24" iMac -- Why the 7300GT?

vv-tim said:

I looked up a few benchmarks on Google and it seems that the Nvidia 7300GT is actually slower than the X1600 Pro. I'm not really sure which variations of the cards Apple uses (probably mobile sets) so that may be a performance difference, but why did Apple choose Nvidia for the 24"?

I am quite happy to see that you can actually upgrade the video card in the 24" to a 7600GT. If I had that kind of money right now... Sadly, it costs as much as a MBP, and that's something I guess I can't stomach at the moment.

Click to expand...

7300GT is actually based on the 7600 core despite its name. This means that the 7300GT should at least equal the standard Radeon X1600 found in the iMac.

vv-tim said:

Also, they obviously don't point out whether they're using the Merom core or Conroe core for the iMacs. I'm guessing it's Merom, but it would be pretty awesome if it was Conroe.

Click to expand...

It's Merom. Merom has the 667 MHz FSB.

The clock speeds and RAM they are using correspond to Merom. Definitely Merom.

amin said:

The clock speeds and RAM they are using correspond to Merom. Definitely Merom.

Click to expand...

The socket on the old iMac corresponded to the Merom as the upgrade.

Don't think many expected Apple to switch, and redo the motherboard.

They hoped for the desktop switch, but reality is it was more likely to come during a chipset switch instead of during update time.

I'm wondering if the 24" got a desktop graphics card rather than a mobility card like the others (that don't even get a 7600GT option). Thus they would just be using 7300GTs they've bought in bulk already.

(of course, where is the 7600GT option in the MP if true...)

milozauckerman said:

(of course, where is the 7600GT option in the MP if true...)

Click to expand...

In the next update for them of course.

vv-tim said:

I looked up a few benchmarks on Google and it seems that the Nvidia 7300GT is actually slower than the X1600 Pro. I'm not really sure which variations of the cards Apple uses (probably mobile sets) so that may be a performance difference, but why did Apple choose Nvidia for the 24"?

I am quite happy to see that you can actually upgrade the video card in the 24" to a 7600GT. If I had that kind of money right now... Sadly, it costs as much as a MBP, and that's something I guess I can't stomach at the moment.

Click to expand...

Most people don't even use the potential of their GPU these days...for many people, integrated graphics is good enough...so in this case, at least those people don't have to pay for something they don't need. And the people who need more...it's available, which is nice.

Seems like a good solution all around to me.

Maybe it's an Intel thing, what with the recent AMD merger.

Sesshi said:

Maybe it's an Intel thing, what with the recent AMD merger.

Click to expand...

I think it would be dumb for Intel to go against ATI (AMD) or AMD (ATI) to make the cards incompatible or something... with Intel having the best gaming processor available... not making your graphics card compatible with it is just dumb.

Sun Baked said:

The socket on the old iMac corresponded to the Merom as the upgrade.

Don't think many expected Apple to switch, and redo the motherboard.

They hoped for the desktop switch, but reality is it was more likely to come during a chipset switch instead of during update time.

Click to expand...

This was my thought as well. When the current chipsets are replaced in 2007, then, are we looking at a switch of the iMac line from Merom all the way to, perhaps, Kentsfield??

brianus said:

This was my thought as well. When the current chipsets are replaced in 2007, then, are we looking at a switch of the iMac line from Merom all the way to, perhaps, Kentsfield??

Click to expand...

Perhaps, depending on TDP of the quad core 2.66GHz Kentsfield, and the potential for other Kentsfield models by then. if they manage the same magic they did with the P4 HT Cedar Mill --> P-D Presler ( mere 10w TDP increase for many models over the P4 they were based upon- <15% increase)

Otherwise expect Allendale on the low end, Conroe on the high end if we're still on 65nm then, or if the 45nm chips are out then, Wolfdale/Ridgefield respectively.

It all depends on heat. They may be able to work an EE chip (X6800, 6900, 8000; also Kentsfield) into the 24" enclosure. I would say Conroe/Allendale or preferably wolfdale/ridgefield in the 17/20.

Silentwave said:

Perhaps, depending on TDP of the quad core 2.66GHz Kentsfield, and the potential for other Kentsfield models by then. if they manage the same magic they did with the P4 HT Cedar Mill --> P-D Presler ( mere 10w TDP increase for many models over the P4 they were based upon- <15% increase)

Otherwise expect Allendale on the low end, Conroe on the high end if we're still on 65nm then, or if the 45nm chips are out then, Wolfdale/Ridgefield respectively.

