Consolidated 2009 iMac (3.06GHz GT 130) Benchmarks

[rittchard]

Model: 3.06GHz, GT 130, 1 TB
Bootcamp: Windows 7 Beta, 181.71 nVidia drivers

3DMark06 (default settings, 1280x1024) - 9645

3DVantage (default Performance settings) - P2643

Windows Experience Index - 5.9
- Processor 6.6
- Memory 5.9
- Graphics 7.9
- Gaming graphics 5.9
- Disk transfer 5.9

XBench - 201.39

From PC Magazine:

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=230029,00.asp

[Eidorian]

Can you please run GPU-Z and tell us what the video card is and at least the memory interface one it? :D

[Hellhammer]

Can you please run GPU-Z and tell us what the video card is and at least the memory interface one it? :D

GT 130 with 512mb

[Eidorian]

GT 130 with 512mbHow is that supposed to help? :confused:

I just want to finally confirm the usage of mobile components.

[maxap]

I am very curious about further details on this G130 graphic card as it seems to be a pretty good one... It makes sense if you look at the additional costs (40$) you have to pay for an ATI 4850. Maybe this Nvidia beast isn't that bad after all...

[Bad Paper]

I just want to finally confirm the usage of mobile components.It's an iMac. It uses mobile components.

[Shivetya]

It's an iMac. It uses mobile components.

Was the 7600GT in the white series a mobile part? I was under the impression it was pretty much a custom job

[Eidorian]

Was the 7600GT in the white series a mobile part? I was under the impression it was pretty much a custom jobThe 7600GT was actually the desktop video card.

We had the Mobility HD2600XT and 8800M GTS in the last round of iMacs.

[rittchard]

Can you please run GPU-Z and tell us what the video card is and at least the memory interface one it? :D

I tried running GPU-Z and didn't get valid info off of it.

I mentioned this elsewhere but it registers as a "Pre-release 9600GT". Most of the other detailed info didn't show up and some of the numbers that did show looked like errors.

Off of 3DVantage it registered as having 64 stream processors, 256-bit interface. Chipset was G94, rev. A1 I think. Also somewhere it's listed as PCI-E x16 ver 2, not sure what ver 2 is.

As to the other comment above, everything so far is pointing to this being a *desktop* version, not mobile - but perhaps an underclocked desktop version. The relatively lower graphics score on 3DVantage certainly seem to support the lower clock speed theory, but the score in the 2000s indicates it's probably not a mobile version.

[Eidorian]

G94 is pointing toward the 9600GT. Thanks for the update.

[Moblin88]

Off of 3DVantage it registered as having 64 stream processors, 256-bit interface. Chipset was G94, rev. A1 I think. Also somewhere it's listed as PCI-E x16 ver 2, not sure what ver 2 is.

As to the other comment above, everything so far is pointing to this being a *desktop* version, not mobile - but perhaps an underclocked desktop version.

What is pointing to it being a desktop card? It looks a lot like a 9800M GS. When compared to the card in the new iMacs, (specs taken from your other thread) it has the same number of stream processors, the same core and shader clock speeds, the same memory speeds, and is also G94 (I am unsure which revision). This card seems to be the best fit, and is also a mobile card.

[tobyg]

3DMark06 (default settings, 1280x1024) - 9645


Can you give us a breakdown of the 3 scores from 3DMark06? I'm curious of what the graphics scores were individually.

Edit: Never mind, found your breakdown in a different thread.

[maxap]

Is there any proof of rittchard's iMac getting those scores??? Can you post some screens,rittchard???

[ebd.i.am]

dying to see the 4850 card in the new imac 3DMark score...

[ucla95]

Is there any proof of rittchard's iMac getting those scores??? Can you post some screens,rittchard???

Why would he lie?

[lastochka]

Isn't there an 9400 in all models of the new iMacs, since it being part of the chipset?

Can it be used together with GT120/130? Especially in windows with mature nvidian drivers? That would be swell!

[L0s7man]

Isn't there an 9400 in all models of the new iMacs, since it being part of the chipset?

Can it be used together with GT120/130? Especially in windows with mature nvidian drivers? That would be swell!

(1) Benchmarks seem a bit odd (unexpected); check out notebookcheck - it lists gt 130m for 6k on 3d mark 06... here you say 9k... interesting...

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-130M.13789.0.html

same as radeon hd4850. so is it a mobile version or desktop?

(2) good point about 9400; it must be there! it's unthinkable that they'd have a different design for models with discrete cards. The question is, can you use it?

[Shivetya]

dying to see the 4850 card in the new imac 3DMark score...

Same here, I am not buying until I see both compared with the same processor.

[avihappy]

I tried running GPU-Z and didn't get valid info off of it.

I mentioned this elsewhere but it registers as a "Pre-release 9600GT". Most of the other detailed info didn't show up and some of the numbers that did show looked like errors.

Off of 3DVantage it registered as having 64 stream processors, 256-bit interface. Chipset was G94, rev. A1 I think. Also somewhere it's listed as PCI-E x16 ver 2, not sure what ver 2 is.

As to the other comment above, everything so far is pointing to this being a *desktop* version, not mobile - but perhaps an underclocked desktop version. The relatively lower graphics score on 3DVantage certainly seem to support the lower clock speed theory, but the score in the 2000s indicates it's probably not a mobile version.

Those 3Dvantage numbers seem inconsistent with NVidia's specs for the GT 130 (M or not), this means that 3Dvantage is incorrect OR that the card is not really the GT 130:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gt_130m_us.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gt_130_us.html

Is there a way to get the so called "GT 130"'s clock speed? The clock on the standard 9600GT is between 650-600MHz. EDIT: When I asked on a PC forum about reading the GPU clock from a video card, someone pointed me to Riva Tuner (I haven't ever used this FYI), perhaps you could use it tell us all the clock on it?: http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?page=rivatuner

I also want to note that when I called Apple, their "systems engineer" told me that the Radeon 4850 option was the Desktop version, so maybe lends credence to the GT 130 also being a Desktop chip.

[rittchard]

Hey guys,

First off I have absolutely no reason to lie or make crap up, so you can take what I post here with a grain of salt or however you'd like. If anything, I'd just like to get to the bottom of what's in the machine myself, so I'm trying to provide whatever info I can and hoping someone will provide a definitive answer soon enough.

As far as benchmarks, they are what they are. I ran 3DVantage in all default settings (Performance) - definitely lower than what I'd expected but keep in mind I'm running Win 7 Beta with nVidia beta drivers. That said, a Vantage score in the 2500 range is not horrible; however, I'd expected something in the 3000-4000 range.

I ran both GPU-Z and Riva Tuner and thus far the info provided seems suspect. As I understand it these are all database oriented information providers, so all they will do is list info from a fixed database, based on some basic name bits read off the chip. If the database is not accurate, the info is worthless.

I'm posting below the report info Riva Tuner spit out. I don't know what it all means so someone smarter can try to decipher it :) The clock speeds all seem really low.

$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$ffffffffff Northbridge information
$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$0400000000 Description : unknown
$0400000001 Vendor ID : 10de (NVIDIA)
$0400000002 Device ID : 0a82
$0400000003 AGP bus : not supported
$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$ffffffffff Display adapter information
$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$0000000000 Description : NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT (Prerelease - WDDM 1.1)
$0000000001 Vendor ID : 10de (NVIDIA)
$0000000002 Device ID : 062e
$0000000003 Location : bus 2, device 0, function 0
$0000000004 Bus type : PCIE
$000000000f PCIE link width : 16x supported, 1x selected
$0000000009 Base address 0 : d2000000 (memory range)
$000000000a Base address 1 : c0000000 (memory range)
$000000000b Base address 2 : none
$000000000c Base address 3 : d0000000 (memory range)
$000000000d Base address 4 : none
$000000000e Base address 5 : 00001000 (I/O range)
$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$ffffffffff NVIDIA specific display adapter information
$ffffffffff ----------------------------------------------------------------
$0100000000 Graphics core : G94 revision A1 (64sp)
$0100000001 Hardwired ID : 062e (ROM strapped to 062e)
$0100000002 Memory bus : 256-bit
$0100000003 Memory type : DDR3 (RAM configuration 00)
$0100000004 Memory amount : 524288KB
$0100000100 Core clock domain 0 : 168.750MHz
$0100000101 Core clock domain 1 : 337.500MHz
$0100000006 Memory clock : 100.000MHz (200.000MHz effective)
$0100000007 Reference clock : 25.000MHz/27.000MHz

And here is the System Info off nVidia control panel:

[Display]
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8435 @ 3.06GHz (3052 MHz)
Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate, 64-bit
DirectX version: 10.0
GPU processor: GeForce GT 130
Driver version: 181.71
Stream processors: 64
Core clock: 529 MHz
Shader clock: 1323 MHz
Memory clock: 792 MHz (1584 MHz data rate)
Memory interface: 256-bit
Total available graphics memory: 2291 MB
Dedicated video memory: 512 MB
System video memory: 0 MB
Shared system memory: 1779 MB
Video BIOS version: 62.94.74.00.05
IRQ: 23
Bus: PCI Express x1 Gen2

Last but not least, off of GPU-Z:

http://gpuz.techpowerup.com/09/03/06/ghx.png

[Eidorian]

At 600 MHz Core it looks like a 9800M GTS now. :eek:

I can't wait for a GPU-Z update to address this and get identifiers.

[itommyboy]

At 600 MHz Core it looks like a 9800M GTS now. :eek:

I can't wait for a GPU-Z update to address this and get identifiers.

I wondered if this 130 wasn't the 9800m GTS myself. I'm edging ever closer to 99.9% sure that is what it this card will turn out to be. It is a decent card and make sense for an iMac, not only on being a decent card but being very energy efficient (75 Watt max). Still kind of a bummer though that this card is only an equivalent at the very best to the 8800 GS from the previous 3.06 Ghz iMacs. In fact NBCheck quotes it as being slightly slower (below) due to the lower clock rate. Why didn't Apple just make the 3.06Ghz machine with the ati and be done with it already....

BTW - anyone else notice the almost 2GB of "shared" RAM on those last tests?

source: notebookcheck

"Compared to desktop graphics cards, the 9800M GTS should be a bit slower than the GeForce 8800 GS (which has a higher memory clock rate)."

Manufacturer NVIDIA
Series GeForce 9000M
Codename NB9E-GT
Pipelines 64 - unified
Core Speed * 600 MHz
Shader Speed * 1500 MHz
Memory Speed * 800 MHz
Memory Bus Width 256 Bit
Memory Type GDDR3
Max. Amount of Memory 1024 MB
Shared Memory no
DirectX DirectX 10, Shader 4.0
Power Consumption 75 Watt
Transistors 504 Million
technology 55 / 65 nm
Features PureVideo HD, HybridPower,
Notebook Size large
Date of Announcement 15.07.2008
Information MXM 3
Link to Manufacturer Page http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_980...
* The specified clock rates are only guidelines for the manufacturer and can be altered by them.

[Eidorian]

The previous card in the iMacs at the high was the 8800M GTS. :D

[itommyboy]

The previous card in the iMacs at the high was the 8800M GTS. :D

I know I just bought one last week (3.06 Ghz). :D Was pondering returning it but with the 14 day clock ticking if I decided to swap the best I would be able to get would be a 130 unit. I figure I've got my 4 GB of Corsair SG RAM in this bad boy and all is screamin' fast. Considering the "upgrades" I think I'm going to stick right where I am. I think this will be more than I need until the next true push forward round of iMacs.

[Eidorian]

It's tough to suggest a new machine when for the most part the new GPU is a higher clocked 8800M GTS in 55nm.

Lets not get started on the godly 4850.

[Sehnsucht]

It's tough to suggest a new machine when for the most part the new GPU is a higher clocked 8800M GTS in 55nm.

Lets not get started on the godly 4850.

What about the 4850? :D

[itommyboy]

Yeah I'll be honest I do wish I was getting one with that ATI. I might just have to find a way to make this my new office computer in a couple of weeks. ; ) You know the Dem's let you write off more computer and tech crap than Republicans, true little known fact! :eek:

[lastochka]

It's tough to suggest a new machine when for the most part the new GPU is a higher clocked 8800M GTS in 55nm.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 8800M in prev.gen. iMacs have only 32 shaders?

Whatever it's called, the GT 130 looks very much like a 9600GT (desktop), since clocks can always be adjusted manually. It's a shame it only uses 1 PCIe lane. Running 16x at 1x should be considered a crime! :D

Also, there's a 9400M with 16 shader pipes, that's part of the chipset. If 9400M and 9600GT can be used together perhaps ATI 4850 isn't the best choise after all. I suppose that's a driver issue however, but it'd be cool if it was possible.

[avihappy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 8800M in prev.gen. iMacs have only 32 shaders?

