New iMacs announced

[sw1tcher]

A friend of mine bought an iMac on Friday. Are there any options he has to get updated to this new line? This was a very recent purchase. And I did let him know that updates were coming

Dang. I feel sorry for all those people who bought iMac's during the Tiger release. 4 Days later and their computers are severely outdated.

 

[woog315]

You didn't mention the doubled HDs, Bluetooth 2.0 standard, AirPort Extreme standard, and 200MHz CPU bump. People are happy with the update because it's a great update.

I hear you on the graphics card. It's not fabulous. The iMac is not a gaming machine though, nor are Macs designed to be Playstations. The reason people are happy about the iMac update is because of the numerous upgrades (about $400-500 worth) for free (since it still costs $1299-same as the old model).

Why is the imac not a gaming machine? It is their consumer pc. When the first imac G5 came out, how did they advertise it? I remember a bunch of benchmarks and graphs talking about improved gaming performance. One of the main uses for a consumer computer is to play games, the imac is no exception. You're right about the other upgrades though, it's not a bad update it;s just the graphics cards are so pathetically bad I can't understand Apple's rationale. They could have put in a radeon x700 for roughly the same cost, and it would have performed about 3x better.

 

[sw1tcher]

iBook updates?

With such an awesome update to the iMac line, I can't help but be optimistic that the iBooks will also get a nice upgrade too.

Come on Apple, bring 'em. Me want one now.

 

[SteveC]

Dang. I feel sorry for all those people who bought iMac's during the Tiger release. 4 Days later and their computers are severely outdated.

That's why they need to learn to do consumer research before making a $1000+ purchase. Consumer research = google "Mac rumors" online.

I did it when I bought my cell phone and saved $100. I've been doing it for a few months following iMac rumors, and I'm getting a fantastic Rev. B as a result.

 

[Lacero]

My advice to people looking to buys Macs has always been to buy within 60 days of Apple's product upgrades. This extends the value of the Mac. If everyone followed this advice, it does not necessarily mean Apple is losing sales after 60 months, it only means the purchase is either delayed or put forth quicker. Apple still gets your money in the end.

 

[SteveC]

They could have put in a radeon x700 for roughly the same cost, and it would have performed about 3x better.

Really? Hmm... Keep in mind, I didn't disagree with you about the card. I'm with you on that. How much would the x700 cost? Why wouldn't they do it if it was about the same price? I don't think Apple is afraid of being great when they have the opportunity, right? If it's the same price or close, I agree with you and would've loved to see that.

 

[sw1tcher]

One of the main uses for a consumer computer is to play games, the imac is no exception.

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree. A "consumer" level computer is really not meant to play games, except for basic ones or ones with the eye candy turned down.

A gaming system nowadays should have at least a Radeon 9800 Pro, IMO.

 

[Lacero]

One of the main uses for a consumer computer is to play games

Unless you are talking about Solitaire, tell that to grandma or a busy soccer mom.

You should think of getting a PC.

 

[woog315]

Really? Hmm... Keep in mind, I didn't disagree with you about the card. I'm with you on that. How much would the x700 cost? Why wouldn't they do it if it was about the same price? I don't think Apple is afraid of being great when they have the opportunity, right? If it's the same price or close, I agree with you and would've loved to see that.

Yeah, I hear you. Let's face it though, you pay a premium for apple products. Whether that premium is worth it or not is a subjective thing. I think it often is, but right now apple is doing a really strange thing with their graphics lineup. Every single card they offer stock is a severely dated 4 pipeline card(you can upgrade the powermac to a 6800ultra for like $500... which is a ridiculous premium to the ~$380 market value of a 6800 ultra). Modern cards are 16 pipelines now, the midrange cards are 8 pipes. Why is apple stocking all its machines, even the top of the line powermac, with 2 year old 4pipe radeon 9600s?

here is the cheapest 9600 i could find - http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102305

here is the cheapest x700 i could find -
http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121540

a $37 difference, and thats for a complete card (and the 9600s are essentially clearance items since they have been replaced by x600 in the new generation of cards) The chips apple buys to integrate onto the board, I would gamble there is a $10 difference in bulk prices on the chips alone. Hell, now that I think of it I would take an x600, ( http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102393 )
it's just a 4 pipeline card, but even it outperforms the 9600 by a wide margin

