[709]

The QuickSilver has been feeling a bit sluggish lately, and I'm considering replacing the stock video card it came with to a Radeon 9000 Pro. In doing that, I'd like to move the card 'down the line' to another machine, and again, and maybe yet again.

So, here's my thought:

1) Radeon 9000 Pro (128MB) replaces GeForce4 MX (64MB) in the QuickSilver.

2) Above GeForce4 MX replaces GeForce2 MX (32MB) in the 533DP Digital Audio.

3) Above GeForce2 MX replaces Rage128 Pro (16MB) in the 450 Cube.

4) Above Rage128 Pro either:
_a) replaces whatever sad piece of crap is in the Beige G3 300 MT.
_b) gets sold on eBay.

I've also got a PCI Rage128 Pro (16MB) that will get pulled from the Dual 533, so that might be a better bet for the Beige G3.


Anyone see any possible problems with the above lineup? I'm a *bit* concerned about replacing the card in the Cube, but I'm told that the stock GeForce2 MX that shipped with the DA is the same card that Cube owners upgrade to. No?

Any recommendations on the PCI vs AGP Rage128 Pro for the Beige G3 would also be appreciated.

[staph]

Originally Posted by 709 (snippage) Any recommendations on the PCI vs AGP Rage128 Pro for the Beige G3 would also be appreciated.

You know that the G3s didn't have AGP, right? I think that ends the debate right there...

Sounds good. The 9000 Pro is a good card (I have the original 9000 in my MDD), although I would personally hang out for a 9200 if I were actually laying out cash now for a new card. Anything more than that would probably saturate the bus anyway.

[709]

Originally Posted by staph You know that the G3s didn't have AGP, right? I think that ends the debate right there... Sounds good. The 9000 Pro is a good card (I have the original 9000 in my MDD), although I would personally hang out for a 9200 if I were actually laying out cash now for a new card. Anything more than that would probably saturate the bus anyway.

D'oh! I haven't opened up the Beige box in so long the specs escaped me. Thanks.

Is there a noticeable difference between the 9000 and 9200? I saw it was listed as 'coming soon' at OWC, but the specs seemed pretty much the same (also, the 9200 was PCI, and my PCI slots are full). A little cheaper though...

[staph]

Crap, you're right. I thought the 9200 was based on the R300 (9700/9500 generation core, thus including support for more instructions, and other goodies), but it's actually based on the RV280: which is virtually exactly the same as the Radeon 9000 Pro. Why it's 200 higher is therefore anyone's guess.

[Luca]

From what I have learned over the course of my video card adventures (believe me, that's a lot, I'm now on my sixth) is that you can ALWAYS get flashed PC versions for a lot cheaper than the Mac versions, but you have to know what you're getting into when you do.

For example, a Radeon 9000 128 MB for $150 is a total rip off. Other options are a Radeon 8500 (faster than the 9000, despite having half the VRAM), or the flashed GeForce 3 (about the same speed, but causes a few minor problems with some Macs). Radeon 8500s are generally very expensive, even the flashed ones, but I managed to get the PC version for $50. I'm still working on flashing it, but once I do, it should work the same as the Mac version, because this card is physically identical to the Mac version - the only difference is the ROM. Meanwhile, until I get it working, I'm running off my flashed GeForce 3. It causes some horizontal flashing lines to appear on my display, but they go away after it's been on for about a minute. It will, however, cause some major problems with Macs that have AGP 2x slots, but it looks like you just have a Quicksilver and a Digital Audio, both of which have AGP 4x.

Then again, you can always forego all this crap and get a used GeForce 4 Titanium on eBay. They're usually around $200, for a very FAST 128 MB card with ADC. Should be one of the fastest cards you can get for a PowerMac G4, right behind the Radeon 9800. The Radeon 9000 doesn't even compare to it.

AGP Rage 128s are pretty much useless. eBay it, or use it for a "project." I had a dual 450 that came with one, and a friend of my brother tried to actually flash it to work with PCs rather than the other way around. I don't think it worked, but I don't care because that card isn't worth anything anyway.

