PDA

View Full Version : New iMacs


Atheist_Peace
Aug 11, 2004, 10:59 AM
Hello,
I'm gonna take one of the new iMacs. Is anyone else buying one?
What do you think I should expect, regarding games performances? Is it possible it could run games coming out in the next months? Thanks

jsw
Aug 11, 2004, 11:02 AM
I think maybe you should wait until it's announced in a few weeks and we can see specs before asking specific performance questions. However, I see no reason why any G5-based system with even a halfway-decent graphics card (and iMac video has never seemed any better than halfway decent...) wouldn't play games coming out soon. Play them perfectly? No. Play them adequately? Yes.

Converted2Truth
Aug 11, 2004, 11:03 AM
Hello,
I'm gonna take one of the new iMacs. Is anyone else buying one?
What do you think I should expect, regarding games performances? Is it possible it could run games coming out in the next months? Thanks

This is a scarry time to decide. I'd wait to make your decision until you know what graphics chipset they integrate. If they put the ATI 9800 pro in there,... that'd be sweet, so i'd say ya, otherwise, i'd spend half the money and buy a pc to game. But this is all based off of you just wanting the computer to mostly game.

Zaty
Aug 11, 2004, 11:31 AM
The new iMac will probably get a GeForce 5200 Ultra or a Radeon 9200. The iMac won't get a better chip than the dual 1.8 PM. So, don't expect too much. Secondly, I think Apple is indifferent to gaming performance. The Mas has never been nor will ever be a gaming platform.

invaLPsion
Aug 11, 2004, 11:35 AM
The new iMac will probably get a GeForce 5200 Ultra or a Radeon 9200. The iMac won't get a better chip than the dual 1.8 PM. So, don't expect too much. Secondly, I think Apple is indifferent to gaming performance. The Mas has never been nor will ever be a gaming platform.

I disagree. My bet is that they will put a 9600XT or a 9800PRO in the top-of-the-line 17 or 20 inch iMac. (If they are still all-in-ones, of course. We don't know. ;) )

SilentPanda
Aug 11, 2004, 11:48 AM
I would anticipate that the graphics card would be *at least* Core Image/Core Video "compatible". I think that's a safe assumption. Anything less would just be silly.

Zaty
Aug 11, 2004, 11:50 AM
I disagree. My bet is that they will put a 9600XT or a 9800PRO in the top-of-the-line 17 or 20 inch iMac. (If they are still all-in-ones, of course. We don't know. ;) )

So, the iMac would have a better graphics chip than the standard PM configuration? Do you really think that's happening?

Zaty
Aug 11, 2004, 11:51 AM
I would anticipate that the graphics card would be *at least* Core Image/Core Video "compatible". I think that's a safe assumption. Anything less would just be silly.

That's true, so no Radeon 9200 :)

edesignuk
Aug 11, 2004, 11:51 AM
Arguably the iMac should get the 9600/9800 as they are now consumer level gaming cards, that should be in consumer level home machines. The PowerMacs should all have higher end stuff in them (X800, 6800UL), with an option to downgrade to a 9600 at minimum for those that aren’t interested in GPU power.

No Apple desktop computer should have an FX5200 or ***** like that in them, these are expensive machines, they shouldn’t have cheap crap in them.

Zaty
Aug 11, 2004, 11:53 AM
Arguably the iMac should get the 9600/9800 as they are now consumer level gaming cards, that should be in consumer level home machines. The PowerMacs should all have higher end stuff in them (X800, 6800UL), with an option to downgrade to a 9600 at minimum for those that aren’t interested in GPU power.

No Apple desktop computer should have an FX5200 or ***** like that in them, these are expensive machines, they shouldn’t have cheap crap in them.

I couldn't agree more but we all know Apple too well :)

edesignuk
Aug 11, 2004, 11:58 AM
I couldn't agree more but we all know Apple too well :)Yup, sad isn't it. And you know what, if I complain about it when they are released I will still get people telling me to shut up moaning and go buy a Dell :rolleyes: Apple know they have a great legion of dedicated fanboys/gals, and they frequently take the piss out of them by giving them old crap in expensive casing.

Zaty
Aug 11, 2004, 12:14 PM
Yup, sad isn't it. And you know what, if I complain about it when they are released I will still get people telling me to shut up moaning and go buy a Dell :rolleyes: Apple know they have a great legion of dedicated fanboys/gals, and they frequently take the piss out of them by giving them old crap in expensive casing.

That's the reason why I understand PC users who say they wouldn't want to become part of the Apple world because of all those fanatic Mac user who blindly applaud to whatever Apple is doing. Don't get me wrong, I love my PB and I definitely don't want to go back to Windows but to me, Apple is just a company, who like any other company, first and foremost wants to make as much money as possible.

Elan0204
Aug 11, 2004, 12:20 PM
It seems to me that nowadays people's video cards are becoming obselte more quickly than their processors. When Quartz Extreme came out a whole bunch of video cards were left out, and now with core image, even more people will be left in the cold. Actually, with core image most people with a "current" mac won't be supported. Apple really needs to get better video cards in to their machines, instead of using them as a easy way to increase profit margin, especially on a machine where you can't upgrade the card later.

ChrisFromCanada
Aug 11, 2004, 12:29 PM
I think that when apple made the announcement about the required cards for the Core stuff, they were also realizing that people will be upset when their expensive G5 iMac wont be supported by an operating system that is only coming out 5 months later, and therefore will at least put the lowest end cards required for Core image/video in the G5 imacs.

vraxtus
Aug 11, 2004, 12:35 PM
Actually, with core image most people with a "current" mac won't be supported. Apple really needs to get better video cards in to their machines, instead of using them as a easy way to increase profit margin, especially on a machine where you can't upgrade the card later.


You couldn't be any more incorrect.

The whole idea behind Core Imaging is to implement pixel programming into 2D apps, most noticeably the system environment, to offload some work onto the GPU.

Every current card, including the 5200FX (and I'm willing to bet the 9200 also) supports pixel shading and pixel programming. No one's going to be left in the dark, and frankly I think you're an idiot for thinking so..... :mad:

Zaty
Aug 11, 2004, 12:47 PM
From Apple's website:


The performance gains and features supported by Core Image ultimately depend on the graphics card. Graphics cards capable of pixel-level programming deliver the best performance. But Core Image automatically scales as appropriate for systems with older graphics cards, for compatibility with any Tiger-compatible Mac.


Supported graphics cards:


ATI Radeon 9800 XT

ATI Radeon 9800 Pro

ATI Radeon 9700 Pro

ATI Radeon 9600 XT

ATI Radeon 9600 Pro

ATI Mobility Radeon 9700

ATI Mobility Radeon 9600

NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra

NVIDIA GeForceFX Go 5200

NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra



These cards are available in today’s PowerBooks, Power Mac G5s and both the 17-inch and 20-inch iMac.



As you can see, the Radeon 9200 will not be supported

vraxtus
Aug 11, 2004, 12:55 PM
From Apple's website:



As you can see, the Radeon 9200 will not be supported


From ATI's 9200 specifications description:

Features
CHARISMA ENGINE™ II
Four parallel rendering pipelines process up to 1.1 billion pixels per second
High performance 2nd generation hardware transform & lighting engine
Advanced vertex shader support for the latest programmable effects
SMARTSHADER™ technology

Full support for DirectX ® 8.1 programmable pixel and vertex shaders in hardware
1.4 pixel shaders support up to 22 instructions and up to 6 textures per rendering pass
1.1 vertex shaders support vertex programs up to 128 instructions
Complete feature set also supported in OpenGL ® via extensions
Programmable shaders provide enhanced 3D effects in over 100 existing and upcoming game titles

SMOOTHVISION™
Image quality enhancement features for Direct3D™ and OpenGL ® applications
Programmable full-scene anti-aliasing supports 2 to 6 samples with user selectable performance and quality modes
Advanced anisotropic filtering supports 2 to 16 samples for high quality texture rendering with minimal performance impact


I'm VERY much willing to bet that it will be supported by the time Core Image comes out... seeing as how it is VERY much capable of Pixel Shading/Programming.

Converted2Truth
Aug 11, 2004, 01:00 PM
I'm VERY much willing to bet that it will be supported by the time Core Image comes out... seeing as how it is VERY much capable of Pixel Shading/Programming.
Let's hope so, or everyone with an iBook will be left out in the cold...

Zaty
Aug 11, 2004, 01:07 PM
I'm VERY much willing to bet that it will be supported by the time Core Image comes out... seeing as how it is VERY much capable of Pixel Shading/Programming.

Honestly, I was surprised when I first read that the Radeon 9200 was not listed but the fact that the chip itself is capable of supporting core image doesn't mean Apple we allow it. As we all know, the Radeon 9200 is capable of monitor spanning but Apple blocked it for marketing reasons. I agree it would make sense if the Radeon was supported but we don't know Apple's strategy.

applekid
Aug 11, 2004, 02:56 PM
Don't forget this:

But Core Image automatically scales as appropriate for systems with older graphics cards, for compatibility with any Tiger-compatible Mac.

