Yes, the Mac Mini Pro !!
However, I think that something between a mini-tower and an SFF would be the most useful option.
Use desktop parts (cheaper) and an off-the-shelf x16 PCIe graphics card - and allow BTO options for the graphics.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac and Mac mini Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, the Mac Mini Pro !!
However, I think that something between a mini-tower and an SFF would be the most useful option.
Use desktop parts (cheaper) and an off-the-shelf x16 PCIe graphics card - and allow BTO options for the graphics.
I think you have a good idea here if for no other reason just to make all the bellyacher's, whiners, protesters happy even if it would be until the next graphics card update. Then here we go again on the never slowing down merry-go-round.
What part of "off-the-shelf graphics card" didn't you understand?
Why should you need to wait for The Lord God Jobs to bless a card?
What part of "off-the-shelf graphics card" didn't you understand?
Why should you need to wait for The Lord God Jobs to bless a card?
If you call it a mac anything I think The Lord God Jobs would like to have a hand in putting it together.
You obviously didn't bother to really look at the results of the new tests.
Yes, benchmarks in Windows was all around faster, but that wasn't the point nor the "realization" of the tests.
What it shows is there is a much smaller relative gap between the cards in OS X. Consider the 1920x1200 Quake 4 tests. In OS X the 7600 is over twice as fast, whereas in Windows the difference is only 30%.
In Windows the drivers are still less mature then the 7600, these tests suggest that with further improved gpu drivers the 2600 could close the gap even more. Who knows, it could start winning even more tests as time passes.
And while people can be annoyed there is no BTO option, it's nice to see the Stock gpu is closer to the previous BTO option then people initially thought.
The facts do not refute your conjecture.
However, there may be architectural or other issues that the drivers can't overcome.
We'll only know if your guess is right when better drivers show up....
Yeah boo hoo indeed, because i shouldnt be disapointed if my BRAND NEW RELEASED LAST WEEK £1400 iMac can only play games with the detail cranked down @ 1024x768 on a 24" display..... im sure thats going to look pretty.
The iMac does have an impressive spec considering... but if you pop along to "Dell" you can get an equally impressive spec, for less.
I despiratly want a mac, but i cant afford to buy a gaming PC too, and im looking forward to some upcoming games, such as Starcraft2.... the 2600 PRO is going to look like a joke by the time that arrives. I noted EA have "Battlefield 2142" slated for release on Mac. So... lets see how that performs on the 2600 PRO under Windows....
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/radeon_hd_2600_performance_preview/page5.asp
Can i cry now? I think i have a right to be disapointed, Steve Jobs goes up and talks about Apples new dedication to games coming to the mac, and EA and ID showing their stuff... then their new iMacs arrive with the 2600pro....
I find it so funny that Doom III is the test platform. Who plays Doom III anymore anyway!? lol
I guess when you got slow hardware you gotta test with "old games"
Games based on the Doom3 (id Tech 4) engine are
widely used for benchmarking even for top end PC
equipment. Go and google for 8800GTX (or Ultra)
benchmarks and you'll see what I mean.
Cheers.
I guess you could, but that would be silly.
Those benchmarks show decent framerates at high resolution with 4xAA and 8xAF, turning that off should cause those rates to JUMP considerably.
Oh, and the iMac is actually an XT. Although I'm not sure if it performs on the level of the Pro. I could probably be "overclocked" to stock specs, though.
So those benchmarks you posted show you get playable rates on a new game at high resolution - from a stock general-consumer (not Pro/Gamer) Apple system. That's pretty nice. Thanks for the info.
Hi, I'm a Mac
And I'm a PC
Hey, PC, what are you doing?
Playing a game...
Cool. Can I play?
No
Nomination for post of the year!
Haoshiro, I'm trying to maintain a positive attitude regarding gaming on my new 20" iMac, but the more games I load up and play, the more disappointed I'm becoming.
Halo played well enough, but pretty much everthing else I'm throwing at it is choking under the pressure. I have a three-year-old version of Battlefield 1942, and it's just not a pleasant experience with the new iMac. Bad graphics and a lot of stuttering.
I've gone from being disappointed at the specs pre-purchase, to mildly pleased that it would at least run Halo, back to disappointment as I discover that my new $1200 iMac is having a hard time dealing with three- and four-year-old games.
I've installed and run four games now, mostly FPS's from 2004-2005, and they pretty much suck on the new iMac.
Bottom line: the 20" iMac with the Radeon 2400 graphics card is just a small step up from my old Mini G4.
Anyone thinking of buying an iMac needs to consider the fact that gaming really is going to suck on this platform after all. I wanted to be positive and up-beat and give the iMac the benefit of the doubt, but the more games I load up and play, the more I can see that the iMac not only is not for hard-core gamers, it isn't for gamers at all.
I still love the computer, though. It's the best machine I've ever had for overall performance and appearance and all-around fun. It's a HUGE step up from the G4 Mini for overall use. It just sucks at running games.
But hey, I have my Wii and I'll get around to picking up an Xbox, so I'm not going to complain. The iMac is great for what it is, but as I've discovered, it's just not a gaming machine at all.
Halo played well enough, but pretty much everthing else I'm throwing at it is choking under the pressure. I have a three-year-old version of Battlefield 1942, and it's just not a pleasant experience with the new iMac. Bad graphics and a lot of stuttering.
I've gone from being disappointed at the specs pre-purchase, to mildly pleased that it would at least run Halo, back to disappointment as I discover that my new $1200 iMac is having a hard time dealing with three- and four-year-old games.
I've installed and run four games now, mostly FPS's from 2004-2005, and they pretty much suck on the new iMac.
Bottom line: the 20" iMac with the Radeon 2400 graphics card is just a small step up from my old Mini G4.
Anyone thinking of buying an iMac needs to consider the fact that gaming really is going to suck on this platform after all. I wanted to be positive and up-beat and give the iMac the benefit of the doubt, but the more games I load up and play, the more I can see that the iMac not only is not for hard-core gamers, it isn't for gamers at all.
I still love the computer, though. It's the best machine I've ever had for overall performance and appearance and all-around fun. It's a HUGE step up from the G4 Mini for overall use. It just sucks at running games.
But hey, I have my Wii and I'll get around to picking up an Xbox, so I'm not going to complain. The iMac is great for what it is, but as I've discovered, it's just not a gaming machine at all.
Thanks for sharing your firsthand experiences, as it is very hard to argue with this kind of proof. I hope your post will give future potential iMac buyers something to consider if they are wishing to play games on their new iMac. I am not a gamer but if I was one then this type of feedback would definitely give me pause.
It's really an unfortunate situation all and all. One I hope Apple addresses with the next iMac revision.
I really don't subscribe to this point of view. Graphic design houses still use the iMac extensively (and will with this current gen as well). The iMac isn't meant to be a super powerful machine, but it certainly is "upper middle class" in terms of its drive/memory options, CPU, etc... The video card is really the only thing that's not "flagship" in essence. I believe Apple dropped the ball with the video card simply because it was a cheaper, low-heat option that allowed for Apple to create a thinner body. The Mac Mini and Macbook remain the "cute, family friendly" machine (as well as the low end iMac). I believe the new prod lab at my university (Media Arts Dept.) is refreshing Lab3 with new Mac Pros and iMacs (the new iMac). If you need raw power, the Mac Pro is the obvious choice, but passing iMac off as a simple family PC is not accurate in the least.
Yep, no doubt. I'm just reporting the facts as I experience them.
It's still a $1,200 computer that chokes on old video games. The iMac was worth $1,200 to me and I have no regrets. I wish it would play games half decently, but it doesn't, so I'll focus my gaming on other excellent choices out there.
Yeah, there is no doubt the 2400 was a bad choice for virtually any games (though you shoud be able to play UT2K4 with mid-settings just fine).
The 2400 has horrible sing-channel 64-bit memory compared to the 4-channel 128-bit memory of the 2600.
I've only been talking about the 2600.
To the person who mentioned the 24" having the "Pro", did you check under Windows using the ATI Control Center? That will tell you what the hardware is.
Well, first, I completely understand your point. I don't think I communicated mine effectively. I've been in the design industry now for ten years, and I know plenty of designers and IT people who use iMacs and MacMinis of every generation. However, I do believe that it was Apple's original intention to put out what amounted to a family PC. When I was in college, I had a design professor who used a 1st Gen iMac, but the students' lab was stocked with PowerMacs, so I was able to use both. I think that the benchmarks and user reviews of the new iMac show that it's going back to Apple's (not the user's) original goal, as stated in my previous post.
Obviously people are underestimating the demands of Crysis.
Was I the only one who bought their last game? It took a couple years before a mid-range card could play that well on decent settings.
You're talking a game that plenty of purpose-built gaming rigs will have trouble with!
Are people really so unrealistic? Was I like this before I switched? *shudder*
Obviously people are underestimating the demands of Crysis.
Was I the only one who bought their last game? It took a couple years before a mid-range card could play that well on decent settings.
You're talking a game that plenty of purpose-built gaming rigs will have trouble with!
Are people really so unrealistic? Was I like this before I switched? *shudder*
Not sure if you are saying you wish the iMacs were faster, or you don't care about gaming?
Crysis will be playable on lower cards...
Graphics: Nvidia 7800 or ATI X1800 (SM 3.0)
http://www.crysis-online.com/Information/System%20Requirements/
Although Apple promotes it as the Pro, independent evidence points to it being a slightly underclocked Mobility XT:The 24" has the PRO.
1. There is no Mobility 2400 Pro.
2. In Windows, the card is identified as the Mobility 2400 XT.
3. The part number on the chip matches that of the Mobility 2400 XT.
Why would Apple call it a 2400 Pro instead of an "underclocked Mobility 2400 XT"? Well, if you were Average Joe and just knew you wanted an affordable computer for general use, would you buy one that promoted its graphics chip as "underclocked"? Which graphics card description would sound better to you? Because the graphics card has specs that exceed those of the 2400 Pro, Apple won't face legal repercussions for misrepresenting the specs of the iMac.
Now, enthusiasts, of course, know that any flavor of the 2400 sucks, so they won't be buying the iMac, but they aren't in the market for an all-in-one anyway, since they will always want the ability to upgrade their machines.
So, why would Apple use such a lousy graphics chip in the iMac?
1. Compact size.
2. Low heat signature inside a case with very limited heat exchanging ability.
3. Less cooling = less fan noise.
4. HD Video encoding to offload this from the CPU.
5. Maybe Apple knows something about the future of DX10 that it's not yet sharing with us.