[jamesa]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Here is a chart.
snip
The 5200 is so low end and old, it's not even on it. However you can see that ATi's offerings to the equivalent Nvidia cards almost always draw less power and run cooler.

I wonder if someone can't find the details of the 5200U power/heat consumption, just so we can't lay that excuse to bed (or verify it).

-- james

[Simon]

Originally posted by jamesa:
I wonder if someone can't find the details of the 5200U power/heat consumption, just so we can't lay that excuse to bed (or verify it).

It's rather hard to get the exact numbers for the Ultra version of the card and then you need to get that data for the Radeon cards as well. The manufacturers don't state these numbers in their spec sheets, so you have to really get in touch with the people in the business.

I've had some mail exchange with Rob-art of BareFeats.com about this and he is currently trying to get these numbers through contacts with ATI and NVIDIA.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Simon:
It's rather hard to get the exact numbers for the Ultra version of the card and then you need to get that data for the Radeon cards as well. The manufacturers don't state these numbers in their spec sheets, so you have to really get in touch with the people in the business.

I've had some mail exchange with Rob-art of BareFeats.com about this and he is currently trying to get these numbers through contacts with ATI and NVIDIA.

excellent. especially if he puts it up on his site, that'd get a bit more publicity for this Apple "oversight", maybe they'll do something about it

-- james

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Link:
We've all proved that ... 2. For the same price Apple could have used a card that was faster, cooler running, and probably even consumed less power.

Where ?
Link, please ?

In your dreams, maybe...

-t

[eddiecatflap]

even macuser say that the videocard lets the mac down

as they say , it's fine now

but in a years time ??

[klinux]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Where ?
Link, please ?

In your dreams, maybe...

-t

If this was the PC video card world, there would be a myriad of choices like the 9550 or 9600se, for example.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by klinux:
If this was the PC video card world, there would be a myriad of choices like the 9550 or 9600se, for example.

Umm. Actually no. The PC all-in-one LCD-computer market offers an integrated Intel graphics chipset (Gateway) or an integrated SiS chipset (Sony). I'll stick with Apple.

In any event, the 9550 performs almost identically with the 5200 Ultra (see other thread for details).

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by gperks:
The way you all are carrying on, everyone should throw away any machine with a 5200 or slower!

I bought a HP a530n a few months ago. Some of the specs might sound familiar... 64 bit processor (2.0 GHZ Athlon64) and a sh~t Geforce 5200. The 5200 was out of there first day in favor of a Geforce 5900XT.

This isn't to start on the whole Apple vs. PC value debate. That HP plus 20" Viewsonic set me back about what a 1.8ghz 20" iMac would cost. So the value equation has leveled off (finally!).

However -- in a machine that is *not* upgradable Apple should do even a little bit better. Especially with a GUI that relies on the GPU. Another Apple blunder...

RevB will make things a little better... but not by much I'll bet.

jw

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
8x DVD burning is nice, but more useful still is the new dual layer burner. Most of the time is not spent waiting for the burn but rather waiting for the MPEG-2 encoding which is CPU-intensive. Anyway, DL has been out for months now and Apple still doesn't offer a BTO option.

-S

Dual-Layer is out, but try finding the media. And when you do it is $10 a disk. Why bother?

[pliny]

Originally posted by Simon:
It's rather hard to get the exact numbers for the Ultra version of the card and then you need to get that data for the Radeon cards as well. The manufacturers don't state these numbers in their spec sheets, so you have to really get in touch with the people in the business.

I've been looking for these numbers myself and haven't had any luck, despite all the claims by people so far that a particular Radeon runs cooler than the Nvidia, apparently because one person opened up their machine and touched it or something and then touched the Nvidia, go figure; another, PowerMacman, says his 9550 doesn't run hot.

Would be good to get some precision to help determine to what degree heat and wattage were factors.

[klinux]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Umm. Actually no. The PC all-in-one LCD-computer market offers an integrated Intel graphics chipset (Gateway) or an integrated SiS chipset (Sony). I'll stick with Apple.

In any event, the 9550 performs almost identically with the 5200 Ultra (see other thread for details).

Paul, I was going to write a strong reply to you until I read your signature. I used to a frequent visit to Sudhian as I had a SV24 (still lying around somewhere). Sudhian is a superb site and I encourage everyone here to visit it.

In any case, as I argued befored, it is unfair to compare iMac to PC AIO because the PC world offers a lot of choices and AIO is a tiny fraction of that whereas iMac is an intergral part of Mac's consumer line.

As for performance of 9550, other reviews I have seen compared it to 5700. Will just leave it at that for now.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by klinux:
Paul, I was going to write a strong reply to you until I read your signature. I used to a frequent visit to Sudhian as I had a SV24 (still lying around somewhere). Sudhian is a superb site and I encourage everyone here to visit it.

In any case, as I argued befored, it is unfair to compare iMac to PC AIO because the PC world offers a lot of choices and AIO is a tiny fraction of that whereas iMac is an intergral part of Mac's consumer line.

As for performance of 9550, other reviews I have seen compared it to 5700. Will just leave it at that for now.

Thanks for the measured reply! It makes a pleasant change around here!

In terms of the 5200 Ultra versus the 9550, the only direct comparison I've found is at Tech Report here where you can see the two cards are very evenly matched. In some games the 5200 Ultra is way faster than the 9550, in others the 9550 is faster, and in several games the scores are practically identical.

It's an interesting discussion to see what part of the PC world the iMac is competing against. I woudl argue that Apple are consciously not trying to take on the mainstream PC world - whether that is with dual-CPU workstations in their high end or all-in-ones at their low and middle ends. They have identified certain niches that they think they can make their own, and are targeting them. So, I think it is reasonable to compare a $1500 iMac with a $1500 AIO Gateway or the $1900 AIO Sony. All are trying to be "lifestyle" products with unique design, rather than just a beige box. After all, if those ergonomic/design issues weren't important to you, you'd probably never consider an Apple - you can (in general) always get a far more powerful gaming PC for less. So, I think you have to compare like with like - I have $1500 to spend, what kind of "lifestyle" PC can I buy with that money?

Actually, I think the real problem here is that there is clearly a pent-up demand for an easily upgradeable "gamers Mac" which the iMac doesn't address (and wasn't designed to address). I don't think an AIO would ever satisfy this market, as whatever GPU you put in the machine is obsolete within 6 months (literally) and with no chance of upgrading it is gaming machine with a very short lifespan whatever. Far better for Apple to produce a simplified tower machine with AGP slot to satisfy the gamers, then I think much of this vitriol against the iMac's GPU would go away. People would accept the iMac is not designed for gaming and be happy with their tower.

[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
Dual-Layer is out, but try finding the media. And when you do it is $10 a disk. Why bother?

Because when your choice is to either cut your video in half or cut your video's quality in half, you spend the ten bucks and thank the gods for dual-layer technology.

No one says you have to use a DL to do DL, but it's nice to have that choice. Anyway, who cares about ten dollars if it snags you a ten-thousand-dollar contract?

-S

[ApeInTheShell]

Well I am not going to defend my 5200U because I do not own one or the new iMac. So why bother?

I think people anticipate every release of the iMac is going to be a "gamer" machine. Notice this is not a primary focus of the iMac nor should be. I think the iLife package does more than enough to satisfy the consumer along with the other features in Mac OS X. I think Apple is back on track by focusing on the music market almost exclusively and marketing the new iMac in conjunction with the iPod. Games are like any other form of entertainment; just an addition to what we already have.

[Link]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
Because when your choice is to either cut your video in half or cut your video's quality in half, you spend the ten bucks and thank the gods for dual-layer technology.

No one says you have to use a DL to do DL, but it's nice to have that choice. Anyway, who cares about ten dollars if it snags you a ten-thousand-dollar contract?

-S

Consider 2 things: While the imac didn't come with a DL-DVD burner it's possible to replace it, wait for the matsushita 825 to come out, which I think DOES support DL burning.

That, or you could always get a *gasp* EXTERNAL burner. I do admit it's pathetic that the g5 powermacs don't already have it though, AND the powerbooks.. ya know just another reason to wait for rev b huh

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by Link:
Consider 2 things: While the imac didn't come with a DL-DVD burner it's possible to replace it, wait for the matsushita 825 to come out, which I think DOES support DL burning.

That, or you could always get a *gasp* EXTERNAL burner. I do admit it's pathetic that the g5 powermacs don't already have it though, AND the powerbooks.. ya know just another reason to wait for rev b huh

What makes you think that they will ever come with one? How long did it take Apple to support CD-R/RW? Two or three years after that had become popular in the PC world. Meanwhile we are stuck with "Superdrives" (Which aren't really that super)
I never once expected the new iMac to be a gamers machine, I however also didn't expect the very bottom of video cards available today, be the only card choice. (Besides the EDU)

[P]

Found this little page with graphs over the power consumption of certain cards I have seen suggested (and, to be fair, have suggested myself) as replacements for the 5200 Ultra. The 5200 is not among them, though I would suspect that it draws considerably less than the 5700 since it's pretty much half of 5700.

This shows that you could probably put a Radeon 9600 in the machine without much of a problem. I think the reason for the 5200 is very simple. Jobs is still pissed at ATI over all the stuff that they did a couple of years ago (pre-announcing products, terrible drivers for the Rage 128s in the B&W G3s, etc) that he doesn't want to give them too much sales. He keeps the Radeons available as BTOs for the PowerMacs to avoid completely shutting ATI out - don't burn all the bridges - but the majority of the machines come with nVidia boards. There is no way that a hot 5700 could go in the iMac, so a 5200 Ultra is what it is.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
What makes you think that they will ever come with one? How long did it take Apple to support CD-R/RW? Two or three years after that had become popular in the PC world. Meanwhile we are stuck with "Superdrives" (Which aren't really that super)
I never once expected the new iMac to be a gamers machine, I however also didn't expect the very bottom of video cards available today, be the only card choice. (Besides the EDU)

Jobs has suddenly gone all anti-choice because his other job is involved. He's gone on the record as saying he doesn't want to support DL because then people can ::gasp:: pirate stuff!

