GF2mx / GF3 in Jaguar ? :

badtzbadtz
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Does the GF3 have pixel/vertex shaders?



[the gf2mx doesn't]



will that impair the visual of jaguar on-screen?





have anyone happened to try the difference between the two cards in a pre-released jaguar????



I'm trying to decipher if I should sell my gf3 for a gf2mx [since i don't play much games, and I want no-fan].

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    mrbojanglez50mrbojanglez50 Posts: 50member
    [quote]Originally posted by badtz:

    <strong>Does the GF3 have pixel/vertex shaders?



    [the gf2mx doesn't]



    will that impair the visual of jaguar on-screen?





    have anyone happened to try the difference between the two cards in a pre-released jaguar????



    I'm trying to decipher if I should sell my gf3 for a gf2mx [since i don't play much games, and I want no-fan].</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Im running a geforce 3 and i see nothing implemente in jaguar to take advantage of the pixel shaders etc. The only thing the geforce 3 is good for in jaguar is the 64mb vid ram thats good for quartz extreme. If you want, i have a geforce 2 mx that I'll trade you for your Geforce 3. E-mail me, poky1103@attbi.com
  • Reply 2 of 16
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    have you tried both in jaguar?
  • Reply 3 of 16
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Both of these will run Quartz Extreme exactly the same.



    The only area you will likely notice a difference is in games.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    visually will there be any difference? [transparencies, etc. etc.]



    they'll both run roughly the same [speed-wise] also?



    does the gf3 have vertex/pixel shaders?
  • Reply 5 of 16
    xaqtlyxaqtly Posts: 450member
    It doesn't matter because Jaguar doesn't use any sort of pixel shading. Quartz Extreme is for layer compositing. That's all. It has nothing to do with how things draw.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    so would htere be much difference between the 64mb vs. the 32mb ram versions of the GF2mx??
  • Reply 7 of 16
    mrbojanglez50mrbojanglez50 Posts: 50member
    I've tried both the geforce 3 and the geforce 2mx in os x and there is absolutely no difference in speed. Maybe in a future release of os x youll need more vid ram but i doubt it. Geforce 2mx even performs well in games compared to geforce 3. Instead of trashing your geforce 3 because of something so minor like the sound, why don't you just pull the plug on the fan onthe card?? Im sure it doesnt generate too much heat unless your doing something graphics intensive like gaming.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    well, it's going to be put into a cube, so sound/heat are big concerns



    would a 64meg version of the gf2mx help out? or should i just go for the 32meg version?
  • Reply 9 of 16
    mrbojanglez50mrbojanglez50 Posts: 50member
    of course a 64 eg card would be better.. but do you really need it??
  • Reply 10 of 16
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    ........ i meant........



    how would 64megs over a 32meg version of the gf2mx help under general OS usage?



    like, what would be some differences between them when using the OS? [not gaming]



    thanks
  • Reply 11 of 16
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    [quote]Originally posted by badtz:

    <strong>........ i meant........



    how would 64megs over a 32meg version of the gf2mx help under general OS usage?



    like, what would be some differences between them when using the OS? [not gaming]



    thanks </strong><hr></blockquote>



    NO.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 12 of 16
    pesipesi Posts: 424member
    [quote]Originally posted by serrano:

    <strong>



    NO.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    and how can you qualify that answer?



    from what i understand about how QE works, window contents are basically converted to 3D textures and then composited. more memory on the card means more texture/frame buffer without resorting to main memory.



    so, i would say that 64MB card would offer better performance than a 32MB card. this has yet to be proven/disproven.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    .....ahh! hopefully soon so I know if i should get rid of my gf3 .....
  • Reply 14 of 16
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    should i try & find the 64meg gf2mx instead of the 32mb?



    doesn't anyone know if the 64meg comes fanless?
  • Reply 15 of 16
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    Actually, Jaguar does support Pixel/Vertex shaders. ATI and NVIDIA had demo units at MacWorld showing off OS X pixel shading abilities. It saw the NVIDIA "Wolf" demo running on a DP 1GHz Machine and ATI's "Pipes" screen saver running on one of the Macs at there booth.



    Some PDF document, which I can't find, noted the addition of pixel shading extensions in Jaguar. I believe it was covered in that Quartz Extreme slide show.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    so if the gf2mx can't support pixel/vertex shaders....





    then i should keep my gf3?





    any confirmation into pixel/vertex shader support for QE?
Sign In or Register to comment.