• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ATI losing ground: NVidia takes Apple

misle

misle

Diamond Member
I read an interesting article on MacWorld, all the new G4's and iMacs will be using the GeForce2 MX chipset. Only the lowest priced Macs will have the ATI 128 Pro chipset. Interesting.

What do you guys think?
Link to Article
 
But ATi still will be making the graphics chips to go into the Nintendo Gamecube, they still have a large share of the tv-tuner market w/ the All-in-Wonders and the Tv Wonders, and finally they still have a lot of OEM deals. I can't believe so many people are taking this Apple thing as I sign that ATI is getting into financial trouble, when APPLE has been the company losing ground over the last few months. They got some market share back when the iMac came out, but they're starting to fall again. This isn't that big of a loss for ATI (apple has less than 10% of the desktop market).
 
I really don't think it matters - Apple couldn't have accounted for much of ATI's business anyways.

But seriously, why would Apple use GeForce2 MX cards? The cards are ok in terms of speed, but their visual quality is not as good as a Radeon.

Personally, I think Apple should have pushed Matrox for Mac drivers and gone with Matrox G450 cards
 
Posted last week, but...

I thing people forget is that you don't have to get a Geforce 2 MX in the higher end machines - you can substitute in a Radeon, or at least that's my understanding of it. I don't know how much extra it'd cost, if anything, but I'd probably do that if I were a Mac user.

And, the Mac laptops will still be ATI.
 
I think it may have to do with OSX. Maybe they wanted better drivers for their new flagship OS. Who knows. General consumers want features. OEM's want drivers and features.
 


<< apple has less than 10% of the desktop market >>


Try telling that to a Mac addict. They will claim it's much higher and get all emotional over it <grin>.

Didn't ATi make some big mistake by revealing that they were going to be supplying the G4's with Radeons BEFORE Steve &quot;knob&quot; Jobs said it was ok to announce it? Apple seems to be very secretive about their new products, and that's probably why ATi got screwed on that deal.

I recently saw a review on a Mac G4 in Maximum PC, and it had the old Rage 128 card in it! It's selling for like $3500 without a monitor.
 
if i were a Mac user, i'd go for ATI or Matrox. since Mac is not for 3D gaming, and lot of people use it for professional graphic editing.

i dont think driver would be the issue tere. ATI's driver may suck for retail cards, but they do have strong teams for OEM drivers, that's one of the reasons ATI holds a strong OEM market share.
 
&quot;and lot of people use it for professional graphic editing&quot;

And Apple wants in on the pro 3D market. Maya on a Radeon😕😉

Remember that we all know exactly what the issue is with the 2D quality and trinis, that means that both Apple and nVidia also surely know. Apple can specify board level components, plus start up a business relationship now with nVidia to aid them in landing the NV20 pro level board to help them realize their desires in the pro 3D market with both OSX and Maya coming.

Not to mention that the NV20 itself will obliterate the Radeon for the Mac gamers🙂
 
That's a good point, Polar. Most Apples are used for graphics and users are not worried about how many FPS or 3DMark scores they can come up with. For sheer detail of graphic images, ATi wins.
 
Yeah, Compellor, Jobs had a tantrum over ATI's announcement coming before Apple's. From what I have read he has made many mistakes based on emotion and has been characterized as a sociopath.
 
Not to mention that the NV20 itself will obliterate the Radeon for the Mac gamers🙂

Actually most Mac gamers won't see any difference between any half-decent video card because they're extremely CPU limited.
 
Not necessarily.
The G4's are pretty fast, I mean a 500 MHz G4 can beat 750+ P3's in alot of stuff(not just Photoshop).
And once the G4+ comes out, they'll start moving forwards in terms of MHz.

IMO Apple's biggest problem isnt the CPU, but the lack of high end vid cards(which seem like it could be fixed with the NV20, and the horrendous prices.
 


<< IMO Apple's biggest problem isnt the CPU, but the lack of high end vid cards(which seem like it could be fixed with the NV20, and the horrendous prices. >>



Yeah, why are they using ATi Rage 128 video cards in the G4? That card is about as old as a TNT! They also charge a lot of money for their systems -- it's no wonder why they are hurting.
 
I think some of you are jumping to the wrong conclusions. While ATI may have had good PC OEM driver support their Mac driver support has been abismal with months &amp; months between a PC product launch and the Mac one. Not to mention overpriced legacy products ATI is still trying to push onto the market.

And also while the Radeon may have somewhat better quality 3D in some situations(OGL with Anistropic and Q3 texture compression). The Geforce has greater image accuracy for professional applications. And greater T&amp;L perfomance in general. For gaming on the Mac the Radeon might be the better choice depending on how the drivers work for you. For professional usage on the Mac the MX(200MHz core) is the superior choice.

