How bad is ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics ?

[powerbook911]

I'm having a hard time deciding between the $1199 iMac and the $1499.

I know the advantages of the $1499, but $300 seems like a big jump.

So my question is: just how bad is the ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics ?

Is it a lot worst compared to the 2600 Pro in the more expensive model? Any idea? Thanks for your help.

[Eidorian]

The 64-bit memory interface is going to be your biggest issue. Don't expect much performance beyond a X1300/7300 series if that.

[Jimmery]

The 64-bit memory interface is going to be your biggest issue. Don't expect much performance beyond a X1300/7300 series if that.

For those of us not doing ANY gaming or video editing, is there going to be any noticeable difference between the two video cards?

[Eidorian]

For those of us not doing ANY gaming or video editing, is there going to be any noticeable difference between the two video cards?You can add image editing as well now.

No there won't be a difference if you're doing CPU bound tasks.

[TheSilencer]

For games, refer to this:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=6

[Jimmery]

You can add image editing as well now.

No there won't be a difference if you're doing CPU bound tasks.

Well, how about editing 1 MB JPEG photos in iPhoto, just to touch up shots from a digital camera? This sounds pretty innocuous to me.

[iW00t]

According to an earlier MR post it is slightly (but not much) better than intel graphics. Not sure how much weight there is to that.

[Eidorian]

Well, how about editing 1 MB JPEG photos in iPhoto, just to touch up shots from a digital camera? This sounds pretty innocuous to me.Once you start to throw in Core Image and anything else that involves the GPU you're going to notice faster performance on the HD2600 Pro.

You're a step up over the GMA950 due to the dedicated memory and hardware shaders but not by much.

[powerbook911]

How is this ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics compared to what I have in my iMac now?

I have a Radeon X1600 . Would the 2400 XT be a step down? Thanks.

[Jimmery]

Once you start to throw in Core Image and anything else that involves the GPU you're going to notice faster performance on the HD2600 Pro.

You're a step up over the GMA950 due to the dedicated memory and hardware shaders but not by much.

Okay, so I guess the only thing going for the 2400XT (over previous video cards in Apple computers) is the on-board chip to encode and decode H.264. Anything else?

[Eidorian]

Okay, so I guess the only thing going for the 2400XT (over previous video cards in Apple computers) is the on-board chip to encode and decode H.264. Anything else?The h.264 decoding is about it. The 2400 series is in essence a video card designed to be passively cooled for HTPC options. It doesn't have any sort of gaming or 3D capabilities worth mentioning otherwise.

How is this ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics compared to what I have in my iMac now?

I have a Radeon X1600 . Would the 2400 XT be a step down? Thanks.It would be a step down.

[powerbook911]

The h.264 decoding is about it. The 2400 series is in essence a video card designed to be passively cooled for HTPC options. It doesn't have any sort of gaming or 3D capabilities worth mentioning otherwise.

It would be a step down.


Thanks. Wow. I guess it would be better for me not to upgrade macs then. Maybe the h264 stuff would be good for me. I'm not sure. I encode h264 all day, but sounds like the card is only for decoding. Thanks for clarifying.

I guess I'll either not get a new one, or get the $1500 model.

[DoFoT9]

The h.264 decoding is about it. The 2400 series is in essence a video card designed to be passively cooled for HTPC options. It doesn't have any sort of gaming or 3D capabilities worth mentioning otherwise.

It would be a step down.

wat would the 2600 be like for encoding?? i do a lot of mpeg and h264 encoding.

[Wild-Bill]

Being an entry level graphics card, I have to say this card wasn't too impressive for gaming. I would not recommend this card to any gamer because the benchmarks clearly show that this card isn't meant for hardcore gaming. It seems like this card would be a great choice for a family or home theater computer because it does have HDMI support and can handle graphics, to some extent

Using resolutions up to 1024x768 made most of the games playable, though don't forget that I also had to lower the in-game image quality settings here and there. Older games like Battlefield 2 were very enjoyable, though with gems like "TES: Oblivion" you surely stress this video card. For the newest games, you might want to stick to 800x600, as anything higher will be a slide-show on the HD 2400 XT.

But the whole point of discrete graphics is to offer vastly superior performance to the integrated graphics solutions we're always warning people to avoid. While these cards are certainly faster than the "motherboard-down" graphics out there these days, they're still abysmal performers in nearly any game from the last year or two. They're touted at DX10 capable, and while this is technically true, you can forget about running any game in DX10 mode at anything approaching a playable frame rate.

Pulled from various hardware sites. I think that about sums it up. Great choice Apple :rolleyes:


Oh, and here's one about the HD 2600xt"

There is simply nothing compelling about the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT that would make me want to buy it, or recommend to anybody else to buy it. The unpleasant truth is: ATI has failed their fans. This was the last best hope for the besieged Radeon HD 2000 series, and it is a supremely disappointing product.

[stuff99]

man how is this going to play gears of war?

[Zwhaler]

man how is this going to play gears of war?

The 2400 will struggle. The least you can do is get the 2600 (which still wont fare extremely well)

[Wild-Bill]

man how is this going to play gears of war?

Badly. Read my post above with the collection of various reviews from the intarweb.;)

[DoFoT9]

are we able to blame it on bad drivers??? i would hope that we can, and updates of the driver will make for better gaming.

