somebody's head has swelled!

[Trout74]

I dont know where to begin. I took the original backlash on the new iMac with a grain of salt and slept on it and waitied a good 24 hours to comment. I figured the stats would come out and the deluge of nay sayers would be quited and proved wrong. Im a huge Mac fan and have an iPod and a iPhone and a mini, I even have an old color classic from 1993! ( and it still runs). I also have 2000$ in my savings account that has been there for 6 months waiting on this refresh. I am utterly dissappointed. I am dumbfounded, I truely Believe Steve thinks he can make a pretty/ esthetically pleasing product and fill it with mediocre insides and still sell it to all the zealots out there. I can not think of a worse " new " offering on the market. The graphics just plain stink, color the cat any color you want and drink the coolaid all day, it just plain sucks! Those cards are terrible, no excuse what so ever, I simply cant believe it. I can spec many differnt machines that are much more powerful and pay almost half. I am willing to pay more, and a great deal more, but not for crappy insides. i gig of ram, are you serious?/ Seriously Steve, pull your swelled head out of your A-S_S and at least give us some decent graphics ( arent we supposed to be doing photo and video editing on these machines? forget gamming, how about your core audience?)
\
In short, my money will not be going to Apple, I am not giving Steve one red cent till he wakes up and gets back in the game.

one dissapointed consumer!

[bluesman87]

Then dont buy it and wait for something more to your tastes (that way we hear less whining)

[gauchogolfer]

Didn't Steve use the new iMacs in his demonstration of iPhoto and iMovie? They both seemed to run great during the demos. It wasn't like he was using Mac Pros, like usual. I think that the 20" is a great deal.

[Queso]

If you've waited this long, wait a little longer and see what the benchmark tests come back with on the machines. If you're still unhappy, buy an alternative.

Just don't jump until you have the full picture.

[Grenadier]

Then dont buy it and wait for something more to your tastes (that way we hear less whining)

Why should he ?
The fact is, what else is there to buy ?
Im in a similar position to him, and the fact is, I love OSX, but there is nothing else other than the iMac which suits my (or, apparently, his) needs -

Mac Pro: Too expensive, and I dont need four cores
Mac Mini: very underpowered. Besides, integrated graphics suck.

So, other than those two desktop choices, the only other desktop Apple offers is the iMac, which they seem to have totally crippled by the GPU.
The design is also a bit too 'bleh' for me.

Very many Apple fans have rightly been very disappointed in the past 24 hours.

[VortexOfPain]

Sounds like someone needs to visit Apple's Feedback page, and add another request for a better GPU:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=338795

Posting here in forums won't give them the feedback they need. We need as many people as possible to submit feedback. The last iMac lineup later received an option for a faster card, so we can only assume they do listen to feedback!

[Trout74]

Why should he ?
The fact is, what else is there to buy ?
Im in a similar position to him, and the fact is, I love OSX, but there is nothing else other than the iMac which suits my (or, apparently, his) needs -

Mac Pro: Too expensive, and I dont need four cores
Mac Mini: very underpowered. Besides, integrated graphics suck.

So, other than those two desktop choices, the only other desktop Apple offers is the iMac, which they seem to have totally crippled by the GPU.
The design is also a bit too 'bleh' for me.

Very many Apple fans have rightly been very disappointed in the past 24 hours.



QFT!

I wanted this new iMac bad! heck I even went and saw it lasst night, the mini( i have one, the 1.42 G4 ) I need more horsepower, but I DONT need a Macpro, but im not going to shell out 2000$ for a computer that is not better or more powerful than what was introduced a year ago. That is a poor use of hard earned money. I know it can video edit and edit photos, but not a well as the last rendition, and that is pathetic, and unacceptable. I will wait for the rev. B but i shouldnt have too!

Trout

[himedc]

which they seem to have totally crippled by the GPU.

The 2600 pro is faster then the X1600. The 20 inch iMac was not crippled.

[Grenadier]

The 2600 pro is faster then the X1600. The 20 inch iMac was not crippled.

Faster, yes. But not by much.
And here is the issue, the ATi 2000 series is well known as the suckiest in all of GPU options.

Here, just for plain reference, look at the Anandtech review:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=6

These cards are pathetic.

The fact they are better is not good enough - the iMacs are already limited severely by the fact you cant change the GPU.
Now, Apple forcing you to be stuck with a 2400 or 2600 until you upgrade (usually 3-5 years for the average user) is just plainly insulting !

These cards are ALREADY obsolete - as stated in many places, this struggles to perform better than the 7600GT in the previous revision of the iMac.

Besides, we are not talking about spending £300 on a crap Dell,
we are refering to a iMac which costs about £1500 when decently kitted out in the UK store, and we have a damn right to be offered something better than a GPU you will find in a £400 desktop.

[MagicWok]

It just perplexes me how on earth this decision on the graphics card was made in the first place.

I mean, with EA arriving with their arsenal of games, it's piss easy for Apple to start picking away at the PC gaming market and abolishing the argument that Mac's don't have games to play...

Enthusiats and casual gamers are not going to be impressed by the non-upgradable graphics card, that is so poorly underpowered to be pushing out decent graphics at the native res of 1920x1200 lest we forget! The C2D, especially the extreme edition, will just be sitting there waiting for the struggling graphics card to feed it information. The iMac is such an unbalanced mainstream desktop IMO.

A Mac Pro is just too much for the average Joe to spend when looking for an affordable system to play games. You can spec a PC that will come at the same price of the iMac and totally overpower it. The only reason I haven't bought/built my own PC due to being fed up with the situation, is because I love using OSX. Shame...

Meh

[himedc]

Faster, yes. But not by much.
And here is the issue, the ATi 2000 series is well known as the suckiest in all of GPU options.

Here, just for plain reference, look at the Anandtech review:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=6

These cards are pathetic.

The fact they are better is not good enough - the iMacs are already limited severely by the fact you cant change the GPU.
Now, Apple forcing you to be stuck with a 2400 or 2600 until you upgrade (usually 3-5 years for the average user) is just plainly insulting !

These cards are ALREADY obsolete - as stated in many places, this struggles to perform better than the 7600GT in the previous revision of the iMac.

Besides, we are not talking about spending £300 on a crap Dell,
we are refering to a iMac which costs about £1500 when decently kitted out in the UK store, and we have a damn right to be offered something better than a GPU you will find in a £400 desktop.

Well said, and I agree with you for the most part. I just don't like that people are making it look like the 2600 Pro is a downgrade.

[MagicWok]

Besides, we are not talking about spending £300 on a crap Dell, we are refering to a iMac which costs about £1500 when decently kitted out in the UK store, and we have a damn right to be offered something better than a GPU you will find in a £400 desktop.

For £1,500, I'm building for my brother - a PC that comes with the Q6600 which will be overclocked to 3GHz+, 4GB's of PC8500 DDR2 and a very very nice EVGA 8800GTX KO AC3. All coming in housed in the very nice Antec P182 case. Shame it'll be with Vista 64 LOL, but I look what I can get for the same money as the iMac and I find it impossible to argue in the iMac's favour if someone asked me.

And besides, being forced a glossy screen I won't get one from that viewpoint as I need accurate colour reproduction for my work. Which btw I do on a 24" Dell which is better spec'd than the current ACD's and is cheaper lol. :o

[Roy Hobbs]

I dont know where to begin. I took the original backlash on the new iMac with a grain of salt and slept on it and waitied a good 24 hours to comment. I figured the stats would come out and the deluge of nay sayers would be quited and proved wrong. Im a huge Mac fan and have an iPod and a iPhone and a mini, I even have an old color classic from 1993! ( and it still runs). I also have 2000$ in my savings account that has been there for 6 months waiting on this refresh. I am utterly dissappointed. I am dumbfounded, I truely Believe Steve thinks he can make a pretty/ esthetically pleasing product and fill it with mediocre insides and still sell it to all the zealots out there. I can not think of a worse " new " offering on the market. The graphics just plain stink, color the cat any color you want and drink the coolaid all day, it just plain sucks! Those cards are terrible, no excuse what so ever, I simply cant believe it. I can spec many differnt machines that are much more powerful and pay almost half. I am willing to pay more, and a great deal more, but not for crappy insides. i gig of ram, are you serious?/ Seriously Steve, pull your swelled head out of your A-S_S and at least give us some decent graphics ( arent we supposed to be doing photo and video editing on these machines? forget gamming, how about your core audience?)
\
In short, my money will not be going to Apple, I am not giving Steve one red cent till he wakes up and gets back in the game.

one dissapointed consumer!


