New iMac G5 Announced

[Maxx Power]

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.

The ATI Mobility Radeon series, as well as their mobile Fire GL series, as well as their earlier mobility Rage series, can all be integrated as a one module/one chip solution onto any motherboard or mini-agp card. The integrated solutions are found in current and previous generations of PowerBooks as well as eMacs, and iBooks. If you remember from when the 5200 was first released, many manufacturors of laptops were reluctant to integrate that chip because it apparently guzzles up a lot of power doing nothing, the ATI chips were traditionally cooler running and uses less power since ATI has more expertise in this field from their years of working chips for the mobile sector. I can see the two reasons why 5200 is hanging around in an iMac today. Number one, to keep the imacs from outshinning the Powerbooks, the lowest powerbook today has a 5200 with 64 MB. Reason two, Jobs wanted to keep their option open with the Nvidia brand to keep ATI's Mac offering competitive. I think some of us remember that unpleasantness that Jobs had with ATI about their chips a few generations of Powerbooks back...

 

[takao]

So what is the optimum frame rate for video games. I know the faster the better argument. But what about real world?

consoles developers try to push it up at least to 60fps for the games

(halo has 30fps on the xbox with occasional drops...but when looking at high speed games like f-zero on the GC 60 is a must)

of course it is playable with around 45 etc. but at that _average_ it drops more often under the magical 30 which of course isn't nice for gaming

i personally have lots of problems with operation panzers for the x86...i can't imagine running that with a 5200 when my 4200 has already problems at 1024x

 

[takao]

Number one, to keep the imacs from outshinning the Powerbooks, the lowest powerbook today has a 5200 with 64 MB. Reason two, Jobs wanted to keep their option open with the Nvidia brand to keep ATI's Mac offering competitive. I think some of us remember that unpleasantness that Jobs had with ATI about their chips a few generations of Powerbooks back...

hm could be...and sounds both reasonable to me... well lets wait and see ...

with the next generation of nvidia (budget/middle class) cheap already having the foot in the door i doubt the 5200 will stay long in the tops models of the imac and in the powermacs...

odds aren't bad that there will be other chips already in the first revision

 

[MacG]

Hey Slugheag, I'm not an expert by any means, but question for you. If the monitor (in the iMac's case LCD) has a refresh of 60Hz, is it possible (even if it had a faster video card) to display anything higher than 60fps on its LCD?

 

[slughead]

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?

My point has been that the iMac should've had a mid-range card, instead of the entry level card that it came with.

So semantically, no, I wouldn't want it to be a pro machine, just a mid range machine (mid range being an ATI 9600XT or NVidia 57XX-59xx, or arguably a ATI 9800XT).

However, some are complaining about the FSB and RAM capacity, I just don't see that (for the same reasons you don't).

It's hard to explain just how bad the 5200 card is, because people keep comparing it to its overall functionality Vs yesterday's tasks instead of today's.

There was a huge lull in graphics card development right when the 5200 came out, it took a very long time for the 6800/X800 to follow. Most games were therefore designed to optimally function on cards not much better than the 5200, while others demanded the cards that were projected to come out around the same time.

To give you some idea, Doom III was designed so that cards of 6800 caliber would be the mid-range card. Of course the only reason it wasn't is because of the aforementioned lull screwing things up. I think it'll catch up soon enough, with cards like the 5700 Ultra 256mb under $100 (mid range) now.

 

[thatwendigo]

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.

Actually, I think that you're wrong.

It's rare, but it's done.

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.

I'm still wondering what would be so terribly hard about figuring out a way to plug the monitor in through the inside of the case. They did it with the antenna on Airport, and it's not as if monitor cables are hard to figure out. The iMac is beautifully designed, but the techie in my still wants to know.

 

[slughead]

Hey Slughead, I'm not an expert by any means, but question for you. If the monitor (in the iMac's case LCD) has a refresh of 60Hz, is it possible (even if it had a faster video card) to display anything higher than 60fps on its LCD?

No, it isn't, but I'm not advocating anything above 60FPS. I think 60 is fine, I run lots of games capped at 60 to keep it as even as possible.

We're talking about the difference between lag spikes below 40FPS and lag spikes below 20 FPS, by anyone's definition, a visible and non-ignorable dip. We're also talking about diminished game performance stemming from FPS being used as a baseline for tasks like running and firing. Read my long ass post (here) for more info.

 

[thatwendigo]

consoles developers try to push it up at least to 60fps for the games

Console developers also run hardware that only uses tiny resolutions, which makes that a lot easier. The reason that Halo runs on the XBox even acceptably is that it's only at something like 320x280.

 

[Daveman Deluxe]

OK, so I was wrong about the Radeon series being offered as an on-chipset solution. But the best Radeon card that is so offered is the Radeon 9000, which is down there with, or even below, the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra.

