Ati X1600 Gpu
So the new GPU in the intel-based iMac and MacBook is pretty speedy. I expect it is one of the reasons that the new systems play HD video so well. I bet it also produces nice framerates for gamers, etc.
But my question relates to the future availability of this graphics card as well as the price of existing upgrades, namely the X800. I have a Rev A G5 tower with a 9800 Pro card and I'd consider upgrading to a more powerful card. I wonder if the X800 will drop in price or if the X1600 will be available for older AGP-class machines. ATI also demoed the X1800 at MacWorld, so I expect it will play in to the mix too.
So what are your thoughts? And what's your preferred place to buy such upgrades?
But my question relates to the future availability of this graphics card as well as the price of existing upgrades, namely the X800. I have a Rev A G5 tower with a 9800 Pro card and I'd consider upgrading to a more powerful card. I wonder if the X800 will drop in price or if the X1600 will be available for older AGP-class machines. ATI also demoed the X1800 at MacWorld, so I expect it will play in to the mix too.
So what are your thoughts? And what's your preferred place to buy such upgrades?
Comments
Originally posted by PB
ATI says something about support of AGP 8x here. I don't know though what is this AGP-PCI-E external bridge chip. But I have my doubts about actual support of older AGP Macs.
Interesting... I wonder what that's all about?! And I agree, I expect AGP support will be dropped for all future cards because nobody will stick some cutting edge GPU on a motherboard with slow connectivity and a slow processor.
Which is why the X800 is probably a good enough upgrade for my G5 until I replace the machine, I just wish the X800 was cheaper.
it's a real pity the nvidia 6600GT 256mb ($150) is not really available for AGP Macs. good luck anyway...!
Originally posted by Xool
So the new GPU in the intel-based iMac and MacBook is pretty speedy. I expect it is one of the reasons that the new systems play HD video so well. I bet it also produces nice framerates for gamers, etc.
But my question relates to the future availability of this graphics card as well as the price of existing upgrades, namely the X800. I have a Rev A G5 tower with a 9800 Pro card and I'd consider upgrading to a more powerful card. I wonder if the X800 will drop in price or if the X1600 will be available for older AGP-class machines. ATI also demoed the X1800 at MacWorld, so I expect it will play in to the mix too.
So what are your thoughts? And what's your preferred place to buy such upgrades?
yes, hardware (GPU) h.264 decoding might already be in place, so those ati cards are great for that.
i'd have to say though that the x1600 and x1800 actually does poorer at open gl compared to similarly priced nvidia cards. given macs use a lot of open gl and not direct x
what would be killer though is if the HARDWARE h.264 ENCODING in x1600/ x1800 is unleashed in the intel macs sometime this year. that would be awesome.
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/grou...r/870005927731
Originally posted by Xool
Any reason I wouldn't want to get this OEM card from Newegg for $320? Otherwise the lowest price I've seen so far is about $375 from buy.com.
One word: wait. If you don't really need now a fast card for advanced graphics stuff, just wait. And keep an eye on the prices and availability.
Originally posted by PB
One word: wait. If you don't really need now a fast card for advanced graphics stuff, just wait. And keep an eye on the prices and availability.
Yeah I know I should wait until the prices drop another round... doh.
Meanwhile I also have an ADC-based 20" Cinema Display and I eventually want to upgrade it too. If I get a MacBook I might switch to a new 23", but I have the feeling that I can resell this display for more if I bundle it with the G5. No? Maybe not...
Although if I later replace the tower I'd probably want the latest screen then too if there's a new model. Argh!
Do you think the 256MB VRAM offers a worthwhile improvement with this card over the 128? I'm not much of a gamer but I am inrigued by the possibilities with CoreImage.
Some considerations to think of . . the X1600 only has a 128 bit memory bus, not 256 (that sometimes limits cards from really exploiting more VRAM); also -- and this is probably only a consideration for gaming -- but only five vertex shaders for a 12 pipeline card, so once again a potential bottleneck preventing it from really making more than 128mb vram worthwhile. On the other hand, a new generation chip with apparently fast GDDR3 memory.
