OS Neutral Best for Gaming: ATI X1900XT, ATI HD4870, Nvidia Geforce FX 4500

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by cluelessguy, Oct 5, 2013.

  1. cluelessguy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    #1
    Hi all.
    i'm about to buy a MacPro; for music production mainly...
    i can only afford the 2006/7 series, (i'm not in the £1000s league..)
    and second hand at that...:cool:

    annoyingly i had one before... and then the motherboard + hardrive melted...
    then i went down to a G5...... until the motherboard too melted... :apple:thanks.


    but in addition to running Logic 10+ (the intel native ones...)
    i intend to do some gaming.. as i just can't stand the ps3 anymore...

    i've got the option of three cards:
    Nvidia Geforce FX 4500 512Mb Graphics Card (2 x DVI)
    ATI HD4870 512Mb Graphics Card (1 x DVI , 1 x MDP)
    ATI X1900XT 512Mb Graphics Card (2 x DVI)

    would any of these ^ be good for gaming??
    would i be able to play counter strike source, or counterstrike GO maybe???

    and would i be capable of running CSS or CS;GO natively or would i need to use bootcamp?
    i don't mind using bootcamp.... just have to buy sodding windows 7... is all..


    the Mac Pro itself... that i'm getting - is a, 3Ghz 8core, 16gb ram...
    16Gb DDR2 ECC 667MHz Ram
    2 x Quad Core 3.0GHz Intel Xeon Processors

    Do i have a chance at gaming with this machine..??
    natively or boot-camped??

    its mainly for music... but i really miss counter strike.. and i hate my ps3...
    my main thing about {computer} online gaming...; is the lack of lag..:)
    so i don't mind playing on low settings - so long as the hardware doesn't cause me to die repeatedly - due to the graphics not rendering quickly enough..
    and low frames per second.... e.t.c.
    plus no - choice whether i play against the other side of the world or locally e.t.c....

    i'd really settle for Counter strike source... at low res, lowest graphics...
    that would be fine... just so long as there was no lag..


    anyhow.
    thanks very much for reading and any suggestions as to which would be best;
    if any at all.

    Regards
    Clueless
     
  2. N19h7m4r3 macrumors 65816

    N19h7m4r3

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    #2
    All those cards a pretty old, but the 4870 is best out of them for games. Even then it won't be great, but if you're most just playing Source games from Valve you should be fine.

    Since your Mac Pro is a 1.1, or 2.1,you're stuck with Lion as your best OS unless you go playing with little hacks to get Mountain Lion.

    There aren't many 3rd party cards available for those older models that are good for games. I think the Apple AMD 5770, and 5870 might work in those models, and they'll be substantially better.
     
  3. monokakata macrumors 68000

    monokakata

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawai'i
    #3
    I have an Apple-branded 5770 running in my 1,1. It works fine, but I don't game so I can't comment on that.
     
  4. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #4
    To be honest a new iMac would probably be better for anything, including music production than a 2006 Mac Pro.
    10.8 won't run on a 2006 either.

    The 4870 is the far fastest card of those you mention
     
  5. cluelessguy thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    #5
    hi, thanks for all the replies.

    i'm kinda shocked at the prices....
    the one i was thinking of getting costs; £875 - second hand(refurb)

    heres the specs:

    Apple Mac Pro 2,1 2007 Model
    Loaded with OSX 10.6 Snow Leopard
    2 x Quad Core 3.0GHz Intel Xeon Processors
    16Gb DDR2 ECC 667MHz Ram
    1 x 2Tb 7200RPM Hard Drive
    Nvidia Geforce FX 4500 512Mb Graphics Card (2 x DVI)
    Superdrive/ DVDRW
    Airport / Wifi



    now its a 2,1 model... from 2007...

    -
    so i looked at the 2009-2012 models.... and they are Very expensive..
    the lowest priced one available is; £ 1,295.00
    its a 5,1 model, - but it appears to only be a quad core... as apposed to 8 core??? and 2.66ghz at that...?

    heres the specs for it:

    MacPro5,1 - with 10.8.4 Mountain Lion (Can be downgraded upon request)
    1 x 2.66GHz 4 Core Intel Xeon Processor
    12Gb 1333Mhz DDR3 ECC Branded Matched Ram
    1 x 2Tb Hard Drive
    1 x 1TB Hard drive
    Gt120 512Mb Graphics Card (1 x DVI, 1 x ADP)
    WiFi & Bluetooth Installed
    Superdrive DVDRW
    I/0 Ports:



    ^i don't understand.... is the processor somehow better,, i don't really understand much about computers to be honest..
    but it seems to only have one quad core, instead of two; and its a lower ghz.
    it has a better graphics card; i think... the GT120..

    they are so expensive...:confused:
    in comparison; brand new - as pointed out (a New Imac)
    costs; £1,299.00 from the apple store (same price as the above 5,1 Macpro)

    and appears to be better... much better...????

    specifications;
    21.5-inch: 2.9GHz
    2.9GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
    Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
    8GB (two 4GB) memory
    1TB hard drive1
    NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M with 1GB video memory



    the site i've been looking at is 'ScrumpyMacs'....
    but it all seems Very expensive....

    i'd rather save up and get a mac that is actually good... and up to date. e.t.c.
    i don't like that the Imac is 'all in one'.... as i figure your then paying alot for the screen... - whereas i 'figured' with the macpro your just paying for the hardware..... i.e; getting a good price on the hardware - peripherals not factored in...


    hmmm.... so i guess i'm really confused.
    Its my birthday tomorrow.. and i really want to get a Mac that i can produce music on; and do some, relatively low end gaming on...
    i didn't expect it to cost so much...

    could someone explain about the processor difference...
    are the new 'single' quad cores better because they're I5's e.t.c...?
    i really don't know what to buy...
    i intend to get stuck into Logic quite extensivley and i like my sound effects e.t.c....
    but gaming wise; its just counterstrike really.... - would love it to run very smoothly though...


    sigh; :apple: so much money...


    cheers for any further suggestions
    all the best
    CG
     
  6. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #6
    You cannot compare GHz to Ghz with different generations of CPUs.
    If you look at multicore 64 bit benchmarks the 2007 model mac pro scores 10900. (8x3ghz)

    The new i5 iMac scores about 11900.

    However if you look at single core operations the new iMac is much faster.
    3700 vs 1700.

    If you use applications that use all cores fully, the old Mac Pro will keep up with the iMac, however in operations that cannot take advantage of all 8 cores, the iMac will crush it.
    A new MBA with 1.7Ghz i7 scores almost 3200 pts on single core operations.

    This (simplified) means that 1 core from the new MBA (which is 1.7GHz) is almost twice as fast as one 3GHz core from the 2007 MacPro.

    There are also many other factors, like the 2007 MP doesn't have DDR3 RAM or 6gbps SATA.
     
  7. cluelessguy thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    #7
    thanks very much cluthz.

    that clears alot up.

    I've read that Logic is able to make use of multiple cores pretty well.
    ...
    but then counter strike source..... - doesn't particularly...



    Being able to Run Logic properly is my main aim, i expect to be using alot of plugins.. and effects.. e.t.c.
    So more cores would be better....

    but then i gather my 'single core operations'... i.e; counterstike...
    will suffer due to the low ghz (or processing power 'stuff)...?
    -
    as i can't afford a latest generation multiple core MacPro...


    i pulled the specs for counter strike source, Mac;
    Minimum
    OS X version Leopard 10.5.8, Snow Leopard 10.6.3, 1GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8 or higher, ATI X1600 or higher, or Intel HD 3000 or higher

    ^annoyingly it doesn't mention processors....

    but the Pc one does....;
    Minimum: 1.7 GHz Processor, 512MB RAM, DirectX® 8.1 level Graphics Card (Requires support for SSE), Windows® 7

    Recommended: Pentium 4 processor (3.0GHz, or better), 1GB RAM, DirectX® 9 level Graphics Card, Windows® 7




    so it appears i'm straddling both 'worlds.... sadly.
    although the GPU minimum for mac Counterstrike source was a ATI X1600 and one of the computers i was looking at had a ATI X1900XT...??
    it also had 8 cores.... 3ghz...

    would that possibly cut it for logic (with its ability to use multicores..)
    and counterstrikes' GPU requirement? - i understand the 3x8ghz processor doesn't have a great benchmark..
    but would it work? - its quite an old game...

    ------

    and maybe then it would run natively..... - i have no idea how a 'mac gpu'... translates over in bootcamp; into the windows os...... - does it basically work out as the same GPU... as in native mode?



    man this is so confusing.
    thankyou for helping.
    C
     
  8. N19h7m4r3 macrumors 65816

    N19h7m4r3

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    #8
    Stay away from the 1900 and Quadro, they're ancient. Especially the 1900, which is 2005 tech.

    Plus games don't use many CPU cores true, but the most important thing is the Graphics cards.

    Also Mac card work fine in Windows, same hardware. Different drivers.

    Another reason to avoid those old cards, they don't make drivers for them anymore, never mind that they woefully useless at 3D games these days.


    The other problem with the old Mac Pro is that the RAM for it is super slow, and extremely expensive, since they don't make it anymore.
     
  9. Time Clock macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Location:
    Hemet, CA
    #9
    I can only speak as to the game question.

    In regards to CS:S, I have a late 2009 Mac Mini with a 2.26 Core 2 Duo and an Nvidia GeForce 9400 and I am able to play Source games such as Half Life 2 and Left 4 Dead just fine (relatively speaking, of course) with basically no lag using medium-ish settings. I don't know about CS:GO, but I imagine, according to the requirements on its Steam page, that the Mac Pro you're looking at will have no problems playing the game at medium settings at the very least.
     
  10. Poly macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
    #10
    Don't underestimate the improved DDR speeds you get from DDR3 over 2 and the fact that the DDR3 has nearly double the clock speed of the older Macpro.
     

Share This Page