Why complain about Mac Vid Cards?

[illicium]

I preface this with the fact that I am only a casual gamer, and not even a PC gamer at that. My games are Halo 3 and NCAA Football on XBOX 360, but after installing Leopard and Vista in boot camp on my MBP (see sig) I wanted to see what the 8600M GT 128mb could do. So, I installed F.E.A.R. to test it out. It even has it's own built in test to see which settings are best for your setup. I went into the settings and maxed out every single option and resolution was at 1024 x 768 I believe since there wasn't an option to run it at exact native resolution of the MBP which is 1440 x 900.

At these maxed out settings, my frame rate average was 31-33 or so which looked pretty good in the system test video, so then I started a single player game to see what happened in actual game play. It played just fine. It wasn't absolute PERFECTION, but very playable and very minimal choppiness in very busy, fast-moving action. My roommate was very impressed since it outperformed his 1 1/2 yr old full tower Dell XPS gaming rig even tho my MBP only has the LOW-END MBP card. No doubt, having the 256mb version of the 8600M GT would have added a few more frames and eliminated the tiny bit of choppiness that exists on the 128mb version.

I realize there are more demanding games out there than F.E.A.R. but not many. If my LOW-END MBP can run it no problem essentially maxed out, then what do all you guys really have to complain about?

It seems that Apples choice of video cards seem to be pretty capable of playing some relatively demanding games.

[kkat69]

I realize there are more demanding games out there than F.E.A.R. but not many. If my LOW-END MBP can run it no problem essentially maxed out, then what do all you guys really have to complain about?

It seems that Apples choice of video cards seem to be pretty capable of playing some relatively demanding games.

I personally don't have a single complaint about the cards themselves.

My only complaint and I believe that of a few others in my situation (actually quite a few others) is the immature video card DRIVERS.

Personally I'm like you. I'm a casual gamer. If I want hard core graphics I'll crank up my SLI water cooled windows box. But 95% of the time, my iMac is just fine for what I play.

That being said, the drivers need to be fixed. Now I certainly nor do I ever claim to speak for anyone else. Others have different views on the cards and Apple's choice. I for one am just fine.

[illicium]

Can someone please tell me what the uproar is about with Mac vid cards? If I can do that on a base model MBP then whats the big problem with Mac vid cards?

[hankolerd]

Basically what Apple does is uses energy efficient vc's in their laptops and iMacs, and saves the higher end cards for their macpro's. The problem some people has with that, is generally when you build a gaming computer, you want something that will be able to play next years games fairly decently. While the mac vc line is not bad, it seems funny that they don't at least give you the option to upgrade to a high end card. But probably the reason they don't, is because alot of people would be upgrading to it because they want the best of everything, and then they would get frustrated when their laptop lasted for half the time of what they expected it too.
So basically what it comes down to, is that Apple has good reason not to put in the high end vc's. But for serious gamers, it is a little disappointing. Though FEAR is a pretty graphic intensive game, their are many games beyond that my computer can not run well on even medium settings, Crysis, COD4, Dirt, UT3, I assume Gears of War, and pretty much any game that is going to be coming out over the next year.
Though, I guess I have had my computer for just over a year now, and it just now started to not be able to run games at high settings, so when I really think about it, I guess it did exactly what it was supposed to do.:apple:


EDIT: I think what alot of people don't realize, is that RAM plays a crucial part in gaming, and alot of people only get 1GB of RAM, and then complain that the VC's are too slow.

[kkat69]

EDIT: I think what alot of people don't realize, is that RAM plays a crucial part in gaming, and alot of people only get 1GB of RAM, and then complain that the VC's are too slow.

This is very true. Most windows users know this to be very true. A good example is people most of the time associate artifacts on the screen with vc problems. Though sometimes it's true, that's not always the case.

Case and point, I will open 4 applications daily when I walk into my office, Visual Studio, Outlook, MS Project and Excel. Excel shows the most artifacts on the screen yet I knew through past experience it's not vc but memory. Once I got my memory upgrade it all went away.

I'm not saying that's always the case but RAM DOES HELP when it comes to vc processing. Running 1g of RAM and complaining BF2142 runs like crap with a particular video card isn't exactly accurate.

In the iMacs the cards are actually pretty well compliant with dx10 runtimes so they should be ok to run games for about a year or so. Maybe not at full res cranked up etc, but they'll run quite a bit, once the drivers get ironed out.

MBP's, heck I dunno, I never consider a laptop to be a game machine, I don't care who makes it, alienware, dell, apple, etc. Graphic intensive games IMO are best left to desktops. That's just my opinion, it's not wrong or right, it's just how I feel. That's why I keep an SLI water cooled windows box if I want to run something with full graphics enabled, I can do so for the next couple of years. After that who knows what apple will offer.

[takao]

Can someone please tell me what the uproar is about with Mac vid cards? If I can do that on a base model MBP then whats the big problem with Mac vid cards?

actually the MBP card in base configuration is actually decent (actually the best you can get for a laptop)... the problem is that on the desktop side you have to get a mac pro or else you are screwed 1 year from now
your MBP is nowhere near "low end" .. it's actually one of the better/best cards you can get for laptops .. which we sadly can't say about any desktop model .. especially on the consumer products

that said FEAR is already 2 years old


and believe it or not: some people want to play games 2 years from now with the computer they buy now

point 2: apple keeps talking about their computers being a personal media hub: for a lot of people games are about as important as a media as music or videos is to others so they don't feel happy about it

personaly note: when i joined this forum people were still talking about playing age of empires II and other games from that period
now thanks to bootcamp people are actually talking about new games here

edit: currently PC prices are dropping very fast (perhaps comparable to the phase 7 years ago) which means you can get a lot of good deals on the PC side currently which means many apple offers look quite bad (1TB in hard disks, 3gb ram, a 4 core cpu and gf8500 graphics card for less than 1000 euro ? or 500GB harddisk, 2 gb ram, 4 core cpu and a better graphics card for 800)
apple has to upgrade it's hardware more frequently or at least finally think about that headless 1 CPU unit in the 1000-1500 range with replaceable desktop parts

seriously if the same difference in hardware is there in 1-2 years when i buy a new PC i have to think hard about switching back...
why does it have to be like today when for the price of 1 good gaming mac you can buy a cheap mac computer _and_ a decent gaming PC and not can be happy with one single computer

[Wild-Bill]

Apple's video card choices suck, plain and simple. :mad: Not only are the video cards in the iMacs underpowered, they have been isolated as the main reason for the freezing issue. I think the MBP got a decent break with the 8600gt, but it is by no means a screamer. The mini has older-than-dirt integrated GMA950, and the Mac Pro's video cards are almost three years old in some cases.

The base video card in the Mac Pro (nVidia 7300GT) is 17 months old and pathetically underpowered. It's like putting a 2-cylinder engine in a Mustang.

The x1900xt in the Mac Pro will be three years old this coming January. Some people had to have their cards replaced due to artifacting. Apple had Foxconn produce a revision 2 of the card that supposedly cut down on the artifacting.

The Quadro FX 4500 is about two and a half years old (July 05) and has been superseded by several generations of professional-level graphics.

