Geforce 440 Go vs. Radeon Mobility 9000
Comparing the 64 MB versions of these 2 cards, are they even, or is one better than the other?
I have heard (anecdotally--sp?) that the 9000 has better power management (longer lasting battery) and that it outperforms the 440 in 3D (notably games).
Is there any truth to this? How much of a difference? Anyone know some reputable links where some good benchmarks between the two are listed?
I have heard (anecdotally--sp?) that the 9000 has better power management (longer lasting battery) and that it outperforms the 440 in 3D (notably games).
Is there any truth to this? How much of a difference? Anyone know some reputable links where some good benchmarks between the two are listed?
Comments
I have a feeling that the 9000 Pro is the better. For some reason, ATi seems to have the smarter engineers. And I hate to admit this, because nVidia is packed with graduates from my alma mater.
I think the problem is that nVidia walked into a corner several years ago. If they decide to make a new architecture, then I bet they'll come out on top, because I think they are the bigger of the two companies.
<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pb17.html"; target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pb17.html</a>;
<strong>Bare Feats.
<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pb17.html"; target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pb17.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
Interesting, in the PC world it's the contrary the radeon 9000 is at the level of a G460 and has a better watt consumption. The difference in the mac world is certainly due to bad drivers from ATI.
<strong>Bare Feats.
<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pb17.html"; target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pb17.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
That doesn't really tell us much as the two PBs being compared have different components, and those tests are not performed in a vacume, the other components do contribute to the overall test scores. We could be seeing the 440 getting a boost from the faster RAM and Bus as compared to the 15" PB.
Someone said there was a thread already discussing this, but I haven't found it. Is it here in Current Hardware, or somewhere else?
Go to <a href="http://www.nvidia.com"; target="_blank">www.nvidia.com</a> and note the multiple references to Apple and the Macintosh. There's even a special Macintosh page. On the other hand, <a href="http://www.ati.com"; target="_blank">www.ati.com</a> is pretty scrappy with regards to Macintosh support.
all my windoze & bsd & linux boxes have nvidia
cards & their driver support is excellent..
nvidia is generally considered to have the best
drivers in the industry & ati the worst so take
your pick
nvidia came out recently with a freebsd driver
in response to requests...i still have to see
ati or any other vendor match that kind of support.
so all in all nvidia cards in macs are a damm
good thing....
im running a gf3 ti200 on win2k right now & i havent had a single issue in 2 years drivers or otherwise in apps or games....
[ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: a2daj ]</p>
Apple's motherboards aren't true DDR boards. The DDR factor only is available to a subset of the board. The graphics card is part of this group. Any EE will tell you that 3x faster RAM makes a big, big difference, since memory delay time shrinks. The whole developments of caching and, to some degree virtual memory, were motivated by the slow speed of memory versus the CPU. However, since 333Mhz RAM is not available to everything in the comp, that's why you're not seeing some of the huge performance leaps where you'd expect. (the 17 over the 15)
But it is explaining why the 17 is keeping up with the 15 in graphics performance. The 9000 is faster. The architecture is better. When ATi came out with the original Radeon, I was stunned with the level of thought that went into the ASIC development. Now the architecture has blossomed.
As I mentioned, though, nVidia will win in the end. Plus, if you're into other Unixes, you'll know that ATi is a big no-no. nVidia does have better support. Plus, they'll win in the end.
<strong>I posted already here, but I fully believe the bare feats testing this time.
Apple's motherboards aren't true DDR boards. The DDR factor only is available to a subset of the board. The graphics card is part of this group. Any EE will tell you that 3x faster RAM makes a big, big difference, since memory delay time shrinks. The whole developments of caching and, to some degree virtual memory, were motivated by the slow speed of memory versus the CPU. However, since 333Mhz RAM is not available to everything in the comp, that's why you're not seeing some of the huge performance leaps where you'd expect. (the 17 over the 15)
But it is explaining why the 17 is keeping up with the 15 in graphics performance. The 9000 is faster. The architecture is better. When ATi came out with the original Radeon, I was stunned with the level of thought that went into the ASIC development. Now the architecture has blossomed.
As I mentioned, though, nVidia will win in the end. Plus, if you're into other Unixes, you'll know that ATi is a big no-no. nVidia does have better support. Plus, they'll win in the end.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really know what the heck you're babbling about? ATI has been in Unix systems for many years. Go check out some of the Sun boxes. Do you think an oem would put in an ATI graphics card in their servers if they weren't reliable? Get real. ATI vs nvidia is a non-issue as ATI has the better technology in the mobile world. Read any review on mobile graphics and you'll see consistent praise for ATI's display quality, performance and power management which is second to none. Plus, ATI has shown with the Radeon 9700Pro they can take on anyone and have hence reclaimed the desktop performance crown and with high quality drivers to boot.
I don't know the real reason behind Apple's decision to put nvidia chips in the 17" PB but it certainly wasn't for performance or quality reasons. Apple also didn't give a damn about battery utilisation because nvidia chips have pretty primative battery management features. Ask yourselves why Apple hasn't announced the Radeon 9500Pro and 9700Pro graphics (which are the performance leaders in the Wintel world and easily surpass everything from nvidia or anyone else) in the Power Macs which are already having a terrible time selling?
The answer to "why nivida in the 17 inch PB" has more to do with trying to save money (Apple must have gotten a really good deal) and nvidia's ego trip where they can claim they got into another mobile oem.
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: DVD_Junkie ]</p>
<strong>What about the 420 Go in the 12" model? How does that compare? Is it better than the 7500 in the iBooks?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It may be a little better, I'm not too sure. There's articles at <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1642&p=1"; target="_blank">Anandtech</a> and <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20020408/geforce4go-01.html"; target="_blank">Tom's Hardware</a> comparing the 440 Go 64MB vs. Mobility Radeon 7500 64MB, and the 440 Go didn't beat the MR 7500 by much. The 420 Go has half the memory bandwidth of the 440 Go, so I'd assume the 420 Go would take some performance hit for that. Despite that, I'd guess the 420 Go will still be faster, as it's sitting on a 4X AGP bus in the 12" Powerbook, while the MR 7500 is sitting on a 2X AGP bus in the iBook.
<strong>The 420 Go has half the memory bandwidth of the 440 Go, so I'd assume the 420 Go would take some performance hit for that. Despite that, I'd guess the 420 Go will still be faster, as it's sitting on a 4X AGP bus in the 12" Powerbook, while the MR 7500 is sitting on a 2X AGP bus in the iBook.</strong><hr></blockquote>I would expect the 420Go to be significantly slower than Radeon7500.. you can tell by looking at the effects of memory bandwidth on other GPU's. This is pretty much my only gripe about the 12" PB - why not go with Radeon9000? The difference in mobile GPU cost is so insignificant and their effect on performance so great that it doesn't make sense to use other than the best option. The ATIs have better battery consumption / DVD capability even. If the computer is to be used to run 3D apps...
- Gon