dual G4, MDD: Cheapest Core Image graphics card?

William Donelson wrote:
Thanks, Allen.

Is that really the cheapest at $180 ?

Well that's the cheapest card retail card currently available on the market. The other retail card available is the ATI Radeon 9800.

If you don't go retail, then your choices divide basically between:

1. OEM Apple cards that can work unmodified in an MDD

2. OEM Apple cards that can be modified to work

3. Flashed/modified PC cards

I'll take them in turn.

*1. OEM Apple cards that can work unmodified in an MDD*
I think the only OEM card that supports Core Image specifically designed for the MDD is BTO (build-to-order) ATI Radeon 9700. It wasn't available for long as an option, is rare, and is pretty price.

*2. OEM Apple cards that can be modified to work*
These are typically 8x AGP cards for the G5 that can be modified fairly easily (if you don't need to drive an ADC monitor) to work in the MDD. The cards I've seen people try this with are the ATI 96x0 OEM Apple cards: 9600 Pro, 9600 XT. I think the 9650 may work as well, but I haven't read anything.

The modification to work (without ADC power) can be done easily with tape. See here. The ADC port works (provide video signal) with DVI and VGA monitors (with the appropriate inpensive adapters). It's just that to use the ADC port with an ADC monitor (to supply) power the modification is more involved -- see the above linked page.

For awhile OWC sold the 9600 Pro pre-modified. That used to be the cheapest route to Core Image with an OEM Apple card. I use an 9600 Pro, but didn't get it from OWC.

You can at times find these OEM 96x0 on eBAY both modified and unmodified for an MDD. If you want an OEM card make sure it's OEM -- they have DVI plus ADC, with the ADC being the dead-giveaway.

*3. Flashed/modified PC cards*
Some people do this themselves, some people do it and sell them eBay. Some sellers are better than others, some cards are better than others. Some modify the cards with bigger ROM chips because the Apple ROM are typically bigger than the typical PC cards. If they don't swap the chip, they may be using a hacked smaller ROM.

For Cubes, this route sometimes is the easiest, and coolest way to go.

Hi-

There are only two cards currently in production (in 4x AGP Mac versions), and those are what Allan linked.

The 7300 GT won't work in the MDD, as it's a PC card, and isn't a good candidate for flashing to Mac ROM.
Check out a Geforce 7800 GS that's been flashed to Mac ROM if you want a real fast card that supports Core Image (around US$260).

Otherwise, typically the cheapest cards are the 9600 Pro PC and Mac version (low to mid level performance), or OEM 96xx, or 9700 used cards.
9800 series cards are available as flashed PC cards on eBay, and can be much cheaper than the retail versions above. All 9800 cards support CI, and are excellent performers.

Sorry MBP was running out of juice, I hit the post button. So a little bit more on:

*3. Flashed/modified PC cards*
You'll have more choices with flashed PC cards, both Nvidia and ATI based cards. I don't think there are any OEM Nvidia cards for the MDD that support Core Image. Those Nvidias you might see on eBay that are advertised for the MDD and support Core Image are no doubt flashed PC cards with the various risks and benefits involved.

Bear in mind as well that a really popular ATI card to flash for the MDD is the ATI 9800. So if you opt the eBay route for that card, you could easily come across both flashed PC cards as well as the Mac retail card.

New Apple NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Graphics Upgrade Kit - £60 = $120 or so

If a genuine Apple card, it is a PCIe card (not AGP) designed for use in the MacPro only.
Pretty good card, but not for the MDD.

You need a *4x AGP graphics Mac compatible card*. The 4x AGP and Mac Compatible or Mac version are the most important words in the cards description. Without these words, the card is most likely a PC version that won't work without modification.
2x/4x/8x AGP capable cards will work.
4x/8x AGP cards will work.
4x (only) AGP will work.

8x AGP and PCIe will not (though some 8x can be physically modified to run 4x).

Because commercially produced Mac AGP cards are scarce in variety, the available ones (and for a perceived small market share) demand higher prices. Because of these facts, flashed (modified) PC cards are available in quite a variety, but demand higher prices because of lack of inexpensive retail options.
Free market and Capitalism at work......

japamac wrote:
You need a *4x AGP graphics Mac compatible card*. The 4x AGP and Mac Compatible or Mac version are the most important words in the cards description. Without these words, the card is most likely a PC version that won't work without modification.

