# ATI Tool for Mac?



## Ravenas (Oct 22, 2007)

I was wondering if there was an ATI tool for Mac? If not, it would be very useful for me and probably some other people.


----------



## EnglishLion (Oct 22, 2007)

no, atitool is software - you tend not to get any software for the mac.  If you did it'd be far too expensive and probably called iTool.

Sorry - an easy target


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Oct 22, 2007)

If you run Windows on your Mac, it might be possible.  More possible with the newer Intel based systems anyway.  I wouldn't get my hopes up though.

The comments and feedback section isn't for ATITool either.  Please try to put your threads in the correct section.  ATITool has its own section.


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 23, 2007)

Thermopylae_480 said:


> If you run Windows on your Mac, it might be possible.  More possible with the newer Intel based systems anyway.  I wouldn't get my hopes up though.
> 
> The comments and feedback section isn't for ATITool either.  Please try to put your threads in the correct section.  ATITool has its own section.



I actually didn't think about using boot camp, I'll install Vista on it and try to do some OC.


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Oct 23, 2007)

Most likely the card will be incompatible.  It doesn't hurt to try though.


----------



## TonyStark (Oct 23, 2007)

ATI Tool for mac

Play Doom III at 6 frames a second, instead of 5 frames per second..... oooooh yeaaaahhh


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 23, 2007)

EnglishLion said:


> no, atitool is software - you tend not to get any software for the mac.  If you did it'd be far too expensive and probably called iTool.
> 
> Sorry - an easy target



There's plenty of software for Macs. Besides that, the only reason there isn't a ATI Tool for Mac is because it hasn't been coded "yet". I don't see why it hasn't been coded yet, Apples come with ATI cards...


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Oct 23, 2007)

but no one expects them to be over-clocked


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 23, 2007)

Fuse-Wire said:


> but no one expects them to be over-clocked



I do, so apparently someone does.


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Oct 23, 2007)

well one in a million  hope you get what your after, would be a good laugh to see an OC'd Mac!!


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 23, 2007)

it's not gonna happen soon (months). i do like "iTool"


----------



## KennyT772 (Oct 23, 2007)

It is rather pointless, it will run fine under bootcamp xp/vista which is the only place you would need to overclock anyway.


----------



## Sovereign (Oct 23, 2007)

Ravenas said:


> I was wondering if there was an ATI tool for Mac? If not, it would be very useful for me and probably some other people.



Have you tried ATIccelerator II? It is a basic ATI video card overclocking tool developed by someone whom I know and work with on occassion which allows simple overclocking. It's not nearly as featured as ATITool and is also still under development but it's roughly the only thing available atm.



TonyStark said:


> ATI Tool for mac
> 
> Play Doom III at 6 frames a second, instead of 5 frames per second..... oooooh yeaaaahhh



What a smart ass comment that has absolutely no backing. Yeah, makes a lot of sense that Doom 3 would run so slow on a nice C2D Intel Mac with a superior OS and a respectable X1900XT Mac Edition video card! I can see it now, really piss poor framerates!  Have you even seen any gaming benchmarks, especialy of older native PowerPC based Apple G4 and G5 setups running lowly X800 or 6800GT/Ultras? Pretty damn good if you ask me!


----------



## FatForester (Oct 23, 2007)

Sovereign, do you know how expensive a Mac Pro with a X1900XT is? It'll be at the least $2,750! Most Mac users have either a HD2400 or HD2600Pro in their iMac... which is marginal considering the native resolution they have. To get a HD2600Pro, you have a screen @ 1680x1050!  Yea, the screens good for everything else, but trying to game on it (with whatever games are supported - do NOT call EA's junk "games") is actually not that far off from TonyStark's joke. Also, you're calling OSX superior? That's your opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 23, 2007)

FatForester said:


> Sovereign, do you know how expensive a Mac Pro with a X1900XT is? It'll be at the least $2,750! Most Mac users have either a HD2400 or HD2600Pro in their iMac... which is marginal considering the native resolution they have. To get a HD2600Pro, you have a screen @ 1680x1050!  Yea, the screens good for everything else, but trying to game on it (with whatever games are supported - do NOT call EA's junk "games") is actually not that far off from TonyStark's joke. Also, you're calling OSX superior? That's your opinion, not a fact.



G5 will run any game you make available for it. Also, it doesn't matter how expensive it is, that's not the point. People are making off topic comments about how Macs get 5 fps and I'm trying to ask Wiz a valid question...


----------



## Sovereign (Oct 23, 2007)

FatForester said:


> Sovereign, do you know how expensive a Mac Pro with a X1900XT is? It'll be at the least $2,750! Most Mac users have either a HD2400 or HD2600Pro in their iMac... which is marginal considering the native resolution they have. To get a HD2600Pro, you have a screen @ 1680x1050!  Yea, the screens good for everything else, but trying to game on it (with whatever games are supported - do NOT call EA's junk "games") is actually not that far off from TonyStark's joke. Also, you're calling OSX superior? That's your opinion, not a fact.



I'm sorry that I do not live "inside the box" like you seem to be doing atm. You *do not* need to buy a Mac Pro with a X1900XT inside to have a gaming capable Mac, I'm sorry to say. You would be able to achieve excellent framerates in an older PCIE equipped Apple G5 dual processor setup which you can pick up for a fairly low price these days! Couple that with a much less expensive PC version of an X800 or X1900 and flash it over with an appropriate Mac firmware and you have a machine that is capable of high quality gaming @ higher resolutions. 

