UnixMac said:
Yep, I am worried about driver conflicts, etc. The screen savers aren't a big deal, I just wan't to know if there would be a conflict between the Nvidia card and the other ATi apps...
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.
Nvidia 6800 GT Coming Soon?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep, I am worried about driver conflicts, etc. The screen savers aren't a big deal, I just wan't to know if there would be a conflict between the Nvidia card and the other ATi apps...
I right clicked the thing, and told it to remove it. Worked, ATI accelerator and override icons are gone. I don't know if that's the right way to do it though. I accessed the panels with the nvidia card installed though... it just said it didn't detect ATI card. So you could leave them there too. No harm done.
invaLPsion said:
Yeah.. somehow I think driver conflicts are a cary over from our PC/Windows/Registry days.. Mac's usually have this stuff wired pretty tight.
Please make note that I didn't go trying to change settings with the ATI panels or accelerator... I had no desire to crash my mac... So if you leave them in system preferences, i have no idea if you can play with their settings...invaLPsion said:Alright terrific, thanks!
Can't wait for that 6800GT coming tomorrow...!
Mine GT came yesterday and so far I'm really happy with it. I had just bought the new 23" LCD a few weeks ago and was had noticed a lot of interface slowdown with the stock 9600...in particular Expose was really jerky. Now eveything is super-smooth and quick.
As far as game performance, Battlefield plays at full res with all the options on..very nice. Halo isn't quite as good, but I notice that if you play the game with ATI shaders enabled instead of the NVIDIA ones, the framerate is much better.
I use modo and Lightwave for school, and they both have nice preview speed...especially when you really blow the preview windows up.
As far as game performance, Battlefield plays at full res with all the options on..very nice. Halo isn't quite as good, but I notice that if you play the game with ATI shaders enabled instead of the NVIDIA ones, the framerate is much better.
I use modo and Lightwave for school, and they both have nice preview speed...especially when you really blow the preview windows up.
Initial Results...
on the 6800 GT (1280 by 1024 everything MAX)...
UT2K4 Demo Torlan Onslaught: Dips down as low as 25 but rarely, Tops around 90-95, Avg. about 50.
AAO U.S. Weapons Training: Low: 55 High: 260 Avg: around 90 FPS
Call of Duty Training Level: Low: 40 - 45 FPS High: 180 Avg: 75-85 FPS
It definitely performs better than the 9600 XT but not as much as I had hoped. I think this card really has some untapped power, which REAL 6800 drivers SHOULD fix in OS 10.4 "Tiger." This card is certainly underperforming.
The noise is not too bad, however, but the fan on the card is audible.
Anyone else have a comparision with their 6800 GT?
on the 6800 GT (1280 by 1024 everything MAX)...
UT2K4 Demo Torlan Onslaught: Dips down as low as 25 but rarely, Tops around 90-95, Avg. about 50.
AAO U.S. Weapons Training: Low: 55 High: 260 Avg: around 90 FPS
Call of Duty Training Level: Low: 40 - 45 FPS High: 180 Avg: 75-85 FPS
It definitely performs better than the 9600 XT but not as much as I had hoped. I think this card really has some untapped power, which REAL 6800 drivers SHOULD fix in OS 10.4 "Tiger." This card is certainly underperforming.
The noise is not too bad, however, but the fan on the card is audible.
Anyone else have a comparision with their 6800 GT?
I hear that Mac OS X 10.3.7 will deliver some new graphics card drivers. I wonder if your card is included. Even if Mac OS X 10.3.7 doesn't give a newer, better driver, Tiger should deliver (it had better deliver).invaLPsion said:
invaLPsion said:
The card definitely has lot more potential than the current drivers are tapping.. also.. I used this 3D benchmark to get a score vs. my 9600 and came up with a score of 384 on the nv6800 vs 228 on the 9600..
http://www.giofx.net/osx/index.htm
It's called open mark and it's simple you basically start the bench, and to accelerate it you can use the up arrow button... when it reaches 9fps it spits out a score..
Also, the other app he has on there is great... cool 3D scenes.. but you have to be careful.. it's faulty and causes freeze ups and kernel panics which the developer is working on fixing, the key to avoid the kernel panics is to deselect the full screen bloom mode.
But the 3D benchmark works flawlessly.
Lets see what kids of scores others are getting, 384 on my system.
More Benchmarks...
