The real GeForce 4

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>Before complaining , you should wait for benchmarks. The only information for the moment avalaible is that the geforce 4 mx provide 1,1 billions pixel per second .
The geforce 3 provide 800 millions pixel per second and the radeon 8500 1,1 billions pixel per second also.
So i doubt that you can say a geforce 4 mx is a geforce 3 mx. We don't know how millions triangle per second can provide the 4 mx.

Remember what was the difference between a geforce 2 and a geforce 2 mx : same number of triangles per second, but the geforce 2 was providing 800 millions pixel per second and the geforce 2 mx the half . The geforce 3 was providing the same number of pixel per second but was much faster concerning the number of triangles per second.
so it's always hard to make comparisons before real benchmarks.

But one time more there is people complaining about this video card even if it's the best performant video card ever built in a mac since many years (is there is anybody here who prefer the ATI rage chips family ...)
With nvidia, even if we have not the more performant chip of this company , we have the last generation of them, even before the PC. It was never the case with ATI.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What the hell. Do you live in a box or something? We've known that the gf3 outperforms the gf4mx since the day after its announcement.

Go to <a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com" target="_blank">www.xlr8yourmac.com</a> and scroll down the main page a bit until you find the graph showing the same system with a gf3 and a gf4mx.

[cowofwar]

http://homepage.mac.com/cowofwar/quake3_gf3_vs_gf4mx.gif

[DisgruntledQS733Owner]

As evidenced by the Quake III benchmarks on Apple's site, the GeForce 4MX that was released with the latest round of towers is a crippled 3MX not worthy of the 4 designation. However, the real GeForce 4 is just around the corner; common knowledge at this point places an nVidia release in February.
The Apple developer docs detailing the newest PowerMacs mention a 128MB video card. I can only guess that this means the real GeForce 4 is a 128MB card, dual head (given the 4MX,) 64MB each way. Very reasonable if you ask me.
There. We have advance knowledge of a future Apple release.

-DisgruntledQS733Owner

Edit: Just checked Apple's site; Radeon is single head. You get the idea. **** hell damn ass shit bitch.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: DisgruntledQS733Owner ]</p>

[Eugene]

There's only 32 MB in the Radeon 7500.

[catalyst]

[quote]Originally posted by DisgruntledQS733Owner:
<strong>
Edit: Just checked Apple's site; Radeon is single head. You get the idea. **** hell damn ass shit bitch.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: DisgruntledQS733Owner ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Both the Radeon and the 'GF4' cards with the new PowerMacs are dual-head.

[applenut]

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>There's only 32 MB in the Radeon 7500.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think the radeon splits the ram just if you are using a single monitor though like the geforce cards do

[Junkyard Dawg]

I noticed Apple doesn't even offer the Geforce 3 as a BTO option on the new Powermacs, in fact, I can't find it anywhere on their site. Yet the Geforce 4mx is less of a video card than the Geforce 3?

In other words, Apple lowered the top-end video card specs for the Mac. I fear that this means the GF3s didn't sell well enough to justify the cost of even offering them as a BTO option. Sad.

Personally I'd be happy with a GF4mx, that looks like an awesome card for the price. But it's always best to keep the option of a totally bad-ass, money is no object gaming video card on the Mac. It's good for the platform, even if Apple doesn't make much money on it (or loses a bit), it advertises to people that the Mac can rise to the demands of serious gamers if the need arises. Apple would do well to either get the Geforce 3 back as a BTO option, or get a real GF4 up there pronto.

The optimist in me says that if we wait a short while we'll see that Apple was just in transition from the GF3 as the high-end gaming card, to a true GF4 as the high end. Hope it's true.

[Amorph]

[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>I noticed Apple doesn't even offer the Geforce 3 as a BTO option on the new Powermacs, in fact, I can't find it anywhere on their site. Yet the Geforce 4mx is less of a video card than the Geforce 3?</strong><hr></blockquote>

When Mac OS 8 was released, a number of third-party application developers jumped to version 8 from wherever they had been because they were swamped with concerns about whether a v.4 product would run on a v.8 OS. It sounds silly to anyone familiar with software versioning, but then there aren't nearly enough of those people. :)

So, by the same logic, how many people would fork out $300 or so for a GeForce3 when a GeForce4 came as the default? Even if, name notwithstanding, the GF3 was the better performer?

[Eugene]

My answer: Wait for nVidia's announcement.

[The Toolboi]

it advertises to people that the Mac can rise to the demands of serious gamers if the need arises.
:rolleyes:

Not to sound like a PC biggot or anything (Oh I miss the macOS) but even with a GF3 a serious gamer isnt going to consider a mac. To tell you the truth I think that the GF3 is kind of a waste on the mac.

[Cake]

Well, it's <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/onrop1/.Pictures/FPS%2DGF3.jpg" target="_blank">not a waste</a> to me! My GF3 rocks pretty well in a Dual 533. I built a PC just for gaming, but my Mac "feels" better even though I get 20+ fewer fps in UT. I've tried adjusting the ballistics over and over again, but I just can't move as efficiently as I can on my Mac.

The GF4MX is the bottom of the line card. It's a great card for the money and is certainly a lot better than the GF2MX that came with my machine. Just sell it on eBay and put that cash towards a PC <a href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/images/2002-01/geforce4-01.jpg" target="_blank">GF4</a> and flash it to work in your Mac. I think that you'll be happy then. You just have to be patient until the GF4's are released.

The Asus GF4's look awesome:
[quote]ASUS V8460 Series GeForce4 Ti 4600 Graphics Card
ASUS V8460Ultra series is powered by the most advanced graphics processing unit on earth the GeForce4 Ti 4600. A core clock speed of 330MHz and memory clock speed of 660MHz, combined with 128MB DDR SDRAM provide the ultimate graphics experience with revolutionary technologies such as: nFiniteFX"! II engine for complex geometry and animation, Accuview Antialiasing"! for unbeatable visual quality and frame rate, as well as nView for multiple display flexibility and user control.

ASUS V8440 Series GeForce4 Ti 4400 Graphics Card
ASUS V8440 Series is powered by the GeForce4 Ti 4400 GPU. A core clock speed of 300MHz and memory clock speed of 550MHz, combined with 128MB DDR SDRAM provides exceptional performance in all the latest games and applications. Also included are revolutionary technologies such as: nFiniteFX"! II engine for complex geometry and animation, Accuview Antialiasing"! for unbeatable visual quality and frame rate, as well as nView for multiple display flexibility and user control.

ASUS V8170Pro GeForce4 MX Pro Graphics Card
With the most integrated GPU, the GeForce4 MX Pro, the V8170 delivers best performance and value for mainstream PCs. 64MB of DDR SDRAM integrated with 300MHz core clock speed and 550MHz memory clock speed provide ample performance for all multimedia applications. The V8170 also includes new technologies such as: Lightspeed Memory Architecture"! II, nView, and Accuview Antialiasing"!

ASUS V8170DDR GeForce4 MX DDR Graphics Card
The V8170DDR leverages the GeForce4 MX DDR GPU with 64MB DDR SDRAM to provide competitive performance and value for mainstream PCs. Core clock speed runs at 270MHz and memory clock speed is 400MHz. Some GeForce 4 MX DDR technologies included are: Lightspeed Memory Architecture"! II, nView, and Accuview Antialiasing"!

ASUS V8170SE GeForce4 MX SDR Graphics Card
The V8170SE provides reliable and cost-effective GeForce 4 MX perfomance for mainstream PCs. Using the GeForce4 MX SDR GPU and 64MB of SDRAM, the V8170SE has a core clock speed of 250MHz and a memory clock speed of 166MHz. It also includes new GeForce4 MX technologies such as: Lightspeed Memory Architecture"! II, nView, and Accuview Antialiasing"!<hr></blockquote>

[xype]

did anyone of you think what impact a "128 mb ram geforce 4" would have on the powermac prices? of course it's 4mx, it's cheap and it delivers good results. not everyone needs quake3 at 500 fps.

[super]

Can anyone advise on which is the best card for 2D work ? The radeon or the GF4mx ?

Thanks.

[qazII]

Bumping back to the top. This thread was pushed to the bottom as a reply was added to it when the AI clock was somehow set to April 15/16, 1990.

[Caler]

[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong> it advertises to people that the Mac can rise to the demands of serious gamers if the need arises.
:rolleyes:

Not to sound like a PC biggot or anything (Oh I miss the macOS) but even with a GF3 a serious gamer isnt going to consider a mac. To tell you the truth I think that the GF3 is kind of a waste on the mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I question wether Apple is really interested in going after the hardcore gamer. Jobs is only interested in lip service - the MX cards make it appear to the much, much larger pool of casual gamers that Apple has hardware that is at least in the ballpark. When it comes to gaming, Apple is all about perception...

Caler

[Moogs]

I doubt very much that *any* of the cards being talked about have a real impact of 2D graphics performance. Perhaps they help in the usual "my documents scroll faster" way, but in terms of accelerating the speed at which your images render they help not at all. All the rendering work in done by the CPU, hence the reason so many 2D and 3D graphics types are clamoring for *much* faster Power Macs...graphics cards don't help them.

[New]

Can anyone explain why top of the line PCs have a hard time dealing with 2D vector programs like Illustrator and Acrobat?
It must have something to do with graphics performance... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[applenut]

[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>did anyone of you think what impact a "128 mb ram geforce 4" would have on the powermac prices? of course it's 4mx, it's cheap and it delivers good results. not everyone needs quake3 at 500 fps.</strong><hr></blockquote>

spending 3000 dollars on a professional "workstation" I would not expect to have to get a cheap run of the mill graphic card. these aren't iMacs. these are PowerMacs. The Radeon 8500 or Geforce 4 should be standard equipment on all powermacs except maybe the 1599 one. and the geforce 4mx should be in the iMac.

[Eugene]

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

spending 3000 dollars on a professional "workstation" I would not expect to have to get a cheap run of the mill graphic card. these aren't iMacs. these are PowerMacs. The Radeon 8500 or Geforce 4 should be standard equipment on all powermacs except maybe the 1599 one. and the geforce 4mx should be in the iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Your point? The $2800 Sony MX 1.7 GHz comes with a GeForce2 MX.

[Gustav]

[quote]Originally posted by super:
<strong>Can anyone advise on which is the best card for 2D work ? The radeon or the GF4mx ?

Thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Radeon. Especially for video.

[Powerdoc]

Before complaining , you should wait for benchmarks. The only information for the moment avalaible is that the geforce 4 mx provide 1,1 billions pixel per second .
The geforce 3 provide 800 millions pixel per second and the radeon 8500 1,1 billions pixel per second also.
So i doubt that you can say a geforce 4 mx is a geforce 3 mx. We don't know how millions triangle per second can provide the 4 mx.

Remember what was the difference between a geforce 2 and a geforce 2 mx : same number of triangles per second, but the geforce 2 was providing 800 millions pixel per second and the geforce 2 mx the half . The geforce 3 was providing the same number of pixel per second but was much faster concerning the number of triangles per second.
so it's always hard to make comparisons before real benchmarks.

But one time more there is people complaining about this video card even if it's the best performant video card ever built in a mac since many years (is there is anybody here who prefer the ATI rage chips family ...)
With nvidia, even if we have not the more performant chip of this company , we have the last generation of them, even before the PC. It was never the case with ATI.

[applenut]

there are already benhcmarks... it's not impressive.

some are saying the radeon 7500 is probably a better choice as an "all around" card

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>there are already benhcmarks... it's not impressive.

some are saying the radeon 7500 is probably a better choice as an "all around" card</strong><hr></blockquote>
do you have any links ?

[Arty50]

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
do you have any links ?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Mike at <a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com" target="_blank">www.xlr8yourmac.com</a> has tested the 4MX and 7500 in Q3. The 7500 won at 1600x1200/32, but the 4MX took the lower resolutions. He's going to post more comprehensive benchmarks on Monday.

I know that the 8500 Mac Edition and full fledged GeForce 4 aren't out yet, but once they are Apple better damn well give us the BTO option for one of these cards. Face it people, the 4MX is a huge step down from the GF3. You see, <a href="http://www.anandtech.com" target="_blank">www.anandtech.com</a> ran benchmarks on the Unreal 2 engine. What were they're conclusions? The 8500 and GF3 were the only cards capable of running it effectively, with the 8500 pretty much coming out on top. Why? Because they're both next gen cards with pixel and vertex shaders. The 7500 is basically an overclocked original Radeon, and the 4MX is a neutered GF3 (it's missing a pixel or vertex shader). So basically Q3 doesn't tell the whole story since it doesn't take advantage of these new capabilities. An 8500, GF3, or full GF4 gets you a future capable card; a 7500 or 4MX only helps older apps. The GF3 is a MUCH better card than the 7500 or 4MX. So basically, Apple downgraded our options. Are you really happy about that?

I know I'm not.

[super]

[quote] The Radeon. Especially for video. <hr></blockquote>

Thanks. Care to explain the reasons behind that ? Im just trying to get some education. Thanks.

[mattyj]

Damn those Fps are good. One of my friends has a 2Ghz PIV with a GF3, 512Mb RDRAM etc, and his PC doesn't match those frames on any resolution against the Dual 1Ghz G4 with a GF3.

Tell me, are those fps tests for Quake 3 done at max settings? If so, then damn. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[Matsu]

Many workstations have cards that can't paint pixels as fast a good gaming card.

What is Apple doing? They're getting some cards that will be ready for the next LONG OVERDUE update of the OpenGL spec. That's why certain ATI products are being left behind, there's no point supporting them, as the acceleration is going to be next to nothing. (they don't even have T&L, and even the portable products still lack T&L) But a bunch of people who should've known better are even trying to sue Apple over this :rolleyes: oh well. This will be the graphics boost people who work for a living are looking for. You can bet that OpenGL integration in OSX will, in the near future, allow your video system to help out **a lot** and without the special drivers/expensive professional cards that we need to get any kinda meaningful acceleration of 3-d, or 2-d, or video work.

People are bitching, but Apple is going to provide a very clean solution where your desktop and major apps all get hooks into any new *compliant* card. The way it should be. Give em a year, you'll see. There is no special Raycer chip, or Apple graphics card (that's just Kormac inspired stupidity.) Those engineers will give you a graphical/system boost by providing a new level of API features and API/OS integration/functionality both for the desktop and for devs to use on important software as well as on gaming related frivolity.

Even on a Geforce2MX there is a host of effects (transparancy, blending etc...) that could be brought to bear on a much wider scope than just games. That's what you'll see.

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Many workstations have cards that can't paint pixels as fast a good gaming card.

What is Apple doing? They're getting some cards that will be ready for the next LONG OVERDUE update of the OpenGL spec. That's why certain ATI products are being left behind, there's no point supporting them, as the acceleration is going to be next to nothing. (they don't even have T&L, and even the portable products still lack T&L) But a bunch of people who should've known better are even trying to sue Apple over this :rolleyes: oh well. This will be the graphics boost people who work for a living are looking for. You can bet that OpenGL integration in OSX will, in the near future, allow your video system to help out **a lot** and without the special drivers/expensive professional cards that we need to get any kinda meaningful acceleration of 3-d, or 2-d, or video work.

People are bitching, but Apple is going to provide a very clean solution where your desktop and major apps all get hooks into any new *compliant* card. The way it should be. Give em a year, you'll see. There is no special Raycer chip, or Apple graphics card (that's just Kormac inspired stupidity.) Those engineers will give you a graphical/system boost by providing a new level of API features and API/OS integration/functionality both for the desktop and for devs to use on important software as well as on gaming related frivolity.

Even on a Geforce2MX there is a host of effects (transparancy, blending etc...) that could be brought to bear on a much wider scope than just games. That's what you'll see.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There will be a revision of Open GL : The programmer confirm that in an another thread. He says that The revision of open GL will include new features that can be used by different graphic cards, and not special extensions from nvidia or ATI.

Perhaps we should this revision on mac os 10,2.

[Arty50]

[quote]Originally posted by Gustav:
<strong>

The Radeon. Especially for video.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes. For instance, it's a known fact that ATI's DVD playback is vastly superior to Nvidia. Others claim that ATI's overall image quality is better too.

Matsu,

I understand what you're saying, and I think its great that Apple's dropping older cards. They dropped the old Radeon a while back and the GF2MX is gone now too. Getting an upgrade to OpenGL will be a great thing also. But that's still no excuse for dropping the GF3. It's vastly more capable than the 4MX. And the 7500 is nothing more than the old Radeon. You talk about future capability, and that's where the GF3 and 8500 shine. The 4MX and 7500? Uh, well they run Q3 well. But if they can't leverage the new pixel and vertex shader tech then how are they cards for the future?

[The Swan]

In comparing ATI and nVidia I often think of ATI as being much like Apple and nVidia being much like the PC industry. ATI does it RIGHT. They produce chips with full feature sets, they always have. They produce chips that provide the best image quality of any in their industry segment. ATI has always had better image quality than 3dfx or nVidia. nVidia goes for raw power and speed. I see them as taking somewhat of a quick and dirty approach. Don't get me wrong, they produce good drivers, its just I've never read an interview with them in which they stated image display quality as a top priority. Textures yes, your desktop picture (which I spend quite a bit of time looking at), no. They are gradually developing the feature set that ATI has always given us, but their goal is raw power. ATI's goal is to produce cards that give you the best all around graphic quality. How many terapixels per second they can pump is somewhat secondary (although now they have to worry just to stay in the market) and that's the way it should be.

[Programmer]

I agree that not having a high-end graphics card available in the line-up is just plain silly, but I'm hoping that is just an availability issue. The geForce3 was a really expensive card to produce, and the high-end geForce4 is expected to perform better but cost less. Hopefully Apple adds this card to its BTO lineup next week.

The choice of an NV17 based chipset is probably driven by cost -- the NV25 is very expensive and its primary addition is the programmable vertex engine. The NV17's pixel engine is pretty much the same as the geForce3's. The next OpenGL release for OSX will likely include a standardized vertex shader program, and Apple will likely do what Microsoft did in DirectX8 -- provide a CPU based vertex shader implementation. The great thing is that the G4's AltiVec unit will simply rock at doing this, and we ought to see decent performance out of the NV17 despite its lack of a programmable vertex unit. On a dual G4 800 or 1000, its possible that the software implementation will outrun a geForce3's vertex shaders (I say dual because then you still get it happening in parallel, assuming the OpenGL implementation is multi-threaded). The NV25 has two vertex shader units running in parallel at a higher clock rate, so it'll do better than the current crop of G4s. The performance will be highly dependent on content, of course, since the GPU implementation benefits from being later in the pipeline.

Note that current Mac-based benchmarks don't include any use of shaders because they are currently unavailable through Apple's OpenGL (no extensions yet either). This might explain why the PC framerates appear lower in some cases -- the rendering might be simplified due to the lack of shader access. Shaders don't make things faster necessarily, they make them much more flexible and allow the GPU to do much cooler stuff... usually at the cost of some framerate.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by The Swan:
<strong>In comparing ATI and nVidia I often think of ATI as being much like Apple and nVidia being much like the PC industry. ATI does it RIGHT.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I wouldn't agree with that at all. ATI came from a 2D background so their 2D feature set (including movie playback and crisp image output) tends to be better. Their 3D feature set, however, was laughable in the early Rage products, weak in the Rage128, and is only really catching up in the Radeon line. The current Radeon2 has them roughly on par with pre-NV25 in terms of 3D.

nVidia, on the other hand, has been all about 3D from their inception. The 2D stuff to them has been almost an afterthought. As of geForce4, however, they've pretty much caught up with ATI as far as visual quality and video playback goes.

The graphics chip market seems to have stabilized on these two vendors, at least for now, and both of them are producing comparable chips for the first time ever. You no longer have to choose between 2D and 3D -- you get topnotch GPUs that do both equally well. For at least the rest of this year it looks like they will have comparable products. If ATI meets its aggressive schedule they should pull slightly ahead by fall before nVidia jumps past them again. Driver quality, price, and OEM deals will determine which of them succeeds better this year, but I'm hoping that they'll split the market 50/50 and both continue to develop such awesome GPUs.

[Matsu]

Thanks Programmer,

I think some people misunderstood what I meant about an updated OpenGL API. I referred to dropping support for older cards that clearly wouldn't be able to supply any meaningful acceleration of new features. As an API **any** compliant card wold work, natch. I'm pretty sure I said that. You can bet that rage 128 based products won't be compliant so they'll be dropped. The spec probably won't include anything that a Radeon or GF2MX can't do, so they should be supprted insofar as they should be compliant with the new spec.

What we really need is for Apple to provide very tight quartz/OSX integration, so that capable machines can get a nice graphical speed boost. Should the API provide the right hooks for a new level of effects/features, then it is not inconcievable that software like photoshop/premiere/final cut/maya etc etc... could see meaningful boosts in performance.

Right now you only get that from Professional graphics cards (on both the PC and Mac side) for as fas as work goes, it is still the CPU that does most of the work. Even the fastest Gaming card doesn't significantly speed up your 3-d/video work.

I think 4MX is a very nice upgrade to 2MX. They didn't downgrade anything at all, they just took away an expensive option that few people went for anyway. Rather than GF4Ti or whatever gaming Radeon, Apple should provide a real professional option. Pro users don't really need ultra frame rates, they need number crunching (polys, curves, lighting effects, etc etc.) That's good for games too, but a card that can chomp 25-50% off our render times in any number of pro apps, means more to the Powermac market than a card that can pump out 350fps in Quake.

Apple needs to provide upcoming versions of Quadro and FireGL as options, not GF4ti. 4MX is more than enough for gaming. PowerMacs are for work, not games.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>I think some people misunderstood what I meant about an updated OpenGL API. I referred to dropping support for older cards that clearly wouldn't be able to supply any meaningful acceleration of new features. As an API **any** compliant card wold work, natch. I'm pretty sure I said that. You can bet that rage 128 based products won't be compliant so they'll be dropped. The spec probably won't include anything that a Radeon or GF2MX can't do, so they should be supprted insofar as they should be compliant with the new spec.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually I think the Rage128 is OpenGL compliant and should be fully supported for quote a while going forward. Its not a real speed demon, and any vertex programs will need to run on the CPU (also true for the geForce 2MX and 4MX).

<strong> [quote]
What we really need is for Apple to provide very tight quartz/OSX integration, so that capable machines can get a nice graphical speed boost. Should the API provide the right hooks for a new level of effects/features, then it is not inconcievable that software like photoshop/premiere/final cut/maya etc etc... could see meaningful boosts in performance.

Right now you only get that from Professional graphics cards (on both the PC and Mac side) for as fas as work goes, it is still the CPU that does most of the work. Even the fastest Gaming card doesn't significantly speed up your 3-d/video work.

I think 4MX is a very nice upgrade to 2MX. They didn't downgrade anything at all, they just took away an expensive option that few people went for anyway. Rather than GF4Ti or whatever gaming Radeon, Apple should provide a real professional option. Pro users don't really need ultra frame rates, they need number crunching (polys, curves, lighting effects, etc etc.) That's good for games too, but a card that can chomp 25-50% off our render times in any number of pro apps, means more to the Powermac market than a card that can pump out 350fps in Quake.

Apple needs to provide upcoming versions of Quadro and FireGL as options, not GF4ti. 4MX is more than enough for gaming. PowerMacs are for work, not games.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm never clear on exactly what the professional market wants in the way of 3D acceleration... I mean the geForce3 & 4 are really fast GPUs and blow away any professional boards from even just 4 years ago. Is it higher vertex processing speeds? More memory? More pixel rate?

