GeForce4 MX benchmarks

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 86
    [quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>

    Cheaper! When? When you first buy it or after a few times in the shopn (paying for phone tech support, etc....)? If it truely ends up cheaper you got lucky.

    [quote] 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?<hr></blockquote>

    3D performance gets me somewhere when I am doing 3D modeling but what about 2D performance? The ATI cards coupled with the MAC OS and Mac hardware is consistantly faster for pro applications. I've never been into games much so the PC could have an edge there as far as I know.



    But I do work in cross platform multimedia every day. I can attest to the difference and Photohop is not the only app where you see a difference.



    You also can't just look at hardware, especially when talking about dual processor machines. Having a dual processor Windows machine is just short of a waste of money. Not the case with OSX or another UNIX.
  • Reply 62 of 86
    sebseb Posts: 676member
    [quote]Originally posted by MacAddict:

    <strong>



    They just don't get it. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, my gal has a sizable investment in audio equipment, and she is really getting interested in doing some more video stuff, so if the Mac excels at everything but the gaming stuff, and is mediocre at the gaming stuff, you have to decide what's important.



    You have to prioritize what's important in the system, and for many people gaming just isn't high on the list of priorities. If I were to get 115 FPS it would be excellent. Not as good as a PC, perhaps, iDVD and FCP don't do so well on a PC either. Let's see some of those benchmarks.



    No, when it comes to placing importance on the "overall" speed of a machine based on how many frames per second a game/gaming card/system I certainly do not "get it".



    I understand that people may be disappointed that a $3000 Mac doesn't beat a $1200 PC at FPS - but there is just more to making for a productive machine than saying "This computer is faster because Quake FPS rates are faster and Quake benchmarks really push the whole system, not just the graphics card".



    I understand the theory, but IMO there is more to a computer than the "overall speed".



    The whole is greater than the sum of the components, from my perspective.



    For example, I'd bet that I could import, edit and put a video on DVD on a Mac, faster than you could with a machine that beats it in Quake. Even for the same price.



    It's just a matter of perspective, and what's important to you in a computer, I guess.
  • Reply 63 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]Cheaper! When? When you first buy it or after a few times in the shopn (paying for phone tech support, etc....)? If it truely ends up cheaper you got lucky.<hr></blockquote>



    Apple's customer service isn't something to brag about, my friend. Why don't you ask Fran about how quickly Apple got his PowerBook fixed...he did after all shell out the extra cash for AppleCare. With any Mac, you get 90 day tech support, and anything more you have to pay over a hundred dollars for. If Apple's products are so reliable and easy to maintain, why doesn't Apple stand by them?
  • Reply 64 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    seb seb seb...I was joking! I even included not one, but TWO smilies to get the humor across for the slow ones!
  • Reply 65 of 86
    sebseb Posts: 676member
    hey, it's cool MacAddict.



    I mean, hell, I wish the new G4s got 400+FPS, but, if not 115+ still seems pretty good - by my (outdated) standards.
  • Reply 66 of 86
    ccr65ccr65 Posts: 59member
    Oh don't get me wrong I realize Apple customer service could use some help. I'm talking about the big picture as a matter of statistics.



    When I was working as a musician and sound engineer I did a little construction of electronic equipment including digital projects on a custom basis. I know well that chips and other parts fail and refuse to work no matter what brand of gear you use, even if you make it yourself. I have also had my share of endless calls to support lines. After 10 years of using Macs however I have never had the kind of problems that I or people around me have had using Wintel.



    Customer service is a more business related issue (management, hiring practices etc.) you have to hire good people to set up a system and keep it from disappointing your customers.



    I'm starting to think customer service is a dying art in business period.
  • Reply 67 of 86
    [i] [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>

    Counterstrike is based on the Q2 engine I believe, not Q3.[i]



    Actually your both wrong. Its Quake 1. However it (the halflife engine) has been so totally rewritte nfrom its original Q1 base that tis not really fair to call it that, rather its "The Half Life Engine".



    I guess when Macs are getting 200+ fps, and the PCs are getting 300+ fps you still won't be happy?



    Not if in a new game Im only getting 40 fps and the PCs are getting 60.



    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?



