Shootout: Apple vs PC Graphics Processing Unit
Alright people, there's so much intense vibes on Apple and GPU. What's up with this.
Let's get it all out and let the healing begin.
Why do you all hate Apple GPUs so much? But their website says UltraFast 3D graphics on iMac and PowerBook and iBook and stuff
Come, on, get it out! Name the models of GPUs you would like to see in Apple hardware THIS year. And say why people would need that sort of GPU power !!
Others, defend Apple GPUs if you are sick about AppleInsiders and the Mac community in general whinin' and whinin' and whinin' when it comes to GPU.
Is the ATi 9200 really $20 ???
Let's get it all out and let the healing begin.
Why do you all hate Apple GPUs so much? But their website says UltraFast 3D graphics on iMac and PowerBook and iBook and stuff
Come, on, get it out! Name the models of GPUs you would like to see in Apple hardware THIS year. And say why people would need that sort of GPU power !!
Others, defend Apple GPUs if you are sick about AppleInsiders and the Mac community in general whinin' and whinin' and whinin' when it comes to GPU.
Is the ATi 9200 really $20 ???
Comments
Then add to the fact that only powermac has a videocard not chip. So in apples world to get a decent video meaning modern not performance of say a geforce 4mx from 5 years ago entry is powermac. Entry on the PC side is what about half that price. Just pick the videocard with performance you want or need. Using very old video on ALL MODELS isnt so high quality from the high quality maker is it. Not having the option to option out of stale 4 year old video on models as iMac,minimac,emac is a crime. Why have a high resolution monitor imac and then be forced to watch low resolution graphics because of $20 dollar video apple used? They might as well went cheapo on the monitor. Just the facts no spin.
let' s consider also that with tiger gpu are becoming more important in mac platform
however are there any arguments why people would need such a "powerful GPU" as the models you all have suggested? besides CoreImage?
and of course coreimage and video (that will be used by quicktime 7 too) will be used at their best
Originally posted by sunilraman
okay, the main argument here seems to be that given advances in GPU Apple is ripping people off from a cost/value point of view...
however are there any arguments why people would need such a "powerful GPU" as the models you all have suggested? besides CoreImage?
gaming is a big one. i have this new machine and i have to run Doom 3 at 640 x 480and low settings to get some playable frames? Get ready for that because its coming.
The low end cards in anything but the PM are bottom of the barrel. They should do better, and be able to be replaced. The life expectancy of graphics cards are shortening daily. Dwindling with the increase of game resolutions, and what it takes to run them.
There is also the 3D Application problem.
The gaming cards are not 3D application cards, and a soft quadro mod (if we had one) might open up the pipelines, but you don't get what is mentioned as OpenGL precision accuracy of the quadro 3D drivers specifically for 3D application use. I have been told many a time there are substantial differences between the two. It puts a limitation on the spectrum what a powerMac is capable of.
I'm done.
--------------------------------------------------------
What seems to be the irony is that Apple is using the GPU much more intensivly than the Windows platform, or any other desktop OS out there!
MacOSX renders all the graphics to a texture or textures. Constantly, the GPU is involved. CoreImage is GPU based. Pro video apps like Final Cut use GPU effects more effectivly than PC based apps.
No wonder that stuff like browsing feels darn slow on a Mac, and fast on a PC! I bet a faster GPU would improve the situation much!
On the other hand Apple ships all their machines with -already mentioned here- crappy videocards. I don't think it fits the philosophy of Apple. They make a state of the art OS, state of the art designed hardware, but they still deliver a computer with a GPU acting as a bottleneck in combination with the CPU.
They advertise as if the PC market is going all 'shared video memory', but my low end PC is equipped with a ATI 9700 pro, so that is plain nonsense.
Yes, this is the main reason why Apple hasn't convinced me to buy an Imac and/or Mac Mini.
The Mac Mini should be equipped with the Geforce 5200FX as a minimum, as well as the I-book and the E-mac. The single Powermac with an ATI 9600/9700. The dual Powermacs with an ATI 9800 (It's a POWERmac with for god sakes) and the Powerbooks with an ATI 9700 by default.
These would be my changes for the GPU's:
iMac - Radeon X700 Pro, Geforce 6600 or similar.
iBook, Mac Mini, eMac - whatever cheap card that supports pixel shaders and has 64MB memory. It's not that critical a change for these machines, but this day there is no reason to use lesser GPU's.
12" Powerbook - whatever the 15" and 17" get at next upgrade.
Pro cards for Powermac, I think, are up to nVidia and ATi, not Apple. So is getting decent price/performance. Radeon X800, Radeon X700 Pro and Geforce 6600GT are very reasonably priced cards on x86 and not available for the Mac.
Radeon X800, Radeon X700 Pro and Geforce 6600GT are very reasonably priced cards on x86 and not available for the Mac.