[Arty50]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Thanks Programmer,
Apple needs to provide upcoming versions of Quadro and FireGL as options, not GF4ti. 4MX is more than enough for gaming. PowerMacs are for work, not games.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Huh? So what you're saying is that after I spend a few thousand dollars on a midrange PowerMac/Monitor/RAM/HDs/etc., I should have to go out and spend another thousand or so on a gaming PC instead of upgrading the graphics card for $200-300? When I'm spending that much money on a computer, I want to get the most out of it. And that means having a full fledged GF4 or 8500. Sure the Quadro and FireGL would be nice, but I don't need that much power.

If I haven't said the following before I apologize. One should note that the 8500 and GF4 haven't been released yet. If Apple adds those as a BTO option soon after their release, then I'll shut up. Somehow I have a feeling they won't. But who knows, it's just a prediction.

[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: Arty50 ]</p>

[Matsu]

I think spending 2000-3000 on any computer just to play games is foolish. I realize you're not saying that you use your powermac for games only, or even firstly, but IMHO having games as even a top three consideration on such an expensive machine is a waste. The machine should, as you point out, handle games well but that can't be the primary consideration for Apple. And at the prices they charge I sure hope it isn't the primary consideration for buyers either.

The majority of PowerMac buyers don't play on their computers. If there is going to be an option for a card then it should be a card that lets you work better, not play better. Gamers who spend 2000-3000 on a machine are either spoiled rich kids, very lonely, or very dumb.

OTOH, I kinda agree that after spending a considerable sum on a powermac, you shouldn't need to spend another grand on a gaming rig. But games just aren't that important to the powermac market, geforce 3 sold poorly , and you can bet that 4ti won't do that much better. These high-end gaming cards more often than not go into the home-built rigs of the aforementioned lonely male teens -- so they can practice for the next Columbine or something :rolleyes: Most high-end PC's and workstations don't ship with GF3Ti cards since there's a limit to how much they help with productive work.

In Powermacs Apple would probably sell more pro cards as 500-600 options than they would GF4Ti's at half as much.

[TigerWoods99]

We have a great discussion going on about the GeForce 4 and ATI's future offerings in "Hold off those video card purchases".

[Matsu]

Well, these two topics are no the same. This one is more about gripes over nv17 vs nv25. Yours is more about upcoming graphics options in general.

Ya know what UBB needs? Some kinda merge thread feature so admins can (with one or two clicks) join two threads that they think are similar enough, rather than just close one. Hack anyone?

[Programmer]

What I don't understand is gamer and professional video cards differ? I know a lot about what games need in a 3D card, but I don't understand what a Pro card needs that is different -- they are usually just faster. For people that don't want to pay for high end 3D support Apple should just provide a BTO option (either to add a fast 3D card or to remove it).

[serrano]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>The majority of PowerMac buyers don't play on their computers. If there is going to be an option for a card then it should be a card that lets you work better, not play better. Gamers who spend 2000-3000 on a machine are either spoiled rich kids, very lonely, or very dumb.</strong><hr></blockquote>

that, or they're gamers :rolleyes: simply because you wouldn't pay so much for a computer simply to play games doesn't mean that those who do are either rich, lonely, or dumb.

[quote]<strong>
These high-end gaming cards more often than not go into the home-built rigs of the aforementioned lonely male teens -- so they can practice for the next Columbine or something :rolleyes: </strong><hr></blockquote>

:rolleyes:

i'm not even going to touch that.

however i agree with the rest of your post

[TigerWoods99]

What nVidia is doing is transitioning their whole product line to the GeForce 4. The MX cards based on the NV17, and the Ti series based on the NV25. I remember reading a while back that the NV17 was supposed to have a lot of similarities with the current GeForce 3. I don't know that it is fair to say that the GF4MX sucks because they will be at similar prices to the GF2MX, and will be a lot better. I think the GF4MX will probably perform about as well as a GF3 Ti 200 in most cases, so you basically can say that now we get GF3 technology at GF2MX prices. That's an advancement definitely. I believe the GF4MX will support a few different features than the GF3 such as dual-head. Also really all we have to go by are early performance tests and some manufacturer samples that were tested on the PC side. Perhaps this card will be a bit more future-proof and perform better in a few months. Now on the other hand, I agree that there is no reason for Apple to use these cards in their PowerMacs. These machines are supposed to pro machines, yet they ship with a budget card. The GF4MX ain't too shabby but I think a Radeon 8500 should have been offered or something.

[Arty50]

OK, here's what I don't get. Why are the 8500 and GF3/4 considered to be primarily gaming cards, and thus unnecessary for professional use? The 8500 and GF3/4 are better across the board: 2D, 3D, etc. It would seem to me that if I were doing professional graphics work I would want the best equipment available for the job, and that means buying say an 8500. So, neglecting the fact these cards aren't out yet, why shouldn't Apple offer them when they finally ship?

