Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb Drivers For Mac
The ATI Radeon 9800 Pro Special 256MB Mac Edition versus Other Radeon Graphics Cards Originally posted June 9th, 2004, by, mad scientist Updated June 12th, 2004, with GeForceFX 5200 results QUESTION #1: Does the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro Special Edition with 256MB of DDR video memory go faster than the Radeon 9800 Pro OEM with 128MB of VRAM? How about the Radeon 9800 Pro Retail Mac Edition with 128MB of VRAM? Hypothesis: There will be little or no gain from the extra memory except in extreme circumstances rarely encountered by humans. However, it will offer features lacking in the other two Radeon 9800 Pro graphics cards. QUESTION #2: How much faster does the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro Special Edition go compared to the 'Stock' Radeon 9600 Pro in my current G5? Hypothesis: There should be significant gain in 3D accelerated games, but gains in 2D performance will be slim or none.
TEST RESULTS We ran all our tests at the maximum detail and texture quality. We used a 'Rev A' G5/2.0GHz MP Power Mac and Apple 23' Cinema display for all test runs.
(GeForceFX 5200 results were from the 'Rev B' G5/2.0GHz MP.) As you can see, in the 3D graphics intensive games above, the Special Mac Edition only has a slight edge over the other two 9800 Pro cards. But all three Radeon 9800 Pro cards blow away the Radeon 9600 Pro. We found two tests, however, that revealed some interesting performance distinctions: By turning ON Full Scene Anti-Aliasing (FSAA) in Halo and running at max allowed resolution (1600x1200), the Special Edition showed the advantage of the extra video memory. The next update of Halo should let you run at higher or custom resolutions, which will enable the Special Edition to distance itself even further from the cards with less memory.
Is OpenGL sample code provided to Apple developers. I 'fed' the four cards 4 textures with maximum detail in color.
Then I auto-rotated the fractal figure using vertex array range. This is the first time any test has shown the advantage of the 8X AGP rating (Special Edition, OEM) over the 4X rating (Retail). Even the 9600 Pro beat the 9800 Pro (Retail) in this test.
Best Video Software for the Mac How To Run MacOS High Sierra or Another OS on Your Mac Best Graphic Design Software the Mac Stay Safe with Best. ATI 128MB DDR RADEON 9800 Pro Driver. ATI Radeon 9800 Pro AGP Mac Edition The Radeon 9800 Pro is an AGP 8x card compatible with AGP 2x and 4x slots. It was a build-to-order for the 2003 Power Mac G5, 2004 Power Mac G5, and 2005 Power Mac G5. View full ATI Radeon 9800 Pro specs on CNET. Best Products. ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB, AGP, Mac). Drivers & Utilities.
(According to ATI's specs, the 9600 has a faster core clock than the 9800, but it only has 4 pipelines versus 8 in the 9800 series.) Though none of the real world apps stressed the 4X Retail version of the Radeon 9800 Pro, no self respecting power user wants to install a graphics card in his/her G5 Power Mac that hits the wall in any scenario. Some 3D Game functions are so CPU bound that the advantage of the faster graphics card isn't as dramatic.
For example, check out the Unreal Tournament 2004 Botmatch results below: As you can see, the 9600 OEM was just as fast as the 9800 Pro boards. That's one of the reasons when readers ask for buying advice, I always say, 'Get at least the Radeon 9600. At $50, it's a no-brainer.' CONCLUSIONS PERFORMANCE 1.
If you have the standard Radeon 9600 Pro in your G5 Power Mac, the Special Edition 9800 Pro runs most 3D graphics intensive apps TWICE as fast. If you have the GeForceFX 5200, it's as much as THREE times faster. We ran typical 2D tests like AppleWorks scroll, Photoshop zoom scroll, Xbench Quartz 2D, Xbench User Interface, and QuartzWindowBench.
The Radeon 9800 Pro cards had an average 13% advantage over the Radeon 9600 Pro. If you have a G5 Power Mac with the CTO Radeon 9800 Pro (OEM), the Special Edition will be 6% faster - unless you run with FSAA enabled - in which case it is 23% faster. We ran typical 2D tests like AppleWorks scroll, Photoshop zoom scroll, Xbench Quartz 2D, Xbench User Interface, and QuartzWindowBench.
The Radeon 9800 Pro Special Mac Edition had no advantage over the OEM or Retail Editions. If you bought the Radeon 9800 Pro (Retail Edition) for your G5, the Special Edition will be 2% faster - unless you run with FSAA turned on - in which case it is 15% faster. If you bought the Retail Edition for a G4 Power Mac, that's as good as it gets. The Special Edition only works in a G5.
Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb Drivers For Mac
If you are buying a new G5, I suggest doing a special order from the or and get at least the 9600 XT. Again, for $50, it's a no-brainer. If you want the ultimate Mac 3D card, the new 9800 XT is it. (Test results coming real soon now.) FEATURES There are other reasons to buy one model of Radeon 9800 Pro over the other.
I've created a table below to compare features of the four cards featured in the graphs above. Yes For G4 Power Mac owners, the Retail 9800 Pro Mac Edition that's compatible with the 2X/4X AGP slot is the only Radeon 9800 Pro you can choose. But for owners of G5 Power Macs with 1.8GHz or faster processor, the Radeon 9800 Pro Special Mac Edition is the only way to fly.
YET ANOTHER Radeon 9800 CHOICE With the announcement today, June 9th, 2004, of the Radeon 9600 XT and Radeon 9800 XT option for the, things are getting confusing in the graphics card arena. We will be updating both our test results and conclusions, once we have a chance to test the 'XT' cards. The Apple Online Store lets you specify the optional 9800 XT card to any of the three models of G5 - which implies that all three have an 8X AGP slot. Apple states that the 9800 XT encroaches on one of the PCI-X slots.