    Same reason that Apple doesnt release the G5 immediatly, marketing and money. With slow increases they can make slightly more money than if they just released the highest clock speed off the bat. C'mon, you a macaddict, you should know this.





    What's the diff between MX and non MX? What does the MX mean?




    I dont remember what it means, but the MX is more or less the castrated version. The GF2MX runs at about half the speed of the GF2ultra (not clock speed per say, but in game performance), and about 1/6th of the GF3.



    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.



    Just a note here, speed in games IS NOT EQUAL to speed in other apps.

    eg. A quadro will render MUCH faster than a GF3, but dont expect the same game performance.



    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.



    *sigh* have you actually bee nreading these posts? Nvidia is marketing it this way in order to make more money. When they released the GF2MX400 they found that people didnt eat it up as was expected because some arbitrart number tacked on the end didnt mean much to the base consumer (people like my friend who claimed that ALL GF2s were GF2MXs).



    Yes, this is VERY sad. The fact that Apple is still this far behind shows a bottle neck somewhere in the system. Apple needs to find this, and I have this fleeting suspision that its in software...



    However its not the end of the world. Why you ask?



    WHO THE HELL BUYS A MAC FOR GAMES!!??
  • Reply 68 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>

    what "standard" PC are you paying 3000 dollars for?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The point is, as far as I know 64-bit-PCI doesn't even exist on most "high-end" PCs. The only chipsets I know of that support it at all in the x86 world are the ServerWorks ones and the new 760MP(X) from AMD (which can actually even do 64bit/66MHz). Specifically, I don't know of any P4-compatible chipset that sports 64bit-PCI (feel free to correct me if I missed one).



    Oh, and besides, last I checked, the low-end PowerMac had 64bit-PCI too and didn't quite cost $3k.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz



    [ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
  • Reply 69 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:

    <strong>Same reason that Apple doesnt release the G5 immediatly, marketing and money.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Of course, this has been discussed several times before, but what makes you assume that Apple *could* release it if they wanted to (i.e. that it exists at all in a form ready for mass-production)?



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 70 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    Because MacOSRumors told us so!
  • Reply 71 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    <a href="http://digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/01/29&pages=06&seq=39"; target="_blank">Crap!</a>



    SiS hasn't been reputed to be a performance leader recently, but their SiS 648 chipset is coming out this spring with 400MHz DDR, AGP 8X, and a 533MHz bus for the P4.



    Wow. Plop a 2.2GHz P4 on that thing (probably 2.4 or 2.6GHz come spring), 512MB of low latency DDR 400 and you have one hell of a speed demon.



    Oh yeah, FireWire and USB 2 as well.



    [ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: MacAddict ]</p>
  • Reply 72 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by MacAddict:

    <strong><a href="http://digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2002/01/29&pages=06&seq=39"; target="_blank">Crap!</a>



    SiS hasn't been reputed to be a performance leader recently, but their SiS 648 chipset is coming out this spring with 400MHz DDR, AGP 8X, and a 533MHz bus for the P4.



    Wow. Plop a 2.2GHz P4 on that thing (probably 2.4 or 2.6GHz come spring), 512MB of low latency DDR 400 and you have one hell of a speed demon.



    Oh yeah, FireWire and USB 2 as well.



    [ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: MacAddict ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Looks like Apple is set to become the next atari.
  • Reply 73 of 86
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    [quote]Apple's customer service isn't something to brag about, my friend. Why don't you ask Fran about how quickly Apple got his PowerBook fixed...he did after all shell out the extra cash for AppleCare. <hr></blockquote>



    I'm hoping my PowerBook problem is a unique case. I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through what I did to get my PowerBook fixed. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 74 of 86
    tarbashtarbash Posts: 278member
    Scott H. writes:

    "Lemme bring it back the most important point.



    Apple's $3000 top of the line system shows less performance than a PeeCee at much lower price. You pay top dollar for the Mac and get mediocre performance. That hurts! "



    Well, what about people who want to get WORK DONE and NOT play games? Sure the Dual GHz G4 may not be as fast as a high end Northwood or AMD system playing games, but anyone who pays $3000 just to have a gaming machine is simply out of their f*cking mind. Professionals who use FCP 3, Media 100, Photoshop, and and many other pro apps benefit a great deal form this machine, and their workflow is much more efficient than a cheap ass PC. (Hmm.. 300% quicker in crunching through digital video.. yeah...) Throw Windows XP on that cheap ass PC into the situation and the the value of the Dual GHz machine goes up even more, since they don't have to worry about system crashes nearly as much, or any kind of Windows BS that usually occurs on a day to day basis. (At least that's the case on my friend's Dell.) There are also things like GB ethernet (which some firms do use) that come standard, and the Superdrive and iDVD is a nice touch as well for effortless DVD burning. Plus, you've got that tried and true El Capitan case for the simplest system upgrades EVER. This can be such a headache on the PC side (I know from experience), and some people don't realize that you have to PAY for simplicity and elegance. IT'S NOT FREE DAMMIT.





    For a stopgap PowerMac to keep sales afloat, this is not a bad machine at all. (Especially for $2699 education inst. price)
  • Reply 75 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]but anyone who pays $3000 just to have a gaming machine is simply out of their f*cking mind. <hr></blockquote>



    Exactly...so why should someone have to pay $3000 for a decent gaming experience on a Mac? An $800 PC will give you better gaming than any Mac...it's only on a Mac where gaming performance comes at such a high price.



    [quote]Plus, you've got that tried and true El Capitan case for the simplest system upgrades EVER. <hr></blockquote>



    For all those internal upgrades we know that it can handle....
  • Reply 76 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>



    As always the mac users misses the point. Why spend top money for the latest Mac with the latest $$$ graphics card when yesterdays tech on a PeeCee is faster and cheaper. Aren't you worried? You should be because these poor numbers are going to help sink Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is BS. Apple, the machine I am buying, is not a game machine. It is a production machine. Give me real world number as it relates to PhotoShop, GoLive, iDVD, iPhoto etc. This game crap is foolish. You want a game machine go buy a PS2. Much cheaper and it also plays movies.

    BTW,...understand PC trolls, the Mac experience is more than just the machine, it is the entire environment that Apple gives one. Now, with OS X,...there is a real future that is more than just speculation. Mac OS X, with all its pains is just begining and,...Apple didn't have to steal it from IBM either.

    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 77 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>



    As always the mac users misses the point. Why spend top money for the latest Mac with the latest $$$ graphics card when yesterdays tech on a PeeCee is faster and cheaper. Aren't you worried? You should be because these poor numbers are going to help sink Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is BS. Apple, the machine I am buying, is not a game machine. It is a production machine. Give me real world number as it relates to PhotoShop, GoLive, iDVD, iPhoto etc. This game crap is foolish. You want a game machine go buy a PS2. Much cheaper and it also plays movies.

    BTW,...understand PC trolls, the Mac experience is more than just the machine, it is the entire environment that Apple gives one. Now, with OS X,...there is a real future that is more than just speculation. Mac OS X, with all its pains is just begining and,...Apple didn't have to steal it from IBM either.

    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 78 of 86
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Spole:

    <strong>



    This is BS. Apple, the machine I am buying, is not a game machine. It is a production machine. Give me real world number as it relates to PhotoShop, GoLive, iDVD, iPhoto etc. This game crap is foolish. You want a game machine go buy a PS2. Much cheaper and it also plays movies.

    BTW,...understand PC trolls, the Mac experience is more than just the machine, it is the entire environment that Apple gives one. Now, with OS X,...there is a real future that is more than just speculation. Mac OS X, with all its pains is just begining and,...Apple didn't have to steal it from IBM either.

    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    great, another "Macintosh"





    have fun doing your "production" work in iPhoto on your $3000 machine w/out monitor
  • Reply 79 of 86
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    I got the dual 1.0ghz, would I be better served getting the GeForce 4 when it comes out? Or possibly the 8500? I mainly do photoshop stuff.
  • Reply 80 of 86
    idogcowidogcow Posts: 111member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    great, another "Macintosh"





    have fun doing your "production" work in iPhoto on your $3000 machine w/out monitor</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What makes everyone think the Dual 1ghz is the only PowerMac Apple offers?



    Umm....hello? You don't have to spend $3000

    I'm getting a PowerMac, some new software and a monitor for under $2000 /w this 'horrible' GeForce4MX thingie..
Sign In or Register to comment.