Quake 3 (G4) TimeDemo 1 @ 1280 by 1024 everything MAX: 408.3 FPS
@ 1024 by 768: 422.3 FPS
DAmn, that is nice!
Quake 3 (G4) TimeDemo 1 @ 1280 by 1024 everything MAX: 408.3 FPS
@ 1024 by 768: 422.3 FPS
DAmn, that is nice!
408.3 FPS is TOO fast. Unless Quake 3 has a speed governor, it would be unplayably fast at that speed.invaLPsion said:Quake 3 (G4) TimeDemo 1 @ 1280 by 1024 everything MAX: 408.3 FPS
DAmn, that is nice!
UnixMac said:
Um How Accurate is this OpenMark bench supposed to be? I score anywhere between 1200-3400 on my Geforce4MX.
On my first try, I got a 903. This is on my GeForce 5200FX in my 1.25 GHz iMac G4 with 512 MB RAM.Little Endian said:
wrldwzrd89 said:
The highest I could get was 480 with the up arrow held down to accelerate the test... Kinda odd how we could be so far apart.
I think between this and Xbench, it's safe to say that there isn't a decent 3D benchmark on the Mac.
Can anyone do a Santaduck Flyby test?
CAn someone do a Santaduck UT2K4 FLyby at 1280 by 1024 for the UT2K4 (3334) Demo? (On the Ultra or GT)
CAn someone do a Santaduck UT2K4 FLyby at 1280 by 1024 for the UT2K4 (3334) Demo? (On the Ultra or GT)
Helping Barefeats...
Hey guys, I've just provided Rob-Art Morgan with some benchmarks from my 6800 GT. He's looking for some Halo results with the card. Anyone who'd be willing to test their machines for his site simply contact him. He will be comparing the 6800 GT to the Ultra in the coming week and needs results. Thanks.
Hey guys, I've just provided Rob-Art Morgan with some benchmarks from my 6800 GT. He's looking for some Halo results with the card. Anyone who'd be willing to test their machines for his site simply contact him. He will be comparing the 6800 GT to the Ultra in the coming week and needs results. Thanks.
invaLPsion said:
I've got the 2x2.5 with the Ultra but quite frankly, I find Halo totally lame... almost, but not quite, unplayable.. IMHO. A poor benchmark for the Mac.
Something is very wrong with the implementation of this game on the Mac, it's as though the ported the X-box version to the mac with no MP, Altivec, or any kind of effort to make it run like it should.
Is Halo built on the Unreal engine, or a unique engine? Cause it sure aint the Q3 engine.
anyway, for what it's worth.. here's what I got...
-------------------------------------
Date / Time: 11/22/2004 10:31:5 (0ms)
2100MHz, 2048MB
Macintosh HD\Applications\GAMES\Halo\Halo -windowed -console Frames=4700
Total Time=207.59s
Average frame rate=22.64fps
Below 5fps= 8% (time) 1% (frames) (17.356s spent in 51 frames)
Below 10fps= 24% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 15fps= 32% (time) 9% (frames)
Below 20fps= 43% (time) 18% (frames)
Below 25fps= 52% (time) 27% (frames)
Below 30fps= 69% (time) 47% (frames)
Below 40fps= 92% (time) 82% (frames)
Below 50fps= 98% (time) 93% (frames)
Below 60fps= 98% (time) 94% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= No
Sound Quality= Low
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= Medium
###Video Options###
Resolution= 1280 x 800
Refresh rate= 0 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High
For further information, please visit the timedemo FAQ at: http://halo.bungie.net/site/halo/features/hpcperformancefaq.html
-------------------------------------
Date / Time: 11/22/2004 10:31:5 (0ms)
2100MHz, 2048MB
Macintosh HD\Applications\GAMES\Halo\Halo -windowed -console Frames=4700
Total Time=207.59s
Average frame rate=22.64fps
Below 5fps= 8% (time) 1% (frames) (17.356s spent in 51 frames)
Below 10fps= 24% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 15fps= 32% (time) 9% (frames)
Below 20fps= 43% (time) 18% (frames)
Below 25fps= 52% (time) 27% (frames)
Below 30fps= 69% (time) 47% (frames)
Below 40fps= 92% (time) 82% (frames)
Below 50fps= 98% (time) 93% (frames)
Below 60fps= 98% (time) 94% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= No
Sound Quality= Low
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= Medium
###Video Options###
Resolution= 1280 x 800
Refresh rate= 0 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High
For further information, please visit the timedemo FAQ at: http://halo.bungie.net/site/halo/features/hpcperformancefaq.html
Blech! 22.64 fps average is horrid, especially for a powerful card like nVidia's GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL. I'm curious also as to why this is.UnixMac said:
wrldwzrd89 said:
On Rob Arts website they only get 21fps when max res, and lower settings on lens flare and FSAA..