From ATI's store, you can by the Mac edition of the X800. It's priced the same as the Windows DVI edition, but has 16 fragment pipelines compared to 12 for the Windows version for a better fillrate. So until the X850 comes along, the best graphics card for the moment is on the Mac :P
(PS... $500 isn't what I would call reasonably priced...)
Originally posted by dacloo
OnLooker: good point. PowerMacs should be able to be equipped with OpenGL pro cards.
--------------------------------------------------------
What seems to be the irony is that Apple is using the GPU much more intensivly than the Windows platform, or any other desktop OS out there!
MacOSX renders all the graphics to a texture or textures. Constantly, the GPU is involved. CoreImage is GPU based. Pro video apps like Final Cut use GPU effects more effectivly than PC based apps.
But none of us have core image yet. We'll see how effective it is after Toms hardware puts it through the ringer, side by side with PC's and gives us the scoop.
But PC's utilize the GPU. The DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 3.0 has full support Nvidia's CineFX 3.0, and NVIDIA Quadro FX GPU's have full support for Vertex and Shader Model 3.0. with CineFX 3.0 as well.
More, actually there are lot of pro that need firegl like card: arcitects, 3d modelers (who work with maya, lightwave and so on) 3d animators and motion users. Is not a matter of pure performance, indeed in some task game card are faster, is about clculation accuracy.
On another side, I miss some informatio:
1. how much pro card sell ati and nvidia?
2. how much powermac sell apple?
3. how much people we can estimate switching for these cards?
in my opinion these are the questions.
(for future and past post, sorry for bad english)
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
From ATI's store, you can by the Mac edition of the X800. It's priced the same as the Windows DVI edition, but has 16 fragment pipelines compared to 12 for the Windows version for a better fillrate. So until the X850 comes along, the best graphics card for the moment is on the Mac :P
(PS... $500 isn't what I would call reasonably priced...)
Then that's not the X800, that's a X800 XT, but clocked lower than the x86 version if I recall correctly.
Might sound like nitpicking, but isn't. A GPU with a higher series number might be slower than a lower series card, if one of the units you compare is crippled and the other is fast. As in, 6800LE and 6600GT (I'm not sure if there is a 6800LE but you get my point).
Originally posted by Gon
Then that's not the X800, that's a X800 XT, but clocked lower than the x86 version if I recall correctly.
Might sound like nitpicking, but isn't. A GPU with a higher series number might be slower than a lower series card, if one of the units you compare is crippled and the other is fast. As in, 6800LE and 6600GT (I'm not sure if there is a 6800LE but you get my point).
It's clocked the same as the PC X800. It also has slightly faster memory.
http://apps.ati.com/ATIcompare/
What's likely to happen is that the Mac version is a cross between the PC X800 and the X850, the latter which hasn't and probably won't be announced for the Mac.
Originally posted by gelosilente
onloker> yes, nobody of us now has core image, but will have and we are talking about future hardware.
More, actually there are lot of pro that need firegl like card: arcitects, 3d modelers (who work with maya, lightwave and so on) 3d animators and motion users. Is not a matter of pure performance, indeed in some task game card are faster, is about clculation accuracy.
On another side, I miss some informatio:
1. how much pro card sell ati and nvidia?
2. how much powermac sell apple?
3. how much people we can estimate switching for these cards?
in my opinion these are the questions.
(for future and past post, sorry for bad english)
I agree the pro drivers are about calculation and accuracy, but the real problem is there are no Pro cards available for the PowerMac, or any Mac.
Even if we had a ported Soft Quadro fix for this, we still would be short the the pro drivers with the necessary calculation and accuracy they were looking for. Soft Quadro is a hack job anyway I don't even know why I brought it up.
Even then, most people think Apple will not bother to offer a second PCI-E slot for Pro users interested in speeding their workflow utilizing SLI graphics.
If they want to impress us with core image they should go all the way, and give us a machine that can truely take us beyond the limits.
Originally posted by dacloo
I agree on the SLI thing! I see that as something "hacky" for gamers. In one and a half year someone develops a new card that runs at the same speed of two slightly older cards running in SLI. Nonsense if you ask me.
My point was that they should offer SLI to fully utilize Core image, and take it to it's limits. In 1 1/2 years as you say you'll be able to put those 2 "new cards" in there. What seems to be nonsense is to think just because your probably not getting it, is that it's useless.
But I guess SLI could be hacky for Gamers (I don't actually know about that), but Nvidia didn't develop it for games. They intended it for Pro use, but I hear it works in games. I just didn't see a game played on it. It rocks the house with a set of Dual Quadro FX 3400's. ! I've seen it in action. The speed is amazing. I can't even imagine how awesome it would be with dual 4400's.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
It's clocked the same as the PC X800. It also has slightly faster memory.
http://apps.ati.com/ATIcompare/
What's likely to happen is that the Mac version is a cross between the PC X800 and the X850, the latter which hasn't and probably won't be announced for the Mac.
I checked out the numbers from your link and it turns out I was correct and you have some sort of mixup there. X800 XT runs at an engine clock of 500MHz, X800 XT Mac runs at 475MHz. The Mac edition is a slightly underclocked XT sold with a higher price and that's it. As a reference, the X850 XT PE:s engine clock is 540MHz, again similar design clocked differently.
The X800, which I'm talking about and which is too new to show in ATi pages yet, has 12 pipelines vs the XT:s 16, and a 350MHz engine clock. It's in a significanly lower price segment and should offer good price/performance.
Some cards are PCIe only (I think both X800 and X850 XT PE) and that would obviously be a barrier of entry to the Mac for ATi - they aren't likely to go out of their way to hardware design yet another card with PCIe-AGP bridge chip, especially when they already have the most reasonable midprice segment card on the Powermac, the 9800XT. It is my opinion that Apple needs to get PCIe in Powermacs ASAP. That would let ATi immediately release X850 XT PE for Mac, since the drivers already exist for X800 XT. X800 would probably work with little change as well.
Seems like the max possibility would be the 9700 Mobility from the PowerBook, but that would violate the pro/consumer seperation...
But even with the weaker cards Apple uses, why oh why do they only use 32mb of video RAM??? The 9200 is not even produced in <64mb for x86!! And 4x AGP??
And, is there any way to know how Apple OEM chips/cards are clocked? System Profiler doesn't show it...
FYI, here is what Tom's Hardware says about the 9200 and 5200:
Radeon 9200
The RV 280 (Radeon 9200), like its predecessor the RV 250 (Radeon 9000), is based on the DirectX 8.1 design of the Radeon 8500 (R 200). Compared to the Radeon 8500 with its 4x2 pipe design, this chip only features half as many texture units per pixel pipeline (4x1) and only one vertex shader unit. The main differences between the Radeon 9000 and the 9200 are the newer part's higher clock speeds, and its support for the AGP 8x interface. It is produced on a 0.15µ process and contains roughly 32 million transistors.
The greatest weaknesses of the Radeon 9200 are its outdated and slow super sampling FSAA implementation, as well as it being limited to bilinear filtering.
Versions:
Radeon 9200 SE - 64/128 MB - 64-/128 bit DDR - 200/330 MHz
Radeon 9200 - 64/128 MB - 64-/128 bit DDR - 250/400 MHz
Radeon 9200 PRO - 128 MB - 128 Bit DDR - 300/600 MHz
GeForce FX 5200
With the chip internally codenamed NV34, NVIDIA brought DirectX 9 to the low-cost market segment, replacing the outdated GeForce 4 MX line (DirectX 7). Like its bigger siblings, it features complete DirectX 9 support. However, NVIDIA reduced the number of pixel pipelines to four and didn't give the chip the modern memory interface of the bigger models. Instead, it uses the time-tested solution from the GeForce 4 Ti generation. The vertex shader performance is also reduced relative to higher-end models. The chip has a transistor count of about 45 million and is produced on a 0.15µ process.
In light of the very limited performance and the only moderate clock speeds, DirectX 9 support seems to be more of a paper feature than a real boon here. In practice, the chip is simply too slow for complex DirectX 9 calculations in resolutions of 1024x768 and above. Despite this, the chip is still quite a good performer for an entry-level card. This is due to the memory interface, the multi sampling FSAA, and the average (trilinear) filtering performance, inherited from the GeForce 4 TI cards. Beware of non-Ultra parts, though, as some of them are only equipped with much slower 64 bit memory modules.
Versions:
GeForce FX 5200 - 64/128/256 MB 64-/128 bit - 250/400 MHz
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra - 128 MB - 128 bit - 325/650 MHz
you know, on a side note, this is the first time ever that an "iMac" can actually be said to be able to play the latest and greatest FPSs from the PC world
eMac and Mac mini can handle C&C:generals, WoW, etc....
come one people, it's not that bleak, is it? Gaming is just not Apple's target market right now compared to what the PC world is pushing? Especially this year if you are looking at trying to get the stock up to $85+
if you all know so much about graphics cards, how come you don't have just a Gaming rig for gaming?
but good point, kids buying eMac and Mac mini must be informed so they have a realistic expectations of their gaming enjoyment... hell i think Apple dealers should sell a nice phat PS2 alongside the eMac and Mac mini if kids are really into gaming but need a decent computer for education, web surfing, and email, etc...
like you can use your Mac mini and a PS2 together with 1 monitor:
http://www.the-console-corner.com/ps2_vga_box.htm