That is just one possible solution, of many, to not having to spend $2,750 or so for what is in your _opinion_, a gaming cabaple Mac. I aslo understand your average joe or even Mac user wouldn't know about such things but it is, nevertheless, an open option. You should be able to buy a fairly cheap stock Apple G5 dual CPU system (or even barebones), load it out with much less expensive PC hardware (including the video card as I mentioned previously above) and you would now have an affordable alternative to a newer Mac Pro and of which is more than capable of modern gaming! Google around for some benches of a Dual 2GHz PowerMac G5, not exactly a slouch now is it!? 

Also, OS X is superior, that is not an opinion, that my boy is a fact. Your _opinion_ (or lack thereof) regarding EA lessened any weight that your previous comments may or may not have had, in my book. You seem to think EA is incapable of having or making a quality game and at the same time, do not think highly enough of Apple's OS X to agree with my _so called opinion_ of it being superior. I think you should now be able to see where I am going with this... (you used an opinion that you see as correct and at the same time, read an opinion of mine that you, in turn, deemed as incorrect)


----------



## FatForester (Oct 24, 2007)

Ok, considering Mac users go for "ease of use", no typical Apple customer is going to buy old-tech, buy a video card, and then flash the firmware. That is where we aren't on the same page in our discussion. My argument consists of the typical user, while yours consists of the entire platform. From your point of view, yes, going through all that trouble creates a viable system. However, if you try to game with what Apple offers today for the mainstream user, you will suffer in performance (especially at native resolution). Also considering the lack of driver updates for OSX (the last offical ATI drivers were January), the package isn't entirely so convenient for the gamer. So in this case, agree to disagree.. as leads to my next point.

Regarding opinions, I'm not going to bother too much. You didn't back up your claim of OSX being a superior OS, but instead just stated it as a fact. That's fine that you feel that way, but OS choice is a matter of preference. All platforms have their strengths and weaknesses, where no system is technically "superior". So you can state what you wish, but just because you feel that way, it doesn't change the opinions of millions of others. And likewise, just because I prefer Windows, I don't expect the OSX users to care. To help prove my point, consider Linux. There are hundreds of distributions, where each one is configured differently, to satisfy different people. There is no distribution that is overall "superior". Even though I might think that Ubuntu is "superior", I don't expect it to affect you what so ever, and I'm definitely not going to state it as a fact.


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 24, 2007)

FatForester said:


> Ok, considering Mac users go for "ease of use", no typical Apple customer is going to buy old-tech, buy a video card, and then flash the firmware. That is where we aren't on the same page in our discussion. My argument consists of the typical user, while yours consists of the entire platform. From your point of view, yes, going through all that trouble creates a viable system. However, if you try to game with what Apple offers today for the mainstream user, you will suffer in performance (especially at native resolution). Also considering the lack of driver updates for OSX (the last offical ATI drivers were January), the package isn't entirely so convenient for the gamer. So in this case, agree to disagree.. as leads to my next point.
> 
> Regarding opinions, I'm not going to bother too much. You didn't back up your claim of OSX being a superior OS, but instead just stated it as a fact. That's fine that you feel that way, but OS choice is a matter of preference. All platforms have their strengths and weaknesses, where no system is technically "superior". So you can state what you wish, but just because you feel that way, it doesn't change the opinions of millions of others. And likewise, just because I prefer Windows, I don't expect the OSX users to care. To help prove my point, consider Linux. There are hundreds of distributions, where each one is configured differently, to satisfy different people. There is no distribution that is overall "superior". Even though I might think that Ubuntu is "superior", I don't expect it to affect you what so ever, and I'm definitely not going to state it as a fact.



Relax, this thread is starting to turn into an argument... The only reason I made this thread was to get info about a possible ATI tool for Mac. If I wanted to sit here and watch you guys debate on which OS is better I would have made a Mac vs. Windows thread. No offense, but unless you guys have something productive to contribute to this thread, take it somewhere else.


----------



## FatForester (Oct 24, 2007)

Yup, I just realized that, but you beat me to the punch. So why are you tryin' to use AtiTool on a Mac when you have that beast of a system? Boredom? Haha


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 24, 2007)

Well part of it is just curiosity , and the other part of me wants to get some better frames in games. Why does anyone want to overclock?  Hopefully I can get some performance boost in the near future.


----------



## Sovereign (Oct 24, 2007)

I did come in here with the intent to be helpfull and I thought I was, at least. I guess I made the mistake of trying to let others know that there are always "_other_" options but it seems our friend fatforester just wanted to *state* an opinion regarding a comment I made instead of bringing anything truley usefull to the original discussion.  That is, of course, his right to do so and I respect that.

Getting back on topic, I also know that there is an nVIDIA overclocking tool for the Mac in the works but it is not by the same author. The person who is developing the tool called "NVControlX" also happens to be someone I've worked with in the past and knows his way around PC/Mac video hardware and Mac software so this has the potential for a lot of good things for Mac users. As of right now, both ATIccelerator and NVControlX are on hold due to various reasons, most of which is a lack of time but I wouldn't bet against seeing any worthwhile improvements in the near future!


----------



## TonyStark (Oct 24, 2007)

Sovereign said:


> What a smart ass comment that has absolutely no backing. Yeah, makes a lot of sense that Doom 3 would run so slow on a nice C2D Intel Mac with a superior OS and a respectable X1900XT Mac Edition video card! I can see it now, really piss poor framerates!  Have you even seen any gaming benchmarks, especialy of older native PowerPC based Apple G4 and G5 setups running lowly X800 or 6800GT/Ultras? Pretty damn good if you ask me!




Settle down, slugger. It was a joke. I'll bet $20 that it does apply to 99% of macs though.


----------

