Okay. I'm wondering... I currently have a blackbook running under the Santa Rosa (X3100) graphics chip. I'm getting a new iMac soon, and I was wondering if it's REALLY worth the almost 2 month wait to get the ATI Raedon. The only games I play currently are Enigmo, Zoo Tycoon, and Drop Point Alaska on Mac. I can't play ZT or DPA on the Mac. They tend to jump like crazy. There's also Fiesta & Project Powder (from Outspark) on Windows, both of which run fine on the X3100. Is the ATI overkill? Most of my hardcore gaming is PS3 or Wii, not computer. The cost isn't the issue, it's the wait time that tends to kill me. I just don't want to get the NVIDIA and end up wishing I would have waited...
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.
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs. NVIDIA GeForce GT 130
- Thread starter imfrog2002
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For the games you have mentioned the gt 130 will be fine, you could get the ATI if you want to future proof it but the 130 will be fine for those games.
How far future are we talking? I'm not going to be able to afford another Mac for at least 2-3 years, probably 4. I don't want it to be unusable by then. I'm probably not going to get too many more games, like I said, I'm a console gamer. Sims 3 is probably the most in-depth game I'm thinking about eventually getting.
In 4 years graphic accelerator speed should at least triple. Likely considering the current differences, they'll be 4 times faster than the Nvidia. That said it's often the case that pro apps favor running on an Nvidia card.
Well, I just got off the phone with the local Apple Store. They said that they'd be fine with me going into the Apple Store and installing those games on one of their machines to make sure that they run with no problems.
I've seen it go the other way recently, given that ATI has had better support.
The games you listed, the GT130 will run them perfectly fine. 4 years down the line? No one can predict 3-4 years down the line where games will be, but the 4850 will definitely be much more future proof
Personally though, if you're going to be keeping a computer around for 2-3 years, why not wait the 4-5 weeks and $50 for a card that will be better for those 2-3 years?
ARGH. You're all conflicting. The whole thing is that I want to know if the NVIDIA will be able to play average games, usually the ones included in bundle packages, or freeware games, in 2 years. I'll say it again, I'm not a hardcore gamer. I don't play Call of Duty, or anything extremely intense.
The majority of these right now require the Geforce 2 or greater.
You just need Quartz Extreme in most cases.
The majority of these right now require the Geforce 2 or greater.
You just need Quartz Extreme in most cases.
Geforce 2... that's better or worse than the 130? (I'm new at graphics cards. That's why I'm on here asking.) Either way, would the 130 be enough for normal consumer gaming?
I had a GeForce 2 back in 2000. Unreal Tournament was EPIC on it.
If you're not going to game why even consider the HD4850? The GT130 is more than enough and overkill.
Okay. I wasn't sure. I was only considering it because I wasn't sure, and it want it to work without it being dead slow. I just don't want to buy it without the facts.
everybody here is ****ing with you instead of helping
the GT130 will be FINE. even the 9400M on the low end macs is FINE. you could go buy a craptop from acer for $300 and you'd be absolutely FINE.
check out this page, it has all the notebook graphic cards:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Graphic-Cards.130.0.html
you don't need to be technical. just look at the list on the right side. higher up = better, lower down = worse.
most low end cards today are in the "class 3" section. that's more then sufficient for the games you wanna play. don't worry.
the GT130 will be FINE. even the 9400M on the low end macs is FINE. you could go buy a craptop from acer for $300 and you'd be absolutely FINE.
check out this page, it has all the notebook graphic cards:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Graphic-Cards.130.0.html
you don't need to be technical. just look at the list on the right side. higher up = better, lower down = worse.
most low end cards today are in the "class 3" section. that's more then sufficient for the games you wanna play. don't worry.
You misunderstood my post I think. Or I wasn't clear. No biggy. But we're in complete agreeance.
Okay, I'm not good at reading technical spreadsheets, I do better at plain text and simplified when it comes to something that's new to me. Everything taken into account, I'm going with the 130. If there was no time difference, there would be no reason not to go with the ATI. Thanks for all your help, you just saved me a lot of time and hassle. I'll see ya'll later with my new 24" iMac!
I'll see ya'll later with my new 24" iMac!