The real GeForce 4

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
[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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 53
  • Reply 2 of 53
    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>
  • Reply 3 of 53
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    There's only 32 MB in the Radeon 7500.
  • Reply 4 of 53
    [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.
  • Reply 5 of 53
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [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
  • Reply 6 of 53
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 53
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [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?
  • Reply 8 of 53
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    My answer: Wait for nVidia's announcement.
  • Reply 9 of 53
    it advertises to people that the Mac can rise to the demands of serious gamers if the need arises.





    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.
  • Reply 10 of 53
    cakecake Posts: 1,010member
    Well, it's <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/onrop1/.Pictures/FPS-GF3.jpg&quot; 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>
  • Reply 11 of 53
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    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.
  • Reply 12 of 53
    supersuper Posts: 82member
    Can anyone advise on which is the best card for 2D work ? The radeon or the GF4mx ?



    Thanks.
  • Reply 13 of 53
    qaziiqazii Posts: 305member
    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.
  • Reply 14 of 53
    calercaler Posts: 29member
    [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.





    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
  • Reply 15 of 53
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    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.
  • Reply 16 of 53
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    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">
  • Reply 17 of 53
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [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.
  • Reply 18 of 53
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [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.
  • Reply 19 of 53
    gustavgustav Posts: 822member
    [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.
  • Reply 20 of 53
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.