Geforce 4 MX 32 vs. Radeon 9000 pro 64

[entropybran]

Hey guys,

Trying to figure out if the Geforce 4 MX 32 Meg AGP or the Radeon Pro 64 AGP is the better card for OSX.

I do not use my system for games, but I'm now running a dual monitor setup and expose is running a little sluggish.

System is a Sawtooth g4 1ghz (Powerlogics Upgrade) with 768 megs of ram

Thanks,

bran

 

[MacsRgr8]

Radeon 9000 would have my bet definitely!

 

[Mechcozmo]

In general:

More RAM, more speed.

Now, that is not always true, but overall a 64MB card will do better than a 32MB card but worse than a 128MB card.

Some cards now might all be 256MB and require you to look at the processors and stuff, but when you are doing a rather clear-cut comparison like that...simple!

 

[cluthz]

If you have a GeForce 4mx, an have to pay $149 for a radeon 9000, i would have stick with the geforce.
The Radeon is faster, but not more than a few percent.
For GUI interface and such, all the test i have seen, is the GeForce a bit faster.
But in terms of 3d the radeon wins by a 10-20% margin.

If you are using two large screens the double amout of vram will help.

I bought the geforce 4mx for $69 from OWC for about 1.5 years ago, the radeon 9000 costed $159. So, the radeon 9000 is overpriced today..(less than 10% pricedrop in 1.5 years....)

 

[AdamR01]

I would definitely get a Radeon 9000. The Geforce4MX chip isnt much architectually different from the very dated Geforce2MX. I dont know the names of the actual hardware functions, but (in windows\gaming terms) the Geforce2/4MX is a DirectX7 compliant card meaning it can do all the 3d functions of 7 and lower in hardware. The Radeon 9000 is DirectX 8.1 compliant.

 

[vraxtus]

I would definitely get a Radeon 9000. The Geforce4MX chip isnt much architectually different from the very dated Geforce2MX. I dont know the names of the actual hardware functions, but (in windows\gaming terms) the Geforce2/4MX is a DirectX7 compliant card meaning it can do all the 3d functions of 7 and lower in hardware. The Radeon 9000 is DirectX 8.1 compliant.

That's great, since it has nothing to do with Mac functionality at all!

As to the 64 > 32 poster, currently things are changing to the point that you will almost ALWAYS have to look at the chipset. The 9000 is available in a 128 MB set, whereas the 9800 is available in a 128 MB set... and both are easily available. Pay attention to the chipset, before all else.

The GF4 is still not a bad card. But it is getting long on the tooth. The only reason to use a Rad9000 with a larger memory buffer is for OS acceleration, for instance, Expose. However only if you can justify the price gap.

 

[cluthz]

If you can get the rad 9000 cheap, go for it.
now you have 32mb:2 displays=16mb/per display
the rad 9000 would give you 32mb/display
16mb on a ex.1600x1200 display and exposé is a bit short.
You could probably get some cash back on the gf4mx on ebay.
Here (in norway) they are going for over $60 used!

 

[entropybran]

Thanks for the info guys!


bran

 

[Catfish_Man]

That's great, since it has nothing to do with Mac functionality at all!

Incorrect. DirectX version equates directly to OpenGL features supported. For example arb_fragment_program == pixel shaders 2.0, iirc.

 

[AdamR01]

Incorrect. DirectX version equates directly to OpenGL features supported. For example arb_fragment_program == pixel shaders 2.0, iirc.

Thanks for backing me up . I just didnt know the proper OpenGL terminology. For some interesting reading on the performace between the 2 cards, one can go to http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1655&p=1

From the conclusion there: "Although clearly not the most interesting ATI product being released today, the Radeon 9000 Pro does its job quite well. The Radeon 9000 Pro, at $129, is able to outperform the fastest GeForce4 MX in most situations and falls behind it in Quake III based games. The performance hit you do take with the Radeon 9000 Pro is worth it however, with the 9000 Pro you get full DirectX 8 pixel and vertex shader support that the GeForce4 MX cannot offer."

 

[bousozoku]

Incorrect. DirectX version equates directly to OpenGL features supported. For example arb_fragment_program == pixel shaders 2.0, iirc.

I think you mean the Direct3D component of DirectX. DirectX includes sound, input from controllers, etc. It used to be WinG.

 

[cluthz]

entropybran mentioned that gaming wasn't an issue....
So shaders and directx versions are not an issues either..

So the q is is he needs more vram.
2d speed between geforce 4mx and radeon is about even

 

[AdamR01]

entropybran mentioned that gaming wasn't an issue....
So shaders and directx versions are not an issues either..

So the q is is he needs more vram.
2d speed between geforce 4mx and radeon is about even

Just because he mentioned gaming isnt an issue, doesnt mean the performance of the 3d function of the card is not an issue. Doesn't Quartz Extreme rely on the 3d portion of the graphics card, meaning in turn Expose?

I think you mean the Direct3D component of DirectX. DirectX includes sound, input from controllers, etc. It used to be WinG.

The version of DirectX relates directly to the version of Direct3D. The term DirectX is used interchangably often. Hell, even the boxes for the cards say stuff like "Supports DirectX 8.1" or "Supports DirectX 9"