Technically, every graphics card is supported, but it will require some CPU power for older cards.

I'm going to have to say, at best, we'll probably see a Radeon 9600 at the low-end or a FX 5600 Ultra at the low-end. Possibly a 9800 in the high-end, but that's being very optimistic. There's such a gap between the FX 5200 and 9600 Pro. That's why it's hard to guess. Apple should end up introducing a new card for the iMac or we're going to see the FX 5200 again, guys.

Remember, ATI did release its 9800 Mobility, so a 9800 chipset shouldn't be too off. Maybe a 9800 Mobility will be in the next iMac for all we know.

We still have no clue what this G5 iMac is going to have, what can be upgraded, etc. So, to make a bold statement where you don't even know what the product is, is not smart.

Daveman Deluxe
Aug 11, 2004, 04:06 PM
I REALLY doubt that the Radeon Mobility 9800 will make it into the iMac. For starters, the M9800 is based on the X800 desktop graphics card. The only reason it doesn't have the "X" designation is because ATI has decreed that only graphics cards using PCI Express will use the "X" model numbers, and the Radeon Mobility 9800 uses AGP.

ThomasJefferson
Aug 11, 2004, 04:35 PM
When I read about the heat issues with the iMac G5, I decided to wait for the next gen. or go with a Powermac next year. Maybe when the G5 2 gig is the entry level pmac.

To ease the wait, I bought a new Powerbook G4 12in. A spiffy machine.

There is joy in mudville.

Ninja_Turtle
Aug 11, 2004, 05:24 PM
i think apple should give a half good graphics card, and the ability to change the graphics card if one desires, i mean seriously...i hate not being able to upgrade any macs EXCEPT the g4 or g5 towers, which with out doubt are the most expensive macs....i totally hate that :mad:

Atheist_Peace
Aug 11, 2004, 06:09 PM
Thanks for your answers. Anyway, running the games at 800 x 600 and medium details would be appreciated tho. And it will be a large improvement, from this situation. I got a G4 400 with an ati rage 128, 16 mb vram :rolleyes:

invaLPsion
Aug 11, 2004, 07:16 PM
So, the iMac would have a better graphics chip than the standard PM configuration? Do you really think that's happening?

I think that if this is truly and ALL NEW and REVAMPED iMac Apple would want to show it off. A good graphics card would be essential, expecially if this new iMac is non-upgradeable. If it is upgradeable, Apple can get away with putting in cheaper cards.

Your argument is rather pointless because nobody thought an eMac would get an 8x superdrive before a powermac or iMac. Well, it did... :rolleyes:

Converted2Truth
Aug 11, 2004, 08:46 PM
I REALLY doubt that the Radeon Mobility 9800 will make it into the iMac. For starters, the M9800 is based on the X800 desktop graphics card. The only reason it doesn't have the "X" designation is because ATI has decreed that only graphics cards using PCI Express will use the "X" model numbers, and the Radeon Mobility 9800 uses AGP.

Has any 'Mobility' chipset ever made it to the iMac line? I thought that they have always had desktop chipsets... integrated... but still desktop...

If they haven't, then i doubt they will do so now. That means no 9800m.

Littleodie914
Aug 11, 2004, 10:03 PM
I disagree with everyone thinking that Apple will put a 9200 into the new iMacs... I mean c'mon guys, my 933MHz G4 iBook has a Mobile 9200... Why in the world would Apple put the desktop version (which isn't a lot different), into a new-gen iMac? Especially considering the fact it'll be moving up to a G5 processor... The 9200 is almost long gone! I believe the low-end version of the iMac will sport the 9600, the mid-end will have the 9800 as an option, and the high-end will come with the 9800 standard... Just my 2 cens :D

Converted2Truth
Aug 11, 2004, 10:40 PM
I disagree with everyone thinking that Apple will put a 9200 into the new iMacs... I mean c'mon guys, my 933MHz G4 iBook has a Mobile 9200... Why in the world would Apple put the desktop version (which isn't a lot different), into a new-gen iMac? Especially considering the fact it'll be moving up to a G5 processor... The 9200 is almost long gone! I believe the low-end version of the iMac will sport the 9600, the mid-end will have the 9800 as an option, and the high-end will come with the 9800 standard... Just my 2 cens :D
Dude, the powermac lineup (just revised) doesn't even run this configuration. Since when have iMacs had better components than powermacs? never... it's marketing... But don't get me wrong... I'm on your side hoping... 9800 isn't as fast at newer games... and if mac's want to be on the map at all for gamin, they need at least that in their single processor desktop line-up.