Apple prefers cards that are quiet, and in doing so have and will regularly de-tune the cards to lower clock speeds so that fan speed can be kept to a minimum. Apple never takes into account graphics performance, or anything related to gaming, because quite frankly, His Steveness doesn't want you playing games on your Mac. He wants you to make edible garbage with iMovie 08 and post it to YouTube.

Pouring salt in the wound, Apple charges outrageous prices for these video cards, when you build-to-order. Want to add a second 7300GT to your Mac Pro?? It will cost you $150.00, when it can be purchased RETAIL for $50.00 or less. How about the x1900xt?? $400.00 for that card, where (if you can even find it anymore) it costs $150 or less. Consider this: an nVidia 8800GTS that would literally spank the x1800xt costs about $250.00. So for an extra $150.00 you can have a three year old card. :rolleyes:

They could have done so much better on the video card options in the iMac, but they wanted high margins and low noise. And they could have at least updated the Mac Pro's at least ONCE since its inception a year and three months ago. The Mac Pro has been virtually untouched since its inception.

Apple has no grasp of video card technology, given their long history of poorly-performing and absurdly expensive graphics card choices.

[bigandy]

Why complain about Mac Vid Cards?

Because there has to be something for people to complain about, apart from the iPhone, iPod Touch, lack of Mac Pro updates, the 'big hole in the lineup', whether or not the Mac mini is 'end of life', or why the iPod nano can't have a 2650x1600 resolution on it's 2" screen. :rolleyes:

[Dagless]

I'm happy with my iMac video card. I paid £600 a year ago, for a computer that can run HL2 in native resolutions and Team Fortress 2 with everything on full at 1440*900.

For the price I was more than happy.

I prefer the lower powered GPUs too. Since they cost less to run, run very quiet etc.

[cluthz]

As far as i know the MBP is the only mac that has an up-to-date GFX card.
The rest of the machines has usually had lowend cards.

[hankolerd]

or why the iPod nano can't have a 2650x1600 resolution on it's 2" screen. :rolleyes:

X2

This is exactly the reason I have decided not to buy one.:D:apple:

[contoursvt]

Agree 100%.

The point is that I find most Apple users who have had Apple all their computing years are somehow shielded from what the benefits of a stronger video card. Saying "oh this is just fine by me, I'm happy" but not really experiencing anything else is like having dialup all your life and saying "this is fast enough, I dont need anymore because I dont use the internet for anything intensive...just email and basic surfing"

Well if you DONT have the capability, you wont do anything else. Once you get your high speed and use it, try going back to dialup.

Apple video cards = Dialup for users who have had PC's in the past. The choice of pathetic video cards may be fine for people that dont know any better but the ones that do are the ones that complain.

Apple's video card choices suck, plain and simple. :mad: Not only are the video cards in the iMacs underpowered, they have been isolated as the main reason for the freezing issue. I think the MBP got a decent break with the 8600gt, but it is by no means a screamer. The mini has older-than-dirt integrated GMA950, and the Mac Pro's video cards are almost three years old in some cases.

The base video card in the Mac Pro (nVidia 7300GT) is 17 months old and pathetically underpowered. It's like putting a 2-cylinder engine in a Mustang.

The x1900xt in the Mac Pro will be three years old this coming January. Some people had to have their cards replaced due to artifacting. Apple had Foxconn produce a revision 2 of the card that supposedly cut down on the artifacting.

The Quadro FX 4500 is about two and a half years old (July 05) and has been superseded by several generations of professional-level graphics.

Apple prefers cards that are quiet, and in doing so have and will regularly de-tune the cards to lower clock speeds so that fan speed can be kept to a minimum. Apple never takes into account graphics performance, or anything related to gaming, because quite frankly, His Steveness doesn't want you playing games on your Mac. He wants you to make edible garbage with iMovie 08 and post it to YouTube.

Pouring salt in the wound, Apple charges outrageous prices for these video cards, when you build-to-order. Want to add a second 7300GT to your Mac Pro?? It will cost you $150.00, when it can be purchased RETAIL for $50.00 or less. How about the x1900xt?? $400.00 for that card, where (if you can even find it anymore) it costs $150 or less. Consider this: an nVidia 8800GTS that would literally spank the x1800xt costs about $250.00. So for an extra $150.00 you can have a three year old card. :rolleyes:

They could have done so much better on the video card options in the iMac, but they wanted high margins and low noise. And they could have at least updated the Mac Pro's at least ONCE since its inception a year and three months ago. The Mac Pro has been virtually untouched since its inception.

Apple has no grasp of video card technology, given their long history of poorly-performing and absurdly expensive graphics card choices.

[socamx]

As far as i know the MBP is the only mac that has an up-to-date GFX card.
The rest of the machines has usually had lowend cards.

There is nothing wrong with the ATI HD2600 XT in the iMacs. It is up to date, DX10/OpenGL 2 compatible and performs fine.

I think most complaints most mac users have with video cards come from the people who buy Macbooks and Mac Minis and expect superb 3D performance.

I do agree though that the Mac Pro needs to come with a midrange card and not low-end by default.

[Xeem]

Calling a current MBP "low-end" is ludicrous; even the original MBP with the X1600 and Core Duo is considered a decent laptop. Nobody complains about the 8600GT in the MBP, but try playing any first person shooter released in the last few years on the Macbook or Mini.

The previous-generation 24" iMac with the 7600GT can play games, but its replacement with the Radeon HD 2600 is a downgrade, meaning that if you want to buy a Mac that plays high-end games on decent settings, you need to buy a Mac Pro (and a new video card) or a Macbook Pro. As an example, it literally costs thousands of dollars to play Oblivion with high settings on the Mac, but you could throw together a PC that will run Oblivion on high settings for like $500. Seriously.

[Mr.Pibb]

Honestly, there is no better video card at this point... except for maybe an nVidia Go 7950. The point is, nVidia slapped everybody in the face with their 8-series cards. The so called "mid-range" cards (8600's) should be performing at about 75% of the performance level of the 8800's and clearly, they are not! Secondly, the 8800's are over priced "Enter nVidia 8800 Ultra @ +$1000" :confused: Just as well with the 8800GTX's and the only decent performance/price card, the 8800GTS. ...And by the way ALL of these cards got horrible frame rates with the Crysis demo, aside from the single core bottleneck.

If your an "Enthusiast" or "Hardcore" gamer, you should not be looking at a MacBook Pro in the first place. Not even the 17" models. The cards chosen in these laptops (and the iMacs) aren't meant for gamers, but more for those in the photo and video business. Hence why they also chose such a stable and reliable OS. Gamers should be choosing XP or Vista wholeheartedly, especially when all they do on their PC's is game, and browse the internet. You don't need to pay the premium for a machine when a PC at half the price will perform better for your games.

On the brighter side, the 8600 is a fine performer for a laptop... and for a puny 15" or 17" screen. DirectX10 is very new and very unstable at this point, it's just the typical phase that all new things go through. In the future we will see DirectX10.1 which will be highly better optimized, and better price/performance cards such as the nVidia 8800GT and the ATi Radeon 3800. But for now, as a broke gamer myself I'm completely satisfied with my choice of the entry level MacBook Pro video card. When I'm not using it for paycheck related purposes, it just gives me that little tingly sensation when I'm "fragging" all the little whine-o teenagers who've spent millions of dollars (*hint* that was an exaggeration) on their 8800GTX ultra super cooled with dual exhaust and gas powered hydrogen rigs with my ...Mac!:apple:

[macjonny1]

On the brighter side, the 8600 is a fine performer for a laptop... and for a puny 15" or 17" screen.