Maxx Power: You missed my point. I specifically said that Apple could have included one of the Radeon Mobility processors in the iMac, but chose not to. I suspect that's because Apple wanted to avoid having a "laptop" (i.e. "relatively crappy") card in a desktop rig.

I personally agree that the ideal solution would be for the iMac to have the DVI cable in the case so that standard retail cards can be put into an AGP slot. I don't think it would fit in the case though--an AGP card and slot takes up more space than the integrated solution does, and space is already tight in the iMac.

 

[danbett]

4x DVD Drive

I haven't read all 1400 posts but why does the Imac only have a 4x DVD writing capability as opposed to the Emacs 8x. Wiil the emacs capability be reduced or the imacs increased ??

 

[slughead]

Console developers also run hardware that only uses tiny resolutions, which makes that a lot easier. The reason that Halo runs on the XBox even acceptably is that it's only at something like 320x280.

Finally something we can all agree on.

However, I think it's at least 640x480, but you're right: the only reason Xbox gets good framerates is the low resolution.

The thing is running a GeForce2 MX for God's sake.

 

[Maxx Power]

OK, so I was wrong about the Radeon series being offered as an on-chipset solution. But the best Radeon card that is so offered is the Radeon 9000, which is down there with, or even below, the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra.

Maxx Power: You missed my point. I specifically said that Apple could have included one of the Radeon Mobility processors in the iMac, but chose not to. I suspect that's because Apple wanted to avoid having a "laptop" (i.e. "relatively crappy") card in a desktop rig.

I personally agree that the ideal solution would be for the iMac to have the DVI cable in the case so that standard retail cards can be put into an AGP slot. I don't think it would fit in the case though--an AGP card and slot takes up more space than the integrated solution does, and space is already tight in the iMac.

Right or wrong doesn't matter. But they do have integrated solutions beyond the Radeon 9000 all the way to 9700 pro. The laptop cards apple uses in their laptops are well beyond the capabilities of the 5200 except for the ibooks and the lowest powerbook. The top powerbooks currently offer Radeon 9700 Pro, if apple didn't screw themselves this time again by choking the lowest powerbook with a 5200, then they would have used either 9700 pro or 9600 pro or turbo, then it would make more sense for them to put in a 9600 pro or turbo in the iMac series. All chipsets referenced to here are single chip/module solutions. These laptop cards are not "relatively crappy", for example, the 9700 Pro is based on the 9600XT core from ATI, one of the coolest running, fastest mobile chips avaliable. Before they released the 9800 mobile which is based on the X800 core and eats power resources faster than superman dining at a buffet. That aside, I don't think anyone, or very minimal number of people would have complained about the video in the new iMacs if they would have thrown in a 9700 Pro, a cool running, low power consumption and high output video card. Without seeing the diagrams of the iMac, I can only guess that the used 5200Ultra is a laptop single chip solution, as it means easier heat management, smaller power supply and smaller heatsink assembly, which all leads to a more stable, smaller platform. And this single chip solution, would still be defined by its makers, to be a laptop solution, since that's the target market.

-The truth is out there, or is it ?

 

[Timelessblur]

I haven't read all 1400 posts but why does the Imac only have a 4x DVD writing capability as opposed to the Emacs 8x. Wiil the emacs capability be reduced or the imacs increased ??

My guess is the emac has a full size opical drive in it and the iMac as an moble opitical drive in it. Moble drives are still at the 4x mark for DVD burners

As for apple also happiering the iMac and keep the gap so big is apple is kind of greedy and they want to make people who dont want and dont need the power of a pro computer to make them waste the extra money because they need/want the power that falls in bettween. *better graphic card ect

The problem with computer is they are only as strong and as fast as there weakest link. Processor(all the stuff that goes with it), Ram, and Graphic card. The problem is the Graphic card is the by far the weakest link in this system. Put 512 meg-1 gig of ram and the ram not a problem (and that is very do able). A lot of the processor power is going to go to waste on the weak card. For the people who dont need a card any stronger they also dont need a G5 chip. There always needs to be a balnces bettween the parts of the computer in the terms of power.

You dont want graphic card that is held back by the CPU and you dont want a CPU held back by the Graphic card. Having more ram that you computer can use is a waste but by the same token not having enough is a problem. 256 is not enough ram but then again it is upgradble and most people will upgrade it.

 

[takao]

Finally something we can all agree on.

However, I think it's at least 640x480, but you're right: the only reason Xbox gets good framerates is the low resolution.

The thing is running a GeForce2 MX for God's sake.

jop

it's something like 720xsomething as i recall it.. don't know for sure

wrong.the thing is running a Geforce 3 ti (which is still faster than a mx440 ..and ..yes even faster than a 5200 ...but of course it was insanly expensive back in the days when the xbox got constructed....)
a friend is running one of these on a 1ghz duron and 192 ram and yet battlefield runs fine at 1024 (subjective it could be a lot better of course..he is bitching about a RAM update since months)

 

[kugino]

I haven't read all 1400 posts but why does the Imac only have a 4x DVD writing capability as opposed to the Emacs 8x. Wiil the emacs capability be reduced or the imacs increased ??

yeah, timelessblur is correct. since the imac is so thin, they had to put in a mobile optical drive, which doesn't run faster than 4X at the moment...so, even though you can replace it yourself, you'll be limited to the laptop optical drives and not all the dual layer, 16x drives coming out...

 

[CholEoptera36]

We won't see it because, according to Tom Boger, Apples Director of Worldwide Product Marketing, the graphic chip is welded directly onto the mainboard...

I didn't know that the card is welded to the board, that really sucks. I guess this is waht I get for not watching all of the stream lol But thanks that helps clear things up for me a little bit.

 

[takao]

for the drive thing (to finally end that unholy-leading-to-nothing discussion about the Opel Kadett D of all video cards)
i think it has to do with the drive being in the vertical postion...i know that hard drives have been very picky about being alligned vertically in the past (all x86s similiar to the iMac g5 suffered from frequent hard drive failures)

hard drives have roughly tolerances of 5° going away from vertical and 'flat' so i hope apple has choosen some very tolerancing ones for the imac which can be turned 20° upwards

 

[ato]

What the G5 Imac really means

I have been reading the many comments from many sites about the design of the new G5 Imac and it appears that everybody has missed the most important aspect, to Apple, of this design.

The new G5 Imac design will allow Apple to aggressively market this product into more price and use positions. Its physical, electrical and computational design is generic enough to be placed in a wide range of general and special situations.

Performance wise this G5 system will be less than the PowerMac G5 as it uses 64 bit wide main memory instead of 128 bit wide. But with optimized internal bussing which Apple designers tend to put good engineering into this is not a loss for a single processor system.

This design will allow great economies of scale to lower the Apple production costs. This form factor reduces by 66% the complexity of the previous G4 model and will allow price points to be more elastic towards the below $1000 level while still maintaining the necessary profit margins. Fully expect to see the Emac to be replaced by a sub $1000 G5 Imac in 2005.

Manufacturability, repairability, usability and product place-ability will be far more flexible than any previous Imac design. This design can be installed in kiosks, small apartments, automobiles, airplanes, ships etc with minimal fuss. This design is practical in nearly every conceivable environment including industrial through scientific.

The design requires little more in engineering for extreme ruggedized environments. This design will be able to meet military, avaition and similiar heavy duty uses.

This design can be expanded into the 23 inch and 30 inch display lines as HDTV entertainment centers. A brushed aluminum version of the G5 Imac in 30 inch flat panel will be extremely impressive as computer center/ HDTV/monitor. No doubt there would be requirement for upgraded video card for these panels but that is a trivial component change.

It is clear that Apple sees its product lines as not just computers in a box but lifestyle products whose use, cost, functional and aesthetic combination will become the new normal standard for the way computers will be needed to be used.

ato

 

[dtp]

Well, as someone who doesn't care about the graphics card, but who wants a nice and compact all-in-one which won't take up too much space on the desk, this is perfect for me. My 800mHz iBook is fine for my basic needs, so the new iMac is more than adequate, for what I consider a great price. Heck, my 'main computer' at the moment is an ancient Win98 Dell with 128mb of RAM which crashes multiple times per day, and I don't really need much more power than that.

In all seriousness, I am part of the target audience for the new iMac. I know that people are saying 'well, why bother with the iMac, when your needs are fulfilled by the eMac?'; but I prefer the size and design of the iMac, and know that there'll be a time in the future when I'll be glad for the extra processing speed. It's not that the eMac isn't currently adequate for me and users like me, but that it might not be in the future. I can't justify the purchase of a PowerMac, but I can justify the purchase of an iMac.

And yes, I have a 20" on order

 

[takao]

This design will allow great economies of scale to lower the Apple production costs. This form factor reduces by 66% the complexity of the previous G4 model and will allow price points to be more elastic towards the below $1000 level while still maintaining the necessary profit margins. Fully expect to see the Emac to be replaced by a sub $1000 G5 Imac in 2005.

agree on your post
they older modell was pretty obviously an assembly nightmare .. where the new one looks much easier to put together in a factory...

(perhaps those margins where to slim on the old ones to keep the design for a longer period of time)

edit: nightmare like spelling

 

[daveg5]

The ATI Mobility Radeon series, as well as their mobile Fire GL series, as well as their earlier mobility Rage series, can all be integrated as a one module/one chip solution onto any motherboard or mini-agp card. The integrated solutions are found in current and previous generations of PowerBooks as well as eMacs, and iBooks. If you remember from when the 5200 was first released, many manufacturors of laptops were reluctant to integrate that chip because it apparently guzzles up a lot of power doing nothing, the ATI chips were traditionally cooler running and uses less power since ATI has more expertise in this field from their years of working chips for the mobile sector. I can see the two reasons why 5200 is hanging around in an iMac today. Number one, to keep the imacs from outshinning the Powerbooks, the lowest powerbook today has a 5200 with 64 MB. Reason two, Jobs wanted to keep their option open with the Nvidia brand to keep ATI's Mac offering competitive. I think some of us remember that unpleasantness that Jobs had with ATI about their chips a few generations of Powerbooks back...

If Apple can put a G5 into a two inch enclosure, then surely their engineers could shoehorn an 8XAGP Radeon in there also, dont you think?
I think it came down to $$$, and Marketing, keeping the imac closed there makes apple think instead of upgrading the video card in 2-4 years, you will buy a new iMac instead, and they are probably right, thats if you buy it with the underpowered card in the first place.

 

[daveg5]

Most of what you claim you want, you can do right now with externals.

The biggest thing I see in your list is that you want PCi-express ... is this because you've also not found many PCI-X cards to expand a G5?


(Does anyone know of a website that has a simple, straightforward list of G5 PCI-X compatible cards?)


-hh

I was replying sarcasticly to the poster. I mentioned PCIX cause all the slots are independant, so one card cant rob bandwith from another, and two AGP or PCIX16 for video for the same reason. I also mentioned a better way might be just to have a technology with all of apple pro apps and maybe a PCi card like the universities, that would allow for distrubuted computing. So every computer you add would add more power, and allow for faster encoding, more dsp power in the pro apps. theis would move alot of powermacs. and powerbooks thru a pccard connection, which is one of the reasons I want a pccard slot on the Imac G5, just think you could add firewire 800, card readers, 24 bit sound cards, www.villagetronic.com for the ability to add two 23"dvi displays, all with no cables showing.
Oh well, cant have everything.
But that would be a monster computer. six slot, 2 bay, 4 hard drives, everything on independant busses and 3 or 4 processors.

 

[daveg5]

I agree too, but even if schools could have a lcd for the same price(those would have crappy specs) (LCDS are still 300-400% more for the same pixels) I think they would choose CRT's at least when kids are young, for obvious reasons.
Last time I checked you could get a quality name brand 17" CRT with double brightness for $99 after rebate 1280X1024 recommended, 1600X1200 Max, fast response, perfect scaling, no dead pixels, good color, not as bright or as much contrast, or as small and energy efficient as the 17" display LCD's for $399 after rebates.
Thats a major pricing difference, So Crt's will be around for at least a few more years, there are still gamers and graphic experts that prefer them, or simply are okay worth spending $5-600 on a 22" display with 2000X1500 resolution, instead of $2000 for a 23 cinema.
I think once it is just double all around then we will see the final shift, maybe 5 years from now or so.
As we saw how the emac totally outsold imac in both schools and homes, but price was also an issue, i love the G4 imac, one of Apples best designs ever, wish someone could shoehorn the imac G5 into one, now that would be a miracle.

agree on your post
they older modell was pretty obviously an assembly nightmare .. where the new one looks much easier to put together in a factory...

(perhaps those margins where to slim on the old ones to keep the design for a longer period of time)

edit: nightmare like spelling

 

[takao]

I agree too, but even if schools could have a lcd for the same price(those would have crappy specs) (LCDS are still 300-400% more for the same pixels) I think they would choose CRT's at least when kids are young, for obvious reasons.

well i'm sure it does matter for the US but over here emacs are non-existant in class rooms and schools...so the 'e' of emac is pointless because they never got into the classroom here ... (another reason for lousy emac sales over here...)

but i think that CRTs are already so cheap that customers going for a new pc (because they already own a old CRT one) will go LCD... i doubt that the emac will get a 'revival and increasing sales... the idea that this imac of today will perhaps take over the emacs place (with the same name ) sounds very reasonable
i don't think it would be hard to simply put on a thin protection layer over the LCD for concerned schools

 

[Maxx Power]

If Apple can put a G5 into a two inch enclosure, then surely their engineers could shoehorn an 8XAGP Radeon in there also, dont you think?
I think it came down to $$$, and Marketing, keeping the imac closed there makes apple think instead of upgrading the video card in 2-4 years, you will buy a new iMac instead, and they are probably right, thats if you buy it with the underpowered card in the first place.

I mentioned that exact cause as one of the reasons why iMac G5 is the way it is a few pages back, i think.