Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 3, 2012, 09:36 PM   #1
CycloneX
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Florida
General historical question about Apple and GPUs

I have been using Macs since the early 90s and they have always been behind in the GPU options with PCs. Why is this? If you look at the options for GPUs for iMacs and Pro Towers for the last 10 years Apple has been offering 32, 64 and 128 MB cards for the majority of the decade -- 2000-2006. Look at the pro towers ... a 64MB card was standard for years for a 3k computer. In 2002 32 MB and 64 MB cards were what Apple offered but PCs were already at 256. And today, though not as bad, Apple is still not offering high end GPUs ... the high end GPU on the most expensive 2012 iMac is ranked #20 among MGPUs. Is this a choice by Apple or a result of they must take what AMD, etc., will offer Apple?
__________________
iMac x2, iPhone 4 2012 iMac
CycloneX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2012, 11:06 PM   #2
forty2j
macrumors 68030
 
forty2j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
I can't answer why they always skimp on the VRAM, but its their own decision. The GPUs they use typically have more VRAM standard.

Your last claim appears to be false. When you remove SLI and other multi-GPU solutions, the stock 27" 675MX should be around #3 and the BTO 680MX #1 among MGPUs, and give equivalent performance to midrange or better desktop cards.
__________________
 2012 iMac 3.2GHz 27" 680MX Fusion  iPhone 5  Apple TV 2  iPad 2 
forty2j is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 01:02 AM   #3
Isengardtom
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
I have no idea but in the last 2-3 years they closed the gap somewhat
Isengardtom is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 04:26 AM   #4
nasabaer
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
There is no need for High End Cards in PC Gaming at the moment. Actually in my Win PC i have a GTX570 - and absolutely no need for an upgrade.
Maybe the reason is the "old" gaming console generation. This maybe change in end 2013 - 2014...
The 680 (mobile) that apple uses in the new 27" as BTO is fine for the average gamer.
maybe we get better desktop gpu“s with the release of the next Mac Pro - but this rig is just too expensive (for gaming)
nasabaer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 05:15 AM   #5
Jethryn Freyman
macrumors 68020
 
Jethryn Freyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Yeah they did spend a good period of time in the Intel era of skimping on VRAM, now it seems that Apple is being less anal about it, but in the end, all the VRAM in the world won't help a crap GU [my 8 year old PowerPC ATI card has more performance than a modern Macbook Air, Ivy Bridge spec, with twice the VRAM on an integrated Intel HD 4000 chip.
__________________
Emergency Cheesegrater - 2x 1.8 G5 - 4GB - OWC SSD - ATI Fire GL X3 256MB - 10.5.8
Jethryn Freyman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 10:58 PM   #6
CoolSpot
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
I think yhere are a few factors at play.

First, I think apple doesn't really care a lot about gaming. If you don't have cutting edge games on your platform, cheaper GPUs are more than adequate and free up more funds for the specs that consumers are able to easily compare (mhz, RAM, HDD). Nice graphics cards are typically the most expensive single component other that the CPU.

Second, for all apple computers except the Mac Pro, Apple is integrating the GPUs into space and heat limited form-factors. They CAN'T go with the best because there isn't the space or thermal room.

Lastly, I think Apple faces the internal two-promged attack of high margins and inefficient design. Apple wants to maintain high margins and at the same time do a lot of custom design. When you couple that pressure with the other factors I mentioned above you can see why graphics hardware often comes up short.
CoolSpot is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:01 PM   #7
dukebound85
macrumors P6
 
dukebound85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 5045 feet above seal level
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethryn Freyman View Post
Yeah they did spend a good period of time in the Intel era of skimping on VRAM, now it seems that Apple is being less anal about it, but in the end, all the VRAM in the world won't help a crap GU [my 8 year old PowerPC ATI card has more performance than a modern Macbook Air, Ivy Bridge spec, with twice the VRAM on an integrated Intel HD 4000 chip.
I doubt that claim
dukebound85 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:14 PM   #8
MatthewAMEL
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethryn Freyman View Post
Yeah they did spend a good period of time in the Intel era of skimping on VRAM, now it seems that Apple is being less anal about it, but in the end, all the VRAM in the world won't help a crap GU [my 8 year old PowerPC ATI card has more performance than a modern Macbook Air, Ivy Bridge spec, with twice the VRAM on an integrated Intel HD 4000 chip.
ATI Radeon 9800XT 3DMark06: 815

