New iMacs announced

[isgoed]

Oh, so now you buy for Apple? We've been through this. If there were better hardware being sold to Apple with Mac-compatible firmware and BIOSes, they would use it. Not everything ATi makes is instantaneously compatible with what Apple makes. They buy what they are offered and fits the specifications Apple needs to fill. For the product lineup at Apple, the 9600 is par for course. Yes, the whole range is underpowered. But that's not some arbitrary decision Apple made. That's what there is to work with, nothing more or less.

Well I am a bit on both sides in this discussion. I think the 9600 is a welcome improvement, but it is arguable that they cheaped out. I just compared 3 radeon 9600 and there is quite a difference in performance. see:

http://apps.ati.com/ATIcompare/

• Card -------------- Engine Clock Speed (MHz)
• RADEON 9600 128MB --- 325
• RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB --- 400
• RADEON 9600 XT --- 500

If they really put in 'just' the 9600 it is quite cheaped out, since the XT wouldn't cost them significantly more. The performence of the XT is about 50% more. I have heard that apple even underclocks the XT in the mac version of the radeon, so card extensions are a bit more obsure in the mac world and you can't just compare mac cards to PC cards.

Hopefully you can overclock those Radeons in the iMac. (Very likely, if it will be newly manufactured chips)

But my point is: they should have put in radeon XT's.

So woog315, 25FPS in doom3 on a regular 9600 will likely not be possible. We just have to wait for the benches. I was hoping on the added benefit of 128mb ram (since doom3 loves it) and OpenGL tiger improvements (barefeats indicated a 20% gain).

 

[matticus008]

Oh, so now you purchase for apple? Let's face it, neither one of us actually knows, but your line of thinking sort of sounds like excuses for apple while my line of thinkins sort of sounds like reality

Fair enough. But saying they intentionally crapped out is like saying they CHOSE not to have a 3GHz+ G5 processor. If people will buy it and it's available, Apple will sell it, usually. It's not like ordering a PM gets you a wealth of upgrade options. You can go up to the 9650, or in some cases to the 6800. If I saw that ATi had Mac-ready versions of their high-end cards and Apple wasn't selling them, I'd throw a fit. Until then, I can only hope that Apple will grill ATi for better support and new hardware (with more success than they seem to have mustered at IBM).

Edit: ATi does sell an X800 and some 9800 for PowerMac systems. But information on the performance vs. stock options is unclear.

Edit 2: It's the dual DVI for workstations that's the limiting factor, it seems. That and the dual-link DVI necessary for the 30" display. If you'd rather have the X800, it's $500, but available from ATi if you want it.

 

[JordanNZ]

: actually, no bets here, but I'm going to make a prediction that doom3 is completely unplayable unless you dont mind 640x480 at 20fps (which you should be extremely pissed about on a $1500 machine specifically advertised as "screaming on modern games" dont make me quote apples imac page again )

Ahh.. What are you talking about... I get 19fps on my 1ghz tibook (Specular, and bump maps on), with 512 meg of ram, and 64 meg Rad 9000 mobility. Doom3 will be ok on the new iMac, no doubt at all.

 

[woog315]

Fair enough. But saying they intentionally crapped out is like saying they CHOSE not to have a 3GHz+ G5 processor. If people will buy it and it's available, Apple will sell it, usually. It's not like ordering a PM gets you a wealth of upgrade options. You can go up to the 9650, or in some cases to the 6800. If I saw that ATi had Mac-ready versions of their high-end cards and Apple wasn't selling them, I'd throw a fit. Until then, I can only hope that Apple will grill ATi for better support and new hardware (with more success than they seem to have mustered at IBM).

Edit: ATi does sell an X800 and some 9800 for PowerMac systems. But information on the performance vs. stock options is unclear.

Edit 2: It's the dual DVI for workstations that's the limiting factor, it seems. That and the dual-link DVI necessary for the 30" display. If you'd rather have the X800, it's $500, but available from ATi if you want it.

the x800 and the 9800 will both absolutely destroy everything except the 6800 that apple sells. The performance gap between the radeon9650 and the geforce6800 really cant be overestimated. The x800 and the 9800 would fill that gap nicely, but apple is jerking us around for some reason.