Those puny 17" screens on the MBP run at 1900x1200 for the hidef option. Screen size doesn't matter it's the resolution.

[Lord Blackadder]

I realize there are more demanding games out there than F.E.A.R. but not many. If my LOW-END MBP can run it no problem essentially maxed out, then what do all you guys really have to complain about?

It seems that Apples choice of video cards seem to be pretty capable of playing some relatively demanding games.

I too am a casual gamer, and the numbers you got on your machine would be acceptable for me.

But remember that there is NOTHING low-end about your MBP...Apple's low-end laptop is the MacBook, and it is saddled with an underperforming integrated GPU. This would be fine if a better GPU was available as an option, but that is not the case. Here's a rundown of the GPU sitation at Apple as I see it.

MacBook: integrated GMA 950 graphics suitable only for the casual gamer, poor performance in demanding games. Apple should offer a mid-range GPU as an option to boost performance.

MacBook Pro: the Geforce 8600M GT is solid, though it is a midrange GPU. Overall it is sufficient for most gamers, and reflects Apple's philosophy of weighting battery life, small form factor and light weight over all-out performance.

iMac: The base card, the Radeon HD 2400XT, is underpowered, but fine for non-gaming use, or the very casual gamer - however you do have an option of a more powerful card. Unfortunately for this Apple chose the Radeon HD 2600 PRO, which is rather average...because the GPU in this machine is probably never going to be upgradeable, this will cause the machine to have a shorter useful life where 3D apps are concerned. To a certain extent it isn't Apple's fault, because the current crop of midrange cards are not very good. I would like to see a better midrange or even a high-end card as an option.

Mac Pro: Will be updated soon, so not particularly relevant. The GeForce 7300 series cards are not intended for gaming. Beyond this low-end GPU there are no midrange options, but there are high-end and workstation-class options. The Radeon X1900XT is a excellent gaming card, not as powerful as the latest and greatest stuff in the PC world, but it won't embarrass either. It should handle almost anything you throw at it. The Quadro FX4500 is very powerful, but not so powerful that it's worth the massive price...the X1900XT is currently the only true "gaming card" Apple offers.

In sum, I think Apple should offer an optional midrange GPU in the MacBook and Mac Pro, and an optional high-end desktop-class card in the iMac, at least the 24".

[takao]

I too am a casual gamer, and the numbers you got on your machine would be acceptable for me.

But remember that there is NOTHING low-end about your MBP...Apple's low-end laptop is the MacBook, and it is saddled with an underperforming integrated GPU. This would be fine if a better GPU was available as an option, but that is not the case. Here's a rundown of the GPU sitation at Apple as I see it.
In sum, I think Apple should offer an optional midrange GPU in the MacBook and Mac Pro, and an optional high-end desktop-class card in the iMac, at least the 24".

thanks for summing it up better than i could

after all apple could easily offer more frequent updates on their computers especially with the current speed of updates

i simply don't get it why a 999 buck PC should be able to put a mac pro in base configuration (how much is that ? 2300 ? 2400 ?) to shame in terms of performance
in the past there was the excuse "but one is x86 and the other is powerpc you can't compare" .. now you can .. and i'm still told to buy a second computer which i, as a customer (i have a mac mini btw), don't get.. after all i currently have 2 computers: a PC for gaming and printing and a mac for the rest.. and believe it or not it's totally annoying and space wasting

paying 100-200 premium ok i could live with that .. but paying thousands is something completely different
i have a 22" LCD screen ... so i have to choose between mac mini and mac pro in the apple line up.. so i'm stuck with either laptop parts or paying through the nose for a machine aimed at photoshop

[PMR]

Apple's video card choices suck, plain and simple. :mad: Not only are the video cards in the iMacs underpowered, they have been isolated as the main reason for the freezing issue. I think the MBP got a decent break with the 8600gt, but it is by no means a screamer. The mini has older-than-dirt integrated GMA950, and the Mac Pro's video cards are almost three years old in some cases.

The base video card in the Mac Pro (nVidia 7300GT) is 17 months old and pathetically underpowered. It's like putting a 2-cylinder engine in a Mustang.

The x1900xt in the Mac Pro will be three years old this coming January. Some people had to have their cards replaced due to artifacting. Apple had Foxconn produce a revision 2 of the card that supposedly cut down on the artifacting.

The Quadro FX 4500 is about two and a half years old (July 05) and has been superseded by several generations of professional-level graphics.

Apple prefers cards that are quiet, and in doing so have and will regularly de-tune the cards to lower clock speeds so that fan speed can be kept to a minimum. Apple never takes into account graphics performance, or anything related to gaming, because quite frankly, His Steveness doesn't want you playing games on your Mac. He wants you to make edible garbage with iMovie 08 and post it to YouTube.

Pouring salt in the wound, Apple charges outrageous prices for these video cards, when you build-to-order. Want to add a second 7300GT to your Mac Pro?? It will cost you $150.00, when it can be purchased RETAIL for $50.00 or less. How about the x1900xt?? $400.00 for that card, where (if you can even find it anymore) it costs $150 or less. Consider this: an nVidia 8800GTS that would literally spank the x1800xt costs about $250.00. So for an extra $150.00 you can have a three year old card. :rolleyes:

They could have done so much better on the video card options in the iMac, but they wanted high margins and low noise. And they could have at least updated the Mac Pro's at least ONCE since its inception a year and three months ago. The Mac Pro has been virtually untouched since its inception.

Apple has no grasp of video card technology, given their long history of poorly-performing and absurdly expensive graphics card choices.

Finally! A guy who thinks like me!

About the 8800GT in your sig...from what we are used to maybe they'll stick to the HD2900XT/Pro or the upcoming HD3xxx:rolleyes:

[PMR]

The Radeon X1900XT is a excellent gaming card, not as powerful as the latest and greatest stuff in the PC world, but it won't embarrass either. It should handle almost anything you throw at it.
That's no excuse to sell it at $400. For $230 you get a card which is at least 3 times faster.

[Lord Blackadder]

That's no excuse to sell it at $400. For $230 you get a card which is at least 3 times faster.

True, but at least it's available. Remember also that we are talking about a card that is about to be EOL'd as the update for the Mac Pro is just around the corner.

I've never said I was happy with the pricing on the Mac Pro cards...I have always wished Apple would do a deal with one of the big video card fabricators to market retail, dual platform cards with pricing similar to that seen in the PC world. It wouldn't be that difficult.

This could be one reason to advocate the notion of a Mac mid tower - the increased volume of dual-platform video cards being sold would further justify offering 4-6 different models at retail stores.

[PMR]

True, but at least it's available. Remember also that we are talking about a card that is about to be EOL'd as the update for the Mac Pro is just around the corner.

I've never said I was happy with the pricing on the Mac Pro cards...I have always wished Apple would do a deal with one of the big video card fabricators to market retail, dual platform cards with pricing similar to that seen in the PC world. It wouldn't be that difficult.

This could be one reason to advocate the notion of a Mac mid tower - the increased volume of dual-platform video cards being sold would further justify offering 4-6 different models at retail stores.

That wouldn't solve the prices problem either. They can manage to put the new 8800 , HD2900 or HD3xxx series, but by the next mac pro upgrade (maybe in a year), the cards would cost exactly the same as they cost now.

Does Apple has nvidia and amd guys working 24/7 for them on gfx cards drivers? Or is internal Apple people? Because paying for driver work is not cheap. That's why the nvidia quadro and amd firegl are so expensive. The hardware is outdated though.

[flopticalcube]

Does Apple has nvidia and amd guys working 24/7 for them on gfx cards drivers?

At the moment, probably yes, or at least they better have. **curses his freezing iMac***

[Lord Blackadder]

That wouldn't solve the prices problem either. They can manage to put the new 8800 , HD2900 or HD3xxx series, but by the next mac pro upgrade (maybe in a year), the cards would cost exactly the same as they cost now.

Which is why I wish Apple followed the upgrade path of the video card industry more closely. As it stands today, Apple doesn't make enough video cards to price cut them the way PC vendors do, even though Apple's video cards are hardware identical to PC video cards. The difference is strictly in the firmware and drivers.

Does Apple has nvidia and amd guys working 24/7 for them on gfx cards drivers? Or is internal Apple people? Because paying for driver work is not cheap. That's why the nvidia quadro and amd firegl are so expensive. The hardware is outdated though.

If I recall correctly, Apple produces the drivers for all of its NVIDIA cards, while ATI writes the drivers for its own Mac products. Incidentally, ATI's drivers are usually better than Apple's NVIDIA drivers and get more out of the their cards than Apple does with the NVIDIA products.

[contoursvt]

If you're talking notebook parts then
there is the 8600GT Go version which is considerably stronger than the vanilla 8600 Go. Also to assume the 8600 should be 75% the speed of the 8800 is insane. Its never ever been like that. The 7600GT was 50% of the performance of the 7900GTX at best. The 8600GTS is on par with my 7950GT. There is a giant difference between the 8600, 8600GT and 8600GTS.

Anyway your prices are way WAY off

8800 Ultra 768MB with a free game $629
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3094833&CatId=2513

8800 GTX 768MB $529
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2887266&CatId=2513

8800 GTS 640MB $389
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2717553&CatId=2514

8800 GT 512MB with a free game $299
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3436163&CatId=1826


Honestly, there is no better video card at this point... except for maybe an nVidia Go 7950. The point is, nVidia slapped everybody in the face with their 8-series cards. The so called "mid-range" cards (8600's) should be performing at about 75% of the performance level of the 8800's and clearly, they are not! Secondly, the 8800's are over priced "Enter nVidia 8800 Ultra @ +$1000" :confused: Just as well with the 8800GTX's and the only decent performance/price card, the 8800GTS. ...And by the way ALL of these cards got horrible frame rates with the Crysis demo, aside from the single core bottleneck.

If your an "Enthusiast" or "Hardcore" gamer, you should not be looking at a MacBook Pro in the first place. Not even the 17" models. The cards chosen in these laptops (and the iMacs) aren't meant for gamers, but more for those in the photo and video business. Hence why they also chose such a stable and reliable OS. Gamers should be choosing XP or Vista wholeheartedly, especially when all they do on their PC's is game, and browse the internet. You don't need to pay the premium for a machine when a PC at half the price will perform better for your games.

On the brighter side, the 8600 is a fine performer for a laptop... and for a puny 15" or 17" screen. DirectX10 is very new and very unstable at this point, it's just the typical phase that all new things go through. In the future we will see DirectX10.1 which will be highly better optimized, and better price/performance cards such as the nVidia 8800GT and the ATi Radeon 3800. But for now, as a broke gamer myself I'm completely satisfied with my choice of the entry level MacBook Pro video card. When I'm not using it for paycheck related purposes, it just gives me that little tingly sensation when I'm "fragging" all the little whine-o teenagers who've spent millions of dollars (*hint* that was an exaggeration) on their 8800GTX ultra super cooled with dual exhaust and gas powered hydrogen rigs with my ...Mac!:apple:

[gregorsamsa]

Apple's video card choices suck, plain and simple. :mad: Not only are the video cards in the iMacs underpowered, they have been isolated as the main reason for the freezing issue. I think the MBP got a decent break with the 8600gt, but it is by no means a screamer. The mini has older-than-dirt integrated GMA950, and the Mac Pro's video cards are almost three years old in some cases.

The base video card in the Mac Pro (nVidia 7300GT) is 17 months old and pathetically underpowered. It's like putting a 2-cylinder engine in a Mustang.

The x1900xt in the Mac Pro will be three years old this coming January. Some people had to have their cards replaced due to artifacting. Apple had Foxconn produce a revision 2 of the card that supposedly cut down on the artifacting.

The Quadro FX 4500 is about two and a half years old (July 05) and has been superseded by several generations of professional-level graphics.

Apple prefers cards that are quiet, and in doing so have and will regularly de-tune the cards to lower clock speeds so that fan speed can be kept to a minimum. Apple never takes into account graphics performance, or anything related to gaming, because quite frankly, His Steveness doesn't want you playing games on your Mac. He wants you to make edible garbage with iMovie 08 and post it to YouTube.

Pouring salt in the wound, Apple charges outrageous prices for these video cards, when you build-to-order. Want to add a second 7300GT to your Mac Pro?? It will cost you $150.00, when it can be purchased RETAIL for $50.00 or less. How about the x1900xt?? $400.00 for that card, where (if you can even find it anymore) it costs $150 or less. Consider this: an nVidia 8800GTS that would literally spank the x1800xt costs about $250.00. So for an extra $150.00 you can have a three year old card. :rolleyes:

They could have done so much better on the video card options in the iMac, but they wanted high margins and low noise. And they could have at least updated the Mac Pro's at least ONCE since its inception a year and three months ago. The Mac Pro has been virtually untouched since its inception.

Apple has no grasp of video card technology, given their long history of poorly-performing and absurdly expensive graphics card choices.

I agree with most of that, but for the last point. To the contrary, I believe Apple has grasped things very well in this department, something confirmed in both record sales & high profit margins attained. Being a monopoly with OS X allows Apple to give you the minimum cards acceptable, knowing that the only alternative, a Windows PC, is something anathema to most Mac users... most, but by no means all. I think PC companies offering the same mediocre graphics would soon lose customers to their competitors.

FWIW, the only reason I haven't bought a PC this week is that I'm still hoping Apple will release a new headless Mac with discrete graphics at consumer prices in the near future, something quite feasible considering the persistent rumours of the Mini's imminent demise. If not, well thanks to Apple's limited graphics on their current consumer Macs - sadly, the glossy iMacs aren't an option for me for a number of other reasons - it looks like it'll be Mac laptops for work & a PC desktop for gaming, etc. in future.

So re the OP's question: I think that, overall, Mac users have very good reason to complain about the lack of choice when it comes to video cards.

[takao]

If I recall correctly, Apple produces the drivers for all of its NVIDIA cards, while ATI writes the drivers for its own Mac products. Incidentally, ATI's drivers are usually better than Apple's NVIDIA drivers and get more out of the their cards than Apple does with the NVIDIA products.

which makes it even more sad since on the windows and linux side NVIDIA drivers are normally far better than ATI (especially on openGL which drum very often get beaten around here too ;) )

on top of that in many macs it's some sort of mobile chipset for which drivers aren' t that great anyway

so it's like stacking one not so glorious part over another

ati drivers
mobile chips
which may have been underclocked
different OS
ati chips which may be lacking in opengl in the first place

[PMR]

Anyway your prices are way WAY off

8800 Ultra 768MB with a free game $629
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3094833&CatId=2513

8800 GTX 768MB $529
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2887266&CatId=2513

8800 GTS 640MB $389
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2717553&CatId=2514

8800 GT 512MB with a free game $299
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3436163&CatId=1826

8800 Ultra 768MB $540.92
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127288R

8800 GTX 768MB $454.99 after MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127281

8800 GTS 640MB $309.99 after MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+1305520548+1068314597&name=640MB

8800 GT 512MB $259.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133205
:D

[exabytes18]

...And by the way ALL of these cards got horrible frame rates with the Crysis demo, aside from the single core bottleneck.

...

On the brighter side, the 8600 is a fine performer for a laptop... and for a puny 15" or 17" screen. DirectX10 is very new and very unstable at this point, it's just the typical phase that all new things go through. In the future we will see DirectX10.1 which will be highly better optimized, and better price/performance cards such as the nVidia 8800GT and the ATi Radeon 3800. But for now, as a broke gamer myself I'm completely satisfied with my choice of the entry level MacBook Pro video card. When I'm not using it for paycheck related purposes, it just gives me that little tingly sensation when I'm "fragging" all the little whine-o teenagers who've spent millions of dollars (*hint* that was an exaggeration) on their 8800GTX ultra super cooled with dual exhaust and gas powered hydrogen rigs with my ...Mac!:apple:

My 8800gts managed a respectable 30fps at 1680x1050, high settings, no AA. Let me tell ya, it was gorgeous. As someone mentioned before, the cards aren't super expensive.

This is Apple, right. Offer us the best these companies like nVidia and ATi have. Humor us and drop a 8800 or a HD2900 into the Mac Pro.

Just for the heck of it, I selected components as if I were to build a computer to match the specs of a Mac Pro (~$1300, incredible right?). Replace that puny 7300GT with 2 8800Ultras and you have a computer that costs the same as an entry level Mac Pro but is what, 20 times faster in terms of FPS. This is just the gamer inside of me speaking.

[PMR]

We could speculate what we want for years and still we wouldn't find the reason why mr Steve doesn't want us to play in these machines. The last time I saw him speaking he was saying: "Oh, look at these macs running harry potter... This is great...!" The drunk boss of EA said the same...

For fractions of second I thought that this was the beginning of mac gaming, but then I realized they were just throwing sand to our eyes. Why the hell the ports run slow on imacs and mbp? They knew the hardware (unlike pc configurations) and they knew the software. I only see in forums people complaining about Battlefield crashes and Need For Speed low frame rates even at low resolutions. Shouldn't they test the games till they run almost flawlessly? That didn't happen. Where is VALVE? A million dollars? mr. Steve, put your hand on your pocket and throw that bills away because I believe in one year you would profit the double of it.

Mr Steve, please step in front of the audience and tell us why you don't want gamers in Apple world. It would save us a lot of typing time.

[contoursvt]

Damn I gotta get me an 8800GT soon !! Like in a couple days when my EVGA model arrives at the store ;) Yup I broke down and ordered it for $259 canadian $$. Cant wait to try that with Crysis. My 7950GT will get shuffled into my older box.

8800 Ultra 768MB $540.92
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127288R

8800 GTX 768MB $454.99 after MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127281

8800 GTS 640MB $309.99 after MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+1305520548+1068314597&name=640MB

8800 GT 512MB $259.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133205
:D

[Lh'owon]

Apple's video card choices suck, plain and simple. :mad: Not only are the video cards in the iMacs underpowered, they have been isolated as the main reason for the freezing issue. I think the MBP got a decent break with the 8600gt, but it is by no means a screamer. The mini has older-than-dirt integrated GMA950, and the Mac Pro's video cards are almost three years old in some cases.

The base video card in the Mac Pro (nVidia 7300GT) is 17 months old and pathetically underpowered. It's like putting a 2-cylinder engine in a Mustang.

The x1900xt in the Mac Pro will be three years old this coming January. Some people had to have their cards replaced due to artifacting. Apple had Foxconn produce a revision 2 of the card that supposedly cut down on the artifacting.

The Quadro FX 4500 is about two and a half years old (July 05) and has been superseded by several generations of professional-level graphics.

Apple prefers cards that are quiet, and in doing so have and will regularly de-tune the cards to lower clock speeds so that fan speed can be kept to a minimum. Apple never takes into account graphics performance, or anything related to gaming, because quite frankly, His Steveness doesn't want you playing games on your Mac. He wants you to make edible garbage with iMovie 08 and post it to YouTube.

Pouring salt in the wound, Apple charges outrageous prices for these video cards, when you build-to-order. Want to add a second 7300GT to your Mac Pro?? It will cost you $150.00, when it can be purchased RETAIL for $50.00 or less. How about the x1900xt?? $400.00 for that card, where (if you can even find it anymore) it costs $150 or less. Consider this: an nVidia 8800GTS that would literally spank the x1800xt costs about $250.00. So for an extra $150.00 you can have a three year old card. :rolleyes:

They could have done so much better on the video card options in the iMac, but they wanted high margins and low noise. And they could have at least updated the Mac Pro's at least ONCE since its inception a year and three months ago. The Mac Pro has been virtually untouched since its inception.

Apple has no grasp of video card technology, given their long history of poorly-performing and absurdly expensive graphics card choices.

Bravo.

I agree completely, except I'd differ on your last point. I think Apple knows video card technology damn well. It's their intention that's the problem.

The new iMac's video card (2600 PRO) sends a very clear message. It's a card packed with advanced graphics technology, that also packs a very weak punch when it comes to games.

That's the best expression of Steve's opinion of gaming on macs: "Go for it, but we sure as hell aren't going to lift a finger to help you."

With the fantastic price/performance of the 8800GT, there's increasingly fewer excuses not to have better cards.

[mosx]

I preface this with the fact that I am only a casual gamer, and not even a PC gamer at that. My games are Halo 3 and NCAA Football on XBOX 360, but after installing Leopard and Vista in boot camp on my MBP (see sig) I wanted to see what the 8600M GT 128mb could do. So, I installed F.E.A.R. to test it out. It even has it's own built in test to see which settings are best for your setup. I went into the settings and maxed out every single option and resolution was at 1024 x 768 I believe since there wasn't an option to run it at exact native resolution of the MBP which is 1440 x 900.

At these maxed out settings, my frame rate average was 31-33 or so which looked pretty good in the system test video, so then I started a single player game to see what happened in actual game play. It played just fine. It wasn't absolute PERFECTION, but very playable and very minimal choppiness in very busy, fast-moving action. My roommate was very impressed since it outperformed his 1 1/2 yr old full tower Dell XPS gaming rig even tho my MBP only has the LOW-END MBP card. No doubt, having the 256mb version of the 8600M GT would have added a few more frames and eliminated the tiny bit of choppiness that exists on the 128mb version.

I realize there are more demanding games out there than F.E.A.R. but not many. If my LOW-END MBP can run it no problem essentially maxed out, then what do all you guys really have to complain about?

It seems that Apples choice of video cards seem to be pretty capable of playing some relatively demanding games.

I can think of plenty of reasons to complain about the GPUs in the Macs.

Will-Bill put it perfectly when talking about the Mac Pro.

I'll talk about the MacBook and MacBook Pro.

The GPU in the $1,999 MacBook Pro is a 128MB GeForce 8600M GT. For $700 less at ibuypower, you can get a system similar to the MacBook Pro but with a 512MB GeForce 8600M GT. For about $500 less from Dell (compared to the $1,999 MacBook Pro), you can get a system with the exact same specs, except a 1680x1050 screen, 256MB GeForce 8600M GT, and a blu-ray reader that writes DVDs and has an HDMI output.

In the $1,999 range, you can usually get dual GPUs with 512MB or more of memory, running in SLI mode, etc.

If you go up to the $2,499 and $2,799 range, you can get higher end cards running in SLI with around 1GB of memory.

When it comes to the MacBook.. it's ridiculous that Apple doesn't use a dedicated GPU in it! $1,299 for a system with a previous generation integrated GPU. $1,299 at Dell will get you 256MB GeForce 8600M GT, 1680x1050 15.4" screen, 2GHz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa), 2GB of RAM, 160GB HDD. My $1050 HP came with a 128MB GeForce 8400M, 2GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, 2GHz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa). Infact, the MacBook is probably the only non-Sony system to cost more than $800 and come with an integrated GPU.

If Apple insists on an integrated GPU, which they made fun of in the past, why not choose one from nVidia or ATI? They both make integrated GPUs for Intel platforms that are MUCH better than either the GMA 950 or X3100.

But for $1408 (MacBook w/SuperDrive in California after taxes), the MacBook should come with *at least* a GeForce 8400M or ATI equivalent.

[takao]

But for $1408 (MacBook w/SuperDrive in California after taxes), the MacBook should come with *at least* a GeForce 8400M or ATI equivalent.

isn't going to happen sadly since apple is anal about clearly separating their product lines even if it doesn't make any sense

also it would very likely eat their powerbook sales to some extend (on which they have a high margin) and also lower the margin on the macbook too

[miller218]

1. Macbooks should be updated soon.
2. The GMA 950 is basically free because it's integrated into the chipset, less space, less money, less power. Yes, it is ancient.
3. The updated Macbooks should have new integrated video from the Santa Rosa Chipset (X3100) or something like that.

I can think of plenty of reasons to complain about the GPUs in the Macs.

Will-Bill put it perfectly when talking about the Mac Pro.

I'll talk about the MacBook and MacBook Pro.

The GPU in the $1,999 MacBook Pro is a 128MB GeForce 8600M GT. For $700 less at ibuypower, you can get a system similar to the MacBook Pro but with a 512MB GeForce 8600M GT. For about $500 less from Dell (compared to the $1,999 MacBook Pro), you can get a system with the exact same specs, except a 1680x1050 screen, 256MB GeForce 8600M GT, and a blu-ray reader that writes DVDs and has an HDMI output.

In the $1,999 range, you can usually get dual GPUs with 512MB or more of memory, running in SLI mode, etc.

If you go up to the $2,499 and $2,799 range, you can get higher end cards running in SLI with around 1GB of memory.

When it comes to the MacBook.. it's ridiculous that Apple doesn't use a dedicated GPU in it! $1,299 for a system with a previous generation integrated GPU. $1,299 at Dell will get you 256MB GeForce 8600M GT, 1680x1050 15.4" screen, 2GHz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa), 2GB of RAM, 160GB HDD. My $1050 HP came with a 128MB GeForce 8400M, 2GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, 2GHz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa). Infact, the MacBook is probably the only non-Sony system to cost more than $800 and come with an integrated GPU.

If Apple insists on an integrated GPU, which they made fun of in the past, why not choose one from nVidia or ATI? They both make integrated GPUs for Intel platforms that are MUCH better than either the GMA 950 or X3100.

But for $1408 (MacBook w/SuperDrive in California after taxes), the MacBook should come with *at least* a GeForce 8400M or ATI equivalent.

[PMR]

1. Macbooks should be updated soon.
2. The GMA 950 is basically free because it's integrated into the chipset, less space, less money, less power. Yes, it is ancient.
3. The updated Macbooks should have new integrated video from the Santa Rosa Chipset (X3100) or something like that.


http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/104/captainobviouslb4.jpg

[gregorsamsa]

1. MacBooks should be updated soon.
2. The GMA 950 is basically free because it's integrated into the chipset, less space, less money, less power. Yes, it is ancient.
3. The updated Macbooks should have new integrated video from the Santa Rosa Chipset (X3100) or something like that.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/104/captainobviouslb4.jpg

I'll bet that Apple & Steve Jobs really love Captain Obvious! :D

[mosx]

1. Macbooks should be updated soon.
2. The GMA 950 is basically free because it's integrated into the chipset, less space, less money, less power. Yes, it is ancient.
3. The updated Macbooks should have new integrated video from the Santa Rosa Chipset (X3100) or something like that.

Apple could at least offer an upgrade option. Pass the cost of a dedicated GPU on to the consumer. Its what everybody else does.

Now that the MacBook has the X3100, it can finally play games the same way the GeForce4 Ti 4200 did back in 2002! (According to Intel anyway).

Edit: It really can't. Intel claimed similar performance between the two. However, the X3100 steals memory and bandwidth from the main system RAM. So you have it stealing valuable bandwidth from the CPU, which slows down their performance... and, in turn, overall performance. The GeForce4 Ti 4200 also had more bandwidth available to it from its dedicated memory than the X3100 would get from its shared memory.

[Lord Blackadder]

Putting integrated graphics in a laptop makes some sense, since the VRAM in a discrete GPU card can really suck the juice. But it will always be inferior to a discrete video card with dedicated VRAM.

The X3100 is a significant improvement for the MacBook, but it is also ominous since it means Apple is committing to Intel's integrated graphics for the foreseable future - in other words, don't expect anything to change for years. The Mac Mini, if it doesn't get killed off, will probably suffer a similar fate.

[Dagless]

I must be in an odd minority. I basically got an iMac a year ago for gaming and developing in Windows. I play Orange Box games every night, occasionally play on Doom 3 and the likes. I think my iMac is fine for gaming, I've been a PC gamer with up to date video cards in the past and it's just an expensive hobby then.

I don't care for uber new games though. Which is probably what everyone feels Apple should be catering for. I can understand, I'm no "dial up user" ;) I just had no reason to get anything more powerful. Even today I'd get a card not much better than a X1600.

Oh, and are we going to have this discussion again when the next big 3D game is out? :D

[mosx]

Putting integrated graphics in a laptop makes some sense, since the VRAM in a discrete GPU card can really suck the juice. But it will always be inferior to a discrete video card with dedicated VRAM.

Thats not true at all. ATI and especially nVidia, have invested a lot in power saving technology. They'll lower the core speed, lower the memory speed, etc. to pump up the battery life. I know on a PC I had with the ATI Xpress 200M, the power saving mode on that would automatically cut the core clock speed down from 400MHz to 100MHz. My GeForce in my HP will cut down the speed of everything, lower the screen brightness, etc.

And look at Apple's own specs. They claim 6 hours of battery life in the MacBook Pro with a dedicated GPU.

nVidia and ATI definitely have power saving features, but the increased performance (and image quality in video playback) is worth any sacrificed battery life. I know I'd rather have an "Estimated" 5 hours of battery life in my MacBook if it meant having a GeForce 8400M in it, as well as DVD Player FINALLY being able to take advantage of hardware features so the image quality isn't the laughing stock of the DVD player world.

The X3100 is a significant improvement for the MacBook

Not really. It performs not even as well as low end dedicated GPUs from 2002. You might get 40fps in UT2k4 at 800x600 now with everything set to above medium, versus the GMA 950 choking out 30fps at 800x600 with everything set to medium.

The X3100 still has no advanced video decoding or acceleration features. Its ironic that Apple relies on H.264 video encoding, yet their most popular products don't even support hardware decoding and acceleration of the video.

I basically got an iMac a year ago for gaming and developing in Windows. I play Orange Box games every night, occasionally play on Doom 3 and the likes. I think my iMac is fine for gaming, I've been a PC gamer with up to date video cards in the past and it's just an expensive hobby then.

I don't care for uber new games though. Which is probably what everyone feels Apple should be catering for. I can understand, I'm no "dial up user" I just had no reason to get anything more powerful. Even today I'd get a card not much better than a X1600.

iMac uses mobile components. With the exception of the HDD, the CPU, GPU, etc. are all mobile parts.

So yes, you could get something significantly more powerful today. Even a year ago, you could have gotten something that would have performed 2-3x faster for much less than the cost (whole system) of your iMac.

[Lord Blackadder]

Thats not true at all.

Everything you said essentially agrees with what I've said...yes, ATI and NVIDIA have produced very efficient chipsets of late, but an embedded GPU will always use more power and produce more heat than an otherwise identical integrated setup due to the VRAM.

Of course, you also need to realize that Intel has doubtless heavily encouraged Apple to adopt their integrated GPUs, and Apple is not a gamer-centric company by any stretch. At any rate, I stand by my statement that the X3100 is an improvement for the MacBook - care to argue that the GMA 950 was better? I never said it was the best possible choice, not by a long shot.

I have already said that an embedded GPU would be preferable IMHO, but is an X3100 "good enough"? Well, the GMA 950-equipped MacBooks positively flew off the shelves, so if the trend continues I guess the answer is "yes", gamers be damned.

[hankolerd]

That's no excuse to sell it at $400. For $230 you get a card which is at least 3 times faster.

Actually, that is not really a good point....Not every card on the market will work on the mac, companies only make certain cards that will work...So yeah, maybe for PC you could get a $230 card that outperforms, but you have to look at the cards the manufacturers are actually building that are mac compatible...

Apples choice of video cards might suck..compared to the sweet vc's you see on pc machines, but what it comes down to is that that is the manufacturers choice. Hopefully someday we will see a day that manufacturers will release pc and mac card versions of their hardware at the same time. peace.:apple:

EDIT: I like your post #28 PMR, you gotta love newegg :D

[rbarris]

At the moment, probably yes, or at least they better have. **curses his freezing iMac***

Have you applied today's update ?

http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/imacsoftwareupdate12tiger.html
(Tiger)

http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/imacsoftwareupdate13leopard.html
(Leopard)

[i, Podius]

There is nothing wrong with the ATI HD2600 XT in the iMacs. It is up to date, DX10/OpenGL 2 compatible and performs fine.

I think most complaints most mac users have with video cards come from the people who buy Macbooks and Mac Minis and expect superb 3D performance.

I do agree though that the Mac Pro needs to come with a midrange card and not low-end by default.

Uhh... you do realise that it gets beaten by the video card in the previous iMac (http://www.barefeats.com/imacal5.html), right?

[i, Podius]

...And look at Apple's own specs. They claim 6 hours of battery life in the MacBook Pro with a dedicated GPU.

nVidia and ATI definitely have power saving features, but the increased performance (and image quality in video playback) is worth any sacrificed battery life. I know I'd rather have an "Estimated" 5 hours of battery life in my MacBook if it meant having a GeForce 8400M in it...

Ah, but the thing is, the vast majority of MacBook owners are people unconcerned with gaming performance. My mother, for instance, would certainly not want to give up battery life for a performance improvement that wouldn't actually do anything for her. Thus taking a substantial (15%) hit on battery life to appease a minority whose needs are, in theory, serviced by other models in the product line really doesn't make any sense. I love gaming, but I'm willing to accept that it's not an activity made for the low end machines.

[Lord Blackadder]

Uhh... you do realise that it gets beaten by the video card in the previous iMac (http://www.barefeats.com/imacal5.html), right?

In a way, we can't blame Apple for this...The GeForce 7600GT was an unusually high performance card for a midrange GPU. Both the Radeon HD 2600 and the GeForce 8600 GT have been somewhat disappointing in performance.

[PMR]

In a way, we can't blame Apple for this...The GeForce 7600GT was an unusually high performance card for a midrange GPU. Both the Radeon HD 2600 and the GeForce 8600 GT have been somewhat disappointing in performance.

To keep the performance increase path 6600GT-7600GT, the 8600GT should be performing like a 7900GS/8600GTS and the HD2600XT like the X1950Pro. And that didn't happen:mad:

[Lord Blackadder]

Hopefully as the drivers mature we'll the the 8600 and 2600 series cards giving better performance, but at the moment they aren't worth it unless you need DirectX 10 capability.

[fblack]

Uhh... you do realise that it gets beaten by the video card in the previous iMac (http://www.barefeats.com/imacal5.html), right?

I agree. I don't think the 2600 is all that great, and the 7600GT was an excellent card for a long time. However, to be fair in XP the 7600 drivers were pretty mature, while they are still working on tweaking the 2600. It does ok in certain titles vs the 7600. Nothing to get overly excited about. However, they may be able to squeeze a few more frame rates out of it. Again nothing to drool over, but it can be acceptable to the casual gamer crowd.

Dark Messiah of Might and Magic
1600x1200 4xAA, 8xAF, max quality, HDR-R

HD2600XT 17.9 fps.
7600GT 10.6 fps.

Oblivion Elder scrolls
1024x768, no AA, 8xAF, max quality, HDR-R

HD2600XT 19.2 fps.
7600GT 10 fps.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=858&model2=716&chart=295

ATI/AMD is coming out with newer cards. The real question is whether Apple will update the imacs with improved gpus or will they do as they have done in the past and keep the same weak to mediocre graphics for longer than is necessary.:(

[Wild-Bill]

The real question is whether Apple will update the imacs with improved gpus or will they do as they have done in the past and keep the same weak to mediocre graphics for longer than is necessary.:(

If history is any indication, I would say the latter.......bolded for your pleasure. :D It's Apple's trademark move.

Now that Apple is on the Intel platform, there really is no excuse for them to do this. And it's not a hardware issue either, as there are no "Mac specific" video cards anymore - only firmware.

[anonymous161]

Apples choices have always been on the cheap and week side. Like the last version of the 12" powerbook that i own, it won't play videos or movies from the iTunes store.

[flopticalcube]

If history is any indication, I would say the latter.......bolded for your pleasure. :D It's Apple's trademark move.

Now that Apple is on the Intel platform, there really is no excuse for them to do this. And it's not a hardware issue either, as there are no "Mac specific" video cards anymore - only firmware.

And it looks like Apple is beginning to see what customized firmware on a video card can really do when it doesn't work right.

[fblack]

If history is any indication, I would say the latter.......bolded for your pleasure. :D It's Apple's trademark move.

bolded LOL :D

Yea the G4 powerbooks come to mind, I waited for ever to see an update to cpu-remember 1.67 to...1.67? Then there was the GPU. The Radeon 9700 was in the powerbooks for something like 2 years. But going back to the main question: Why complain about Mac Vid cards? Like you said history. Perhaps with their new found solvency along with the Intel chips Apple will be a little more flexible. It would be nice if they chart out a new history, but only time will tell...

[slimflem]

thanks for summing it up better than i could

after all apple could easily offer more frequent updates on their computers especially with the current speed of updates

i simply don't get it why a 999 buck PC should be able to put a mac pro in base configuration (how much is that ? 2300 ? 2400 ?) to shame in terms of performance
in the past there was the excuse "but one is x86 and the other is powerpc you can't compare" .. now you can .. and i'm still told to buy a second computer which i, as a customer (i have a mac mini btw), don't get.. after all i currently have 2 computers: a PC for gaming and printing and a mac for the rest.. and believe it or not it's totally annoying and space wasting

paying 100-200 premium ok i could live with that .. but paying thousands is something completely different
i have a 22" LCD screen ... so i have to choose between mac mini and mac pro in the apple line up.. so i'm stuck with either laptop parts or paying through the nose for a machine aimed at photoshop

Mac Pro machines are not marketed towards gamers and it is not the intent of Apple to produce this type of machine. The Mac Pro is a professional workstation and is marketed as such. It is basically a server in a high-end desktop case...to put it simply. FB-DIMM timings are not what you want for gaming either. Nor do you really want ECC ram such as the Mac Pro has. Operating system aside, whether your are using OS X or Windows on this hardware, it is not built to be a bad ass gaming system. It is intended for professionals that want stability and and reliability. If you choose to run Windows on this machine rather than OS X, that is your choice. Apple knows what they are doing in providing their UNIX-based professional workstation. If you want gaming, then build a Windows machine and stop complaining that the Mac Pro is under powered because it is not by any means.

[contoursvt]

I'm sure Maya and lightwave would never benefit from a faster GPU. They are not professional applications either and probably not suited for a workstation :rolleyes:

[Roderick Usher]

Apple's video card choices suck, plain and simple. :mad: Not only are the video cards in the iMacs underpowered, they have been isolated as the main reason for the freezing issue. I think the MBP got a decent break with the 8600gt, but it is by no means a screamer. The mini has older-than-dirt integrated GMA950, and the Mac Pro's video cards are almost three years old in some cases.

The base video card in the Mac Pro (nVidia 7300GT) is 17 months old and pathetically underpowered. It's like putting a 2-cylinder engine in a Mustang.

The x1900xt in the Mac Pro will be three years old this coming January. Some people had to have their cards replaced due to artifacting. Apple had Foxconn produce a revision 2 of the card that supposedly cut down on the artifacting.

The Quadro FX 4500 is about two and a half years old (July 05) and has been superseded by several generations of professional-level graphics.

Apple prefers cards that are quiet, and in doing so have and will regularly de-tune the cards to lower clock speeds so that fan speed can be kept to a minimum. Apple never takes into account graphics performance, or anything related to gaming, because quite frankly, His Steveness doesn't want you playing games on your Mac. He wants you to make edible garbage with iMovie 08 and post it to YouTube.

Pouring salt in the wound, Apple charges outrageous prices for these video cards, when you build-to-order. Want to add a second 7300GT to your Mac Pro?? It will cost you $150.00, when it can be purchased RETAIL for $50.00 or less. How about the x1900xt?? $400.00 for that card, where (if you can even find it anymore) it costs $150 or less. Consider this: an nVidia 8800GTS that would literally spank the x1800xt costs about $250.00. So for an extra $150.00 you can have a three year old card. :rolleyes:

They could have done so much better on the video card options in the iMac, but they wanted high margins and low noise. And they could have at least updated the Mac Pro's at least ONCE since its inception a year and three months ago. The Mac Pro has been virtually untouched since its inception.

Apple has no grasp of video card technology, given their long history of poorly-performing and absurdly expensive graphics card choices.
Well said. The graphics gap between Macs and PCs is the elephant in the room that few people seem to want to acknowledge, an embarrassment that's often swept under the rug with some of the most absurd and tortured reasoning I've ever seen. I'm of the view that true advocates of the Mac platform should be up in arms about this, screaming about it, regardless of whether they themselves are directly affected by it.

[Freyqq]

here is the argument:

mac laptops are respectable. 8600GT is one of the best cards you can get atm on a laptop. Macbook not having a card is understandable for its target audience and price.

desktops are slow for what you pay

mac pro- the radeon 1950xt or w/e they sell is a 2-3 y/o card that you can buy for a little over $100 retail. Apple sells it for $500 and it remains to be the best card you can buy for any mac. Meanwhile back in the present, 8800GT goes for about 250 and it can run circles around the 1950xt. Kinda sad..don't you think considering your buying a 3k thing here?

i can understand the mac mini not having a card b\c its a small machine. Fine.

i can understand the imac's card b\c its an all-in-one. To keep the thing "aesthetically pleasing," its something you have to deal with.

then i insert my - give us a midrange tower - argument and..yea

[illicium]

I'm of the view that true advocates of the Mac platform should be up in arms about this, screaming about it, regardless of whether they themselves are directly affected by it.

Wait, what?? Why do you feel that I, as an advocate of the Mac platform, should fight a battle that I am not interested in??? Should I fight for the Jeep Wrangler to have heated seats even tho I live in Texas?? No, because I have better things to do with my time than fight SOMEONE ELSE'S battles. That's retarded to expect someone who isn't impacted in the least by the "lack of graphics power" to take time out of their busy days to be "up in arms" about something "they themselves aren't directly affected by".

[Roderick Usher]

Wait, what?? Why do you feel that I, as an advocate of the Mac platform, should fight a battle that I am not interested in??? Should I fight for the Jeep Wrangler to have heated seats even tho I live in Texas?? No, because I have better things to do with my time than fight SOMEONE ELSE'S battles. That's retarded to expect someone who isn't impacted in the least by the "lack of graphics power" to take time out of their busy days to be "up in arms" about something "they themselves aren't directly affected by".
Anyone interested in the preserving and improving the overall health of the Mac - an advocate in the truest sense of the word - should participate in this, and strongly. The graphics problem isn't something whose effects are confined to just one small subset of users. As other posts have already shown, it has significant consequences for the Mac platform as a whole. Those who take their role beyond that of the typical consumer, as many Mac users do, owe it to both themselves and the user community to be aware of and speak out on this issue.