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.
New iMac G5 Announced
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Thought I'd try to take the thread away from the Video Card being crap issue.
On another forum some Windows user was saying that you could get a 64 bit PC much cheaper tahn the iMac, so I thought I'd check it out.
Here are my results (this is based on UK prices - it would be interesting for a US comparison if someone wants to do one.)
So for the entry level UK iMac with Combo Drive, 17" display and 256MB ram etc. = £919 free delivery.
I went for a independent online store as I find the Dell site sucks ass for configuring a pc - too many options at the beginning.
AMD Athlon 64bit 2800
80 GB SATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive
256MB 2700 DDR Ram
128MB Geforce 4 MX-4000
56k Modem
Audigy OEM 6.1 Sound
17" 4:3 TFT monitor
OEM Speakers with Sub
Matching Keyboard and Mouse (Black)
Microsoft Works
TOTAL = £893.04 plus delivery.
Now that sounds like quite a good deal to me, but then I think well it's not gonna look as good (it's not all in one - the case and keyboard is black, no picture of the monitor).
Works is okay software for the home, especially Word.
But what about good, hell great, photo and movie software - at best I'm gonna get a demo version bundled with the PC combo drive.
Then I also think about reliability and I can see how the iMac is really a good deal.
On another forum some Windows user was saying that you could get a 64 bit PC much cheaper tahn the iMac, so I thought I'd check it out.
Here are my results (this is based on UK prices - it would be interesting for a US comparison if someone wants to do one.)
So for the entry level UK iMac with Combo Drive, 17" display and 256MB ram etc. = £919 free delivery.
I went for a independent online store as I find the Dell site sucks ass for configuring a pc - too many options at the beginning.
AMD Athlon 64bit 2800
80 GB SATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive
256MB 2700 DDR Ram
128MB Geforce 4 MX-4000
56k Modem
Audigy OEM 6.1 Sound
17" 4:3 TFT monitor
OEM Speakers with Sub
Matching Keyboard and Mouse (Black)
Microsoft Works
TOTAL = £893.04 plus delivery.
Now that sounds like quite a good deal to me, but then I think well it's not gonna look as good (it's not all in one - the case and keyboard is black, no picture of the monitor).
Works is okay software for the home, especially Word.
But what about good, hell great, photo and movie software - at best I'm gonna get a demo version bundled with the PC combo drive.
Then I also think about reliability and I can see how the iMac is really a good deal.
DWKlink said:
They need to really rework this to fit for a 30 and 60 second spot for TV. Very powerful as someone else said.
Watching the video, I do wish that Apple had BT built-in and bundled it with the BT keyboard and mouse.
oingoboingo said:
I may be wrong, but i think that movies are shown at a rate of 24fps. Not being a gamer, I can't see any real reason for something faster. Could someone enlighten me?
That was me a few pages back. I don't know the details either, but it seems obvious that the card is custom for the iMac - there's simply no way to fit a PCI card in the iMac and have the VGA port on the back go where it does. You must have a custom card where an internal cable runs to the built-in screen and a port that runs another internal cable to the port header on the back side of the iMac.alexf said:
I would think that the reason that there are no other options is because it doesn't make financial sense to design and produce two custom cards. The demand for the advanced card wouldn't justify the expense of creating it.
But the fact it's not on the user serviceable list kinda bothers me. The Power Supply IS listed even though there's obviously no upgrade path for that item. You'd think that the video card would be listed if you could remove it.
You know, Apple may have built the motherboard with an integrated GPU like many PC motherboards have. That might mean there's no chance to up the VRAM either.
[EDIT]
I should have kept reading. Dekator already confirmed that the GPU is integrated into the motherboard. I assume this means the VRAM is not expandable.
[/EDIT]
Yvan256 said:
I don't want to repeat people, ...but I'll do it anyway
Yvan256 says it right.
All you guys who think the iMac should be for emailing, surfing, and even a little bit of Photoshop ...
My old Snowy 600 does all that to!! Really!! ...even all this tasks together.
...Why upgrade then?? That saves me 2000.
The prob is ...is doesn't play that 'new' game or run Motion.
...and that also will be the problem for the iMacG5 I guess.
Chip NoVaMac said:
Motion blurr is the reason. Human can only see at around that speed but we can detect motion in the forum of a blur to our eyes. Games dont have motion blur so it takes a hire fram rate to get our eyes to get the elution of motion and not jumping.
For most including me 25-30fps is fine but this graphic card not going to even be able to supply that with out running close to low quaitly across the borad at the more modern games.
As for people saying this computer is for internet word and basic stuff so that all it needs can you answer me this then?
Why would people want to buy the new iMac over an Emac that can do all those taste really well. It can do photoshop and final cut exrpess. So why would they want to buy an iMac if the emac can do it all.
blur + "average rate"
Right - if something is moving quickly in the 24fps motion picture, the individual frames will show blur around the moving objects.
On the video game, each object is crisp, so it seems to move erratically - it doesn't have the fuzziness to help with the illusion of motion.
____________
Another very important factor is that most game benchmarks run through a standard sequence of scenes (that is, a known sequence of frames), and then print the average rate in fps as the score.
The rate is not constant, however. Even if a card get "60 fps" on average, it might dip a lot below 20 fps on complex scenes.
So, these two factors mean a card that gets 100 fps will play more smoothly than a card that gets 50 fps - even though 24 fps is good enough for a movie.
Timelessblur said:
Right - if something is moving quickly in the 24fps motion picture, the individual frames will show blur around the moving objects.
On the video game, each object is crisp, so it seems to move erratically - it doesn't have the fuzziness to help with the illusion of motion.
____________
Another very important factor is that most game benchmarks run through a standard sequence of scenes (that is, a known sequence of frames), and then print the average rate in fps as the score.
The rate is not constant, however. Even if a card get "60 fps" on average, it might dip a lot below 20 fps on complex scenes.
So, these two factors mean a card that gets 100 fps will play more smoothly than a card that gets 50 fps - even though 24 fps is good enough for a movie.
*sigh*
The 5200 Ultra in these graphs is a 128mb, adjust the scores in your head accordingly (the imac's has 64mb). It is mentioned in the graphs as "GF FX 5200 U":
I love how nay-sayers are painted as "whiners" by those who think Apple can do no wrong.
I think the general consensus is that Apple should've at least OFFERED something better (of which there are many choices, as the chart indicates).
I wonder if it had to do with the 9600XT problems with the G5..
Regardless, people are using Apple's fake benchmarks again with a crappy and vague comparison chart which was probably just as distorted as the charts we saw of the G4 being twice as fast as a pentium 4 3ghz.
They most obviously used the slowest G4 and the fastest G5 to compare them, in addition to everything else.
Let me point this out: when you're talking about 10-15FPS coming from a G4 iMac, 200% of that is 20-30FPS.
Why else did they use percentages?
The argument "the human eye can't see the extra frames, blah blah" is totally bunk and has been De-bunked by numerous studies. The more frames you have, the better the motion blur between the eye's "snapshots". You CAN see during the blur, and use it to kill or position yourself to kill.
In addition, 40FPS in benchmarks usually mean "lag spikes" to 10-20FPS in game.
All the games I mentioned are games out for mac or mods for games out for mac. People are nitpicking my posts trying to find one hint of misrepresentation, but the facts remain the same: the 5200 U 64MB has BIG problems with some games from 2002, 2003, and obviously 2004. Most of those games weren't even the "Doom 3's" of their day. In fact, I don't believe I mentioned a game aside from Doom3 which had outrageous system requirements.
I said it before and I'll say it again: If this computer has problems playing some games from 2002, imagine the problems during the 3+ years you own this computer. What will the games be like in 2005? 2006? 2007? Could they run on a cheap video card designed for games from 3-5 years before?
The 5200 Ultra in these graphs is a 128mb, adjust the scores in your head accordingly (the imac's has 64mb). It is mentioned in the graphs as "GF FX 5200 U":
I love how nay-sayers are painted as "whiners" by those who think Apple can do no wrong.
I think the general consensus is that Apple should've at least OFFERED something better (of which there are many choices, as the chart indicates).
I wonder if it had to do with the 9600XT problems with the G5..
Regardless, people are using Apple's fake benchmarks again with a crappy and vague comparison chart which was probably just as distorted as the charts we saw of the G4 being twice as fast as a pentium 4 3ghz.
They most obviously used the slowest G4 and the fastest G5 to compare them, in addition to everything else.
Let me point this out: when you're talking about 10-15FPS coming from a G4 iMac, 200% of that is 20-30FPS.
Why else did they use percentages?
The argument "the human eye can't see the extra frames, blah blah" is totally bunk and has been De-bunked by numerous studies. The more frames you have, the better the motion blur between the eye's "snapshots". You CAN see during the blur, and use it to kill or position yourself to kill.