 

[matticus008]

the x800 and the 9800 will both absolutely destroy everything except the 6800 that apple sells. The performance gap between the radeon9650 and the geforce6800 really cant be overestimated. The x800 and the 9800 would fill that gap nicely, but apple is jerking us around for some reason.

Both of those products ship with a DVI and an ADC port. The G5s come with two DVI ports. I thought a 9800 was once a BTO option on the G5, but I don't see it now. With the 9800 and x800 that ATi is selling, you could no longer run two Cinema Displays, just like the FX5200. But I wonder why it's not offered as an option (give up dual cinema displays for better performance if you want). I guess they figure you can just buy the card directly from ATi, but that does seem strange.

 

[eXan]

Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

THATS an iMac I've been waiting for!!!!!

 

[Nemesis]

Why iMac has crippled FSB

Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

THATS an iMac I've been waiting for!!!!!

Does anyone know why iMac has crippled FSB, running at 667 MHz only?
Why not 1Ghz? It's a single proc machine, they could do that to boost performance even more ...
So, all we've got is 67 MHz incease on FSB, and 200 MHZ increase in G5 speed. Slighlty better graphics card, nothing major.
What's the trick here?
Pfff ...

 

[iJaz]

Does anyone know why iMac has crippled FSB, running at 667 MHz only?
Why not 1Ghz? It's a single proc machine, they could do that to boost performance even more ...
So, all we've got is 67 MHz incease on FSB, and 200 MHZ increase in G5 speed. Slighlty better graphics card, nothing major.
What's the trick here?
Pfff ...

...more memory (RAM and video), bigger HD, dual layer superdrive, built in AE and BT2.0, but no price increase...

 

[Evangelion]

Well folks most of you already know me as an AMD guy , but I have to admit this is a really great deal for the price. No one should Bitch about the Radeon 9600 128MB DDR , this card easily give double the performance of the 5200 Ultra crap. I have this card in my PC , it will run HL2 and Doom 3 at playable framerates(30fps).

On the PC yes, but not on the Mac. There is no HL2 for the Mac, and Macs suck at Doom3.

I remember the comment how this new system gains 50% more performance in D3 than the old system had. Add still, the fact remains that D3 is STILL completely unplayable! What were the framerates? Under 20FPS? not good enough. Not by a long shot.

Other than that: this is a fine upgrade. With the new vid-card, iMac is finally out of the stone-age.

 

[ltgator333]

not too shabby

The 9600 is pretty decect, but I think they'd done themsevles some justice by putting lets say even a 9800 in the 20". Also they need to get over the whole 256Mb to 512Mb of RAM thing... 512 and up is more like it.
The speed bump on the G5 proc is very nice, but now that they're putting a 2Ghz chip in that small of a form factor, once again it prods the question where the hell are our PBook G5's?? Being that they're apparently getting away with heat not being so much of a problem, it's gotta be a combination of whatever problem there would still be with heat and power consumtion, possibly even a want to keep Freescale in the game just so they're not solely dependant upon IBM...

All in all, if I had just shy of $2G's around I'd get one.

 

[rsamo]

I just bought one! 2ghz 20inch only upgrade being the wireless keyboard and mouse. I did the math and reasoned I'd upgrade the RAM later.

More power than I imagined I'd be able to buy for sub $3000AUS, and definitely more screen space! Today is a good day I can't wait until it's delivered - 5-7 build time and then 5-7 days delivery! I especially can't wait to get my hands on Tiger!

I did the exact same thing, except I uprgraded the RAM right away. 512 addition was only $112 with edu discount. Not bad especially since I don't have to worry about installing it, even though it would have probably taken no more than 30 minutes.

 

[rsamo]

for the first time i can pretend i'm buying an Apple machine without feeling the need to add on any upgrades. no extra ram, no wireless, nothing. i'm always like, "yeah 1800 before i actually make it a decent machine by adding stuff to it" but now i check it out and it's like "what now bi..."

too bad i'm still pretending. at least Tiger arrives today.

Close, but no cigar. Still need to add wireless keyboard and mouse and 512 of RAM.

 

[ksz]

...If they really put in 'just' the 9600 it is quite cheaped out, since the XT wouldn't cost them significantly more. The performence of the XT is about 50% more. I have heard that apple even underclocks the XT in the mac version of the radeon, so card extensions are a bit more obsure in the mac world and you can't just compare mac cards to PC cards.
...
Hopefully you can overclock those Radeons in the iMac. (Very likely, if it will be newly manufactured chips)

But my point is: they should have put in radeon XT's...

The memory can upgraded, the hard drive can be upgraded, you have choice between two CPU clock speeds (1.8 and 2.0 GHz), you can expand the iMac with USB and Firewire ports, but the graphics card...arg, there is just no excuse. Mac OS X releases are steadily bringing greater levels of graphics sophistication. Quartz Extreme, for example, is not enabled on low-end Macs because of the lack of GPU power. The new iMac might have a great 2 GHz G5 processor, but the weak GPU (50% better than weak -- i.e. fx5200 -- is still weak) limits the machine's longevity. It is just able to play today's most popular games and it may not be able to play tomorrow's popular games with any degree of acceptability. The GPU may not have enough juice even for the next 2 OS upgrades...

 

[admanimal]

You know, everyone complaining about Apple "cheaping out" by not including a better GPU aren't considering that it very well may have been an engineering necessity to not include a card that is going to run even slightly hotter than the plain 9600 does. Granted, I don't know for a fact that say, the 9600XT will run hotter than the 9600 (although since it's probably just the same card with a higher voltage applied to it to make it run faster...it probably does). But the iMac does obviously have somewhat of a delicate temperature tolerance given that it's in such a small case. So I think people need to keep this potentially logical reason for them not including a better GPU in mind when bashing Apple for being cheap.

 

[Sav]

How easy to transfer from VESA mount to bundled desktop mount

OK I'm tempted. I have a 15" G4/800 imac that is 3 yrs old. It still does what I want (itunes, photoshop, imovie editing to idvd authoring) but I would love a larger screen (wide too) and faster speeds at anything always help.

Ideally I would like to get a VESA mount to stick this beauty on my bedroom wall with the wireless keyboard/mouse. Add an eyetv hooked up to my TV source and use it as a glorified DVD/TV/internet/email/IM client. Then when I need to get serious with editing I would detach it from the VESA wall mount and reattach it to the desktop stand for a more suitable working environment.

My question is - once attached with a vesa mount, how easy is it to detach and put back on the desktop mount.

I have been tempted for a while but now these upgrades (and lack of BTO added cost) make it justifiable.

Cheers

 

[icsedge1]

it was only late last week that i made the decision to replace my trusty old wallstreet book with a iMac and not a mini. thanks to 'rumors,' i decided to wait a bit.

when i feel like gaming, i boot up my new slim PS2. damn my day job, i could play GT4 24/7. anyway...

i'm assuming the 17 incher i order later today can handle 'Return to Dark Castle' http://www.zsculpt.com/website/games/darkcastle3/index.php should the Z guys EVER get it finished. as long as it does, i'm good.

sedge

 

[Platform]

Well I am a bit on both sides in this discussion. I think the 9600 is a welcome improvement, but it is arguable that they cheaped out. I just compared 3 radeon 9600 and there is quite a difference in performance. see:

http://apps.ati.com/ATIcompare/

• Card -------------- Engine Clock Speed (MHz)
• RADEON 9600 128MB --- 325
• RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB --- 400
• RADEON 9600 XT --- 500

If they really put in 'just' the 9600 it is quite cheaped out, since the XT wouldn't cost them significantly more. The performence of the XT is about 50% more. I have heard that apple even underclocks the XT in the mac version of the radeon, so card extensions are a bit more obsure in the mac world and you can't just compare mac cards to PC cards.

Hopefully you can overclock those Radeons in the iMac. (Very likely, if it will be newly manufactured chips)

But my point is: they should have put in radeon XT's.

So woog315, 25FPS in doom3 on a regular 9600 will likely not be possible. We just have to wait for the benches. I was hoping on the added benefit of 128mb ram (since doom3 loves it) and OpenGL tiger improvements (barefeats indicated a 20% gain).