Good thing he didn't extend his attitude to CDs, or iTunes/iPod wouldn've taken off either.

-- james

[PBG4 User]

I was in the Apple store at Westfarms last week checking out the new iMac. The 20" was quite cool, it had a huge screen, didn't take up too much space, etc., etc. I was there with my wife trying to convince myself to buy one. Heck, they even had 3 20" models in stock.

But, I couldn't do it. Not so much for the games, although I would've loaded Diablo II, Q3A and Quinn onto it immediately. It's just hte thought of being forever saddled with a non-upgradeable part. I don't mind non-upgradeable if I get something in return, like mobility with my PowerBook. I just couldn't get myself to buy a brand new computer that had a less powerful video card than my 1 year old PowerBook.

This sucks. I want to replace my 5 year old PC desktop with a Mac desktop, but the only one I can afford (iMac G5) is too skimpy on the GPU for me.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by klinux:
If this was the PC video card world, there would be a myriad of choices like the 9550 or 9600se, for example.

If, if, if...

I want to see the option for Apple to have an on-board GPU, that
* is faster
* has same price
* is cooler
* has lower power consumption

This is the claim that Link made.

So where are the links ?

-t

[Luca Rescigno]

And we've already said that the 9550 or 9600SE fills the bill. It is:

1. Significantly faster
2. Same price
3&4. No actual numbers for power consumption and/or heat, but the 9550 gets by with a smaller heat sink than the 5200, and the difference in power consumption is probably minimal.

It seems to me that you just really love the iMac and will defend the crappy video card to the end, eventually resorting to this tactic of waiting for links/figures/stats that just aren't going to happen. Can't you just accept that the 5200 is an inferior choice and instead maybe, possibly try to argue that the iMac is still good? Obviously you love it a lot, but you're not going to convince anyone that the 5200 is a good video card or the best choice for the iMac. You're one of maybe four people in the entire world who thinks the 5200 is a really good video card. Seriously, accept the FACT that the 5200 is bad, and we may listen to your OPINION that the iMac is still good despite that.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
And we've already said that the 9550 or 9600SE fills the bill. It is:

1. Significantly faster
2. Same price
3&4. No actual numbers for power consumption and/or heat, but the 9550 gets by with a smaller heat sink than the 5200, and the difference in power consumption is probably minimal.

It seems to me that you just really love the iMac and will defend the crappy video card to the end, eventually resorting to this tactic of waiting for links/figures/stats that just aren't going to happen. Can't you just accept that the 5200 is an inferior choice and instead maybe, possibly try to argue that the iMac is still good? Obviously you love it a lot, but you're not going to convince anyone that the 5200 is a good video card or the best choice for the iMac. You're one of maybe four people in the entire world who thinks the 5200 is a really good video card. Seriously, accept the FACT that the 5200 is bad, and we may listen to your OPINION that the iMac is still good despite that.

Yawn. The 9550 isn't significantly faster than the 5200 Ultra. Indeed, in some games, it's significantly slower. Go read the review at Tech Report for a direct comparison.

In some tests, the 5200 Ultra is far ahead of the 9550 - eg. 3Dmark03 texturing rate of 931 Mpixels/s vs. 570 MPixels/s on the 9550; or 7.4 fps on the Vertex Shader vs. 6.5 fps, or 147 fps vs. 128 fps on Wings of Fury, or 149fps on Return to Castle Wolfenstein vs 99fps on the 9550. So, on these tests the 5200 Ultra is consistently much better than the 9550.

On other test, they are evenly matched. eg. almost identical scores on Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow, Need For Speed and UT2004.

And on some other tests the 9550 was marginally better than the 5200 Ultra. For example higher multi-texturing fill rate in 3DMark03 (974 vs. 912 Mtexels/s), higher Pixel Shader 2.0 results (16.2fps vs. 9.4 fps), overall higher 3Dmark03 score (2913 vs 2602), higher score in Far Cry (69fps vs 55 fps).

At best, it's a comparable card - slower in some things, faster in some, and identical in others. You wouldn't notice any significant difference.

[PEHowland]

Incidentally, for those of you obsessed with graphics cards specifications, this new article at Adrian's Rojak Pot compares the key features of over 200 graphics cards. Lot's of numbers for people to throw backwards and forwards at each other in this thread. No power consumption figures unfortunately...

[iBorg]

Originally posted by PEHowland:


Yawn. The 9550 isn't significantly faster than the 5200 Ultra. Indeed, in some games, it's significantly slower. Go read the review at Tech Report for a direct comparison.

In some tests, the 5200 Ultra is far ahead of the 9550 - eg. 3Dmark03 texturing rate of 931 Mpixels/s vs. 570 MPixels/s on the 9550; or 7.4 fps on the Vertex Shader vs. 6.5 fps, or 147 fps vs. 128 fps on Wings of Fury, or 149fps on Return to Castle Wolfenstein vs 99fps on the 9550. So, on these tests the 5200 Ultra is consistently much better than the 9550.