That PCI Rage 128 is nice. It'll be especially useful if you ever feel like flashing a PC Radeon 8500 to Mac. You can boot your Mac with the PCI video card, then run the flashing utility. Right now I am trying to get a PCI video card myself, so I can do the same thing. Once I have that I should be able to successfully complete the flash and turn my $50 PC Radeon 8500 into a $150 Mac Radeon 8500.

Oh, another option is a Radeon 9600 pulled from a G5, but in order to get that to work, you have to actually put tape on the video card. Also, they're rarely on eBay, and they usually are being sold for WAY too much. Personally I don't think they're worth more than $120-$150, but some people try to sell them for $200+. That of course is not worth it because you can get the faster GeForce 4 Titanium for that much.

Just an FYI, this is what I've gone through:

Rage 128
Radeon
GeForce 3 (caused flickering in my dual 450)
Radeon 8500 (clone by Powercolor, caused problems, sold)
GeForce 2MX, when I upgraded to a Quicksilver, and I sold that one too
Back to the GeForce 3
Radeon 8500 retail, which I am working on flashing

BTW, those GeForce 2MXs can make a lot of money on eBay. I sold mine for $130 with a buy it now within hours.

[709]

Nice. Thanks, Luca.

So an 8500 w/64MB is faster than a 9000 w/128MB? Even across 2 monitors? How can that be?

I'm on the hunt for a GeForce 4 Titanium.

[stoo]

Because the 9000 is an 8500, just lowered clocked and re-branded to fit in with the rest of the 9x00 range (the 9000 probably uses slower memory as well, as it is a budget card but the 8500 wasn't). The 9200 is the same card again, but is AGP 8x.

The 9500 and up support DirectX 9 (and CoreImage/CoreVideo); the 9200 to 8500 support DirectX 8 (not sure how much of, if any, CoreImage and CoreVidea are supported on these cards).

I recently got a PC 8500 for £24, including delivery.

[darshu]

Originally Posted by stoo Because the 9000 is an 8500, just lowered clocked and re-branded to fit in with the rest of the 9x00 range (the 9000 probably uses slower memory as well, as it is a budget card but the 8500 wasn't). The 9200 is the same card again, but is AGP 8x.

The 9000 is not an 8500, nor is a 9200 a 9000. Although they are quite similar (the 9000's core, the RV250 is based on the 8500's core, the R200. Likewise the 9200, the RV280 has minor modifications to support AGP8X and is based on the RV250) In general you could consider them the same, but nevertheless we put a fair it of work into any of them, exceeding just "lowering the clock speed"

Originally Posted by stoo The 9500 and up support DirectX 9 (and CoreImage/CoreVideo); the 9200 to 8500 support DirectX 8 (not sure how much of, if any, CoreImage and CoreVidea are supported on these cards).

The main "DirectX 9" features, as you term them, that Core{Image, Video} us are likely the OpenGL ARB Shaders (the equivalent of "Pixel Shader 2.0" in DirectX). The 8500, 9000 and 9200 support, what in DirectX terminology would be "Pixel Shader 1.4", something that nVidia never got around to supporting. Technically if Core{Image, Video} scales back as gracefully as Apple claims, it may support something like a combination of PS1.4 and SW emulated effects, but I think Apple might consider that too much work for too little gain.

Originally Posted by stoo I recently got a PC 8500 for £24, including delivery.

Congrats =). I wish they'd get around to porting the All-In-Wonder software and drivers to OS X, but for now my All-In-Wonder Radeon 8500 DV sits unhappily in my Athlon PC while I type away at my shiny new 12" PB.

[Luca]

Keep in mind that most Radeon 8500s out there are LEs, which are slower. Probably about the same as 9000s. Also, while it is true that the 8500/9000/9100/9200 are all slightly different, they're similar. As far as I know, the 9100 and 9200 are the same except that the 9200 supports 8x AGP. There are probably other differences between other models. But they should all be similar. I still find it ironic that the full 8500 is the fastest of the bunch.

