which video card for mac G5?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

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?
19 answers Last reply
More about which video card
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "woodsie" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    news:none-1601051220000001@c210-49-174-105.mckinn1.vic.optusnet.com.au...
    > 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
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    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" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    news:none-1601051220000001@c210-49-174-105.mckinn1.vic.optusnet.com.au...
    > 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?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Augustus wrote:
    > "woodsie" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    > news:none-1601051220000001@c210-49-174-105.mckinn1.vic.optusnet.com.au...
    >> 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. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    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?
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    > 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
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    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?
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    In article <352k24F4h9f5cU1@individual.net>, "Benjamin Gawert"
    <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:

    >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

    thanks for your input.

    bit hard to work out what to do when so many people have opposite
    opinions. guess i'll start off with someone lower on the list and see how
    that goes.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    woodsie wrote:

    > thanks for your input.
    >
    > bit hard to work out what to do when so many people have opposite
    > opinions. guess i'll start off with someone lower on the list and see
    > how that goes.

    Well, You should know that in PeeCee-Land the FX5200 has a bad reputation
    simply because it's too slow for most modern games. It is a full DirectX9
    card which supports all the nice goodies but doesn't perform well enough to
    be able to be useful for Dx9 games. So that's one reason for negative
    feedacks.

    The second reason is probably that most people never would buy a FX5200 for
    themselves, because it's a low-end card. But most of these people also never
    would recommend a FX5200 for other people, despite the fact that not
    everyone does gaming and that the FX5200 (or any other card of that price
    range) is more than enough for the supposed tasks.

    But You're not a gamer, and You also are going to buy a Mac for which the
    list of available cards is quite short compared to PC-Land. The FX5200Ultra
    Apple sells with the Powermac G5 isn't the fastest card, and if You were
    into serious gaming You probably would be much better with i.e. the
    Geforce6800 DDL, but for the applications You listed, none of the other
    availabe card will bring You _any_ benefit. Just a higher price...

    The Apple FX5200U also has a very good analog signal quality (better than
    Apples Radeon 9600), and it's passive cooled. A nice thing if You consider
    that the Powermac G5 is extremely silent...

    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. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    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. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    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" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
    news:356t8pF4jofocU2@individual.net...
    > 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?
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    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" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
    > news:356t8pF4jofocU2@individual.net...
    >> 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)
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    > 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?

    No, my definition of "thin client" isn't different from that of the rest of
    the industry, considering the company I work for, Neoware, basically is the
    rest of the industry. We're the leading Thin Client provider in the world
    next to Wyse Technologies, but anyone who knows the industry intimately
    knows that Wyse is approaching its last days (we almost bought them out last
    quarter). That said, look at the units offered at www.neoware.com if you're
    curious. My group develops the Linux version of our products. I used to work
    on the WinCE and XPe versions as well but NeoLinux (the custom Linux distro
    we use on our Thin Clients) is much more fun to engineer.

    Anyway... "Any chip that can't render fast enough to function in a thin
    client is broken." - True, but I didn't say the chipsets didn't render fast
    enough to function. They all function. However, when the CPU of the TC is
    not the bottleneck, apparent differences can be seen (in 2D graphics
    benchmarks) between the various graphics chipsets. Either way though
    "rendering fast enough" is completely relative.

    A specific example would be to compare two hypothetical hardware platforms
    both running 800mhz VIA C3 processors, one unit using a VIA graphics
    chipset, the other using an S3 chipset. In an ICA or RDP benchmark the
    800mhz unit with the VIA chipset would complete a sequence of 2D X drawing
    directives 30% faster than the S3 chipset. There ya have it.