That seems odd since none of the Windows PC versions have thick heatsinks or fans. ATI has not confirmed the core clock or memory clock speeds of the latest Radeon 9800 cards for the Mac, but there's a comparing different versions of the Windows PC Radeon 9800 cards that might shed some light.
Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb Drivers For Macbook Pro
SPECIAL NOTE now includes optimizations and a Hardware Renderer that utilize the GPU to increase rendering performance up to 50%. We plan to run some tests with Maya 6 to see if any of the cards tested above can actually lower rendering times. SOURCES FOR TEST HARDWARE has the Radeon 9800 Pro Special Mac Edition, as does and - whose price is $367 after subtracting (free shipping). Shows it going for as little as $345 from various traditional PC sources.
If you don't have an 8X AGP slot, then the 128MB Retail Radeon 9800 Pro Mac Edition is the card for you. Has it for $300 after subtracting the (free shipping).
If you are buying a new G5, be sure to do a 'configure to order' or CTO with the. Specify the $50 Radeon 9600 XT or $300 9800 XT graphics card.
Don't accept the wimpy GeForceFX 5200. If enough of you special order the Radeon cards, maybe Apple will get the hint and make the 9600 XT standard equipment on all three models of G5.
Many thanks to the local and for providing various testing resources. Has BARE FEATS helped you? Then how about.
Click to expand.I'm thinking of this benchmark test: The Radeon HD 2600 Pro is getting an average FPS of 22 at 1280x1024 (no AA/AF), 14 FPS at 1280x1024 (4xAA/8xAF), and 14 FPS at 1920x1200 (no AA/AF). People are going to want to kill me for saying this because I can't give exact benchmark numbers, but I played the game through on my Radeon 9800 Pro equipped G5 at 1280x1024 and subjectively it would have felt in a similar range of performance (ie: between 15 to 25 FPS, depending on the scene and what was happening). It's playable (if you don't have high expectations.and I fully realise the iMac isn't aimed at hard core gamers), but I was really hoping for a substantial jump in performance after 4 years. 2400XT isn't all that fast At 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 1024, the formerly ToL 9800XT should be roughly equivalent to the 2400XT, depending on the age of the game. The 2400XT is roughly the performance of the x1600 pro, which is roughly the performance of the 9800XT.
Given that neither chip can push frames much beyond those resolutions, higher res 3D is a moot point. The reason why the 9800 XT beats out 2400 XT as resolutions rise is because of the 4x wider bandwidth. The 9800 XT has a 256 bit bus vs the 2400 XT's 64 bit bus. The wider the bus the more data that can go through the processor. In this case, the 2400 XT's bus is the limiting factor, whereas the 9800 XT's processor is the limiting factor in the other. For what it's worth, my quicksilver Dual 1 GHz with a Radeon 9700 pro benchmarks Quake 4 at 25 fps.
CNet today benched the 20' iMac with the 2600 pro at 39 fps. Considering the 2600 pro is a significantly faster card than the 2400 pro, I wouldn't be surprised to see the 2400 pro post scores that are about the same as my old (but admittedly heavily upgraded) tower.
ATI and nVidia's top end will always be 4-10x faster than their bottom end chips, due to a neutering of the chip (1/3 as much processor power in the GeForce 8600 vs the 8800, for example) and cutting down of memory buses (the 8800 has a 384 bit memory bus, the 8600 has a 128 bit memory bus, the 8400 has a 64 bit memory bus). My numbers are for nVidia, but ATi is comparable - actually a little worse in this generation.
The reviews are not all in agreement. Some seem to say that the 2000 series is a pretty good competitor to nvidea's 8000 series for a decent price, while others bemoan the 2000 series as essentially hopeless. But those are just commentary.
Based on my own review of the benchmarks, I'd say that the 2000 series cards are disappointing, but not exactly the disaster that many here have been suggesting since the imacs were released. It's a shame that there aren't better options, but I would suggest that people calling for the nvidea 8000 series take a look at the benchmarks in this thread - it ain't all that much better. Sure the game is X3 but the X300 (PCI-E 9600) beats it.
So yeah I think its safe to say the 9800 Pro is better and it makes sense even, the X1600 was barely like a 6600GT and the 6600GT was a little better than the 9800 Pro, the HD 2400XT is considerably worse than the X1600. Also those benchmarks show the 7600GT is quite a bit better than the HD 2600XT (except in R6 Vegas) and a LOT better than the HD 2600 Pro (even in R6 Vegas) so yeah. Its disappointing this so called graphics upgrade is actually a downgrade except for the 20' model with the HD 2600. Sure the game is X3 but the X300 (PCI-E 9600) beats it. So yeah I think its safe to say the 9800 Pro is better and it makes sense even, the X1600 was barely like a 6600GT and the 6600GT was a little better than the 9800 Pro, the HD 2400XT is considerably worse than the X1600. Also those benchmarks show the 7600GT is quite a bit better than the HD 2600XT (except in R6 Vegas) and a LOT better than the HD 2600 Pro (even in R6 Vegas) so yeah.
Its disappointing this so called graphics upgrade is actually a downgrade except for the 20' model with the HD 2600. Click to expand.It's not uncommon for a game to play particularly well on a certain card. X3 seems to play so well on the x300 that I'd think they had the hardware in-house to work with it. It's not so much a negative for the 2000 series.
As far as the benchmarks go, that is a desktop x1600, not the one in the previous iMac. I do consider it a graphics update - these cards have newer features and will be able to play new games better than the x1600 mobile the iMac had before, albeit at lower resolutions.