Bigger CPU = Better Graphics?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by coopdog, Apr 9, 2003.

  1. coopdog macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #1
    I have heard so many things from so many people about CPU speed and FPS. I have read some place that games only use around %30 of CPU. I can't see how this would be. Is it really just about your graphics card? I'm not saying have a bad CPU and good graphics card and expect to get good frame rates or nice video. I have been wondering this question for so long and have heard so many mixed things. :)
     
  2. howard macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #2
    from my experience a better graphics card is the biggest factor in gaming. though usually if you have a really good card you'll have the cpu to back it up. but i would guess if you had a 16mg card in a dual g4 1.4ghz and a 128meg card in a 800mhz g4, the 128meg card one would run games faster.
     
  3. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #3
    well its both. my p4 heats up 20 more degrees to about 144 when i play games. the quadro cards from nvidia are the cards that will take the whole load if you have a slow machine.

    iJon
     
  4. coopdog thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #4
    I have been looking at getting an ATI 9500 I think... The one that is about $220, 8X AGP and 128 DDR Ram. There are however some companys that make the Graphics card but use the ATI chip. Is it worth poping an extra $30-50 for card to be actually made my ATI? Arn't the ATI cards much better than the Nividia's?
     
  5. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #5
    ati has crap drivers in my opinion but they seem to be getting better. make sure you do not get the 9500 pro, get the non pro. its actually a 9700 pro if you do a couple of things to it.

    iJon
     
  6. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #6
    FPS is determined by the cumulative power of your GPU and CPU.

    GPUs take the brunt of graphics processing.
    CPUs take care of AI and keeping track of everything on screen. If you get too many elements on screen for the CPU you'll slow down, too.
     
  7. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #7
    I tested:
    I have a Dual 1.25 (FW 800) and a 500 Mhz Sawtooth (both 1 GB RAM). I own a ATI Radeon 8500 and (of course) the 9000 Pro. I have swapped the grfx cards (so the 9000 Pro is in the 500) due to the fact that I own a 21" Studio Display (the Blue one) connected to the Dual, my res set to 1600 x 1200. If you didn't know, the 9000 Pro has a problem displaying during boot at 1600 x 1200.
    Well, first of all I haven't noticed ANY difference in FPS between the 8500 and 9000, playing Nascar, MOHAA, RTCW, or F1 (in both Mac's)
    But none of the games mentioned above look good on the 500 Mhz, but they look really awsome on my Dual 1.25! (and I have played around with the settings alot).
    So, OpenGL seems to be VERY CPU dependant! I remeber using a Voodoo 5 5500 in a Blue and White G3 (350), which really, really was an enormous FPS boost in games like, Unreal and UT. Mind you, this was 3DFX vs. Rage, of course...
    Bottom line:
    At this moment, with these OpenGL games (OS X), I'd rather have a fast CPU, than a fast GPU if I were made to choose.

    EDIT:
    I realize that the two tested G4's are a bit extreme in speed difference :) , but the same is to be said about a Single 733 vs Dual 533 in which grfx cards also have been swapped (GeForce 2 MX, vs Radeon 8500). This was at work (love it). The good thing about this test is that some games are dual proc aware....
    So what have we done? Compared games (Nascar and F1), on both machines, and swapping the grfx cards. (Both Mac's had 512 MB RAM, and OS X 10.2.4, and 40 GB 7200 rpm disks).
    The grfx cards had SOME effect, but the BIGGEST effect had the CPU. Nascar is dual proc aware, and jeez, that really makes a difference. Nascar ran better/faster on the Dual 533 with GeForce 2 MX, than the Single 733 with Radeon 8500! I was surprized. But F1 seemed about the same on the Single 733 with GeForce 2 MX as the Dual 533 with Radeon 8500. Probably is F1 only single CPU.
    Thought you'd like to know.
     
  8. coopdog thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #8
    To iJon

    "ati has crap drivers in my opinion but they seem to be getting better. make sure you do not get the 9500 pro, get the non pro. its actually a 9700 pro if you do a couple of things to it. iJon"

    What do you mean It's actually the 9700 Pro? My friend just got a sweet pc with the 9500 Pro and a 2200 amd. It gets 230+ FPS on full GPU and game preffs. It's very cool. Whats wrong with the 9500 pro and what manufacture is better than ATI? Thanks!
     
  9. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    Re: To iJon

    He's saying that the 9500 is an underclocked 9700 Pro, while the 9500 pro is a new chip (not as powerful as the 9700 Pro). The 9500 can be overclocked to match a 9700 Pro, while the 9500 pro can't be. The 9500 pro is an excellent chip though. I don't believe anyone said that ATI wasn't the best manufacturer, but it could be said that nVidia has historically been better (first to .13 micron, historically better drivers). Currently I think ATI is whupping nVidia's arse although that could change.
     