Because commercially produced Mac AGP cards are scarce in variety, the available ones (and for a perceived small market share) demand higher prices. Because of these facts, flashed (modified) PC cards are available in quite a variety, but demand higher prices because of lack of inexpensive retail options.

Alas, the graphics card situation for 4x AGP Macs.

I went looking around, I see some G5 9600s Pro (64MB VRAM) well under USD 100. As I mentioned below those will work if you stick some tape on them in the right place. Mine still works fine in my MDD, and before that in my DA.

JapaMac, I noticed that William wrote:

William Donelson wrote:

It somehow doesn't seem worth $150 or more just to speed up iPod video encodings...

While there is some off-loading of graphics/OpenGL from the CPUs onto the cards with Core Image, I really didn't think there was that much -- that you would see a significant boost in processor intensive tasks. (I'm leaving aside some of the Core Image/Graphics eye-candy that you see for instance in Leopard.)

Am I correct in that or not? If so, doesn't seem a great justification given the money to get Core Image. I suppose I could always test that theory out myself.

Hi Eric-

With regard to Core Image and video encoding....
Typically, video encoding is a CPU intensive process. However, some software is CI dependant. This is especially so with software that offers real time image effects. This additional load, in a CI supported system, will be transferred to the GPU, allowing the CPU to continue compiling unabated. In a non CI supported system, the effects processing will then be transferred to the CPU, increasing the load, and reducing the performance/increasing rendering/encoding time.

Actually, having CI dependant software for video applications is smart programming. With or without real time effects, allow both the CPU and the GPU to share in the processing, and you have increased system performance- everyone likes that.
Take the AGP bus- 8x AGP operates at an effective 533mhz, with a max. 2 GB/s data rate. In the case of PCIe, the 16 lane graphics has a 4 GB/s simultaneous, bi-directional data rate potential. The PCIe 2.0 standard increased to 32 lane, further increases speed, for a 16 GB/s each way data rate.

Combine the data rate of the graphics bus (especially PCIe) with the processing power of the GPU, combine that with the CPU, and you have quite a team.

Not to mention that applying graphics effects are what GPU's are about.....

For OS effects only, CI is more of a sideshow than the main attraction. But what the CI support in the OS shows, is what the potential of applied effects has in real time graphics. Software designers are aware of this, and are developing software with that in mind.

One note, in the Mac, and in OS X, if CI is not supported by the GPU, the processing requirements default to the CPU.

"Like I wasn't already busy" he mutters......

Japamac,

Thanks for the thorough and detailed explanation. Truth be told I missed the video part in William's "ipod video encoding", thinking this was music encoding.

I use FCP and have Motion, so I've had a Core Image card for awhile.

For OS effects only, CI is more of a sideshow than the main attraction. But what the CI support in the OS shows, is what the potential of applied effects has in real time graphics.

Or a serious distraction like the transparent menu bar in Leopard. LOL!

Thanks again.

I don't I'd go for the PCI 9200 card personally if only because I have lots of PCI cards and I don't want to choke the bandwidth of the PCI bus.

I already mentioned using a G5 9600 Pro (64MB and 128MB VRAM versions) or G5 9600 XT with some tape in MDD. I see those going on eBay for less than GBP 100, which I thought was your budget -- depends on the card how much south. They'll get you Core Image and Extreme, plus they have two digital ports.

Hi-

The 9200 is PCI graphics- it only works in a PCI slot. A PCI graphics card will only transfer data at the specified frequency of a systems PCI bus; 33mhz will be 33 mhz (133MB/s data rate), 66mhz will be 66mhz (266MB/s data rate), and so on.

AGP graphics can only work in AGP slots. AGP cards benefit from acceleration by frequency multiplication, thus 2x, 4x, and 8x AGP moniker. An AGP slot rated at 66mhz, in a 4x AGP system will effectively transfer data at 266mhz (1GB/s potential).

The 9200 will do nothing to enhance the performance of your system, save provide you with more monitor connections. And, it must be installed in a PCI slot.

If you want Core Image, you need a card with a programmable GPU, in the proper family of performance graphics cards. Minimum is the ATI 96xx family, better is the 98xx or Geforce 7800.

If you can settle for Quartz Extreme, the current 9000 is fine, no need to change. But QE and CI are two completely different animals.

You can get a flashed PC AGP card for around $150, possibly a little less.
Prices may seem steep, but such is the state of AGP graphics for a Mac.....

OK- here is a cheap CI supported Mac compatible 4x AGP card........