It's done. R600 will be 65nm. The source for the story is the not very reliable Inquirer but they're reporting from CeBIT in Hanover and they're also very close to AMD.
Interesting. That was a very weirdly worded article... "Satan Clara?" WTF ...Anyways yeah, we need the mid-range 65nm ATI/nVidias to push 7900GTX levels of rendering capacity at around 120 Watts Load MAX.
Otherwise the whole PC-gaming-superfast-8seriesnVidia and Radeon X2000etc series will be on a powerhog runaway train.
Looks like I'll be hanging on to my nVidia 6600GT128mb this year. It was struggling somewhat in FEAR:ExtractionPoint last night now that I got a good gaming-quality (cordless V200 Logitech, believe it or not, it's real cool no lag) mouse, spinning and moving fast is straining the GPU on the volumetric lighting at max ; despite all shadows off, 0xAA...
<rambling: warning>Still hoping to fire up Ghost Recon and give that a shot. A bit of information/ inspiration/ Mac/ PC/ tech/ client/ internship overload at the moment, but managing reasonably okay. ...UGH TPSReports.... Well, actually it's just timesheets, and timesheets = ass covering for all involved. If each timesheet item is really scrutinised, well, I got my high-falutin' explanations ready that I *did* do that kinda stuff. Always has been tricky since I started working (at 21 in 2000-ish) but I got the bullsh1t skillz to justify the R&D, innovation, idea factory, which is what I bring to companies.</rambling>
Since the topic of this thread has to do with the Mac Pro, I would be interested to know where the standard Mac Pro graphics card, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory, fits on this listing of graphics cards. When I buy a Mac Pro I'm interested in upgrading to the ATI Radeon X1900 XT, but not at the expense of having double the heat and more fan noise for cooling. Anyone have any knowledge they can share on my concern?
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook
The pathetically inept X1650 XT runs hotter than the 7900 GS:
You probably don't want to compare charts from two different sites who probably have different testing methodologies.
/shrug
Not everyone plays Oblivion or FEAR. The X1600 runs WoW just fine.
Vinea
The charts are consistent though.
Why Oblivion and FEAR are benchmarks is because of their demand and load put on GPU processing power. Also, many games in the future will use these variations of these engines.
Since the topic of this thread has to do with the Mac Pro, I would be interested to know where the standard Mac Pro graphics card, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory, fits on this listing of graphics cards. When I buy a Mac Pro I'm interested in upgrading to the ATI Radeon X1900 XT, but not at the expense of having double the heat and more fan noise for cooling. Anyone have any knowledge they can share on my concern?
The X1900 should be substantially hotter than the 7300 GT, but the performance difference is enormous:
The X1900 will allow you to play any game in the foreseeable future, probably even Crisis.
If you don't play many "cutting-edge," recent games, then you should definitely go with the less expensive and cooler 7300.
Since the topic of this thread has to do with the Mac Pro, I would be interested to know where the standard Mac Pro graphics card, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory, fits on this listing of graphics cards. When I buy a Mac Pro I'm interested in upgrading to the ATI Radeon X1900 XT, but not at the expense of having double the heat and more fan noise for cooling. Anyone have any knowledge they can share on my concern?
.....There's a lot of figures being thrown around, the above and the previous two graphs.
....But yes, you are basically looking at the X1900XT consuming twice the power as the 7300GT.
However, you get a up to 6x more 3D graphics processing power, particularly if you are running your screen res at 1600x1200 and up, that is, anything beyond 1280x1024 etc.
....If you are interested in playing 2006, 2007, 2008 3D games on Mac or PC, it would be worthwhile going for the X1900XT. The Mac Pro casing, in terms of heat flow and thermal design, etc, is as good as anything you'll find in the PC world. Far better, IMO. A X1900XT yes will be somewhat louder and hotter than the 7300GT, but for the graphics processing power, and when in the Mac Pro as an overall tower setup, sound and heat is really not a major concern.
...If you are after *very* casual gaming and older titles (2004 and previous), then the 7300GT is fine.
.....There's a lot of figures being thrown around, the above and the previous two graphs.
....But yes, you are basically looking at the X1900XT consuming twice the power as the 7300GT.
However, you get a up to 6x more 3D graphics processing power, particularly if you are running your screen res at 1600x1200 and up, that is, anything beyond 1280x1024 etc.
....If you are interested in playing 2006, 2007, 2008 3D games on Mac or PC, it would be worthwhile going for the X1900XT. The Mac Pro casing, in terms of heat flow and thermal design, etc, is as good as anything you'll find in the PC world. Far better, IMO. A X1900XT yes will be somewhat louder and hotter than the 7300GT, but for the graphics processing power, and when in the Mac Pro as an overall tower setup, sound and heat is really not a major concern.
...If you are after *very* casual gaming and older titles (2004 and previous), then the 7300GT is fine.
Those numbers looked very wonky to me. The actual wattage is far lower than what you are showing here.
As the web site says, these are the TOTAL watts used by the entire system (excluding, I would assume, the monitor). So read them with some salt.
The Mac Pro has a 980 watt power supply. In systems using the highest power cards, The Quattro, I haven't noticed much of a difference in noise. That includes 8 GB RAM. The system is designed to use high power cards, unlike cheaper PC's which may take them, but then strain under the onslaught of power draw, and heat. These machines just loaf along.
Those numbers looked very wonky to me. The actual wattage is far lower than what you are showing here.
As the web site says, these are the TOTAL watts used by the entire system (excluding, I would assume, the monitor). So read them with some salt.
The Mac Pro has a 980 watt power supply. In systems using the highest power cards, The Quattro, I haven't noticed much of a difference in noise. That includes 8 GB RAM. The system is designed to use high power cards, unlike cheaper PC's which may take them, but then strain under the onslaught of power draw, and heat. These machines just loaf along.
Yeah, like I said, a lot of numbers being thrown around. We've got 3 data sets, one of which is, as I noted, importantly, TOTAL system power draw.
But looking at the data and making some guesstimates (informed ones), we can see that clearly the 7300GT will be pulling half the power of the X1900XT, at a very rough approximation. And it kinda makes sense too.
Remember that the charts do not show what *brand* exactly of cards are being used, they're different OEMS not pure reference cards from nVidia and ATI. In otherwords, different heatsink and fans too.
But as I alluded to, and I think yeah, good point you mention, the Mac Pros are designed for like two cards, Quadros, so a *single* X1900XT, in terms of heat, power draw, PSU "strain", noise, cooling, is really not going to be a major issue over the 7300GT. But the 3D power you get for "720p" and higher-res gaming is around 6X greater than the 7300GT.
If I was getting a Mac Pro and wanted to play some Mac or PC games, even say 5 hours a week, any titles from 2005 to 2008/2009, X1900XT would be the way to go, most definitely.
Melgross, a point about integrated graphics, my experience and some feedback I have noted is that if you are driving a 2nd LCD screen, the GMA950 *does* get pushed to it's limit, even for 2D/ OSX Core Image 3D stuff. Screen spanning to 20" or 23", I would definitely recommend the MacBookPro with X1600 dedicated, 256mb VRAM.
If just MacBook on main screen, CoreImage, CoreAnimation, Dashboard "droplet" effect, Keynote OpenGL transitions, Aperture [possibly], iPhoto editing, CoverFlow, it's all good in da' hood.
Overall, the successor to GMA950 and respectively X1700 or X1800 mobility or Go 7600 would be good options in the next laptop and iMac updates [7600GT 256mb VRAM standard in Mac Pros would be nice]. I'm not holding my breath though, because GPU power is, as we have seen, is a never-ending debate. But of course, that's why we keep coming back to these threads.
Yeah, like I said, a lot of numbers being thrown around. We've got 3 data sets, one of which is, as I noted, importantly, TOTAL system power draw.
But looking at the data and making some guesstimates (informed ones), we can see that clearly the 7300GT will be pulling half the power of the X1900XT, at a very rough approximation. And it kinda makes sense too.
Remember that the charts do not show what *brand* exactly of cards are being used, they're different OEMS not pure reference cards from nVidia and ATI. In otherwords, different heatsink and fans too.
But as I alluded to, and I think yeah, good point you mention, the Mac Pros are designed for like two cards, Quadros, so a *single* X1900XT, in terms of heat, power draw, PSU "strain", noise, cooling, is really not going to be a major issue over the 7300GT. But the 3D power you get for "720p" and higher-res gaming is around 6X greater than the 7300GT.
If I was getting a Mac Pro and wanted to play some Mac or PC games, even say 5 hours a week, any titles from 2005 to 2008/2009, X1900XT would be the way to go, most definitely.
Melgross, a point about integrated graphics, my experience and some feedback I have noted is that if you are driving a 2nd LCD screen, the GMA950 *does* get pushed to it's limit, even for 2D/ OSX Core Image 3D stuff. Screen spanning to 20" or 23", I would definitely recommend the MacBookPro with X1600 dedicated, 256mb VRAM.
If just MacBook on main screen, CoreImage, CoreAnimation, Dashboard "droplet" effect, Keynote OpenGL transitions, Aperture [possibly], iPhoto editing, CoverFlow, it's all good in da' hood.
Overall, the successor to GMA950 and respectively X1700 or X1800 mobility or Go 7600 would be good options in the next laptop and iMac updates [7600GT 256mb VRAM standard in Mac Pros would be nice]. I'm not holding my breath though, because GPU power is, as we have seen, is a never-ending debate. But of course, that's why we keep coming back to these threads.
I agree with everything you said here.
But, I'm wondering why everyone is talking about the 1900XT. The 1950XT was designed to use much less power than the older 1900XT. I haven't checked. Is the 1950XT available for the Mac Pro?
If not, then I can understand. I wonder if it can be flashed to work as have some other cards.
But, I'm wondering why everyone is talking about the 1900XT. The 1950XT was designed to use much less power than the older 1900XT. I haven't checked. Is the 1950XT available for the Mac Pro?
If not, then I can understand. I wonder if it can be flashed to work as have some other cards.
Yeah, X1950XT vs X1900XT, abut same-ish price, same-ish performance, or slight performance gain compared with the X1900XT. Interesting update, but in any case not available for Mac Pro at this stage. Flashing and all that not worth the trouble, IMHO. X1900XT 256mb RAM is fine...
Even the X1950XT[X] gives you a bit more performance and but is a few hundred more.
For single GPUs on the ATI Radeon side,
AFAIK, X1900XT was updated X1950XT, very minor performance gains, about same cost.
X1900XTX was updated to X1950XTX, some performance gains, flagship card, a few hundred more when
comparing X1950XTX vs X1950XT (in Froogle.com).
[[[I'm not seeing really any great difference between load power of X1900XT vs X1950XT in:]]]
Edit: Actually ignore sentence above, actually it *is* impressive when looking at power draw of
For the same price range, the ATI X1900XT and X1950XT stacks up nicely against the nVidia 7950GT.
Edit: heat temps are a point though, [and above post I should be referring to temps instead of "power draw" with regard to the blue and yellow graph image] the nVidia 7950GT is a nicer choice than the now older X1900XT.
So if Apple were to offer something else, I would say they should offer the newer, cooler temps, nVidia 7950GT instead of the X1900XT.
.....my point about the X1600 is even more relevant, seeing as it was a lower-mid (at best) mainstream card that has been discontinued. Why does Apple continue to supply this, and how can any Mac buyer justify this?....
Yes, in all honesty, for a mainstream, enthusiast PC gamer, a Mac buyer buying it for games is very hard to justify. In which case I would recommend a PC tower for all their gaming with nVidia 7900GS or 7950GT, basically just upgrading their even AMD64 2ghz singlecore to 2GB, or Pentium4 3ghz to 2GB, and swap in a 7900GS or 7950GT.
Have that for gaming, and get a MacBook for everthing else computer-Life-stuff. A good solution, IMHO.
Comments
It's done. R600 will be 65nm. The source for the story is the not very reliable Inquirer but they're reporting from CeBIT in Hanover and they're also very close to AMD.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38292
Hopefully it's true.
