GeForce4 Go vs. Radeon 9000 on PB's.

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Hey, does any one have a good idea on how these two compare? I'm definitely inclined on getting the 17" but I wonder how good the video processor is in comparison to the one on the 15"Ti. I like playing video games once in a while, and I do a lot of Photoshop work.



Also, does anyone exactly how the video processor helps in Photoshop operations?



All help appreciated - thanks.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    The ATI 9000 absolutely trumps the GeForce2 Go (because that's what it really is, the 4 is bullshit). It is suspected that the reasons for using NVIDIA were merely political. Everyone knows ATI is better in laptops, for energy conservation, quality, and features. However it appears that the graphics card is on a daughtercard, which leaves things open to 3rd party upgrade, maybe? I'm hoping anyway! I bought the 12"er and I'm hoping in a year or two that I can upgrade the vid card.
  • Reply 2 of 8
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    A quick peek inside the AluBook could confirm this: anyone got the link?
  • Reply 3 of 8
    I *thought* I saw mentioned on XLR8 that the 17" had it soldered in, or at least the 12"... But, I cannot find the link at the moment.



    [ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: Jeremiah Rich ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 8
    I have been researching this a lot lately, as I am considering buying a Ti15 before they are reved if they are going to be rev'd soon (ie an Al15, with the al enclosure, ddr ram, fw800 and a geforce 440 go). As a 3d animation student, the power of the video card is of particular importance for viewing scenes etc that are rendered in opengl within the creation process (vs the final render which is all cpu based). Also I am a gamer, so there is an added importance again



    The geforce 440 go sucks simply said, compared to the radeon 9000 pro. Whilst the geforce 460 is quicker than the radeon 9000 pro in non-pixel shader tasks (in gaming this is your classic quake3/unreal tourney 1 based stuff), the 440 is up to 20% slower. In pixel shader based tasks (eg ut2k3, doom3 etc) the geforce 440 gets smashed by the radeon 9000 pro, in which the radeon 9000 pro is roughly twice as fast. This all spawns from the fact that the geforce 4xx go line is all based on ancient graphics technology - the geforce 2 line. The 4xx go's are basically higher clocked varients of the geforce 2 line, without the major new features of the geforce 3 and 4 ti lines (eg pixel shaders)



    Thus: if you want to play "old" games (quake 3, ut1, rtcw, mohaa etc), the geforce 440 is a bit slower. If you want to play new/future games (ut2k3, doom3 - even though this will run badly on any current powerbook), then the radeon9000pro is the easy choice, being up to twice as fast. Don't believe it? check out anandtech's roundup of the two cards.



    <a href="http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1655&p=5"; target="_blank">http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1655&p=5</a>;



    That link for the ut2k3 results with the 9000/460/440 and various other cards. They also have results with non-pixel shader based tests (eg quake 3).
  • Reply 5 of 8
    Yes Apples inclusion of a Geforce 4 440Go in the 17 and 12 inchers is really puzzling. Its tottaly inferior to the Radeon 9000 mobility chip. It must have been some kind of pollitical/ass-kissing move on Apple's part. Because it doesnt make much sense.



    Oh and it is soldered onto the board. So no vid upgrade for you. Even if there was, who would sell one?



    [ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Falcon ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 8
    pbpb Posts: 4,221member
    [quote]Originally posted by Falcon:

    <strong>Its tottaly inferior to the Radeon 9000 mobility chip. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, in terms of hardware specifications and tests in the pc world, where the advantage of the radeon is clear due to DirectX. But in macs (OpenGL now), I think no one really knows how the GeForce4 440 performs compared to the radeon 9000. And nVidia has a good reputation in writing good drivers for their cards, something ATI lacks.

    We will see...
  • Reply 7 of 8
    [quote]Originally posted by Hornet:

    <strong>I have been researching this a lot lately, as I am considering buying a Ti15 before they are reved if they are going to be rev'd soon (ie an Al15, with the al enclosure, ddr ram, fw800 and a geforce 440 go). As a 3d animation student, the power of the video card is of particular importance for viewing scenes etc that are rendered in opengl within the creation process (vs the final render which is all cpu based). Also I am a gamer, so there is an added importance again



    The geforce 440 go sucks simply said, compared to the radeon 9000 pro. Whilst the geforce 460 is quicker than the radeon 9000 pro in non-pixel shader tasks (in gaming this is your classic quake3/unreal tourney 1 based stuff), the 440 is up to 20% slower. In pixel shader based tasks (eg ut2k3, doom3 etc) the geforce 440 gets smashed by the radeon 9000 pro, in which the radeon 9000 pro is roughly twice as fast. This all spawns from the fact that the geforce 4xx go line is all based on ancient graphics technology - the geforce 2 line. The 4xx go's are basically higher clocked varients of the geforce 2 line, without the major new features of the geforce 3 and 4 ti lines (eg pixel shaders)



    Thus: if you want to play "old" games (quake 3, ut1, rtcw, mohaa etc), the geforce 440 is a bit slower. If you want to play new/future games (ut2k3, doom3 - even though this will run badly on any current powerbook), then the radeon9000pro is the easy choice, being up to twice as fast. Don't believe it? check out anandtech's roundup of the two cards.



    <a href="http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1655&p=5"; target="_blank">http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1655&p=5</a>;



    That link for the ut2k3 results with the 9000/460/440 and various other cards. They also have results with non-pixel shader based tests (eg quake 3).</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Hornet,



    The link you posted refers to the GeForce4 MX 440/460 and the Radeon 9000 Pro, not the mobile version of either. Here's a better link for the mobile chips:



    <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20020829/radeon9000-03.html"; target="_blank">

    <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20020829/radeon9000-03.html"; target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20020829/radeon9000-03.html</a>;

    </a>



    As you can see in the DirectX8 tests, the NVIDIA chips do hold their own against the Radeon. They aren't quite as good at battery life with DVD playback, but everything else is mostly a wash.



    There is also the point that these are Windows benchmarks, which aren't really comparable to Mac. They give a good idea of hardware capabilities, but drivers under the Mac for one or the other could be quite bad. If the new PowerBooks have a 460 in them, I wouldn't worry too much about performance.



    John



    edit: Fixed the link URL.



    [ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: John Whitney ]



    [ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: John Whitney ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 8
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    [quote] If the new PowerBooks have a 460 in them, I wouldn't worry too much about performance.<hr></blockquote>



    The have 440s, not 460s.
Sign In or Register to comment.