If anyone can help me out here . . I am trying to decide between the 1.67/128VRAM Macbook and the 1.83/256. I think the upgrade to the 1.83 is a bit overpriced, but maybe worth it if the processor and VRAM improvements will add to the usability of the computer in a significant way.
Originally posted by PB
One word: wait. If you don't really need now a fast card for advanced graphics stuff, just wait. And keep an eye on the prices and availability.
Thanks for that sensible note. I have been thinking about the x800 for my G5.
Thanks for that sensible note. I have been thinking about the x800 for my G5.
that would be a sweet upgrade. but for USD $400+ ..!
Originally posted by photoeditor
VRAM 128 v 256?
Do you think the 256MB VRAM offers a worthwhile improvement with this card over the 128? I'm not much of a gamer but I am inrigued by the possibilities with CoreImage.
Some considerations to think of . . the X1600 only has a 128 bit memory bus, not 256 (that sometimes limits cards from really exploiting more VRAM); also -- and this is probably only a consideration for gaming -- but only five vertex shaders for a 12 pipeline card, so once again a potential bottleneck preventing it from really making more than 128mb vram worthwhile. On the other hand, a new generation chip with apparently fast GDDR3 memory.
If anyone can help me out here . . I am trying to decide between the 1.67/128VRAM Macbook and the 1.83/256. I think the upgrade to the 1.83 is a bit overpriced, but maybe worth it if the processor and VRAM improvements will add to the usability of the computer in a significant way.
you have to mention to us what you apps you plan to use your macbook pro for most of the time, some of the time, once in a while.... that way discussing 1.67/128 vs 1.83/256 will make more sense
also on that note one could say that the 1.83mhz core duo is clocked 10% faster than 1.67mhz core duo. but could one also say that the 1.83mhz core duo is 20% faster than the 1.67mhz core duo since each core is 10% faster than 1.67???!! (yes, only for apps which make full use of both cores, etc, etc.)
Where I really expect to use it is with Core Image. I have not sprung for Aperture so far, but I have high hopes that Apple will get it right well within the lifetime of this computer. Likewise, iPhoto looks like it could be useful to me now. More generally, I tend to work with a lot of windows open at once, and that includes working with photographs of course, and that really does bog down what I have now (Radeon 9000 64MB)
On the other hand, I just can't see Adobe retooling Photoshop on the Mac for Core Image unless they can do something similar and without too much duplication of effort for DirectX 9 on the PC.
As regards Core Video, that one is less likely. I don't own a camcorder and don't expect to get one in the near future, and I certainly don't see myself as a candidate for Final Cut Studio or anything like that.
Finally, there is the question of dual display use. It is fairly likely that within the lifetime of the machine I would simply no longer use my desktop for anything except as a server and I would then use the laptop in a dual display setup with the main window on the monitor and the palettes on the laptop. But there is no chance of my getting the 30 inch display; 23 would be the largest possibility for that.
Originally posted by photoeditor
More generally, I tend to work with a lot of windows open at once, and that includes working with photographs of course, and that really does bog down what I have now (Radeon 9000 64MB)
On the other hand, I just can't see Adobe retooling Photoshop on the Mac for Core Image unless they can do something similar and without too much duplication of effort for DirectX 9 on the PC.
As regards Core Video, that one is less likely. I don't own a camcorder and don't expect to get one in the near future, and I certainly don't see myself as a candidate for Final Cut Studio or anything like that.
Finally, there is the question of dual display use. It is fairly likely that within the lifetime of the machine I would simply no longer use my desktop for anything except as a server and I would then use the laptop in a dual display setup with the main window on the monitor and the palettes on the laptop. But there is no chance of my getting the 30 inch display; 23 would be the largest possibility for that.
It seems to me that you would be better off with the 256 MB GPU, especially in the long term. I see though that there is no option to update the 1.67 GHz model from 128 to 256 MB, so you will need to go with the considerably more expensive 1.83 GHz model.