The graphics card and 1 gig of RAM is more than enough for most of the general population. Apple markets to the mass consumer not the FanBoys on macrumors, if you want more power and better graphics get a Mac Pro and stop all the damn complaining.

[Eidorian]

It just perplexes me how on earth this decision on the graphics card was made in the first place.

I mean, with EA arriving with their arsenal of games, it's piss easy for Apple to start picking away at the PC gaming market and abolishing the argument that Mac's don't have games to play...

Enthusiats and casual gamers are not going to be impressed by the non-upgradable graphics card, that is so poorly underpowered to be pushing out decent graphics at the native res of 1920x1200 lest we forget! The C2D, especially the extreme edition, will just be sitting there waiting for the struggling graphics card to feed it information. The iMac is such an unbalanced mainstream desktop IMO.

A Mac Pro is just too much for the average Joe to spend when looking for an affordable system to play games. You can spec a PC that will come at the same price of the iMac and totally overpower it. The only reason I haven't bought/built my own PC due to being fed up with the situation, is because I love using OSX. Shame...

MehApple goes for processors speed first and all other components second.

The graphics card and 1 gig of RAM is more than enough for most of the general population. Apple markets to the mass consumer not the FanBoys on macrumors, if you want more power and better graphics get a Mac Pro and stop all the damn complaining.So we're supposed to all get Mac Pros then? It's hard telling people that want to run any games that they'll be stuck with 1024 x 768 for any new games. A lot of people expect a lot from this new iMac and are going to be let down.

Carmack at WWDC and now these underpowered iMacs? Yeah, gaming is sure coming to OS X.

[Grenadier]

The graphics card and 1 gig of RAM is more than enough for most of the general population. Apple markets to the mass consumer not the FanBoys on macrumors, if you want more power and better graphics get a Mac Pro and stop all the damn complaining.

1GB of RAM I can live with - it only costs £90 on the UK store to upgrade to 2GB anyway.

But...
you seem to spectactularly fail to understand that, usually, when a computer is refreshed and updated, its meant to become better.
This is not a question of marketing to the mass consumers or fanboys, but a question of being totally, and excuse my harsh use of words,
TOTALLY SCREWED OVER.
Have you even seen the performance of the 2400 and 2600 cards ?

And anyway, I, among probably 90% of people here dont have the damn cash to blow on a Mac Pro just to have a half-decent GPU. That thing costs between £2500-£3000 when customised to your liking.

It's hard telling people that want to run any games that they'll be stuck with 1024 x 768 for any new games. A lot of people expect a lot from this new iMac and are going to be let down.
Sadly, hardly even that.
If you look at a benchmark of Supreme Commander, on any of those two cards at 1024x768, the game is still unplayable.

[johnee]

And besides, being forced a glossy screen I won't get one from that viewpoint as I need accurate colour reproduction for my work. Which btw I do on a 24" Dell which is better spec'd than the current ACD's and is cheaper lol. :o

Someone in another thread (quite a while ago actually) proved that dell's displays weren't as accurate as ACDs. I can't remember the whole thing, but the person showed real evidence based on dell's specs that the displays were not as good.

[Trout74]

Well I guess its just another waiting game, come on rev. B!! Another year with a 1.42 G4.

trout

[BlackMax]

I agree somewhat with the OP.

I like the new design. I like the fact that it is thinner and has cleaner lines (haven't seen it in person yet) than the previous iMac. I like the bump in processor, the lower price points and the new keyboard looks promising. But I am disappointed in the choice of GPU and the fact that all models except the top model come with 1 GB memory standard.

I was really hoping that Apple would bump the graphics performance of these new iMacs up a little more than they did. I have been waiting to purchase one as a replacement for an old aging PC my kids have been using. Now that my kids are older and playing more games this iMac would need to be able to keep up with their current games, like Oblivion. These iMacs will do that (barely, at a reasonable frame rate), but doesn't have a lot of "future" growth potential in it from a gaming point of view.

I think it is clear that Apple does not consider the gaming niche a market they are interested in going after. I'm sure there were a lot of trade off considerations made (overall cost, heat, energy consumption, noise, etc.) when they chose the ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO as their top of the line GPU. I just wish Apple could have offered one more GPU upgrade option, perhaps the Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT or GTX, just to see how well it sold. Even the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT would have been better.

I've read that the 2600 PRO is offered in a passive cooling configuration, so I'm wondering if new iMacs are using passive cooling on the 2600 Pro and perhaps that is why Apple went with the 2600 PRO?

I'm sure these new iMacs will sell just fine as they are and I believe they are great machines for everything except gaming. I'll still end up purchasing one once Leopard is released, because the alternative is a PC with Vista and I'm not going that direction. I am just disappointed because of what these new iMacs "could have been" :(

[zign]

Here, just for plain reference, look at the Anandtech review:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=6


The HD 2600 Pro reviewed there has 256MB DDR2. The ones in iMacs are 256MB GDDR3. They will perform better. From the reviews I read (in russian) they are very close to 8600GT and that is with beta drivers. Those who tried the updated beta drivers are seeing improvements, so once the drivers are updated the cards should perform quite nicely.

[destroyboredom]

If its a gaming rig you're after then may be you are in the wrong market. For the average consumer, they won't give 2 hoots about the video card. All they want is a machine that can send e-mail, surf the web, and run a word processor (and more than likely is less virus and spyware ridden than a windows machine).

If you want a machine that will play games and handle digital media then go for a Mac Pro or used Powermac G5.

I will admit the ATI choice is a strange one when you consider they were purchased by AMD. Just seems like a conflict of interest with the Intel deal.

[iSee]

i gig of ram, are you serious?

You can upgrade the RAM to 4GB, so this isn't a reasonable complaint. You'll want to get the RAM from someone cheaper than Apple, obviously,

[Grenadier]

The HD 2600 Pro reviewed there has 256MB DDR2. The ones in iMacs are 256MB GDDR3. They will perform better. From the reviews I read (in russian) they are very close to 8600GT and that is with beta drivers. Those who tried the updated beta drivers are seeing improvements, so once the drivers are updated the cards should perform quite nicely.

You give me hope.
How far away do you think a driver update is ?
If they managed to get the 2600 Pro to perform on par with a 8600 GTS,
well, I would be a very happy man.

The 8600GTS is by no means a card which will kill every game, and run it at 120FPS, but atleast it will run current games at high quality with decent frame rates.

*crosses fingers*

[Eidorian]

You give me hope.
How far away do you think a driver update is ?
If they managed to get the 2600 Pro to perform on pay with a 8600 GTS,
well, I would be a very happy man.

The 8600GTS is by no means a card which will kill every game, and run it at 120FPS, but atleast it will run current games at high quality with decent frame rates.

*crosses fingers*That isn't going to happen.

If its a gaming rig you're after then may be you are in the wrong market. For the average consumer, they won't give 2 hoots about the video card. All they want is a machine that can send e-mail, surf the web, and run a word processor (and more than likely is less virus and spyware ridden than a windows machine).

If you want a machine that will play games and handle digital media then go for a Mac Pro or used Powermac G5.

I will admit the ATI choice is a strange one when you consider they were purchased by AMD. Just seems like a conflict of interest with the Intel deal.I think Apple should have stuck with the X3100 in the iMac then. Gaming doesn't matter at all. Have fun telling people they can't run any GPU or demanding 3D applications.

[Grenadier]

That isn't going to happen.

Its a long shot, I know, but 'zign' did state that this uses GDDR3.
I know the card is crippled in many other areas, but perhaps it...well, possible that it will perform better since this is different memory.

Meh, but the best hope for gaming on the iMac, is, as stated previously, a GPU refresh, which judging by the previous track record, may well be another year.
How depressing.

I was so looking forward to buying one of these new iMacs and running BF2 :(
Sigh, back to my old 700MHz G4...

[Eidorian]

Its a long shot, I know, but 'zign' did state that this uses GDDR3.
I know the card is crippled in many other areas, but perhaps it...well, possible that it will perform better since this is different memoryThe HD2600XT can't compete with the 8600GTS. How do you hope that the Pro will? :confused:

[maverick808]

The HD 2600 Pro reviewed there has 256MB DDR2.

Where do they say that?

[Grenadier]

The HD2600XT can't compete with the 8600GTS. How do you hope that the Pro will? :confused:

Besides, the Pro model is actually inferior to the XT.
Ach, im just clutching at straws to avoid the depressing truth.

[CanadaRAM]

Repeat after me:
The iMac is not a gamer's machine.

It doesn't matter what video card Apple puts in, there will always be somebody whinging that there isn't a $700 video card in their $1200 machine.

arent we supposed to be doing photo and video editing on these machines? forget gamming, how about your core audience?
Now repeat:
3D video acceleration means diddly squat for photos and 2D (and even most 3D) graphics and most video production.

Y'all love your benchmarks way more than reality.

[maverick808]

Repeat after me:
The iMac is not a gamer's machine.

It doesn't matter what video card Apple puts in, there will always be somebody whinging that there isn't a $700 video card in their $1200 machine.


Now repeat:
3D video acceleration means diddly squat for photos and 2D (and even most 3D) graphics and most video production.

Y'all love your benchmarks way more than reality.

Obviously, with this graphics card, the iMac is not a gamer's machine. But what Mac is then? At WWDC Apple made a massive deal about how games were going to be a big thing now on the Mac. Are they really expecting gamers to buy Mac Pros!?

[slffl]

So there seems to be a lot of whining in this thread.

I'm curious, what do the complainers think they will accomplish by wasting their valuable time posting how much they hate things on the internet?

I'm sorry, but Steve is not going to read your post and make decisions based on it.

[maverick808]

I'm curious, what do the complainers think they will accomplish by wasting their valuable time posting how much they hate things on the internet?

Well what do all the people talking about how they love the new iMac accomplish? It's a forum and on a Mac forum then any discussion topic about anything related to Macs (good or bad) is, in my view, perfectly suitable.

What did your post accomplish?

[Eidorian]

Obviously, with this graphics card, the iMac is not a gamer's machine. But what Mac is then? At WWDC Apple made a massive deal about how games were going to be a big thing now on the Mac. Are they really expecting gamers to buy Mac Pros!?This is what perplexes me the most. You get EA and Carmack at WWDC but you don't make any computers that can run these games on their displays reasonably besides the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro?

[Steven.nevets]

I just wanted to point out that I have a previous model of the iMac, 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo with the X1600, 128 mb ram, and it plays BF2 fine. Sure, I turn down a few settings to around the middle, but the point is, I can still game. Same with Guild Wars.

I don't get 120 FPS running all settings at max at 1680 x 1050, but who needs that? If you want a hardcore gaming rig, don't buy a mac. If you just want to play the game, the iMac is great.

[LeviG]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that a mac game will not be the same as a Windows game, the coding and the use of the graphics card is going to be different. Macs don't use direct x for starters.

Another thing is that while everyone wants 100+ fps it is not needed, the eye can only take in about 30fps, displays normally only hit about 60fps, so as long as you get 50+fps in games most people will not be able to tell the difference between 50+ and 100+ fps.

I also have to say that I'm not exactly sure why people buy a mac for games especially when a decent windows pc (which will get all good the games a mac gets anyway) can be had for a lot less money than the higher end (more gaming orientated) macs.

Macs are generally bought due to the way that they help the user be more productive in their work etc

[BlackMax]

So there seems to be a lot of whining in this thread.

I'm curious, what do the complainers think they will accomplish by wasting their valuable time posting how much they hate things on the internet?

I'm sorry, but Steve is not going to read your post and make decisions based on it.

Very strange comment to place on a Mac Forum.

Apple produces products to meet their customer's needs and in doing so make money for their shareholders. Not the other way around. There needs to be a place where Apple customers can discuss their thoughts on Apple products. Good and bad. This is that place!

There is another thread directing iMac feedback directly to Apple, so someone at Apple (perhaps not Steve, but who knows) will hear/read the feedback from this forum. :D

[AcousTronic]

Eh, I'll wait and see what Mossberg, Pogue and some of the others say... I didn't think the design changed enough initially, but after sleeping on it I've decided not to buy in to all the speculative space age, science fiction, photoshop versions of what people were dreaming about and accept the reality that it is a beautiful machine, and much more powerful with all the upgrades than the last model.

I for one, can't wait to own one!! Well done Apple!

[Trout74]

So there seems to be a lot of whining in this thread.

I'm curious, what do the complainers think they will accomplish by wasting their valuable time posting how much they hate things on the internet?

I'm sorry, but Steve is not going to read your post and make decisions based on it.

I did provide feedback on the apple web site...........FYI. And I am not complaining as much as I am utterly dumbfounded/perplexed if you will.

[Grenadier]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that a mac game will not be the same as a Windows game, the coding and the use of the graphics card is going to be different. Macs don't use direct x for starters.

Another thing is that while everyone wants 100+ fps it is not needed, the eye can only take in about 30fps, displays normally only hit about 60fps, so as long as you get 50+fps in games most people will not be able to tell the difference between 50+ and 100+ fps.

I also have to say that I'm not exactly sure why people buy a mac for games especially when a decent windows pc (which will get all good the games a mac gets anyway) can be had for a lot less money than the higher end (more gaming orientated) macs.

Macs are generally bought due to the way that they help the user be more productive in their work etc

1.The eyes actual limit for FPS visibility is about 70-75FPS.
2.Why do we not want to get a Windoze PC ? Because Windows is a terrible operating system - atleast in my opinion.
3.You see - we dont need 100,000,000fps @ 300,000,000x250,000,000, however, what we do want is to do some decent gaming on iMacs.
You know, run Doom 3 perhaps at full quality with 40fps.

Besides, as I have stated before, in the iMac, the GPU IS NOT upgradable, so this means, if the 2400 or 2600 perform terribly now, who knows how bad the situation will be in 2-3 years ?

The cards are almost literally, crippling the system.


Oh, and slffl, what are we doing ?
Well, there is another thread for complains, which is being passed around various forums now thanks to me.
Dont you worry, I will damn well make sure someone at Apple HQ hears me whether itll take me a day, or a damn month.

[holland]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that a mac game will not be the same as a Windows game, the coding and the use of the graphics card is going to be different. Macs don't use direct x for starters.

Another thing is that while everyone wants 100+ fps it is not needed, the eye can only take in about 30fps, displays normally only hit about 60fps, so as long as you get 50+fps in games most people will not be able to tell the difference between 50+ and 100+ fps.

I also have to say that I'm not exactly sure why people buy a mac for games especially when a decent windows pc (which will get all good the games a mac gets anyway) can be had for a lot less money than the higher end (more gaming orientated) macs.

Macs are generally bought due to the way that they help the user be more productive in their work etc

Exactly! All these benchmarks are for Windows games not Mac plus this card will be able to handle all the games currently on Mac and if EA release Battlefield 2142 for Mac it will also be able to run fine with this video card. Who cares what runs in Windows considering this is a Mac OS X computer? Just buy an Alienware or a build a Windows computer if you want to game or even better/cheaper buy a Xbox360/PS3 ;)

:apple:

[Eidorian]

Exactly! All these benchmarks are for Windows games not Mac plus this card will be able to handle all the games currently on Mac and if EA release Battlefield 2142 for Mac it will also be able to run fine with this video card. Who cares what runs in Windows considering this is a Mac OS X computer? Just buy an Alienware or a build a Windows computer if you want to game or even better/cheaper buy a Xbox360/PS3 ;)

:apple:I don't think we should ignore these benchmarks. The majority of ported games to OS X run slower then their Windows counterparts. I don't know if Cider takes advantage of multithreaded OpenGL as well. So expect EA's releases on OS X to run slower then their Windows based ones.

We're Mac users and you suggest to us to buy a Windows machine? We love OS X. We just can't stand what Apple offers in terms of hardware. The sub par iMac only leaves us with the Mac Pro or the MacBook Pro.

This is rather sad when you can't upgrade the iMac's video card and comparable even ridiculously cheap Windows only machines can have better.

[maverick808]

Exactly! All these benchmarks are for Windows games not Mac plus this card will be able to handle all the games currently on Mac and if EA release Battlefield 2142 for Mac it will also be able to run fine with this video card. Who cares what runs in Windows considering this is a Mac OS X computer? Just buy an Alienware or a build a Windows computer if you want to game or even better/cheaper buy a Xbox360/PS3 ;)

:apple:

I care. I don't play games often, 2 hours a week max. When I do I normally use Boot Camp to boot XP natively. As I don't game much I don't want to spend money on a console system and I certainly don't want to spend money on a Windows PC which would also mean having another system and monitor lying around just for 2 hours use a week.

At least for me, buying an Alienware or a console is not a good solution. The perfect solution for me would be an iMac with a half-decent GPU.

[BlackMax]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that a mac game will not be the same as a Windows game, the coding and the use of the graphics card is going to be different. Macs don't use direct x for starters.

Boot Camp, Parallels and VMware Fusion make this a moot point.

Another thing is that while everyone wants 100+ fps it is not needed, the eye can only take in about 30fps, displays normally only hit about 60fps, so as long as you get 50+fps in games most people will not be able to tell the difference between 50+ and 100+ fps.

True, but the 2600 PRO will not drive modern games at a resolution of 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200 at anywhere near 50 fps. More like 30 fps at 1680 x 1050 if you are lucky.

I also have to say that I'm not exactly sure why people buy a mac for games especially when a decent windows pc (which will get all good the games a mac gets anyway) can be had for a lot less money than the higher end (more gaming orientated) macs.

Why would you want two computers in the house when you could get away with having one?

Macs are generally bought due to the way that they help the user be more productive in their work etc

In the past this has been true, but then why (as someone else has already pointed out) have EA and Carmack at WWDC if Apple is not trying to portray a gaming image for future Macs? Surely Apple doesn't expect all Mac gamers to purchase Mac Pros?

Is it really that ridiculous to expect a reasonable gaming GPU option for the iMac? The iMac which is supposed to be the core home desktop Mac? I just think Apple is forgetting about a large segment of the Mac community with the GPU choice they made for the new iMac.

[holland]

I don't think we should ignore these benchmarks. The majority of ported games to OS X run slower then their Windows counterparts. I don't know if Cider takes advantage of multithreaded OpenGL as well. So expect EA's releases on OS X to run slower then their Windows based ones.

We're Mac users and you suggest to us to buy a Windows machine? We love OS X. We just can't stand what Apple offers in terms of hardware. The sub par iMac only leaves us with the Mac Pro or the MacBook Pro.

This is rather sad when you can't upgrade the iMac's video card and comparable and ridiculously cheap Windows only machines can have better.

There is nothing wrong with card. You can play all the games you want with it maybe not Max detail for Supreme Commanders and similar games like that in Windows but all the current Mac games you should be able to play in full detail with this card and with no problems. Also when was the iMac supposed to be gaming machine? Even though games are coming to Mac wouldn't the Mac Pro make more sense? It has the better graphics card. You can probably upgrade it if Mac has any cards you can upgrade with in the future. Mac Pro makes more sense if you want to game not an iMac.

[MagicWok]

Just buy an Alienware or a build a Windows computer if you want to game or even better/cheaper buy a Xbox360/PS3 ;)

:apple:

I don't want a bloody helldell or Alienware.

The situation is, what you don't seem to be grasping, is that almost any user will want the Apple simplicity. One computer. One Mac. One OS. And it to function as smoothly as we all know Apple is capable of doing!

The Mac Pro's are workstation grade machines, awesome and too pricey for the mainstream user. And said user isn't going to want two monitors, two computers, two OS's, two keyboards, two mice all cloggin up that one desk. Not very simple is it really?

All this in the iMac. The design of which I do like btw, just not impressed with the innards. I do love a lot of Apple's stuff, but this iMac revision is just another example in my eyes where Apple just misses the mark with a few recent product releases, not reaching the blindingly obvious potential. Being able to play present and past games without all the eye-candy on a machine you drop a few grand on, isn't a strong argument at all. You think in a few years when it comes time to upgrade you'll be happy playing games that are a couple years old, and not even on full-settings?

And for the above poster a few posts back complaining about the iMac 'whiners'. We are on a :apple: forum. We all love :apple:. We all want the best, and we wouldn't be here 'complaining' in the first place, if it wasn't for a common company and products we all are fiercly loyal to. Wake up.

[Eidorian]

There is nothing wrong with card. You can play all the games you want with it maybe not Max detail for Supreme Commanders and similar games like that in Windows but all the current Mac games you should be able to play in full detail with this card and with no problems. Also when was the iMac supposed to be gaming machine? Even though games are coming to Mac wouldn't the Mac Pro make more sense? It has the better graphics card. You can probably upgrade it if Mac has any cards you can upgrade with in the future. Mac Pro makes more sense if you want to game not an iMac.I guess that means I'll have to buy a $2,000+ Mac workstation to compete with a $400 Windows computer when it comes to video cards.

True, but the 2600 PRO will not drive modern games at a resolution of 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200 at anywhere near 50 fps. More like 30 fps at 1680 x 1050 if you are lucky.

Is it really that ridiculous to expect a reasonable gaming GPU option for the iMac? The iMac which is supposed to be the core home desktop Mac? I just think Apple is forgetting about a large segment of the Mac community with the GPU choice they made for the new iMac.Expect 30 fps at 1280 x 1024 but not higher. The 64-bit memory interface is the major limiting factor. It can't push that data needed for high resolutions over its internal bus.

[holland]

I guess that means I'll have to buy a $2,000+ Mac workstation to compete with a $400 Windows computer when it comes to video cards.

Expect 30 fps at 1280 x 1024 but not higher. The 64-bit memory interface is the major limiting factor. It can't push that data needed for high resolutions over its internal bus.

Well you know in games there are graphic options ;) Go there and turn the graphics down a little you don't need graphics max out in detail. I play Counter-Strike: Source with a laptop with 2.0ghz(no dual core) 512mb of Ram 64mb(shared)Nvidia Geforce 6100 and of course I have all my settings set at minimum but it is all playable and still fun so you can always just lower the graphics in the games also lower the resolution you play them at.

[zign]

Besides, as I have stated before, in the iMac, the GPU IS NOT upgradable, so this means, if the 2400 or 2600 perform terribly now, who knows how bad the situation will be in 2-3 years ?


Actually, the new iMac's GPU isn't soldered to the board.

[Aranince]

Buy a Macbook Pro with the 8600.

[maverick808]

Buy a Macbook Pro with the 8600.

So your advice to someone wanting to buy a $1200 desktop machine is to buy a $2000 laptop?

[Eidorian]

Well you know in games there are graphic options ;) Go there and turn the graphics down a little you don't need graphics max out in detail. I play Counter-Strike: Source with a laptop with 2.0ghz(no dual core) 512mb of Ram 64mb(shared)Nvidia Geforce 6100 and of course I have all my settings set at minimum but it is all playable and still fun so you can always just lower the graphics in the games also lower the resolution you play them at.You can only go so far setting graphics to very low settings. It'll look even worse on the high resolution LCDs.