Here are a couple of more, using a mid res, and lower lens flare and FSAA.. upwards of 37fps... still sucks, but compared to other graphics cards, playable. Problem is Halo is a crapy port.. both for PC and Mac. It's about time those PC guys got to deal with the portable bs we get dealt all of the time on Mac games.
---------------
For further information, please visit the timedemo FAQ at: http://halo.bungie.net/site/halo/features/hpcperformancefaq.html
Date / Time: 11/22/2004 8:35:43 (0ms)
2100MHz, 2048MB
Macintosh HD\Applications\GAMES\Halo\Halo -console Frames=4700
Total Time=136.61s
Average frame rate=34.40fps
Below 5fps= 6% (time) 0% (frames) (9.178s spent in 11 frames)
Below 10fps= 21% (time) 3% (frames)
Below 15fps= 24% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 20fps= 25% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 25fps= 35% (time) 12% (frames)
Below 30fps= 44% (time) 18% (frames)
Below 40fps= 57% (time) 31% (frames)
Below 50fps= 75% (time) 55% (frames)
Below 60fps= 92% (time) 81% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= No
Sound Quality= Low
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= Medium
###Video Options###
Resolution= 960 x 600
Refresh rate= 0 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High
For further information, please visit the timedemo FAQ at: http://halo.bungie.net/site/halo/features/hpcperformancefaq.html
Date / Time: 11/22/2004 8:43:24 (0ms)
2100MHz, 2048MB
Macintosh HD\Applications\GAMES\Halo\Halo -console Frames=4700
Total Time=124.95s
Average frame rate=37.61fps
Below 5fps= 3% (time) 0% (frames) (4.341s spent in 7 frames)
Below 10fps= 17% (time) 3% (frames)
Below 15fps= 20% (time) 4% (frames)
Below 20fps= 22% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 25fps= 30% (time) 9% (frames)
Below 30fps= 40% (time) 16% (frames)
Below 40fps= 53% (time) 28% (frames)
Below 50fps= 68% (time) 46% (frames)
Below 60fps= 85% (time) 71% (frames)
###Sound Options###
Hardware Acceleration= No
Sound Quality= Low
Environmental Sound= No
Sound Variety= Medium
###Video Options###
Resolution= 960 x 600
Refresh rate= 0 Hz
Framerate throttle= No Vsync
Specular= Yes
Shadows= Yes
Decals= Yes
Particles= Off
Texture Quality= High
For further information, please visit the timedemo FAQ at: http://halo.bungie.net/site/halo/features/hpcperformancefaq.html
Barefeats posts initial finding of the 6800Ultra Vs. the GT and so far the Ultra seems no faster than the GT. These are only initial benchmarks though and we will probably see the Ultra eeke out the GT by a small margin but only above Resolutions of 1280x1024 and higher.
http://barefeats.com/gef6800c.html
In a few days we should see more Games tested as well as Motion tests. Also with Ultra High Resolutions.
http://barefeats.com/gef6800c.html
In a few days we should see more Games tested as well as Motion tests. Also with Ultra High Resolutions.
Little Endian said:
Yep, I am the "mad scientist" with those results. However, I only have a 17 inch LCD.
Others with GTs, please help Rob!
invaLPsion said:
Something is odd about those results as they show the GT as faster than the Ultra.. and while they are more or less similar cards, one is nevertheless 20% faster clock... there should be a difference in the other direction.
We need more acurate ways to guage these two side by side.
The difference can be seen in Half Life2 at high resolutions with eye candy enabled. The differences can be almost ten percent in the levels that are gpu limited. On the cpu limited areas they perform about the same. I can't think of a game on a mac that really stresses the graphics card like Far Cry/Doom3/HL2 can.
By the way, why the hell is the GT a 2 slot card? It looks like it has the same cooler as the Ultra when it doesn't need it. Bad enough the G5 only has 3 pci slots and the GT takes it down to 2.
By the way, why the hell is the GT a 2 slot card? It looks like it has the same cooler as the Ultra when it doesn't need it. Bad enough the G5 only has 3 pci slots and the GT takes it down to 2.