If you span across two monitors, then the 128 MB 9000 might actually have an advantage (albeit a slight one). However, if you're just powering a single monitor, the 64 MB Radeon 8500 will be faster. Also, remember that if you do want to pick up a PC 8500 to flash, it has to be the exact right model - built by ATI, non-LE, 64 MB. A clone by a company such as Sapphire or Powercolor isn't the same, and most of the ones out there are either 128 MB, the LE model, or both. Should you be able to find one you'll still have to use a PCI video card so you can see what you're doing as you flash it. I don't have a Mac-compatible PCI video card, so I'm going to have to use a PC with a PCI video card to flash it instead. It should still work.

[stoo]

In general you could consider them the same, but nevertheless we put a fair it of work into any of them, exceeding just "lowering the clock speed"

I stand corrected. In future I must remember to refer to features by Pixel Shader versions, rather than Direct X versions. Anyways, judging by the "we", are you an ATI employee?
Any good links to the actual differences betweent the R[V]2x0 cores?


No matter how well CoreImage/Video scale with Pixel Shader versions, I suspect that the GeForce 4 Go 420 in my rev A 12" PowerBook won't be doing much.

[darshu]

Originally Posted by stoo I stand corrected. In future I must remember to refer to features by Pixel Shader versions, rather than Direct X versions. Anyways, judging by the "we", are you an ATI employee? Any good links to the actual differences betweent the R[V]2x0 cores?

Oops hope I didn't sound snooty there or any such thing. Actually these "Pixel Shader version numbers" are just more DirectX terminology as well. The only reason I brought it up is because the 8500/9000/9200 support 1.4 yet no nVidia cards do, even though everyone would be inclined to refer to those cards (and their nVidia equivalents) as "DirectX 8" or "DirectX 8.1" cards. As for that "we" thing, I worked there as intern a few times, but they sort of screwed me out of a job this summer. But I still have that "we" in my system.

As for information on the differences, depending on what you are interested in in particular you could look at things like Rage3D (an ATI forum), PC hardware sites, dig around in the developer section of ATI's site, etc. I don't really have much that I could say about those chips that would violate my NDA, if it's still in effect, but I still try to be extra careful anyhow.

Originally Posted by stoo No matter how well CoreImage/Video scale with Pixel Shader versions, I suspect that the GeForce 4 Go 420 in my rev A 12" PowerBook won't be doing much.

My GeForce FX 5200 Go in my rev C 12" might though As for number confusion, try a GeForce 4 MX on (which is basically a GeForce 2). Yay marketing.

I'm getting too wordy, now I remember why I resisted posting for all this time

[Alex London]

As I'm going to try and get another six months out of my DP 533 Digital Audio is it worth changing my GeForce 2MX for a slightly beefier card? I'm quite partial to the idea of playing Call of Duty before I get a G5. Any ideas?

[709]

Luca mentioned earlier in the thread that those GeForce 2MX cards are a hot item (I'm assuming for Cube owners wanting to upgrade)...so you might be able to get a better video card for your machine and not have to spend much money at all, if any.

[Luca]

Well, if you're willing to live with:

1) No dual monitor support (the 2MX doesn't have it either)
2) Non-working S-video (again, 2MX doesn't have it)
3) Just one VGA port, no DVI or ADC
4) Lines that flicker across your screen for one minute after waking from sleep and then go away

you could get a flashed GeForce 3 from eBay. They are about $70-$100. There are some with DVI ports as well. If you sell the GF2MX and buy a GF3, you'll make a tidy little profit of about $50, while also upgrading your video card by a significant margin.

However, I am not totally sure how much better it would run. The thing is, Call Of Duty runs awesome for me, but that's partially because of my video card and partially because of my 1.33 GHz G4 upgrade. With only a DP533... well, CoD seems to be pretty forgiving with hardware, and it IS a dual, but I'd still be careful. Just remember that the demo plays much more slowly than the actual game. It's too bad, really... if they had made the actual game code into a demo, they would convince a whole lot of people to buy it. I hope they do anyway, it's an awesome game that runs very well, consistently, but the demo is pretty bad.

[Alex London]

Thanks 709 and Luca, I shall have a beer and think a bit. Perhaps I'll just get COD and get on with it, I have heard elsewhere about the demo being worse than the game.