PDA

View Full Version : which video card for mac G5?


woodsie
January 16th 05, 02:20 AM
wondering if anyone can help this video card newbie. i'll be getting a G5
dual 2 GHz Mac. doing mainly 2d & 3d graphics and some video editing. No
game playing.

the above mac comes with NVIDIA Geforce FX 5200 Ultra which i understand
to be a 'basic' card. next available up is the ATI Radeon 9600XT. will
either card be enough or should i get something better?

Augustus
January 16th 05, 05:35 PM
"woodsie" > wrote in message
...
> wondering if anyone can help this video card newbie. i'll be getting a G5
> dual 2 GHz Mac. doing mainly 2d & 3d graphics and some video editing. No
> game playing.
>
> the above mac comes with NVIDIA Geforce FX 5200 Ultra which i understand
> to be a 'basic' card. next available up is the ATI Radeon 9600XT. will
> either card be enough or should i get something better?

ATI 9800 Pro 128Mb for G5 systems. Twice the card of a 9600XT.
http://www.welovemacs.com/109a14400.html

Thomas
January 16th 05, 10:19 PM
Augustus wrote:
> "woodsie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wondering if anyone can help this video card newbie. i'll be getting
>> a G5 dual 2 GHz Mac. doing mainly 2d & 3d graphics and some video
>> editing. No game playing.
>>
>> the above mac comes with NVIDIA Geforce FX 5200 Ultra which i
>> understand to be a 'basic' card. next available up is the ATI Radeon
>> 9600XT. will either card be enough or should i get something better?
>
> ATI 9800 Pro 128Mb for G5 systems. Twice the card of a 9600XT.
> http://www.welovemacs.com/109a14400.html

I agree, but what a weird offer :-))
"Regular price: $249.49 Sale price: $249.99"

haha...

--
Thomas

Scotter
January 16th 05, 11:04 PM
Since you do video editing and 3D graphics, you may want to look into cards
that are specifically made for that kind of work. I know nVidia has a line
of cards for this and ATi may, as well.
Here is the link to nVidia's "Quadro" line:
http://www.nvidia.com/page/workstation.html
If you can't find what you need with nVidia or ATi, last ditch would be
Matrox, I guess.

"woodsie" > wrote in message
...
> wondering if anyone can help this video card newbie. i'll be getting a G5
> dual 2 GHz Mac. doing mainly 2d & 3d graphics and some video editing. No
> game playing.
>
> the above mac comes with NVIDIA Geforce FX 5200 Ultra which i understand
> to be a 'basic' card. next available up is the ATI Radeon 9600XT. will
> either card be enough or should i get something better?

Benjamin Gawert
January 17th 05, 09:02 PM
woodsie wrote:

> wondering if anyone can help this video card newbie. i'll be getting
> a G5 dual 2 GHz Mac. doing mainly 2d & 3d graphics and some video
> editing. No game playing.
>
> the above mac comes with NVIDIA Geforce FX 5200 Ultra which i
> understand to be a 'basic' card. next available up is the ATI Radeon
> 9600XT. will either card be enough or should i get something better?

I have a G5 1.8DP with the FX5200, and it's more than enough for what You
want to do. The card is slow at games but more than sufficient for
everything else. No other card will bring You any improvements at 2D
(something on which all cards of the last ~5 years are equally good), and
it's also more than enough for 3D work...

The other cards only bring You some benefit if You're into gaming, but You
already said that this isn't the case. So save the money and better get some
add'l RAM instead...

Benjamin

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Benjamin Gawert
January 17th 05, 09:04 PM
Scotter wrote:

> Since you do video editing and 3D graphics, you may want to look into
> cards that are specifically made for that kind of work. I know nVidia
> has a line of cards for this and ATi may, as well.
> Here is the link to nVidia's "Quadro" line:
> http://www.nvidia.com/page/workstation.html
> If you can't find what you need with nVidia or ATi, last ditch would
> be Matrox, I guess.

All nice ideas, but neither the Quadros nor Matrox cards You mentioned work
with a Mac, and that's what the OP has...

Benjamin

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Tony DiMarzio
January 17th 05, 10:04 PM
> No other card will bring You any improvements at 2D (something on which
> all cards of the last ~5 years are equally good

Not the case at all.