    Tony
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Tony DiMarzio wrote:

    >> 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?
    >
    > No, my definition of "thin client" isn't different from that of the rest
    > of the industry, considering the company I work for, Neoware, basically is
    > the rest of the industry. We're the leading Thin Client provider in the
    > world next to Wyse Technologies, but anyone who knows the industry
    > intimately knows that Wyse is approaching its last days (we almost bought
    > them out last quarter). That said, look at the units offered at
    > www.neoware.com if you're curious. My group develops the Linux version of
    > our products. I used to work on the WinCE and XPe versions as well but
    > NeoLinux (the custom Linux distro we use on our Thin Clients) is much more
    > fun to engineer.
    >
    > Anyway... "Any chip that can't render fast enough to function in a thin
    > client is broken." - True, but I didn't say the chipsets didn't render
    > fast enough to function. They all function. However, when the CPU of the
    > TC is not the bottleneck, apparent differences can be seen (in 2D graphics
    > benchmarks) between the various graphics chipsets. Either way though
    > "rendering fast enough" is completely relative.
    >
    > A specific example would be to compare two hypothetical hardware platforms
    > both running 800mhz VIA C3 processors, one unit using a VIA graphics
    > chipset, the other using an S3 chipset. In an ICA or RDP benchmark the
    > 800mhz unit with the VIA chipset would complete a sequence of 2D X drawing
    > directives 30% faster than the S3 chipset. There ya have it.

    Geez, I thought you were talking about a video chip that somebody might
    actually use in a PC.

    Now, do you see a difference between an FX5200 and a 6800 Ultra in that
    application?

    > Tony

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    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

    Thin Clients? Well, ok, if You want to extend it to embedded devices and
    thin clients You're probably right.

    I was speaking of what's available for PCs and Macs which is probably what's
    important for most people here.

    I have a thin client here (HP t5500 with ATI RageXC 8MB), and even when its
    brand new, its gfx core is way older than just five years. Such cores are in
    use in a lot of appliances, but it makes almost zero sense when diskussing
    about PC and Mac gfx...

    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?
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    > Thin Clients? Well, ok, if You want to extend it to embedded devices and
    > thin clients You're probably right.
    >
    > I was speaking of what's available for PCs and Macs which is probably
    > what's important for most people here.
    >
    > I have a thin client here (HP t5500 with ATI RageXC 8MB),

    I had to do some devel work on the HP t5500. I know it well :) Not a bad
    device, but pales in comparison to our competing devices. HP needs to do
    some serious restructuring and re-planning in their Thin Client department
    if they expect to make it.

    > and even when its brand new, its gfx core is way older than just five
    > years. Such cores are in use in a lot of appliances, but it makes almost
    > zero sense when diskussing about PC and Mac gfx...
    >

    Agreed... it doesn't make much sense when discussing PC and Mac mainstream
    graphics chipsets.

    > 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?
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:csofa601c6o@news2.newsguy.com...
    > Tony DiMarzio wrote:
    >
    >>> 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?
    >>
    >> No, my definition of "thin client" isn't different from that of the rest
    >> of the industry, considering the company I work for, Neoware, basically
    >> is
    >> the rest of the industry. We're the leading Thin Client provider in the
    >> world next to Wyse Technologies, but anyone who knows the industry
    >> intimately knows that Wyse is approaching its last days (we almost bought
    >> them out last quarter). That said, look at the units offered at
    >> www.neoware.com if you're curious. My group develops the Linux version of
    >> our products. I used to work on the WinCE and XPe versions as well but
    >> NeoLinux (the custom Linux distro we use on our Thin Clients) is much
    >> more
    >> fun to engineer.
    >>
    >> Anyway... "Any chip that can't render fast enough to function in a thin
    >> client is broken." - True, but I didn't say the chipsets didn't render
    >> fast enough to function. They all function. However, when the CPU of the
    >> TC is not the bottleneck, apparent differences can be seen (in 2D
    >> graphics
    >> benchmarks) between the various graphics chipsets. Either way though
    >> "rendering fast enough" is completely relative.
    >>
    >> A specific example would be to compare two hypothetical hardware
    >> platforms
    >> both running 800mhz VIA C3 processors, one unit using a VIA graphics
    >> chipset, the other using an S3 chipset. In an ICA or RDP benchmark the
    >> 800mhz unit with the VIA chipset would complete a sequence of 2D X
    >> drawing
    >> directives 30% faster than the S3 chipset. There ya have it.
    >
    > Geez, I thought you were talking about a video chip that somebody might
    > actually use in a PC.