Zaty
Aug 12, 2004, 02:08 AM
Your argument is rather pointless because nobody thought an eMac would get an 8x superdrive before a powermac or iMac. Well, it did... :rolleyes:

No, it's not pointless at all. The eMac got the 8x superdrive before the PM because the release of the new PMs was pushed back from March to June. Had the new PMs been released back then, they would have got it first. Secondly, it's not quite the same thing. A GPU is more important in terms of system performance than the burning speed of a Superdrive. I'm quite sure the iMac doesn't get a better graphics chip than the PM. The only thing I could see is a BTO option. Or, but that's pretty unlikely, the PM standard configuration will be changed.

Zaty
Aug 12, 2004, 02:11 AM
Dude, the powermac lineup (just revised) doesn't even run this configuration. Since when have iMacs had better components than powermacs? never... it's marketing... But don't get me wrong... I'm on your side hoping... 9800 isn't as fast at newer games... and if mac's want to be on the map at all for gamin, they need at least that in their single processor desktop line-up.

Exactly!

aswitcher
Aug 12, 2004, 02:41 AM
I think with Apple's continual push to split the work between the main chip and the graphics card we can expect to see a decent card in the iMac for the future of Quartz Graphics on the Mac. Tiger will surely make better use of the VRAM and processor than does Panther.

Converted2Truth
Aug 12, 2004, 09:02 AM
I think with Apple's continual push to split the work between the main chip and the graphics card we can expect to see a decent card in the iMac for the future of Quartz Graphics on the Mac. Tiger will surely make better use of the VRAM and processor than does Panther.
Let's hope.

Something in my gut says that Apple is going to make Tiger require dedicated vram. They could care less what type of VC it is, as long as it does their cool effects. But if Tiger requires dedicated vram, then that'll turn our 128mb ram VC into...say, a 80mb video card... and that's gonna slow doom3 down considerably. I just hope that when loading a game, Tiger will release all the video card resources it was previously hogging.

Some people look at Tiger and cheer. I look at tiger and the next moment...i'm heading for the kitchen where my stomach medication is.

They're switching OS' way too often. Many porting houses can't keep up with them. I still don't have a patch that will let me play AVP2 on the internet in 10.3.x But perhaps OSX.4 will change that :cool:

Sol
Aug 12, 2004, 09:23 AM
With the G5 iMac Apple could use a liquid cooling system that would not only cool the CPU but also the GPU. This could happen because in the iMac the GPU is built on the motherboard, same as the CPU. With such a system the latest generation of GPU's would not need those huge fans that need an extra PCI slot.

invaLPsion
Aug 12, 2004, 09:46 AM
I'm quite sure the iMac doesn't get a better graphics chip than the PM. The only thing I could see is a BTO option. Or, but that's pretty unlikely, the PM standard configuration will be changed.

But, I think Apple cares more about selling machines than they do about making the iMac's graphics worse than the powermac's.

vraxtus
Aug 12, 2004, 10:03 AM
Let's hope.

Something in my gut says that Apple is going to make Tiger require dedicated vram. They could care less what type of VC it is, as long as it does their cool effects. But if Tiger requires dedicated vram, then that'll turn our 128mb ram VC into...say, a 80mb video card... and that's gonna slow doom3 down considerably. I just hope that when loading a game, Tiger will release all the video card resources it was previously hogging.

Some people look at Tiger and cheer. I look at tiger and the next moment...i'm heading for the kitchen where my stomach medication is.

They're switching OS' way too often. Many porting houses can't keep up with them. I still don't have a patch that will let me play AVP2 on the internet in 10.3.x But perhaps OSX.4 will change that :cool:


No way they'd ever make OSX require DEDICATED VRAM... that makes no sense for all intents and purposes. It's most likely that CoreImage will be somewhat similar to the Energy Saver's processor settings, that it will automatically set aside a partition of the VRAM to use when the OS needs it for graphics displays... but other than that I think they would never REQUIRE dedicated VRAM.

Also we know that Apple has announced that they will not release updates so quickly following this one... so I wouldn't worry too much.