There IS a strong variance between the 2D capabilities of chipsets made by
players other than ATI and NVidia (like Via, Sys, Intel etc...) over the
past 5 years. To be accurate you'd have to say (something on which all
NVidia, ATI, and Matrox cards of the last ...say 3 years... are equally
good)

Tony

woodsie
January 18th 05, 07:52 AM
In article >, "Benjamin Gawert"
> wrote:

>woodsie wrote:
>
>> wondering if anyone can help this video card newbie. i'll be getting
>> a G5 dual 2 GHz Mac. doing mainly 2d & 3d graphics and some video
>> editing. No game playing.
>>
>> the above mac comes with NVIDIA Geforce FX 5200 Ultra which i
>> understand to be a 'basic' card. next available up is the ATI Radeon
>> 9600XT. will either card be enough or should i get something better?
>
>I have a G5 1.8DP with the FX5200, and it's more than enough for what You
>want to do. The card is slow at games but more than sufficient for
>everything else. No other card will bring You any improvements at 2D
>(something on which all cards of the last ~5 years are equally good), and
>it's also more than enough for 3D work...
>
>The other cards only bring You some benefit if You're into gaming, but You
>already said that this isn't the case. So save the money and better get some
>add'l RAM instead...
>
>Benjamin

thanks for your input.

bit hard to work out what to do when so many people have opposite
opinions. guess i'll start off with someone lower on the list and see how
that goes.

Benjamin Gawert
January 19th 05, 11:57 AM
woodsie wrote:

> thanks for your input.
>
> bit hard to work out what to do when so many people have opposite
> opinions. guess i'll start off with someone lower on the list and see
> how that goes.

Well, You should know that in PeeCee-Land the FX5200 has a bad reputation
simply because it's too slow for most modern games. It is a full DirectX9
card which supports all the nice goodies but doesn't perform well enough to
be able to be useful for Dx9 games. So that's one reason for negative
feedacks.

The second reason is probably that most people never would buy a FX5200 for
themselves, because it's a low-end card. But most of these people also never
would recommend a FX5200 for other people, despite the fact that not
everyone does gaming and that the FX5200 (or any other card of that price
range) is more than enough for the supposed tasks.

But You're not a gamer, and You also are going to buy a Mac for which the
list of available cards is quite short compared to PC-Land. The FX5200Ultra
Apple sells with the Powermac G5 isn't the fastest card, and if You were
into serious gaming You probably would be much better with i.e. the
Geforce6800 DDL, but for the applications You listed, none of the other
availabe card will bring You _any_ benefit. Just a higher price...

The Apple FX5200U also has a very good analog signal quality (better than
Apples Radeon 9600), and it's passive cooled. A nice thing if You consider
that the Powermac G5 is extremely silent...

Benjamin

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Benjamin Gawert
January 19th 05, 12:05 PM
Tony DiMarzio wrote:

>> No other card will bring You any improvements at 2D (something on
>> which all cards of the last ~5 years are equally good
>
> Not the case at all.
>
> There IS a strong variance between the 2D capabilities of chipsets
> made by players other than ATI and NVidia (like Via, Sys, Intel
> etc...) over the past 5 years.

Not really. Even the UMA gfx chips made by VIA, SIS and intel during the
last 5 years aren't really slower than todays top end cards when it comes to
2D. Differences usually are barely measureable, and certainly not feelable
in real work...

Benjamin

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Tony DiMarzio
January 19th 05, 08:31 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with that.

The chipsets in question are integrated into the Thin Clients that I
benchmark with every subsequent hardware or software release (one of my
duties as a test/software engineer) by the company I work for (Neoware).
There are significant performance variances between these chipsets with
respect to 2D rendering. The benchmarks speak for themselves... then again
so do the hardware specs that we have acquired straight from the
manufacturers (Intel, VIA, SiS). I'd provide them for you to look at
yourself but they're under NDA.

Tony


"Benjamin Gawert" > wrote in message
...
> Tony DiMarzio wrote:
>
>>> No other card will bring You any improvements at 2D (something on
>>> which all cards of the last ~5 years are equally good
>>
>> Not the case at all.
>>
>> There IS a strong variance between the 2D capabilities of chipsets
>> made by players other than ATI and NVidia (like Via, Sys, Intel
>> etc...) over the past 5 years.
>
> Not really. Even the UMA gfx chips made by VIA, SIS and intel during the
> last 5 years aren't really slower than todays top end cards when it comes
> to 2D. Differences usually are barely measureable, and certainly not
> feelable in real work...
>
> Benjamin
>
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>

J. Clarke
January 20th 05, 05:50 AM
Tony DiMarzio wrote:

> I'm going to have to disagree with that.
>
> The chipsets in question are integrated into the Thin Clients that I
> benchmark with every subsequent hardware or software release (one of my
> duties as a test/software engineer) by the company I work for (Neoware).
> There are significant performance variances between these chipsets with
> respect to 2D rendering. The benchmarks speak for themselves... then again
> so do the hardware specs that we have acquired straight from the
> manufacturers (Intel, VIA, SiS). I'd provide them for you to look at
> yourself but they're under NDA.\

Any chip that can't render fast enough to function in a thin client is
broken. Are you sure your benchmarks reflect the video chip and not some
other aspect of performance? Or is your definition of "thin client"
different from that of the rest of the industry?
>
> Tony
>
>
> "Benjamin Gawert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tony DiMarzio wrote:
>>
>>>> No other card will bring You any improvements at 2D (something on
>>>> which all cards of the last ~5 years are equally good
>>>
>>> Not the case at all.
>>>
>>> There IS a strong variance between the 2D capabilities of chipsets
>>> made by players other than ATI and NVidia (like Via, Sys, Intel
>>> etc...) over the past 5 years.
>>
>> Not really. Even the UMA gfx chips made by VIA, SIS and intel during the
>> last 5 years aren't really slower than todays top end cards when it comes
>> to 2D. Differences usually are barely measureable, and certainly not
>> feelable in real work...
>>
>> Benjamin
>>
>> --
>> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>> A: Top-posting.
>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

woodsie
January 20th 05, 06:04 AM
In article >, "Benjamin Gawert"
> wrote:

>woodsie wrote:
>
>> thanks for your input.
>>
>> bit hard to work out what to do when so many people have opposite
>> opinions. guess i'll start off with someone lower on the list and see
>> how that goes.
>
>Well, You should know that in PeeCee-Land the FX5200 has a bad reputation
>simply because it's too slow for most modern games. It is a full DirectX9
>card which supports all the nice goodies but doesn't perform well enough to
>be able to be useful for Dx9 games. So that's one reason for negative
>feedacks.
>
>The second reason is probably that most people never would buy a FX5200 for
>themselves, because it's a low-end card. But most of these people also never
>would recommend a FX5200 for other people, despite the fact that not
>everyone does gaming and that the FX5200 (or any other card of that price
>range) is more than enough for the supposed tasks.
>
>But You're not a gamer, and You also are going to buy a Mac for which the
>list of available cards is quite short compared to PC-Land. The FX5200Ultra
>Apple sells with the Powermac G5 isn't the fastest card, and if You were
>into serious gaming You probably would be much better with i.e. the
>Geforce6800 DDL, but for the applications You listed, none of the other
>availabe card will bring You _any_ benefit. Just a higher price...
>
>The Apple FX5200U also has a very good analog signal quality (better than
>Apples Radeon 9600), and it's passive cooled. A nice thing if You consider
>that the Powermac G5 is extremely silent...

thanks again. but i've ordered the 9600. lol.

oh well guess it won't kill me.

Benjamin Gawert
January 20th 05, 09:19 AM
Tony DiMarzio wrote:

> I'm going to have to disagree with that.
>
> The chipsets in question are integrated into the Thin Clients that I
> benchmark with every subsequent hardware or software release

Thin Clients? Well, ok, if You want to extend it to embedded devices and
thin clients You're probably right.

I was speaking of what's available for PCs and Macs which is probably what's
important for most people here.

I have a thin client here (HP t5500 with ATI RageXC 8MB), and even when its
brand new, its gfx core is way older than just five years. Such cores are in
use in a lot of appliances, but it makes almost zero sense when diskussing
about PC and Mac gfx...

Benjamin

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Tony DiMarzio
January 20th 05, 09:48 AM
> Thin Clients? Well, ok, if You want to extend it to embedded devices and
> thin clients You're probably right.
>
> I was speaking of what's available for PCs and Macs which is probably
> what's important for most people here.
>
> I have a thin client here (HP t5500 with ATI RageXC 8MB),

I had to do some devel work on the HP t5500. I know it well :) Not a bad
device, but pales in comparison to our competing devices. HP needs to do
some serious restructuring and re-planning in their Thin Client department
if they expect to make it.

> and even when its brand new, its gfx core is way older than just five
> years. Such cores are in use in a lot of appliances, but it makes almost
> zero sense when diskussing about PC and Mac gfx...
>

Agreed... it doesn't make much sense when discussing PC and Mac mainstream
graphics chipsets.

> Benjamin
>
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>

Minotaur
January 20th 05, 12:13 PM
Tony DiMarzio wrote:
>>No other card will bring You any improvements at 2D (something on which
>>all cards of the last ~5 years are equally good
>
>
> Not the case at all.
>
> There IS a strong variance between the 2D capabilities of chipsets made by
> players other than ATI and NVidia (like Via, Sys, Intel etc...) over the
> past 5 years. To be accurate you'd have to say (something on which all
> NVidia, ATI, and Matrox cards of the last ...say 3 years... are equally
> good)
>
> Tony
>
>

Definantly a difference here between the XFX 6800GT I haveon the shelf
and this PowerColour X800XT PE. With the ATI card, 1920X1440 is now
crystal clear and 205?X15?? is now usable! Seems ATI is still ahead with
delivering quality images on screen..

Minotaur (8*

Benjamin Gawert
January 20th 05, 05:28 PM
Minotaur wrote:
> Tony DiMarzio wrote:

> Definantly a difference here between the XFX 6800GT I haveon the shelf
> and this PowerColour X800XT PE. With the ATI card, 1920X1440 is now
> crystal clear and 205?X15?? is now usable! Seems ATI is still ahead
> with delivering quality images on screen..

Fine! But we talked about differences in 2D performance, not image quality.
And image quality has nothing to do if there's an ATI or Nvidia GPU on the
chip, it depends on how much the gfx board manufacturer invests in the
output filters. So in Your case it's not "ATI has better image quality than
Nvidia", it's simply "the ATI board from Powercolor has a better image
quality than the Geforce from XFX". I also had a Powercolor gfx card that
had a great analog signal quality, but it had an Geforce4 Ti4200 on it.
Looks like Powercolor cares more than XFX for the filter quality...

There are enough cards out there that have ****-poor image quality with ATI
GPU, and there also are Nvidia cards which provide very good images. The
manufacturer of the GPU has nothing to do with that...

Benjamin

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Minotaur
January 21st 05, 09:15 AM
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Minotaur wrote:
>
>> Tony DiMarzio wrote:
>
>
>> Definantly a difference here between the XFX 6800GT I haveon the shelf
>> and this PowerColour X800XT PE. With the ATI card, 1920X1440 is now
>> crystal clear and 205?X15?? is now usable! Seems ATI is still ahead
>> with delivering quality images on screen..
>
>
> Fine! But we talked about differences in 2D performance, not image

Sorry, I forgot image quality has nothing to do with 2D performance.
Not that they are directly related to eachother!

> quality. And image quality has nothing to do if there's an ATI or Nvidia
> GPU on the chip, it depends on how much the gfx board manufacturer
> invests in the output filters. So in Your case it's not "ATI has better
> image quality than Nvidia", it's simply "the ATI board from Powercolor
> has a better image quality than the Geforce from XFX". I also had a
> Powercolor gfx card that had a great analog signal quality, but it had
> an Geforce4 Ti4200 on it. Looks like Powercolor cares more than XFX for
> the filter quality...
>
> There are enough cards out there that have ****-poor image quality with
> ATI GPU, and there also are Nvidia cards which provide very good images.
> The manufacturer of the GPU has nothing to do with that...

They sure do, with there drivers.

>
> Benjamin
>

BTW, tried an ASUS 6800U aswell, 2D was crap with it aswell...

Benjamin Gawert
January 22nd 05, 09:02 AM
Minotaur wrote:

> Sorry, I forgot image quality has nothing to do with 2D performance.
> Not that they are directly related to eachother!

Exactly!

>> There are enough cards out there that have ****-poor image quality
>> with ATI GPU, and there also are Nvidia cards which provide very
>> good images. The manufacturer of the GPU has nothing to do with
>> that...
>
> They sure do, with there drivers.

Definitely no. The drivers have nothing to do with the analog signal
quality, thats BS.

> BTW, tried an ASUS 6800U aswell, 2D was crap with it aswell...

Can't speak of Asus since I avoid them for several reasons.

Why didn't You try some Powercolor card with Nvidida chipset? Or the
PointOfView GF6800GT for example which also has a very good image quality...

Benjamin

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?