[tooki]

Well, Motion's preview frame rate is based on GPU performance. Final output rendering is not what was being measured.

Regardless of how the GMA950 achieves what it does, it does it, and does it well enough for the vast majority of computer users out there, and for the vast majority of applications out there other than games. I have explicitly and repeatedly made very clear that the GMA950 is not a good choice for gaming.

tooki

[Eug]

Yes, I would agree with that... with Core Duo or better.

I was less comfortable recommending Core Solo with GMA 950 though (even though it was probably fine too for most people). Fortunately, that is no longer an issue, since Apple no longer sells any Core Solo machines.

[tooki]

Well I have always recommended dual-CPU (or now, dual-core) machines, since the improvement in overall system responsiveness is so great when going from a single CPU. I am glad that dual-core is now standard (and affordable).

tooki

[Eug]

macgeneration: 24" iMac's GPU uses MXM

L’iMac 24" ne se distingue pas de ses frères que par la taille de son écran. Première différence et pas des moindres, la carte vidéo de ce dernier est sur une carte fille et pourrait en théorie être remplacée. Apple utilise le format MXM PCI Express que l’on trouvé déjà sur certains portables PC.

If true then this theoretically brings about the possibility of GPU upgrades, but I emphasize the "theoretically" part.

nVidia's MXM page

Below is an example of such a module. (It's not the one from the iMac though, just one from the net.)

[Eriamjh]

And upgradeable video card in an iMac? Maybe Apple justified it in the 24" model. That would easily explain the card upgrade in the Apple store.

It's sounding better and better each minute.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

And upgradeable video card in an iMac? Maybe Apple justified it in the 24" model. That would easily explain the card upgrade in the Apple store.

It's sounding better and better each minute.

Yeah it's possible, but judging by the MXM site it will probably be extremely hard, since these modules aren't available to the general public, and you have to worry about getting one built exactly for the electrical and thermal needs of the iMac. Plus you'll need drivers.

I could see third parties selling these, but like G4 CPU upgrades, they won't come cheap. Still, it's always good to hope.

I think the biggest benefit to us is not future upgradability. It is CURRENT upgradability. In the past we just had either NO option to upgrade the GPU/memory, or else just the option to upgrade the memory. This design makes it easy for Apple to add the GPU upgrade option.

Too bad they didn't have the option for a 7800/7900 series GPU.

OTOH, the people at the MXM forums are skeptical it's a true MXM module.

That said, if macgeneration is correct, it's still a GPU on a daughter module. MXM or not, that still a good thing from our point of view.

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by Eug

That said, if macgeneration is correct, it's still a GPU on a daughter module. MXM or not, that still a good thing from our point of view.

It is a first for the all-in one iMacs. Granted, there will be limited upgrade possibilities, but limited is > zero.

I don't expect 3rd parties to be jumping on designing and upgrade card. Knowing Apple, they'll change it in 3 months, or eliminate it altogether. Remember the Mezzanine slot in the Rev A/B iMacs?

It's still a good thing. DId I say it was a good thing?

[Eug]

Hmmm... Somebody just point this out to me... Error?

7600 GT @ Apple Canada: C$90 (US$80)
7600 GT @ Apple USA: US$125 (C$140)

So, we Canadians get the GPU upgrade for C$50 less. w00t, eh?!

P.S. It's 120 Eur in Germany. Methinks somebody might have screwed up on the pricing on the Canadian site.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by seanc

The only use I'd have for dial up is when my broadband goes out. Very few people use it these days, the only ones I know that do are old people who see no point in upgrading or people who can't get it in their areas.

Not only is a modem still useful as backup in case your broadband connection fails, but consider how useful it still is for desktop faxing (esp. if you don't want to pay to send faxes via the Web), and certain desktop telephony products like Ovolab Phlink.

Rumors of the modem's death are, as Mark Twain would say, greatly exaggerated.

[Eug]

Benchmarks!!!

To my surprise, some of the benches seem to suggest that the speed from 2 --> 2.17 scales basically linearly with clock speed. I guess that 4 MB L2 really does help quite a bit.

So I caved... and ordered the 2.33. I'm justifying it by the fact that work pays a portion of it, but a chunk of cash is still coming out of my pocket for that measly 166 MHz. Like someone said... I just want bragging rights.

[Eug]

More PC 7600 GT benches:







The 7600 GT looks VERY good for OpenGL stuff. It doesn't do as hot for Direct3D. Fortunately, we on the Mac side depend on OpenGL.

I wonder what is the iMac's 7600 GT clock speed. On the PC side, it's GPU 560 MHz, memory 700 MHz.

[stefanicotine]

Alot of people need modems to use Fax on their computers

[Eug]

I do things the hard way... Print out a fax, and then fax it with a fax machine.

I don't think the lack of a model on the iMac is really that big of a deal though, since you can get an external modem. Yeah extra things plugged in suck, but with a built-in modem you'd have to plug in the phone cable anyway.

Personally I'd rather have Firewire 800 and no modem than modem and no Firewire 800, even though I don't plan on using Firewire 800 now or in the immediate future. At least you can add a modem later. The same can't be said of Firewire 800.

[Eug]

Original benches:




Table with time changed to seconds and percentage speed increase in brackets.
(Fastest at the top, slowest at the bottom.)




Note that the Mac Pro is a quad:

"More significant, the 2.16GHz system narrowed the performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro product lines. With twice the number of processor cores, all running faster than the iMac, the Mac Pro had a definite advantage in this match up. But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities, most results showed the Mac Pro between 20 and 30 percent faster than the 2.16GHz iMac. I expect that test results of the new 24-inch model—with its faster graphics and the optional 2.33GHz processor upgrade—could close this performance gap even further."

[Eug]

Originally Posted by indigoimac

2) I was relatively pleased w/ the gfx performance of said edu imac, but I'm not stooping to integrated for personal use, so how does the x1600 compare to both the integrated 950, the ATi 9700 Mobility in my PowerBook and say nVIDIA's 6800(non-gt) which is what I have in my PC and I have decided that I will likely need anything better than that, it's really the perfect card for me.

Originally Posted by Eug

More PC benches:

Originally Posted by Eug

GeForce 7300 GT > Radeon X1600 > Radeon 9700 Mobility >>> GMA 950

I believe GeForce 6800 >> 7300 GT, but I'm not sure by how much. The 7600 GT should be much closer to the GeForce 6800, but that's not an option for the lower end iMac models.

Hmmm... Interesting... User impression of 24" with Aperture:

"I think it was pretty good - hard to describe, but adjustments were all instant (I tested with some 12 MP RAWs) and exports seemed to be very fast (did not time it though). Significantly faster than my Dual G5 2.7 with the 6800 Ultra and without the turbine noise. Very nice machine. Unfortunately we do not need additional iMacs at the moment... I would certainly get one."

However, he also says:

"...for good performance the GPU upgrade to the GeForce 7600 GT is recommended. The standard 7300 GT is actually slower with Aperture than the X1600 on the 20" model."

Now, Quake 4 is not Aperture, but this seems interesting nonetheless, esp. since Quake 4 is an OpenGL game. On Windows, Open GL is clearly faster on the 7300 GT.

For baseline usage, the (non-overclocked) 7300 GT beats the (non-overclocked) X1600 Pro in Quake 4:



However, when everything is turned on, the 7300 GT loses some of its advantage, but it is still faster:



The results from the Doom 3 tests are similar, which is not surprising considering Doom 3 uses a similar OpenGL engine.