The argument that these cards aren't necessary for people that use their machines for work doesn't make sense to me. Heck, there are people out there that tear all of these cards out and toss them away just to drop in Matrox G550s. But hey, I'm not a professional graphic designer, what do I know. It just seems to me that if I were, I would want the best card for the job. And it would be nice for Apple to offer one of these. Especially condsidering they used to.

[Matsu]

Calm down, they probably will once they become available and Apple finally has an updated MoBo. That new 4Ti4600 is supposed to use 8x AGP, so we'll see if Apple decides to put this on a MoBo or not.

[G-News]

Hm, now we already know ONE of the announcements made at MW Tokyo.

Look at this:

<a href="http://www.nvidia.com/calendar.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nvidia.com/calendar.asp</a>

Notice anything?

I say: GF4 BTO option, some GeForce 2 Go chip in the new PowerBooks?

G-News

[Programmer]

Apple announced that the geForce4 Ti will be a BTO option starting in a month. I'm guessing that they didn't mention this last week because nVidia asked them not to, or the deal hadn't been hammered out 100% yet. Either way it'll be available, and at a lower cost than the geForce3 upgrade was last year at introduction.

[Moogs]

[oops...here's a...uhm...link to Programmer's comment. :) ]

<a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0202/05.applenvidia.php" target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0202/05.applenvidia.php</a>

[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ™ ]</p>

[BungHole]

Power Mac G4s get nVidia GeForce4 Titanium option
by Peter Cohen, pcohen@maccentral.com
February 5, 2002 10:20 am ET

Apple today announced that nVidia's GeForce 4 Titanium will be offered as a build-to-order option in its Power Mac G4 series. This news comes hot on the heels of Apple's revelation last week that nVidia's new mainstream GeForce4 MX chip is offered as standard issue on the revamped mid-range and high-end Power Mac G4 systems.

Apple indicated that the GeForce4 Titanium can pump out 87 million triangles and 4.9 billion textured pixels per second. The GeForce4 Ti-based card is being offered on a 4x AGP card equipped with 128MB of double data rate (DDR) SDRAM. Apple also noted that the GeForce4 Ti-based card comes equipped with both Apple Display Connector (ADC) and Digital Visual Interface (DVI) connectors, making it possible to attach two flat panel displays simultaneously -- although if you want to connect two Apple displays, you'll need an ADC to DVI adapter for one of them. The card will include a DVI to VGA connector if you want to attach an analog display, as well.

Last week Apple introduced to its professional customers a newly revamped line of Power Mac G4s with faster processor speeds. An 800 MHz G4 equipped with an ATI Radeon 7500-based graphics card is now the entry level model. A 933 MHz G4 with GeForce4 MX graphics is the mid-range system, and the new high-end system is a dual processor 1 GHz G4, also equipped with the GeForce4 MX card as standard equipment. Mac OS X is the default boot operating system for these new machines.

Apple said that the Geforce4 Titanium-equipped card is available as a build-to-order option on Power Mac G4s purchased through The Apple Store with systems shipping in March. It's a US$250 option on dual 1 GHz and 933 MHz systems, and it's a $350 option on the 800 MHz model.

If you've just purchased a Power Mac G4 or you have an older "QuickSilver" system, fear not -- Apple said that you'll be able to purchase a standalone card from them this Spring; the suggested retail price for that board is $399.

[Arty50]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Calm down, they probably will once they become available and Apple finally has an updated MoBo. That new 4Ti4600 is supposed to use 8x AGP, so we'll see if Apple decides to put this on a MoBo or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't man, I just can't. :D Sorry for going a bit OT, but I'm actually dying to get a new machine. My Rev. A iMac is getting a bit long in the tooth. And now that I'm out of school and have some disposable income, it's time to step up into the PowerMac line. I'm starting to get back into amateur photography, and would really like to start playing around with pics on my computer. So I'm thinking PowerMac with a nice big CRT. But I also enjoy playing games, so I'd like to get a nice card that has a bit of future capability in it for Doom3 and Halo.

[davechen]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>What I don't understand is gamer and professional video cards differ? I know a lot about what games need in a 3D card, but I don't understand what a Pro card needs that is different -- they are usually just faster. For people that don't want to pay for high end 3D support Apple should just provide a BTO option (either to add a fast 3D card or to remove it).</strong><hr></blockquote>


I think the main thing is better OpenGL implementations. From a pure poly/sec or texels/sec standpoint, the gamer cards will blow away the pro cards, but I think the drivers for the gamer cards are only really good for high frame rate first person shooters. There are all sorts of things in OpenGL that the gamer cards don't do well, e.g. anti-aliased lines and sub-pixel accuracy.

Looking at a 3dlabs page about the Wildcat III, there are pro-graphics benchmarks where it easily beats nVidia and ATI.
<a href="http://www.3dlabs.com/whatsnew/pressreleases/pr02/02-02-04-wildcat_III.htm" target="_blank">http://www.3dlabs.com/whatsnew/pressreleases/pr02/02-02-04-wildcat_III.htm</a>

I'm not sure what's in those benchmarks, but I'm guessing things like really complex scenes and higher order surfaces.