[Wild-Bill]

No. Even if we could, who's drivers you think have priority over at ATI? ;)

ATI screwed the pooch with the entire 2000 series. The only thing those cards are good for is HD playback: taking the load off the CPU. But then again that's in Windows. Not sure how they implemented their UVD feature set in the Mac variants.

[iW00t]

are we able to blame it on bad drivers??? i would hope that we can, and updates of the driver will make for better gaming.

Are you willing to bet the cost of your iMac on that?

Who is to say that Apple would even release updated drivers? nVidia/ATi obviously doesn't do it for Mac users, and if Apple doesn't too...

[DoFoT9]

No. Even if we could, who's drivers you think have priority over at ATI? ;)

ATI screwed the pooch with the entire 2000 series. The only thing those cards are good for is HD playback: taking the load off the CPU. But then again that's in Windows. Not sure how they implemented their UVD feature set in the Mac variants.

Are you willing to bet the cost of your iMac on that?

Who is to say that Apple would even release updated drivers? nVidia/ATi obviously doesn't do it for Mac users, and if Apple doesn't too...

im really not an expert on this, as you can tell. but how could a company produce a product that sucks!? and how could apple use it??? i know heat it a major issue because its the imac, and its thin and all. surely they know that the gpu isnt all that good except for HD and BR playback. unless ofcourse taht apple has done something crazy and written their own drivers. which i highly doubt.
gah i dont have a clue. im just so worked up that i was soo looking foreward to having a decent gpu in it, ive been waiting 9months to buy one. and now i find out that its fairly comparable to my mbp CD........pfft

[Flaki]

For games, refer to this:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=6

eh?? so the hd 2600 pro is worse than the older Imac's GPU:confused:
if it's true..then why ¤%&/ did they make it thinner????? for what??? the look? oh comon the previous Imac was good, they should have not make it thinner.

[DoFoT9]

eh?? so the hd 2600 pro is worse than the older Imac's GPU:confused:

the 7900, yes *cry*

[stuff99]

time to get a ps3 guys! i got mine already...and it doubles as an apple tv and it will soon have pvr functions

not to mention the blu ray oh and it plays some games too with some awesome ones coming out next year

[Flaki]

the 7900, yes *cry*And And Steve Jobs sad it was a better card at the conference...hahaha how ironic.

[DoFoT9]

=Flaki;4018176]And And Steve Jobs sad it was a better card at the conference...hahaha what ironic.

did he really???

my god, my god have mercy on mac users souls!

[mainemacuser]

did he really???

my god, my god have mercy on mac users souls!

I also have waited since MacWorld for the iMac speed bump and better video card. The 2.8 GHz was a nice jump, but the video card....Oh sigh. I might have to wait for the Pro series and video displays to be updated now. :(

[mavherzog]

From the product page:

"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance..."

...ALMOST as good as the first gen Intel iMac! :)

[Grenadier]

I also have waited since MacWorld for the iMac speed bump and better video card. The 2.8 GHz was a nice jump, but the video card....Oh sigh. I might have to wait for the Pro series and video displays to be updated now. :(

Me too. Im starting to feel really bitter.
Overall, the update was nice - 2.8GHz for the win !
However, when I saw that the best GPU they offered was the 2600 Pro, it felt like a punch to the stomach. :(

Damn it Apple, is it too much to ask for a video card which will not roll over and die at any opportunity ?
A 8600GTS would be so, SO much better.


WHY, APPLE, WHY ?!
(Ps: Ive been waiting since WWDC '05. Seriously)


From the product page:

"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance..."

...ALMOST as good as the first gen Intel iMac! :)

I dont know whether to laugh or cry

[Dont Hurt Me]

From the product page:

"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance..."

...ALMOST as good as the first gen Intel iMac! :)
Its called Apple spin, notice they never throw up any benches in the graphics section at Apple while bragging how new,powerful and fast the two cards are. Also Jobs has a long history of lies when talking about Macs. Trust nothing from this used car salesman.
I must admit if the 8600GT or better was attached to imac I would have bought one but this ati stuff just sucks. $1500 computer with a $89 video. At least the Apple mutual admiration society didnt go for integrated graphics. Its a big dissapointment after a year. So the old 24" PodMac has better graphics. Who would have thought.

[quadgirl]

So there we have it. Great looking machine, decent processors and as usual for Apple, lousy graphics. They've been doing it for years!

So as of now, the best 'stock' graphics card option is in the Macbook Pro. I really thought that Apple would favour Nvidia for the iMac and we'd get the 8600 (as in the Macbook Pro).

Yes, the new iMac is thin and we need to consider heat, but it's a lot bigger than a laptop. So there's no excuse.

Very strange choice Apple!

[DoFoT9]

i have kinda changed my viewpoint. after talking to my much esteemed and well-informed pc friend. he has assured me that better drivers for the 2600 will be coming out. he said performance will increase greatly.

i believe him...

[Grenadier]

i have kinda changed my viewpoint. after talking to my much esteemed and well-informed pc friend. he has assured me that better drivers for the 2600 will be coming out. he said performance will increase greatly.

i believe him...

