hakeem9 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I have my 8800GTS 320mb working flawlessly (well, almost flawlessly...retouching pictures in iPhoto 08 crashes the whole OS...) using NVinject 0.2.1. Browsing through various Xbenches its clear that the OpenGL portion of the NVinject driver (or however it works) is poor. Even the ATi guys with the X1900/1950XT's on Hackintoshes are seeing scores 2-3x better in OpenGL performance in Xbench. I was hoping that by using the gfx-strings and bypassing NVinject completely we might be able to see some true performance from these cards. For example, check out DDrDark's Xbench (E6600 @ 3.2ghz with X1950XT): http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=262339 Then compare to mine (Q6600 @ 2.4ghz with 8800GTS): http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=261887 Look particularly at the OpenGL and Quartz tests - the GTS is supposed to be about 50-100% faster than the X1950XT in Windows benchmarks, yet we are seeing as bad as 30% of the performance using NVinject. Has anyone been able to use gfx-strings + efi 8 to get any 8800 cards working *without* using NVinject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azurael Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 What makes you think that Apple's G8x/G9x driver doesn't just totally suck or is completely optimised for the 8600M GT at present? I suspect that's the case as we've never made substantial changes to a graphics chip's performance through changing it's initialisation parameters before in the world of OSX86. 2900XT performance also sucks compared to X1900/X1950. Remember, Apple actually use an X19xx part in their machines. I suspect performance will get a hell of a lot better over time once the Mac Pro gets an 8800/equivalent Quadro BTO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakeem9 Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 That makes sense. I guess in the short-term the X1950XT is the fastest card we can use on a Hackintosh. It was also amusing to check the benchmarks of the Hackintosh X19xxx series vs the real Mac Pro's with X1900XT: DDrDarks x1950xt: http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=262339 3ghz Mac Pro x1900xt: http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=232115 Somehow the Hackintosh is *alot* faster than the real Mac in the graphics tests! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azurael Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Yes, but the Hack is running 10.5.1 vs. 10.4.10 on the real Mac. Methinks the graphics drivers are quite different under 10.5.x to 10.4.x... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanakorizo Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 only because of the 10.5.2 files maybe in the final update (hope in 10 days) everything will be better and it's not only poory about the perfomance it crash also ..this is the worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakeem9 Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 The only thing that crashes for me is iPhoto during retouch. I don't know which other applications use CI but I have no problem with shutdown, sleep, and all applications other than iPhoto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azurael Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 It locks up all the time if QuartzGL is enabled on G92... OpenGL seems pretty stable, if slow... only because of the 10.5.2 files maybe in the final update (hope in 10 days) everything will be betterand it's not only poory about the perfomanceit crash also ..this is the worstErr, the only problem with that hypothesis is that 8800 peformance sucked under the old, non-beta drivers, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonefr Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Azurael, G80 performs much better with 10.5.2 kexts so Apple really improved those. And G92 is kiiling pretty much any video cards on OSX, including HD3870... Sure it performs like {censored} on Xbench and GLView, but it doesn't mean anything : just try 3DMark 03 on Crossover (or even 05) or try any game (I tried WoW) and the G92 is even performing better than the X1900. Why ? Because it seems the Mac Pro will have a G92 cards and thus Apple began to optimise the drivers for those cards. Anyway G80 users will be happy, while the card still sucks, it's a lot BETTER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azurael Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 3870 performance is bound to suck though, it's just a die shrink of 2900XT (well and loses half it's memory controller), which also sucks (although it was faster than G80 with the 10.5.1 kexts from what I remember)... I don't think that's a fair comparison! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts