iMac Review, iMac Software Update 1.0

[soosy]

There are several problems, as I see it:
- the iMac is using a pretty low end card considering the possibilities out there... it's not even using an average card.
- there is no BTO option for a better card.
- The expensive Mac Pro is the only option if you want a Mac with a better card.

They really need a high-end Mac mini or a lower end Mac Pro, imo. With Boot Camp, "it can't play games" should no longer be a reason not to get a Mac.

 

[PCMacUser]

For a counter-example, HL2:E1, roughly 1 year old, runs exceptionally well on my 1.5 year-old iMac. I expect Episode 2 will also run great. World of Warcraft runs great. The Sims titles will run great. Maybe games like this are the exception and not the rule, but I'm just pointing out that it's not like all new games are unplayable on the iMac. You are NOT doing brand new FPS on an iMac (unless it's made by Valve, apparently), but other than that you're okay.

Yep, the HL2 games are written extremely well to work on a variety of new and older hardware - but this is the exception. On my new PC system (featuring a factory OC'd 8800GTS 640Mb card), Company of Heroes is unplayable in DX10 mode at 1920*1200 with AA switched on. And the 8800GTS is multiple times faster than the iMac's GPU options...

 

[WannaGoMac]

No, I get it. The fact that every new FPS released every 6 months needs a new graphics card has been slowly killing the PC gaming world for some time now. It's a twisted little world that I think Apple is just ignoring.

For a counter-example, HL2:E1, roughly 1 year old, runs exceptionally well on my 1.5 year-old iMac. I expect Episode 2 will also run great. World of Warcraft runs great. The Sims titles will run great. Maybe games like this are the exception and not the rule, but I'm just pointing out that it's not like all new games are unplayable on the iMac. You are NOT doing brand new FPS on an iMac (unless it's made by Valve, apparently), but other than that you're okay.

I would say that sometimes the iMacs graphics end up being better than others with each new revision: sometimes sub par compared to the competition, sometimes fairly competent. This revision seems to be one of the "subpar" ones... I'd wager rev B will be better (allowing games like UT3 to at least be playable with decent settings).

So the excuse for why Macs can't have good GPUs has gone from Macs aren't for games to PC gaming is dieing?

I don't get it. Why can't Apple just stick a decent GPU in their computers (or give an option of one GPU) ? What is the big deal? We're talking $100-200 difference which would be customizable. Hell, they could even make the GPU non-upgradeable so they can continue to force people to buy complete systems in lieu of simple upgrades.

 

[Red-red]

You're still thinking like a high-end PC gamer. Quake 4 runs at about 40 fps. This is more than adequate for the average gamer. And by average I don't mean Grandma, I mean "most everybody". They are used to playing console games which usually run at 30 fps (or maybe 60) fps. PC gamers demanding framerates above 60 fps are a MINORITY.

If 40 fps is not acceptable for most people, then the consoles are doomed.

No consoles get away with it because they run on a tele generally at a low resolution that blurs the image. You can't run a game like quake 4 at 1024 that resolution is around 4/5 years old in PC terms, 1280x1024 has been the norm for years now. So 40fps in 1024 is absolutely shocking I was running quake 2 in that resolution near on 10 years ago. So on a 24" moniter running at that res is shocking.

All we asked for is a decent graphics chip, Adding some grill holes and a bigger fan/heatsink on the back making it that whole 1/4" thicker would be a small price to pay imo.

 

[WannaGoMac]

No consoles get away with it because they run on a tele generally at a low resolution that blurs the image. You can't run a game like quake 4 at 1024 that resolution is around 4/5 years old in PC terms, 1280x1024 has been the norm for years now. So 40fps in 1024 is absolutely shocking I was running quake 2 in that resolution near on 10 years ago. So on a 24" moniter running at that res is shocking.

All we asked for is a decent graphics chip, Adding some grill holes and a bigger fan/heatsink on the back making it that whole 1/4" thicker would be a small price to pay imo.

You're being too kind. On my 20" LCD I have to run 1600x1200 in order to be native resolution. Basically, LCDs have really pushed the GPUs to get more powerful due to their native resolutions.