I hoped so myself, but come on, do you really think it will happen ?
Its possible, no doubt, but the cards have been out some time now - and they continue to suck.

They said the same about Quad-SLi (2x 7950GTXs in SLi) - sure, it sucked, but wait for drivers. The drivers never came.

[Vidd]

The h.264 decoding is about it. The 2400 series is in essence a video card designed to be passively cooled for HTPC options. It doesn't have any sort of gaming or 3D capabilities worth mentioning otherwise.

Does it only do decoding or can any Apple software packages make use of the hardware encoding?
That would fit in with all the hype about encoding movies with iMovie '08.

[DoFoT9]

I hoped so myself, but come on, do you really think it will happen ?
Its possible, no doubt, but the cards have been out some time now - and they continue to suck.

They said the same about Quad-SLi (2x 7950GTXs in SLi) - sure, it sucked, but wait for drivers. The drivers never came.

hhmm good point. i really hope that it will happen. just wondering, all the benchmarks that i have seen have been terrible, that would be because it is running under dx10??? if u were to run a dx9 game it would run like my mbp on speed??? or would it still be like 25-30fps?

[Grenadier]

hhmm good point. i really hope that it will happen. just wondering, all the benchmarks that i have seen have been terrible, that would be because it is running under dx10??? if u were to run a dx9 game it would run like my mbp on speed??? or would it still be like 25-30fps?

Actually, according to benchmarks, the card sucks under BOTH DX9 and DX10. :(

Think of 25-30fps on semi-new games like BF2142.
Then think of terrible frame rates on new games like Supreme Commander.

[DoFoT9]

Actually, according to benchmarks, the card sucks under BOTH DX9 and DX10. :(

Think of 25-30fps on semi-new games like BF2142.
Then think of terrible frame rates on new games like Supreme Commander.

think of crying, thats what im thinking of doing... why apple why!?!?!<>?!

[mrgreen4242]

The h.264 decoding is about it. The 2400 series is in essence a video card designed to be passively cooled for HTPC options. It doesn't have any sort of gaming or 3D capabilities worth mentioning otherwise.

It would be a step down.

Ok, let's all take a step back for a moment. First, I'll chime in some agreement on the fact that the 2400/2600 both suck compared to the options we COULD have got. It also sucks next to the CTO options (and even the standard, really) on the old 24". BUT, comparing it unfavorably to the old x1600 in the iMac may be a bit premature.

Now, it's not going to perform above and beyond the old x1600 by any means, I concede that. But saying it's a STEP DOWN from the x1600 is a bit premature. First, looking at the benchmarks the x1600 (non-XT) isn't all that impressive. Also, Apple underclocked those cards and we don't know what the clocking on the 2400/2600 in the iMac will be.

Anyways, I don't think it's all doom and gloom. It's certainly not impressive at all, but I think they will remain adequate for the average user. Where Apple really let us down is not offering a BTO higher end card. Hopefully this redesign uses MXM cards across the board so we will see more frequent GPU updates and offerings.

I'm also really curious to see if Apple has a trick up their sleeve in Leopard for hardware assisted video encoding. We know the x2000 series has "UVD" which is massively assisted GPU video DECODING, but I wonder if there's something to the idea of Macs having a "built in h.264 hardware encoder". If this card was capable of doing hardware assisted h264 encodes with some special Leopard only drivers/libraries, it would be HUGE.

Real time high quality h264 encoding being done in the background while you use the CPUs to edit and manipulate video for example... start cutting, splicing, compositing, adding text and other effects, etc in iMovie/FCP and the GPU starts rendering the video in high quality h264 as you work so that by the time you finish the export is done. Or being able to encode two or more streams at once with minimal impact on overall system responsiveness. Record TV from a tuner device to iPod/AppleTV ready files in real time. It positions the iMac as the center of your media world, if nto your gaming world. That wouldn't be a bad move (aside from pissing off gamers).

[cohibadad]

the ATI HD series including 2400 and 2600 are capable of hardware assisted H.264 encoding using their catalyst control center on PCs. http://ati.amd.com/technology/Avivo/technology.html

[Eidorian]

You'd actually need software that takes advantage of the hardware decoder. I know that ATi supplies encoding software as well. From the benchmarks that I've seen it's not any faster using the GPU as well then it is just using the CPU.

[urbanskywalker]

I just ordered the base model forgoing the up-sell on the higher spec 20". I almost went with the higher model just because of the doom and gloom over the video card. Then I remembered i really don't play games and I doubt I'll see any difference in real life. Also there is always the gnashing of teeth over so I can't wait.

Ok, let's all take a step back for a moment. First, I'll chime in some agreement on the fact that the 2400/2600 both suck compared to the options we COULD have got. It also sucks next to the CTO options (and even the standard, really) on the old 24". BUT, comparing it unfavorably to the old x1600 in the iMac may be a bit premature.

Now, it's not going to perform above and beyond the old x1600 by any means, I concede that. But saying it's a STEP DOWN from the x1600 is a bit premature. First, looking at the benchmarks the x1600 (non-XT) isn't all that impressive. Also, Apple underclocked those cards and we don't know what the clocking on the 2400/2600 in the iMac will be.