Converted2Truth
Aug 12, 2004, 10:15 AM
No way they'd ever make OSX require DEDICATED VRAM... that makes no sense for all intents and purposes. It's most likely that CoreImage will be somewhat similar to the Energy Saver's processor settings, that it will automatically set aside a partition of the VRAM to use when the OS needs it for graphics displays... but other than that I think they would never REQUIRE dedicated VRAM.
Partition! that's the word i was looking for... Still, this will have the same effect on doom3 and similar games... partitioning vram is not good...

applekid
Aug 12, 2004, 01:06 PM
Required VRAM may be a requirement of the next generation OS, but not for OS X.

Apple has to do either of these two:

-Release an iMac with a graphics card that can run current games and games coming in the next six months.

-Release an iMac with a crappy card, but is replaceable.

Then again, the only people worried about how the G5 iMacs will turn out is, us, the gamers. The regular consumer really won't care what's in those iMacs. As long as they look nice and do everyday activities well. Of course, if we don't see a gaming-friendly iMac, many Mac game publishers, developers, and porters will see a hit in sales for sure.

Zaty
Aug 12, 2004, 02:01 PM
But, I think Apple cares more about selling machines than they do about making the iMac's graphics worse than the powermac's.

I don't mind if you're right but something tells me otherwise. Anyway, we'll find out soon enough.

Converted2Truth
Aug 13, 2004, 09:12 AM
The latest information on iMac specs halfway confirm our worst fear: Apple doesn't give a shhiitt about mac gaming...

nvidia 5200 in the new top end iMac?! This information better be wrong... that's the crappiest chipset on the mac to date.

invaLPsion
Aug 13, 2004, 10:49 AM
The latest information on iMac specs halfway confirm our worst fear: Apple doesn't give a shhiitt about mac gaming...

nvidia 5200 in the new top end iMac?! This information better be wrong... that's the crappiest chipset on the mac to date.

Not as bad as the Geforce 4MX in the low end. :(

applekid
Aug 13, 2004, 11:00 AM
There's still no proof it can't be upgraded. We can still wait till Paris...

On a sidenote: isn't that report a little flaky? It says it's a 5200 MX Ultra. Typo? New card?

But, we shouldn't be surprised Apple is keeping the iMac a consumer machine and disappointing us gamers by doing just that, if that card isn't upgradable.

seamuskrat
Aug 13, 2004, 11:24 AM
Let us hope that the specs are inaccurate for the new iMacs.

Imagine the low end machine NOT having an optical drive. makes it useless for home users and games in general, unless you add an external drive.

Plus, the video card is at least 3 years old. What were they thinking.
That said, you would think that Apple would ned to address in some sense the two largest factors hurting Mac Sales. Perception of speed and cost. Since we have no concept of cost, lets assume they stay at similar price points as current iMac line, we loose. Speed, we do better, but with non-expandable old video cards, we still loose.
And although I love the 17 and 20 screens, eliminating the eMac will destroy the budget Mac for those on a budget. This is not the best news for gamers, as the current eMac is not a slouch with games now (it does better than my "pro" Dual quicksilver did 2 years ago).

vraxtus
Aug 13, 2004, 11:32 AM
Let us hope that the specs are inaccurate for the new iMacs.

Imagine the low end machine NOT having an optical drive. makes it useless for home users and games in general, unless you add an external drive.


Ok wow did you read that article at ALL?

That machine is PURELY for educational users.. most likely insitutions that don't want to have to worry about security breaches. So in that regard, no optical drive and a crappy video card are perfect ideas to fit the bill.



And although I love the 17 and 20 screens, eliminating the eMac will destroy the budget Mac for those on a budget. This is not the best news for gamers, as the current eMac is not a slouch with games now (it does better than my "pro" Dual quicksilver did 2 years ago).

Do you know how quickly technology changes in two years? Especially when it comes to games?

By 2006 UE3 will be almost standard to all games. The currently most powerful GPU, the 6800 GT can barely hit FPS rates in the 20s on it as it stands. So comparing your QS to the current eMac is just ridiculous in terms of performance issues. The iMac I think will be a much better overall choice than the eMac as the next-gen machine.

seamuskrat
Aug 13, 2004, 11:46 AM
Chill out.

Yes I read the rumor. Remember the eMac was for educational users originally until demand forced Apple to open it up. If these new imacs are not below the $1000.00 price point, and they do not offer another model below this cost, the bottom line is people will go out of their way to purchase these machines. Fair or not, cost is an issue with Macs. Now maybe a sub 1000 iMac with no optical drive is a good deal for some. As for the GeForceMX Apple is not saving massive amounts of cash.

With proper management, you can eliminate security risks like burning.

As for your second comment, I am not stupid, I am aware that my 2 year old machine looses it potency rather fast. I am just stating that the current baseline eMac of today matches the video performance of the top of the line Pro machine from 2 years ago. Yet the educational iMac will only match that of the low end pro machine of two years ago. Sounds like a step backwards to me.

Just because Apple decides a particular market, it does not mean the consumers will follow it. I can say that as a user of a university environment, we purchase eMacs as a Baseline machine for faculty and staff and labs. An optical-less mac would be unacceptable for faculty and staff. If the costs of the next model was substantial, then Apple looses a lot of business. Of course, we are arguing of RUMORED specs, so they may be wrong and Apple will not do such an absurd move.
Ok wow did you read that article at ALL?

That machine is PURELY for educational users.. most likely insitutions that don't want to have to worry about security breaches. So in that regard, no optical drive and a crappy video card are perfect ideas to fit the bill.




Do you know how quickly technology changes in two years? Especially when it comes to games?

By 2006 UE3 will be almost standard to all games. The currently most powerful GPU, the 6800 GT can barely hit FPS rates in the 20s on it as it stands. So comparing your QS to the current eMac is just ridiculous in terms of performance issues. The iMac I think will be a much better overall choice than the eMac as the next-gen machine.

vraxtus
Aug 13, 2004, 11:53 AM
Chill out.

Yes I read the rumor. Remember the eMac was for educational users originally until demand forced Apple to open it up. If these new imacs are not below the $1000.00 price point, and they do not offer another model below this cost, the bottom line is people will go out of their way to purchase these machines. Fair or not, cost is an issue with Macs. Now maybe a sub 1000 iMac with no optical drive is a good deal for some. As for the GeForceMX Apple is not saving massive amounts of cash.

I agree... there's no point in selling an educational machine for that much of a higher price. However keep in mind that eMacs were using CRTs, whereas the iMacs use LCDs... notoriously more expensive than their CRT counterparts.

With proper management, you can eliminate security risks like burning.

Yes, but the idea is to remove much of that management... Macs are supposed to be easier to work with and maintain... why would they want to make it more difficult for admins?

As for your second comment, I am not stupid, I am aware that my 2 year old machine looses it potency rather fast. I am just stating that the current baseline eMac of today matches the video performance of the top of the line Pro machine from 2 years ago. Yet the educational iMac will only match that of the low end pro machine of two years ago. Sounds like a step backwards to me.

Again, I'm considering that the LCD display is affecting production costs here... and that the lack of a good card is what is making up for the increased cost for an LCD and a smaller form-function.

Just because Apple decides a particular market, it does not mean the consumers will follow it. I can say that as a user of a university environment, we purchase eMacs as a Baseline machine for faculty and staff and labs. An optical-less mac would be unacceptable for faculty and staff. If the costs of the next model was substantial, then Apple looses a lot of business. Of course, we are arguing of RUMORED specs, so they may be wrong and Apple will not do such an absurd move.

My sense is that the low end iMacs are more oriented towards student users, not necessarily for faculty and staff, who yes will most likely need the optical drive for research purposes. I'd most likely envision seeing the low end machines in libraries, for instance.

benpatient
Aug 13, 2004, 12:06 PM
the graphics card won't be upgradable. It will probably be an extremely custom bit of work. Apple, for better or worse, seems dead set against letting function dictate even the slightest bit of form. They probably had G5 iMac cooling issues because they wanted an imbedded screen and no ventilation holes, or something equally rediculous.

We'll be getting essentially a Mobility or Go-based graphics solution in the new iMac. The other cards make too much heat, and we've heard enough already to know that the new iMac has cooling issues as it is. apple couldn't give two shts about gamers. If you haven't seen enough evidence to prove this over the last 3-4 years, I don't know what will convince you. They know that the gaming market is their weakest link. Gamers drive the PC world...creative professionals drive the Mac world. The iMac's 3d capabilities will be less than incredible.

Converted2Truth
Aug 13, 2004, 12:11 PM
I'm sure the "consumers" who buy a $2200 G5 iMac along with doom3 will have a great time running it @640x480 @10fps on a spiffy new 20" lcd. freak... this sucks... :mad:

benpatient
Aug 13, 2004, 12:12 PM
The only reason it doesn't have the "X" designation is because ATI has decreed that only graphics cards using PCI Express will use the "X" model numbers, and the Radeon Mobility 9800 uses AGP.

you should tell that to the X800 Pro AGP 8X i saw at CompUSA yesterday.

