[The Ancient One]

Does anyone have any idea of the clock speed?

"RADEON 9600 - 325 MHz chip (4 pipelines with 1 texture unit each), 64/128 MB 200 MHz (DDR 400) 128bit local memory
RADEON 9600 PRO - 400 MHz chip (4 pipelines with 1 texture unit each), 128 MB 300 MHz (DDR 600) 128bit local memory"

I presume it's the first of these, but I'd like to find out for sure.

[eddiecatflap]

i think it's the pro version

[Commodus]

It's the regular version - Apple has clearly stated when a card was a Pro or XT variant.

[Abit667]

The gpu can probably be overclocked back to normal speeds, although that slow memory speed is going to really hurt it, especially because its a 9600 and really needs the bandwidth. Still better then the 5200 though

[eddiecatflap]

it's still a pretty good card tho , right ?

i'm sure for most duties apart from intensive gaming it should suffice

[jcadam]

Apple answered the biggest complaint about the initial version of the iMac G5. The Radeon 9600 is a good card for this price point and will even handle most games without issues. The notable exceptions are the newest generation of games such as Doom3, which anything short of an ATi X800/GeForce 6800 has trouble with.

If this had been the vid card in the original iMac G5, I would have one sitting on my desk right now instead of a PowerMac, but the GeForce 5200 was just plain unacceptable (WTF were they thinking)?

[The Ancient One]

Originally Posted by Abit667

The gpu can probably be overclocked back to normal speeds, although that slow memory speed is going to really hurt it, especially because its a 9600 and really needs the bandwidth. Still better then the 5200 though

I'm not sure that would be a good option in the iMac because of potential heat issues. I just hope Apple didn't UNDERCLOCK it to avoid problems.

[Filburt]

Yeah, it's a plain Radeon 9600 with 200 MHz memory and 325 MHz core. This thing (with 256 MB) sells for about $100 on the street and it's not really a screamer by any stretch of the imagination. I think the PC spec calls for about 20 frames per second under Doom 3.

[joe]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Apple answered the biggest complaint about the initial version of the iMac G5. The Radeon 9600 is a good card for this price point and will even handle most games without issues. The notable exceptions are the newest generation of games such as Doom3, which anything short of an ATi X800/GeForce 6800 has trouble with.

The Radeon 9600 should be fine with Doom3 provided you stick to 800*600 at Medium quality or lower. Check out the Barefeats comparison of Doom3 at 800x600 Medium quality. Although the Radeon 9600 iMacs are too new to be listed, there are benchmarks for a 2GHz G5 Tower with Radeon 9600 that should give some idea of what to expect:
http://www.barefeats.com/doom3b.html

[Recontech]

I have the iMac G5 with the 5200, how much better is this card? And is there any way to upgrade?

[ApeInTheShell]

Doom 3 Requirements: Bling Bling Homies PC version

3D Hardware Accelerator Card Required - 100% DirectX® 9.0b compatible 64MB Hardware Accelerated video card and the latest drivers*.
English version of Microsoft® Windows® 2000/XP
Pentium® IV 1.5 GHz or Athlon® XP 1500+ processor or higher
384MB RAM
8x Speed CD-ROM drive (1200KB/sec sustained transfer rate) and latest drivers
2.2GB of uncompressed free hard disk space (plus 400MB for Windows® swap file)
100% DirectX® 9.0b compatible 16-bit sound card and latest drivers
100% Windows® 2000/XP compatible mouse, keyboard and latest drivers
DirectX® 9.0b (included)
MULTIPLAYER REQUIREMENTS:
Internet (TCP/IP) and LAN (TCP/IP) play supported
Internet play requires broadband connection and latest drivers
LAN play requires network interface card and latest drivers

Important Note: *Some 3D accelerator cards with the chipset listed here may not be compatible with the 3D accelerator features utilized by Doom 3. Please refer to your hardware manufacturer for 100% DirectX 9.0b compatibility. This product does not support Microsoft® Windows® 95/98/ME or NT.
SUPPORTED CHIPSETS:
ATI® Radeon(tm) 8500
ATI® Radeon(tm) 9000
ATI® Radeon(tm) 9200
ATI® Radeon(tm) 9500
ATI® Radeon(tm) 9600
ATI® Radeon(tm) 9700
ATI® Radeon(tm) 9800
All nVidia® GeForce(tm) 3/Ti series
All nVidia® GeForce(tm) 4MX series
All nVidia® GeForce(tm) 4/Ti series
All nVidia® GeForce(tm) FX series
nVidia® GeForce(tm) 6800

Doom 3 Mac version:

Minimum System Requirements:

Doom 3 runs on any iMac G5, or any Mac that meets the requirements below

Operating System: Mac OS X 10.3.8 or later
CPU Processor: PowerPC G4/G5 or later
CPU Speed: 1.5GHz or faster
Memory: 512 MB or higher
Hard Disk Space: 2.0GB free disk space
Video Card (ATI): Radeon 9600 or better
Video Card (NVidia): GeForce FX5200 or better
Video Memory (VRam): 64 MB
Media Required: DVD Drive
Recommended System Requirements:
CPU ProcessorowerPC G5
CPU Speed:2.0GHz or faster
Video RAM:128MB

Game developers make new technology obsolete too fast. They should slow down but that won't happen anytime soon.

[joe]

Originally Posted by Recontech

I have the iMac G5 with the 5200, how much better is this card? And is there any way to upgrade?

You can't upgrade the GPU in the G5 iMac. Like most notebook computers, the graphics chips are soldered directly onto the motherboard. As for a direct comparison between the FX5200 and Radeon 9600 - check out the 2nd UT2003 graph here:
http://www.barefeats.com/g5b.html

The 2nd graph shows a 1.8Ghz G5 with an FX5200 benchmarking 48fps while the same 1.8Ghz G5 with Radeon 9600 manages a whopping 81fps! Of course there are faster graphics cards out there for G5 Tower owners. But the Radeon 9600 is a decent mid-range card that can handle even the most demanding games like Doom3 at medium settings! if you're a gamer, these new G5 iMacs with Radeon 9600 are a major improvement. If you're not a gamer, the original G5 iMac is nearly as fast (IMHO) since 2.0Ghz is only a modest bump (11%) over the previous 1.8Ghz G5.

[Eug Wanker]

The 2nd graph shows a 1.8Ghz G5 with an FX5200 benchmarking 48fps while the same 1.8Ghz G5 with Radeon 9600 manages a whopping 81fps! Of course there are faster graphics cards out there for G5 Tower owners. But the Radeon 9600 is a decent mid-range card that can handle even the most demanding games like Doom3 at medium settings! if you're a gamer, these new G5 iMacs with Radeon 9600 are a major improvement. If you're not a gamer, the original G5 iMac is nearly as fast (IMHO) since 2.0Ghz is only a modest bump (11%) over the previous 1.8Ghz G5.

The plain Radeon 9600 in the new iMac (which I ordered) is a low end card. It's just not quite as low end as the 5200U. The 9600 in that graph is a 9600 Pro, which is significantly faster. The new iMacs do NOT have the 9600 Pro (although I really wish it did).

OTOH, the new iMac does get 128 MB video RAM though.

[thefunkymunky]

The 9600 does not support Core Image in Tiger either does it?

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by thefunkymunky

The 9600 does not support Core Image in Tiger either does it?

Yes it does.

About the comments that the GPU is mostly relevant to games, I'm not sure that that's the case anymore. Tiger is offloading (or will in an update) even more of the display responsibilities onto the GPU and so the GPU, one would think, is more important than ever in the overall feel of the computer. Someone had posted that the GPU choice made a sizeable difference in a QT7 movie playback under 10.4--a difference that wasn't noticed under 10.3

[thefunkymunky]

This list here http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301347 says only the 9600XT and above supports CI. So which is it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by thefunkymunky

The 9600 does not support Core Image in Tiger either does it?

Yes it does, and so does the 5200U in the older G5 iMacs, and so does the 9600 Pro in the first G5 Power Macs.

[thefunkymunky]

OK thanks. Wish Apple will post the correct info on their site.

[discotronic]

Is the 9600 in the new iMac the same as the 9600XT that is in the PM 1.8GHz as a BTO option? If not what is the difference?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by discotronic

Is the 9600 in the new iMac the same as the 9600XT that is in the PM 1.8GHz as a BTO option?

No.

If not what is the difference?

The 9600 is slow. The 9600XT is moderately fast.

[lsrdsc]

So, will the video Card in the iMac run Motion?

[Lateralus]

Yes...

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by lsrdsc

So, will the video Card in the iMac run Motion?

Technically yes, as Lateralus says, but I've been told GPUs with that kind of performance will run Motion poorly. (Apple recommends a minimum of a Radeon 9800 Pro.)

[P]

Originally Posted by discotronic

Is the 9600 in the new iMac the same as the 9600XT that is in the PM 1.8GHz as a BTO option? If not what is the difference?

Clockspeed. The GPU core is clocked lower, and memory interface is clocked lower. They're identical otherwise.

In ATi naming procedure, the progression in extensions is SE, nothing, Pro, and XT, with XT being the fastest.

[Eug Wanker]

Stolen from Toms Hardware:



The ones I marked with the red dot are in recent Macs. Since relative performance on the PC can be different and the Mac cards aren't exactly the same, this is just a ballpark gauge of performance of course, but note again that Apple recommends a 9800 Pro for Motion.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Since relative performance on the PC can be different, and the Mac cards aren't exactly the same, this is just a ballpark gauge of performance of course...

And 3DMark03 isn't exactly the greatest benchmark on Earth either. Many sites are still sticking with '01 since there is far less question as to whether or not it is biased.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

And 3DMark03 isn't exactly the greatest benchmark on Earth either. Many sites are still sticking with '01 since there is far less question as to whether or not it is biased.

Perhaps, but overall that above graph is fairly representative of their relative performance, at least in terms of fastest to slowest.

ie. In the context of this thread... The plain-Jane 9600 is not as bad as 5200 U, but it's still a low end card. I'm no video jockey, but I'd be loathe to recommend an iMac for Motion, unless it was just for dabbling.

[PeteWK]

Well, I suppose a lot of this discussion depends on what kind of computer you're stepping up from. I'm going from a 667 DVI Powerbook to the 20 inch 2 gig iMac so the 9600 will be a huge improvement for me. I'm looking forward to the massive improvement. I suppose some with more recent equipment should be shopping for the PowerMac.

PeteWK

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by PeteWK

Well, I suppose a lot of this discussion depends on what kind of computer you're stepping up from. I'm going from a 667 DVI Powerbook to the 20 inch 2 gig iMac so the 9600 will be a huge improvement for me. I'm looking forward to the massive improvement. I suppose some with more recent equipment should be shopping for the PowerMac.

PeteWK

That's the way we looked at it. We moved up from an iMacDVSE 400. (Still use it.) We bought the rev A iMac G5 immediately when they were announced. Love it.

[PeteWK]

Originally Posted by kcmac

That's the way we looked at it. We moved up from an iMacDVSE 400. (Still use it.) We bought the rev A iMac G5 immediately when they were announced. Love it.

Well, here I am. I'm writing this as my first post on my new iMac 20 inch. I AM IN LOVE!

We got it as the top of the line model but added the wireless keyboard and mouse for 54 dollars and the Applecare for 119. The total with tax was 2024 (includes Education discount for my teacher wife). I am totally blown away.

Fast / beauiful / stunning

PeteWK

[P]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Perhaps, but overall that above graph is fairly representative of their relative performance, at least in terms of fastest to slowest.

ie. In the context of this thread... The plain-Jane 9600 is not as bad as 5200 U, but it's still a low end card. I'm no video jockey, but I'd be loathe to recommend an iMac for Motion, unless it was just for dabbling.

I think you've just hit on the reason that keeps Apple from putting a faster board in the iMac...

Video performance can roughly be said to be based on two values: How fast the GPU can get the textue data from memory, and how fast it can put that data onto polygons and render it to screen. The 5200 is crippled in the first department, without any sort of texture and color compression. It's a memory interface that is barely improved from the Geforce2 (OK, so there is a crossbar, but other than that). The Ultra model used in the iMac G5 compensates for this to some extent by using a fairly high clockspeed on the memory interface (higher than even the 9600 XT, and not far behind the 9800 SE), but it's still the limiting factor. The Radeon 9600, on the other hand, is more balanced and is mainly limited by the respective clockspeeds of the memory bus and the GPU.

If the test you're writing uses a small number of textures repeated over and over, the 5200 is looking fairly good, and can beat the 9600 in special cases. If it uses a lot of small textures, the 9600 rules. The real world is somewhere inbetween, which is why many tests use actual games.

[Eug Wanker]

So, I got the iMac 20" finally. The Radeon 9600 with 128 MB memory rocks. Exposé is smooth even with tons of windows open. My TiBook 1 GHz with Radeon 9000 64 MB would stutter in Exposé when I opened a lot of windows.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by hudson1

Someone had posted that the GPU choice made a sizeable difference in a QT7 movie playback under 10.4--a difference that wasn't noticed under 10.3

When I Use Exposé while playing a movie in QT7 under Tiger the video becomes choppy for a few seconds and then stabilizes back to smooth playback. Extremely annoying. (Radeon 9000 mobility tough..., but it didn't do that under Panther)