2600 PRO or 8800GS? What to do?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by FlintAlt2, Jun 16, 2008.

  1. FlintAlt2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    #1
    Hi, Im about to buy an Imac to use photoshop/illustrator/pixelmator.

    Im wondering which is best? so far the 2600 still out runs the 8800 with core image and in apps. Im lost :(.

    I know the 8800GS is on paper a much better card so why is the 2600 still out performing it ?

    Thanks.

    p.s. so confused.
     
  2. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #2
    8800 will possibly surpass the 2600 in CoreImage and CoreVideo tasks, but unless you're gaming, it's not a worthwhile upgrade.
     
  3. anubis macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    #3
    With the OS X 10.5.3 upgrade, the 8800 is now much closer in performance to the 2600 on non-3d tasks, and continues to be much faster than the 2600 in 3d and gaming. As part of Apple's future focus on software and driver performance (a la Snow Leopard), the appropriate software framework will soon be in place to allow the full performance of the 8800 to be enjoyed in all tasks
     
  4. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #4
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

    That last bit is just speculation. Reasonable speculation, but speculation nonetheless. We really don't know what apple will do. That said, I would frt the 8800 unless cost is a big issue because it's nearly even with the 2600 since 10.5.3, and the 8800 has far more potential.
     
  5. bob vansteel macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    #5
    well actualy it isn't exactly....they already annouced opencl for snow leopard, which will tap into your GPU for lots of things other than image rendering...if you're running snow leopard....the 8800 will increase your overall system performance more than the 2600 ever could.
     
  6. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #6
    Get the ATI Radeon HD 2600 and save your money. You don't need the 8800GS if you don't play games on your iMac. Why spend more on something that you will never use to its full potential?
     
  7. Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Shropshire, UK
    #7
    I'd normally agree with this sentiment, but as others have said, it's likely that the 8800 will provide significant speed improvements in general tasks once Snow Leopard arrives due to OpenCL. Given that the iMac doesn't have a user-upgradable video card, I would (and did) get the 8800 now so I can reap the benefits down the line without replacing the whole machine.
     
  8. boxxy1987 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    #8
    I totally agree.

    I have just purchased my first imac and I have gone with the 8800. Mainly due to the fact that we all know that apple will iron out all the problems that the card is having at the moment with the core apps, and its safe to say that I have just purchased a computer that will run the latest games, unlike the 2600 which might struggle with the next gen games that are ebing released.
     
  9. D4F Guest

    D4F

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #9
    Forget the 2600. Don't jump into a all in one system with a card that is about to die as it's performance is maxed already.
    The 8800 has still room for improvement and many apps will use GPU soon so benefits are big.

    Don't listen to those that say you should go with the 2600. They say that cause they have one and they KNOW there is no way to upgrade it unless they buy new system.
     
  10. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #10
    I have to agree with D4F. If the 8800 were available at the time, I would have ordered it for my iMacs, even at twice the price. Mine are used mostly for gaming, however.
     
  11. godspeed macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    #11
    With the improvements in drivers when 10.5.3 was released I'd also have to agree. I'm over my pain, the 8800 is definitely the better card for my purposes and it has more scope to come.....
     
  12. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #12
    I reccomend the 8800 to anyone planning on doing 3D gaming, but this user does not intend to. If you have the money, though, why not spend the $150? I would if I were in your shoes.
     
  13. cloudnine macrumors 6502a

    cloudnine

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  14. D4F Guest

    D4F

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #14
    Not exactly. You're missing few aspects here.
    Next revision of Photoshop will use GPU that's the first so already by that he as a photoshop user should forget the 2600.
    There is a chance he will step up and seek for 3D software if he uses photoshop a lot. It's like a next step for most designers. In the 3D territory the 2600 gets destroyed by 8800.
    The 8800 is still in it's early stages and the 2600 is already maxed.

    And Jack. Stop posting that the 8800 is only good for gaming. You're missleading people.
    Any application that uses OpenGL will benefit from the 8800 a lot more than the 2600 and there's tons of those out there.
    Gaming is just one of the good sides of the 8800. Plenty more out there.
     
  15. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #15
    And the next version of Photoshop won't be 64-bit on the Mac so I wouldn't count on terrific GPU optimization. It is also highly presumptuous in my view to suggest he will venture into 3D modeling because he is a 2D designer.

    Also, it's presumptuous to suggest that the 8800 drivers will be refined further and that the 2600 has seen all the optimization it will.
     
  16. Dartholomew macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    #16
    There is a certain level of presumption going around on all sides of the argument, but considering the speed bump the 8800gs got in 10.5.3, it's a reasonable presumption to consider the implications of future improvements. The 8800GS's core image performance, all things being equal, *should* be able to exceed that of the 2600, to a degree somewhat relative to its advantage in OpenGL/gaming. Maybe it will never happen, but it sure looks like someone at Apple/Nvidia is paying attention.
     
  17. D4F Guest

    D4F

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #17
    First of all... What does 64bit got to do with GPU???

    And no matter how presumptuous is what I wrote it's still something that I consider as a possibility. Your choice leaves no room for improvement and keeps you stuck on the maxed 2600 lvl. If he changes his mind he's screwed basing on your suggestion because he can not upgrade his iMac. With mine he simply continues to work without any issues.

    There's nothing presumptuous (you love that word huh? ) in stating the 2600 has seen it all. It did. 10.5.3 did not improve it a bit while the 8800 got some nice kick.
    As for 8800... go and see it's benchmarks in Windows compared to 2600... It's all about optimization and the 8800 has still a long way to go.

    Again you are 2600 user so you will justify your move no matter what just don't force people into old crap. It's just wrong.
    I have them both so my opinions come from both environments and believe it or not... I count days till the new ATI starts shipping so I can burn the 2600 that I have in the Pro.
     
  18. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #18
    How presumptuous of you. I need not justify my purchase in an attempt to mislead another person. It seems from your post history you do have that complex, though.

    If the OP wants to spend $150 for the possiblity that CoreImage, what he uses, may be improved in OS X sometime in the future that's his perogative. If he were interested in gaming or 3D imaging, the 8800 would be a no-brainer reccomendation.
     
  19. D4F Guest

    D4F

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #19
    It's already on pair with 2600 so I see no 'possibility' here. It's a fact. Add other benefits and you have a no brainer.

    I have no complex. I have experience. Significant difference.
     
  20. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #20
    And I have reading comprehension.

    http://barefeats.com/imp04.html

    This shows the 8800 still slightly slower for what the OP wants to do.

    I need not justify my purchase; I check Facebook and play Warcraft III. My MacBook does these things admirably. Any dedicated GPU is serious overkill.

    If this OP does want to venture in to 3D gaming, I'd reccomend the 8800 GS. If he wants to go into 3D modeling I'd reccomend the 8800 GS. If he wants to do just what he has said he does, I reccomend the 2600 Pro.
     
  21. bob vansteel macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    #21
    the 8800! not only does CS4 use the graphics card for better performance, but the addition of OpenCL in snowleopard means that it will tap into your GPU for lots of things other than just rendering images...so if you get snowleopard, you will see an improvment to your entire system with the 8800, but not so much with the 2600.

    verdict: if you plan on getting anything Adobe CS4 or Snow Leopard...8800 all the way, but if not the 2600 is more than likley your best choice.
     
  22. D4F Guest

    D4F

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #22
    And I wouldn't argue if you would write like this but your first reply to this topic was:

    And that's my general point. 8800 is not only better for games :)
     
  23. Supercheesewiz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    #23
    I'm often surprised at how little speed people really need. I take 10 to 12 mega pixel photograph tiffs, and work with large 42inch by 100inch posters for work at a big design house and my refurbed 20" with 2600 with 3gigs of ram ($1200 + 50 for ram) handles it like a champ. It actually even faster than my dell precision 670 workstation that cost 50k (granted 2 years ago.)

    I understand the basic need to try to future proof your stuff, but I think it has much more to the "i'm faster than you are" effect at these levels. As for gaming, you'll get no arguments from me, except i'd rather put that money into an xbox or ps3 when they drop their prices in a few months.

    my 2 cents.
     
  24. D4F Guest

    D4F

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #24
    I just worked with a 288MB file on Fireworks at my mates 2.4 iMac with the 2600 and it handled it too... Wasn't too fast tho and working with 75 layers became a issue as wait times got user-not-friendly :D. Now what happens when they start using GPU? This thing will fly with files like this.
     
  25. slughead macrumors 68040

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #25
    I seriously doubt the next photoshop for mac will use OpenCL (or CUDA or whatever)

    For Windows, it may, but coding for GPUs is a pain at present and they probably wouldn't spend all that time on only 20% of their customers (fewer, when you consider most mac users have crap video cards).
     

Share This Page