hi i just got a new dual 2 ghz powermac with the radeon 9650. after reading the comparisons on the apple web page im having second thoughts about the chip. is it a powerful chip? will games run smoothly? can it take advantage of tigers new core image features? thanks for the help.
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.
is the radeon 9650 any good?
- Thread starter applecrag
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a mid range card. If you play Doom 3 for the purpose of seeing if you can get more frame rates than your friends, even though can't tell the difference between any of them you may be a bit disappointed, but it should handle just about any game on the market today pretty well. It's also more than enough to handle core image. It's biggest advantage over the 9600 is the 256MB VRAM instead of 128MB, and that makes it more or less worth the rather small $50 increase.
I didn't find it informative. It's supposed to compare cards in the same general area of performance and thus at reasonable loads. Doom3 @ 19x12 and Halo @ 19x12 brings the 9650 to 6 and 11 FPS, respectively. how does that help me?plinden said:
I know it compares the cards that apple is offering as BTO for the PM, but it's still rather useless.
I wonder why Apple dropped Rad 9800 as BTO? And why they are not offering Rad X800 XT? Hmm.....
If you want to play Doom3 get 9800 retail
P.S.: 9650 is supported by Core Image, so you will get smooth GUI performance. Even GeForceFX 5200 Ultra is supported!
If you want to play Doom3 get 9800 retail
P.S.: 9650 is supported by Core Image, so you will get smooth GUI performance. Even GeForceFX 5200 Ultra is supported!
It's just like the 9600, but 50 better. So... yes, it will.iBunny said:
Seriously, it will. Pretty well actually. If the 5200 can do it, and the 9200 can even do some things just fine, you will not have any complaints with the 9650 unless you're a gamer.
quick question about this card, will it be able to run 1920x1200 using the DEll fpw 2405 24" LCD? cause i was checking the cards and the 9600 or 9650 is not listed.
and if i run at 1920x1200 if i dwl hdtv clips or people make hdtv stuff it will run on hd on the monitor?
and what is core image?
thanks
and if i run at 1920x1200 if i dwl hdtv clips or people make hdtv stuff it will run on hd on the monitor?
and what is core image?
thanks
The radeon 9650 is old technology it's not even PC low end anymore, it's the same thing as a 9600 with more ram and a clock a little higher I believe (not sure should be check). I don't understand why Apple put this in the Powermac?!?! Even the eMac is having the same GPU. That being say, get the lowest card from apple and go to an mac retail store and buy yourself a good card (Radeon 9800 or up). Or you may flash a PC card, the nVidia 6800 is flashable. Look over the web (www.macbidouille.com or www.xlr8yourmac.com) you should found. For the price of the PC card you get a hell of performance compare to any mac specifique card.
The main thing that have always stop me from buying an iMac is the graphic card. I only use Powermac so I can change it or flash a PC card. The only thing I hate in Apple hardware are video card, they plain screw it -periode-. This and the bus on the G4, hope Apple use Freescale chip soon, they have G4 dual core with high frequency bus out there waiting for us.
The main thing that have always stop me from buying an iMac is the graphic card. I only use Powermac so I can change it or flash a PC card. The only thing I hate in Apple hardware are video card, they plain screw it -periode-. This and the bus on the G4, hope Apple use Freescale chip soon, they have G4 dual core with high frequency bus out there waiting for us.
The 9650 is a lot like the 9600, but a bit faster. It's a rebadged 9600XT. According to Apple's own website, both the 9600XT and the 9650 have a 1.6 billion pixel/second fill rate, while the 9600 has a 1.3 billion pixel/second fill rate. More importantly, the 9600XT and 9650 have a 600 MHz memory clock, resulting in 50% higher memory bandwidth than the plain 9600, which has a 400 MHz memory clock.
It's not high end by any means but it'll suffice for gaming and it's absolutely fine for any 2D stuff you want to throw at it. And yes it'll run a Dell flat panel.
It's not high end by any means but it'll suffice for gaming and it's absolutely fine for any 2D stuff you want to throw at it. And yes it'll run a Dell flat panel.
I had bought and an old imac with the 5200 and returned and got a BTO PM 2.0 with the 9650 and it plays Doom a hell of a lot better than the 5200 as expected, I'm fairly pleased woth the card it hick ups every so often not bad and it's not all the time. I don't do a lot of gaming so it satisfies my needs right now. I can always upgrade though wich is why I went with the PM.
mackaveli said:
it'll run 1920x1200 fine, even my radeon 7500 will run that res fine.
the 9650 is nothing more than a 256MB 9600XT with slightly slower memory and a dual link DVI port instead of the ADC port, nothing more.
it'll run anything fine even motion or doom 3, it's just better graphics cards run motion and doom 3 better, the benchmarks are not all that usefull as most people dont run games at 1920x1200, and lower end card tend to do pretty well at lower resolutions and drop frames at higher ones.
AstroManLuca said:
Do the 9600XT and 9650 really have a 600MHz clock? I've never used one, but based on the database of ATIcellerator users, it seems that the 9600XT has a 400MHz processor and 310MHz memory. I just checked and ATI's website also says 400MHz, but does the 9650 have a higher clock?
edit: Barefeats has a table which says:
9600 XT = 401MHz clock, 311MHz memory
9650 = 401MHz clock, 270MHz memory
if the ati 9700 is even faster than a 9650 then why the hell are apple using these slow cards. u can can get 9800s on pc for the imacs price. the imacs should come with 9800s and the powermacs should come with either the 6800 or x800 standard.
it is pathetic how apple uses such rubbish cards.
it is pathetic how apple uses such rubbish cards.
please point me to a place where you can get a pc with at least a 3GHz p4 or a AMD 3000+ a 17" 1400x900 widescreen lcd, a 9800 pro 160GB HD 512MB DDR400 and a combo drive for $1299
no, if your playing a game then a res lower than 1920x1200 is a good idea with motion it'll just take longer to render.
mackaveli said:
no, if your playing a game then a res lower than 1920x1200 is a good idea with motion it'll just take longer to render.
Hi guys,
Helping a mate whos a Photoshop geek decide on the setup of his future G5, was really surprise to find that the 9800 has been dropped in favour for 9600 and 9650. What my main concern is wacom pen lag? I am assuming that better GFX card reduces pen lag am I right or am I looking at it the wrong way? can someone confirm this?
Helping a mate whos a Photoshop geek decide on the setup of his future G5, was really surprise to find that the 9800 has been dropped in favour for 9600 and 9650. What my main concern is wacom pen lag? I am assuming that better GFX card reduces pen lag am I right or am I looking at it the wrong way? can someone confirm this?
Alte22a said:
I don't have the full answer, but these two things shouldn't be related. for photoshop work the 9600 or 9650 are more than adequate, it'd be processor and ram that affect PS, and as for the tablet, the lag is either the speed of the tablet itself, the usb connection or the processor and ram I listed above
Alte22a said:
No, the difference between the cards is insignificant on 2-D programs like Photoshop.
bushgreen said:
Well, I think the reason the 9800 is not in the iMac is it's too big for the case. But yeah, there is no excuse why x800s are not standard. Apple is always stingy when it comes to graphics cards, which is a shame because they are the first thing to go out of date in a computer.