Whatever it's called, the GT 130 looks very much like a 9600GT (desktop), since clocks can always be adjusted manually. It's a shame it only uses 1 PCIe lane. Running 16x at 1x should be considered a crime! :D

Also, there's a 9400M with 16 shader pipes, that's part of the chipset. If 9400M and 9600GT can be used together perhaps ATI 4850 isn't the best choise after all. I suppose that's a driver issue however, but it'd be cool if it was possible.

I don't think they can be used together. I think it is like the Macbook Pro, where the firmware only allows one to run at once. People haven't cracked it on the MBP, I doubt they will crack it on the iMac.

[Eidorian]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 8800M in prev.gen. iMacs have only 32 shaders?The 8800M GTS has 64 shaders.

[jimterry]

Bought the 3.06 / GT130 /wireless kb & m. Have to head out for a few before I open the box, but plan on doing some work tonight! After considerable consternation over whether to wait on the ATI card I decided to go ahead. From what I understand this isn't onboard so.... Possibly when the next card after the 4850 comes out and I am ready to move to 8G of Ram I can open her up and and upgrade? I don't think I will be dissappointed though moving from my PowerBook G4 to this baby! Haven't really effectively been able to play with any video editing for a while and am ready to chomp some of this HD video!

jt

[lastochka]

I don't think they can be used together. I think it is like the Macbook Pro, where the firmware only allows one to run at once. People haven't cracked it on the MBP, I doubt they will crack it on the iMac.

That sounds like poor engineering to me. 16 shader pipes are simply wasted then. Considering how nvidia has been promoting it's CUDA and asymmetric SLI with different cards, and how the upcoming OSX alledgedly will be reliant on OpenCL you'd think they'd utilize every transistor on a silicon.

BTW: nvidia's drivers already allow using different cards in a WinPC system to be utilized for graphics and physics. Maybe if one runs Windows 7... :)

[maxap]

Thanks a lot for this info.... The discussion can go on!!!! Shall we wait for the 4850 or buy this machine with the GT130???? :confused:

[itommyboy]

Finally got Vista Home Premium patched, tweaked and flying (boot camp). It lists the card as a 9800 variant.


Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8435 @ 3.06GHz (3051 MHz)
Operating System: Windows Vista (TM) Home Premium, 32-bit (Service Pack 1)
DirectX version: 10.0
GPU processor: GeForce 9800 X
Driver version: 178.46
Stream processors: 64
Core clock: 529 MHz
Shader clock: 1323 MHz
Memory clock: 792 MHz (1584 MHz data rate)
Memory interface: 256-bit
Total available graphics memory: 1779 MB
Dedicated video memory: 512 MB
System video memory: 0 MB
Shared system memory: 1267 MB
Video BIOS version: 62.94.74.00.05
IRQ: 23
Bus: PCI Express x16 Gen2

After rooting around the boot camp folders I noticed there are only 2 logical choices for Nvidia driver packages when using Vista x32. Upon re-running boot camp ( I had driver issues all over on first pass but that is another story) the default installed driver listed the above, showing some variant of a 9800 card. Very much like the 9800M GS in fact, which it appears the GT 130 is masked as.

Of course I tried to install the other driver package. Sure enough it installed the GT 130, but showing the same specs as the above 9800.

NVIDIA System Information report created on: 03/08/2009 23:56:54
System name: TOMMYSIMAC

[Display]
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8435 @ 3.06GHz (3051 MHz)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows Vista (Service Pack 1)
DirectX version: 10.0
GPU processor: GeForce GT 130
ForceWare version: 177.56
Total available graphics memory: 1779 MB
Dedicated video memory: 512 MB
System video memory: 0 MB
Shared system memory: 1267 MB
Video BIOS version: 62.94.74.00.05
IRQ: 23
Bus: PCI Express x16 Gen2




