So much for an iMac gaming machine...

Discussion in 'iMac' started by capran, Aug 7, 2007.

  1. capran macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    #1
    They went with the ATI 2400 XT and 2600 Pro. Low end garbage.

    # 20-inch model with 2.0GHz processor

    * ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics processor
    * 128MB of GDDR3 memory

    # 20-inch model with 2.4GHz processor and 24-inch model

    * ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO graphics processor
    * 256MB of GDDR3 memory

    See here for benchmarks and comparison to the Geforce 8600 GT and GTS. The ATI cards are outclassed. If they had gone with even the 2600 XT instead of Pro, I'd like it better, but this just sucks.

    So that about does it then...no gaming Mac unless you want to get a Mac Pro and try to get an 8600/8800 GTS to work in it.

    Apple, color me disappointed. :(
     
  2. soLoredd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #2
    Wonder what EA and John Carmack think of this? I mean, why really spend time on developing for Mac when a very minute share of the customer base can even utilize your software?
     
  3. marcosc macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    #3
    Damn you Apple.. not again!

    I think the price of these cards speaks for themselves.. $89 for the 2600 Pro! If anyone isn't convinced these are low-end, search for benchmarks.

    On the other hand, I'm confident Mac Pros will be updated soon, as this might eat into the higher end segment.

    Just my 2c..
     
  4. Hydra macrumors regular

    Hydra

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    X2400 = X2600 = X1600 the old. (They just changed the name to fool ppl into buying the same crap all over again)

    So the GPU chip is the same and prolly nerfed the clocks even more :mad:

    And glossy screens too :(

    The old 24" iMac with GF7600 is far superior to the new model they pulled out.

    When will we get the next iMac refresh?
     
  5. SiliconDioxide macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    #5
    Why is Apple using ATi/AMD vid cards? They are horrible. I was so ready to buy one, till I saw the vid card. Maybe I'll get a MBP instead.
     
  6. capran thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    #6
    I don't know. I just don't know. It doesn't make sense...they brought out EA and John Carmack at WWDC and talked about games...then the new "Mac for the masses" has a piddly graphics card?

    What the hell, Apple?

    So, I guess this means that if I want a computer that's a real good gaming box AND can run OS X, I have to either spend a ton on a Mac Pro, or rig a PC to do it "illegally". That sucks. That really sucks. :mad:
     
  7. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #7
    Anyone know what the heat output levels of these cards are compared to some of the other options? The new iMac is thinner looking and maybe a little smaller all around (could just be the design making it look smaller, though). Point being is there was never much room in the iMac for heat dissipation, and the new one is probably even worse.

    I wonder if the new iMac is on the very edge of how much heat the case can handle without being overly loud. Everyone remembers how loud the 1G iMac G5's were, right? :shudder:
     
  8. SiliconDioxide macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    #8

    The 2400/2600 produce much less heat than say the 8800 from Nvidia. No one expected Apple to use the 8800 in the new iMac. They should have stuck with Nvidia's less disappointing budget cards (8400 - 8600).
     
  9. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #9
    Did you notice the entire back of the case is aluminium?
     
  10. AdeFowler macrumors 68020

    AdeFowler

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    England
    #10
    It looks like black plastic in the adverts. I may be wrong.
     
  11. capran thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    #11
    Just a thought...is there any hope the GPU is on an MXM module like it was on the last 24" iMac?

    If so...maybe just maybe there'll be aftermarket upgrades. But then again, as far as I know, there aren't any for the 24", and it's been out since last September.
     
  12. Cuyahoga macrumors member

    Cuyahoga

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    #12
    Are the ATI HD2600's mobile or desktop video cards? If they're mobile (meaning slower than the MBP's), what on earth is Apple thinking?

    It's like they know exactly what everyone here wants, if only so they can release the exact opposite.
     
  13. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #13
    What he said. I think they even mentioned it was plastic.

    That's very possible. Since the 20" has some GPU options it's possible they went with a unified logic board and are using MXM. Plus, it would make sense for them to do that for future upgrades. Drop in a new GPU just like any CPU speed bump, RAM increase, HDD upgrade, and it doesn't effect the rest of the machine.

    The 24" was/is sort of niche product. At $2000 + upgrade options you could (almost) buy a Mac Pro and a decent display... point being they probably didn't sell a TON of them (compared to the 17" and 20" models). That combined with the fact it's a new design means there's not a big market out there for aftermarket upgrades. However, if ALL new iMacs use MXM chips there would be a growing group of people to sell to, and as such MIGHT lead to some choices.

    Anyways, I realize that the 2400/2600 is cooler than a high end card, like an 8800, but I meant compared to other cards in that class how does the heat output look? If it's 10% cooler running and only 5% slower that a competing unit and the new machine is already on the edge of its heat dissipation capacity then that could explain the choice.
     
  14. robrose20 macrumors 6502

    robrose20

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #14
    I am also very disappointed with the IMac update, crappy graphics card, glossy screen (blech), stupid black pastic border, I think it looks pretty ugly. It looks like a blown up iphone.

    I guess I'll get the mac pro. When are they due to be updated?
     
  15. skubish macrumors 68030

    skubish

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #16
    Sigh. If you are a customer who actually knows/cares about the video card then the iMac is not for you.

    No need to complain just move along or save up for a Mac Pro. Apple has made it clear that you are not their target customer for the iMac.
     
  16. slughead macrumors 68040

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #17
    Try again. Mac Pro video cards are 19 months old.
     
  17. overcast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #18
    Finally someone with a brain.
     
  18. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #19
    These arent the mobile variety as far as I can tell, the current benches for these ati cards do kind of suck but they will get better drivers meaning higher frame rates. I kind of thought apple would be going this way just because of Blue Ray. I must wonder how the 2600 Pro stacks up against a 7600GS? I have a AMD4200/7600GS I wonder if the Intel 2.4/ATi2600 pro would be faster?
     
  19. Scannall macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #20
    I had planned on buying a new iMac as soon as they were released, as there are a couple PC games I like to play. Vanguard is fun for instance, and it plays 'OK' on my current 17" Core 2 iMac.

    But if the new card isn't a lot better there really isn't a point to buying a new machine.

    Guess I'll wait and see what Barefeats.com has to say. :eek:
     
  20. holland macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    #21
    I thought it was pretty good upgrade. The processor is a lot better. Your video card is better than a x1600 it can play all Mac games and better than the x1600 could. It wouldn't be a good card for a serious gamer but that isn't what the iMac is for. Glossy screen is nice but it sucks when there is a glare. I do agree with the black border though I don't think it is really ugly but looks weird. Anyways I thought it was nice upgrade I am thinking of getting it or maybe a Macbook(13").
     
  21. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #22
    Just over at Anandtech and these new ati cards are lower in frame rates then the 7600GT. The 2400 is near Integrated graphics and the 2600Pro was hammered. That kind of sucks. Apple is at it again. This appears to be a step backwards. A 8600GT would have been much better for modern gaming. Apple still doesnt get it. Oh well.
     
  22. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #23
    Gaming = Pro, lol

    On a A$2100 AIO computer... and all you get is a $89 card? Hahaha
     
  23. Gaius macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #24
    Does anyone know if the ATI 2400 XT or 2600 Pro is HDCP compliant? It would be nice to be able to play blu-ray or HD-DVD discs on an external player.
     
  24. theheyes macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Location:
    Manchester
    #25
    I know it was to be expected but the specs of these new iMacs are a gigantic yawn.

    So wake me up when they stick a Penryn in there.

    night night. :cool:
     

Share This Page