On other test, they are evenly matched. eg. almost identical scores on Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow, Need For Speed and UT2004.

And on some other tests the 9550 was marginally better than the 5200 Ultra. For example higher multi-texturing fill rate in 3DMark03 (974 vs. 912 Mtexels/s), higher Pixel Shader 2.0 results (16.2fps vs. 9.4 fps), overall higher 3Dmark03 score (2913 vs 2602), higher score in Far Cry (69fps vs 55 fps).

At best, it's a comparable card - slower in some things, faster in some, and identical in others. You wouldn't notice any significant difference.

While your reference gives relative performance between the 9550 and 5200, the framerates, etc., were done using 128MB GPU's, while the G5 iMac uses the 64 MB version. Did Apple have to further cripple the video capability of this slow GPU by cutting the VRAM in half??? How much difference would this make?

Although it's probably hard to find anyone reviewing a desktop card in 2004 using a measly 64MB GPU, it would be interesting to see some head-to-head figures for NVidia's bottom-feeder against some of the other possible alternatives mentioned in these forum threads, e.g. ATI's 9600. And, perhaps, a 64MB vs. 128MB 5200 matchup?



iBorg

[Luca Rescigno]

Looks like I was getting confused between 5200 vs. 5200 Ultra. And there are of course different versions of the 9550 (SE, regular and XT) and 9600 (SE, regular, Pro and XT). The 5200 is indeed a really crappy card, but the 5200 Ultra seems to be quite a bit better. Still not really very good - for the price the iMac should have a 9600 Pro - but it's not as bad as I thought originally either.

From what I've heard, increasing VRAM from 64 MB to 128 MB doesn't have a huge effect, at least compared to how huge the difference is when moving from 32 MB to 64 MB. That is changing of course, with games like Doom III needing 128 MB to store all the textures, but I'd say 64 MB is the bare minimum right now. I think Apple should make sure the iBook and eMac get 64 MB of VRAM as soon as possible before they worry about getting 128 MB in the iMac (even though it should have that much). Really, ALL of Apple's systems should have 128 MB of VRAM. It's actually quite difficult to even find a 64 MB video card these days.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by gperks:

They may very well... However Apple will ask for $350 for a 9800XT, or heck $500 for a GeForce 6800. My $300 suggestion for a top-end card isn't so foolish afterall, eh?

Yes, it is.

I can buy a 9600XT w/ 128MB for $125, subtract the $40 for a crappy GF 5200U 64MB, and you have an $85 swing, at retail. Figure that for Apple it would only be a $50-$60 difference, in bulk, and you see just how chintzy Apple is on their GPU selection.

Hell, they could have charged an extra $150-$200 and I would have paid it. As it is, I'm waiting. They obviously don't want my $ that badly.

[dws]

Now that I've had a chance to put a new 1.6Ghz G5 iMac through its paces; from running a couple dozens of apps at once, to piling on the tracks and affects in GarageBand, to playing the most demanding 3D games (using high resolutions and options)...

You people can chant your anti-5200U mantras all you want, but the simple fact is that the iMac is more than the sum of its parts. While the iMac3 might not be considered revolutionary; it is certainly more than a simple evolution of specs.

Will some future game not be able to be run at its highest resolution and options? U Betcha! This is the way of the world. When these games come out over the next 2-3 years, then you'll just have to suck it up and run them at reduced settings. Eventually, a game will come out that won't run at all; since its minimum requirements will be a 128 graphics chip. When that dreaded day finally arrives, you'll just have to dust off that old copy of C&CGenerals or SplinterCell and remember the glory days, when your iMac3 was new.

The few who actually hold to their pledge to not buy a G5 iMac - boy will you be missing out on a real treat.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by iBorg:

Although it's probably hard to find anyone reviewing a desktop card in 2004 using a measly 64MB GPU, it would be interesting to see some head-to-head figures for NVidia's bottom-feeder against some of the other possible alternatives mentioned in these forum threads, e.g. ATI's 9600. And, perhaps, a 64MB vs. 128MB 5200 matchup?



iBorg

128MB of memory will make a difference on games that use complex, large textures. For the class of games that the 5200 Ultre can run, 64MB is probably adequate - 128MB is overkill. Having 128MB won't make the card any faster per se - only when the amount of textures it needs to store exceeds the 64MB. Obviously, in most games you can control the size of the textures my reducing the quality setting. However, as I say, the sorts of games the 5200 Ultra can run, 128MB wouldn't make much diffence.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by dws:
Now that I've had a chance to put a new 1.6Ghz G5 iMac through its paces; from running a couple dozens of apps at once, to piling on the tracks and affects in GarageBand, to playing the most demanding 3D games (using high resolutions and options)...

You people can chant your anti-5200U mantras all you want, but the simple fact is that the iMac is more than the sum of its parts. While the iMac3 might not be considered revolutionary; it is certainly more than a simple evolution of specs.