*****OpenMark Scores Added max res******


OpenMark started...
/Contents/Resources/
hardware detected:
cpu family: 0x69353836
cpu type: 0x69353836
opengl vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
opengl renderer: NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 OpenGL Engine
opengl version: 2.0 NVIDIA-1.5.38
test parms:
surface 1920x1200 32bpp
textures: on
lighting: on
keep in sync: off
test started
FPS 2635.0 0 triangles
FPS 2356.0 1152 triangles
FPS 2190.0 4608 triangles
FPS 1979.0 10368 triangles
FPS 1927.0 18432 triangles
FPS 1855.0 28800 triangles
FPS 1824.0 41472 triangles
FPS 1746.0 56448 triangles
FPS 1638.0 73728 triangles
FPS 1536.0 93312 triangles
FPS 1427.0 115200 triangles
FPS 1298.0 139392 triangles
FPS 1190.0 165888 triangles
FPS 1097.0 194688 triangles
FPS 1001.0 225792 triangles
FPS 912.0 259200 triangles
FPS 833.0 294912 triangles
FPS 766.0 332928 triangles
FPS 703.0 373248 triangles
FPS 638.0 415872 triangles
FPS 570.0 460800 triangles
FPS 555.0 508032 triangles
FPS 515.0 557568 triangles
FPS 468.0 609408 triangles
FPS 441.0 663552 triangles
FPS 413.0 720000 triangles
FPS 385.0 778752 triangles
FPS 364.0 839808 triangles
FPS 342.0 903168 triangles
FPS 322.0 968832 triangles
FPS 303.0 1036800 triangles
FPS 286.0 1107072 triangles
FPS 270.0 1179648 triangles
FPS 254.0 1254528 triangles
FPS 241.0 1331712 triangles
FPS 226.0 1411200 triangles
FPS 218.0 1492992 triangles
FPS 208.0 1577088 triangles
FPS 194.0 1663488 triangles
FPS 189.0 1752192 triangles
FPS 180.0 1843200 triangles
FPS 170.0 1936512 triangles
FPS 163.0 2032128 triangles
FPS 156.0 2130048 triangles
FPS 149.0 2230272 triangles
FPS 143.0 2332800 triangles
FPS 137.0 2437632 triangles
FPS 132.0 2544768 triangles
FPS 127.0 2654208 triangles
FPS 122.0 2765952 triangles
FPS 117.0 2880000 triangles
FPS 113.0 2996352 triangles
FPS 109.0 3115008 triangles
FPS 106.0 3235968 triangles
FPS 101.0 3359232 triangles
FPS 98.0 3484800 triangles
FPS 95.0 3612672 triangles
FPS 92.0 3742848 triangles
FPS 89.0 3875328 triangles
FPS 86.0 4010112 triangles
FPS 83.0 4147200 triangles
FPS 81.0 4286592 triangles
FPS 78.0 4428288 triangles
FPS 75.0 4572288 triangles
FPS 73.0 4718592 triangles
FPS 71.0 4867200 triangles
FPS 69.0 5018112 triangles
FPS 67.0 5171328 triangles
FPS 65.0 5326848 triangles
FPS 63.0 5484672 triangles
FPS 61.0 5644800 triangles
FPS 60.0 5807232 triangles
FPS 59.0 5971968 triangles
FPS 57.0 6139008 triangles
FPS 56.0 6308352 triangles
FPS 54.0 6480000 triangles
FPS 53.0 6653952 triangles
FPS 51.0 6830208 triangles
FPS 50.0 7008768 triangles
FPS 49.0 7189632 triangles
FPS 48.0 7372800 triangles
FPS 46.0 7558272 triangles
FPS 45.0 7746048 triangles
FPS 45.0 7936128 triangles
FPS 43.0 8128512 triangles
FPS 42.0 8323200 triangles
FPS 41.0 8520192 triangles
