Jump to content


2.5 GHz G5s are here.


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#41 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 11 June 2004 - 08:43 AM

Has anyone else noticed the dark secret of Windows PCs:  they self-destruct over time.  As soon as you take your shiny new PC home, the clock is ticking.  The PC fragments it's HD, and Windows fills up with bloat (including spyware), regardless of what you do.  Pretty soon the computer is crawling on all fours, and you have to reformat to speed it up again.  Then the process starts all over!   :roll:
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#42 kardinal

kardinal

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:London, UK (originally Helsinki, Finland)

Posted 11 June 2004 - 03:53 PM

Quote

Has anyone else noticed the dark secret of Windows PCs:  they self-destruct over time.  As soon as you take your shiny new PC home, the clock is ticking.  The PC fragments it's HD, and Windows fills up with bloat (including spyware), regardless of what you do.  Pretty soon the computer is crawling on all fours, and you have to reformat to speed it up again.  Then the process starts all over!   :roll:
I wonder why that sounds so familiar...  :roll:

Oh, that's right, i've had to use XP at work...

#43 Incentro_91

Incentro_91

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 06:49 PM

Well I'm going to save for a few more pay days and get this configuration:

Dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5
2GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 4x512
2x250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
8x SuperDrive (CD-RW/DVD-R)
ATI Radeon 9800 XT
56K V.92 internal modem
Bluetooth Module
Bluetooth Adapter + Apple Wireless Keyboard + Apple Wireless Mouse

I might have to forego the entire 2GB of RAM at first and possibly the extra 250GB drive, but everything else I'll get built to order.

It's defintaly worth getting the 9800 Pro XT, especially knowing that you can 'hack' the OpenGL over rider panels.

:smile:

Can't wait!

#44 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 11 June 2004 - 10:31 PM

That's the same one I'm thinking about too.  I'd forget the part about the second 250GB HD and just get 256MB of RAM.  You can find it so much cheaper elsewhere.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#45 Lucian

Lucian

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3028 posts
  • Location:IMG Offices, Fong Kong

Posted 11 June 2004 - 11:36 PM

Consider getting the retail Radeon 9800 Pro instead. The XT is only marginally faster, the 256 MB VRAM will never be used, and the retail card is officially supported by  the ATI control panel. You can get it for cheap a buy.com ($300 + free shipping).
I live in Mexifornia.

#46 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 June 2004 - 06:45 AM

Quote

Consider getting the retail Radeon 9800 Pro instead. The XT is only marginally faster, the 256 MB VRAM will never be used, and the retail card is officially supported by  the ATI control panel. You can get it for cheap a buy.com ($300 + free shipping).

The XT is only a little bit more--why couldn't a dual G5 use the 256MB?
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#47 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 12 June 2004 - 11:06 AM

I was able to test a Rev B G5/2.0GHz MP with a GeForceFX 5200 yesterday. I've added the 3D Game results to my test page compare three Radeon 9800 Pros:
http://www.barefeats.com/rad9800s.html

Two insights:
1. Extra VRAM didn't seem to help until I turned on FSAA in Halo.

2. The 4X Retail Radeon 9800 was just as fast as the 8X OEM and Special Edition Radeon 9800 cards in every test except the VertexPerformanceTest (Apple OpenGL Developer Tool).

Hopefully, I'll have some 9600 XT and 9800 XT results in a few days.

#48 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 June 2004 - 01:14 PM

Hey, why don't you run Halo benchmarks like this:

1024x768
Pixel & Vertex Shaders
Everything Maxed (Including sound)
Lens flare on low
No FSAA

That's the way we (those of us who are ATI beta testers) have to do it when we submit feedback about Halo performance.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#49 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 12 June 2004 - 02:00 PM

Quote

Hey, why don't you run Halo benchmarks like this:

1024x768
Pixel & Vertex Shaders
Everything Maxed (Including sound)
Lens flare on low
No FSAA

That's the way we (those of us who are ATI beta testers) have to do it when we submit feedback about Halo performance.

I can run at those settings but that's not going to stress the graphics cards. I'll give it a try, though, to see if I learn anything.