As for 2D quality, thats an issue of the card design, not the chipset itself. Which since the cards will be Custom for Apple shouldn't be a problem. Not to mention that the MX has support for dual-head/Twinview functionality.
 
for those of you who think of Nvidia as the 3D king, this will show you that what pro 3D needs is not the big numbers in Mhz, Mpix/s, or Mtex/s. who believs that 3d animaton can be done on a $100 MX card?

check Tomshardware review of FireGL2 vs Nvidia Quadro pro

this is quote from conclusion:

&quot;Diamond FireGL2 takes the lead over the Quadro2 Pro card in the majority of benchmark categories. This test proves that the crucial point with OpenGL is not high polygon and fill rates, as with 3D gaming.
The FireGL developer team from Starnberg/Germany did an excellent job adjusting hardware to professional workstation applications and optimizing drivers for AMD and Intel platforms.
Diamond tested an impressive amount of applications as well. The conclusion is therefore rather simple. Diamond's FireGL2 definitely deserves our recommendation.
The FireGL2 has a good price/performance ratio, and all necessary connectors are in place: We find analog VGA Out, a DVI I connector for digital flat panels and a socket for the CrystalEyes-spectacles from Stereographics. The recommended retail price of US$1200 leaves FireGL2 within the &quot;sweet spot&quot;.
Looking at the Quadro2 Pro reference card aka Elsa's Gloria III, NVIDIA's origin from 3D gaming becomes quite obvious. NVIDIA Quadro 2 Pro was able to gain considerably over last year's Quadro chip, but Diamonds equally priced product is able to show NVIDIA who is boss. The only time FireGL2 demonstrates some weaknesses is with texture-intensive models.&quot;
 
With the sorry state of Apple these days, this isn't such a big deal, at least in the short run. In the long run, however, if Macs were to see a huge resurgence, it would definitely be good for NVIDIA. As it is though, this isn't exactly going to kill ATI or make NVIDIA all-powerful.
 
LOL Compellor!!!

<< Try telling that to a Mac addict. They will claim it's much higher and get all emotional over it <grin>. >>


I know multiple people like this. I am anti-mac and I like to give em a hard time 😉
 
Sunner:

The G4's are pretty fast, I mean a 500 MHz G4 can beat 750+ P3's in alot of stuff(not just Photoshop).

You can believe Apple's marketing bullsh*t (ie Photoshop) if you wish. But in 3D games, clock for clock even a Celeron beats a G4.

IMO Apple's biggest problem isnt the CPU,

Yes it is.
 
Polar-

The DiamondFireGL2 is a decent board, but it also has the advantage of being quite a bit more recent and also is more expensive. Furthermore, that is one board in the QuadroII's range, look how many 3DLabs, E&amp;S and Intergraph boards the QuadroII is besting(some costing well over twice the price). nVidia isn't the best, to date from what I have seen I would have to say HP's fx10 is king of the hill, but you will pay a very steep price for it. Also, Diamond hasn't announced a Mac board yet that I am aware of and even if they do, it will be a pro only solution.

BFG-

Have you seen the Q3 scores running OSX on a G4 yet? Huge performance jump(nearly double OS9's). As of this moment, I would say that the OS is Apple's biggest problem.

 

Companies do there homework but at the end of the day, they make their choices and play their cards. Steve Jobbs is a demanding individual who likes to be in the driver's seat. The move to Nvidia will afford him a slightly better situation to negotiate on price in the future by way of choice. The MX's flat panel display interface is broken so the end cost for them to support this using an extenal chip will be higher. I think that OEMs have been getting tremendous value from graphics cards(HDTV, DVD, MPEG, flat panel) and in the future expect paired down features (i.e. choice) for those OEMs who want a better price in further cost reduced graphic chip offerings.
 
BenSkywalker:

you are missing my point here. what i want to say is that pro 3D is totally different from 3D gaming. a good FPS in Q3 doesn't mean the card can do well in MAYA, or 3DS MAX. if G4 is targetting at pro 3D market, IMO Apple should seek for something more professional than MX.

BFG10K:

games suck on Macs, IMO, is mainly due to the lack of optimization for RISC architecture. although i have no experience of programimg on Mac, but usually, writing/optimizing code on RISC can easily double the performance of a 80x86 architetured cpu.
 
&quot;what i want to say is that pro 3D is totally different from 3D gaming. a good FPS in Q3 doesn't mean the card can do well in MAYA, or 3DS MAX. if G4 is targetting at pro 3D market, IMO Apple should seek for something more professional than MX.&quot;

True to a point. In the case of the GF2MX, the only thing holding it back on the PC side is drivers. By modding one resistor you can install the &quot;SGI&quot;, Elsa or Quadro nVidia drivers for PCs and have a very capable pro 3D card. Fillrate and texture memory bandwith is of very little importance on a pro 3D board, and with the Apple MX clocking at 200MHZ, it could very easily compete favorably with a Quadro2 for most tasks.

That wasn't my main point though. My main point is that the NV20 and its' pro variants are coming(which will be significantly better then the GF line of cards), the GF2MX is a good chance for Apple to build up a working relationship with nVidia.
 
BenSkywalker:

Have you seen the Q3 scores running OSX on a G4 yet? Huge performance jump(nearly double OS9's).

Yes I have seen them but keep in mind the following:

(1) The PC scores were lower to what they should have been.
(2) I'd say the there's more to the Mac scores that meets the eye (ie there's something that they're not telling us).
(3) The newest version of Quake 3 for PCs provides a large performance gain.

Quake 3 is the exception to the rule because it's been heavily optimised for Altivec and SMP on the Mac. The PC version has no SSE/3Dnow! optimisations and hardly any SMP optimisations.

Polar:

IMO, is mainly due to the lack of optimization for RISC architecture.

It's mainly due to the OS, drivers and a lack of write combining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top