24" iMac -- Why the 7300GT?

vv-tim

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 24, 2006
366
0
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.
 

BlizzardBomb

macrumors 68030
Jun 15, 2005
2,537
0
England
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.
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

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 24, 2006
366
0
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.
 

BlizzardBomb

macrumors 68030
Jun 15, 2005
2,537
0
England
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.
It's Merom. Merom has the 667 MHz FSB.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
amin said:
The clock speeds and RAM they are using correspond to Merom. Definitely Merom.
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.
 

milozauckerman

macrumors 6502
Jun 25, 2005
477
0
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...)
 

mmmcheese

macrumors 6502a
Feb 17, 2006
948
0
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.
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.
 

vv-tim

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 24, 2006
366
0
mmmcheese said:
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.
Well, I'm referring to their decision to use a 7300GT instead of the X1600 as the default card...
 

Chone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2006
1,223
0
Sesshi said:
Maybe it's an Intel thing, what with the recent AMD merger.
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.
 

brianus

macrumors 6502
Jun 17, 2005
391
0
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.
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??
 

Silentwave

macrumors 68000
May 26, 2006
1,584
0
Gainesville, FL
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??
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.
 

Flyinace2000

macrumors 6502a
Sep 28, 2004
664
0
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.
2 options:

1. You made up that third paragraph

or

2. Your really know you intel roadmaps.
 

Silentwave

macrumors 68000
May 26, 2006
1,584
0
Gainesville, FL
Flyinace2000 said:
2 options:

1. You made up that third paragraph

or

2. Your really know you intel roadmaps.
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!
 

milozauckerman

macrumors 6502
Jun 25, 2005
477
0
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.
 

Spanky Deluxe

macrumors 601
Mar 17, 2005
4,856
387
London, UK
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.
 

Lord Blackadder

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,618
2,652
Sod off
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.
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.
 

Fuzzy Orange

macrumors 6502
Jul 29, 2006
263
0
I guess I don't get why people are complaining about the 7300.:confused: 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.
 

suneohair

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2006
2,137
0
Fuzzy Orange said:
I guess I don't get why people are complaining about the 7300.:confused: 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.
The Intel switch brought whiny gamers over to the Mac side. That is why people are complaining. No offense to the veteran whiners.
 

sigamy

macrumors 65816
Mar 7, 2003
1,299
2
NJ USA
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.
You have a link? I couldn't find this at Ars...this could be the scoop of the century.
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
Fuzzy Orange said:
I guess I don't get why people are complaining about the 7300.:confused: 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.

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.