Geforce FX 5200 Go performance vs ATI?

[iModFrenzy]

So I dusted off my PowerBook G4 12" 1.5ghz 1.25gb fx 5200 64mb, and wanted to try playing some old PPC games. I recall reading the 5200 has some terrible performance compared to ATI cards released in PowerBooks at the time. So that got me thinking if its worth it to pull out my iBook 1.25ghz Radeon 9200.

My first trial on the PB 12" was running Halo Universal binary, which was a performance nightmare. Not to mention, the FX 5200 had a ton of trouble rendering special effects in the game. I haven't tried running Halo 1.5.2(PPC only, Carbon) so it's possible this version(2.0.4 UB) isn't optimized well(it was rewritten in 2007 with Intel in mind as well). I'll pull out my iBook tomorrow and see what I can get out of it.

So pretty much what it boils down to is, would an ATI card perform better for some PPC gaming?

Thanks - Wrote this on the PB G4 as well(in the JS editor too!), amazed I can access these forums on it in 2020.

 

[Caliban2005]

Please see this thread for relative performance comparison on raw rendering speed. And yes - the GF FX5200 is a particularly bad example of a GPU. Unfortunately Nvidia removed all the functionality which made the full version GF FX an OK GPU...

Some PPC OpenMark benchmarks | MacRumors Forums

 

[sparty411]

The GeForce FX 5200 Go is an abortion of a GPU. Any mid-range ATI mobile GPU from the same time period will absolutely destroy it.

 

[Amethyst1]

It is so unfair that the 2005 PB12 has to make do with that POS GPU whereas the 2005 iBook got the 9550 which even supports CI.

 

[CubeHacker]

Just keep in mind that Although the Radeon 9200 seems to be part of the 9xxx series, it shares more in common with the 8xxx than the 9xxx line. It has no programable pixel shader support and is a directX 8 card. It won't get you anymore graphical effects than the 5200fx.

Only the Radeon 9600 found in some of the powerbooks was a true step up and had full pixel shader support.

 

[Amethyst1]

Only the Radeon 9600 found in some of the powerbooks was a true step up and had full pixel shader support.

What about the 9550 in the final iBook?

 

[sparty411]

What about the 9550 in the final iBook?

Wasn't the 9550 just a cut down 9600?

 

[CubeHacker]

Wasn't the 9550 just a cut down 9600?

Yeah just lower clocks, but still had a 128 bit memory interface and full pixel shader support. Not sure about the mobile variants though.

 

[timidpimpin]

The 5200 Go equivalent from ATI would be around the 9000, but the 5200 has the advantage of Core Image support. On the ATI side that support starts at the 9550. Also, the 9000 is actually slightly more powerful than a 9200, which makes no sense, buy that's what they did.

 

[Amethyst1]

the 5200 has the advantage of Core Image support.

Not really. It's all handled by the CPU. No translucent menu bar in Leo either.

PowerBook G4 12" / FX 5200 Core Image Ambiguity.

I was perusing Apple Developer tech notes from 2005 and came across the following clarification about the GPU acceleration on the PB 12" (1Ghz+) and 2003-2004 G5 stock FX 5200 GPU. I ran some of my own non-scientific tests with Core Image and OpenGL and my results on a PowerBook G4 12" 1.5Ghz...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[AphoticD]

Not really. It's all handled by the CPU. No translucent menu bar in Leo either.

PowerBook G4 12" / FX 5200 Core Image Ambiguity.

I was perusing Apple Developer tech notes from 2005 and came across the following clarification about the GPU acceleration on the PB 12" (1Ghz+) and 2003-2004 G5 stock FX 5200 GPU. I ran some of my own non-scientific tests with Core Image and OpenGL and my results on a PowerBook G4 12" 1.5Ghz...

forums.macrumors.com

Thanks for sharing this old post @Amethyst1 - Yes, Core Image “support” on the FX5200 was merely a marketing trick.

In my research I found on hardware utilizing the FX5200, that all calls made to the CoreImage Framework resulted in higher CPU load and system memory usage than on hardware utilizing fully supported CI GPUs like the 9600/9700.

I was then led to an Apple technical doc which declares the framework has a built-in fallback to use software (CPU) rendering when the FX5200 is in use...

So what is the point of calling it Core Image Supported if this “support” is quietly undermined by the OS?

 

[Amethyst1]

Thanks for sharing this old post @Amethyst1

No, all thanks go to you for investigating the matter

So what is the point of calling it Core Image Supported if this “support” is quietly undermined by the OS?

To seemingly give the 12" PowerBook the edge over the iBooks maybe...?

 

[DearthnVader]

Yeah just lower clocks, but still had a 128 bit memory interface and full pixel shader support. Not sure about the mobile variants though.

The mobile 9550 in the iBook G4 as a 64bit vram bus.

