IRT the Radeon 9550, I have a 'built by ATI' R9550 256Mb in my PC. The only difference from a PC R9600 is the clock speed.
I currently have it OC to 325mhz (9600 default) with not a single problem. ATI Tool tested it up to 400+ Mhz before finding artifacts, but I don't run it that high, because I still have the passive heat-sink on it.
The memory is full 128 bit wide in the ATI built 9550's, other manufacturers (of PC cards) sometimes restrict the memory bus to 64 bit.
The 32Mb VRAM is a complete joke, even in a laptop card, IMHO it should be 64Mb.
I challenge you to find even a last generation PC video card with less than 128Mb VRAM! My 5 year old GeForce2MX I used to have in my PC had 32mb VRAM...sheesh...
IRT the Radeon 9550, I have a 'built by ATI' R9550 256Mb in my PC. The only difference from a PC R9600 is the clock speed.
I currently have it OC to 325mhz (9600 default) with not a single problem. ATI Tool tested it up to 400+ Mhz before finding artifacts, but I don't run it that high, because I still have the passive heat-sink on it.
The memory is full 128 bit wide in the ATI built 9550's, other manufacturers (of PC cards) sometimes restrict the memory bus to 64 bit.
The 32Mb VRAM is a complete joke, even in a laptop card, IMHO it should be 64Mb.
I challenge you to find even a last generation PC video card with less than 128Mb VRAM! My 5 year old GeForce2MX I used to have in my PC had 32mb VRAM...sheesh...
hmmm yeah if you can keep you iBook cool you can overclock that 9550 up to 9600 speeds (atiaccelerator2), but the 32mb vram 'ceiling' kinda sucks a bit. or a lot
remember also that we have no indication about whether it is a 64-bit or 128-bit path for that 9550 until more specs and benchmarks come through.
I can't defend the 32MB VRAM but it's worth pointing out that the iBook's screen resolution is capped at 1024 X 768 which requires less VRAM than higher resolutions.
However I think core image stuff will take a back seat for a while until the Macintel transition is in full swing.
The whole idea of core image was to leverage the GPU power to work in synchronicity with CPU to deliver great all-round multimedia performance.
For example, Photoshop CS3 for Mac, rather than being the bloatware CS2 could actually be something really cool that does a lot of non-destructive workflow in GPU and then 'hands off' to the CPU for refinement.
Such a Photoshop CS3 for Mac running on a dual-core Pentium-M derivative, with say an nVidia 6600 (mid-range edition) and 256mb or 512(!)mb of VRAM could well put the Mac platform back on the map for creative/design work for a wide range of budgets. here's to dreaming....
Tests of iBook G4 w/Radeon 9550 vs 9200 Graphics - I'd mentioned earlier this week when the new iBooks were announced that the 9550 has Tiger core image/core video support and asked a contact at ATI if he'd ran any performance comparisons:
" Hi Mike,
I ran a few perf tests. I compared a previous gen iBook 1.2 GHz w/ M9+ (9200) with a new iBook 1.2 GHz w/M12 (9550) (I know the new ones shipped with faster CPU clocks but this one was at 1.2 GHz which is nice because it eliminates the variable of CPU speed for these numbers). Here are the results:
Quake3, normal settings except for 1024x768x32
.........\tM9+\tM12\tDelta
Sound Ont70.3\t78.5\t+11.6%
No Soundt75.5\t92.8\t+22.9%
So, on a 1.33GHz iBook, I'd expect these numbers to scale up to 10% higher. (there's also a 1.42GHz iBook model now-Mike)
Also, as you noted, the M12 can accelerate Core Image/Core Video because it fully supports the ARB_vertex_program, and ARB_fragment_program OpenGL extensions.
On one in-house benchmark this gives up to a 2-3x speedup over software.
Comments
Originally posted by sunilraman
unless you use screen spanning hack
And do you expect Apple to encourage you hack the system giving it more VRAM
I currently have it OC to 325mhz (9600 default) with not a single problem. ATI Tool tested it up to 400+ Mhz before finding artifacts, but I don't run it that high, because I still have the passive heat-sink on it.
The memory is full 128 bit wide in the ATI built 9550's, other manufacturers (of PC cards) sometimes restrict the memory bus to 64 bit.
The 32Mb VRAM is a complete joke, even in a laptop card, IMHO it should be 64Mb.
I challenge you to find even a last generation PC video card with less than 128Mb VRAM! My 5 year old GeForce2MX I used to have in my PC had 32mb VRAM...sheesh...
Originally posted by iPoster
IRT the Radeon 9550, I have a 'built by ATI' R9550 256Mb in my PC. The only difference from a PC R9600 is the clock speed.
I currently have it OC to 325mhz (9600 default) with not a single problem. ATI Tool tested it up to 400+ Mhz before finding artifacts, but I don't run it that high, because I still have the passive heat-sink on it.
The memory is full 128 bit wide in the ATI built 9550's, other manufacturers (of PC cards) sometimes restrict the memory bus to 64 bit.
The 32Mb VRAM is a complete joke, even in a laptop card, IMHO it should be 64Mb.
I challenge you to find even a last generation PC video card with less than 128Mb VRAM! My 5 year old GeForce2MX I used to have in my PC had 32mb VRAM...sheesh...
hmmm yeah if you can keep you iBook cool you can overclock that 9550 up to 9600 speeds (atiaccelerator2), but the 32mb vram 'ceiling' kinda sucks a bit. or a lot
remember also that we have no indication about whether it is a 64-bit or 128-bit path for that 9550 until more specs and benchmarks come through.
..............................
However I think core image stuff will take a back seat for a while until the Macintel transition is in full swing.
The whole idea of core image was to leverage the GPU power to work in synchronicity with CPU to deliver great all-round multimedia performance.
For example, Photoshop CS3 for Mac, rather than being the bloatware CS2
Such a Photoshop CS3 for Mac running on a dual-core Pentium-M derivative, with say an nVidia 6600 (mid-range edition) and 256mb or 512(!)mb of VRAM could well put the Mac platform back on the map for creative/design work for a wide range of budgets.
what i want to know is doom3 benchmarks
Tests of iBook G4 w/Radeon 9550 vs 9200 Graphics - I'd mentioned earlier this week when the new iBooks were announced that the 9550 has Tiger core image/core video support and asked a contact at ATI if he'd ran any performance comparisons:
" Hi Mike,
I ran a few perf tests. I compared a previous gen iBook 1.2 GHz w/ M9+ (9200) with a new iBook 1.2 GHz w/M12 (9550) (I know the new ones shipped with faster CPU clocks but this one was at 1.2 GHz which is nice because it eliminates the variable of CPU speed for these numbers). Here are the results:
Quake3, normal settings except for 1024x768x32
.........\tM9+\tM12\tDelta
Sound On
No Sound
So, on a 1.33GHz iBook, I'd expect these numbers to scale up to 10% higher. (there's also a 1.42GHz iBook model now-Mike)
Also, as you noted, the M12 can accelerate Core Image/Core Video because it fully supports the ARB_vertex_program, and ARB_fragment_program OpenGL extensions.
On one in-house benchmark this gives up to a 2-3x speedup over software.
Cheers, ---------- "