Will some future game not be able to be run at its highest resolution and options? U Betcha! This is the way of the world. When these games come out over the next 2-3 years, then you'll just have to suck it up and run them at reduced settings. Eventually, a game will come out that won't run at all; since its minimum requirements will be a 128 graphics chip. When that dreaded day finally arrives, you'll just have to dust off that old copy of C&CGenerals or SplinterCell and remember the glory days, when your iMac3 was new.

The few who actually hold to their pledge to not buy a G5 iMac - boy will you be missing out on a real treat.

nobody said that old games like C&C Generals (which is a year old on the PC) or Splinter Cell (which is 18 months old on the PC) won't run on outdated GPUs, like the 5200U. They will, because those games you're playing came out at around the same time the card did.

The point is on a $2000 machine, yesterday's hardware shouldn't be making the cut. And this is especially the case when you have to spend a lot more to get a machine that will even allow you to change the 5200 out, if the GPU is important to you (which judging by the number of threads is important to a number of people, and judging by the PC users I know that would be interested in switching is important to them too).

Because otherwise, what you're saying is that Apple users should pay the same price as PC users, but instead of getting decent parts in their machines they'll get over the hill componentry.

-- james

[iBorg]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
128MB of memory will make a difference on games that use complex, large textures. For the class of games that the 5200 Ultre can run, 64MB is probably adequate - 128MB is overkill. Having 128MB won't make the card any faster per se - only when the amount of textures it needs to store exceeds the 64MB. Obviously, in most games you can control the size of the textures my reducing the quality setting. However, as I say, the sorts of games the 5200 Ultra can run, 128MB wouldn't make much diffence.

You may well be right, but, as the 5200-supporters have repeatedly called for, "let's see the numbers!" Since most (all?) of the comparisons linked to have used 128MB GPU's, let's "compare apples to apples," as it were, rather than anectdotal reassurances about this bargain basement GPU selected by Apple, which doesn't even use what appears to be the more common 128MB variety.



iBorg

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by iBorg:
You may well be right, but, as the 5200-supporters have repeatedly called for, "let's see the numbers!" Since most (all?) of the comparisons linked to have used 128MB GPU's, let's "compare apples to apples," as it were, rather than anectdotal reassurances about this bargain basement GPU selected by Apple, which doesn't even use what appears to be the more common 128MB variety.

Well, unfortunately we're limited to what's available on the web. I couldn't find any 64MB vs 128MB reviews of the 5200, and the link I posted was the only direct comparison of the 9550 and 5200. However, given that we're already deep in hypotheticals here, I assume that had Apple chosen to use an 9550 rather than 5200 they would have chosen a 64MB version anyway. I personally don't think the extra performance merits the increased heat/transistors that 128MB would require.

More generally, I think this thread is getting somewhat tiresome and repetitive now. It's clear that potential iMac owners fall into two distinct camps:

- Those for whom gaming performance is an issue and for whom the 5200 Ultra is a genuine show stopper

- Those for whome gaming performance is irrelevant and the 5200 Ultra is more than adequate

Perhaps we should just recognise the differences and move on?

Whilst I sympathise with the former camp, I don't think continual attempts to rain on the parade of those for whom gaming is irrelavant actually serves much purpose. It basically just generates heat and illwill amongst a group of people who, presumably, are all fundamentally fans of Apple products and vision.

There are other areas of speculation - like whether the 5200 Ultra will be adequate for future OS upgrades, and whether there are faster, cooler GPU's on the market. So far, it seems that neither side has any real evidence about any of this, and discussions on this serve only to distract and fan the flames.

Can't we now just agree that the current iMac is a great machine, but not for everyone. And let's hope for everyone's sake that Rev B of the machine in a few months time sports an external PSU and faster GPU. Then perhaps everyone can be satisfied.

Somehow, though, I suspect someone here will want to add just one more comment in defence of their point of view, and then off we'll go again...

[Simon]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
More generally, I think this thread is getting somewhat tiresome and repetitive now. It's clear that potential iMac owners fall into two distinct camps:

- Those for whom gaming performance is an issue and for whom the 5200 Ultra is a genuine show stopper

- Those for whome gaming performance is irrelevant and the 5200 Ultra is more than adequate

Perhaps we should just recognise the differences and move on?

Well, I think you forgot a rather distinct group. I don't care that much about gaming myself, nevertheless I find the 5200 a disgrace. If I pay Apple $2000 for a mid-range computer I expect them to at least give me the option of getting something better than the lowest end GPU selling today.

It's not just about games here. It's about getting good value for your money. Overall the iMac G5 is grade A in everything but the GPU. Simply put, they tried to cut corners and believed they could bullsh*t themselves around it (see their ridiculous talk on the iMac graphics page). Unfortunetaly for Steve, people tend to look twice when they spend this amount of dough on a computer. Not giving a BTO option is going to cost Apple a lot of sales. I'm anxious to see how Steve plans to sell this to the stockholders.

Can't we now just agree that the current iMac is a great machine, but not for everyone. And let's hope for everyone's sake that Rev B of the machine in a few months time sports an external PSU and faster GPU. Then perhaps everyone can be satisfied.