Intel HD4000 3DMark06: 6790
MatthewAMEL is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:29 PM   #9
phoenixsan
macrumors 65816
 
phoenixsan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Post I think....

a) Apple is constrained by the design in most of their computers. Not too much room for heat dissipation/powerful fans

b) High end graphics cards appeal only to professional/hardcore gamers. And for gamers, I dont think so the Mac Pro is a cheap alternative, being the choice for pro/high end users.

c) Maybe Apple has to factor things as OEM pricing and assembly costs when they choose the GPU that will go in their machines?

__________________
Mac Pro 2012 3.06 Westmere version, 12 Core 64 GB RAM, 4 TB , iPhone 5 (black)
phoenixsan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 12:09 AM   #10
CycloneX
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixsan View Post
a) Apple is constrained by the design in most of their computers. Not too much room for heat dissipation/powerful fans

b) High end graphics cards appeal only to professional/hardcore gamers. And for gamers, I dont think so the Mac Pro is a cheap alternative, being the choice for pro/high end users.

c) Maybe Apple has to factor things as OEM pricing and assembly costs when they choose the GPU that will go in their machines?

That may be true, but my question is why not offer the higher end GPUs as a BTO option the customer pays for, so no loss of profit for Apple --- especially in the towers where space and cooling is not an issue. Go back and look at the GPU options for the towers over the last ten years ... stuck at 64 and 128 for years.

The most recent high-end iMacs prolly have enough GPU to play most any game at the "high" settings, which is honestly a first for Apple with the iMac since it's inception. So, I applaud that. The iMacs since 2010 are really great machines and are good bang for the buck ... these are the best iMacs Apple has ever offered ... except for the loss of the CD/DVD drive in the latest.

Gaming seems to have moved to the console for the most part, so the days of me playing MMOLRPGs like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Medal of Honor, and World War II Online on my iMac are long gone ... so be it .. just wish I could have had better GPU options in those days.
__________________
iMac x2, iPhone 4 2012 iMac
CycloneX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 12:20 AM   #11
leman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolSpot View Post
First, I think apple doesn't really care a lot about gaming.
They wouldn't put a gaming GPU in there (675MX, 680MX) if they didn't care about gaming.

I have no idea why they usually are so stingly with VRAM (although, to their defence we must admit that they are using exclusively the faster GDDR5 VRAM). I think the main reason would be sales strategy - they want you to buy the more expensive machine if you need more VRAM.
leman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 12:24 AM   #12
Yebubbleman
macrumors 68000
 
Yebubbleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by CycloneX View Post
I have been using Macs since the early 90s and they have always been behind in the GPU options with PCs. Why is this? If you look at the options for GPUs for iMacs and Pro Towers for the last 10 years Apple has been offering 32, 64 and 128 MB cards for the majority of the decade -- 2000-2006. Look at the pro towers ... a 64MB card was standard for years for a 3k computer. In 2002 32 MB and 64 MB cards were what Apple offered but PCs were already at 256. And today, though not as bad, Apple is still not offering high end GPUs ... the high end GPU on the most expensive 2012 iMac is ranked #20 among MGPUs. Is this a choice by Apple or a result of they must take what AMD, etc., will offer Apple?
If you're talking about MacBook Pros and iMacs, your answer is simply that Apple feels the need to make the machines so thin, that they are literally using the fastest GPU that will fit inside such a thin thermal envelope. If the MacBook Pro were to have the GPUs found in high-end 27" iMacs, it would have to be twice as thick as the non-retina models were before the unibody switch. Similarly, if a 27" iMac were to have the cards that desktop PC users are enjoying now, it would have to be twice as thick at the very least. Apple doesn't like thickness. As far as the MacBook Pro is concerned, that's a good thing as gaming laptop PCs are often unreliable and the last thing I want my MacBook Pro to be is unreliable. But for desktops, thinness shouldn't be the overriding factor.

If you're talking about Mac minis and MacBook Airs, the answer is pretty much "that's what Intel was able to fit on the CPU die". And if you're talking about Mac Pros, well the answer is a two-part. Part one is that Apple is not really updating them until the supposed 2013 update. Part two is that even if they were updating them regularly, Apple doesn't see too many customers really needing more than something in the Radeon HD 5870 (or modern equivalent) range, and for those that do, you can special order an NVIDIA Quadro that will get the job done. I imagine there's little demand for an AMD/ATI FireGL card comparable to the demand for the Quadro.
__________________
MacBook Pro (15" Mid 2012); PC Tower (3.4GHz Phenom II x4; Radeon HD 6850); 5th Gen iPod touch Blue 64GB; 3rd Gen tv; 1st Gen iPad mini Verizon 64GB; Galaxy Nexus
"Don't Cry, Eat Pie"
Yebubbleman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 02:37 AM   #13
blanka
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewAMEL View Post
ATI Radeon 9800XT 3DMark06: 815

Intel HD4000 3DMark06: 6790
Fun thing is, the new HD4000 has 90% of the transistors working on ripple, fog, lighting, anisotrophic filtering, hardware skinning etc. The old 9800 just did simple 3D texels and wire frame stuff, and it is still faster with that than any new card. If you do 3-D wireframe modelling, the old cards often work much Snappier. So the experience is not represented by the 3D mark score.
blanka is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 08:06 AM   #14
mslide
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Why should they put anything better in there? Apple and everyone else already knows that you don't buy a Mac if gaming is that important to you. If it's not about gaming and you really want a good GPU, then chances are you're a professional and looking at a Mac Pro.
mslide is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 08:44 AM   #15
leman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by blanka View Post
Fun thing is, the new HD4000 has 90% of the transistors working on ripple, fog, lighting, anisotrophic filtering, hardware skinning etc. The old 9800 just did simple 3D texels and wire frame stuff, and it is still faster with that than any new card. If you do 3-D wireframe modelling, the old cards often work much Snappier. So the experience is not represented by the 3D mark score.
Whether wireframe is efficient depends on the driver implementation. And I have to disappoint you: there are no such things as fog, hardware skinning etc. for a couple of years now. Modern GPUs are mostly general computation units, and all things you describe are done in 'software' eg by programming these units.
leman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 07:33 PM   #16
Dahkot
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by CycloneX View Post
I have been using Macs since the early 90s and they have always been behind in the GPU options with PCs. Why is this? If you look at the options for GPUs for iMacs and Pro Towers for the last 10 years Apple has been offering 32, 64 and 128 MB cards for the majority of the decade -- 2000-2006. Look at the pro towers ... a 64MB card was standard for years for a 3k computer. In 2002 32 MB and 64 MB cards were what Apple offered but PCs were already at 256. And today, though not as bad, Apple is still not offering high end GPUs ... the high end GPU on the most expensive 2012 iMac is ranked #20 among MGPUs. Is this a choice by Apple or a result of they must take what AMD, etc., will offer Apple?
I'm not sure if you are talking about the Imac you only order today and not the one that comes out in approx a month , because in one swoop Apple ends any such deficiencies in the mobile GPU market.

The 680mx is the fastest single card mobile solution out there , it's a beast and googling any reviews of it show it. I have one in my MSI GE70 and it honestly keeps pace good enough with my desktop PC with a 580gtx.

The 27" Imac with a 680mx will be quite a capable gaming machine , and again will have the fastest single card mobile gpu solution available.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...ist.844.0.html

Last edited by Dahkot; Nov 5, 2012 at 07:41 PM.
Dahkot is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC