or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › the graphic card of the new i mac is better
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

the graphic card of the new i mac is better - Page 2

post #41 of 117
post #42 of 117
I tried to make a comparison between all GeForce models, it is not simple. As you can see, the cards in the PowerMac G4 and in the iMac G4 could be better (all nVidia GPUs are Mac-compatible since GeForce2 MX. But GeForce256 and GeForce2, older cards, are only for PC).
I don't list the nVidia "Quadro" cards, which are professional versions of their GPUs, for high-end 3D workstations (think Maya).

The better... on the top :

GeForce4 Ti 1000 (DDR-128 bit, february 2002)
GeForce4 Ti 500 (DDR-128 bit, february 2002)
GeForce3 Ti 500 (DDR-128 bit)
GeForce4 MX (DDR-128 bit, february 2002)
GeForce3 (DDR-128 bit, the first, Power Mac BTO option)
GeForce3 Ti 200 (DDR-128 bit)
GeForce2 Ultra (DDR-128 bit)
GeForce2 Pro (DDR-128 bit)
GeForce2 GTS (DDR-128 bit)
GeForce2 MX 400 (DDR-128 bit)
GeForce256 DDR (128 bit)
GeForce2 MX SDR (128 bit, the first, PowerMac G4)
GeForce2 MX DDR-64 bit (iMac LCD ?)
GeForce2 MX 200 (SDR-128 bit)
GeForce256 SDR (128 bit)
post #43 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>Ahhh, 2 peas in a pod.

Does it boot? Does it run? Does it draw to the screen? Does it display OpenGL?

Ummm, yes to all of the above. The platform looks supported to me, and I have 2 of them a Bondi and a Wallstreet. I'd rather see the OS move forward than spend time on a technologically obsolete driver in the new OS. Boot into 9 if you want to play an acceleration required game, that's how your machine was designed. Anything more is bonus.</strong><hr></blockquote>

spend what time? you really think having a programmer or two out of apple's hundreds work for a month on a opengl hardware acceleration driver would hurt OS X's advancement?

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
post #44 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

spend what time? you really think having a programmer or two out of apple's hundreds work for a month on a opengl hardware acceleration driver would hurt OS X's advancement?

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

These's a whole thread on this subject in the MacOS X forum. You can go over there and read why I think you're over simplifying. You're assuming that it is possible to implement a compliant OpenGL driver on the old crappy Rage2/Pro chips.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #45 of 117
the imac has never been a gamer's machine...it's a machine that occasionally plays games. i can't speak to the performance of one board over another, but they've increased the VRAM by 400% and the new card draws 600% more polygons. isn't that enough improvement to play most games comfortably??
"Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft--in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."

-Macworld
Reply
"Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft--in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."

-Macworld
Reply
post #46 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

These's a whole thread on this subject in the MacOS X forum. You can go over there and read why I think you're over simplifying. You're assuming that it is possible to implement a compliant OpenGL driver on the old crappy Rage2/Pro chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>

it was possible to implement a compliant OpenGL driver on OS 9 therefore it has to be on OS X.

and if it were technically impossible why did Apple string us along and then just announce that they had no plans for support?
post #47 of 117
Being that even the Mx cards are bandwidth starved, DDR would be a significant improvement.
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
post #48 of 117
That is a pretty good gaming card. It'll play anything that comes out over the next two years quite well.

So long as frame rates stay in the 30-60 range you're doing well. You won't see more than that, and the card is never going to be asked to draw more than 1024 x 768. At that resolution it will be nearly indistinguishable from higher-end cards.

Besides nVidia is set to release a 3MX that is supposedly going to be 'cheaper' and faster than 2. We'll see it by the second revision.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #49 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>That is a pretty good gaming card. It'll play anything that comes out over the next two years quite well. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I doubt it.
post #50 of 117
MAybe I should say mac games over the next two years.

1024 x 768 is all it has to drive. No problems. If it were driving 1600 x 1200 then sure it's suffering already, but at normal XGA res it's not going to be a problem. Even heavy 3-d games still run on ATI rage graphics. Only a few current games REQUIRE even 16MB and this card has 32MB DDR memory.

When the 17" LCD appears this time next year, we'll se a nice bump to teh graphics system too. Probably 4x AGP and the forthcoming GF3MX.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #51 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
it was possible to implement a compliant OpenGL driver on OS 9 therefore it has to be on OS X.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No it was not possible!! Who said the OS 9 driver was compliant?! Every game that works on those chips has to handle all sorts of weird cases to make it work, and the visual results are less-than-stellar. These chips have been holding back graphics for every game that has to support them. The situation on MacOS X is worse because the resource sharing aspects of the OS put more pressure on the available graphics resources -- the old chips just can't keep up. So rather than cursing all future OpenGL software on X with this hideous legacy, they've decided to cut it off.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
and if it were technically impossible why did Apple string us along and then just announce that they had no plans for support?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Who knows? Sometimes things just get put off until they can't be put off any longer... I think they're rearchitecting OpenGL (finally) to make it competative with DirectX 8&9 (which don't support those chips either, by the way) and they finally took a close look at what implementing drivers on each chipset would involve.

Part of the reason that video drivers on the Mac have always sucked is because the whole architecture for them sucks. Apple never designed a good system for it, and thus it has always been rather cobbled together. I had hoped that MacOS X would correct this, but so far it has not -- the CPU is still doing way too much work, hence Aqua is slow. My guess (and hope) is that Apple is finally fixing it, and now that they've done the careful design work they've discovered what I've been saying for years... these older graphics chips are terrible.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #52 of 117
Bah. Apple could write drivers. They don't care enought too. They could also refund moeny to people that got the bait and switch. But they wont. Because Apple is a shity company. I wont be buying hardware from a company that can't write a friggen graphics card driver for their own computer.
post #53 of 117
[quote]No it was not possible!! Who said the OS 9 driver was compliant?! Every game that works on those chips has to handle all sorts of weird cases to make it work, and the visual results are less-than-stellar. These chips have been holding back graphics for every game that has to support them. The situation on MacOS X is worse because the resource sharing aspects of the OS put more pressure on the available graphics resources -- the old chips just can't keep up. So rather than cursing all future OpenGL software on X with this hideous legacy, they've decided to cut it off.<hr></blockquote>

Quake 3 was held back because it supports the rage pro graphic chipset <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
post #54 of 117
Scott the broken record.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>Scott the broken record. </strong><hr></blockquote>

yea, he is overdoing a a bit.

if there is seriously a technical reason why it can't be done I would love to hear it. but so far nothing supports Apple's logic
post #56 of 117
Scott H: yawn ... relentless .... monotonous .... troll. Nothing to say, so he trolls.

I am not sure why you spend so long defending Apple against him.

If you want to play games all the time then buy a console!

Hewligan
post #57 of 117
Hell, there are still PC's shipping with lesser video than the iMac.

Sony's fancy Vaio desktop with the burner, Mini-Disc, and that LCD display on the front ships with a TNT2!

Many ship with built in Intel crap.

I still see the Rage in new PC's.
post #58 of 117
You have to be some kind of pansy tool to be worried about jack with a Rev. A/B iMac, especially games.

Runs OSX and that is about all Apple ever promised.

Baby boys should go squeeze bricks out of their buttholes on other forums or get their Jerk on gazing at Billy Gates photos.
This Post Disabled on PowerMac G5s
Reply
This Post Disabled on PowerMac G5s
Reply
post #59 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Ventral:
<strong>You have to be some kind of pansy tool to be worried about jack with a Rev. A/B iMac, especially games.

Runs OSX and that is about all Apple ever promised.

Baby boys should go squeeze bricks out of their buttholes on other forums or get their Jerk on gazing at Billy Gates photos.</strong><hr></blockquote>


the pinnacle of maturity.

thank you
post #60 of 117
You're welcome.

I guess it is a lot more mature to complain about a company not supporting OGL on OSX for ancient hardware that nobody except whiners, malcontents and anal retentive freaks care about.
This Post Disabled on PowerMac G5s
Reply
This Post Disabled on PowerMac G5s
Reply
post #61 of 117
[quote]I guess it is a lot more mature to complain about a company not supporting OGL on OSX<hr></blockquote>

It sure is.

I'm disappointed that the GF2MX isn't upgradable, but then again there's not much to upgrade it with except a Radeon or $500 GF3.

I really think Apple shouldn't charge double for it's GF3 over PC graphics manufacturers.

