So, just for fun, I decided to look for a video card for my G4 that is Core Image compliant.
Is it just me, or is there not one with an ADC connector?
Is it just me, or is there not one with an ADC connector?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Core Image Card for MDD G4
- Thread starter iGary
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What kind of slot does the MDD G4 have? If it's AGP 4x, you can get the Radeon 9800 or X800 Mac Edition.
It is AGP 4X, but the 9800 (9800 XT does) does not show up on the Core Image list and I cannot find an X800 XT Mac Edition...
Maybe a vanilla 9800 doesn't exist for the Mac? I wouldn't know, I'm more versed with the PC side of video cards, not the Mac... But if you can find a 9600 XT or 9800 XT for the Mac, you will be fine.
Which video card do you have in yours?iGary said:
Core Image will make full use of 9600s, 9800s and the X800. Also, the 9700 that was a CTO for the MDDs would be good.
The GeForce4 Titanium will at best only get partial Core Image accelleration.
So the 9800 Mac Edtion will work?
Apple's site says 9800 XT....
I have a Radeon 9000 Pro in there right now.
I don't mind spending a little dough to get some features...but not 400 duckets...I'll put that toward the G5.
Apple's site says 9800 XT....
I have a Radeon 9000 Pro in there right now.
I don't mind spending a little dough to get some features...but not 400 duckets...I'll put that toward the G5.
I planned for Tiger a couple of months ago, picking up a Radeon 9600 Pro Mac Edition (dual digital output DVI + ADC) for a song on ebay. It's a system pull from a PowerMac G5, so needs the simple 8x to 4x AGP hack to make it work in an MDD PowerMac. I'd recommend going for one of these as they're relatively cheap (got mine for a ridiculously cheap £20).
It will enable hardware acceleration with Core Image as it supports pixel-level programming.
It will enable hardware acceleration with Core Image as it supports pixel-level programming.
It also says "Core Image-capable graphics cards include:" - so it doesn't include every card. It just looks like a list of what Apple currently has in the systems.iGary said:
Look at the capabilities the 9800 Pro has versus say the Mobility 9700.
OK so can we all agree the 9800 Mac Edition will work with Core Image?
Aside form some of those features in Tiger, can I expect any improvements in Photoshop and iPhoto work along with Quark?
I imagine just redraw times will shorten, right?
Aside form some of those features in Tiger, can I expect any improvements in Photoshop and iPhoto work along with Quark?
I imagine just redraw times will shorten, right?
iGary said:OK so can we all agree the 9800 Mac Edition will work with Core Image?
Aside form some of those features in Tiger, can I expect any improvements in Photoshop and iPhoto work along with Quark?
I imagine just redraw times will shorten, right?
Nah, Photoshop doesn't use the GPU at all. It's CPU-dependent, so you won't see much. As for iPhoto, I don't knwo if it uses CoreImage... Probably not, so that means you won't see much on that either. What you WILL see is a massive improvement in 3D performance. Screensavers, 3D rendering, and most importantly... gaming.
The 9800 is too rich for my blood.
I have a bid on a 9600 XT out of a G5 on Ebay.
If that doesn't work, I'll just put the dough in the G5 fund.
My G4 is about as maxed out as it can get at this point.
I have a bid on a 9600 XT out of a G5 on Ebay.
If that doesn't work, I'll just put the dough in the G5 fund.
My G4 is about as maxed out as it can get at this point.
A waste of money. Most of the G5 Video cards will only run in the G5s. The MDD G4s have an AGP 4x bus, the G5s (so far) have an 8x AGP bus.iGary said:
For a video card to work in both, it would have to be AGP 4x & 8x compatible.
I would sell that G4 now on ebay. I got $2000 for my G4 1.42ghz dual a few weeks ago. Paid $2229 for it 2 years ago. I love macs.
NOt even those really unless they were written using CoreImage. All CI enhancements are optimized at compile time, so there is no reason to believe that any app not written with the CI API is going to get a benefit from it. The only thing that is going to speed up current apps and games is new vid drivers.Raven VII said:Nah, Photoshop doesn't use the GPU at all. It's CPU-dependent, so you won't see much. As for iPhoto, I don't knwo if it uses CoreImage... Probably not, so that means you won't see much on that either. What you WILL see is a massive improvement in 3D performance. Screensavers, 3D rendering, and most importantly... gaming.
Jim
I don't see why everyone is so excited about CoreImage. It's not going to make anything faster, it will just make it easier for developers to add fast image effects to their apps. Access to the gpu was always there, it's just that now Apple has made it easier to developers to use it.
jamdr said:
I have seen lots of talk from developers that say most of the user interface is using core image so expect the os to be quite a bit faster in opening windows and such. Plus when adobe gets a Core image compatible version of photoshop everyone will be wishing their cards were compatible and they will eventually come out with one. Imagine creating effects and blurs on the fly and never having to wait. That is the dream of photoshop CI. Ok, I just named it for adobe. Copyright 2005.
You're sorta correct and sorta wrong...jim. said:
For an application to use Core Image, they have to be written to do so.
However, anything that uses the Core Image API doesn't know what type of GPU it'll be running on, therefore the Core Image library decides at run time how requests to it get handled.
And actually, if any of the system libraries are rewritten to use Core Image, existing appplications could wind up using the Core Image features without realizing it.
One or two well-placed pieces of tape convert the AGP 8x 9600 Pro / 9600XT to AGP 4x.Bear said:
It takes a little more than that to route power to the ADC connector, however, so without further modding the ADC connector is rendered (effectively) into a DVI out.
On the bright side, if you get your dual 2.0 Ghz PM G5 for less than $2k and if it has an nVidia FX 5200, you'll already be ahead of the game.iGary said:I'm prolly stuck with this thing as I already placed my max bid. Hope someone outbids me.
Yeah, I kinda used the wrong words. While saying optimizing at compile time, I meant linking to the optimizing libraries. You're right.Bear said:
Most of CI from what I can tell is Image units and transforms. So really the only libs that Apple could include it in would be Aqua, and have it affect everything. Most video and image filters I believe are implemented in the individual apps like PS and FCP. Since FCP is an Apple product, I'm sure it is being enhanced by CI, or maybe some of its filters and effects were used as the units within CI.
As far as Photoshop CI, my prediction: probably not going to happen. PS already implements most if not all of CI in its own filters. Moving to CoreImage ruins portability of PS functions between Win and OSX. Remember Adobe is multiplatform. This doesn't make good business sense. Now it would be cool if they would take some time and write some Quartz or basic CI optimization wrappers into PS. That would probably achieve a similar performance boost.
Jim