It all depends on heat. They may be able to work an EE chip (X6800, 6900, 8000; also Kentsfield) into the 24" enclosure. I would say Conroe/Allendale or preferably wolfdale/ridgefield in the 17/20.

Click to expand...

2 options:

1. You made up that third paragraph

or

2. Your really know you intel roadmaps.

Flyinace2000 said:

2 options:

1. You made up that third paragraph

or

2. Your really know you intel roadmaps.

Click to expand...

Well, gawsh.....

Even the Conroe XE (X6800/6900 and possibly the 8000) line only has 10W higher TDP (75W at max power) than Conroe E6700, which still puts it a goot 11+w short of a P4 65nm Cedar Mill core.
while it probably wouldn't be exactly silent all the time, the larger 24" case with properly designed cooling for the chip itself might allow for a hotter chip than Merom. I believe the Merom choice at this point was primarily for volume and chipset reasons. When the chipset changes, its a clean slate.

Going to 45nm might help too. Based on what i've seen, that is. Look at the Pentium D Smithfield (90nm) versus the Pentium D Presler (65nm). The former is based on the Prescott line of P4s, the latter on the Cedar Mill line.

If you look at the TDP of some similarly clocked Smithfields/Preslers, many of the Preslers have a TDP 20W lower than the Smithfields- particularly the most recent ones- at equal or even higher clock speeds versus the Smithfield.

I may be wrong on this assumption, but even so, having 45nm is a good thing!

according to a poster on ArsTechnica the 24" repair manual shows that the 7300 and 7600 are replacable PCI-E laptop cards rather than the soldered kind found in the 17/20.

I'm hoping the 24" iMacs have a PCIe slot, hence the 7300GT and the upgrade option. It would make sense sinse they have so much more space in the. I would be very surprised and disappointed if they do not have some form of PCIe slot inside them. They would sell like hotcakes if they did.

milozauckerman said:

according to a poster on ArsTechnica the 24" repair manual shows that the 7300 and 7600 are replacable PCI-E laptop cards rather than the soldered kind found in the 17/20.

Click to expand...

I hope this is true.

I think that the 7600GT should be a standard card for the 24" iMac's pricepoint - but at least they offer it as an option. It's a bummer that it isn't available with the smaller iMacs. Maybe (if it is a laptop card) it will be available as an upgrade kit in the future, but I doubt it.

The X1600 series has been a bit of a disappointment compared to the 7600 series (though they aren't bad cards), so the more options the better.

I guess I don't get why people are complaining about the 7300. It is actually a pretty nice card. Weren't people saying how lame it was compared to the 1600 in the iMac? According to Apple, the 7300 is BETTER than the X1600. Apple has always used lower-spec video cards.

Fuzzy Orange said:

I guess I don't get why people are complaining about the 7300. It is actually a pretty nice card. Weren't people saying how lame it was compared to the 1600 in the iMac? According to Apple, the 7300 is BETTER than the X1600. Apple has always used lower-spec video cards.

Click to expand...

The Intel switch brought whiny gamers over to the Mac side. That is why people are complaining. No offense to the veteran whiners.

(edit) I was wrong, my bad-- m(-__-)m

milozauckerman said:

according to a poster on ArsTechnica the 24" repair manual shows that the 7300 and 7600 are replacable PCI-E laptop cards rather than the soldered kind found in the 17/20.

Click to expand...

You have a link? I couldn't find this at Ars...this could be the scoop of the century.

Fuzzy Orange said:

I guess I don't get why people are complaining about the 7300. It is actually a pretty nice card. Weren't people saying how lame it was compared to the 1600 in the iMac? According to Apple, the 7300 is BETTER than the X1600. Apple has always used lower-spec video cards.

Click to expand...

This is true the 7300Gt is an 8 pipe card compared to the X1600 that is only 4pipe. The 7600GT is a 12 pipe card , the real card that would be great for a new mac would be the upcoming X1650XT which is 8 pipe/24 shader on 80nm. this will retail for $149 in oct.

sigamy said:

You have a link? I couldn't find this at Ars...this could be the scoop of the century.

Click to expand...

To put it mildly! This could be the biggest scoop of all time!!