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: MacAddict ]</p>
*Registered March 1, 1999*
Member #14
Reply
*Registered March 1, 1999*
Member #14
Reply
post #62 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Ventral:
<strong>You're welcome.

I guess it is a lot more mature to complain about a company not supporting OGL on OSX for ancient hardware that nobody except whiners, malcontents and anal retentive freaks care about.</strong><hr></blockquote>

sorry but an iBook 466 SE released in 2000 is not ancient hardware. and its not just whiners, malcontents, etc complaining. hundreds of people have flooded Apple's disccusion boards but all their posts have been deleted because Apple would prefer to just sweep this all under the carpet instead of dealing with it.

when you come up with some better arguements you can speak but until then you are just making yourself look like an ass
post #63 of 117
How many times do we have to discuss this?

ATI won't write the drivers.
post #64 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>How many times do we have to discuss this?

ATI won't write the drivers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OS X= Apple
iBook=Apple
ATI= refers you to Apple

what is so hard to understand here fran.

did you go to ATI to get drivers for your Pismo when you installed OS X? no, they were part of the system.
post #65 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Ventral:
<strong>You're welcome.

I guess it is a lot more mature to complain about a company not supporting OGL on OSX for ancient hardware that nobody except whiners, malcontents and anal retentive freaks care about.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple Apologist (TM)
post #66 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Bah. Apple could write drivers. They don't care enought too. They could also refund moeny to people that got the bait and switch. But they wont. Because Apple is a shity company. I wont be buying hardware from a company that can't write a friggen graphics card driver for their own computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In case you hadn't noticed, Microsoft isn't writing drivers for those chips under DirectX 8+ either. Nor are any of the vendors that shipped that chipset (and there were plenty). Nor is ATI.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #67 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

Quake 3 was held back because it supports the rage pro graphic chipset :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh please, you're not holding up Quake3 as an example of sophisticated real-time graphics, are you? Its years old now. And I'm sure they had to specifically pay attention to those chipsets to make sure thay ran properly.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #68 of 117
John Carmack has stated that Doom 3 will not run on anything less than a Geeforce 3.

The Geeforce 2, especially the bargin-basement MX is simply not powerful enough to handle it.


Are you sure of this? Im pretty sure that I remember reading that the GF2 will be able tp play it, but most likely at 640/480 without the GF3 effects (wont look ANYTHING like the previous shots).
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #69 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

In case you hadn't noticed, Microsoft isn't writing drivers for those chips under DirectX 8+ either. Nor are any of the vendors that shipped that chipset (and there were plenty). Nor is ATI.</strong><hr></blockquote>

so, say you're right, and the rage pro does not meet the strict requirements Apple has set for OpenGL on OS X.

why did they string us along into thinking there would eventually be support. more importantly, why don't they say there are technical reasons. the tech note article stating there reasoning makes it seem much more like its just their decision not to support it than there being any technical reason.
post #70 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
why did they string us along into thinking there would eventually be support. more importantly, why don't they say there are technical reasons. the tech note article stating there reasoning makes it seem much more like its just their decision not to support it than there being any technical reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm just explaining their behaviour, not apologizing for them.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #71 of 117
what a loser. Save your lunch money and go buy a real computer and support the economy instead of crying in your milk about OGL support on tinkertoy dislpay chipsets that sucked when they were released years ago.

You need a strong dose of reality, preferably at the blunt end of a baseball bat.
This Post Disabled on PowerMac G5s
Reply
This Post Disabled on PowerMac G5s
Reply
post #72 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

Oh please, you're not holding up Quake3 as an example of sophisticated real-time graphics, are you? Its years old now. And I'm sure they had to specifically pay attention to those chipsets to make sure thay ran properly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

how do games that use OpenGL and are Carbon run fine in OS X on supported machines and run fine in OS 9 on these ATI chipsets if these chips don't meet Apple's OS X requirements for OpenGL?
post #73 of 117
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>John Carmack has stated that Doom 3 will not run on anything less than a Geeforce 3.

The Geeforce 2, especially the bargin-basement MX is simply not powerful enough to handle it.


Are you sure of this? Im pretty sure that I remember reading that the GF2 will be able tp play it, but most likely at 640/480 without the GF3 effects (wont look ANYTHING like the previous shots).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doom 3 will not appear before late 2002 and it would be the ultimate Power eater 3 D game. However J Cormack said also that this game will be scheduled to work with basic graphic card but whitthout all the special effects. Thats logical : can you sell a game that can only be runned by 5 % of the PC.