I know that for volume rendering the pro cards and SGI workstations are much better at doing 3-d texturing. Also the SGI's can do up to 12 bits per channel for color.

On the other hand, you're paying a lot for these esoteric features.

dave

[Prim]

[quote]<strong>Apple also noted that the GeForce4 Ti-based card comes equipped with both Apple Display Connector (ADC) and Digital Visual Interface (DVI) connectors, making it possible to attach two flat panel displays simultaneously -- although if you want to connect two Apple displays, you'll need an ADC to DVI adapter for one of them</strong><hr></blockquote>

Pay much attention, this does NOT state that the two connectors can drive two monitors in dual-head mode ! It would rather mean mirror-mode because dual-head is usually a feature reserved to MX-variations of the cards.

[zoeph]

[quote]Originally posted by Prim:
<strong>
It would rather mean mirror-mode because dual-head is usually a feature reserved to MX-variations of the cards.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually that _was_ a feature I'd say. <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-05-2002/0001662448" target="_blank">The announcement</a> (why isn't it on Apple's site?) clearly states:

[quote]The card provides both extended desktop as well as video mirroring,
and it enables standard VGA devices to attach via the included DVI to VGA
adapter.<hr></blockquote>

If this was not a feature MacCentral wouldn't have likely mentioned it.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: zoeph ]</p>

[Macmedia]

Hmmm,
this came across the newswire today:

"****** /K I L L K I L L K I L L -- Apple Computer Inc./
****** *TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2002*12:01*PM
*-*PRNewswire

We are advised by Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL) that journalists and other readers should disregard the news release, Apple Announces NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium for Power Mac G4 Line, issued earlier today over PR Newswire, as it contained some erroneous information.

SOURCE Apple Computer Inc.

URL: <a href="http://www.apple.com" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com</a>
<a href="http://www.prnewswire.com" target="_blank">http://www.prnewswire.com</a>

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by davechen:
<strong>I think the main thing is better OpenGL implementations. From a pure poly/sec or texels/sec standpoint, the gamer cards will blow away the pro cards, but I think the drivers for the gamer cards are only really good for high frame rate first person shooters. There are all sorts of things in OpenGL that the gamer cards don't do well, e.g. anti-aliased lines and sub-pixel accuracy.

Looking at a 3dlabs page about the Wildcat III, there are pro-graphics benchmarks where it easily beats nVidia and ATI.
<a href="http://www.3dlabs.com/whatsnew/pressreleases/pr02/02-02-04-wildcat_III.htm" target="_blank">http://www.3dlabs.com/whatsnew/pressreleases/pr02/02-02-04-w ildcat_III.htm</a>

I'm not sure what's in those benchmarks, but I'm guessing things like really complex scenes and higher order surfaces.

I know that for volume rendering the pro cards and SGI workstations are much better at doing 3-d texturing. Also the SGI's can do up to 12 bits per channel for color.

On the other hand, you're paying a lot for these esoteric features.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The nVidia board compared against in that press release is two product revisions old -- its a Quadro2. nVidia is just releasing the geForce4, which is considerably faster and more capable. So it looks like the Wildcat "Pro" card has these advantages:

- Faster anti-aliased line draws (possibly still true against the geForce4).
- More memory (~450 vs 128 in geForce4).
- Improved "gradient" fill rate (i.e. untextured), although they don't compare numbers just state that it is 20x faster than their previous card.
- 32 lights in hardware, compared to about 8 on older nVidia hardware (not sure what geForce4 supports in the fixed pipeline, but they could do 32 with vertex shaders at the cost of some poly performance).

I guess these are important for modellers and CAD programs... but I'd wager that nVidia is making inroads into these markets. You wouldn't go too wrong using the new geForce4 Ti as a "pro" video card.

[timortis]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I guess these are important for modellers and CAD programs... but I'd wager that nVidia is making inroads into these markets. You wouldn't go too wrong using the new geForce4 Ti as a "pro" video card.</strong><hr></blockquote>


The difference between Wildcat and Geforce is huge when it comes to high-precision poly-pushing without much eye-candy. Such as the type of OpenGL graphics used in mostly engineering applications.

The difference is less when it comes to DCC, because textures come into play. Professional OpenGL cards are quite a bit faster at drawing gouraud shaded high-poly objects in multiple viewports at once but gaming cards, and of course the Quadro line of Nvidia is vastly superior when it comes to multiple texturing.

If you compare the situation to what it used to be like 3 years ago, the improvement on the gaming cards is huge. If this trend continues you can expect gaming cards to render professional gear obsolete in a few years' time, especially in the DCC market. This has already happened with 3DLabs Oxygen series of cards. I don't know of any animators that would still buy those.