NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by iMAC G5dreamer, Oct 3, 2004.

  1. iMAC G5dreamer macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    #1
    hey guys ,i'm not sure ,but i was wondering if the video card of the iMac G5 could be replace for further upgrades,im quite sure that it is imposible,due to the iMac design ,but,i haven't gotten it yet so i was wondering if anyone has seen anything about it,or anything that could be done

    thanks guys, :)
     
  2. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #2
    No, you can't replace the videocard :(
    Hopefully apple would put a better card in the next rev.
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    What you have is what you have, a $16.00 dollar video chip if you buy a thousand...................yeah its respectable if its being compared to say my almost 4 year old geforce 3, compare it to my 6800 and its a different story.
     
  4. thatwendigo macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #4
    Hmmm...

    Let's take a little look at what 6800 cards cost, shall we?

    Low end 6800 cards are coming out $280 and up, with the good ones ranging far, far above that. Yeah, that's what we need in the iMac, something to rack the price up a couple hundred dollars more and ridiculously increase the heat budget.
     
  5. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #5
    Dont Hurt Me never said it should have a 6800, he just said in terms of speed there's a massive difference between the old 5200 in the iMac and the latest cards. They should have put a 9600 in the iMac, that wouldn't have cost much, and would have been a lot better.
     
  6. thatwendigo macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #6
    Yes, and he's also ranted at length in the past about how the iMac better be 2.0ghz and have a top of the line card because the new ones were coming out to replace them. I have a memory that lasts longer than a few weeks, so I remember his threats to buy Alienware (which finally happened, though it didn't stop his whining) and his repeated statements about how everything Apple did sucked.

    For a system with carefully balanced noise, heat, and power, the 9600 could easily have been too much. People have no appreciation for engineering anymore.
     
  7. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #7
    I have a memory too, and I know Dont Hurt Mes feelings in these matters, pretty much the same as mine actually. If it wasn't for the huge price reduction on the new iMacs I'd have the same strong feelings, but as it is I am ok with it. Not blown away by it by any means (it is a 5200!), but I can live with it.

    I'm sure they could have got a 9600 in there...
     
  8. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #8
    The 9600 is one of the most efficient video cards, in terms of thermal output and wattage. The FX series, on the other hand, is pretty bad. Which is again, why i think many question Apple's decision.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-vs-nv-power_10.html
    Take a note of the difference between the 5700 Non-ultra and the 5700 Ultra. Now while I would agree a Non-Ultra 5200 may be as cool as a 9600 Pro, remember that Apple is using the Ultra version.

    It wouldn't be suprising if the thermals came close to a stock, non-ultra 5700. Now, with thermal issues much less of a concern, take a look at the performance difference.

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/images/image009.gif
    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/images/image014.gif

    Compare the difference between the 9600P and the 5200U.

    A third point needs to be made. Demand. Take a look at how many sites still offer the 5200 Ultra?

    http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_...+Ultra&topcat_id=1&manuf_sort=&form_page_id=5

    Almost none. Newegg/Zipzoomfly/Gameve/eXcaliberpc, the list goes on, they don't even carry the Ultra anymore. Now, again, compare it to the places selling the 9600Pro.

    http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_...00+Pro&topcat_id=1&manuf_sort=&form_page_id=5
     
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    Just have to say for thatwendigo anything Apple doesnt suck, in fact they are the cream of the crop. Fx5200 isnt cream of the crop and in fact its the opposite. Im sure better video is coming to the Powermac and imac but when? and also will Apple ever get a removable card in Imac? i doubt it. Fx5200 is better then integrated graphics but its still a entry level chip. something that should be in Emac not imac and powermac but what do i know? On one hand you think Apple is getting behind Mac gaming but on the other.................
     
  10. keysersoze macrumors 68000

    keysersoze

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    NH
    #10
    And just to make Dont Hurt Me's point abundantly clear, check out these charts from Tom's Hardware:

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-04.html

    Although they are PC cards, notice what is consistently at the BOTTOM of the chart... Good ol' Fx5200...
    :rolleyes:
     
  11. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #11
    I don't know about the non-mobility fx5200, but the mobility version is sooo hot. I'm running with two screen on my powerbook and the gpu is about 55-60°C average, if i turn on visualizer on itunes the gpu temperature raises about +6-7° in less than a minute after 5 minutes its about +10°C. After a hour with ut2003 demo it gets about 80°C!!
    In a iMac you have much more space than in a 12-inch powerbook so cooling of GPU's shouldn't be a problem.
    Apple should definiately put a Radeon 9600 in the iMac.
    The problem is that the iMac would have stolen more market from the powermac sales. (or apple would have put better gpus in the powermac).