Yes.

Somehow, though, I suspect someone here will want to add just one more comment in defence of their point of view, and then off we'll go again...

How old are you? I realize that you would like to hear only your own opinion and have everybody agree with you, but outside your dreams the world doesn't work like that. This is a discussion board. It's here for debate. If you can't stand it, get out of it. Your stated views are neither complete nor closing and thus you'll have to put up with others here. If you don't like this idea you should find something else than a forum to spend your leisure time on.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by Simon:

How old are you? I realize that you would like to hear only your own opinion and have everybody agree with you, but outside your dreams the world doesn't work like that. This is a discussion board. It's here for debate. If you can't stand it, get out of it. Your stated views are neither complete nor closing and thus you'll have to put up with others here. If you don't like this idea you should find something else than a forum to spend your leisure time on.

Charming as ever Simon I see. I'm 35 (you could have found that from my profile) - how old are you? And why the interest in my age?

I don't think my views were intended to be complete or closing - I was just pointing out that this debate is going nowhere and that there are clearly two distinct points of view here. It's amusing that you can't even agree with this.

If you can find a statement that is complete and closing on this subject (which everyone can sign up to, not just yourself) I'd be interested to hear it. I guess the only way you'll be satisfied is for the forum to roll over and say "Oh sorry Simon, how stupid we were, you were absolutely right all along. Thanks for your wisdom". That ain't going to happen, which is why I thought it may be more appropriate to simply summarise the two points of view and move on.

Oh well, I will move on now and leave you to your pontificating. Good luck, I hope it makes you feel better. It seems your idea of a debate is simply to bang on with your own ideas until everyone shuts up, gives up on you or walks away. You're clearly not the personality type able to make concessions in the interests of moving on to more interesting topics. More like a Jack Russell with a rag in its mouth.

[Simon]

I find it utterly amazing that you come to a board and then attack people for disagreeing with you.

I don't care if you say you don't want to hear opposing views. On this board you'll get them. The only way to avoid that is to not participate, after all, we are here to discuss, not worship.

There are enough people here who tried to show you where your thoughts come too short. Unfortunately you chose to neglect this. Too bad.

[pliny]

I think what PE Howland is saying is not that he wants to be worshipped or that he doesn't want to hear opposing views but that "The 5200 Ultra OMG!!!" line has been repeated so much that it is old and doesn't add ANYTHING to any discussion. He does bring up some interesting points about how to move beyond this so as to still discuss the chip.

And then there's the personal stuff which is always interesting.

[klinux]

Originally posted by Simon:
I find it utterly amazing that you come to a board and then attack people for disagreeing with you.

I don't care if you say you don't want to hear opposing views. On this board you'll get them. The only way to avoid that is to not participate, after all, we are here to discuss, not worship.

There are enough people here who tried to show you where your thoughts come too short. Unfortunately you chose to neglect this. Too bad.

Simon, Mr. Howland is a well-respected member of the technology community. While I may not agree with his conclusion always (I too think the iMac should have a better GPU just to save it from obsolescence in a few years), and I can cetainly vouch for his technical background and his ability to accept different point of views.

[Al G]

Just a small point... The 9550 is moot here because it doesn't exist for the Mac and I seriously doubt ATI would ever add a Mac version of it on their own or that Apple would request that the 9550 be added to the lineup when--at retail--a 9600 Pro or XT only costs an extra $50.

Any comparisons should probably limited to existing Mac cards like the 9600 Pro or XT, or perhaps some of the mobility versions for the Mac.

[Link]

Originally posted by Al G:
Just a small point... The 9550 is moot here because it doesn't exist for the Mac and I seriously doubt ATI would ever add a Mac version of it on their own or that Apple would request that the 9550 be added to the lineup when--at retail--a 9600 Pro or XT only costs an extra $50.

Any comparisons should probably limited to existing Mac cards like the 9600 Pro or XT, or perhaps some of the mobility versions for the Mac.

The 9550 is a downclocked 9600, you dolt.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by klinux:
Simon, Mr. Howland is a well-respected member of the technology community. While I may not agree with his conclusion always (I too think the iMac should have a better GPU just to save it from obsolescence in a few years), and I can cetainly vouch for his technical background and his ability to accept different point of views.

How dare you !

Simon is a well-respected gamer and troll.

-t

[Al G]

Originally posted by Link:
The 9550 is a downclocked 9600, you dolt.

Call me all the names you like, but you still can't buy a Mac 9550, a Mac "downclocked 9600" or any Mac with a 9550.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by Al G:
Call me all the names you like, but you still can't buy a Mac 9550, a Mac "downclocked 9600" or any Mac with a 9550.

That doesn't mean anything. You also can't buy a Mac Radeon 9600XT from ATI, but you can get it with your G5. And with the next PowerMac revision, they'll probably get Radeon X600s, even though you can't currently buy a Mac Radeon X600. And you know what? You can't buy a 3.0 GHz G5 right now, but eventually you will be able to! There is absolutely no argument whatsoever for saying that just because you can't currently buy it that you'll never be able to. It's a simple matter of writing drivers and changing the ROM on the card.

[gperks]

So, how does the 5200 Ultra compare to the 9600 that went into Powerbooks earlier in the year? Was that the regular 9600 (Pro? I don't know!) or a cut-down mobility version?

[jamesa]

Originally posted by turtle777:
How dare you !

Simon is a well-respected gamer and troll.

-t

turtle, I daresay the only troll round here is you. The entire time you've added absolutely nothing to the debate other than to say that we don't need a better GPU, or provide responses to defend Apple's position in the form of a troll (from the Rev B wishlist thread):

Originally posted by turtle777:
And, of course, well under $ 1000 !

Rrriiiiiightttt.

or made blanket statements without any evidence eg

Originally posted by turtle777:
The heat of the 9600 could not have been absorbed in the current iMac design.

No evidence. No justification of position. Just extreme statements that constitute trolling, and telling everyone else that because it's good enough for you, it must be good enough for them too. And then you have the gall to tell people that disagree that they're trolls! I don't think Simon's point of view has ever constituted trolling. There's always going to be a bit of name calling in these threads, such is life, but I don't see anywhere that justifies a troll tag.

-- james

[Simon]

Originally posted by jamesa:
I don't think Simon's point of view has ever constituted trolling.

Thanks, jamesa.

In this thread I've recently just tried to make three points crystal clear:

� The 5200U is a low-end GPU sitting in a middle class $2000 computer.
� By not offering a BTO upgrade Apple has lost many customers.
� It is not just a gamer problem. It's a problem for anybody who cares about GPU performance, either today or down the road.

And with respect to the attacks by PEHowland, I'll make it very simple: I don't accept all criticism being put into the "it's not for gamers, but the Mac never was, so buy something else" pot and I certainly won't respect his "this is my opinion, there is no need to reply, I'm closing my ears from now on, and won't listen to what you say" rant. This is a board, it's here to debate opinions. No argument is final until the mod has put a big fat lock onto it.

So, I see nothing in the above points that has anything to do with trolling or with insult. As long as somebody doesn't have true evidence or reasoning to encounter some of the above criticism of the iMac, I will take personal attacks as what they are: a measly attempt to distract from actual shortcomings of the GPU by people who lack either knowledge or wit.

Tell me when we're back to arguing GPU performance.

[sniffer]

I think there is more to consider than the gaming performance here. Core Video/Image will be more important for a regular iMac owner. Just wait until this technology is implanted in apps found in the iLife package. CI could be handling images in iPhoto, CV handling iMovie, stunning visual effects in iTunes could be handled by CV, etc.
module8 is making use of the GPU for realtime video editing. Consider myself positively surprised my GeForce FX Go5200 (PB 12" 1.33 GHz G4) handled the app so well, doing everything realtime. Although I haven't had time to test the app much, the indication what you'll be able to do in Tiger making use of the GPU (including with video cards like the FX Go5200/5200 Ultra) is there.

[P]

Hey, let's not go overboard here. I'm certainly disappointed as well with the Geforce 5200 Ultra, but it's not the worst thing out there. Not even the worst thing shipping. There are lots of motherboards with integrated graphics of Geforce2 class, or - even worse - that garbage Intel makes, without even a T&L unit.

It's a chip that can be used for gaming, if that is not a major thing. The disappointment is that Apple is not using a mid-range chip instead of a low-end one. They're saving �50 that they probably shouldn't have. It's blow to the casual gamers, but - I suspect - not a dealbreaker.

And the serious Mac gamer? The next generation of graphics boards - 6800 and X800 - are here, or will be soon enough, and they're double the power of the 9800XT. Double. The generation gap has not been this big since the first Radeon replaced the Rage 128, or the Geforce256 replaced the TNT2. Whatever board the gamer gets of the currently available Mac boards, he will need to replace it soon enough. He needed a Powermac before and he needs a Powermac now. I suggest he gets over it.

For those who are worrying about other areas than gaming - don't. The 5200 Ultra has the same GPU core and almost the same clockspeed as the 5700 Ultra (the 5800 and up have 8 pixel pipelines rather than 4 for the 5700 and 5200). What it lacks is the internal memory bandwidth and compression features (textures and Z-buffer) needed for high resolution gaming. The difference between that high resolution gaming and Core Image type of jobs is that the game has lots and lots of small textures, while I expect an app using Core Image will use fewer put larger textures (=images). The compression features work best for small textures, so a 5200 Ultra would be essentially equal with a 5700 Ultra in this this type of thing.

[esXXI]

Originally posted by yen_lai:
then go.

in fact all you gameboys need to figure out something, apple is a company that sells products, if you a) like/need/desire said product and b) can afford said product, you purchase it, if not, no harm no foul.

i understand, the video card is old news, but you guys are acting like apple insulted your mother by including a 5200 instead of (fill-in-the-blank).

if the video card is holding you back from purchasing, so be it, don't buy the thing.

just stop the bitching.

i don't go to dell's support forums and bitch that i can't get their computer in aluminum or their mp3 players in pink blue or orange do i? no, i just move on and buy something i do like.

