The 8500 is superior only in a few circumstances, mostly games. The 9000 actually does have a faster clock rate. So for most 2D things (Quartz Extreme) I believe the 9000 will be faster. And the 30 bucks is still 30 bucks, no matter how you slice it.
<strong>The 8500 is superior only in a few circumstances, mostly games. The 9000 actually does have a faster clock rate. So for most 2D things (Quartz Extreme) I believe the 9000 will be faster. And the 30 bucks is still 30 bucks, no matter how you slice it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quartz Extreme is primarily involved in moving & blending images, which falls into what is normally considered a 3D operation. Even ignoring that point, however, the 9000 has 6.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth, the 9000PRO has 8.8 and the 8500 has 8.8 -- and this will be the primary determining factor for most things the card does. The 8500 ought to be significantly faster than the 9000 and about the same as a 9000PRO.
ATI also has the 9500, 9500PRO, and 9700PRO. The 9500/PRO has the same memory bandwidth (8.8) as the 8500 and should perform about the same under Quartz Extreme. The 9700 has 17.6 and the 9500PRO has 19.2 -- those will obviously perform memory operations much faster.
One point to keep in mind w.r.t. QuartzExtreme performance: since most of the images are coming out of main memory, the major factor will be AGP performance not the card's VRAM performance. Some images will be cached in VRAM and those will benefit from the better bandwidth, but the bottleneck will be the AGP interface which is primarily a function of the Macintosh side of the equation. Apple has had AGP 4x for a while now, and the DDR machines will deal with it best due to their "extra" memory bandwidth (it needn't cross the MPX bus). When AGP 8x arrives it will likely have a noticeable impact. Frankly though, I haven't noticed any GUI sluggishness on my dual 1GHz DDR w/ ATI8500.
<strong>When AGP 8x arrives it will likely have a noticeable impact. Frankly though, I haven't noticed any GUI sluggishness on my dual 1GHz DDR w/ ATI8500.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did hear that the difference between AGP 4x and AGP 8x is not really what one would expect and that for the most part AGP 8x is not used for more than marketing. Having said that I think OSX might be using some compression and even a bandwidth of 6.4 is more than enough unless you really start doing heavy duty 3D. But then, only uninformed people (not going to call them stupid in case any of those are listening!) would buy a Mac for heavy duty 3D stuff at the moment.
<strong>I did hear that the difference between AGP 4x and AGP 8x is not really what one would expect and that for the most part AGP 8x is not used for more than marketing. Having said that I think OSX might be using some compression and even a bandwidth of 6.4 is more than enough unless you really start doing heavy duty 3D. But then, only uninformed people (not going to call them stupid in case any of those are listening!) would buy a Mac for heavy duty 3D stuff at the moment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That probably depends on how the AGP bus is being used. If the traffic is light and/or sporadic then doubling the bandwidth isn't going to have a big impact on performance. If the traffic is a continuous stream of large desktop window-sized images, then performance might be significantly better. I don't know how much bandwidth QE typically requires, but if its not close to AGP 4x limit then AGP 8x isn't likely to help. As desktops get bigger and bigger, however, the bandwidth requirements are going to increase roughly as a function of screen area.
<strong>I did hear that the difference between AGP 4x and AGP 8x is not really what one would expect and that for the most part AGP 8x is not used for more than marketing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, that's what they said when AGP4x first hit the market...
As for heavy graphic stuff...buy a bunch of xBox and load Linus on it and run it as a beowolf cluster! The graphic chip in there, clustered together, should do a superb job ^_^;
Also, for Radeon 8500Pro/9000 debate, considering you can flash the PC version of the 8500Pro, it's a better choice than the 9000 IMHO.
<strong>Uh, that's what they said when AGP4x first hit the market...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do trust anandtech et al on that issue - if they say it's more of a marketing trick because the agp 8x cards can not even saturate agp 8x and that it makes little difference at most benchmarks.
Maybe in a year or two it will make some sense, but at the moment is does not. Not for me and not for most people...
I wonder just what hassle it would be for the hardware manufacturers to introduce their cards parallel for the PC and Mac platforms...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There isn't any really. You can take the PC card and use it in a Mac assuming you flash it. Most of work seems to lie in the software support.
Anyway nice to here MrNSX say that given his position. Wish he had given a bit more of a timeframe though
Comments
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>I'm still wondering when the 9000s are gonna be available for Mac. I guess we'll be lucky if they start shipping 'em by MWSF 2003...
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering the 9000 is inferior to the 8500, who the hell cares?
<strong>
Considering the 9000 is inferior to the 8500, who the hell cares?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably those people who don't want to spend the money on the 8500.
$30 for the extra performance ofthe 8500 sounds like a bargain.
[ 11-10-2002: Message edited by: mooseman ]</p>
<a href="http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=552375"; target="_blank">Radeon 9000 Pro Mac Edition at MacMall</a>
That's a $55.00 difference as opposed to
<a href="http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=967178"; target="_blank">this.</a>
[ 11-10-2002: Message edited by: SurfRat ]</p>
As far as I've seen no one has had the 9000 in stock.
<strong>The 8500 is superior only in a few circumstances, mostly games. The 9000 actually does have a faster clock rate. So for most 2D things (Quartz Extreme) I believe the 9000 will be faster. And the 30 bucks is still 30 bucks, no matter how you slice it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quartz Extreme is primarily involved in moving & blending images, which falls into what is normally considered a 3D operation. Even ignoring that point, however, the 9000 has 6.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth, the 9000PRO has 8.8 and the 8500 has 8.8 -- and this will be the primary determining factor for most things the card does. The 8500 ought to be significantly faster than the 9000 and about the same as a 9000PRO.
ATI also has the 9500, 9500PRO, and 9700PRO. The 9500/PRO has the same memory bandwidth (8.8) as the 8500 and should perform about the same under Quartz Extreme. The 9700 has 17.6 and the 9500PRO has 19.2 -- those will obviously perform memory operations much faster.
One point to keep in mind w.r.t. QuartzExtreme performance: since most of the images are coming out of main memory, the major factor will be AGP performance not the card's VRAM performance. Some images will be cached in VRAM and those will benefit from the better bandwidth, but the bottleneck will be the AGP interface which is primarily a function of the Macintosh side of the equation. Apple has had AGP 4x for a while now, and the DDR machines will deal with it best due to their "extra" memory bandwidth (it needn't cross the MPX bus). When AGP 8x arrives it will likely have a noticeable impact. Frankly though, I haven't noticed any GUI sluggishness on my dual 1GHz DDR w/ ATI8500.
<strong>When AGP 8x arrives it will likely have a noticeable impact. Frankly though, I haven't noticed any GUI sluggishness on my dual 1GHz DDR w/ ATI8500.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did hear that the difference between AGP 4x and AGP 8x is not really what one would expect and that for the most part AGP 8x is not used for more than marketing. Having said that I think OSX might be using some compression and even a bandwidth of 6.4 is more than enough unless you really start doing heavy duty 3D. But then, only uninformed people (not going to call them stupid in case any of those are listening!) would buy a Mac for heavy duty 3D stuff at the moment.
<strong>I did hear that the difference between AGP 4x and AGP 8x is not really what one would expect and that for the most part AGP 8x is not used for more than marketing. Having said that I think OSX might be using some compression and even a bandwidth of 6.4 is more than enough unless you really start doing heavy duty 3D. But then, only uninformed people (not going to call them stupid in case any of those are listening!) would buy a Mac for heavy duty 3D stuff at the moment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That probably depends on how the AGP bus is being used. If the traffic is light and/or sporadic then doubling the bandwidth isn't going to have a big impact on performance. If the traffic is a continuous stream of large desktop window-sized images, then performance might be significantly better. I don't know how much bandwidth QE typically requires, but if its not close to AGP 4x limit then AGP 8x isn't likely to help. As desktops get bigger and bigger, however, the bandwidth requirements are going to increase roughly as a function of screen area.
<strong>I did hear that the difference between AGP 4x and AGP 8x is not really what one would expect and that for the most part AGP 8x is not used for more than marketing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, that's what they said when AGP4x first hit the market...
As for heavy graphic stuff...buy a bunch of xBox and load Linus on it and run it as a beowolf cluster!
Also, for Radeon 8500Pro/9000 debate, considering you can flash the PC version of the 8500Pro, it's a better choice than the 9000 IMHO.
<strong>Uh, that's what they said when AGP4x first hit the market...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do trust anandtech et al on that issue - if they say it's more of a marketing trick because the agp 8x cards can not even saturate agp 8x and that it makes little difference at most benchmarks.
Maybe in a year or two it will make some sense, but at the moment is does not. Not for me and not for most people...
Speaking of which, err, umm... 9700 Pro Mac Edition?
Hehe, hold onto your horses, it's a comin'
Regards,
MrNSX
<strong>...9700 Pro Mac Edition? Hehe, hold onto your horses, it's a comin'</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow.
I wonder just what hassle it would be for the hardware manufacturers to introduce their cards parallel for the PC and Mac platforms...
<strong>
Wow.
I wonder just what hassle it would be for the hardware manufacturers to introduce their cards parallel for the PC and Mac platforms...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There isn't any really. You can take the PC card and use it in a Mac assuming you flash it. Most of work seems to lie in the software support.
Anyway nice to here MrNSX say that given his position. Wish he had given a bit more of a timeframe though