Anyways, I don't think it's all doom and gloom. It's certainly not impressive at all, but I think they will remain adequate for the average user. Where Apple really let us down is not offering a BTO higher end card. Hopefully this redesign uses MXM cards across the board so we will see more frequent GPU updates and offerings.

I'm also really curious to see if Apple has a trick up their sleeve in Leopard for hardware assisted video encoding. We know the x2000 series has "UVD" which is massively assisted GPU video DECODING, but I wonder if there's something to the idea of Macs having a "built in h.264 hardware encoder". If this card was capable of doing hardware assisted h264 encodes with some special Leopard only drivers/libraries, it would be HUGE.

Real time high quality h264 encoding being done in the background while you use the CPUs to edit and manipulate video for example... start cutting, splicing, compositing, adding text and other effects, etc in iMovie/FCP and the GPU starts rendering the video in high quality h264 as you work so that by the time you finish the export is done. Or being able to encode two or more streams at once with minimal impact on overall system responsiveness. Record TV from a tuner device to iPod/AppleTV ready files in real time. It positions the iMac as the center of your media world, if nto your gaming world. That wouldn't be a bad move (aside from pissing off gamers).

[mrgreen4242]

the ATI HD series including 2400 and 2600 are capable of hardware assisted H.264 encoding using their catalyst control center on PCs. http://ati.amd.com/technology/Avivo/technology.html

AH, well there it is then. I wont' be surprised to see this built into whatever version of QT Leopard ships with, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's already some support for it in iMovie '08 although it could be limited or inactive at this point.

Once I had the right keywords from you (AVIVO) I did a quick search. On an X1800XT a 5-minute chapter from DVD was encoded with early AVIVO software and where software encoders running on an Athlon X2 4800+ were roughly realtime (4min 45sec or so) for DiVX and WMV9 the GPU assisted version did similar codecs, resolutions, and bittrates in about 25sec. That's 10x realtime.

Now, the biggest problem with hardware encoders is always the software that goes with them. If Apple does run with this and build it into QT I would only expect them to do it really well, like they do most of their software.

How great would it be to encode a full two hour DVD into a high res, high qulaity h264 file for an AppleTV in 20 minutes or less? I remember when CDs took more than that to convert to MP3...

[Jimmdean]

Neither of these options are for gamers, although you can do some light gaming on them. But to say they are a downgrade from the x1600 would be incorrect...

[jkaz]

Neither of these options are for gamers, although you can do some light gaming on them. But to say they are a downgrade from the x1600 would be incorrect...

can someone confirm or deny that the offerings are the worst video cards available between ati and nvidia's most recent line of video cards?

[Eidorian]

can someone confirm or deny that the offerings are the worst video cards available between ati and nvidia's most recent line of video cards?The best value midrange video cards from ATi is the HD2600XT at ~$100 and for nVidia the 8600GT at around ~$115.

The HD2400XT is a low end card designed mostly for the HTPC as it can be passively cooled and has good h.264 decoding.

[Jimmdean]

ATI/AMD still has 2 cards below the HD2400XT, the 2300 series and the 2400 PRO. If you don't game, both the 2400 and 2600 series are great for their feature set alone.

In terms of performance, the 2400XT will be small bump above the 7300GT, just as it was a small bump above the x1600. The 2600 PRO is another good bump, but not a revolutionary one... I have an x1950XT in my Windows machine, so they're both pretty crappy to me for gaming purposes.

[thejadedmonkey]

Neither of these options are for gamers, although you can do some light gaming on them. But to say they are a downgrade from the x1600 would be incorrect...

The fact that we are debating if the video card is better then my laptop's 6 month old video card is quite telling. The fact that the iMac's video card has been called "a step above the GMA950"* is quite telling too. This card SUCKS.

Now don't get me wrong, the GMA950 would be more then enough for all of my needs right now, and the x1600 in my MBP is overkill for me until SC2 comes out. However..

This is a brand new, $1200 machine, and it shouldn't have something that can be compared to the previous generation of integrated video cards!

*Stated by some random member on these boards

[Jimmdean]

The fact that we are debating if the video card is better then my laptop's 6 month old video card is quite telling. The fact that the iMac's video card has been called "a step above the GMA950" is quite telling too. This card SUCKS.

Now don't get me wrong, the GMA950 would be more then enough for all of my needs right now, and the x1600 in my MBP is overkill for me until SC2 comes out. However..

This is a brand new, $1200 machine, and it shouldn't have something that can be compared to the previous generation of integrated video cards!

Whoever said it was "a step above the GMA950" was an idiot. I once gamed on a Geforce 6200 for 6 months (BF2/CoD2) - that cards kills integrated graphics. Like I said, the 2400XT is a bump above the 7300, which was a bump above the x1600.

[mrgreen4242]

The fact that we are debating if the video card is better then my laptop's 6 month old video card is quite telling. The fact that the iMac's video card has been called "a step above the GMA950" is quite telling too. This card SUCKS.

Now don't get me wrong, the GMA950 would be more then enough for all of my needs right now, and the x1600 in my MBP is overkill for me until SC2 comes out. However..

This is a brand new, $1200 machine, and it shouldn't have something that can be compared to the previous generation of integrated video cards!