 

[Red-red]

As for PC gaming dying! What a load of tosh that is. If Apple could simply make a PC like the imac maybe a little thicker that runs cames well they would absolutely make a killing within the gaming community. Many many people buy consoles because they are simple, PC gaming is complicated. You mix PC gaming with Apple simplicity you have a Console killer on your hands.

A imac like the current one but revearsed out so the alu is black and the black is alu, a bit bigger with a better graphics chip....I would buy one tomorrow.
Apple really had a chance to take a big chunk of the market with this new imac, they have failed on it imo unless they are bringing something else out and just judging by this forum have lost out on quite a few purchuses and from those you get a pyramid effect going on.

You get a new imac, show a friend how you can organise your photo's and how pretty it looks they will think it looks good but not that impressed as it isn't. You do that while being able to run the latest games they will be far more impressed as gaming isn't just a niche market anymore, It is big bucks. 8 million wow subscribers alone state that. Stop living in caves.

 

[notjustjay]

So how DOES the new iMac handle WoW? Any first-hand reports?

 

[soosy]

So how DOES the new iMac handle WoW? Any first-hand reports?

I've just started looking at that too... the reports seem a little inconsistent.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=712000716&sid=1&pageNo=1

 

[BIGIRON]

I'm not so sure why alot of people seem so down on the new Imac for gaming its not a bad set up for good gaming, yes the parts aren't bleeding edge but they are damn solid and frame rates will be fine if you aren't nutty with your options on most games.

Yes I have a PC with XP for gaming and I wont be getting rid of it soon but the 2600 HD in the Imac is a fine video card for almost all games and the cpu in the Imac is fine as well. I'm an AMD man myself but the intel stuff is a great cpu so If you combine a solid video card with a solid cpu you will do just fine.

Why some people believe you need dual nvidia 8800,s and quad cpus to game is just odd, My wifes old Athlon 3200 with 2 gigs of ram and a Nvidia 7600 GS runs everything just fine from battlefield 2 all the way to starwars galaxies online it does just fine.

Cheer up guys you don't need to have a gaming complex with macs gaining market share the mac is bound to get a whole new slew of games released and the machines will do just fine. Hell I'm getting a new mac (my first ever) as I am refusing to use Vista and I'm a hard core gamer so the world is changing.

 

[iW00t]

I'm not so sure why alot of people seem so down on the new Imac for gaming its not a bad set up for a 6 year's old gaming, yes the parts aren't bleeding edge and they are damned but frame rates will be passable if you are willing to put up with 640 * 480 on a 24" screen.

I think the fact is DirectX is better optimised than OpenGL is.

Sorry Apple. Macs are not exactly the fastest things around.

 

[tom5304]

lol i laugh at those who diss the new imac and have not yet used it or seen it in real life. im using my new 2.4 20" right now, and i can say there is not one think i would change about it. its ace!

I just saw the new 20" iMac at the local Apple Store, and though I went in with a neutral attitude at best, I came away thinking the new iMac is tons better looking than the white plastic previous model.

And the glossy screen I was expecting to hate based only on many negative comments on the web... Well, I thought the glossy screen was beautiful. You can create a lot of reflections by tilting the iMac just right, but as far as I could tell, the reflections would be a problem only if I focused on them and thought about them. Otherwise, the 20" iMac had the sharpest screen image I've ever seen on a computer, based on limited experience.

Don't judge the iMac until you've played with it for 10 minutes.

 

[Headrush69]

I'm not so sure why alot of people seem so down on the new Imac for gaming its not a bad set up for good gaming, yes the parts aren't bleeding edge but they are damn solid and frame rates will be fine if you aren't nutty with your options on most games.

Because when you're buying a new machine you don't want to buy technology that is already on the lower end of the current curve.
(Especially as we are about to see ports of DX10 games)

I don't think it's a Geforce 8800 GTX power house many of us are suggesting the iMac should have. Even the Radeon HD 2600 XT would have been a welcome upgrade. Obviously this model needs better cooling, which begs the question why is size is so important to Apple for desktop models over the $50 retail price increase for a better video card.

Am I missing something here or is a big deal to the average user if the iMac was 3" deep instead or 2"?

The question I have is, obviously the 2600 was designed with DX10 in mind, (all the stream processors, etc), will they be as useful/powerful with OpenGL 2.0?

 

[mavherzog]

It was a slight error which I believe has already been fixed. And the fact is that Ars Technica is propably the smartest website out there when it comes to tech.

Slight error? There were several mentions, including comments such as "again the lack of a second core really shows in this bench mark".

Ars Technica may have some good content...but their reviewers are FAR from being beyond reproach.

 

[JGowan]

Cnet: 8.2 Excellent

8.2 EXCELLENT - The bottom line: With its super-elegant new design and a strong configuration, Apple's new iMac competes with the PC desktop market better than perhaps any previous Mac to date. Unless you're a gamer or an upgrade enthusiast, we can think of very few reasons not to make an iMac your next desktop.

I'm not at all surprised by the GAMING COMMUNITY coming out once again to talk down the iMac and the lackluster video card/processors/etc. that it is under the hood. They're here at every speedbump and reinvention of the iMac, but they simply don't get it:

The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.

I know why you're out and proud and upset... the machine looks great and you really would like to have it in your dorm or room or living area. But it's just not upgradable and it's too slow and it now has a glossy screen... that's all good. But realize that you simply are barking up the wrong tree. Jobs is not selling to you. That doesn't make the iMac a bad buy as CNET has graciously given very high marks/words for it. The computer you need is one that can grow with your pastime. You need a tower that is modifiable in every way and there are plenty out there. Sure they're PCs but then most of the games you want to play are made for that OS. Buy a PC and enjoy your gaming.

And finally, please, realize that the iMac was not designed for your hobby in mind.

 

[Sesshi]

There are several problems, as I see it:
- the iMac is using a pretty low end card considering the possibilities out there... it's not even using an average card.
- there is no BTO option for a better card.
- The expensive Mac Pro is the only option if you want a Mac with a better card.

Indeed. There's really not much excuse for a $80 retail GPU on a ~$2,000 computer, however you swing it. Of course it's not a gaming machine. It's a general purpose machine. Which is all the more reason it should be able to do everything pretty well. In the overall scheme of things and with general forthcoming software, the ATI will not do various things pretty well.

As I said before, the card (which will undoubtedly be underclocked) is more a decision of the Apple Silence Nazis and a pointer to the relative inability of Apple to bring real computer engineering (as opposed to design, which we all know Apple excels at) innovations to the table than of someone thinking about a balanced premium home machine.

From past experience, I subscribe to the practice that a home machine should be significantly more powerful than a general office machine. Because home users wanting to do even fairly simple things actually place more demands of the CPU and more significantly the GPU for entertainment (and I'm not limiting it to games) software - especially for a 'It just works' experience.

For me, as an occasional gamer who nevertheless insists that no matter how unleet I am the experience be delivered smoothly, it's one of the reasons why the Mac range is of limited use - the capabilities of the Pro for example is limited for me to consider it as a main home PC. Of course, your regular home user would place less uncompromising demands on a PC but the same theory nevertheless applies. All but the 2.8Ghz iteration of the current iMac (and in that case in CPU only) are essentially slightly warmed over 'office drone spec'.

I've ordered one, but I'm doing anything which requires any kind of meaningful power on other (Windows) machines. This will be used to run an important but very undemanding piece of software in the main, I'm not concerned about value, and I'll use it for iLife (for dabbling) at most apart from that, which means I'm unlikely to greatly tax the GPU for example. Doesn't mean I don't think the spec is "off".

There would be far more grumblings about a spec, relatively speaking, like this if it was on a Dell, Sony, etc. It's a measure of the zombification of the Apple community perhaps that people actually actively defend this sort of classic-Apple form (& to a certain extent, margin) over function.

I just wasted 20 minutes writing and editing this - hopefully we can all just agree that the iMac is a fairly reasonable machine given the design, but nothing to get excited about. Of course I don't actually think that has a chance in hell, but hey I can hope.

 

[Red-red]

I'm not at all surprised by the GAMING COMMUNITY coming out once again to talk down the iMac and the lackluster video card/processors/etc. that it is under the hood. They're here at every speedbump and reinvention of the iMac, but they simply don't get it:

The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.

I know why you're out and proud and upset... the machine looks great and you really would like to have it in your dorm or room or living area. But it's just not upgradable and it's too slow and it now has a glossy screen... that's all good. But realize that you simply are barking up the wrong tree. Jobs is not selling to you. That doesn't make the iMac a bad buy as CNET has graciously given very high marks/words for it. The computer you need is one that can grow with your pastime. You need a tower that is modifiable in every way and there are plenty out there. Sure they're PCs but then most of the games you want to play are made for that OS. Buy a PC and enjoy your gaming.

And finally, please, realize that the iMac was not designed for your hobby in mind.

This was definately true 2 years ago, But with Steve jobs himself making a announcement on gaming on the mac they certainly ain't ignoring it so what do they expect us to do? Pay at least £2500 for a mac pro that isn't even that fast for gaming?

IMO they have flopped with this imac, It looks good like all apple products but the performance is shocking in the grand scheme of things. The old imac got away with it because we all know apple takes time upgrading the spec of a machine but the performance wasn't to bad even on games when it first came out compared to the hardware available at the time. This one is seriously underpowered, 1gb ram standard? Below average graphics chip......disapointed is a under-statement.

 

[PCMacUser]

IMO they have flopped with this imac, It looks good like all apple products but the performance is shocking in the grand scheme of things. The old imac got away with it because we all know apple takes time upgrading the spec of a machine but the performance wasn't to bad even on games when it first came out compared to the hardware available at the time. This one is seriously underpowered, 1gb ram standard? Below average graphics chip......disapointed is a under-statement.

I don't think the spec is too bad. We all knew that Apple would continue with its theme of using notebook hardware in a desktop computer, so performance was never going to be blazingly fast (hence my decision to go back to PC for my latest computer). At least the new iMac is somewhat faster than its predecessor, and the price point hasn't changed much.

For basic users such as my parents, the 20" entry level model will make an excellent home computer - I'll be ordering one for them next week.

 

[BKKbill]

This was definately true 2 years ago, But with Steve jobs himself making a announcement on gaming on the mac they certainly ain't ignoring it so what do they expect us to do? Pay at least £2500 for a mac pro that isn't even that fast for gaming?

IMO they have flopped with this imac, It looks good like all apple products but the performance is shocking in the grand scheme of things. The old imac got away with it because we all know apple takes time upgrading the spec of a machine but the performance wasn't to bad even on games when it first came out compared to the hardware available at the time. This one is seriously underpowered, 1gb ram standard? Below average graphics chip......disapointed is a under-statement.

Again you missed the point made.
The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.

As Gowan said I know why you're out and proud and upset... the machine looks great and you really would like to have it in your dorm or room or living area. But it's just not upgradable and it's too slow and it now has a glossy screen... that's all good. But realize that you simply are barking up the wrong tree. Jobs is not selling to you. That doesn't make the iMac a bad buy as CNET has graciously given very high marks/words for it. The computer you need is one that can grow with your pastime. You need a tower that is modifiable in every way and there are plenty out there. Sure they're PCs but then most of the games you want to play are made for that OS. Buy a PC and enjoy your gaming.

Really please don't get all bent out of shape just buy a PC and play all the games you want.
For myself as soon as Leopard comes out glossy screen all it will be mine.
Oh one more thing read this thread in about a week and most of the whiners
bellyachers, moaners, snivellers will be gone.

 

[gregorsamsa]

I'm not at all surprised by the GAMING COMMUNITY coming out once again to talk down the iMac and the lackluster video card/processors/etc. that it is under the hood. They're here at every speedbump and reinvention of the iMac, but they simply don't get it:

The iMac is NOT FOR YOU.

And finally, please, realize that the iMac was not designed for your hobby in mind.

People need to know stuff like this. After all, when Steve Jobs invites big gaming companies like EA & ID to announce their commitment to gaming on the Mac, & Steve himself talks about new Macs being off the charts, some people are understandably going to expect new consumer Macs to be at least equipped with decent graphics cards, particularly in non-upgradable AIOs, & to be excellent for gaming.

I already have a Mac laptop, but I definitely won't be buying a new iMac. What's the point of having a non-upgradable desktop with laptop-technology, yet without the portability of a laptop? Where's the benefit in even thinner, lighter AIO's if it then limits the components that can be employed?

AFAIC, these new iMacs are a triumph of style over substance & so a bit of a disappointment. Yes, gamers would do well to avoid!