He might react violently, though, i must warn you. Probably throw some normal maps at you at 1050mhz or something...

cubist
Aug 13, 2004, 03:32 PM
A contributor to mosr said the new LCD displays get really hot on the top edge, and the usb jacks on the right edge cause cable clutter.

Recently opened my 15" LCD monitor (one of the touch switches flaked out) and was surprised to see how roomy it was inside. A computer mainboard could be put on the back without making it much thicker at all. I think the new iMac's going to be a pretty nice machine.

BTW any single 1.6 or 1.8 people out there installed 10.3.5? The latest AI report has me concerned. I never sleep my computer, so maybe it wouldn't matter, but lockups are not pleasant.

vraxtus
Aug 13, 2004, 04:40 PM
BTW any single 1.6 or 1.8 people out there installed 10.3.5? The latest AI report has me concerned. I never sleep my computer, so maybe it wouldn't matter, but lockups are not pleasant.


No problems here.

oingoboingo
Aug 13, 2004, 07:11 PM
BTW any single 1.6 or 1.8 people out there installed 10.3.5? The latest AI report has me concerned. I never sleep my computer, so maybe it wouldn't matter, but lockups are not pleasant.

My single 1.6GHz G5 is running perfectly with 10.3.5 installed, sleeping and all. I sleep the G5 2 or 3 times a day (basically whenever I'm not sitting in front of it actively using it). No problems at all. No problems on my Rev C 12" PowerBook either.

Mord
Aug 14, 2004, 07:58 AM
There's still no proof it can't be upgraded. We can still wait till Paris...

On a sidenote: isn't that report a little flaky? It says it's a 5200 MX Ultra. Typo? New card?

But, we shouldn't be surprised Apple is keeping the iMac a consumer machine and disappointing us gamers by doing just that, if that card isn't upgradable.

mabey it's a different misprint mabey it's a 6200mx like a budget version of the 6800 :eek:

Mord
Aug 14, 2004, 08:00 AM
A contributor to mosr said the new LCD displays get really hot on the top edge, and the usb jacks on the right edge cause cable clutter.

Recently opened my 15" LCD monitor (one of the touch switches flaked out) and was surprised to see how roomy it was inside. A computer mainboard could be put on the back without making it much thicker at all. I think the new iMac's going to be a pretty nice machine.

BTW any single 1.6 or 1.8 people out there installed 10.3.5? The latest AI report has me concerned. I never sleep my computer, so maybe it wouldn't matter, but lockups are not pleasant.

i know wat you mean with the screen space i thought of puting a powerbook with a broken lcd connected to a cheap thin vga display but i never got arount to it :(

invaLPsion
Aug 14, 2004, 09:05 AM
Well, at least one source is denying the use of an FX5200 across the board. MacOSRumors is predicting that the new iMacs will have 8x AGP with FX5200s in the low end consumer models and Radeon 9600s or 9600XTs in the top end models. This makes a lot more sense to me...

applekid
Aug 14, 2004, 01:31 PM
Heck, put in 5200 Ultra across the line. Just let me upgrade the card! :eek:

seamuskrat
Aug 14, 2004, 01:46 PM
Yes, even or the consumer line, a user upgradeable AGP card would be ideal.

But we know Apple. So lets at least hope they give us current technology and not last years or worse tech.

Many games will run decently enough for the 'masses' with a current NVIDIA or Radeon card. Obviously you want Doom3 to rock, then get a gaming machine, but for the average iMac user we still need a decent card to run the crop of games pleasantly.

invaLPsion
Aug 14, 2004, 03:46 PM
Heck, put in 5200 Ultra across the line. Just let me upgrade the card! :eek:

Sorry.

According to MacNews and MacOSRumors there will be no upgradability once again. :(

applekid
Aug 14, 2004, 05:42 PM
Sorry.

According to MacNews and MacOSRumors there will be no upgradability once again. :(

Burn... :(

aswitcher
Aug 14, 2004, 06:01 PM
Sorry.

According to MacNews and MacOSRumors there will be no upgradability once again. :(

If that proves to be true then the iMac will fail to capture a reasonable segment of users who want games and high end graphics...

I hope the 20"s have 128 vram as an option or standard...