  10. coopdog thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #10
    So if you were getting a new ATI would you get the 9500 or the 9500 Pro. Is there a speed difference between the two? I might over-clock it but isn't really hard to do that and the card would get really hot.
     
  11. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #11
    the 9500. the 9500 has 8 pipelines. the pro has 4. software knocks down the pipelines to 4 in the non pro. with a simple piece of software the non pro becomes a 9700 pro. so yes the 9500 is better than the 9500 pro. just let me know if you dont believe me.

    iJon
     
  12. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #12
    If you're using a Macintosh, I wouldn't suggest a 9500, only the 9700 or 9800, when either one arrives for retail sale.
     
  13. Chimaera macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2002
    #13
    iJon is right about the 9500 (don't know about the pro version though) but the PC nerd sites are full of stuff about the 9500 overclock.

    As for who is better for a start ATi earned a bad rep for their drivers but thats pretty much in the past, I've had very few driver difficulties with my 9700pro, and they have only happened with a couple of games released *after* the driver rev I was using at the time, quick upgrade of drivers and I was away again.

    now nVidia have finaly started releasing their NV30-class cards (GeForceFX) and apparantly they aren't all that special - the top of the line one beats the 9700 pro, but not by a great deal (one of the reviews speculated the 9800pro would be its approximate equal) and its both big (takes up a PCI slot in addition to the AGP) and noisy (the space is taken up by the cooling solution which is a big fan and exhaust pipes and stuff).

    Personally I'm quite disappointed that they didn't manage to do more with the more than six months between the launch of the 9700pro (although, as a 9700 pro owner I'm glad my card isn't smoked by the FX :))
     
  14. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #14
    actually i dont think of it as overclocking, more like enabling it to its full potential. thats good to know about the ati drivers. my pc tech tells me about this, who is a huge gamer. but he can be wrong from time to time. ill have to see who is ahead of the game when i build my next pc.

    iJon
     
  15. davegoody macrumors 6502

    davegoody

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire, England
    #15
    you are all missing the point !

    This discussion is really missing the point, if you really want to play the latest, high-end games, not ported, second rate titles (though the situation is improving slowly) - then get a PS2 or Xbox (or god-forbid a Wintel box). Apple make the best hardware on the planet, supported by the best OS in history, shame that developers do not make the most of it all. :mad:
     
  16. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #16
    Re: you are all missing the point !

    100% true, but if you only have a Mac, and not any money left for XBox, PS2 or the other not-to-mention-product :) , then you might as well play some games on it. Seeking the best hardware for your configuration is a good thing.
     
  17. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #17
    Re: you are all missing the point !

    they make the best, but they sure dont have a lot of it.

    iJon
     
  18. Vlade macrumors 6502a

    Vlade

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Location:
    Meadville, PA
    #18
    You basicaly need an equal GPU and CPU. Getting a radeon 9700 on a 500 MHZ G3 is useless, and getting a Dual 1.42 GHZ G4 with a ATI Rage is also useless.
     
  19. maradong macrumors 65816

    maradong

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    #19
    Re: To iJon

    ati is the best. I got an nvidia card to, but the aa abilities of ati are un top ed ...

    p.s the 9500 ( not the pro one ) is the same "card" as the 9700 pro, the only thing different is the ram, which has got faster timings on the 9700 pro. but if you overclock the card to the 9700 pro specs, which should not be a big problem , you can get nearly 100 % of the 9700 pro power out of it. but not all the 9500 cards are doing so. Lets say for half of it you will not be able to reach that clock speed. perhaps 10 % inferior.
     
  20. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #20
    Exactly.
    While it's not so uesless in the PC world (probably because Direct X is far more dependant on GPU than OpenGL is).
     
  21. Riko19 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Location:
    Warrington UK
    #21
    yes but ATI are not as compatible with many games and stuff i noticed, due to me sticking to the geforce 4 card.

    Stick to Gainward if you want a good quality card or ASUS.

    :)
     
  22. coopdog thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #22
    I do believe you, it's just that I didn't understand. Man I would go for the ATI 9500 it sounds like. Then overclock it. Even if it got to hot I could get a 3rd party GPU fan and hotsink for it. Sounds good. I was over at my friend's house that has the 9500 pro w/ ASUS mobo and AMD 2200+. Oh it was nice. Has anyone played Command & Conquer Generals?! That is one of the best games of all time. Super graphics! :D
     

Share This Page