GeForce4 MX benchmarks

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 86
    ok, i try never to get personal on boards...it's a silly thing to do and never productive....but i just have to ask one question of Scott....over 900 posts, and from what i've seen over 90% are anti-apple or hostile to apple....i just don't understand....do you like apple computers or not??



    if not, why are you here??



    if you do like apple computers, why are you always so negative??



    i have nothing against you personally...you seem very bright and knowledgible...and are very even keeled, never getting upset and ranting at other members of this forum....but i'm just not sure if it's that you like apple computers, but just what more...or if you dislike apple computers, but like coming here for reasons i can't fathom...



    don't mean this nasty, just wondering.....
  • Reply 22 of 86
    gnomgnom Posts: 85member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>What's the diff between MX and non MX? What does the MX mean?</strong><hr></blockquote>





    read my posts again.
  • Reply 23 of 86
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    So which is a better card? The Mac GeForce3 or the Mac GeForce4Mx?
  • Reply 24 of 86
    gnomgnom Posts: 85member
    [quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:

    <strong>So which is a better card? The Mac GeForce3 or the Mac GeForce4Mx?</strong><hr></blockquote>





    the Geforce 3 of course, for all the german speaking folks, read this:



    <a href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/data/hag-21.01.02-000/default.shtml&amp;words=Geforce 4&quot; target="_blank">http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/data/hag-21.01.02-000/default.shtml&amp;words=Geforce 4&lt;/a&gt;





    In short, the MX has no pixel shader, just a basic vertex shader, NV-17 chipset (opposed to NV-25 on the GeForce 4) it´s basically a GeForce 2.





    bye.
  • Reply 25 of 86
    imacfpimacfp Posts: 750member
    Isn't the important issue whether or not pro users can benefit from the updates? Apple is not a gamer company and everybody knows that. What you seem to be saying is since the new PowerMacs don't seem able to run a game well that means they can't use FCP, Maya, or Photoshop, as well as a PC can. How can a game be a benchmark for creative applications? Also, can't you put a better video card?



    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: imacSE ]</p>
  • Reply 26 of 86
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    uhm, I don't follow this, if you look at Geforce 3 results in dual 800 G4s running Q3A in OS X with a late build then you get scores close to what you are posting there [see <a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com"; target="_blank">http://www.xlr8yourmac.com</a>; and look in the gaming section].



    Which tells me that those are OS X scores ... which are lower.
  • Reply 27 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by imacSE:

    <strong>Isn't the important issue whether or not pro users can benefit from the updates? Apple is not a gamer company and everybody knows that. What you seem to be saying is since the new PowerMacs don't seem able to run a game well that means they can't use FCP, Maya, or Photoshop, as well as a PC can. How can a game be a benchmark for creative applications? Also, can't you put a better video card?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You're still missing the point. Which is you pay a lot of money and get something that's a poor performer. You can what if yourself (what if Maya what if FCP what if someother3dproapp). Either way it looks bad.





    So tell me graphics card knowers. If the GF4MX is just a fancy GF2MX why is it called a 4? The MX is a different chip set then ath GF3 and soon GF4? I would guess that it's cheaper. That must be why Apple went with it.
  • Reply 28 of 86
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by thegelding:

    <strong>ok, i try never to get personal on boards...it's a silly thing to do and never productive....but i just have to ask one question of Scott....over 900 posts, and from what i've seen over 90% are anti-apple or hostile to apple....i just don't understand....do you like apple computers or not??



    if not, why are you here??



    if you do like apple computers, why are you always so negative??



    i have nothing against you personally...you seem very bright and knowledgible...and are very even keeled, never getting upset and ranting at other members of this forum....but i'm just not sure if it's that you like apple computers, but just what more...or if you dislike apple computers, but like coming here for reasons i can't fathom...



    don't mean this nasty, just wondering.....</strong><hr></blockquote>





    all your posts kiss apple's ass. why are you here if you can't be objective?
  • Reply 29 of 86
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    guess i'm just a happy boy...maybe i'll live a lot longer...



    ps...i can be objective....i wanted an iMac with lcd, superdrive and a G4...apple gave that to me...i am happy....don't need nor want a tower so couldn't careless about those specs except that what the PM's get sooner or later come to the iMac...plus good PMs help apple...and i want apple to do well....g



    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]



    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
  • Reply 30 of 86
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    applenut sez: why are you here if you can't be objective?

    ___________________________________________



    because the people are so nice



    Applenut…let me start by saying I’m sorry …there was no call for my comments, that will be edited away (hopefully you didn't see them as the boards went down as soon as i posted...my negitive energy must have affected them)….like Scott H, you are often critical of Apple, but are also positive about apple sometimes too…it seems you care about the company and are here because of that….maybe Scott is too, I just haven’t seen it….he can reply to my comments with, “I use apple products, just want them to be better, faster or whatever” and I would say great, ok, so that is why you are here….it’s just that I have seen so many negative posts from him that I wondered what was up, and thought I would ask…and I tried to ask very nicely I thought. It just reminded me of when DVD first came out and circuit city was trying to compete with divx….i belonged to a home theater board that was pro-dvd and divx people would come by and post everyday that divx was so much better and that dvd would fail….and I never could understand why they would come to a pro dvd board…I never even thought of going to the divx boards and saying that divx would fail, that dvd is so much better, etc…..just like I would never go to a pc board and rant and rave about macs….as for my kissing apple’s ass, oh well…like I said I’m a consumer user that is not overly poor….i can afford apple’s slightly inflated price, and have been very happy with everything I’ve bought so far from them….could they be faster?? Could they be cheaper?? Hell yes….but so far I’ve had no real complaints…no much of the complaining type…..unless you ask my family, they may give a different opinion….hope you are well….g



    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]



    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
  • Reply 31 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]Look at the specs: The new PowerMacs don't have a GF4, they have a GF4MX, and there's a HUGE difference. Both are nowhere as related as the name implies.<hr></blockquote>



    I can gaurantee that there will be plenty of Pentium based systems with a GeForce 4 that can be had for a lot cheaper than any Mac you get with a GF4 MX. And if the MX is such a slow chip, why is Apple putting it into their most "powerful" machines? Does it make sense to you that you get a consumer chip in a Pro-range computer?



    [quote]Interesting, how easy is it? If most P4s easily (and reliably) run at those speeds, why does Intel only sell them up to 2.2GHz?<hr></blockquote>



    You seem to be implying that the Northwoods don't really overclock.



    <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020117/index.html"; target="_blank">Check Here</a>

    <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020128/index.html"; target="_blank">And Here</a>

    <a href="http://forums.overclockers.ws/vb/showthread.php?s=7e201de8ff1909ec5bc36ffbbf51f448&; threadid=61219" target="_blank">And Here</a>

    <a href="http://forums.overclockers.ws/vb/showthread.php?s=cebce700ffdc32c5bce5e54199c7e4c6&; threadid=61804&highlight=Northwood+Overclock" target="_blank">And Here</a>

    <a href="http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/cpus/intel/p4nw/index2.html"; target="_blank">And Here</a>





    [quote]Well, maybe because there's more to computing than just gaming?<hr></blockquote>



    It's one of many benchmarks for 3D performance, and the G4 gets whipped. Do you really think that the G4 is a fast system for the money, compared to an AMD or Intel system of the same price?
  • Reply 32 of 86
    The new G4's are being well received by Mac gamers.



    <a href="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum21/HTML/002841.html?"; target="_blank">http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum21/HTML/002841.html?</a>;



    Most seem to think that Apple's Quake 3 benchmarks are neither optimised, nor tweaked correctly nor representative of true Quake 3 performance.



    There are already benchmarks on the web where 867MHz dual G4's(overclocked from 800MHz) break 250fps in Quake 3.



    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 33 of 86
    xmogerxmoger Posts: 242member
    [quote]Isn't the important issue whether or not pro users can benefit from the updates? Apple is not a gamer company and everybody knows that. What you seem to be saying is since the new PowerMacs don't seem able to run a game well that means they can't use FCP, Maya, or Photoshop, as well as a PC can. <hr></blockquote>

    Well, FCP isn't available for anything besides macOS. Maya and lightwave are much faster on athlons, xeons or P4s.

    <a href="http://www.highend3d.com/tests/maya/testcenter/database.3d"; target="_blank">maya benchmarks</a>(hint: sort by make, there's a handful of apple machines in there)

    Photoshop can go either way depending on what filters you use.