FPS 40.0 8719488 triangles
FPS 40.0 8921088 triangles
FPS 39.0 9124992 triangles
FPS 38.0 9331200 triangles
FPS 37.0 9539712 triangles
FPS 36.0 9750528 triangles
FPS 36.0 9963648 triangles
FPS 35.0 10179072 triangles
FPS 34.0 10396800 triangles
FPS 33.0 10616832 triangles
FPS 33.0 10839168 triangles
FPS 32.0 11063808 triangles
FPS 31.0 11290752 triangles
FPS 31.0 11520000 triangles
FPS 30.0 11751552 triangles
FPS 30.0 11985408 triangles
FPS 29.0 12221568 triangles
FPS 29.0 12460032 triangles
FPS 28.0 12700800 triangles
FPS 28.0 12943872 triangles
FPS 27.0 13189248 triangles
FPS 27.0 13436928 triangles
FPS 26.0 13686912 triangles
FPS 26.0 13939200 triangles
FPS 25.0 14193792 triangles
FPS 25.0 14450688 triangles
FPS 24.0 14709888 triangles
FPS 24.0 14971392 triangles
FPS 24.0 15235200 triangles
FPS 23.0 15501312 triangles
FPS 23.0 15769728 triangles
FPS 22.0 16040448 triangles
FPS 22.0 16313472 triangles
FPS 22.0 16588800 triangles
FPS 21.0 16866432 triangles
FPS 21.0 17146368 triangles
FPS 21.0 17428608 triangles
FPS 20.0 17713152 triangles
FPS 20.0 18000000 triangles
FPS 20.0 18289152 triangles
FPS 19.0 18580608 triangles
FPS 19.0 18874368 triangles
FPS 19.0 19170432 triangles
FPS 19.0 19468800 triangles
FPS 18.0 19769472 triangles
FPS 18.0 20072448 triangles
FPS 18.0 20377728 triangles
FPS 17.0 20685312 triangles
FPS 17.0 20995200 triangles
FPS 17.0 21307392 triangles
FPS 17.0 21621888 triangles
FPS 17.0 21938688 triangles
FPS 16.0 22257792 triangles
FPS 16.0 22579200 triangles
FPS 16.0 22902912 triangles
FPS 16.0 23228928 triangles
FPS 15.0 23557248 triangles
FPS 15.0 23887872 triangles
FPS 15.0 24220800 triangles
FPS 15.0 24556032 triangles
FPS 15.0 24893568 triangles
FPS 14.0 25233408 triangles
FPS 14.0 25575552 triangles
FPS 14.0 25920000 triangles
FPS 14.0 26266752 triangles
FPS 14.0 26615808 triangles
FPS 14.0 26967168 triangles
FPS 13.0 27320832 triangles
FPS 13.0 27676800 triangles
FPS 13.0 28035072 triangles
FPS 13.0 28395648 triangles
FPS 13.0 28758528 triangles
FPS 13.0 29123712 triangles
FPS 12.0 29491200 triangles
FPS 12.0 29860992 triangles
FPS 12.0 30233088 triangles
FPS 12.0 30607488 triangles
FPS 12.0 30984192 triangles
FPS 12.0 31363200 triangles
FPS 12.0 31744512 triangles
FPS 11.0 32128128 triangles
FPS 11.0 32514048 triangles
FPS 11.0 32902272 triangles
FPS 11.0 33292800 triangles
FPS 11.0 33685632 triangles
FPS 11.0 34080768 triangles
FPS 11.0 34478208 triangles
FPS 11.0 34877952 triangles
FPS 10.0 35280000 triangles
FPS 10.0 35684352 triangles
FPS 10.0 36091008 triangles
FPS 10.0 36499968 triangles
FPS 10.0 36911232 triangles
FPS 10.0 37324800 triangles
FPS 10.0 37740672 triangles
FPS 10.0 38158848 triangles
FPS 10.0 38579328 triangles
FPS 10.0 39002112 triangles
FPS 9.0 39427200 triangles
final score: 39854
test stopped