I think they're basically dumping ATI's excess 9600 stock onto apple users, who seem to think Steve Jobs is their best friend and Apple can do no wrong. Some of the convoluted and borderline retarded justifications I read on this board for Apple's rather glaring shortcomings crack me up.

edit: I really don't know what to say to all the apologists who are popping up now. You don't think apple could sell more machines if they spent the extra $20 to bring graphics performance up to something resembling modern? As for the guy with the soccer mom argument... it's true soccer moms dont play games, but their kids do.

edit2: and everyone just conveniently ignores the fact that Apple sells gaming as a viable thing on imacs. Like I already pointed out, the only benchmarks I saw when the imac g5 was originall launched were gaming benchmarks. Apple wants you to think you can play games on them, unfortunately you cant really.

edit3: heh.... this is pasted directly from Apple's imac page-

Gorgeous Graphics

A sizzling new graphics card and next-generation high-bandwidth architecture kick 3D games and graphics into high gear, with improved frame rates over the previous iMac G5 in Halo. Every new iMac G5 comes standard with AGP 8x graphics support and the ATI Radeon 9600 graphics card with 128MB of dedicated video memory for higher performance graphics and effects — ideal for next-generation games. All models deliver over a billion textured pixels per second and high-precision cinematic shaders to generate the most lifelike characters. With Quartz Extreme, the graphics processors take over transform and lighting calculation functions from the CPU, freeing the G5 processor to perform essential system tasks faster than ever before.

This is essentially a big steaming pile of BS. They are clearly marketing the imac as a machine that does well with games, and it clearly isn't. So cut the grandma and soccer mom arguments

 

[ManchesterTrix]

Ahh, gotcha'. There's ZERO concern about the iMac being able to run Panther though, lol. Of course it'll run Panther. Don't worry. The 1.8 and 2.0 models are the same as the 1.6 and 1.8 were - they just have "more" of what the "old" ones had. Don't kid yourself. All of the current Macs will run any version of OS X.

No offense, but if you don't know for sure, you really shouldn't say anything. You're wrong when you say all of the current Macs will run any version of X. I have a 19 month old PowerBook that won't run anything earlier than 10.2.7, an iBook that requires 10.3. It wouldn't suprise me at all if Apple forced it so the new iMacs can't boot anything older than 10.4

I'm in a similar boat as deejemon. I had to convince my boss to order all the eMacs at once instead of stages because I didn't want to get the last 50-100 a few months down the line and have them running only Tiger when everything else I have runs Panther.

 

[ksz]

I think they're basically dumping ATI's excess 9600 stock onto apple users, who seem to think Steve Jobs is their best friend and Apple can do no wrong. Some of the convoluted and borderline retarded justifications I read on this board for Apple's rather glaring shortcomings crack me up.

Agreed. As I read through the specifications of the new iMac, I applauded Apple for a lot of right decisions, but then my gaze transfixed on the ATI 9600. Surely I didn't read that right, but it was true. ATI 9600 in this day and age paired with a 2.0 GHz G5 processor that is supposed to offload high-intensity screen rendering operations to the GPU? The G5 might as well render it all by itself. This would be an acceptable choice if in fact it were a choice, but Apple does not make the GPU upgradeable in an iMac. There were many complaints about the GeForce 5200 in the preceding iMac, but Apple has largely disregarded those voices. Check out the benchmarks on Toms Hardware and you'll see the comparatively dismal performance of the 9600.

 

[Dippo]

Never Gonna Happen

This would be an acceptable choice if in fact it were a choice, but Apple does not make the GPU upgradeable in an iMac.

To make all of this fit, the GPU is soldered directly onto the motherboard.
As such it would never be upgradable.

There were many complaints about the GeForce 5200 in the preceding iMac, but Apple has largely disregarded those voices. Check out the benchmarks on Toms Hardware and you'll see the comparatively dismal performance of the 9600.

The Radeon 9600 scores a 2518 (3DMark03) and the GeForce FX 5200 a 1550. This is like a ~60% improvement.

Also, look around at other computer makers, what are their standard graphics? Most of them are Intergrated Junk or the Radeon X300 (which scores about 2500 on 3DMark03)

Apple is never going to offer top of the line graphics on a mid-range machine. So if you are a serious gamer buy a PowerMac, build your own PC, or buy a console.

