourced to Sapphire Technology. These days, most cards (Ati and NVidia) follow the reference design and end up being manufactured by the same group of OEM manufacturers under contract anyway no matter what brand they eventually sell under. The usual difference is just what flavour heatsink they stick on and what particular batch of memory chips they have that week.

[Converted2Truth]

Originally Posted by vraxtus

However, my vote has and always will go to ATI. There's just something about the fact that nVidia doesn't actually produce the cards, but only the chipsets, that I find unnerving. I really enjoy the fact that I can get an actual card from ATI and *made* by ATI.

The one thing that really worries me about NVIDIA is the lack of a control panel. It seems like apple makes the drivers for nvidia cards, and i don't like that idea. ATI has tailored software which allows you to set profiles for each game. I've heard that this software allows the user to 'force' FSAA etc on games that don't have those options avaliable (like Call of Duty). I REALLY REALLY wish that i knew more about how happy owners of the 9800 pro special edition are. vraxtus? others? The 6800 pushes over twice the pixels at twice the price... i just wonder if it is a gamble, and who knows if ATI will offer an answer to nvidia's 6800...

[vraxtus]

Originally Posted by Converted2Truth

The one thing that really worries me about NVIDIA is the lack of a control panel. It seems like apple makes the drivers for nvidia cards, and i don't like that idea. ATI has tailored software which allows you to set profiles for each game. I've heard that this software allows the user to 'force' FSAA etc on games that don't have those options avaliable (like Call of Duty). I REALLY REALLY wish that i knew more about how happy owners of the 9800 pro special edition are. vraxtus? others? The 6800 pushes over twice the pixels at twice the price... i just wonder if it is a gamble, and who knows if ATI will offer an answer to nvidia's 6800...

I love mine

Now if only I had a dual...

Honestly, however, the performance by the card is superb, however I do notice ATI's lack of good OpenGL support... there are games on my PB that play nearly as well on my G5 at similar resolutions...

[vraxtus]

I might also point out that this whole nVidia vs ATI debate is much like the debate between Macs and PCs... it's just a matter of preference.

For me, I've been an ATI user since the Rage128 series. I still have an XClaimTV 16MB in my old Performa 6400... and I loved it when it came out at the time. nVidias cards just never appealed to me... but I should say that their latest OpenGL support is top quality. To me, ATI has always put out a quality product, and seeing Microsoft drop nVidia from the next XBox production line to only put in ATI cards only further encourages my support for ATI products.

Like I said above, I love my 9800 Pro SE but at the same time it has it's own shortcomings.

[Converted2Truth]

Originally Posted by vraxtus

Like I said above, I love my 9800 Pro SE but at the same time it has it's own shortcomings.

I really wish you had a 6800 Ultra to compare it to... I can't find ANYWHERE benchmarks/screenshots of this cards performance on a mac. I'm not driving 30" monitors, just games... and I don't know what to get... I feel like i'd be safe going with ATI, but would lack performance in future games. I feel like if i get the 6800, i'd play some games super fast, others not at all, and some with artifacts due to the drivers being optimized for displaying on 30" monsters...