    But Apple has ALWAYS had underpowered GPUs in their computers.
    Remember the powermac sawtooth and gigabit ethernets wit ATI rage 128!!!
    Never have apple used highend cards, geforce 2mx has standard in apples +$2000 higend computers for serveral years, and it got replaced with the 4mx!!!
     
  12. thatwendigo macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #12
    Thanks for the correction on possible issues with temperature, Mav. I've known that nVidia's cores tend to run hotter than ATI for a while, but I figured there'd be enough difference between a Radeon 9600XT and the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra that it would be cooler. I could be wrong, but it seems like they're also using a core that has no fan over it, which means that their options with the card are more limited.

    The heatsinks on passively cooled 9600s are a bit on the large side, and even more so as you climb the ladder. They'd have to position things to have another blower and an exhaust port just for the card, I'm guessing.

    Actually, if you go on in those benchmarks, the FX 5200 beats the 9600 in non-anisotropic 1024x768 Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty with and without anisotropic and anti-aliasing, Doom 3 with and without anisotropic and anti-aliasing, and Flight Simulator 2004 without anisotropic or anti-aliasing.

    Do try to read your source before you push it at me as if I was a simpleton. :rolleyes:

    I know I've made the point before, but...

    The PowerMac single 1.6 G5 consumes 120-420w of power and pushes 410-1420BTU of heat. The single 1.8 G% uses the same power range, but pushes 410-1466BTU.

    If you compare, the single 1.33ghz G4 xServe, with far more space to dissipate heat, draws 92-94w and puts out 314-321BTU. Just changing processor, Apple's added some 100-800 (I'm subtracting generously for the lower bus) to the total heat budget.
     
  13. keysersoze macrumors 68000

    keysersoze

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    NH
    #13
    My point was that the 5200 sucks. Period. :rolleyes:

    And I was backing up what Don't Hurt Me said. I could care less about the 9600. Never said anything about it.
     
  14. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #14
    I think you are confusing the 9600SE as the "9600". The 9600 Pro is in the same price range as a 5200U.

    The 9600 Pro NEVER loses to the 5200U. The 9600SE? Yes, but that's like $60-70 budget card (vs. $110 for the much better 9600Pro).

    Doom3:
    (1024 x 764, High Quality = 8x AF)
    5200U: 8.8
    9600Pro: 11.8

    Call of Duty:
    (1024 x 768, 4x AA/8x AF) >> going with highest quality, highest resolution this maximizes video card impact while minimizing cpu impact in the scores.

    5200U: 19.5
    9600Pro: 26.5

    Battlefield Vietnam:
    (1024 x 765, Max Quality, 4x AA/8x AF)
    5200U: 12.3
    9600Pro: 22.1

    *ah, I forgot to include this >> FarCry benchmarks @ 1024x768 (VERY high quality, 4x AA/8x AF):
    http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/images/image017.gif

     
  15. couch potato macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    #15
    from what ive seen and heard the 5200 is basically a 440 :(
     
  16. aafuss1 macrumors 68000

    aafuss1

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Australia
    #16
    I've been quite impressed with a FX5200 in my PC-especially BFV plays OK. The 9200SE is as bad as a FX5200-luckily the non-SE 9200 is used in the iBook/eMac, but why couldn't it be included in the iMac?
     
  17. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #17
    Glad to see others agreeing with Don't Hurt Me this time.

    Many posts have been about the 5200 in the iMac G5.
    IMHO not only gaming is the loser here.

    Have you seen the Motion speedtests?

    With CoreImage coming to Tiger (and beyond, I pressume), and the 5200 being the lowest CoreImage compatible-grfx card available, this iMac will not be good advertizement for Tiger's speed.
    Even a lower clocked portable G4 is faster!!! Come on.

    Steve mentioned the ever faster growing speed of GPU opposed to CPUs, makes one believe even he considers the importance of a good grfx card!

    What does he do? Puts the worst available AGP 8x grfx card in it.
     
  18. JOD8FY macrumors 6502a

    JOD8FY

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Location:
    United States
    #18
    It would have been nice if Apple had just made the 5200U have 128MB of VRAM. It seems like that makes a dramatic improvement in performance. Would that have posed more heat issues? Othewise, the 9600 Pro sounds good.

    JOD8FY

    P.S. - How would this 64MB 5200U compare to a 128MB Geforce4? I'd really like to know.
     

Share This Page