wow the 2600 xt really sucks compared to the other cards?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by togermano, Jan 12, 2008.

  1. togermano macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    #1
    Pixel Fill Rate:
    Radeon HD 2600 XT = 11.8 billion/sec
    GeForce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion/sec
    Quadro FX 5600 = 19.2 billion/sec

    Triangles Per Second
    Radeon HD 2600 XT = 700 million
    Geforce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion
    Quadro FX 5600 = 28.0 billion

    Memory Bandwidth
    Radeon HD 2600 XT = 25.6 GB/sec
    GeForce 8800 GT = 72.0 GB/sec
    Quadro FX 5600 = 76.8 GB/sec



    Do you think a 3rd party vender will come out with an update to repalce the card inside the imac?
     
  2. Caris macrumors 6502a

    Caris

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Location:
    Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
    #2
    Macs aren't really ment for games, therefore you don't need a top end card.
     
  3. togermano thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    #3
    What are they ment for then? Browsing an email? You don't need a 2.4ghz proccessor for that they should just sell 1ghz proccesor only and sell a cheaper mac since a due2 intel 2.4ghz will only be useful for games
     
  4. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #4
    I didn't know the iMac, eMac, and Mac Mini could be upgraded with the 2600:eek:


    OK, sorry, just bustin' your chops:D
     
  5. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #5
    Um...is it me or are the cards you're comparing the 2600XT (Mid-Range) with Higher-End cards?
     
  6. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #6
    No.

    iMacs are built out of laptop technology. They do not have standard PCI-e cards so the chance of an upgrade are approximately 0%. Some previous iMacs had their graphics on MXM expansion modules instead of soldered to the logic board. Even those don't have upgrades available.

    Lack of upgradability was the choice you made when you bought an iMac.
     
  7. bluedoggiant macrumors 68030

    bluedoggiant

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    MD & ATL,GA
    #7

    Mhmm, definitely.

    he's comparing the top nvidia quadro fx to a mid range video card, and also comparing it to an 8800gt, one of the best affordable, these arent even in the same category
     
  8. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #8
    They did not include a Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz inside the iMac for gaming reasons.

    Processor power is much more relevant for applications, other than games, to reduce the time it takes to do a given task.

    At lower resolutions you can be limited by the processor but as the resolution increases the bottleneck increasingly becomes the graphic card.
     
  9. Mantronix macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Location:
    Louisiana
    #9
    Buy a macpro if you're so concerned about the graphic card on a mac.
     
  10. snickelfritz macrumors 65816

    snickelfritz

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    #10

    I think you have to put this in perspective.
    The numbers for the Radeon 2600 look excellent when the GeForce 6800 Ultra is included in the comparison. (in Bold)
    This is especially true if you consider the power and cooling restrictions of the iMac, and the fact that the Radeon2600 has 128bit memory interface.

    In any event, why does any of this matter?
    The 2600 chipset is more than adequate for running Leopard at high resolutions.
    In fact, the performance of my 24" iMac @ 1900x1200 exceeds that of my "upgradable PC" @ 1024x768 in OpenGL games.

    Upgrading my PC to even come close to the performance of my iMac would require that I replace the MOBO/RAM/CPU/GPU/PSU.
    That's basically a complete rebuild.
    "upgradability" usually ends up being a lotta hogwash unless you do it every three-six months. (gamers and hardware-junkies)
     
  11. Luap macrumors 65816

    Luap

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    #11
    Sometimes you just have to forget the dorky numbers for a moment and actually use the thing. Does it do what you want it to? If so, then its good enough.
    I can use my iMac for games, and its actually pretty damn good. I don't play many games, but as an example, frame rates in UT2004 will nearly always be maxed out. I can also play UT3 (No mac version yet, so playing in Winblows via bootcamp) and i'll see 25-45fps regularly. Not brilliant, but perfectly playable and smooth looking, and thats what counts.

    For a cheap bundled card, it does a pretty good job. My only concern is the quality of the drivers and ATI's poor track record. The drivers are better now, but still need work.

    Its not entirely fair to compare the performance of the iMacs gfx card to other cards that cost quite a lot more.
     
  12. Mantronix macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Location:
    Louisiana
    #12
    As long my f uture iMac can run WoW without any issues and better than my current windows box I'm happy.
     
  13. gorby macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
  14. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #14
    I don't understand the point of this topic. It's like declaring a Ferrari is much faster than a Ford Mondeo.
     
  15. CWallace macrumors 603

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #15
    Heck it's a choice you make even when you buy a Mac Pro, as I don't recall them offering an upgraded video card at any time during the previous model's life-cycle of August 2006 to January 2008.
     
  16. czachorski macrumors 6502a

    czachorski

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    #16
    I make use of the processor for real time high-def effects, and h264 encoding. The graphics card make little difference in those processor-intense tasks.
     

Share This Page