Anybody who says the 2400xt is "a step above the GMA950" is an idiot or just very prone to hyperbole. Just to get some clarity on how many steps there are between the 950 and the 2400xt...

GMA950<Intel x3000<x2300<x2400 pro<x2400 xt and that's just the current line of ATI cards. You could fit the x1000 series ATI cards and NVidia cards int here somewhere as well, with each step up being somewhat significant.

Here's another, non-gaming-centric, way to look at the GMA950 vs x2400xt... the 950 doesn't even support realtime effects in Motion (FC/FCP/iMovie HD all use some form of that technology). The x2400xt does 10x realtime h264 encodes.

EDIT: Laugh... seems Jimmdean and I are on the same page. :)

[CanadaRAM]

You have to ask yourself: Am I a dedicated gamer or not?

If you do most of your work with photos, graphics, music, movies and office applications --- then all of the debate about which card has better 3D acceleration or DX10 support or etc etc. is essentially meaningless.

If the application doesn't support hardware 3D GPU acceleration then card X vs card Y FPS benchmarks mean nothing.

So if the 3D gaming experience does not make or break your computer decision, then simply tune out all of the video card debate and be happy. The iMac comes with a decent 2D solution with hardware video acceleration available.

[jkaz]

So if the 3D gaming experience does not make or break your computer decision, then simply tune out all of the video card debate and be happy. The iMac comes with a decent 2D solution with hardware video acceleration available.

it should also be noted that the resale value of an imac with a 'good' gaming card would be greater

[CanadaRAM]

it should also be noted that the resale value of an imac with a 'good' gaming card would be greater

And the initial cost would be higher - so that's a wash...

[jkaz]

And the initial cost would be higher - so that's a wash...

the rest of the quality of the machine is disproportionate to the video card.

the entire value retainment is decreased because of the video card.

e.g.: 12 months from now, as is, would resell for 64%(percentage chosen for illustration purposes) of cost today.

with a proportionate video card, would resell for above 64%.

ounce for ounce, this imac is worth less than if it had 'the right' video card.


so no, in terms of resale- it is not a wash


edit:
another way to illustrate this is to say that a an imac purchased $2000.00 imac today with it's subpar video card is only worth $1800.

compare to a $2200.00 imac with a sufficient video card is worth $2200.00

bottom line, the current video cards devalue the rest of the machine. A significant percentage of computer purchasers will never consider purchasing this imac for it's retail price.

[chewietobbacca]

I'd almost suggest waiting on the iMac if a video card is essential. Either wait for the next Mac Pro or wait until the next gen of video cards is released. For NVidia, that is due sometime before the holidays (the G90 / 9000 series) and ATI is supposed to release a refresh of their 2xxx series within the next 3-6 months (the 2900Pro is due within a couple months supposedly). The big reason why no good cards were released this generation is because all the good cards are extremely large and hot.

The undisputed king of performance this generation of cards was the 8800 Ultra. Now try fitting the 8800 Ultra inside the iMac and you'll realize that the 8800 Ultra's 10.5 inch long size (no typo, it's really large enough that some PC mid-tower cases can't even fit it without modding the case), is dual slot, and at idle can put out 60 C of heat and at load 80+ C of heat (no typo, this can boil water if improperly cooled).

The 2900XT from ATI is in the same boat.

Both ATI and NVIDIA though are promising lower heat dissipation and power usage (the 2900XT sucks up an amazing 180+ watts of power alone) with their refreshes/next gen cards because they will all be moving to lower transistor sizes, have dies shrinks, memory upgrades (ATI moving to GDDR4 on a lot of their current GDDR3 cards for example) and so on. Maybe then they will have a better card with more features (for example, Nvidia cards currently do NOT have a UVD or HDMI capability) and are smaller and more efficient.

[Vidd]

You'd actually need software that takes advantage of the hardware decoder. I know that ATi supplies encoding software as well. From the benchmarks that I've seen it's not any faster using the GPU as well then it is just using the CPU.

At least the fact that it can let the CPU get on with other tasks is something.

[Eidorian]

At least the fact that it can let the CPU get on with other tasks is something.Quite true. It's just getting software that uses the GPU that's hard to come by. :p

[mchank]

Apple has never cared about gaming. Apple always does this; they always put in cards which are good enough for video/photo editing but never for gaming. They always have put in terrible/outdated graphics in their consumer products (macbook/imac), the ones geared towards students, home users who would do the most gaming. Even the Mac Pro has pretty outdated GPUs compared to the competition so why would the iMac get something recent?

[Eidorian]

Apple has never cared about gaming. Apple always does this; they always put in cards which are good enough for video/photo editing but never for gaming. They always have put in terrible/outdated graphics in their consumer products (macbook/imac), the ones geared towards students, home users who would do the most gaming. Even the Mac Pro has pretty outdated GPUs compared to the competition so why would the iMac get something recent?Then why showcase Carmack and EA at WWDC? :confused:

[TheSilencer]

Because they had John Carmack (id software) on stage at WWDC07? Because EA announced to bring games on Mac? The question now is for what Mac? Mac Pro and MBP? Fine! The majority of apple costumers buys the consumer line products and will be upset with gaming performance.

And Steve Jobs said on stage while presenting the new iMac "much faster graphics card". Yeah you have now h.264 hardware playback, uuuuhhh, as the GeForce 8600M GT from the MBP have too.

[cluthz]

We are ofc not entirely happy with the new gfx in the iMac.
But what are the other options?
NVidia 8600GT(S) and Ati 2600XT is the only options that would fit in an iMac,
and neither of them are very much better.
If Apple decides to make an 8600GTS BTO option on he 24" i guess we would get the best card that it's possible to put in an iMac.

Anyways, with the drivers currently available from Apple for 8600M GT (in MBP) I guess we are better off with the ATi cards, since the 8600M GT in the 2.4GHz MBP is beaten by the 7600GT 2.16GHz iMac by nearly 50&#37; in most tests i've seen. And that has to be a driver issue, since tests i've seen with wintels the 8600m GT is on par or better than the 7600GT (not M version)

[iLunar]

Will it play Civ IV?

[mrgreen4242]

the rest of the quality of the machine is disproportionate to the video card.

the entire value retainment is decreased because of the video card.

e.g.: 12 months from now, as is, would resell for 64%(percentage chosen for illustration purposes) of cost today.

with a proportionate video card, would resell for above 64%.

ounce for ounce, this imac is worth less than if it had 'the right' video card.


so no, in terms of resale- it is not a wash


But that'll only matter a gamer. I think the point is that a gamer wouldn't want the new iMac now, and they're not going to want it in 2 years either. A person who wants to use iMovie, Mail, iTunes, etc though would be fine with that machine in two years and will pay the same percentage of original price in two years from now as they would if the iMac had a better GPU and cost $100 more new.

Quite true. It's just getting software that uses the GPU that's hard to come by. :p

I think that this will start to change in general now that the APIs are being provided by the manufacturer to easily use it. Also, the fact that this is Apple we're talking about gives us a good shot at getting OS wide library support for advanced GPU features. Hardware decoding and encoding on the GPU as part of the QT framework would mean that devs can just target the library in their app and OSX will decide the fastest way to do the task for them, just like Quartz does.

[Eidorian]

I think that this will start to change in general now that the APIs are being provided by the manufacturer to easily use it. Also, the fact that this is Apple we're talking about gives us a good shop at getting OS wide library support for advanced GPU features. Hardware decoding and encoding on the GPU as part of the QT framework would mean that devs can just target the library in their app and OSX will decide the fastest way to do the task for them, just like Quartz does.I'll be waiting for those libraries then. :p

My hopes are still very low. The X1600/7600GT had these features as well and we didn't see anything.

[jkaz]

But that'll only matter a gamer. I think the point is that a gamer wouldn't want the new iMac now, and they're not going to want it in 2 years either. A person who wants to use iMovie, Mail, iTunes, etc though would be fine with that machine in two years and will pay the same percentage of original price in two years from now as they would if the iMac had a better GPU and cost $100 more new.

the point of that was to show that an imac with a 'proper' video card is going to hold it's value better in the long run

[RRK]

Is it possible The 2600 pro in the iMac is modified like the Sapphire Radeon HD 2600 PRO 256MB GDDR3 OC Edition. This is the only reference I can find that shows a 2600 pro with GDDR3.

[SilentCrs]

But that'll only matter a gamer. I think the point is that a gamer wouldn't want the new iMac now, and they're not going to want it in 2 years either. A person who wants to use iMovie, Mail, iTunes, etc though would be fine with that machine in two years and will pay the same percentage of original price in two years from now as they would if the iMac had a better GPU and cost $100 more new.

Step aside from the whole "gamer" debate for a second. Say you're buying the top of the line iMac: $2300. Really nice CPU, roomy hard drive, gorgeous screen, etc. $90 video card. Why wouldn't Apple at least give the OPTION to upgrade the card?

As others have said, a $90 video card running at that resolution on a 24" screen on a $2300 machine is a joke. Worse, for those of us who really *did* want to upgrade (I wanted to move on from a 3-year old self-built PC rig) it *was* like a punch in the stomach.

Why on earth does my 3-year old PC have better video than a new iMac? Especially when every other aspect of the iMac (CPU, hard drive, etc) wipes the floor with it?

Let me be brutally frank here: it's stupid to defend Apple's decisions on video cards. These are the "consumer" models. You've got incoming college students looking to buy machines right now. They've captured young people's mindshare with the iPod. WHY would you give buyers ANY excuse not to buy a Mac? ("It doesn't play games well. Dude, forget that. I'll get a Dell").

[Gaius]

Will it play Civ IV?

That's pretty much the only game I use my computer for too.

[mrgreen4242]

I'll be waiting for those libraries then. :p

My hopes are still very low. The X1600/7600GT had these features as well and we didn't see anything.

Well, my only hope is that it was due to there being no new OS being release shortly afterwards? I thought the hardware video encoding/decoding for the NVidia cards was fairly weak and ATI's only real strength this time around?

Meh, shows what I know I guess!

[Eidorian]

Well, my only hope is that it was due to there being no new OS being release shortly afterwards? I thought the hardware video encoding/decoding for the NVidia cards was fairly weak and ATI's only real strength this time around?

Meh, shows what I know I guess!Yeah, there's a chance Leopard might take advantage of these hardware features. Both ATi and nVidia have hardware decoding. ATi's is just better now.

[woolensock]

Out of curiosity, has anyone taken any temperature measurements of the 20" imac w/ the 2400xt versus the 2600? I've been very curious about this. Thanks.

[Eidorian]

Out of curiosity, has anyone taken any temperature measurements of the 20" imac w/ the 2400xt versus the 2600? I've been very curious about this. Thanks.Other then the HD2400 XT being cooler what would be the significance?

[erasr]

time to get a ps3 guys! i got mine already...and it doubles as an apple tv and it will soon have pvr functions

not to mention the blu ray oh and it plays some games too with some awesome ones coming out next year

Yeah but all you need now for even better gaming is a 360...having both I would safely say the PS3 is just a fantastic blu ray machine but for the best gaming, online, offline, the 360 wins hands down. Not even MGS4 was enough to warrant getting a PS3. But this is a whole different debate!

[woolensock]

Other then the HD2400 XT being cooler what would be the significance?

Might just be a 'green' thing, but I've been wondering how much more or less power the base spec iMac would draw when compared to the 2.66 version. I've been looking all over for kill-a-watt results for these, but have found nothing yet.

[Eidorian]

Might just be a 'green' thing, but I've been wondering how much more or less power the base spec iMac would draw when compared to the 2.66 version. I've been looking all over for kill-a-watt results for these, but have found nothing yet.If you're that concerned about being green get a MacBook with integrated graphics.

The differences with mobility graphics is going to be under 10-20 watts at full load.

[iSpoody 1243]

wouldn't it be easier if apple used mobile graphics cards in their imacs.
256mb 8600gt base
512mb 8600gt mid range
512mb 8700gt or 8800 gtx hidh range

they are more designed to be in small enclosures and all of these cards are fast

[asphyxiafeeling]

i think you guys are being over skeptical-

you'll be able to touch up photos FINE on iPhoto with the baseline iMac. for what you'll be using it for, you'll be perfectly fine.

do you really think your brand new computer would come with programs it couldn't use?

[kabunaru]

i think you guys are being over skeptical-

Agreed.
Why do people always think they need the high-end stuff just to edit photos, edit videos, check email and browse the web when a low-end Mac will do that just fine?

What's wrong with you people? :rolleyes:

[DoFoT9]

Agreed.
Why do people always think they need the high-end stuff just to edit photos, edit videos, check email and browse the web when a low-end Mac will do that just fine?

What's wrong with you people? :rolleyes:

i agree with you on this one, a G4 iMac can do even all of those basic tasks quite quickly.. i spose if you have the money, people will spend it though so you cant really stop it.

[Bubba Satori]

Agreed.
Why do people always think they need the high-end stuff just to edit photos, edit videos, check email and browse the web when a low-end Mac will do that just fine?

What's wrong with you people? :rolleyes:

Because with an iMac and it's non upgradable video card you'll be stuck with it for the life of the computer. Ever heard of people wanting to do new things with their computers after they've bought them ? :rolleyes:

[kabunaru]

Because with an iMac and it's non upgradable video card you'll be stuck with it for the life of the computer. Ever heard of people wanting to do new things with their computers after they've bought them ? :rolleyes:

I don't think a HD 2600 or 8800GS is going to last that much longer than the HD 2400XT. Do you still see people using graphics cards from 7-10 years ago?
Hmmm. I am afraid not. :p

[Nevpaurion]

Now that i read all these things about the 2600 i feel so stupid in ordering my iMac with it. Is there a way to put that nvidia card that apple sells with the high end iMacs in it? I know that trying to do anything with an iMac internally on your own is supposed to be dangerously difficult, and warranty voidable as well, so could I just take my iMac to the apple store and ask if they'd put that better video card in it?

And now that I read the post above mine, i feel even more stupid =\ But still is it possible for apple to do the upgrade?

[upsguy27]

Now that i read all these things about the 2600 i feel so stupid in ordering my iMac with it. Is there a way to put that nvidia card that apple sells with the high end iMacs in it? I know that trying to do anything with an iMac internally on your own is supposed to be dangerously difficult, and warranty voidable as well, so could I just take my iMac to the apple store and ask if they'd put that better video card in it?

And now that I read the post above mine, i feel even more stupid =\ But still is it possible for apple to do the upgrade?

Nope, you can't do that. Apple won't upgrade it for you. If you want the 8800 you will have to buy a new iMac.

[airjuggernaut]

Dear god :|

I've been watching this thread for a while, and have just been waiting to post.

You guys are insane and extremely over skeptical.

The 2400xt isn't a card made out of sticks and spit, it's an actual decent card that runs everything perfectly fine, infact it was made to rival another decent card, the nVidia's 8400GT.

This card run TF2, HL2, CS Source, and Portal with settings on either all high or high with lower levels of anti-aliasing on. It's not a gaming DEAMON but it is decent enough to run pretty much any game you throw at it with atleast 30fps, just don't expect Crysis with everything maxed out.

It also handles movie and photo editing marvelously.

The reason why some older cards are out performing it right now is mainly because of drivers.

All hardware performs better as drivers mature, a good example of this is how the GMA 950 outperformed the GMAx3100 (when it first came out) which is a card that was supposed to be 3 times better than the 950, and this was all due to driver maturity.

Some of you people really need to get your head out of your ass and realize that not everyone can afford or needs that 8800 to run iPhoto to edit their grandkid's photos.

And me being a teen myself I know that reading crap like this is discouraging when you've been saving for months, working your butt off to get enough money to buy a mac, only to find out that "THE 2400xt BLOWS, IT WONT RUN ANYTHING, IT BARELY RUNS SAFARI!" stupid and extremely overblown statements.

Not everyone has mommy and daddy's pocketbook at their disposal.

Just because you ponied up the money to buy the top of the line, doesn't mean you need to ridiculously undervalue anything below your machine.

And to the person who said that the 2400xt is a step up from a GMA 950, obviously does not know anything about computer hardware and they should learn to keep their misinformation to themselves.

So to anyone that needs a mac and doesn't want to, or does not have the ability to pay the extra money for the high-end macs, this is a perfectly fine card that will run photoshop, games and other applications just fine.

Don't listen to some of the pretentious trolls that roam MacRumors and the PC gaming community.

[passingXstorm]

*snip*

Thanks for that post... I was reading this thread and starting to question my decision to buy the low-end iMac.... but you convinced me that there's no problem with it. :D

[Nevpaurion]

You know I completely forgot about how most hardware is only as good as the drivers that follow it. I just got a whole lot of games back from my trip home and I see that my iMac with the ati card in runs them much better. I can have almost any game I like to play on the highest settings and still it's quite smooth. There are only a couple of games that run a bit sluggish, like Oblivion but that's to be expected at certain settings because they're pretty graphics intensive. I do see that the whole bootcamp thing needs to be worked on to get some kinks here and there with drivers and such but, it's to be expected. Over all, I think that most people will be happy with the video card that is in my iMac. BTW it's a ATI Radeon 2600, not 2400 in my computer.

[Jack Flash]

eh?? so the hd 2600 pro is worse than the older Imac's GPU:confused:
if it's true..then why ¤%&/ did they make it thinner????? for what??? the look? oh comon the previous Imac was good, they should have not make it thinner.

Ok this needs to be put in perspective.

Team Fortress 2, with Mobility Modder enhanced drivers and original clock speeds restored via ATI Tool, runs at an average 50+ FPS for me. This means 1680x1050 resolution, every setting maxed except for AA which is disabled.

Half Life 2, using the same approach except for the inclusion of 6x AA runs at constant 110+ FPS.

The mobility 2600 XT isn't a bad graphics chip, it's a bad chip for hardcore PC gamers.

Oh, and Call of Duty 4 with all settings save AA maxed at 1440x900 runs at a constant 45+ FPS as well.

[darkshine]

hahaha


Well, I have enough money for a MBP or a 24" iMac.

I was reading around, and apparently the 8600gt cards are defective, I don't know if its true, but I'm not willing to gamble as I need something to last me at least 4 - 5 years.

Anyway, I was thinking on whether I should get it with the 2600 HD PRO or the Nvidia 8800GS?
I will be video editing in final cut express and possibly final cut pro in the future. Possibly playing diablo 3 when it comes out, some light photoshop, audio recording on Logic and just internet browsing and itunes.

Thanks people

(sorry if I'm going off topic, its about GPUs, so what the heck)

[mattcube64]

hahaha


Well, I have enough money for a MBP or a 24" iMac.

I was reading around, and apparently the 8600gt cards are defective, I don't know if its true, but I'm not willing to gamble as I need something to last me at least 4 - 5 years.

Anyway, I was thinking on whether I should get it with the 2600 HD PRO or the Nvidia 8800GS?
I will be video editing in final cut express and possibly final cut pro in the future. Possibly playing diablo 3 when it comes out, some light photoshop, audio recording on Logic and just internet browsing and itunes.

Thanks people

(sorry if I'm going off topic, its about GPUs, so what the heck)

Ah, no problem.

From the benchmarks out there, it seems that the ATI card is better in Core apps and in programs such as you mentioned. However, the 8800 card is definitely a superior card, and as new drivers are released from Nvidia, and OSX updates are released through Apple, the 8800 is closing the gap, and I'm sure the 8800 will eventually come out on top.

As for gaming, the 8800 is DEFINITELY the way to go. The ATI card isn't as big of a slouch as people like to think (Check out the vids on Youtube of the card running Crysis, Battlefield, HL2, and such with cranked settings), but the 8800 is certainly more future proof.

I think the ATI card is fine, but if you have the money, I'd *definitely* opt for the 8800. That's what I'll be getting as soon as I find out how I'm paying for my spring semester of college.

[kaiwai]

I don't think a HD 2600 or 8800GS is going to last that much longer than the HD 2400XT. Do you still see people using graphics cards from 7-10 years ago?
Hmmm. I am afraid not. :p

Well, lets look at it from this angle; Apple is selling machines with the Intel integrated video card; so it isn't as though they (Apple) are going to make it so GPU heavy that it makes purchasing MacBooks a bad choice.

The HD2400XT will do the trick for anyone, but the problem is that how many are going to, in 6months time want to do more than just editing a 1mb image. When I originally bought a Mac I thought I'd never make videos, well, here I am making videos for for my YouTube account. People change, and thus, one needs to look at future proofing ones investment.