If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
which video card for mac G5?
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tyan K8S Pro S2882: installing a PCI video card | Andy Kuo | General | 1 | November 5th 04 03:10 AM |
A7N8X-boot problems and dead video card | lefthandblack | Asus Motherboards | 4 | August 25th 04 02:09 PM |
fx 5200 sweet deal but will it work ? | Skybuck Flying | General | 20 | May 12th 04 05:31 PM |
fx 5200 sweet deal but will it work ? | Skybuck Flying | Nvidia Videocards | 20 | May 12th 04 05:31 PM |
Video computer questions | Eddie W. Stroud | Ati Videocards | 13 | October 27th 03 09:43 PM |