[G4] Nvidea Geforce 3 Vs. ATI 8500

[Mel Krewall]

Hal,
In spite of what the model numbers indicate, the 8500 is a more capable 
card than the 9000 when you compare the specifications. Why did ATI 
replace the 8500 with the 9000? Who knows. But if I were choosing, I'd 
take the 8500.
Mel

"It is almost impossible to remember how tragic a place the world is 
when one is playing golf."
~ Robert Lynd

On Oct 24, 2004, at 4:31 PM, Hal wrote:

>
> On Oct 20, 2004, at 10:18 PM, Stefan Daehler wrote:
>
>> Original Message:
>>
>>> I am looking into upgrading the video card in my Gigabit G4/400, so 
>>> I'm
>>> looking for some advice.  I am currently looking at either a ATI 8500
>>> 64 Mb AGP card or a "flashed" Nvidea Geforce 3 64 Mb AGP card.  The
>>> Nvidea is $20.00 cheaper, and they are both guaranteed.  I am running
>>> only one monitor, so dual display capabilities are not important to 
>>> me.
>>>  I will mostly be watching DVD's or playing some games.  I would 
>>> really
>>> loke to get Halo which requires a 32 Mb card but recommends a 64 Mb
>>> card.  Which do you think will be best?
>>
>>
>> With both of these cards you drop support for ADC, which the machine
>> basically provides. If this does n't matter to you, I'd recommend ATI
>> 8500. Otherwise, I'd opt for a ATI Radeon 9000 Pro.
>>
> How good a card is the AIT Radeon 900 Pro? I've been seeing them for 
> around $150 online and am considering a faster card for a juiced-up 
> dual 800 (gigabit ethernet). Any idea how it'll perform as compared to 
> a flashed 8500 or Apple OEM 7500? I'd prefer to stick with ADC, so am 
> considering this as a fairly low-cost option.
>
> Any info appreciated.
>
> -Hal