#50 a2daj

a2daj

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3400 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 June 2004 - 02:49 PM

How many times did you run the Halo benches?  Even with as few background process running as possible, I've seen deltas of 3 fps between Halo timedemos, even run sequentially.  If you want to stress the video card in terms of VRAM, I'm not sure if Halo is the best way if you're using Pixel Shaders.  Those are going to strain the GPU rather than the VRAM.  From what I've read the PC version of Call of Duty can take advantage of the extra VRAM.  But not having a a card with 256 MB of VRAM I cannot verify.

Loading up a game with uncompressed textures could fill up VRAM pretty quickly.
Dual 2.5 GHz G5-RADEON X800 -4 GB RAM-Revo 7.1
MBP 2.0GHz -Mobility RADEON X1600-2 GB RAM

#51 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 12 June 2004 - 03:40 PM

Quote

How many times did you run the Halo benches?  Even with as few background process running as possible, I've seen deltas of 3 fps between Halo timedemos, even run sequentially.  If you want to stress the video card in terms of VRAM, I'm not sure if Halo is the best way if you're using Pixel Shaders.

I usually run about 3 runs per setting. I've only see differences in frame rates in tenths. I've been in constant touch with ATI engineers who tell me the best way to stress the GPU, memory, and AGP bandwidth is to set resolution as high as possible, quality settings high, and turn on FSAA.

They specifically wanted me to run Halo since it controls FSAA from within the application.

#52 Daveg5

Daveg5

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts

Posted 12 June 2004 - 06:32 PM

To really stress it you need a large monitor like the 23" cinema or better yet a 22" crt run at the maxium resolution with Max settings and FSAA and shader on.
Unfortunately isn't Halo limited to 1600X1200? You have a great website there at barefeats, keep up the good work.

#53 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 12 June 2004 - 07:33 PM

Quote

To really stress it you need a large monitor like the 23" cinema or better yet a 22" crt run at the maxium resolution with Max settings and FSAA and shader on.
Unfortunately isn't Halo limited to 1600X1200? You have a great website there at barefeats, keep up the good work.

That's what I was using (23" Cinema set to 1900x1200). But as you pointed out, the current version of Halo only goes to 1600x1200. So I turned everything on at highest quality with 6X FSAA.That was when the 256MB version of the 9800 Pro pulled away from 128MB versions (15% faster). Although, the frame rate was still pathetic (9.8 fps). So the exercise was more academic than useful.

Since I posted the article, I used a special version of Halo which I could run at 1920x1200. But only card that would run at 6X FSAA at that setting was the 256MB Special Edition. So I backed off to 4X. The 256MB version of the 9800 Pro was now 21% faster than the 128MB models. But again, sickening slow frame rate: 8.8fps.

The 9800 XT is supposed to have a core clock speed around 8% faster than the Pro Special Edition and a memory clock speed 4% faster. So maybe we'll see 10 fps with it. Wow!

#54 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 12 June 2004 - 08:27 PM

Quote

Hey, why don't you run Halo benchmarks like this:

1024x768
Pixel & Vertex Shaders
Everything Maxed (Including sound)
Lens flare on low
No FSAA

That's the way we (those of us who are ATI beta testers) have to do it when we submit feedback about Halo performance.

Okay. I don't have all the cards with me but here's what I got so far for the settings you requested:
Radeon 9800 Retail (4X, 128M) = 37 fps
Radeon 9800 OEM (8X, 128M) = 35 fps
Radeon 9800 Special Edition (8X, 246M) = 35 fps

I'll get the GeForceFX 5200 and Radeon 9600 numbers next Tuesday.
(Test Mac was a Rev A G5/2.0GHz MP)

#55 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 June 2004 - 08:51 PM

That's more like it.  I don't know if you realize it, but due to a bug in Mac OS X, lens flares aren't GPU rendered--the CPU has to do all of the work, and it simply roasts the framerate.  You should probably redo some of the other tests too, especially the high resolution ones and see if the G5s do better since they can actually feed the R9800's.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#56 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 12 June 2004 - 09:14 PM

Quote

That's more like it.  I don't know if you realize it, but due to a bug in Mac OS X, lens flares aren't GPU rendered--the CPU has to do all of the work, and it simply roasts the framerate.  You should probably redo some of the other tests too, especially the high resolution ones and see if the G5s do better since they can actually feed the R9800's.

