I think my graphics card is underperforming

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I've got an X800XT in my dual 2GHz PowerMac G5, and ever since I got it, I've been disappointed with its performance--it's always just seemed not that much better than the stock 9600 that came with my system.



Running Xbench (yeah yeah yeah, I know), I get results of around 90-100 on the OpenGL, Quartz graphics and UI tests. I've read reports online of people with the exact same configuration getting scores of 150-300, so it definitely seems like there's something wrong with my card or the drivers.



Is there anything that can be done about this?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    update drivers?



    that is about all you can do, unless you look at overclocking. i do not know of a Mac overclocking program for ATI cards or Nivdia cards for that matter
  • Reply 2 of 10
    leonardleonard Posts: 528member
    Quote:

    that is about all you can do, unless you look at overclocking. i do not know of a Mac overclocking program for ATI cards or Nivdia cards for that matter



    http://thomas.perrier.name/
  • Reply 3 of 10
    Overclocking is an idea, but I'd prefer to make sure that my card is at least performing at normal levels before I begin to tweak its speed. I don't want to have to overclock it to normal speed!
  • Reply 4 of 10
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Make sure you feed it its vitamins every day.



    Serious: you should make sure the quoted reference systems are of the identical configuration to your own: system RAM, card interface, monitor resolution, etc. Worst case scenario is that some RAM on the graphics board is faulty. I don't know how to verify that.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    Worst case scenario is that some RAM on the graphics board is faulty. I don't know how to verify that.



    (S)he can always run this utility. If VRAM is faulty, the utility could crash or report something. I don't know if it gives really something, but it is perhaps the only way to do quickly some testing.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sladuuch

    I've got an X800XT in my dual 2GHz PowerMac G5, and ever since I got it, I've been disappointed with its performance--it's always just seemed not that much better than the stock 9600 that came with my system.



    Running Xbench (yeah yeah yeah, I know), I get results of around 90-100 on the OpenGL, Quartz graphics and UI tests. I've read reports online of people with the exact same configuration getting scores of 150-300, so it definitely seems like there's something wrong with my card or the drivers.



    Is there anything that can be done about this?




    For one XBench does not use the graphics card for opengl tests, it is solely a CPU test. Run a game instead, and I don't know, compare those to the benchmarks at barefeats. Then tell us if there is any difference.



    For what it's worth, Apple's Graphics Cards are underclocked compared to their PC counterparts (even though physically they're exactly the same), so you should be able to pump it up to its proper speed without any problems.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mattyj

    For one XBench does not use the graphics card for opengl tests, it is solely a CPU test. Run a game instead, and I don't know, compare those to the benchmarks at barefeats. Then tell us if there is any difference.



    Oops! Wow, I had no idea. Yeah, actually looking at Barefeats, my card gets close to the results that theirs get. It's a bit slower, but not enough to ring alarm bells too loudly.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by mattyj

    For what it's worth, Apple's Graphics Cards are underclocked compared to their PC counterparts (even though physically they're exactly the same), so you should be able to pump it up to its proper speed without any problems.



    Do you know if this is still true now that Apple's using mostly commodity hardware now? Is the X1600 in the iMacs a custom Apple redesign, or is it close to off-the-shelf? It'd be wonderful to see that lag in GPU performance finally disappear.



    I'll see about software overclocking, and ATIcellerator doesn't look too flaky. I'll give it a go. Thanks a lot, everyone!



    Edit: fuxxed up the quote tag. Fixed now.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sladuuch

    Do you know if this is still true now that Apple's using mostly commodity hardware now? Is the X1600 in the iMacs a custom Apple redesign, or is it close to off-the-shelf? It'd be wonderful to see that lag in GPU performance finally disappear.



    I'll see about software overclocking, and ATIcellerator doesn't look too flaky. I'll give it a go. Thanks a lot, everyone!



    Edit: fuxxed up the quote tag. Fixed now.




    Apple does use a standard ATI X1600 mobility in the iMac, except that most iMacs (it does vary a little) have both the memory and GPU downclocked to 400Mhz each.



    However, seeing as this is a mobility chipset designed to run at 470Mhz GPU and RAM (DDR rate so its running effectively at around 940Mhz or so) most who have overclocked it (when using windows, there is no Mac Intel overclocking solution as of yet) have seen no problems. Some have said to be able to go to 550Mhz each, and this means the iMac can handle Half Life 2 with HDR effects on pretty easily, as the X1600 shares its architecture with the X1800/X1900 cards, which makes it a pretty powerful mid range card.



    The MacBook Pro mobility chipsets (the same as the iMacs) are clocked down even further, to around 300Mhz each, attempts to overclock them under windows has varied, the earlier revision models tend to get stuck at around 400Mhz, obviously due to the heat issues, whilst later revisions seems to be able to approach the chipsets certified speed. Apparently the 17" MBPs have higher clocked and variable clocked X1600s, but I doubt that means they run at the certified speed.



    I have used ATIcellerator and it is a good stable app. Just be sure to overclock by no more than 5Mhz increments on the RAM and/or GPU. Run a game every increment for an extended period of time (an hour or so) so that the Graphics card heats up to its highest operating temperature, and make sure you see no artifacts, if you do, downclock the card until you see none.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    I've managed to push my card to about 520MHz for both core and memory with no artifacts. I swear, it's like getting a brand new card! Using the ATI Displays utility to alter the profiles on my 3D games, I've set them all to the highest possible settings (16X anistropic filtering, 6X multi FSAA, etc) in addition to pumping up the settings in games themselves. The difference is mind-boggling. UT2K4 is gorgeous, and a friend actually gasped when I zoomed in all the way on a tank column in C&C generals.



    It's incredibly liberating to discover a solution so easy and noticeably superior! Thanks so much guys, you've really made my year. The only problem, of course, is that it makes an MBP's GPU look worse in comparison, and I've been trying to convince myself to want one...
  • Reply 10 of 10
    Didn't read all the answers: have you disabled the Beam Sync? I've got around 58 in Quartz and 15 In User Interface in normal conditions and 99/230 with beam sync disabled. Check on the net how to unless you have Quartz Debug from the developers tools (which, BTW; you can install from your Tiger's install disc).
Sign In or Register to comment.