I'll try to run more tomorrow and report back but my wife and kids are coming back home and well, many of you know how that goes. ;)

[Shivetya]

Stuff I found while searching this site...

iMac 24" 2.16Ghz 2GB
NVIDIA GeForce 7600GT 256M
1920x1200x32
score 13686, Mac OS X 10.4.10

Powerbook 12" 1.5Ghz
Nv GeForce FX Go5200 64M
1024x768x32
score 1411, 10.5 Leopard 9A559

iMac 24" 2.16Ghz 2GB
NVIDIA GeForce 7600GT 256M
1920x1200x32
score 13686, 10.5 Leopard 9A559




though what we need now is someone with a 3.06 8800gs to post

[rittchard]

Nice Review from PC Magazine, including a side link to a spreadsheet comparison of benchmarks:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2342785,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=230029,00.asp

[plex]

Nice Review from PC Magazine, including a side link to a spreadsheet comparison of benchmarks:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2342785,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=230029,00.asp
Thank you, that's a great find! :)
The benchmarks clearly show the GT130 being slightly better than the last iMac's 8800GS and even the best one for Crysis at mid-details. Doesn't seem that bad for me.

However I'm wondering if the Radeon HD 4850 on the HP system is the same one as in the iMac. Would be a considerable leap compared to the GT130. :/

[MyDesktopBroke]

Nice Review from PC Magazine, including a side link to a spreadsheet comparison of benchmarks:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2342785,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=230029,00.asp

Funny that the 130 was faster than the 4850 for mid setting Crysis, but 4850 won in high (not that is was a great score either way).

[jmpage2]

Funny that the 130 was faster than the 4850 for mid setting Crysis, but 4850 won in high (not that is was a great score either way).

Actually those benchmarks are very depressing for those hoping the iMac would give them some relief on the gaming front. The benchmarks for games over a year old are low enough that it pretty much rules out playing newer games coming this year with any modicum of performance.

Radeon 4850 Mobility, you're our only hope!

Or, I suppose I can get a Mac Pro with a Radeon 4870, or maybe just a Mac Mini and a separate PC for gaming (blah).

[DoFoT9]

could this possible be the 9800M GTS? apple likes underclocking things and calling them the lower model for some reason :confused::confused:

[MyDesktopBroke]

Actually those benchmarks are very depressing for those hoping the iMac would give them some relief on the gaming front. The benchmarks for games over a year old are low enough that it pretty much rules out playing newer games coming this year with any modicum of performance.

Radeon 4850 Mobility, you're our only hope!

Or, I suppose I can get a Mac Pro with a Radeon 4870, or maybe just a Mac Mini and a separate PC for gaming (blah).

The only two games I care about are Starcraft 2 & Diablo 3, both of which don't seem to require intensive graphics while still looking great. And they're Mac native. From what people are saying, anything better than a Geforce 8600
will run SC2 perfectly, and Diablo 3 doesn't look like it will be that much more demanding.

[DoFoT9]

The only two games I care about are Starcraft 2 & Diablo 3, both of which don't seem to require intensive graphics while still looking great. And they're Mac native. From what people are saying, anything better than a Geforce 8600
will run SC2 perfectly, and Diablo 3 doesn't look like it will be that much more demanding.

even my old LC575 (made in 1995ish) can run SC2 :p

[jmpage2]

even my old LC575 (made in 1995ish) can run SC2 :p

You realize we're talking about Starcraft 2, right?

[DoFoT9]

You realize we're talking about Starcraft 2, right?

yes lol of course, just trying to spice it up a bit. he mentioned the full name of SC2 in the first line so i gathered he was talking about it (and not simcity)

[rittchard]

The benchmarks for games over a year old are low enough that it pretty much rules out playing newer games coming this year with any modicum of performance.

Exaxtly what "newer games coming this year" are you ruling out being able to play?

Dawn of War 2, which was just released less than a month ago, plays fine in High settings at 1920x1200. I have no doubt SC2 and Diablo 3 are going to be great.

Keep in mind that most developers are trying to follow Blizzard's example and design for the low/mid end. There are very few new games in development (nothing off the top of my head) that are being specifically designed for the bleeding edge (in the way, for instance, Origin, used to do in years past).

[BADDman]

Look there is no question here. It's an Imac so it's a mobile part. In fact basically every all-in-1 system uses mobile parts. As far as superior cards, if your a gamer get the ATI 4850. It's a great card and is well reviewed by all and beatr the Nvidia 130 by far. (I've now had both due to initial mistake on my sales guys part) Not to mention the best card you can get in the Imac anyway. Not sure if I am allowed to link on here but here's a site giving a very accurate account for top say 100 cards in order. Also this isn't one sites opinion, though they do very a little, this is roughly what every pro has to say about the cards. http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-4850.13975.0.html

[itommyboy]

Look there is no question here. It's an Imac so it's a mobile part. In fact basically every all-in-1 system uses mobile parts. As far as superior cards, if your a gamer get the ATI 4850. It's a great card and is well reviewed by all and beatr the Nvidia 130 by far. (I've now had both due to initial mistake on my sales guys part) Not to mention the best card you can get in the Imac anyway. Not sure if I am allowed to link on here but here's a site giving a very accurate account for top say 100 cards in order. Also this isn't one sites opinion, though they do very a little, this is roughly what every pro has to say about the cards. http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-4850.13975.0.html

Your message title was something about "does anyone do their homework or just hope the random person is right?". Well maybe you should open your eyes and you'd see the thread you just necro'd was more than 1 month old. Yes we've all done our homework - we've all read countless bmark scores and comparison reports and everyone has known for quite some time now what the cards are.