I didn't know that. You mean that bug isn't fixed in 1.05?

I'll try rerunning my tests with lens flare off but at 1920x1200 with everything else set to "high" and FSAA on 4X.

#57 a2daj

a2daj

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3400 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 June 2004 - 09:27 PM

Quote

Quote

That's more like it.  I don't know if you realize it, but due to a bug in Mac OS X, lens flares aren't GPU rendered--the CPU has to do all of the work, and it simply roasts the framerate.  You should probably redo some of the other tests too, especially the high resolution ones and see if the G5s do better since they can actually feed the R9800's.

I didn't know that. You mean that bug isn't fixed in 1.05?

I'll try rerunning my tests with lens flare off but at 1920x1200 with everything else set to "high" and FSAA on 4X.

It's an issue with Mac OS X's OpenGL (glReadPixels I think), not Halo.  The necessary gl extension isn't hardware accelerated.  If you look in the forum archives, Duane, Phil, and/or Ken explained it in a bit more detail.  The Lens flare medium or low should suffice.  For the most part there's no noticeable performance hit between med and low.  But once you switch to high, there are parts in the game which slow to a crawl, especially with FSAA on.  Some sections just don't like the combination of FSAA and high/extreme lens flares.  It wouldn't affect the timedemo scores as much as some in game sections do, like the last section of the last level, The Maw.

IMO, I would think UT2K3 or UT2K4 with various levels of FSAA would be a better VRAM test.  You don't have to worry about the card taxing itself with the Pixel Shaders.  You can control the FSAA via the UT2K*.ini file in Application Support since the ATI Displays doesn't currently affect UT2K3 or 4 benchmarks since the benchmark scripts run the UT binary directly within the application package.  ATI Displays can't get the app signature when apps are exected that way.  Ryan Gordon's FSAA instructions
Dual 2.5 GHz G5-RADEON X800 -4 GB RAM-Revo 7.1
MBP 2.0GHz -Mobility RADEON X1600-2 GB RAM

#58 Electrontrap

Electrontrap

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 12 June 2004 - 09:31 PM

Quote

Has anyone else noticed the dark secret of Windows PCs:  they self-destruct over time.  As soon as you take your shiny new PC home, the clock is ticking.  The PC fragments it's HD, and Windows fills up with bloat (including spyware), regardless of what you do.  Pretty soon the computer is crawling on all fours, and you have to reformat to speed it up again.  Then the process starts all over!   :roll:

You hit it on the head.  I'm using a pc right now (buying the 2.5 tomorrow) and I've had to reinstall it twice in the 2 1/2 years i've had it to regain speed.

#59 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 June 2004 - 09:42 PM

Quote

You hit it on the head.  I'm using a pc right now (buying the 2.5 tomorrow) and I've had to reinstall it twice in the 2 1/2 years i've had it to regain speed.

lol . . . thanks for the support!   :-D   I've had to do that to our two PC laptops and my friend who's a pretty avid PC gamer has had the same problem more than once.  I'm going for the Dual 1.8 G5 (with the Radeon 9800 XT, of course) as soon as I sell my Dual 1.25 G4.  Where do you get the money for the Dual 2.5  *pouts*?
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#60 Greg Grant

Greg Grant

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2526 posts

Posted 12 June 2004 - 09:45 PM

My Ghetto PC v3  (as in its died 2 times before) hasn't been subject to evilness. Really the biggest problem I've encountered with PC performance degradation is security:
You cannot install any software without knowing damn well what it is (stay far away from mainstream file swapping unless its a nice hippie open source client which makes it generally spyware free). You must be very careful of anything you download, especially if you're a retard file swapping smurfette, it'll come back to bite you one day. You cannot leave your PC unprotected if you interface with other PCs, check e-mail etc. You shouldn't use IE/outlook since most internet security exploits thrive on IE and Outlook, so using an alternative web browser is important. Always download the security updates the minute they arrive. Then when things do hit the fan, you're left almost without a way to fight it and you're forced to succumb to the "re-install the OS" technique.

Being Mac users makes us less paranoid and a little more, well, innocent. Its actually a good thing.
the IMG audio guy...