Concerning the choice of the geforce 2Mx card for the I mac , i will make a comparison with easy PC (from IBM , compacq, HP ...) all this computers have a terrible video card and cost nearly the same prize that a new i mac. The IBM for example has a rage 128 ATI card ! In fact the only model of easy PC of big companies that is correct is the Packard bell with a geforce 400 mx card on a AGP slop.(in this case it's an advantage compared to the I mac).

Third , for those who still think that a geforce 2 mx suck, this is the graphic chip choose for the nforce mobo. The nforce mobo is not a basic mobo , because it is the only mobo for Athlon that have the gestion of 128 bits DDR RAM (up to 4,2 GB/s of Memory bandwitch.
post #74 of 117
This is funny. Apple puts in a graphics card that's 3-4x better then the old one & 15" LCD, G4 700, for $1299 and people still complain. This is a major improvment (although some (read Scott H) apparently can't see that). Sure there are things that Apple could do better but I think all round the new iMac is a great machine. The only thing I'd change is an upgradable AGP card. But I'm not in the market for one anyway ... so why cry over it?
post #75 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

how do games that use OpenGL and are Carbon run fine in OS X on supported machines and run fine in OS 9 on these ATI chipsets if these chips don't meet Apple's OS X requirements for OpenGL?</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is a lot more to OpenGL than Quake, and there is a lot more coming to OpenGL than is in the current implementation. Those games that work on those chipsets are also coded specifically around their limitations, which is a painful process and is what OpenGL is supposed to insulate the apps from. OSX also has to support a lot more in terms of resource sharing between applications, and insulating the apps from the hardware. By hacking off the dead weight it makes it a lot easier going forward -- for both OpenGL itself, and the apps which use it.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #76 of 117
In fact, Carmack has complained publically about vendors only implementing the "Quake subset" of OpenGL, which restricts his ability to try new things in subsequent games.

So he's probably glad to see a fully compliant implementation, even if it does rule out a certain number of existing machines.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #77 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

There is a lot more to OpenGL than Quake, and there is a lot more coming to OpenGL than is in the current implementation. Those games that work on those chipsets are also coded specifically around their limitations, which is a painful process and is what OpenGL is supposed to insulate the apps from. OSX also has to support a lot more in terms of resource sharing between applications, and insulating the apps from the hardware. By hacking off the dead weight it makes it a lot easier going forward -- for both OpenGL itself, and the apps which use it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't understand why this would lead Apple not to implement OpenGL though. It seems the only "problem" is that in some rare cases developers would have to make specific optimizations/changes to support that graphic chipset.

and I say to that, so what. if they have done it in the past why can't apple just implement the driver for basic things to work like they did in the past. we all know new games simply are to demanding for them so why should we expect new OpenGL features and everything to work on it? We are asking for basic hardware acceleration and there is no reason basic acceleration can not be implemented.

you're reasons also don't provide an xcuse as to why Apple won't write a Quicktime acceleration driver for these chipsets either. QT acceleration in the rage pro is identical to the rage 128. the radeon is the only one that is slightly different
post #78 of 117
post #79 of 117
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>Apple does not write the drivers. The OEM card supplier does as has been noted many times before. Until ATI writes the driver, which it looks like Apple is not forcing them to do, Apple cannot and won't verify it as an OEM driver. While ATI says talk to Apple, that is just an easy ruse to get folks off their back in a "technically" correct fashion, even though it really is their responsibility to provide code.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not saying ATI does not write the drivers or aid in writing the drivers. But this is Apple's responsibility. They have a contract with ATI. If ATI is indeed the one who needs the write the drivers than Apple should be forcing them to. And don't tell me Apple also isn't responsible for driver updates because they are. Even ATI employees have said they work with Apple on driver updates and Apple makes their own changes.

And what are we supposed to do? go to ATI for drivers for Apple's hardware? we didn't buy the chipset from ATI. We bought it from Apple.
post #80 of 117
There are some nice GeForce 2 MX vs. GeForce 3 comparisions on the web, plug the two into google and let the results roll on by.
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › the graphic card of the new i mac is better