    Nope

    >
    > Now, do you see a difference between an FX5200 and a 6800 Ultra in that
    > application?
    >

    Rhetorical question I'm assuming? In case it's not - I am unable to test
    that because there is no "Thin Client" in the world that could accommodate
    either an FX5200 or 6800 Ultra. Even if there did exist ThinClients which
    used those chipsets, the bottleneck would be the low power low tech CPU's of
    the TC's and not the graphics chipsets.

    Even without testing, I highly doubt there is an appreciable 2D performance
    difference between the FX5200 or 6800U, or between any recent ATI or NVidia
    offering for that matter. The performance differences are really only there
    between the low end chips from S3, VIA, SiS etc..

    >> Tony
    >
    > --
    > --John
    > Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    In article <356t8oF4jofocU1@individual.net>, "Benjamin Gawert"
    <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:

    >woodsie wrote:
    >
    >> thanks for your input.
    >>
    >> bit hard to work out what to do when so many people have opposite
    >> opinions. guess i'll start off with someone lower on the list and see
    >> how that goes.
    >
    >Well, You should know that in PeeCee-Land the FX5200 has a bad reputation
    >simply because it's too slow for most modern games. It is a full DirectX9
    >card which supports all the nice goodies but doesn't perform well enough to
    >be able to be useful for Dx9 games. So that's one reason for negative
    >feedacks.
    >
    >The second reason is probably that most people never would buy a FX5200 for
    >themselves, because it's a low-end card. But most of these people also never
    >would recommend a FX5200 for other people, despite the fact that not
    >everyone does gaming and that the FX5200 (or any other card of that price
    >range) is more than enough for the supposed tasks.
    >
    >But You're not a gamer, and You also are going to buy a Mac for which the
    >list of available cards is quite short compared to PC-Land. The FX5200Ultra
    >Apple sells with the Powermac G5 isn't the fastest card, and if You were
    >into serious gaming You probably would be much better with i.e. the
    >Geforce6800 DDL, but for the applications You listed, none of the other
    >availabe card will bring You _any_ benefit. Just a higher price...
    >
    >The Apple FX5200U also has a very good analog signal quality (better than
    >Apples Radeon 9600), and it's passive cooled. A nice thing if You consider
    >that the Powermac G5 is extremely silent...

    thanks again. but i've ordered the 9600. lol.

    oh well guess it won't kill me.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    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. 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
    >
    >

    Definantly a difference here between the XFX 6800GT I haveon the shelf
    and this PowerColour X800XT PE. With the ATI card, 1920X1440 is now
    crystal clear and 205?X15?? is now usable! Seems ATI is still ahead with
    delivering quality images on screen..

    Minotaur (8*
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Minotaur wrote:
    > Tony DiMarzio wrote:

    > Definantly a difference here between the XFX 6800GT I haveon the shelf
    > and this PowerColour X800XT PE. With the ATI card, 1920X1440 is now
    > crystal clear and 205?X15?? is now usable! Seems ATI is still ahead
    > with delivering quality images on screen..

    Fine! But we talked about differences in 2D performance, not image quality.
    And image quality has nothing to do if there's an ATI or Nvidia GPU on the
    chip, it depends on how much the gfx board manufacturer invests in the
    output filters. So in Your case it's not "ATI has better image quality than
    Nvidia", it's simply "the ATI board from Powercolor has a better image
    quality than the Geforce from XFX". I also had a Powercolor gfx card that
    had a great analog signal quality, but it had an Geforce4 Ti4200 on it.
    Looks like Powercolor cares more than XFX for the filter quality...

    There are enough cards out there that have piss-poor image quality with ATI
    GPU, and there also are Nvidia cards which provide very good images. The
    manufacturer of the GPU has nothing to do with that...

    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?
Ask a new question

Read More

Nvidia Graphics Cards Macintosh Graphics