 

[mikef07]

I love all the "It is a flop" comments. A flop means it won't sell or isn't selling. This will be a hit. This will sell more than the previous one and Apple will gain market share which is all they care about. If you don't like it don't buy one.

I am so mad my Honda Accord V4 (iMac) did not come with a V6 (Mac Pro)engine. Other car makers (PC) are putting V8s in crs. What was Honda thinking? Oh If I did not want a V4 then I should not have bought one. What a brilliant idea. People are really dense.

Anyone want to complain how their $299 Wii can't play PS3 Blu Ray games and that the Wii should have put a better video processor in?

 

[WannaGoMac]

Well, GPU aside, it is ridiculous it doesn't come with 2gb standard for that price (1gb are like $30 now). I am actually quite surprised that Apple put in a single 1gb chip. In past most manufactureres would have cheaped out and put in 2x512mb chips and force consumer to throw them out to move to 2gb...

But what people should also complain about is Apple removing the remote magnet! lol Damn it, that was a nice feature, why the heck did they remove it?? Oh I know, to reduce the size by 1/4" haha

 

[RRK]

I am so mad my Honda Accord V4 (iMac) did not come with a V6 (Mac Pro)engine. Other car makers (PC) are putting V8s in crs. What was Honda thinking? Oh If I did not want a V4 then I should not have bought one. What a brilliant idea. People are really dense.

Does Honda really make a V4 engine? Plus I would have to say the Mac Pro is at least a 8 or 12-cylinder.

 

[Headrush69]

iMac not for you - coup out

To suggest that if you are a gamer the iMac is not for you is a coup out and a weak excuse for Apple.

Obviously for a hardcore gamer the iMac or any all-in-one unit from any PC maker will probably never be sufficient.

But most of us that have issues with the video chip are not hardcore gamers and for a minor $$$ increase a better solution could have been added.
(Some suggest the iMac is fine for MOST games, but several reputable sites show benchmarks that this video chip is actually worse in some tests with current games than the previous NVidia 7300 used in iMacs!)

So the same question remains: Why, when everything else about the iMac is fine, would they chose to segment this percentage of users over a minor increase in machine depth?

Can anyone who already has one maybe post your xbench and openmark graphic benchmarks?

(PS. People have to quite trying to compare Apple prices with custom built machines. First off they usually don't add all and the same features and they discount the cost of the OS and service to build it. Whether it be the iMac or Mac Pro, build a system with the same parts from say Dell and the prices are almost identical.)

Final comment: This probably won't stop from me buying one, but clearly this choice of video chip shows that form over function is still more important to Apple. I believe Apple is still living a bit on the uniqueness of the all-in-one design. (I have yet to see a PC done this well.)
At some point this will change and then Apple will have to focus more on function.

 

[soosy]

To suggest that if you are a gamer the iMac is not for you is a coup out and a weak excuse for Apple.

Obviously for a hardcore gamer the iMac or any all-in-one unit from any PC maker will probably never be sufficient.

But most of us that have issues with the video chip are not hardcore gamers and for a minor $$$ increase a better solution could have been added.

Agreed. Sorry folks, but the "It's not for you" argument is lame. We aren't hardcore gamers, we just want a general purpose machine that we may keep for a while that will at least start out with a decent video card.

From what we can see so far, the new iMac performs great except for this one area. I'm a "Pro" graphic designer thinking of upgrading my dual g5 powermac (that somehow has lasted me 3 years). The iMacs compare pretty well to the Mac Pro's all things considered.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/aluminum-and-glass-a-review-of-the-new-imac.ars/5

It's just that the video card definitely stands out as not being up to par to the rest of the machine.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Agreed. Sorry folks, but the "It's not for you" argument is lame. We aren't hardcore gamers, we just want a general purpose machine that we may keep for a while that will at least start out with a decent video card.

From what we can see so far, the new iMac performs great except for this one area. I'm a "Pro" graphic designer thinking of upgrading my dual g5 powermac (that somehow has lasted me 3 years). The iMacs compare pretty well to the Mac Pro's all things considered.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/aluminum-and-glass-a-review-of-the-new-imac.ars/5

It's just that the video card definitely stands out as not being up to par to the rest of the machine.

As a graphics designer, doesn't the sub-par GPU effect your work? I assume video editing is effected by the GPU as well?