My thoughts exactly.. I still don't get the "waah waah, my Mac won't play games well!" - buy a f'ing games-console already, or if it's that important; buy a PC instead.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by esXXI:
My thoughts exactly.. I still don't get the "waah waah, my Mac won't play games well!" - buy a f'ing games-console already, or if it's that important; buy a PC instead.

You're right! Why didn't I see it before? That's exactly the attitude Apple should be taking - tell potential customers that want to buy its products to go buy a game console or a PC instead

-- james

[Simon]

Rob-art of BareFeats has done some interesting testing of the new iMac's graphics capabilities.

Take a look at these two images from this page:




Compared to a 1.5GHz G4 PowerBook (Radeon 9700 Mobility) the iMac's superior processor, 4x faster FSB and 300MHz faster chip is all completely worthless because it's getting slaughtered by a mobility chip. Yes, the 9700 is a mobility chip, meaning it consumes lower power, generates less heat and nevertheless it completely kills the 5200U.

What am I trying to point out? Yes, the 5200U is a decent chip for Web/Mail/Office, but no, it doesn't stand a chance against a 9700 mobility as soon as you look at GPU-dependent tasks. This means Apple would have had a alternative that consumes less power and puts out less heat. Why didn't they use it? I can't imagine anything else than the price argument. So, BTO would have been a possibility: let only those who really need it pay more. But, Apple in all its wisdom chose not to do that.

And of course this is not only a gamer problem: It shows that as soon as you are dealing with a GPU-dependent process you are losing all of the iMac's benefits compared to older hardware. Now why did you spend $2000 on a new computer? The real issue is that all the nice bells and whistles the iMac offers go right out the window the moment you rely on your GPU. What a waste of such a nice computer.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by Simon:

Compared to a 1.5GHz G4 PowerBook (Radeon 9700 Mobility) the iMac's superior processor, 4x faster FSB and 300MHz faster chip is all completely worthless because it's getting slaughtered by a mobility chip. Yes, the 9700 is a mobility chip, meaning it consumes lower power, generates less heat and nevertheless it completely kills the 5200U.

The Mobility 9700 and 5200 Ultra are actually fairly comparable graphics chips. The Mobility is slightly faster than the 5200 Ultra, but don't imagine that it's in a different leagure. The Mobility 9700 has nothing like the performance of the normal Radeon 9700. Unfortunately there are no published reviews of the two cards running on the same machines.

However, if you look at this review you will see that the Mobility 9700 consistently performs at or up to about 10% slower than the regular Radeon 9600Pro. The review concludes "In our testing, we saw ... the MOBILITY 9700 performing similarly to a RADEON 9600 PRO". The two cards were compared on the same machine.

Next, if you look at this review you can see a comparison of the 9600 Pro and the 5200 Ultra running on the same machine. The scores are pretty similar - the 5200 Ultra scores 11160 in 3DMark, the 9600Pro gets 11823. In Quake 3 it is slower than the 9600Pro at lower resolutions, faster at higher resolutions, Comanche 4 about 10% slower, about 10% slower in Code Creatures rendering, and so on. The 5200 Ultra is slower than the 9600Pro, but not devastatingly so - 10-20% on average perhaps. In a different review, Inside Mac Games concludes
"Ignoring numbers and benchmarks for a bit, let�s just take a look at how both cards feel. How do they stack up in qualitative terms? The answer is, uninterestingly, �pretty much the same.� I played a dozen or so games on both cards, and after much thought, I concluded that while the Radeon 9600 did feel faster in most cases, the difference wasn�t as noticeable as the benchmarks might imply ... Outside of gaming, the cards are essentially equal. Both are fast enough that they tackle DVD and MPEG decoding without issue, and share about the same feature set ... Adding all of it up, the decision is difficult. If making Halo look good is a priority, then get the 9600. If making SimCity look good and play faster is a priority, stay with the 5200. Outside of that, the Radeon 9600 will deliver better performance ... A Power Macintosh G5 with either card will certainly handle the majority of games without issue."

So, the Mobility 9700 Pro is comparable, or slightly slower than the 9600 Pro. The 5200 Ultra is also slightly slower than the 9600 Pro. It's probably marginally slower than the Mobility 9700 too. But it is entirely wrong to say that the 5200 Ultra is "slaughtered" by the Mobility 9700. The Mobility 9700 is marginally faster. Nothing more.

And that's what your two graphs show. The Mobility 9700 is 5fps faster in Halo and 3 fps faster in UT2004. 5fps and 3fps. Hardly slaughtered. Marginally faster.

For gaming and graphics rendering, both graphics cards are adequate and nothing more. But frankly, I don't think you'd actually be any more satisfied with the iMac if they'd used a Mobility 9700 than you are now. If you want significant better GPU performance that will satisfy gamers and please the Motion renderers, you'll need a Radeon 9800 or GeForce 6800 - or better yet the new Radeon X800. But that is never going to happen with the iMac - both on grounds of heat and in terms of Apple's product positioning and pricing.