In addition, 40FPS in benchmarks usually mean "lag spikes" to 10-20FPS in game.
All the games I mentioned are games out for mac or mods for games out for mac. People are nitpicking my posts trying to find one hint of misrepresentation, but the facts remain the same: the 5200 U 64MB has BIG problems with some games from 2002, 2003, and obviously 2004. Most of those games weren't even the "Doom 3's" of their day. In fact, I don't believe I mentioned a game aside from Doom3 which had outrageous system requirements.
I said it before and I'll say it again: If this computer has problems playing some games from 2002, imagine the problems during the 3+ years you own this computer. What will the games be like in 2005? 2006? 2007? Could they run on a cheap video card designed for games from 3-5 years before?
sushi said:
Agreed, but FW800 is the future - as such it should have had such a port IMO.
It is my opinion that the iMac should be the "bridge computer" for the rest of us. If this had been the "new" eMac, then no complaints.
Good point. They have one option on the 12" and another on the 15" and 17" PowerBook models. It would have been nice to see a better card on the 20" iMac. You can also get 128MB of VRAM on the PowerBooks as an option. I don't think you install additional VRAM later on though.dili said:
It still comes down to saving money though, right? I wouldn't be suprised to find out that the motherboard is exactly the same between the 17" and 20", setup to suport two different CPU speeds. In the PowerBooks, the logic boards are different between the models. Does anyone know if the 15" and 17" share a motherboard design?
Also, is the GPU integrated onto the motherboard in the PowerBook or is it a daughtercard?
alexf said:
You are both right and wrong.
Right in that the iMac is a consumer computer. Wrong, in that consumers are spec driven (by my experience in the digital photo sector). For many consumers it is all about the numbers. They never make it past the web or a brochure, they only see the numbers. Not what the numbers truly mean for their use. In some ways look at the horsepower issue for cars. Does the average driver need 200+ HP to get to their job in?
foolerytom said:
Pretty sad that the interface does not recognize the differences. Edmunds on cars does.
slughead said:
Funny how the mac version of Halo spanks the PC version on FPS in the 'budget' cards, isn't it? The 1.8 G5 RevA single with a 64MB GeforceFX 5200 rates 41.1 FPS at the same resolution as your chart. The single 1.6 with the same card gets 38.5 FPS, and the 1.8 dualie gets 43.1 FPS. Oh, and the 12" 1.0ghz PowerBook with a "wimpy" GeForce 5200 Go 32MB makes 22.2 FPS.
Odd that. It's as if using different version of the program on different hardware might... give different... results...
But that can't be!
I love how PC trolls think they know everything.
Halo Shootout Between A Lone PC and Many Macs
Apple iMac G5 processor benchmark
A PowerBook from two generations ago gets 22.2 FPS. Way to do your research.
Source. I'd love to read these 'studies,' given that neuroscience is a part of the pre-clinical program I'm in.
You have yet to show it will have any problems playing games from today. It's hard to move on from that until you do.
daveg5 said:
The iMac G4 and iMac G5 20" monitor stats are exactly the same (although neither mentioned the response time or pixel pitch). Both are inferior to the standalone 20" display which is a little disappointing. It would be great to know what the response time / pixel pitch are on the iMacs ... after all it's probably the biggest and most expensive component of the iMac and yet we're not told what it's specs are.... which are so vital in LCD displays. So if anyone out there has been able to find those.... please post.
Mencius said:
Oh yeah -- and there's so much you can do on Linux with a kick-ass graphics card! Think of all the games!
I'm pretty sure that Apple couldn't have offered better graphics cards from ATI on the iMac G5 even if it had wanted to. The reason is simple: The GeForce FX5200 series is offered as a chipset that can be integrated on the motherboard. The ATI Radeon series is not. Arguably, Apple could have offered something from the Mobility Radeon series, but it chose not to. At any rate, offering Radeon cards in the iMac would have required an AGP slot, which I suspect was not feasible from an engineering standpoint.
That said, Apple could have offered the FX5600/5700/5900 chipsets as BTO options since they also can be soldered onto the motherboard.
That said, Apple could have offered the FX5600/5700/5900 chipsets as BTO options since they also can be soldered onto the motherboard.
gotmac1 said:
I may g=have missed it is the multitude of posts. Could you provide the link. I have not seen anything on the Apple Support site....
OT: Video Game frame rates
So what is the optimum frame rate for video games. I know the faster the better argument. But what about real world?
AidenShaw said:
So what is the optimum frame rate for video games. I know the faster the better argument. But what about real world?
thatwendigo said:Funny how the mac version of Halo spanks the PC version on FPS in the 'budget' cards, isn't it? The 1.8 G5 RevA single with a 64MB GeforceFX 5200 rates 41.1 FPS at the same resolution as your chart. The single 1.6 with the same card gets 38.5 FPS, and the 1.8 dualie gets 43.1 FPS. Oh, and the 12" 1.0ghz PowerBook with a "wimpy" GeForce 5200 Go 32MB makes 22.2 FPS.
Odd that. It's as if using different version of the program on different hardware might... give different... results...
But that can't be!
So.. you're saying that benchmarks playing the same game on the same processor on the same motherboard won't compare the cards at least roughly the same way?
Sure, maybe the 5200 will go up the list, but your link tells us *nothing* about your so-called Mac-bargain-card advantage. Where is your source, sir?
I put up the charts to compare the 5200 to other cards, not to compare the PC and mac version. Are you denying that these charts are applicable for that purpose? Erase the numbers and just look at the bar comparisons if you have to, the 5200 is not nearly as good as you're making it out to be.
thatwendigo said:
I didn't insult you, I said somebody was calling me a whiner (or at least, some people were).. you respond by insulting me again? who's the troll?
Wait a minute, I'm writing this on a mac, how am I a PC troll? because I know that the 5200 is crap? because my brother used a FX 5200 U 128MB on a PC for nearly a year? because I know it can't run farcry or UT04 on reasonable settings without chunking uncontrollably? because I noticed that the card included with the iMac is even SLOWER than the one I had already decided was crap?
thatwendigo said:
I was using arbitrary numbers there, genius. And besides, what does this mean? "when you're talking about 10-15FPS coming from a G4 iMac, 200% of that is 20-30FPS." I was pointing out that this percentage system is designed to mislead.
How can you possibly deny that it isn't?!
thatwendigo said:
Oh, now look who knows everything! You're in school for neuroscience so therefore you know about video games *slaps forehead* wow was I so wrong
.Let's stay away from science, since I don't have a subscription to nature magazine and therefore can't access their archives. If you've ever actually played FPS games for any length of time, you'll notice lag spikes dipping to 30FPS (theoretically impossible from what you're trying to convince me of). But, since it's apparent to just about every gamer, it's amazingly hard to find a hard source... it's just never come up, I know I can see it, I know that if you weren't blind, you could see it too.
So, since we're skipping science, let's look at some other bad effects from low FPS:
http://www.foom.net/fortressfiles/100fps.htm
Many games have these type of problems, but the most important thing is avoiding lag spikes.
Lag spikes occur when too much has to be rendered at one time. When a game is benchmarked at 30-40FPS, lag spikes could bring the FPS down to 15-20. Even a "neuroscientist" like yourself could concede to a problem there.
Say what you will about the PC trolls, at least the NVidia and ATI discussions never include lines line "well you don't have any use for anything above 24FPS." Put your mac on high video settings, play the UT2004 demo online, and turn on the FPS display.. even novice gamers notice below 24FPS, it's just accepted.
By the way here are some motion benchmarks:
As you can see, the 5200 even drags down a dual 2.0Ghz on rendering effects!
thatwendigo said:
Wait, you're saying that you don't see a problem running "games from today?" What about Doom 3? What about games in the near future?
They don't LET you upgrade the video card, what the heck are you supposed to do if most future FPS's come out on the doom3 engine? Petition Apple?
After YOUR chosen article talked about the G5 1.6 getting 38.5 FPS on Halo (which actually was supposed to be released in 2002), you still don't except that the 5200 has problems with some 2002 games. What the heck am I supposed to do? buy a G5 iMac and run the benches myself?
Well I can't go on, this is just getting ridiculous.
Blah, blah, blah, blah
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I know you will).
There has always been much discussion in here about how Apple needs to keep their consumer and pro products highly differentiated. ( a thing I hate but understand due to sales/marketing) The iMac can never out spec the PowerBook or have a better video card than the PowerMac.
Now the iMac comes out and the bitch fest is over how it's not pro-enough.
Does that about sum it up?
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I know you will).
There has always been much discussion in here about how Apple needs to keep their consumer and pro products highly differentiated. ( a thing I hate but understand due to sales/marketing) The iMac can never out spec the PowerBook or have a better video card than the PowerMac.
Now the iMac comes out and the bitch fest is over how it's not pro-enough.
Does that about sum it up?
- Status