9000 to 9800

Discussion in 'Games' started by Muskie, Mar 1, 2005.

  1. Muskie macrumors 6502

    Muskie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    #1
    Well I bought the 9800 Pro about a month ago, and I've been using it in my G4 (see sig) for 3 or 4 weeks now. I was expecting to be able to max out, or come close to maxing out, all my graphics settings on the games I play. I mostly play UT2k4 and CoD + UO.

    Basically I'm disappointed. If I step all the graphics settings in UO up by one step, everything looks a little better, but I am back to where I was with the 9000 framerate-wise. Same with UT2k4, although I seem to have been able to step up the settings a tad higher. Is this normal? Is my proccessor that much of a bottle-neck? How can the 9800pro (128) run games just a little bit better than the 9000pro?

    Did I miss something?

    Thanks
     
  2. SurfAddict macrumors member

    SurfAddict

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    #2
    Processor is killing you

    It's definetly your processor sorry to say that but the biggest limiter is the FSB. See sig I have the same graphics card in my dell and it kicks ass hands down. 9700 in this here powerbook and it does quite well too. Maybe its time to upgrade why dont you get the single or dual (dual is a better choice) 1.8 g5 tower and swap out the crappy gfx card in there with your 9800 you wont be disappointed
     
  3. Little Endian macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #3
    Try doing some benchmarks. There is deffinitely a differecence in performance despite your processor botthleneck. People perceive performance in different ways. If you still have your 9000 try swapping it back in do thorough bencharks and do the same with the 9800.
     
  4. Muskie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Muskie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    #4
    Yea I benchmarked with XBench before and after with little change. Went from 143.10 to 143.85. That seems way too small, but I have heard many of the stories of how unreliable XBench is.
     
  5. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #5
    Try running the UT2k4 benchmarks, those are pretty good and you can execute them from the terminal. I did this when I upgraded my oc'ed 800/G4 Tower from its GeForce2 MX to a Radeon 9600 Pro (pulled from a G5).

    The difference is night and day, of course, but there were too many bottlenecks, and I only saw like a 25% performance jump.
     
  6. Muskie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Muskie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    Minneapolis
  7. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #7
    UT2k4 is a very CPU-intensive game. Its graphics, on the other hand, are easily rendered by even a 8500 (or 9000Pro now).

    The problem is that, if you are not at that minimum CPU threshold, you are limiting your GPU (9800Pro). I'm pretty sure if you went up to a G5 1.8 or 2.0, with just a 9000Pro, you may actually see a bigger increase.

    *Ok, to further clarify, think about it this way.

    You have seen many of the UT2k4 benchmarks, yes? Do you notice that the Botmatch scores are ALWAYS much lower than Flyby? Flyby is pretty much garbage b/c it is theoretical. Botmatch is realistic b/c it translate directly to real world performance >> real world being online multiplayer/LAN.
     
  8. neonart macrumors 65816

    neonart

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Near a Mac since 1993.
    #8
    It's the G4.

    Unfortunately it's the G4. I had your same machine and did the same upgrade only to get similar results. My G5 cured the problem. (see sig)

    The G4 isn't a bad machine, but games need more bandwidth.
     
  9. Muskie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Muskie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    #9
    Yea when I bought this G4 I knew I was gonna be second rate most of the time, so I kind of got myself ready for it. I just thought maybe this new card would do a little better than it did. Thanks for all your replies.
     
  10. Little Endian macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #10
    Xbench is a complete Joke for all aspects of benchmarking except for maybe the disk test. There are folks out there with X800XT and Geforce Ultra that score no better than a Radeon 9000 with Xbench.

    http://www.macologist.org/dload.php?action=file&file_id=31

    Dowload Santa Duck's UTK04 benchmarking Utility. You should see at least a 25-50% increase in performance between the two cards depending on Map and whether you are testing botmatch or Flyby modes.

    UT is not the best game to highlight perfromance differences between the two cards. You will see a much larger difference with Quake III based games. You may also want to consider testing with a screen saver that can display FPS like Serene Screens Marine Aquarium.

    http://www.serenescreen.com/
     
  11. Soulstorm macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #11
    How do you run those benchmarks?
     
  12. patseguin macrumors 65816

    patseguin

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    #12
    Sorry to go off-topic, but do you use that Raptor drive for the OS and the WD drive for apps, etc.? I've been thinking about getting one of those drives.
     
  13. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #13
    It's been a while, but you basically go to the Unreal.app in your Applications folder, and view package contents (control-click). Then look for the Benchmarks folder, and it should have a Read-Me file that explains how to run the 'marks. They will save in the Application Support folder of your user library, so you can view them later and compare. To run a benchmark, all you have to do is open Terminal and drag the Benchmark folder to the command line (it tells you how to do this). Then you only need to change the map/botmatch for each consecutive 'mark. Now off you go. :)
     
  14. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #14
    wow, that blows.

    what is the FSB on that machine? My old Athlon 1600 was able to do pretty well with a 9600 in UT2K4. More than playable.

    The jump to a 2500 was good, but not as much as the jump to 6600GT was...

    I would have expected the 9800 to be a huge jump for him. I'ts 4-6x faster than the 9000, all other things being equal.
     
  15. Muskie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Muskie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    #15
    bus speed is only 167, so i guess that's it...
     
  16. neonart macrumors 65816

    neonart

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Near a Mac since 1993.
    #16
    The Raptor has my OS & Apps. The WD has my MP3's, photos, videos, downloads, etc.

    15GBs are being used in the Raptor including my VPC Win2K file which is almost 2GB.

    If you wanted to be more prepared for the future, a 74GB Raptor may be a better choice, or if you store your iTunes library on your boot drive...

    Here is a list of the Apps in my Machine:
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page