They choose the 9600 over the XT because of heat issues in the iMac unless you want the fans to run at full RPM all the time the you proberly overclock.....why it is not in the PM's I don't know

 

[admanimal]

They choose the 9600 over the XT because of heat issues in the iMac unless you want the fans to run at full RPM all the time the you proberly overclock.....why it is not in the PM's I don't know

Exactly! I don't know why everyone is forgetting about the heat and just assuming Apple cheaped out with the iMac.

 

[TheSandeman]

Memory upgrade prices

I'm very pleased to see they have finally started shipping 512 Mb RAM as standard as this has to be considered the minimum to see OS X in its full glory. The prices to go to 1GB are much better, $125 extra for 1GB using up both DIMMs and $175 for the memory in one stick, leaving you free to buy the additional elsewhere (if you need it on this level machine).

What I don't understand is why these prices are still so high. I mean, when I look at the prices for memory modules in a store, e.g. http://www.geheugen.com (dutch), an original Apple 1G memory module (TS1GAP9655) costs about 138 euros while a 512MB module costs 73 euros. I'd expect a price of about 65 euros (which is the difference between the 1G and 512MB module) for an upgrade to 1G (1 module). But here in Holland, this upgrade costs 170 euros !!! An upgrade to 1G with 2 modules costs 120 euros at the Apple store while a 512MB module costs 73 euros.

 

[iJaz]

What I don't understand is why these prices are still so high. I mean, when I look at the prices for memory modules in a store, e.g. http://www.geheugen.com (dutch), an original Apple 1G memory module (TS1GAP9655) costs about 138 euros while a 512MB module costs 73 euros. I'd expect a price of about 65 euros (which is the difference between the 1G and 512MB module) for an upgrade to 1G (1 module). But here in Holland, this upgrade costs 170 euros !!! An upgrade to 1G with 2 modules costs 120 euros at the Apple store while a 512MB module costs 73 euros.

Apple's prices on memory has always been insane, now they are a bit less insane, but still crazy! I say, buy the iMac without extra memory, buy new memory from somewhere else, you will save money on that. If you don't want the 512MB that comes with it, sell it on ebay. But if you buy 2 1GB modules from somewhere else, you will save so much money that you don't even have to sell th 512MB to make a profit...

 

[sedarby]

Dell, Schmell give me an Apple!

How do the new iMac G5 packages compare to equivalent packages from Dell?

Who cares?

 

[sedarby]

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

Okay junior, it's time you took a long hard look at what you need in a computer and figure out who can meet those specs. You really should head on over to alienware.com and spec out your dream machine. So Apple makes some decisions to keep the cost down. $37 does not seem like much but there may be other issues involved rather than cost such as heat.

Anyway, the graphics card could always be better which is why most serious gamers gravitate to the PowerMacs so they can add whatever graphics card is pushing more FPS's at the moment.

 

[SteveC]

Who cares?

Thank you for answering that so very appropriately. (I'm being serious, by the way, not sarcastic.)

An even more complete answer would be: How do they compare? There's no comparison. The new iMac G5 will be a joy to own and a Windows PC would be a headache and a half.

I think Windows should start coming bundled with 1000mg ibuprofen bottles for use everytime a Windows user gets a new virus or illegal operation.

 

[jgbrinton]

Apple's prices on memory has always been insane, now they are a bit less insane, but still crazy! I say, buy the iMac without extra memory, buy new memory from somewhere else, you will save money on that. If you don't want the 512MB that comes with it, sell it on ebay. But if you buy 2 1GB modules from somewhere else, you will save so much money that you don't even have to sell th 512MB to make a profit...

I was thinking of upgrading to 2GB of memory. How much of a difference in performance will I notice versus 512MB? Where do you recommend purchasing the extra memory? How much do you save over buying it preinstalled from Apple?

 

[iJaz]

I was thinking of upgrading to 2GB of memory. How much of a difference in performance will I notice versus 512MB? Where do you recommend purchasing the extra memory? How much do you save over buying it preinstalled from Apple?

I don't exactly know how big performance boost you will see, depends on what applications you run. Where you should buy your memory depends on where you live. http://www.memorytogo.com/ has 1GB memory for iMacs (PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM) for $126 http://www.crucial.com/ has 1GB for $146. 2GB when you build your iMac at the Apple Store is $475...
I have heard people having problems with AppleCare because they had 3rd party RAM installed