Interesting. That was a very weirdly worded article... "Satan Clara?" WTF
Otherwise the whole PC-gaming-superfast-8seriesnVidia and Radeon X2000etc series will be on a powerhog runaway train.
<rambling: warning>Still hoping to fire up Ghost Recon and give that a shot. A bit of information/ inspiration/ Mac/ PC/ tech/ client/ internship overload at the moment, but managing reasonably okay.
....
8x Dual Layer CD-RW/DVD±RW w/ Nero Software
Video/Graphics Card: 256MB ATI Mobility? Radeon® X1800
......>>>>>>>>>>> Free Alienware® T-Shirt: Free Alienware® T-Shirt - Black!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SubTotal: $1,939.00
........................
Aw yeah, Nero Software and a free Alienware T-Shirt, BLACK !!!11!1!!!
ZOMFG I am sooo buying that laptop
Heh. Just mucking around, okay? Don't take too serious.
The pathetically inept X1650 XT runs hotter than the 7900 GS:
:
The pathetically inept X1650 XT runs hotter than the 7900 GS:
"A high-end card is never going to be cooler than a mid-range card."
False, refer to the chart: the high-end 1950GT is much cooler than the X1650, though I maintain that it's a low-end card.
You probably don't want to compare charts from two different sites who probably have different testing methodologies.
/shrug
Not everyone plays Oblivion or FEAR. The X1600 runs WoW just fine.
Vinea
You probably don't want to compare charts from two different sites who probably have different testing methodologies.
/shrug
Not everyone plays Oblivion or FEAR. The X1600 runs WoW just fine.
Vinea
The charts are consistent though.
Why Oblivion and FEAR are benchmarks is because of their demand and load put on GPU processing power. Also, many games in the future will use these variations of these engines.
Since the topic of this thread has to do with the Mac Pro, I would be interested to know where the standard Mac Pro graphics card, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory, fits on this listing of graphics cards. When I buy a Mac Pro I'm interested in upgrading to the ATI Radeon X1900 XT, but not at the expense of having double the heat and more fan noise for cooling. Anyone have any knowledge they can share on my concern?
The X1900 should be substantially hotter than the 7300 GT, but the performance difference is enormous:
The X1900 will allow you to play any game in the foreseeable future, probably even Crisis.
If you don't play many "cutting-edge," recent games, then you should definitely go with the less expensive and cooler 7300.
Since the topic of this thread has to do with the Mac Pro, I would be interested to know where the standard Mac Pro graphics card, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory, fits on this listing of graphics cards. When I buy a Mac Pro I'm interested in upgrading to the ATI Radeon X1900 XT, but not at the expense of having double the heat and more fan noise for cooling. Anyone have any knowledge they can share on my concern?
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/355/3/ says the following for their total system load:
GeForce 7300 GT (Galaxy) \t
188W
GeForce 7600 GS (Galaxy) \t
190W
GeForce 7600 GT \t
198W
GeForce 7900 GT \t
235W
GeForce 7900 GTX \t
255W
.....There's a lot of figures being thrown around, the above and the previous two graphs.
....But yes, you are basically looking at the X1900XT consuming twice the power as the 7300GT.
However, you get a up to 6x more 3D graphics processing power, particularly if you are running your screen res at 1600x1200 and up, that is, anything beyond 1280x1024 etc.
...For example http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=548&chart=199
....If you are interested in playing 2006, 2007, 2008 3D games on Mac or PC, it would be worthwhile going for the X1900XT. The Mac Pro casing, in terms of heat flow and thermal design, etc, is as good as anything you'll find in the PC world. Far better, IMO. A X1900XT yes will be somewhat louder and hotter than the 7300GT, but for the graphics processing power, and when in the Mac Pro as an overall tower setup, sound and heat is really not a major concern.
...If you are after *very* casual gaming and older titles (2004 and previous), then the 7300GT is fine.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/355/3/ says the following for their total system load:
GeForce 7300 GT (Galaxy) \t
188W
GeForce 7600 GS (Galaxy) \t
190W
GeForce 7600 GT \t
198W
GeForce 7900 GT \t
235W
GeForce 7900 GTX \t
255W
.....There's a lot of figures being thrown around, the above and the previous two graphs.
....But yes, you are basically looking at the X1900XT consuming twice the power as the 7300GT.
However, you get a up to 6x more 3D graphics processing power, particularly if you are running your screen res at 1600x1200 and up, that is, anything beyond 1280x1024 etc.
...For example http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=548&chart=199
....If you are interested in playing 2006, 2007, 2008 3D games on Mac or PC, it would be worthwhile going for the X1900XT. The Mac Pro casing, in terms of heat flow and thermal design, etc, is as good as anything you'll find in the PC world. Far better, IMO. A X1900XT yes will be somewhat louder and hotter than the 7300GT, but for the graphics processing power, and when in the Mac Pro as an overall tower setup, sound and heat is really not a major concern.
...If you are after *very* casual gaming and older titles (2004 and previous), then the 7300GT is fine.
Those numbers looked very wonky to me. The actual wattage is far lower than what you are showing here.
As the web site says, these are the TOTAL watts used by the entire system (excluding, I would assume, the monitor). So read them with some salt.
The Mac Pro has a 980 watt power supply. In systems using the highest power cards, The Quattro, I haven't noticed much of a difference in noise. That includes 8 GB RAM. The system is designed to use high power cards, unlike cheaper PC's which may take them, but then strain under the onslaught of power draw, and heat. These machines just loaf along.
Those numbers looked very wonky to me. The actual wattage is far lower than what you are showing here.
As the web site says, these are the TOTAL watts used by the entire system (excluding, I would assume, the monitor). So read them with some salt.
The Mac Pro has a 980 watt power supply. In systems using the highest power cards, The Quattro, I haven't noticed much of a difference in noise. That includes 8 GB RAM. The system is designed to use high power cards, unlike cheaper PC's which may take them, but then strain under the onslaught of power draw, and heat. These machines just loaf along.
Yeah, like I said, a lot of numbers being thrown around. We've got 3 data sets, one of which is, as I noted, importantly, TOTAL system power draw.
But looking at the data and making some guesstimates (informed ones), we can see that clearly the 7300GT will be pulling half the power of the X1900XT, at a very rough approximation. And it kinda makes sense too.
Remember that the charts do not show what *brand* exactly of cards are being used, they're different OEMS not pure reference cards from nVidia and ATI. In otherwords, different heatsink and fans too.
But as I alluded to, and I think yeah, good point you mention, the Mac Pros are designed for like two cards, Quadros, so a *single* X1900XT, in terms of heat, power draw, PSU "strain", noise, cooling, is really not going to be a major issue over the 7300GT. But the 3D power you get for "720p" and higher-res gaming is around 6X greater than the 7300GT.
If I was getting a Mac Pro and wanted to play some Mac or PC games, even say 5 hours a week, any titles from 2005 to 2008/2009, X1900XT would be the way to go, most definitely.
Melgross, a point about integrated graphics, my experience and some feedback I have noted is that if you are driving a 2nd LCD screen, the GMA950 *does* get pushed to it's limit, even for 2D/ OSX Core Image 3D stuff. Screen spanning to 20" or 23", I would definitely recommend the MacBookPro with X1600 dedicated, 256mb VRAM.
If just MacBook on main screen, CoreImage, CoreAnimation, Dashboard "droplet" effect, Keynote OpenGL transitions, Aperture [possibly], iPhoto editing, CoverFlow, it's all good in da' hood.
Overall, the successor to GMA950 and respectively X1700 or X1800 mobility or Go 7600 would be good options in the next laptop and iMac updates [7600GT 256mb VRAM standard in Mac Pros would be nice]. I'm not holding my breath though, because GPU power is, as we have seen, is a never-ending debate. But of course, that's why we keep coming back to these threads.
Yeah, like I said, a lot of numbers being thrown around. We've got 3 data sets, one of which is, as I noted, importantly, TOTAL system power draw.
But looking at the data and making some guesstimates (informed ones), we can see that clearly the 7300GT will be pulling half the power of the X1900XT, at a very rough approximation. And it kinda makes sense too.
Remember that the charts do not show what *brand* exactly of cards are being used, they're different OEMS not pure reference cards from nVidia and ATI. In otherwords, different heatsink and fans too.
But as I alluded to, and I think yeah, good point you mention, the Mac Pros are designed for like two cards, Quadros, so a *single* X1900XT, in terms of heat, power draw, PSU "strain", noise, cooling, is really not going to be a major issue over the 7300GT. But the 3D power you get for "720p" and higher-res gaming is around 6X greater than the 7300GT.
If I was getting a Mac Pro and wanted to play some Mac or PC games, even say 5 hours a week, any titles from 2005 to 2008/2009, X1900XT would be the way to go, most definitely.
Melgross, a point about integrated graphics, my experience and some feedback I have noted is that if you are driving a 2nd LCD screen, the GMA950 *does* get pushed to it's limit, even for 2D/ OSX Core Image 3D stuff. Screen spanning to 20" or 23", I would definitely recommend the MacBookPro with X1600 dedicated, 256mb VRAM.
If just MacBook on main screen, CoreImage, CoreAnimation, Dashboard "droplet" effect, Keynote OpenGL transitions, Aperture [possibly], iPhoto editing, CoverFlow, it's all good in da' hood.
Overall, the successor to GMA950 and respectively X1700 or X1800 mobility or Go 7600 would be good options in the next laptop and iMac updates [7600GT 256mb VRAM standard in Mac Pros would be nice]. I'm not holding my breath though, because GPU power is, as we have seen, is a never-ending debate. But of course, that's why we keep coming back to these threads.
I agree with everything you said here.
But, I'm wondering why everyone is talking about the 1900XT. The 1950XT was designed to use much less power than the older 1900XT. I haven't checked. Is the 1950XT available for the Mac Pro?
If not, then I can understand. I wonder if it can be flashed to work as have some other cards.
Is the 1950XT available for the Mac Pro?
Nope.
In a better world, Mac gamers would get the 8800, which runs about as cool as the 1900XT, if I'm not mistaken, but Apple insists on ATi.
I agree with everything you said here.
But, I'm wondering why everyone is talking about the 1900XT. The 1950XT was designed to use much less power than the older 1900XT. I haven't checked. Is the 1950XT available for the Mac Pro?
If not, then I can understand. I wonder if it can be flashed to work as have some other cards.
Yeah, X1950XT vs X1900XT, abut same-ish price, same-ish performance, or slight performance gain compared with the X1900XT. Interesting update, but in any case not available for Mac Pro at this stage. Flashing and all that not worth the trouble, IMHO. X1900XT 256mb RAM is fine...
Even the X1950XT[X] gives you a bit more performance and but is a few hundred more.
For single GPUs on the ATI Radeon side,
AFAIK, X1900XT was updated X1950XT, very minor performance gains, about same cost.
X1900XTX was updated to X1950XTX, some performance gains, flagship card, a few hundred more when
comparing X1950XTX vs X1950XT (in Froogle.com).
[[[I'm not seeing really any great difference between load power of X1900XT vs X1950XT in:]]]
Edit: Actually ignore sentence above, actually it *is* impressive when looking at power draw of
X1950XTX vs X1900XT...
Edit: heat temps are a point though, [and above post I should be referring to temps instead of "power draw" with regard to the blue and yellow graph image] the nVidia 7950GT is a nicer choice than the now older X1900XT.
So if Apple were to offer something else, I would say they should offer the newer, cooler temps, nVidia 7950GT instead of the X1900XT.
But, meh............. whatevs.
.....my point about the X1600 is even more relevant, seeing as it was a lower-mid (at best) mainstream card that has been discontinued. Why does Apple continue to supply this, and how can any Mac buyer justify this?....
Yes, in all honesty, for a mainstream, enthusiast PC gamer, a Mac buyer buying it for games is very hard to justify. In which case I would recommend a PC tower for all their gaming with nVidia 7900GS or 7950GT, basically just upgrading their even AMD64 2ghz singlecore to 2GB, or Pentium4 3ghz to 2GB, and swap in a 7900GS or 7950GT.
Have that for gaming, and get a MacBook for everthing else computer-Life-stuff. A good solution, IMHO.