It is great new to hear that MorphOS 2.6 will support Powermacs (possibly even more than just the MDD).

But when will we get support for better video cards? Currently I've got a converted PC Radeon 9250 in my Powermac, but I've got an Apple 4X 9800Pro that would male a better substitute sitting unused.

With the new processor power we'll have on hand, more powerful graphic cards would be a natural match.

> With the new processor power we'll have on hand

Will we? I didn't read any confirmation regarding 3rd party processor upgrade support yet.

An overclocked 1.47 would be enough for me. Faster then the Pegasos (by far), or Mac Mini.

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/8/23 1:09 ]

Faster that my 1.83Ghz MacMini? ;)

> An overclocked 1.47 wound be enough for me,. Faster theb [...] Mac Mini.

If you consider overclocked PowerMac to be fair you'd have to consider overclocked Mac mini (like pampers's 1.83 GHz) as well. And btw, 1.47 GHz 7455(B) (3.5% overclocked from 1.42 GHz?) isn't necessarily faster than 1.50 GHz 7447A/B.

It'sard to believe that the Mac Mini can run that fast without melting down. And I've seen MDD's running above 1.6Ghz, Further, we don't know that 7447 and 7448 processor cards won't be supported.

Besides, you're missing the point. With processors running 50% (ot more) faster than the Pegasos it would be nice to have access to more advanced video cards.

I'm not asking for a huge development. I have an AGP 4650 on one X86 system. I'm not asking for something that advanced.

But a driver for the 9500, 9700, and 9800 can't be too much to ask for.

While AROS is poised to support fairly recent Nvidia cards, we're stuck with old hardware that didn't have much power when it was introduced.

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/7/20 16:36 ]

Quote:

That's 60% more than a Commodore 64.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

> It'sard to believe that the Mac Mini can run that fast without melting down.

I think you can safely believe it:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7135&forum=11&post_id=73741#73741

> I've seen MDD's running above 1.6Mhz

Above or below 1.83 GHz without 3rd party CPU upgrade? That's the important question if you want to compare overclocked PowerMac G4 to overclocked Mac mini G4 in terms of CPU speed.

> we don't know that 7447 and 7448 processor cards won't be supported.

As long as something is not explicitly said to be supported it's better not to assume that it will be supported. Again, regarding 7448 support (you seem to have missed that):

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=74602#74602

> you're missing the point.

No, I just didn't address it intentionally. I addressed your implication that processor speed of MorphOS supported PowerMac G4 will be better than processor speed of Mac mini G4. But as long as 3rd party CPU upgrades are not supported, Mac mini G4 will have faster CPU than PowerMac G4.

> With processors running 50% (ot more) faster than the Pegasos

PowerMac G4 1.42 GHz is only 42% faster than Pegasos II G4 clock-wise.

Jim - believe me. My Mini is not melted at all. What is more under MorphOS fan isn't any noiser that before overclocking at all.

@all
the only """limit""" of Mac Mini G4 with ATI Radeon 9200 64mb vram is the graphic card, you can see for exemple this simple 3D test at 1280x104 Quake 3 in OSX :

- Mac Mini G4@1500, 1gb ram ddr, gfx AGP ATI Radeon 9200 64Mb, OSX 10.5.8 39,9 fps.

- PowerMac MDD Dual G4@1420, 2.0gb ddr ram, gfx AGP ATI Radeon 9250 128Mb (USED in SINGLE! CPU mode), OSX 10.5.8 75,7 fps.

- PowerMac MDD Dual G4@1420, 2.0gb ddr ram, gfx AGP ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 64Mb (USED in SINGLE! CPU mode), OSX 10.5.8 87,3 fps.

- PowerMac Quicksilver G4@867, 1.5gb sdram ram, gfx AGP ATI Radeon 9250 128Mb, OSX 10.5.8. 71,7 fps.

CUSTOM Quake3 settings used :
GL extension ON
Video mode 640x480 o 800x600 o 1024x768 o 1280x1024
Color Depth 32bit
Fullscreen ON
Lighting Lightmap
Geometric Detail HIGH
Texture Detail level MAX.
Texture Quality 32bit
Texture Filter Trilinear

details here :
http://amiga.ikirsector.it/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13185

I think We'll have a big JUMP with PowerMac G4 supported in MorphOS, in particular with MDD/FW800 versions.