Originally posted by sunilraman
you have to mention to us what you apps you plan to use your macbook pro for most of the time, some of the time, once in a while.... that way discussing 1.67/128 vs 1.83/256 will make more sense
also on that note one could say that the 1.83mhz core duo is clocked 10% faster than 1.67mhz core duo. but could one also say that the 1.83mhz core duo is 20% faster than the 1.67mhz core duo since each core is 10% faster than 1.67???!! (yes, only for apps which make full use of both cores, etc, etc.)
This reminds me of a story I read today about someone buying kegs of beer that were 10% off. He bought two, and the clerk multiplied 10% by 2 and gave him 20% off... of course this makes you wonder what would have happened if he had bought ten kegs.
Even if you're going to include both cores, it's still 10%, not 20%.
Originally posted by PB
It seems to me that you would be better off with the 256 MB GPU, especially in the long term. I see though that there is no option to update the 1.67 GHz model from 128 to 256 MB, so you will need to go with the considerably more expensive 1.83 GHz model.
Agreed. Although if you're a user who so deeply needs that 256 MB of VRam compared to the 128 MB, I'd think you'd value the 10% CPU boost as well. Don't forget the 120 GB HD upgrade!
Originally posted by sunilraman
yes, hardware (GPU) h.264 decoding might already be in place, so those ati cards are great for that.
i'd have to say though that the x1600 and x1800 actually does poorer at open gl compared to similarly priced nvidia cards. given macs use a lot of open gl and not direct x
what would be killer though is if the HARDWARE h.264 ENCODING in x1600/ x1800 is unleashed in the intel macs sometime this year. that would be awesome.
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/grou...r/870005927731
From what I read from the PC review sites, all x1x00 GPU from ati are able to encode h.264 via hardware. It has to be activated by the driver though. The first ATI driver that activated this feature was Catalyst 5.12 which during benchmarking showed about 50% less cpu usage compared with older driver when encoding h.264.
Supposedly, Nvidia claims that their current generation GPU can also do hardware h.264 encoding as well with a future driver release. So, if you already own Nvidia 6x00 or 7x00 video cards, it might be worth holding on to them.
Atleaset, all the information above is for the PC side. I'm not sure when these vendors or apple will use full use of the GPU for h.264, but it can happen with next driver update.
Originally posted by bitemymac
From what I read from the PC review sites, all x1x00 GPU from ati are able to encode h.264 via hardware. It has to be activated by the driver though. The first ATI driver that activated this feature was Catalyst 5.12 which during benchmarking showed about 50% less cpu usage compared with older driver when encoding h.264.
The 5.13 driver enabled hardware decoding of h.264. Hardware enabled encoding isn't active yet. They did release a utility that was significantly more optimised than many encoders out there but that's software optimisations.
This reminds me of a story I read today about someone buying kegs of beer that were 10% off. He bought two, and the clerk multiplied 10% by 2 and gave him 20% off... of course this makes you wonder what would have happened if he had bought ten kegs.
Even if you're going to include both cores, it's still 10%, not 20%.
heh.
Originally posted by photoeditor
VRAM 128 v 256?
Do you think the 256MB VRAM offers a worthwhile improvement with this card over the 128? I'm not much of a gamer but I am inrigued by the possibilities with CoreImage.
Some considerations to think of . . the X1600 only has a 128 bit memory bus, not 256 (that sometimes limits cards from really exploiting more VRAM); also -- and this is probably only a consideration for gaming -- but only five vertex shaders for a 12 pipeline card, so once again a potential bottleneck preventing it from really making more than 128mb vram worthwhile. On the other hand, a new generation chip with apparently fast GDDR3 memory.
If anyone can help me out here . . I am trying to decide between the 1.67/128VRAM Macbook and the 1.83/256. I think the upgrade to the 1.83 is a bit overpriced, but maybe worth it if the processor and VRAM improvements will add to the usability of the computer in a significant way.
having more ram means never having to say your sorry
Originally posted by iggypopped
having more ram means never having to say your sorry