Atheist_Peace
Aug 31, 2004, 08:00 AM
Here they are!! http://www.apple.com/imac/
Can't wait to have it! It's great. What about the graphics card? Geforce FX 5200 Ultra? Are you happy with these specs?

Timelessblur
Aug 31, 2004, 09:38 AM
Well apple drop the ball again. The new iMac is worthless for gaming once again due to the nonupgrable POS graphic card

benpatient
Aug 31, 2004, 10:52 AM
the reality distortion field is still fully intact...

And then there’s the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. It’s a combination that delivers unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience with three times the frame rate of previous-generation processors.

whew. that's some doublespeak if ever i heard some...unparalleled?

vraxtus
Aug 31, 2004, 11:15 AM
And again, to all the hopefuls that said the new iMacs would have a 9600 or 9800.


http://d21c.com/walpurgis9/happies/faces/019.gif

benpatient
Aug 31, 2004, 12:28 PM
the best part of the let-down, to me, is the halved bus speeds...

the 7200 rpm SATA drive was a necessity (they don't make slower SATA drives, and the SATA interface is basically standard now.), but it's nice that they didn't go with 60 gb drives or something stupid.

I do have one question: Power supply. Is the power supply internal, or are they pulling another The Cube on us and leaving the huge external power supply out of all the photos?

another problem: vertical slot-mounted combo/super drive? sounds like a tech support nightmare waiting to happen. You can tilt the screen/computer, and thus the optical drive...

ugh.

55% increase in UT2004 speeds with the 1.8 over the 1.25?

that's not exactly amazing.

I am glad that they've gotten rid of the stupid round base bobble-head version...that's my least favorite apple product of all time...It's only saving grace was that it didn't come in different colors.

vraxtus
Aug 31, 2004, 12:33 PM
another problem: vertical slot-mounted combo/super drive? sounds like a tech support nightmare waiting to happen. You can tilt the screen/computer, and thus the optical drive...


I agree. I remember a long time ago the fastest that optical drives could read at was 4X when suspended vertically... I guess they reconciled that...?


From CNET:
As part of its efforts to keep the iMac G5 trim, Apple used design tricks such as incorporating the machine's power supply, making for a less bulky power cord arrangement; many other thin desktops use a brick-like external power supply. Apple also included a complement of audio- and video-out, USB, FireWire and Ethernet ports, and gives customers the option of adding Bluetooth, the short-range wireless networking technology for connecting peripherals.

jsw
Aug 31, 2004, 01:11 PM
the reality distortion field is still fully intact...


whew. that's some doublespeak if ever i heard some...unparalleled?
Ah yes. "Unsurpassed" would have been wrong, but I suppose that they can get by with "unparalleled"... doubtful any other system has exactly the same specs.... :rolleyes:

Lord Blackadder
Aug 31, 2004, 01:25 PM
Well, I guess we were warned, eh?

I wouldn't say that the iMac is worthless for games, but from a hardware standpoint it was certainly not designed as a machine for current games. My brother's new Powerbook has the same card and it does OK in UT 2004, but then again I seem to have a high tolerance for low framerates compared to most on this forum. I agree that this is not a gaming setup - but that doesn't mean you can't play games at all!

To the gentleman that started this thread - get a refurbed single processor G5 tower with a CRT, then pick up a good graphics card later - it will cost a little more but not much, and it will play games significantly better, plus it will be upgradable.

Nice avatar Vraxtus, the Myth series rocks! Do you have Myth III? my iMac is too old to play it. Is it good?

vraxtus
Aug 31, 2004, 01:29 PM
Nice avatar Vraxtus, the Myth series rocks! Do you have Myth III? my iMac is too old to play it. Is it good?


Thx! :o

Unfortunately once Bungie sold off the Myth rights and got bought out to M$... I just couldn't justify playing M3... even though I loved TFL and Soulblighter :(

BrianKonarsMac
Aug 31, 2004, 09:14 PM
Your argument is rather pointless because nobody thought an eMac would get an 8x superdrive before a powermac or iMac. Well, it did... :rolleyes: maybe it was ADVERTISED with an 8x first. but by the time it was announced in eMac's it was also being included with iMac's and PMac's which a few buyer's have noted being surprised to find their Super Drive is faster than advertised.

BrianKonarsMac
Aug 31, 2004, 09:16 PM
And again, to all the hopefuls that said the new iMacs would have a 9600 or 9800.


http://d21c.com/walpurgis9/happies/faces/019.gifnow that's just not nice ;). but i agree, stick it to them!

now where is the image for those annoying Power Book G5 people?