    [quote]How can a game be a benchmark for creative applications?<hr></blockquote>

    Some modelers and animators check the Q3 benches because it uses opengl.

    [quote]Also, can't you put a better video card?<hr></blockquote>

    Not unless you think a radeon 7500 is better.
  • Reply 34 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:

    <strong>Most seem to think that Apple's Quake 3 benchmarks are neither optimised, nor tweaked correctly nor representative of true Quake 3 performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I wish more people understood that!!! :o



    I have Q3 tweaked on my dual 500 G4 w/ OEM ATI Radeon and I easily pull over 100 fps in the timedemos. If I strip it down to an ugly config, I can come really close to the 200 mark.



    Only fools rely on Quake 3 benchmarks.



    They are as reliable as Photoshop bakeoffs. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 35 of 86
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by starfleetX:

    <strong>



    I wish more people understood that!!! :o



    I have Q3 tweaked on my dual 500 G4 w/ OEM ATI Radeon and I easily pull over 100 fps in the timedemos. If I strip it down to an ugly config, I can come really close to the 200 mark.



    Only fools rely on Quake 3 benchmarks.



    They are as reliable as Photoshop bakeoffs. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>





    the pc results are everything maxxed beyond what "High quality" is. not everything stripped
  • Reply 36 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]There are already benchmarks on the web where 867MHz dual G4's(overclocked from 800MHz) break 250fps in Quake 3.<hr></blockquote>



    Care to point any of these benchmarks out?
  • Reply 37 of 86
    idogcowidogcow Posts: 111member
    [quote]Originally posted by xmoger:

    <strong>

    Not unless you think a radeon 7500 is better.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Er...Ever heard of this thing called upgradability? You can actually add a new graphics card besides the one that come in the computer if that one gets outdated!. It's true!



    [quote]My OLD and useless Athlon 700 with a GF2 [email protected]/210 get at least 99 fps in CounterStrike which is based on the QIII engine so these benchmarks are poor...<hr></blockquote>



    Quake 2 actually, your 700mhz Athlon would come no where near that in Q3 (unless really stripped down)



    But anyhows, no one in their right mind would by a Mac only for gaming..The new G4's will run neck and neck with P4s in Photoshop filters..Besides, I don't mind running a few FPS less (ok..ok..in this case a hundred FPS less ) and be forced to use &lt;shutter&gt; Windows.



    'Course there's always Linux.





    I love it, people bash Macs with game benchmarks...just shows that PCs are toys



    I want to see a Photoshop test where a Dual 1ghz gets creamed..
  • Reply 37 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by MacAddict:

    <strong>

    I can gaurantee that there will be plenty of Pentium based systems with a GeForce 4 that can be had for a lot cheaper than any Mac you get with a GF4 MX.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I completely agree.





    [quote]<strong>

    And if the MX is such a slow chip, why is Apple putting it into their most "powerful" machines? Does it make sense to you that you get a consumer chip in a Pro-range computer?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, you could just as well ask if it would make sense to put a gamer chip into a pro-range computer.





    [quote]<strong>

    You seem to be implying that the Northwoods don't really overclock.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, in fact I was just curious as to what was necessary to get them to that point.



    From the 5 links you provided, only 3 led to different sites, and only one of the sites (Tom's Hardware) was able to reach the 3GHz you claimed, and only using a water coolant system. So, at least to me, it doesn't sound quite so easy to overclock the P4 to 3GHz.





    [quote]<strong>

    It's one of many benchmarks for 3D performance, and the G4 gets whipped. Do you really think that the G4 is a fast system for the money, compared to an AMD or Intel system of the same price?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Depends on what you do with it. For gaming, x86 PCs are obviously a better choice. Other areas might yield different results, especially considering stuff like 2MB L3 cache or GBit ethernet which are not found in most PCs.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 39 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by MacAddict:

    <strong>



    Care to point any of these benchmarks out?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Sure. I was hoping someone might ask. I was hoping it would be Scott H, but oh well.



    <a href="http://duxbury.la/dp867b/dp867b_1.html"; target="_blank">http://duxbury.la/dp867b/dp867b_1.html</a>;



    The dual 867MHz G4 breaks 330fps.



    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 40 of 86
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Counter-Strike is a Half-Life mod. Half-life is loosely based on the original Quake engine, believe it or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.