The HD2600 Pro has very poor longevity. Do you suggest buying a new iMac next year?

[gloss]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.

[maverick808]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Well you succinctly lay out the problem yourself right there. This expensive, designer, all-in-one machine is not actually an all-in-one due to having a poor graphics card. How can a machine be all-in-one if it's definitely not a gaming machine? It's an all-in-one minus one.

[Grenadier]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.

Crysis ?! Pah - forget about that, this would have trouble running Far Cry

Why the hell should I build a PC if I want to game ? Most people game to a certain degree these days, and its a popular hobby.

Video playback isnt bad, yes, but the damn thing has no power behind it !

Please, stop being such a fanboy, and look at the facts - the GPU is insulting.

[Eidorian]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.We're Mac users, don't push Windows on us.

Apple isn't offering a well rounded computers anymore. It's all about the processors.

[holland]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.

Yes! I like your post ;) Also gamers are not the only ones who buy iMacs! I play CSS but I don't need anything more than this current video card. This card is good because it is an upgrade from the old one but it isn't overkill for people who don't need it and people who need more graphic power that is what the Mac Pro is for. :cool:

[Eidorian]

Yes! I like your post ;) Also gamers are not the only ones who buy iMacs! I play CSS but I don't need anything more than this current video card. This card is good because it is an upgrade from the old one but it isn't overkill for people who don't need it and people who need more graphic power that is what the Mac Pro is for. :cool:People who need more graphics power buy $400 Dells. Even the Mac Pro camp is being tempted by cheap Q6600 based machines. If Apple once again had a few more build to order options we wouldn't complain and they'd make more money off of those of us that want more graphical power.

[I'mAMac]

Sounds like someone needs to visit Apple's Feedback page, and add another request for a better GPU:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=338795

Posting here in forums won't give them the feedback they need. We need as many people as possible to submit feedback. The last iMac lineup later received an option for a faster card, so we can only assume they do listen to feedback!

Where can you submit feedback? Support section? (of apple page)

[Eidorian]

Where can you submit feedback? Support section? (of apple page)http://www.apple.com/feedback/imac.html

[Grenadier]

Yes! I like your post ;) Also gamers are not the only ones who buy iMacs! I play CSS but I don't need anything more than this current video card. This card is good because it is an upgrade from the old one but it isn't overkill for people who don't need it and people who need more graphic power that is what the Mac Pro is for. :cool:

Thats why they should offer a choice - you can have a 2400 Pro, while others can choose a 8600GTS, or I dare say, a even better GPU (The likely hood of this is zero though - we as Apple fans should know this by now)

We dont need a abandunace of GPU choices just perhaps a slection for 'average joe checking his email, downloading music, etc (2400)', and 'power user (8600GTS)'. I wont mention the 8800GTS since, as stated, this will likely not ever make it to the iMac.

I am strongly against the 2600 Pro - its a pseudo upgrade.
The only choices I feel there should be are the 2400 and 8600GTS.

[gloss]

Well you succinctly lay out the problem yourself right there. This expensive, designer, all-in-one machine is not actually an all-in-one due to having a poor graphics card. How can a machine be all-in-one if it's definitely not a gaming machine? It's an all-in-one minus one.

Because the average consumer is not a gamer. You and I may be, but that's no reason to assume (falsely) that the target market for the machine CARES about the GPU in their computer. In this case, we're the minority.

Crysis ?! Pah - forget about that, this would have trouble running Far Cry

Why the hell should I build a PC if I want to game ? Most people game to a certain degree these days, and its a popular hobby.

Video playback isnt bad, yes, but the damn thing has no power behind it !

Please, stop being such a fanboy, and look at the facts - the GPU is insulting.

It'd be fine for Far Cry, really. It's a bit more powerful than my old 6800GT from three years ago, and that had no problem handling the game maxed out. Combined with the far faster CPU, I think it would be more than satisfactory. Hell, it'll play Half-life 2 at average framerates above 60 fps.

Gaming is simply not a strength of the Mac. If you really want to game, you use Windows. And if you care enough to complain about a mid-range consumer card being placed in a mid-range consumer machine, you should probably just build your own. It'd be cheaper and the performance would be greater.

I'm hardly a fanboy. I'll be replacing a PC that I built myself three years ago out of (at the time) top-of-the-line components. I was also disappointed at the choice in GPU, or rather that there was no faster alternative choice, but for my purposes (I recently realized I don't play anything newer than WoW and CS:S, which this machine is more than powerful enough to play happily), it works. It's not a Dell XPS, but it works.

I simply am willing to look outside my own interests, or at least to remind myself that I do not represent the majority, and to see what the reasoning might have been behind Apple's hardware design choices. And it seems obvious - for the type of consumer which Apple is trying to appeal to (read: average people who hate Windows - not gamers), it's a great machine.

[holland]

How many of you have this new iMac? And has anyone tried gaming on it? Because it looks to be you are saying it sucks from looking at a couple of Windows benchmarks. Try some games to see how it is on a Mac.

[Grenadier]

Because the average consumer is not a gamer. You and I may be, but that's no reason to assume (falsely) that the target market for the machine CARES about the GPU in their computer. In this case, we're the minority.



It'd be fine for Far Cry, really. It's a bit more powerful than my old 6800GT from three years ago, and that had no problem handling the game maxed out. Combined with the far faster CPU, I think it would be more than satisfactory. Hell, it'll play Half-life 2 at average framerates above 60 fps.

Gaming is simply not a strength of the Mac. If you really want to game, you use Windows. And if you care enough to complain about a mid-range consumer card being placed in a mid-range consumer machine, you should probably just build your own. It'd be cheaper and the performance would be greater.

I'm hardly a fanboy. I'll be replacing a PC that I built myself three years ago out of (at the time) top-of-the-line components. I was also disappointed at the choice in GPU, or rather that there was no faster alternative choice, but for my purposes (I recently realized I don't play anything newer than WoW and CS:S, which this machine is more than powerful enough to play happily), it works. It's not a Dell XPS, but it works.

I simply am willing to look outside my own interests, or at least to remind myself that I do not represent the majority, and to see what the reasoning might have been behind Apple's hardware design choices. And it seems obvious - for the type of consumer which Apple is trying to appeal to (read: average people who hate Windows - not gamers), it's a great machine.


You seem to carry the false assumption that this is a 'mid range video card'. I would struggle to label this as 'low range'.
The X2600 Pro is essentially a repackaged and very lightly overclocked X1600XT. This is only somewhat more powerful than ATi or NVidia integrated graphics.

You see, as someone else stated, this is a AIO - its meant to handle all tasks with decent performance. It handles gaming however with less than decent performance. Apple is stating false facts about the new iMac, since if it was a AIO, its GPU wouldnt suck more than a vaccum cleaner.

[BlackMax]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.

I believe I speak for many on this thread when I say we LOVE the all-in-one simplicity of the iMac and we are not saying the GPU should be upgraded across all iMac models. Just make an upgraded GPU an OPTION for a built-to-order iMac purchase. Plain and simply.

Broaden the iMacs appeal just a little bit to what I believe is a sizable contingent of Mac gamers. Apple is the one out there with all the Mac versus PC advertisements trying to gain converts. Apple is the one inviting EA and Carmack to WWDC for what I can only imagine is an attempt to win even more converts. Well, a lot of PC owners are gamers, so step up to the plate and give them an OPTION with the iMac.

Apple is even using a picture of a new iMac with a 3D Harry Potter game on the screen on their website at: http://www.apple.com/imac/technology/graphics.html

http://images.apple.com/imac/technology/images/graphics_hero20070807.jpg

Apple goes on to describe the new iMac/GPU as "offering great gaming performance and then mentions 3D gaming specifically in the next paragraph.

Odd things to advertise if Apple has a "completely different philosophy" that is "certainly not about gaming"

I sometimes get the impression some Mac fans believe it would be sacrilege for Apple to offer a gaming friendly Mac. If you're not a gamer that is great, but don't expect everyone to fit into your mold. Macs are great machines and the new iMac is no exception, but it could be even better with a improved GPU as an OPTION.

[holland]

Thats why they should offer a choice - you can have a 2400 Pro, while others can choose a 8600GTS, or I dare say, a even better GPU (The likely hood of this is zero though - we as Apple fans should know this by now)

We dont need a abandunace of GPU choices just perhaps a slection for 'average joe checking his email, downloading music, etc (2400)', and 'power user (8600GTS)'. I wont mention the 8800GTS since, as stated, this will likely not ever make it to the iMac.

I am strongly against the 2600 Pro - its a pseudo upgrade.
The only choices I feel there should be are the 2400 and 8600GTS.

That would be sweet if you could get Apple to let people choose what video card they want but for now iMac just has those nice 2600 Pros :D

[dollystereo]

First forget all the big cards, because they would never fit on the imac.
I think the card offered sux bigtime. I'm waiting for a Mac Pro refresh because I need the computer to do Motion and 3d, and some ocasional gamming. So the offered 1.5 years old high priced, big delay Radeon x1900xt is not an option.
So now macs, all of them have crappy GPUs, now the imac is thinner so less space to put a decent video. (For the ram I dont care, they lowered the price, and is so cheap now). But for the MacPro they should have at least 4 cards to choose. (Nvidia 88xx, Radeon HD28xx, Hd29xx, ...).
People here dont realize how bad are the HD2400 and HD2600, they are the worst 2 cards of the market (2007-2008, hdcp-DX10) cards. They are extremely cheap, and are outperformed by any other, even older cards (even the 7600GT of the previous imac).
My 2 cents.

I NEED A NEW MAC PRO WITH: eSata, Better Video Cards, 2gb standard (as MBP)

[gloss]

I believe I speak for many on this thread when I say we LOVE the all-in-one simplicity of the iMac and we are not saying the GPU should be upgraded across all iMac models. Just make an upgraded GPU an OPTION for a built-to-order iMac purchase. Plain and simply.

I totally concur that there should have been an option for a nicer NVidia GPU - I certainly wouldn't complain. I imagine that there will be an update in the near future that offers something. They've done it before. I'll probably wait until that happens, myself.

I just think that the backlash, while warranted, slips into some pretty ridiculous hyperbole.

[Eidorian]

How many of you have this new iMac? And has anyone tried gaming on it? Because it looks to be you are saying it sucks from looking at a couple of Windows benchmarks. Try some games to see how it is on a Mac.http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4019578&postcount=40

I believe I speak for many on this thread when I say we LOVE the all-in-one simplicity of the iMac and we are not saying the GPU should be upgraded across all iMac models. Just make an upgraded GPU an OPTION for a built-to-order iMac purchase. Plain and simply.

Broaden the iMacs appeal just a little bit to what I believe is a sizable contingent of Mac gamers. Apple is the one out there with all the Mac versus PC advertisements trying to gain converts. Apple is the one inviting EA and Carmack to WWDC for what I can only imagine is an attempt to win even more converts. Well, a lot of PC owners are gamers, so step up to the plate and give them an OPTION with the iMac.

Apple is even using a picture of a new iMac with a 3D Harry Potter game on the screen on their website at: http://www.apple.com/imac/technology/graphics.html

http://images.apple.com/imac/technology/images/graphics_hero20070807.jpg

Apple goes on to describe the new iMac/GPU as "offering great gaming performance and then mentions 3D gaming specifically in the next paragraph.

Odd things to advertise if Apple has a "completely different philosophy" that is "certainly not about gaming"

I sometimes get the impression some Mac fans believe it would be sacrilege for Apple to offer a gaming friendly Mac. If you're not a gamer that is great, but don't expect everyone to fit into your mold. Macs are great machines and the new iMac is no exception, but it could be even better with a improved GPU as an OPTION.Post of the day quality. You've covered everything.

[I'mAMac]

I sent feedback, probably wont do anything but if enough people do it, maybe. As for the post above (like 5 up or something where he mentions windows benchmarks), mac users should know by now that video cards in macs always run better than video cards in pc's. I had a pc with 3ghz dual core, 1.5gb RAM, and an X1600 256mb. It could run bf2, company of heroes and the like on medium settings getting about 35fps. Got the imac, turned the settings up high, and im getting 40fps. Now i know thats still not good but hey its something. If they even offered the 2600XT as a BTO option i would probably get it.

[macjonny1]

At least the old imac 24" had a pretty good video card in it....why not have an option to build one in? There really is no reason to not have this, other than apple does not think it is worthwhile. Somewhere, a bean counter has presumed that there wouldn't be enough demand to make this a BTO and that is what I believe it comes down to.

[Grenadier]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4019578&postcount=40

Post of the day quality. You've covered everything.

+1.
Totally agree.
Great post BlackMax

[roland.g]

Sorry but those graphics cards are more than adequate for photo editing and for most consumer level video editing, unless you are doing animation and 3-D. If you need 512MB of graphics performance get a Mac Pro for the level of work you need to do. It's a consumer level machine with good processors now and 4GB RAM limit. The iMac has always had a decent but not great video card that handles all the needs for which the machine is designed for. If you have needs outside of that, then you need a different rig.

[GimmeSlack12]

Its threads like this that make me want to cancel my MacRumors account, and go buy a PC. Just so I don't have to listen to such primadonnas and their psuedo-expert evaluations on what Apple releases.
Would you like some Cheese with that whine?
or How about I call a Waaaaa-mbulance?

Gimme a break.

[roland.g]

Gaming is to computers what porn is to the internet.
If you have the disease, seek help.
If you must game, get a machine that does it, or get a PSXBOCWii thing.

[Grenadier]

Sorry but those graphics cards are more than adequate for photo editing and for most consumer level video editing, unless you are doing animation and 3-D. If you need 512MB of graphics performance get a Mac Pro for the level of work you need to do. It's a consumer level machine with good processors now and 4GB RAM limit. The iMac has always had a decent but not great video card that handles all the needs for which the machine is designed for. If you have needs outside of that, then you need a different rig.

Did you not read atleast one page of this thread ?
I state again, the choice should be there however.

We dont need 512MB of VRAM - that seldom has huge advantages anyway.

Look, as BlackMax stated, the iMac is advertised as having gaming capabilites, and yet they include what are deemed as two of the biggest GPU flops in quite a long time.

[roland.g]

Did you not read atleast one page of this thread ?
I state again, the choice should be there however.

We dont need 512MB of VRAM - that seldom has huge advantages anyway.

Look, as BlackMax stated, the iMac is advertised as having gaming capabilites, and yet they include what are deemed as two of the biggest GPU flops in quite a long time.

Ok, I'll play ignorant. Is the new card not an improvement over the 7300 and 7600 options from the last revision?

Not what you wanted. But are they any better. Are you telling me that the 2600 Pro 256 is actually a poorer performance card than the 7600 GT

[Grenadier]

Its threads like this that make me want to cancel my MacRumors account, and go buy a PC. Just so I don't have to listen to such primadonnas and their psuedo-expert evaluations on what Apple releases.
Would you like some Cheese with that whine?
or How about I call a Waaaaa-mbulance?

Gimme a break.

Wait, I dont get it, you still dont think our demand is justified ?
Look, im out of steam - just...just read the thread.

[Eidorian]

Ok, I'll play ignorant. Is the new card not an improvement over the 7300 and 7600 options from the last revision?

Not what you wanted. But are they any better. Are you telling me that the 2600 Pro 256 is actually a poorer performance card than the 7600 GTThe 7600GT will outperform the HD2600 Pro.

The 7300GT GDDR2 will usually outperform the HD2400XT.

[Grenadier]

Ok, I'll play ignorant. Is the new card not an improvement over the 7300 and 7600 options from the last revision?

Not what you wanted. But are they any better. Are you telling me that the 2600 Pro 256 is actually a poorer performance card than the 7600 GT

Poorer no, but its on par with the 7600GT. In some tests the 7600 even outperforms the 2600 Pro.
And thats the issue - we are getting really old technology, again.

[davekarn]

I believe I speak for many on this thread when I say we LOVE the all-in-one simplicity of the iMac and we are not saying the GPU should be upgraded across all iMac models. Just make an upgraded GPU an OPTION for a built-to-order iMac purchase. Plain and simply.

Broaden the iMacs appeal just a little bit to what I believe is a sizable contingent of Mac gamers. Apple is the one out there with all the Mac versus PC advertisements trying to gain converts. Apple is the one inviting EA and Carmack to WWDC for what I can only imagine is an attempt to win even more converts. Well, a lot of PC owners are gamers, so step up to the plate and give them an OPTION with the iMac.

Apple is even using a picture of a new iMac with a 3D Harry Potter game on the screen on their website at: http://www.apple.com/imac/technology/graphics.html

http://images.apple.com/imac/technology/images/graphics_hero20070807.jpg

Apple goes on to describe the new iMac/GPU as "offering great gaming performance and then mentions 3D gaming specifically in the next paragraph.

Odd things to advertise if Apple has a "completely different philosophy" that is "certainly not about gaming"

I sometimes get the impression some Mac fans believe it would be sacrilege for Apple to offer a gaming friendly Mac. If you're not a gamer that is great, but don't expect everyone to fit into your mold. Macs are great machines and the new iMac is no exception, but it could be even better with a improved GPU as an OPTION.

Great post! They also state on that page, "...while the 2.4GHz 20-inch model and the 24-inch model offers extreme graphics power with an ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB of GDDR3 dedicated video memory."

I chuckled :)

[Trout74]

Wait, I dont get it, you still dont think our demand is justified ?
Look, im out of steam - just...just read the thread.

I agree with you Grenadier,

trout

[Lesser Evets]

I am scratching my head a little with Jobs' decision to NOT have an iMac under $1000, and why the video cards can't be upgraded to something super-duper.

It seems like he lost sight of some of the initial ideas behind the iMac. Odd.

Maybe in a year the 20" will go beneath $1000 again, but why there couldn't be a cheapo $899 17" is disappointing. I am curious what the profits would or wouldn't be if they left the mini and iMac lower ends to slip down in price and use the older tech, but made higher end models that cost what they do now.

[roland.g]

Well honestly, last year when I almost bought a 24" iMac, I would have got a 2.33, 2GB RAM, 500GB HDD, 7600GT 256 GPU b/c I always max out or close to specs so that I get longevity, etc.

I would have taken a $75-$125 GPU upgrade option on the new iMac, but since there wasn't one I have no problem with the specs as is. I have no gaming needs and it shoud handle all my iPhoto and FCE HD.

[Blue Velvet]

See, I could understand the criticism if Apple's standards in providing graphics cards in consumer machines had dropped... but it hasn't. They've been doing this for many many years. Same old Apple, nothing new here.

So, no news is no news really... nothing will satisfy you guys. Your computing needs are at the margin of things, I'm afraid. It's like moaning about why the iPod doesn't support Ogg.

[iStrat]

I have to agree that it would be really nice to see a more powerful GPU offered as an option. It's the only thing stopping me from buying one today. I'm sure heat and size limited their choices.

However, I am looking forward to seeing some real test results and benchmarks. I'm hoping it performs a bit better than everyone is expecting. I don't need a great GPU, just a good one. For the money I would be spending this computer, I want it to be well rounded.

[macjonny1]

Its threads like this that make me want to cancel my MacRumors account, and go buy a PC. Just so I don't have to listen to such primadonnas and their psuedo-expert evaluations on what Apple releases.
Would you like some Cheese with that whine?
or How about I call a Waaaaa-mbulance?

Gimme a break.

I'm sure many would be happy if you did...how about providing some useful information instead of name-calling. I don't need an imac and am more than happy with my MBP for what it needs. People want a desktop that isn't a macpro beast that has a decent vid card. The last imac had a version of that, why not the new one? That's the question here, simple as that. provide us with your useless post.

[maverick808]

So, no news is no news really... nothing will satisfy you guys. Your computing needs are at the margin of things, I'm afraid. It's like moaning about why the iPod doesn't support Ogg.

Hmmm, I really don't agree. We are asking for an AVERAGE, mediocre video card. How is that at the margin? We don't want a rubbish card, we don't want a superb card, we want AVERAGE.

[Trout74]

See, I could understand the criticism if Apple's standards in providing graphics cards in consumer machines had dropped... but it hasn't. They've been doing this for many many years. Same old Apple, nothing new here.

So, no news is no news really... nothing will satisfy you guys. Your computing needs are at the margin of things, I'm afraid. It's like moaning about why the iPod doesn't support Ogg.


Blue I value your input, and you have been here for a long time and are level headed.

Did you not think that when this was revealed that there would be a better GPU than the one we got? Were you not a little surprised, did your eyebrows not raise a bit?

[decksnap]

The gamers really are a vocal minority. They fail to see that the vast majority of people don't care about these graphics cards. I can't think of anything I've ever done on any of my Macs that was hindered by a weak card.

These threads are absolute silliness. If you were that concerned about gaming you'd be running a PC.

[monke]

I wanted this new iMac bad! heck I even went and saw it lasst night, the mini( i have one, the 1.42 G4 ) I need more horsepower, but I DONT need a Macpro, but im not going to shell out 2000$ for a computer that is not better or more powerful than what was introduced a year ago. That is a poor use of hard earned money. I know it can video edit and edit photos, but not a well as the last rendition, and that is pathetic, and unacceptable. I will wait for the rev. B but i shouldnt have too!

Just for reference, the first Intel iMac had the following specs:
- Up to 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo
- Mighty Mouse
- 17" and 20"
- ATI Radeon X1600
- iSight Built in
- Front Row and Apple Remote

The new iMac has these specs:
-Up to 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme Processor
-Up to 4 GB Memory
-ATI Radeon HD Graphics
-Up to 1 TB Hard Disk
-Wireless 802.11n and Bluetooth 2.0

Last time I checked, 2.8 GHz is more powerful the 2.0 GHz.

Apple isn't going to deck out every product they have, and still price them the way they do. There has to be some difference in between the product lines, other wise people would buy the $500 Mac Mini with the same specs as the $2500 Mac Pro. :rolleyes:

If that iMac doesn't suit your needs, quit complaining and buy the Mac Pro. That is the iMac, nothing is going to change for a while. Even with Rev B, it might not change a whole lot.

[Blue Velvet]

Blue I value your input, and you have been here for a long time and are level headed.

Did you not think that when this was revealed that there would be a better GPU than the one we got? Were you not a little surprised, did your eyebrows not raise a bit?


Thanks for the compliment although it's not entirely warranted. ;)

I must admit to being off the boards for most of yesterday and haven't really followed the news about the iMacs. There are only two types of machine that interest me: Mac Pros and MBPs.

I'm also not really a hardcore gamer... so all things considered, I'm not that fussed about it. I can understand if you would be, but the iMac, in all its incarnations has never had fantastic cards in them. That's the point I was making.

When I bought my dual 1.4, the little book that came with it said it was a super-computer and it had a blistering 64mb something in it... it was OK for Castle Wolfenstein. This is marketing, pure and simple.

A leopard doesn't change its spots overnight. ;)

[Alloye]

The gamers really are a vocal minority. They fail to see that the vast majority of people don't care about these graphics cards. I can't think of anything I've ever done on any of my Macs that was hindered by a weak card.

These threads are absolute silliness. If you were that concerned about gaming you'd be running a PC.

QFT!

Of all the people I know who own computers, only one is a hare-core gamer. The rest are a 50/50 split between those who don't game at all and those who only play casual/shareware/freeware-type stuff.

As for myself, I stopped gaming years ago. The cost of entry is simply too high for me. Not just in terms of monetary investment, but time investment as well. Plus I found that most games had become too complex and/or too boring to be any fun at all.

[Durmortec]

I am sooooo tired of hearing the same thing from the people arguing that the gpu is fine. "Get a Mac Pro, buy Alienware".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jobs mention yesterday he was borrowing some of the aesthetics from the professional lineup of Macs for the new iMac? Now you say, sure that doesn't mean anything and only pertains to aesthetics, well why has the 17" model been axed then? If this is a PURE CONSUMER desktop and the vast majority don't CARE about the gpu why is the baseline model 1199?

I'm in no way saying the iMac should be a professional machine, I'm just refuting all the crap I hear about this EVERYDAY CONSUMER machine. The Mac Mini is a consumer machine...


Just for reference, the first Intel iMac had the following specs:
- Up to 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo
- Mighty Mouse
- 17" and 20"
- ATI Radeon X1600
- iSight Built in
- Front Row and Apple Remote

The new iMac has these specs:
-Up to 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme Processor
-Up to 4 GB Memory
-ATI Radeon HD Graphics
-Up to 1 TB Hard Disk
-Wireless 802.11n and Bluetooth 2.0

Last time I checked, 2.8 GHz is more powerful the 2.0 GHz.

Apple isn't going to deck out every product they have, and still price them the way they do. There has to be some difference in between the product lines, other wise people would buy the $500 Mac Mini with the same specs as the $2500 Mac Pro. :rolleyes:

If that iMac doesn't suit your needs, quit complaining and buy the Mac Pro. That is the iMac, nothing is going to change for a while. Even with Rev B, it might not change a whole lot.

This dude actually made my point for me. We aren't ASKING for it to change a whole lot. I don't think anyone on here who is complaining about the card ever said they wanted a 8800 GTX in this machine. All we're saying is that the equivalant of this ATI card (the 8600 GT) is far superior and should be an option, there's really no excuse why it shouldn't. It doesn't cost significantly more than the ATI card and it's also what we consider mid range. Please, stop telling us to buy quad core machines, we don't want quad core machines, we're fine with mid-range stuff, we just quality mid-range stuff.

[GimmeSlack12]

I'm sure many would be happy if you did...how about providing some useful information instead of name-calling. I don't need an imac and am more than happy with my MBP for what it needs. People want a desktop that isn't a macpro beast that has a decent vid card. The last imac had a version of that, why not the new one? That's the question here, simple as that. provide us with your useless post.

Fair enough. Not like I'm the only one with a "useless post" whatever that means. The point is that there are certain sacrifices that happen on consumer models to get the price down. And a lot of this complaining that I'm bothered by is the non-stop "I'm so disappointed" kind of threads that occur after a new release. I think there are many options out there regarding what Mac to buy that would more than be satisfying to most people and this new iMac has been priced to do just that.

Its priced nicely for what it has. And would Apple really supply a machine that won't be powered sufficiently for the upcoming Leopard eye-candy, let alone Tiger or a decent amount of gaming or illustration work? Most likely not. I get by with my iBook G4 still and it handles all my needs very well (I'll admit I don't stretch it too often anymore). So the complaining has got to be based on everyone not being please, which will never happen. Let's just get along, give some time and go try one out.

Keep faith in Apple, they have done and will continue to do great things for their customers.
(and I wasn't serious about buying a PC, I'm typing this on Vista at work and I am worse off for it).

[macjonny1]

Fair enough. Not like I'm the only one with a "useless post" whatever that means. The point is that there are certain sacrifices that happen on consumer models to get the price down. And a lot of this complaining that I'm bothered by is the non-stop "I'm so disappointed" kind of threads that occur after a new release. I think there are many options out there regarding what Mac to buy that would more than be satisfying to most people and this new iMac has been priced to do just that.

Its priced nicely for what it has. And would Apple really supply a machine that won't be powered sufficiently for the upcoming Leopard eye-candy, let alone Tiger or a decent amount of gaming or illustration work? Most likely not. I get by with my iBook G4 still and it handles all my needs very well (I'll admit I don't stretch it too often anymore). So the complaining has got to be based on everyone not being please, which will never happen. Let's just get along, give some time and go try one out.

Keep faith in Apple, they have done and will continue to do great things for their customers.
(and I wasn't serious about buying a PC, I'm typing this on Vista at work and I am worse off for it).

Agreed. I'm guessing for probably 99% of people the current imac will fit the bill nicely. My previous mobile computer was a dell P3 1.1GHZ with 32mb of vram on the GeForce2Go, so I know about stretching things! I played WoW on that and for people that say it would be unplayable I'll ask them how I got to level 60 before the expansion! I even had to download some drivers from a website because the nvidia mobile drivers were so outdated. Computers are lasting even longer now and I'm sure this imac will be able to run most of the software for a long time. There are some people who expect apple to take them to some holy nirvana and fulfill their every desire with each release....

Unfortunately for every decent discussion there are 10 complaining threads but I think the discussion about why there isn't a BTO better vid card, or a higher performance headless mac between the mini and pro are good ones. Maybe there are very good reasons...problem is we won't ever know what they are.

[I'mAMac]

Ok, I'll play ignorant. Is the new card not an improvement over the 7300 and 7600 options from the last revision?

Not what you wanted. But are they any better. Are you telling me that the 2600 Pro 256 is actually a poorer performance card than the 7600 GT
Yes. Poorer than the 7600

[Tom B.]

somebody's head has swelled!
I think swollen is the word you are looking for. :)

[Trout74]

I think swollen is the word you are looking for. :)


yes Tom, you are correct! My apologies, being from England, I am sure your grasp of the English language is better than mine:p

cheers!

Trout

[iStrat]

I still think it would be nice if Apple offered a GPU upgrade in these new iMacs. However, I tested out the standard $1,499 model using Vendetta Online and it ran beautifully. Discuss here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=339355).

[Fatdog]

I don't understand why Apple won't allow people the make decisions. Why can't we have the option of choosing between GPUs and Glossy/Matte? Is Apple really going to go bankrupt if that happens? I understand that Apple likes simplicity and the like, but come on, at this point it has become insulting.

Why can't people understand that the Mac Pro is aimed at Professionals? No sane person is going to buy a TWO THOUSAND+ dollar behemoth to play games. And why does Apple hate the Core 2 Duo Conroe? WHY?! I would die in a state of euphoria if Apple just released a consumer product with a real desktop processor.

Apple is a big company and the Mac market share is increasing so Apple shouldn't be afraid to diversify the product line. It is well overdue.

[I'mAMac]

I am sooooo tired of hearing the same thing from the people arguing that the gpu is fine. "Get a Mac Pro, buy Alienware".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jobs mention yesterday he was borrowing some of the aesthetics from the professional lineup of Macs for the new iMac? Now you say, sure that doesn't mean anything and only pertains to aesthetics, well why has the 17" model been axed then? If this is a PURE CONSUMER desktop and the vast majority don't CARE about the gpu why is the baseline model 1199?

I'm in no way saying the iMac should be a professional machine, I'm just refuting all the crap I hear about this EVERYDAY CONSUMER machine. The Mac Mini is a consumer machine...




This dude actually made my point for me. We aren't ASKING for it to change a whole lot. I don't think anyone on here who is complaining about the card ever said they wanted a 8800 GTX in this machine. All we're saying is that the equivalant of this ATI card (the 8600 GT) is far superior and should be an option, there's really no excuse why it shouldn't. It doesn't cost significantly more than the ATI card and it's also what we consider mid range. Please, stop telling us to buy quad core machines, we don't want quad core machines, we're fine with mid-range stuff, we just quality mid-range stuff.
^Well said. A choice between the 8600 GT and maybe the 2600 XT. I dont need a monster for a computer thats why i dont get an alienware or mac pro. I just want something that can run my stuff. a 2600 would struggle to run that damn Flurry screensaver.