Best video card for a Powermac G5?
  • Just looking around
    EchsBachs
    Posts: 18 from 2017/4/30
    Hey guys,

    Been running Morph on my MacMini for a while now, and acquired a Powermac 7,3 dual G5. The only downside is it has a Geforce video card so Morph won't load. I have a spare Radeon HD 5770, but I don't see that listed as supported, nor can I find if that actually even works in a G5 with the Pci-e power connection.

    So my questions are as follows:

    - Whats the BEST video card to currently use?
    - Does the video card have to be a Mac edition? (I will not be loading OS X, just Morph)
    - Any chance the video card could support a res of 3440x1440?

    Thank you in advance!
  • »10.05.17 - 11:08
    Profile Visit Website
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    EchsBachs wrote:

    - Whats the BEST video card to currently use?
    - Does the video card have to be a Mac edition? (I will not be loading OS X, just Morph)
    - Any chance the video card could support a res of 3440x1440?



    1. The best (fastest working) gfx card on AGP G5 PowerMac is currently Radeon X800XT (X850XT).
    2. If you're going to use only MorphOS - it doesn't. But if you wish to finetune something in Open Firmware - do that before you switch the gfx card to a PC one.
    3. No idea with ultrawide, sadly (I'd rather say it's a "no"). It does run at 1920x1200 with no problem, but that ultrawide res has got more than twice as many pixels to draw.
  • »10.05.17 - 12:15
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 9331 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    >> Does the video card have to be a Mac edition?

    > If you're going to use only MorphOS - it doesn't.

    That's only true for cards with AtomBIOS, i.e. R500-based and later cards. So R400-based cards like the X800XT or X850XT have to be a Mac edition, or a PC edition re-flashed with PPC ROM.
  • »10.05.17 - 13:18
    Profile
  • Just looking around
    EchsBachs
    Posts: 18 from 2017/4/30
    Ok great! Thanks everyone. Looking forward to getting it working :)
  • »10.05.17 - 14:37
    Profile Visit Website
  • Moderator
    Kronos
    Posts: 1679 from 2003/2/24
    Cards with duallink DVI (Radeon 9650 for example) can produce 2560x1600@60Hz. Higher resolutions can be achieved by reducing the refresh rate, wether your monitor will work at anything below 60 is something you have to try yourself.
    --------------------- May the 4th be with you ------------------
    Mother Russia dance of the Zar, don't you know how lucky you are
  • »11.05.17 - 07:38
    Profile
  • esc
  • Butterfly
    Butterfly
    esc
    Posts: 90 from 2013/5/28
    +1 for the X800XT, but I'd recommend tracking down a legit Mac one. There's nothing worse than compatibility frustration. Just do it right the first time and don't worry about it after that.
  • »11.05.17 - 14:22
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    esc wrote:
    +1 for the X800XT, but I'd recommend tracking down a legit Mac one. There's nothing worse than compatibility frustration. Just do it right the first time and don't worry about it after that.


    Even when properly tracked, Mac version can be troublesome - as seen in the "X800 (X850?) XT issues" thread...
  • »11.05.17 - 17:07
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    ThePlayer
    Posts: 1016 from 2003/3/24
    From: Hamburg/Germany
    And what about the x1900xt ?
    PowerBook 17" SuperHD-Display MOD 1920x1200 :)
  • »22.05.17 - 20:30
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    ThePlayer wrote:
    And what about the x1900xt ?


    What about it? The AGP version is built on an PCIe-AGP bridge and it's transfers are somewhat dissapointing (at least in Linux, and that's what our drivers are based on, AFAIR). So it's still X800XT, sir. I just hope I can get my X850XT to work properly after all...
  • »22.05.17 - 20:36
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    ThePlayer
    Posts: 1016 from 2003/3/24
    From: Hamburg/Germany
    How much slower is the x19x0 compared to a x8x0?
    Where can i find the Benchmarks?
    PowerBook 17" SuperHD-Display MOD 1920x1200 :)
  • »24.10.17 - 15:56
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    ThePlayer wrote:
    How much slower is the x19x0 compared to a x8x0?
    Where can i find the Benchmarks?


    I'd ask Bigfoot, as he's the source of this information.
    The built-in MorphOS gfx card benchmark doesn't confirm the X850XT is 'teh fastest card'. In fact both 9800 Pro and 9650 score slightly better than it. But I guess the real difference would be in some Quake (or other 3D intensive game) benches.
    If you need any comparison 'real life' benchmarks - I can do them for you. Currently I have an Apple X850XT in my G5.
  • »24.10.17 - 16:11
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4297 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    At this point it's an issue of speed, price, and resolution.
    A Radeon 9800 might be cheaper, the X800XT should be faster (but may not be as the R300 driver may be better optimized), and the Radeon 9650 does offer higher resolution ( but it's by far the slowest, even slower than a standard 9600).
    "Magnetic was troubled by my avatars and 'satanic' references" - Jim Igou

    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »25.10.17 - 12:17
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    Jim wrote:
    At this point it's an issue of speed, price, and resolution.
    A Radeon 9800 might be cheaper, the X800XT should be faster (but may not be as the R300 driver may be better optimized), and the Radeon 9650 does offer higher resolution ( but it's by far the slowest, even slower than a standard 9600).


    OK, my fault. It's been 9600 XT. Here are my GfxSpeed results:

    Apple Radeon 9800 Pro: 12485 points
    Apple Radeon 9600 XT: 12234 points
    Apple Radeon X850 XT: 12017 points
  • »25.10.17 - 14:12
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4297 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Quote:

    koszer wrote:
    Quote:

    Jim wrote:
    At this point it's an issue of speed, price, and resolution.
    A Radeon 9800 might be cheaper, the X800XT should be faster (but may not be as the R300 driver may be better optimized), and the Radeon 9650 does offer higher resolution ( but it's by far the slowest, even slower than a standard 9600).


    OK, my fault. It's been 9600 XT. Here are my GfxSpeed results:

    Apple Radeon 9800 Pro: 12485 points
    Apple Radeon 9600 XT: 12234 points
    Apple Radeon X850 XT: 12017 points


    Better than I would have expected for the 9600XT.
    That was the last card I had installed in my 7,3 PowerMac before I decided to stop using it.
    "Magnetic was troubled by my avatars and 'satanic' references" - Jim Igou

    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »25.10.17 - 14:33
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    ThePlayer
    Posts: 1016 from 2003/3/24
    From: Hamburg/Germany
    The difference is much smaller then i've thought
    And what about some game benchmarks like Q3?
    Anyone with a Radeon x1950?
    I will get a Radeon x1950 GT next week and will Post some benchmarks.
    PowerBook 17" SuperHD-Display MOD 1920x1200 :)
  • »26.10.17 - 05:26
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    ThePlayer wrote:
    And what about some game benchmarks like Q3?



    In Quake III with disabled VSYNC I get 73,1 FPS in 1600x1200 with:

    GD Driver: Default
    GL Extensions: On
    Color Depth: Default
    Fullscreen: On
    Lighting: Lightmap
    Geometric Detail: High
    Texture Detail: max
    Texture Quality: 32 bit
    Texture Filter: Trilinear

    on Dual Processor 2,7 GHz PowerMac G5 with Apple Radeon X850XT.

    EDIT: OSX 10.5.8 on the other hand gives 250 FPS on the same config. We've got room for optimization, that's for sure...

    [ Edited by koszer 26.10.2017 - 14:22 ]
  • »26.10.17 - 09:52
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    polluks
    Posts: 301 from 2007/10/23
    From: Gelsenkirchen,...
    Maybe you should disable the second core to be fair
    Code:
    setenv boot-args cpus=1
    reset-all
    Pegasos II G4: MorphOS 3.9, Zalman M220W
    Power Mac G3: OSX 10.3 · PowerBook 5,8: OSX 10.5, MorphOS 3.9
  • »27.10.17 - 22:34
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    polluks wrote:
    Maybe you should disable the second core to be fair
    Code:
    setenv boot-args cpus=1
    reset-all



    I don't think Quake III at this settings use any software rendering, but OK, I will test that.

    P.S. To be perfectly fair I would have to turn off 6,5 Gigs of RAM too...
  • »28.10.17 - 06:51
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    polluks wrote:
    Maybe you should disable the second core to be fair
    Code:
    setenv boot-args cpus=1
    reset-all



    Strangely enough the game hangs if I try that. But I did another test with 2 CPUs active and now it showed 355,6 FPS. Ouch!
  • »04.11.17 - 20:59
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    ThePlayer wrote:
    I will get a Radeon x1950 GT next week and will Post some benchmarks.



    What about them, benchmarks? Any new results out there?
  • »09.11.17 - 07:44
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    ThePlayer
    Posts: 1016 from 2003/3/24
    From: Hamburg/Germany
    Quote:

    koszer schrieb:
    Quote:

    ThePlayer wrote:
    I will get a Radeon x1950 GT next week and will Post some benchmarks.



    What about them, benchmarks? Any new results out there?


    Sorry but i am still waiting for the x1950 card.
    It looks like the seller on Ebay flea market screw me over with my 15 euro i paid him for the card.
    But if i get the card i will post some benches.
    PowerBook 17" SuperHD-Display MOD 1920x1200 :)
  • »11.11.17 - 18:17
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 656 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    ThePlayer wrote:
    Sorry but i am still waiting for the x1950 card.
    It looks like the seller on Ebay flea market screw me over with my 15 euro i paid him for the card.
    But if i get the card i will post some benches.


    I might dig up an AGP X1650 that I have hidden in some box, to do some tests, but I don't know if it's worth the hassle (I don't even know if it's working, aaaand I'm afraid the X850 would beat the crap out of it anyway).
  • »14.11.17 - 12:42
    Profile