Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Both have 128mb DDR and are the same price per Apple's build-to-order option, so which is better? I have trouble understanding the specs, but I assume it all boils down to how one uses his Mac. Assuming I will buy one of the new towers announced yesterday and a 17" LCD, if I mainly use the Mac for burning DVD's (video projects) and gaming (hoping for DOOM 3), which would be the best choice? Or, dare I ask if a 256mb video card will be available in the next couple o'months?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
Bjornbro wrote:
Assuming I will buy one of the new towers announced yesterday and a 17" LCD, if I mainly use the Mac for burning DVD's (video projects) and gaming (hoping for DOOM 3), which would be the best choice?

Since car analogies seem to be popular here these days, you're essentially asking "I like to drive quickly and impress the ladies with my automobile. Should I get a Ferrari or a Lamborghini?" From what I've seen the ATi Radeon 9700 is a bit faster than the nVidia GeForce 4 Ti 4600, plus it sounds like ATi cards have the same driver issues on the Mac that they do on Windows, so I'd say go with the Radeon 9700.
 

·
Vorlon Ambassador
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
I think jpoole is right on the performance. You may want to note that the Geforce 4 Ti is available right now, but the Radeon 9700 is not available right now. The store says "coming soon". It could be a few weeks away.

Neither card would help much in video editting or burning DVDs, the performance is seen more in the 3D area, like playing games.

Also, ATI is Canadian! :D

Which system are you going for? The 1.25 Ghz?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kosh:
Which system are you going for? The 1.25 Ghz?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How'd you know? The mid range dualie is where it's at, especially considering the major price reduction!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Definitely get the Radeon 9700 Pro -- slaughters the current top line NVIDIA GeForce Ti. Of course, whenever the GeForceFX hits the Mac, NVIDIA will regain the lead (slightly). ATI gets the job done with less heat and MHz than NVIDIA. ATI's going to hold their ground nicely with any upcoming cards they release.

GeForce FX 5800 Ultra vs Radeon 9700 Pro vs GeForce 4 Ti 4800 SHOOTOUT
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,887 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
Realize your LCD response is sloooooow so a fast video card on a 17' is like driving said Ferarri to the corner store.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, I didn't know that. Would it be better to use a CRT, like the Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 74 (17" CRT per Apple's Site) or something else specific? A better savings over LCD to boot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
macdoc wrote:
Realize your LCD response is sloooooow so a fast video card on a 17' is like driving said Ferarri to the corner store.

I thought most "modern"[1] LCDs had fixed this problem (i.e., sluggishness) to the point where an LCD is at least half as fast as a CRT? I know playing WarCraft III on my PowerBook LCD is almost as nice as compared to playing WarCraft III on my CRT (nevermind the fact that the CRT is on a different computer with more horsepower :D). Plus I prefer LCDs to CRTs for just about everything else.

I'd say the big issue with an LCD is the fact that they don't multisynch well; hence anything other than the native resolution is going to look a bit funny. Of course, if you've got a Radeon 9700 or a GeForce 4 Ti you're not going to have to decrease your resolution for good game performance!

[1] As opposed to "primitive" LCDs from the stone ages ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,887 Posts
The easiest way to tell how responsive the LCD is, is to grab a full page of text in OSX and move it around the screen - you'll easily see the blurring of the slow pixel response.
Until we get OLED screen - flat screens will be overpriced, slow and short lived.
Okay for portable use but of limited value on the desktop when all the factors including price are considered. :rolleyes:
But they do LOOK cool.
So overdoing the video card on a 17' LCD seems a serious waste of good money unless it's bragging rights you are looking for.
Big fast RAM really helps doing CAD and 3D on dual 22" monitors at 2000x1500.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
According to Toms Hardware, the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 and the Radeon 9700 Pro are very similar at lower resolutions (like 1024x768), however the higer the rersolution goes, the more the 9700 Pro kicks the geforce 4's butt.

I will try to dig up the numbers again, but for now suffice to say that when increaseing resolutions (up to 1600x200) the Radeon 9700 Pro was able to hold frame rates and etc around the same number at all of them, while the GeForce 4 Ti dropped off at a steeper incline with every step up in resolution.

--PB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
I'm going to get a new dual 1.25 and was going to just get the Radeon 9000 64mb card. Doesn't seems like there are enough games out on the Mac to justify a $450 video card.

As for the 9700, doesn't that really make a difference when running games, especially with DX9 support. But there is no Direct X for Mac, so wouldn't a 9700 be wasted sort of?

As for monitors, I don't no about Mac's LCDs but most modern LCDs have no prblems with ghosting. The more you spend the better of course but there was an article on Gamespots web site and they compared 4 LCDs (on a PC) and they were fine.

For me, I'm going to be stuck using my 17" Samsung SyncMaster 953DF and sharing it with my PC. But I think I'm going to get a 19" Samsung 957mb and use that for my Mac, and then get a VGA extractor for ADC and have dual CRT monitors.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top