Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Do I need/want NVIDIA 8800 video

just max it all out except ram, wait a year then max ram out, reason is after a year or so they start to slow, adding more ram gives the Pc a boost, making it feel new.

Also, the 8800 was found to be a desktop 8800GTS wasn't it? Which is a $400 card
 
I'm in the same boat, getting a 2.8 iMac and deciding between the 2600 and 8800. I don't play games on PC's anymore though, I have a 360 for that. Seems obvious right? No games = no need for the 8800. Well....

A few years ago when I got my 15" 1.5GHz Powerbook G4, I decided to just stick with the 64mb 9700 instead of upgrading to the 128mb 9700. Now in leopard things don't run nearly as smooth, like animations and videos. I don't want my new machine run into that 3 years from now.

Is there any advantage in the coming years to have the 8800 over the 2600? Not game-wise, but operating system performance and day to day use?
 
what does the wife say?

If you put the question to her, I'm sure she'll have an opinion on whether her ability to play a game or two two years down the line is worth $150.
 
mikethemovie said:
Tell us what kind of games your wifie plays!!
Depending on that you can choose..

:)
Click to expand...

Don't know what games for sure. She has been out of the high-end game market for some time so I don't know what's out there. A few years back she played Tomb Raider & Quake. I just know that when I get her the new iMac she'll want some of the newest games.

I guess I just don't want to spend almost 2 grand on a computer then afterward find out it won't run something. The video is the only worry. I don't care about the 200Mhz CPU (seems no biggie) and the 320GB hard drive is fine because I'll end up with an external HD for time machine anyway.
 
There is no question that the GPU is becoming more and more important with general computer usage. OS X has been using it to accelerate the UI for awhile now. I am just thinking $150 is a good investment for more than double the performance.

-mx
 
We haven't confirmed yet if she plays intensive 3D games yet, have we?

If your wife isn't a huge FPS gamer, it may not really be an issue. If all she wants to do is run some fun little games, and maybe play a little World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy XI, there's no need to worry about a super powerful graphics card.

But you already ordered it, right? So it doesn't matter now...
 
The real facts of this situation are that the upgrade is $150, and the machine needs to last at least three years.

$150 / 156 weeks = $0.96 a week.

Is less than a dollar a week worth knowing you got the best possible videocard available at the time?
 
Jack Flash said:
The real facts of this situation are that the upgrade is $150, and the machine needs to last at least three years.

$150 / 156 weeks = $0.96 a week.

Is less than a dollar a week worth knowing you got the best possible videocard available at the time?
Click to expand...

A better question is:

Is less than a dollar a week worth knowing you got the videocard with the greatest processing power available at the time? :p

There is nothing "bad" about the HD 2600 XT for my uses nor do I expect anything to change that opinion in the next 2 years I use my iMac. For those buying iMacs now it is also $150 less which sort of muddies your "best" classification. I'd have a hard decision if I was in that boat.

For the 10,000th time it's all about the needs of the purchaser. I don't think it's a prudent practice to just pay extra for something you might not ever need or take notice of.
 
The ATI Radeon X2600 is utter junk for anyone who wants to use their GPU for 3D rendering of ANY form. It is so incredibly behind the times and Apple should throw in a T-Shirt with every new iMac - "I spent over $1000 on a new computer and all I got was this lousy video card".

Go with the nVidia card without question! I really wish I had held on just a little bit longer before buying my iMac.
 
mikethemovie said:
I would get a windows gaming rig..
For 2K you have one hell of a machine you know.. :D
Click to expand...

Sorry....... You could'nt give me a windows machine. I've been a Mac man since the early days. I detest windows and all thier problems. I user ro own a computer store for 15 years and all we did was try to fix windows machines. Meanwhile I just kept running my trusty ol' Mac.
Windows.......I want no prt of it!
 
SaSaSushi said:
There is nothing "bad" about the HD 2600 XT for my uses nor do I expect anything to change that opinion in the next 2 years I use my iMac. For those buying iMacs now it is also $150 less which sort of muddies your "best" classification. I'd have a hard decision if I was in that boat.
Click to expand...

Again, the 8800 GS is much faster for 3D games. It's not even worth questioning whether it is worth the $0.96 a week.
 
neiltc13 said:
The ATI Radeon X2600 is utter junk for anyone who wants to use their GPU for 3D rendering of ANY form. It is so incredibly behind the times and Apple should throw in a T-Shirt with every new iMac - "I spent over $1000 on a new computer and all I got was this lousy video card".
Click to expand...

If you hate it so much then sell it and stop whining. Your signature is even annoying. Make yourself happy already. :p

The card has been nothing but great for me. It plays the games I use it for smoothly and at very decent graphic settings.

Go with the nVidia card without question! I really wish I had held on just a little bit longer before buying my iMac.
Click to expand...

I gotta say, I wish you had held on too.

Oh, and no one tell Neil that the nVidia still underperforms the ATI in Core Image apps by 22% (and has for several months since it was introduced in the Mac Pro version). We wouldn't burst his perfect ATI-hating bubble. :)
 
SaSaSushi said:
If gaming is your single important criterion. ;)
Click to expand...

It obviously is the biggest consideration with this computer.

Her main activities are web surfing and game playing with minor photo editing. The computer needs to perform these tasks as best as possible for the longest time possible.

The 8800 GS is the clear choice.
 
Jack Flash said:
It obviously is the biggest consideration with this computer.

Her main activities are web surfing and game playing with minor photo editing. The computer needs to perform these tasks as best as possible for the longest time possible.

The 8800 GS is the clear choice.
Click to expand...

You skipped over the little part where he said

She is not a "hardcore" gamer. I just don't want to find that she wants a game that will NOT run because I didn't get the fastest graphics.
Click to expand...
The nVidia may be the card that the OP eventually ends up going with and that's just fine. But considering his needs the HD 2600 and it's $150 savings might be fine as well.

My main problem with you is your habit of passing off your own subjective opinions as definitive gospel. Being "best" and a "clear choice" for you does not automatically make it so for everyone else in the world (or even these forums).
 
Jack Flash said:
The 8800 GS is twice as fast for games.

Your wife plays games and this machine needs to last as long as possible.

It is a no brainer.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

The 8800GS is twice as fast for 3D games. So, for example, it'll run 120fps vs 60fps with the ATI, for 3D game. Are you telling me that you can see a difference between 120fps and 60fps?

The ATI is also up to 40% faster for applications (including Finder) that use Core Image.

So, a small number of games will play better, but a larger number of applications will run slower, all for an extra $150. :confused:
 
Don't mess with the wifey

I guess I just don't want to spend almost 2 grand on a computer then afterward find out it won't run something. The video is the only worry. I don't care about the 200Mhz CPU (seems no biggie) and the 320GB hard drive is fine because I'll end up with an external HD for time machine anyway.
Click to expand...

If the video card is the only worry, get the 8800 - the wife will appreciate the machine three years down the road, and so will you.
 
I'd always recommend upgrading the graphics card. Unlike the CPU, the graphics card normally isn't replaceable. Even if it is on a daughter card, replacements may be hard to source.

In this situation, its even clearer. The 2600 is pathetic. Its gonna change to being worthless, it already is.
My mate can't max out cod4 on his 24". Even quake 4 occasionally stutters. Crysis is well within the med-low category.
Sure they all will 'run', but whats the point in getting a new computer if its struggling to run current games?

Having said all that, most people using the imac probably won't be gamers. But still, if you buy a sportscar, you expect it to be fast, not just expensive.
 
booksacool1 said:
My mate can't max out cod4 on his 24". Even quake 4 occasionally stutters. Crysis is well within the med-low category.
Sure they all will 'run', but whats the point in getting a new computer if its struggling to run current games?
Click to expand...

Even the 8800 will struggle to 'max out' modern games on the 24" display. It has a native resolution of 1920x1200, which is a huge amount to ask a GPU to render tens of times per second. I remember when I was happy gaming at 800x600 :D
 
SaSaSushi said:
My main problem with you is your habit of passing off your own subjective opinions as definitive gospel. Being "best" and a "clear choice" for you does not automatically make it so for everyone else in the world (or even these forums).
Click to expand...

My main problem with you is that you fail to look at the criteria the OP has stated.

The OP has stated that when the iMac is purchased, his wife will "want some of the latest games."

If she wants the "latest games" now why wouldn't she want the latest games three years from now? The woman is not playing Bejeweled! When a component cannot be upgraded, consideration has to be made for the future.

With the information from this thread and benchmark test information from Barefeats, I can safely say the 8880 is much faster for 3D gaming and greatly preferable in this particular situation. In three years the 8800 will still be twice as fast as the 2600 Pro; in three years the "latest games" will be even more demanding and since those are the type the wife plays, she wants the best GPU possible.
 
booksacool1 said:
Having said all that, most people using the imac probably won't be gamers. But still, if you buy a sportscar, you expect it to be fast, not just expensive.
Click to expand...

I love how you publicly air this inner debate of yours.

If getting 120fps in Quake4 in Bootcamp as opposed to 60fps is absolutely meaningless to you and makes not one tiny difference in your life why would you spend an extra $150 for the privilege?

This post, like so many others in its vein, also fails to address the Core Image deficiencies of the nVidia 8800M GTS in comparison to the "pathetic" ATi card. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back