G4 Quicksilver GPU - 9000 Pro or GF4 4200Ti?

[TCH]

HI,

I have a QS 733MHz (psu dead, a project), a MDD FW800 1.25GHz DP and a MDD 2003 1.25GHz.

The MDD FW800 currently has the Radeon 9600 Pro (G5 model) in it, the MDD 2003 has a 9000 Pro and the QS has something, I even don't remember what. I plan to flash and install a FireGL X3 to the FW800, transfer the 9600 Pro to the 2003 and then I will have to choose the best OS9 compatible option for the QS.

Option 1: transfer the 9000 Pro from the MDD 2003 into it or
Option 2: recap and flash a Gainward Geforce4 4200Ti which I found from my PC parts boxes last week. The GF has several bulged caps from 20+ years of no use so I need to address that.

I was wondering that which one is the better card? Googling performance figures seems to indicate that the GF is a bit faster in almost anything - but how do they compare IRL when installed to a QS and run under OS9?

I also have a 867MHz CPU card for the QS which I plan to (try to) overclock, max RAM, mSata SSD etc. normal upgrades ready or already installed. So, I need to fix or replace the psu and figure out the best option for the GPU.

Thanks.

 

[alectrona6400]

the geforce4 will have better support in OS 9 i think. just need to flash it and cut off pins 3 and 11 if using a gigabit, DA, QS, or MDD G4.

 

[Phipli]

the geforce4 will have better support in OS 9 i think. just need to flash it and cut off pins 3 and 11 if using a gigabit, DA, QS, or MDD G4.

The 9000 pro is also a solid OS9 card. It's my go to card for G4s because it's cheap and an upgrade to older G4s.

Acceleration comparison (2D QuickDraw only) between some various ATI cards in OS9. 6100 for reference.



Yes the 9000 isn't much faster than a Rage 128, but increases in 2D performance plateaued as 3D performance became the poster child. It does show however that it is accelerated, and pretty fast.