@Jim
sure It'll very useful to use on day gfx ATI Radeon 9800 pro/xt, 9600 ..etc.. with 2D and 3D supported in MorphOS :)



[ Edited by Divinity on 2010/7/20 16:52 ]

This has to be the most frustrating thread I've ever dealt with.
Each of you has intentionally avoided the main point.

When using any computer, I've failed to notice small differences in speed. A 1.6 Ghz Powermac vs a 1.83 Ghz Mac Mini? That's hardly enough of a gain to really impact performance noticeably.

In fact, if I could get faster hard drive access via SCSI or RAID, then the slower machine would feel more responsive.

But none of this addresses the original point of the thread, my question still being when are we going to get support for more powerful video cards? That would impact performance more than small overclocking gain.

As the development team already has experience writing driver for the radeon 92xx, how much more complicated can the other 9xxx card be?

@Jim
I dont't know but I's sure one day We'll see something of interesting about 2D and 3D in MorphOS with Radeon 9800, 9600 ... now It's possibile with PowerMac G4 supported, while more complex before with older AGP slot in Pegasos2 and Pegasos1


[ Edited by Divinity on 2010/7/20 16:55 ]

Thanks Divinity,
Trust me, I know these guys already understood the point you made so well. Processor speed is only part of the equation. Now that we have higher speed processors, its the graphics systems that are slowing us down.

I know we've discussed this before, and I appreciate you actually addressing the topic of the thread. Perhaps the reason for all these diversions is that we all know we could use better GPU support.

Hopefully ver. 2.6 will bring some new video drivers to complement the Powermac support,.

here useful url for big overclock of PowerMac MDD/FW800 :) and other useful :)

http://bitsandpieces.info/Multipliers.htm

http://bitsandpieces.info

http://www.macmod.com/internal-mods/powermac/188-really-cool-g4

> Each of you has intentionally avoided the main point.

It's never a good idea to mix a valid point with half-truths or even non-truths. Just stick to the valid point and all is well :-)

> When using any computer, I've failed to notice small differences in speed. A 1.6 Ghz
> Powermac vs a 1.83 Ghz Mac Mini? That's hardly enough of a gain to really impact
> performance noticeably.

Hard, factual numbers don't have anything to do with your or me noticing them. 1.50 is more than 1.42, and 1.83 is more than 1.60. No feelings or such could ever change that fact. I'd have had no problem if you for instance said that PowerMac G4 and Mac mini G4 were *much the same* regarding CPU speed. But you didn't say that. You implied that MorphOS supported PowerMac G4 has *faster* CPU speed than Mac mini G4, which is simply reversed truth.

> In fact, if I could get faster hard drive access via SCSI or RAID, then the slower
> machine would feel more responsive.

True, but your first posting mentions "new processor power" of MorphOS supported PowerMac G4, which I was referring to.

> none of this addresses the original point of the thread, my question still being when
> are we going to get support for more powerful video cards?

No one of us MorphOS Team non-members can answer this question. So it's really no wonder your "original point" is under-addressed. And I think you know pretty well that almost every MorphOS user (including me) would welcome support for better GPUs. It's just that loads of "me too want it" responses wouldn't really help with anything because the MorphOS Team is quite aware already.

Actually Andreas,
If you read the original post I never mentioned the Mac Mini. Actually, I was thinking of Macs in general versus the Pegasos.
Since neither the Mac Mini you have or the eMac I have, have upgradable graphics the majority of these posts have failed to even address the topic - video cards.
I couldn't care less if the fastest Mac Mini is faster than the fastest MDD Powermac. If a better video card can be installed in the Powermac its going to outperform the Mac Mini in video operations.
In fact, were it equipped with a Radeon 9800, a much slower Powermac would produce higher fps than a Mac Mini.
That's why I'm looking forward to support of Macs with upgradable graphics.
I have no doubt we'll see a Radeon 9800 driver eventually, but imagine what we could do with 3850 or 4650 AGP card

> If you read the original post I never mentioned the Mac Mini.

Yes, that's been the whole basis of my "complaint" to begin with. It seems you ignored the Mac mini and thus came to your conclusion that "new processor power we'll have on hand" (future tense) as soon as MorphOS for PowerMac G4 is released, while in reality in a MorphOS context the PowerMac G4 will actually deliver *less* processor power than the Mac mini G4.

> Actually, I was thinking of Macs in general versus the Pegasos.

Your usage of future tense in your "new processor power" statement led me to think that you were thinking of PowerMac G4 specifically versus the Pegasos (and thus ignoring the Mac mini). But if that's not the case then all the better. Then my complaint becomes moot :-)

> Since neither the Mac Mini you have or the eMac I have, have upgradable graphics
> the majority of these posts have failed to even address the topic - video cards.

Yes, no doubt. I was just bothered about the "new processor power" statement.

> I couldn't care less if the fastest Mac Mini is faster than the fastest MDD Powermac.

I think you could, see: "overclocked 1.47 wound be [...] Faster theb [...] Mac Mini" and
"It'sard to believe that the Mac Mini can run that fast without melting down. And I've seen MDD's running above 1.6Ghz, Further, we don't know that 7447 and 7448 processor cards won't be supported." ;-)

Jim: in fairness, what software will use the full power of that better gfx cards?

Quote:

I've seen some pretty good 3D games so far (with current hardware) and if better graphics solutions are supported, only a portion of our base will have them initially. As developers are likely to code for the average machine your question is a good one.

Like the X86 market, I imagine the main advantage might be in supporting higher playable resolutions or the implementation of anti-aliasing.
And, of course, as more powerful video cards become more common, software with the kind of realism you usually only see on other systems could become a reality.

And I would like to apologize to those of you who mistook my statements on CPU power as a negative comment on integrated Macs. I am quite impressed with the Mac Mini and its overclocking ability is astounding.
Currently, I use an eMac because its cheaper and only slightly slower (both these systems are faster than a much more expensive Pegasos).
But neither the eMac nor the Mac Mini has upgradable graphics.
Years ago I had both a Radeon 9000 Pro and a Radeon9500Pro (which is basically a 9700 with a 128bit memory bus). The 9500 ran circles around the 9000. I kept that card longer than any other video card I've ever owned.
When I replaced it, I bought an X800 and then later a 3850.
My processors have only improved in small amounts, but in some of my software now produces fps ratess 5 or 6 times higher.
Right now, we have fairly good processors (with the hope of even faster processors in the future). Its time to move forward to more powerful GPUs.

Quote:
I am fairly optimistic for at least a 9700 driver since this gfx chip is used with the 1.67 Ghz 15" powerbooks for which support is worked on.

Thanks Zylesea,
Andreas has always told me you were one of the more knowledgable people on the forum.

If a 9700 driver is created then 9500Pro cards will work too (not standard 9500s just the Pros) as the 9500Pro only has a reduced memory bus (128bit). Under Windows, both cards are recognized as 9700s.
And since the 9800 is just a slight enhancement of the 9700, perhaps we'll see that as well.

> I am fairly optimistic for at least a 9700 driver

...which would automatically include 9500 support because (as outlined by Jim) the 9700 and the 9500 have the same GPU (R300).


Edit: Been too slow ;-)

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf on 2010/7/21 1:47 ]

Better GFX-cards maybe nice, but AFAIK there is still plenty of headroom when it comes to supporting/useing all features present in currently supported cards.

Yes, there is a lot of room for enhancing current drivers.

I'm impressed that MorphOS developers have been able to create better 2D/3D than you find on almost any other alternative OS. Support for shaders, anti aliasing, and a number of other functions is missing, but its got to be difficult to implement functions that have little or no documentation.

The main reason I've mentioned newer graphic cards is simply speed.
Without attempting to implement any more functionality than is present in the 92XX drivers a 9700/9800 driver would greatly enhance our fps.

More pipelines, more speed. Simple. The Radeon 9700/9800 is a natural expansion of our current video card support. Apple used them and they're related to cards we already have support for.

We have the CPU power to exploit these cards. The Radeon 9XXX is a good card, but the 9700 is better. And, at today's pricing there's little difference in the cost between the two.