 

[woog315]

Apple is never going to offer top of the line graphics on a mid-range machine. So if you are a serious gamer buy a PowerMac, build your own PC, or buy a console.

All we're asking for is a midrange card in the midrange imac. The 9600 is fit for the mac mini. And look at any realworld benchmarks - the 9600 doesnt beat a 5200 ultra. 3dmark is worthless. And again, the typical strawman argument used by your type, no one is talking about serious top of the line hardcore gaming. I'd just like to be able to fire up my machine and play a modern game every once in a while with decent graphics. you CANT DO THAT with a 9600.

And, his point wasn't that the imac should be upgradeable. It was that since it isn't, the graphics card included should cover all possible demographics. As it is, it only pleases people who dont want to game. BTW, there are lots of laptops with modular upgradable graphics, it would be possible to make imacs upgradable.

 

[Dippo]

I'd just like to be able to fire up my machine and play a modern game every once in a while with decent graphics. you CANT DO THAT with a 9600.

I would agree that at least an X600 or X700 would have been nice but it won't happen.

Apple seems to love and promote a Mac's gaming "ability" but they never design them with gaming in mind.

Until something changes we are stuck with what we are given.

 

[matticus008]

All we're asking for is a midrange card in the midrange imac. The 9600 is fit for the mac mini. And look at any realworld benchmarks - the 9600 doesnt beat a 5200 ultra. 3dmark is worthless. And again, the typical strawman argument used by your type, no one is talking about serious top of the line hardcore gaming. I'd just like to be able to fire up my machine and play a modern game every once in a while with decent graphics. you CANT DO THAT with a 9600.

I don't think anyone will say that a better graphics card is unwelcome, but you have to look at it this way: what is the BEST graphics card available for an Apple machine right now? None of them support PCIe. So you're stuck with AGP right there, and even among AGP cards, not a lot of the best ones currently work on a Mac. As for graphics cards with OS X drivers and Mac-compatible firmware and BIOSes, the 9600 is a midrange (or better) card.

Their advertisements of "next generation" hardware seem a little weird to people with actual cutting edge hardware, but from an Apple perspective, this is a dramatic jump forward and as worthy of marketing spin as any other hardware.

On a different note, do you get the distinct impression that Apple is going ATi-only over the past year or so? Maybe this is to put more pressure on ATi to develop better Mac support and a unified driver model for OS X?

Edit: Your example is not a straw man argument at all, by the by.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Man this is mind bogling still.

Great value. Bravo Apple Bravo. Guessing they foreseen this update being popular as to their decision to report all desktop sales as singular in future quarterly reports hmm.

 

[woog315]

Edit: Your example is not a straw man argument at all, by the by.

We were talking about wanting a midrange graphics card in the imac, and someone came along and said, basically, "apple will never put top of the line graphic cards in a midange machine so forget about it" as a justification for a super crappy lowrange card in the imac. It's exactly a strawman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

strawman: Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

edit: and as for AGP cards- nvidia 6600, ati radeon 9700, a 9600pro or XT, radeon9800se -- all of these offer large performance gains with very little,if any, price premium

 

[Dippo]

None of them support PCIe. So you're stuck with AGP right there, and even among AGP cards, not a lot of the best ones currently work on a Mac.

That is a good point. On the PC side, the X300, X600, and X700 are all PCI-E exclusive as far I can tell. Only the very high end X800, X850 come in AGP.

So maybe after Apple gets around to getting PCI-E, then some good cards might come out for the mac.

 

[isgoed]

We were talking about wanting a midrange graphics card in the imac, and someone came along and said, basically, "apple will never put top of the line graphic cards in a midange machine so forget about it" as a justification for a super crappy lowrange card in the imac. It's exactly a strawman

This is not true, The 9600 is not super low range. It is just one step beneath the 9800, which was the top end a year ago. So apple actually puts the highest possible graphics card in, if they need to obey to the rule not to put in the top of the line card in a mid range machine.

The 9600 puts in a decent performance. I am willing to bet that then new iMac can put in a timedemo of 25FPS in Doom3 at 1024x768 high quality. Doom3 is currently the thoughest game out there and you can play it full glory on the new iMac. What more does a casual gamer require?

Sure hardcore gamers expect only 60FPS on 1600x1200, but the main audience which buys the iMac don't even know what FPS is, and they only see Doom3 the way it is meant to be played and wil be very happy with it.

On the PC side FPS will be higher, BUT that is not due to the 9600, but caused by Apple's implementation of OpenGL.

 

[woog315]

This is not true, The 9600 is not super low range. It is just one step beneath the 9800, which was the top end a year ago. So apple actually puts the highest possible graphics card in, if they need to obey to the rule not to put in the top of the line card in a mid range machine.

The 9600 puts in a decent performance. I am willing to bet that then new iMac can put in a timedemo of 25FPS in Doom3 at 1024x768 high quality. Doom3 is currently the thoughest game out there and you can play it full glory on the new iMac. What more does a casual gamer require?

Sure hardcore gamers expect only 60FPS on 1600x1200, but the main audience which buys the iMac don't even know what FPS is, and they only see Doom3 the way it is meant to be played and wil be very happy with it.

On the PC side FPS will be higher, BUT that is not due to the 9600, but caused by Apple's implementation of OpenGL.

well, I'd be willing to take that bet because youre dead wrong. 9600pro was the step under 9800. vanilla 9600 is about half the speed of 9600 pro. There are plenty of benchmarks with doom3 and a 9600. Expect around 10fps at 1024x768 on pc, less on a mac. doom3 will not be playable on these new imacs

edit: 9600 PRO was midrange about 2 years ago. 9600 was low-mid then. This is 2 years later. 9600 is bottom of the barrel for anything trying to pass itself off as a gaming card.

 

[isgoed]

well, I'd be willing to take that bet because youre dead wrong. 9600pro was the step under 9800. vanilla 9600 is about half the speed of 9600 pro. There are plenty of benchmarks with doom3 and a 9600. Expect around 10fps at 1024x768 on pc, less on a mac. doom3 will not be playable on these new imacs

OK here is the bet, First off, I misread some of my information, so I make it a little more tense if you are ok with it:

new iMac can get:
More than 25 FPS default high quality (1024x768) (shadows off)
AND
More than 22 FPS default high quality (1024x768) (shadows on)

test system:

iMac G5 rev B 2Ghz
17" OR 20"
1Gb Ram or 2Gb ram
Radeon 9600 with 128mb ram
running OSX 10.4 or later

The first results published by a respected site count (Barefeats or macworld for example (Apple.com does not count, since they publish unreliable results)). The results must be up for a week to account for correcting any errors in the testing.

The bet is 25 USD OR 20 EUR

We take each other's word of trust

payment may be made trough paypall or direct bank transfer

 

[woog315]

OK here is the bet, First off, I misread some of my information, so I make it a little more tense if you are ok with it:

new iMac can get:
More than 25 FPS default high quality (1024x768) (shadows off)
AND
More than 22 FPS default high quality (1024x768) (shadows on)

test system:

iMac G5 rev B 2Ghz
17" OR 20"
1Gb Ram or 2Gb ram
Radeon 9600 with 128mb ram
running OSX 10.4 or later

The first results published by a respected site count (Barefeats or macworld for example (Apple.com does not count, since they publish unreliable results)). The results must be up for a week to account for correcting any errors in the testing.

The bet is 25 USD OR 20 EUR

We take each other's word of trust

payment may be made trough paypall or direct bank transfer

you're on

edit: just for a frame of reference, here is doom3 on pc at 1024x768 with 8x AF (8xAF is the default setting for High quality in doom3) and no AA. it averaged 15.9fps. This is on a p4 3.2ghz with 1GB RAM. We can skip the suspense and you can paypal me now if you want unless you think the horrid mac port is going to pull a miracle and outperform the pc version by 50% - http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-07.html

 

[isgoed]

OK here is the bet, First off, I misread some of my information, so I make it a little more tense if you are ok with it:

of course i meant *less tense*

and another rule.
I may not edit mine foregoing post.

 

[isgoed]

you're on

DEAL

 

[oeholmen]

This is a fantastic update! I mean - it has all these goodies standard. And it comes with gigabit ethernet. That's just awesome!