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.
radeon 9600 vs 9650 without getting a 30" display
- Thread starter Anarchy99
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm personally getting the 9650, because it is 256 MB instead of 128 MB. It's only fifty dollars, so it can't hurt and video card keep on getting better. With HD getting bigger and bigger, having a good video card can help out. I don't know if you will be able to notice the difference, but I'm sure it will be better in high use situations.
macbaseball said:
I agree--get the 9650. If you are going to game, get the 256 MB. You'll notice a difference on high-end games.
What IS the deal with the 9650? After unsuccessfully googling this thing- I really can't figure out how good it is. By some accounts, it's not as good of a card as the 9600. Granted I don't know what I'm talking about, but from what I've read the 128 vs. 256 isn't the only factor, ie bandwidth and such. Some people say it's not as good as the 9600?
Anybody have any solid links or solid info on this? I will be buying a new Powermac imminently, and will NOT be using it for games, but I want the better card overall between the two.
Anybody have any solid links or solid info on this? I will be buying a new Powermac imminently, and will NOT be using it for games, but I want the better card overall between the two.
decksnap said:
I have no bechmarks comparing them, but I can tell you that I'm 100% positive that the GeForce 6800 blows them both out of the water.
Do you believe everything you read on the web? Seriously tho', the Apple Store has a short description of both cards.decksnap said:
ATI 9600: 128MB VRAM, 1.3 billion textured pixeels per second, 2 single-link DVI ports.
ATI 9650: 256MB VRAM, 1.6 billion textured pixeels per second, 1 single-link and 1 dual-link DVI ports.
The 9650 seems to compare to the 9600XT (which is different from the 9600 referenced above) card in terms of performance (except of course the 9650 has a dual-link DVI port and twice as much VRAM).
Based on the little bit above, the 9650 is a better card overall, even if you are not getting a display that requires the dual-link DVI.
The downside of the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL is that it blocks one of the PCI slots, which may or may not matter for some people. Although it is definitely the fastest card in the BTO options for the PwoerMac G5
I'm not sure how noticable it will be, but it should be some and I would say that the $50 difference is well worth it.Anarchy99 said:
The difference in fillrate between the two Apple 9600 versions is identical to the difference between the 9600 and 9600 Pro in the PC world. Maybe it's the same case on the macs but you'd figure they would call it a 9600 Pro 256MB, even if it's just for marketing reasons.
The 9600 chip is too slow for 256MB to make a difference in gaming. By the time the resolution is set high enough to require extra RAM, the 9600 chip would be sputtering out a slideshow. Do production/studio apps like motion make good use of VRAM? It might be more helpful then (especially with dual displays) since I bet raw GPU horsepower is less important then. Performance gains will be minor at best but considering the price of the PM's themselves and the measly $50 to upgrade, go for it
On a side note, my Tiger just arrived--yay!
The 9600 chip is too slow for 256MB to make a difference in gaming. By the time the resolution is set high enough to require extra RAM, the 9600 chip would be sputtering out a slideshow. Do production/studio apps like motion make good use of VRAM? It might be more helpful then (especially with dual displays) since I bet raw GPU horsepower is less important then. Performance gains will be minor at best but considering the price of the PM's themselves and the measly $50 to upgrade, go for it
On a side note, my Tiger just arrived--yay!