It' not really any faster than the 9200 mobile GPU used in the earlier iBook G4's, but it does feature true hardware CI and pixel shader support.

The R8500/9000/9100/9200 support "Smart Shaders" ATI had a demo that ran under OS X if anyone can still find it?

EDIT here they are: https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/ati-smartshaders-demos-1

 

[AphoticD]

To seemingly give the PB12 the edge over the iBooks maybe...? Apart from that, no idea.

They had to justify the PB12” $$$ difference somehow...

Maybe Nvidia and Apple were in a bind where the ARB fragment capable GPU was delivered as to Apple’s spec, but performance was unbalanced to the point where the card’s rendering in this area was slower than CPU rendering... So Apple Marketing came to the rescue to handle the issue without losing sales or replacing the hardware by simply convincing the OS into showing it as CoreImage Supported on the surface.

I remember the early G5s which shipped with the FX5200 Ultra could be CTO built with a Radeon 9600 Pro (64MB) for little to no difference in price... in hindsight it should have been a no brainer.

 

[timidpimpin]

Not really. It's all handled by the CPU. No translucent menu bar in Leo either.

PowerBook G4 12" / FX 5200 Core Image Ambiguity.

I was perusing Apple Developer tech notes from 2005 and came across the following clarification about the GPU acceleration on the PB 12" (1Ghz+) and 2003-2004 G5 stock FX 5200 GPU. I ran some of my own non-scientific tests with Core Image and OpenGL and my results on a PowerBook G4 12" 1.5Ghz...

forums.macrumors.com

Very interesting. My only experience with any 5200 is the one in my PB 12", and I use it or white noise, so I never even payed attention to the performance. But yes... even a standard 5200 would be pretty gutless, so I would imagine a portable variant would be even worse.

 

[Amethyst1]

I remember the early G5s which shipped with the FX5200 Ultra could be CTO built with a Radeon 9600 Pro (64MB) for little to no difference in price... in hindsight it should have been a no brainer.

Indeed. Well, at least the FX5200 in the G5 has external (good) TMDS transmitters!!!oneoneeleven LOL

But yes... even a standard 5200 would be pretty gutless,

It's probably better than the 4MX tho LOL.

 

[AphoticD]

The mobile 9550 in the iBook G4 as a 64bit vram bus.

It' not really any faster than the 9200 mobile GPU used in the earlier iBook G4's, but it does feature true hardware CI and pixel shader support.

This backs up my experience with using the iBook G4s for gaming with my kids...

Even though the 9550 benchmark results are much higher, the real gaming performance difference between the 1.2GHz, 1.33GHz and 1.42GHz iBook G4 14” models is barely noticeable.

 

[timidpimpin]

Here's something odd... 6200's are still sold new. I guess because it serves a niche for PC's that still have reasonably capable CPU's, but very under powered integrated graphics. Like the Intel 2000 HD from Sandy Bridge, and the 950 with the C2D's. Those CPU's are still great for modern web and youtube, but those GPU's skip frames often. So cards like the 6200 and 710 are literally just video adapters now.

 

[Amethyst1]

I don't see the point of getting a 6200 as a replacement for integrated graphics. If your PC was made in the last 15 years it probably has a PCIe x16 slot and you can use much more modern GPUs providing high-res video decoding, 4K@60Hz etc etc

 

[timidpimpin]

I don't see the point of getting a 6200 as a replacement for integrated graphics. If your PC was made in the last 15 years it probably has a PCIe x16 slot and you can use much more modern GPUs providing high-res video decoding, 4K@60Hz etc etc

That would be where the GT 710 I mentioned comes in.

 

[CubeHacker]

A 6200 might be useful in like a Quicksilver or MDD.

 

[iModFrenzy]

Well it turns out my iBook is a G4 1.33ghz with a 9550 GPU so I guess that wins then. I tried out Halo on that, and noticed a huge difference in shading/lighting/etc.

Shame the FX5200 is such a poor card for the PowerBook. I love the PB’s build quality(even if it is a lot louder/hotter than the iBook).

 

[Amethyst1]

A 6200 might be useful in like a Quicksilver or MDD.

Yeah, that's about it.

 

[timidpimpin]

A 6200 might be useful in like a Quicksilver or MDD.

From what I understand... the 6200 won't work in an MDD. All the sellers on ebay that sold 6200's flashed for Mac claimed it would work in every AGP Power Mac G4 other than the MDD.

 

[DearthnVader]

Well it turns out my iBook is a G4 1.33ghz with a 9550 GPU so I guess that wins then. I tried out Halo on that, and noticed a huge difference in shading/lighting/etc.

Shame the FX5200 is such a poor card for the PowerBook. I love the PB’s build quality(even if it is a lot louder/hotter than the iBook).

Yes, the PB 12" is much nicer that the iBook/w 9550, it's a shame they hamper it with the GF5200Go, a real POS, but such a nice KB.