Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > 23" iMac on Sept. 12?

23" iMac on Sept. 12? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Will C
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
Has anyone determined if a 23" iMac would allow for a second 3.5" HDD if everything else was the same? Since the Mac Pro is for Professionals, and the iMac is for Consumers, wouldn't it be nice if the 23" iMac became the "Prosumer" Mac with some expandability, better video card, etc? It certainly would be big enough and it would justify its higher price tag.
Like C.A.T.S. CEO I think this would be nice, however does the current iMac motherboard have two SATA connections?* - correct me if I am wrong but unlike PATA/IDE, can't you only connect one drive to a single SATA connection and would Apple really want to have another motherboard?

*I suppose you could connct a PATA HD onto the optical drive IDE connection, but this would be a bit inelegant.
( Last edited by Will C; Sep 6, 2006 at 04:15 AM. )
     
Rob van dam
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:31 AM
 
people on the Australian store claim they just saw 24" imacs
Apple an innovator in a world of Immitators.
And thats the bottom line!!!!!!!!!
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:50 AM
 



Eur 2.049,00
(Eur 1.679,51 ex VAT)
Ready to ship: 2 - 3 Weeks

24-inch widescreen LCD
1920x1200 resolution
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor1
4MB shared L2 cache
1GB memory (2x512MB SO-DIMM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive2
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL, DVD�RW, CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote
     
azt33
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:00 AM
 
It is actually €1.999,00 at the Dutch Store

You can also get a processor uprade to 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. So, who already ordered one?
MacBook Pro 15.4/ i7 2.2 / 8.0/ 750/ DL SD/ APX
iPhone 4 16GB (black)
     
azt33
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:01 AM
 
Double post....
MacBook Pro 15.4/ i7 2.2 / 8.0/ 750/ DL SD/ APX
iPhone 4 16GB (black)
     
C.A.T.S. CEO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: eating kernel
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug



Eur 2.049,00
(Eur 1.679,51 ex VAT)
Ready to ship: 2 - 3 Weeks

24-inch widescreen LCD
1920x1200 resolution
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor1
4MB shared L2 cache
1GB memory (2x512MB SO-DIMM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive2
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL, DVD�RW, CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote
American dollers please too. Anyway, 23" would make more sence sence there are no other 24" displays in the Apple Store, and wont work for tri- or bi- displays.

EDIT!: i thought that we were still speculating! w00t New iMac(s)! W00T!
Signature depreciated.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:19 AM
 
OMFG.

7600GT with 256 MB option


Originally Posted by azt33
It is actually €1.999,00 at the Dutch Store

You can also get a processor uprade to 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. So, who already ordered one?
€1949 in Germany

I'll probably order one today (in Canada).
     
Parky
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:28 AM
 
I have ordered :-

iMac, 24-inch
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 128MB SDRAM
250GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD+R DL/DVD+RW/CD-RW)
Keyboard & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X
Country kit

Ships in 7-10 days !

Ian
Computers - Au MacBook 2.4Ghz, iMac 24" 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
iPods - 5GB original iPod, 4GB nano - Red, 1GB 2G shuffle - Silver, 4GB 3G Shuffle - Black, 16GB touch, 16GB nano Red, 16GB iPhone 3G.
OSX User Since Public Beta, current OS 10.6.1, iTS UK purchases - 5377 songs.... and growing!
My website - www.idparkinson.co.uk
     
C.A.T.S. CEO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: eating kernel
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Parky
I have ordered :-

iMac, 24-inch
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 128MB SDRAM
250GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD+R DL/DVD+RW/CD-RW)
Keyboard & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X
Country kit

Ships in 7-10 days !

Ian
Good for you!
Signature depreciated.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:59 AM
 
If you need GPU speed, the 7600GT/256 upgrade is a no-brainer.

However, the 2.33 Core 2 Duo upgrade doesn't seem worth it.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 10:23 AM
 
Firewire 800
     
C.A.T.S. CEO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: eating kernel
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
Firewire 800
w00t! Finally the Mac Pro isn't the only mac with FireWire 800!
Signature depreciated.
     
azt33
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO
American dollers please too. Anyway, 23" would make more sence sence there are no other 24" displays in the Apple Store, and wont work for tri- or bi- displays.

EDIT!: i thought that we were still speculating! w00t New iMac(s)! W00T!
For American dollars I would suggest that you look at the US store.

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO
w00t! Finally the Mac Pro isn't the only mac with FireWire 800!
The 17" MacBook Pro also has FW 800. It seems that only the high-end computers are getting FW 800...
MacBook Pro 15.4/ i7 2.2 / 8.0/ 750/ DL SD/ APX
iPhone 4 16GB (black)
     
C.A.T.S. CEO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: eating kernel
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by azt33
For American dollars I would suggest that you look at the US store.
I didn't realize that we were not speculating about a 24" iMac I said it in the edit.

The 17" MacBook Pro also has FW 800. It seems that only the high-end computers are getting FW 800...
Didn't realize that ether.

Kickass iMacs! W00T!!!
Signature depreciated.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 10:47 AM
 
Do they come with Firewire 800 to Firewire 400 adapters? If not, I'll have to buy one.

P.S. I'm still debating whether to get the 2.16 or 2.33.
     
mindwaves
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
Do they come with Firewire 800 to Firewire 400 adapters? If not, I'll have to buy one.

P.S. I'm still debating whether to get the 2.16 or 2.33.

Originally Posted by eug
However, the 2.33 Core 2 Duo upgrade doesn't seem worth it.
These iMacs are pretty neat! But I'm still very happy with my 1.9 GHz iMac G5.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:00 PM
 
^^^ I get reimbursed for part of the cost difference, so it would end up only costing me $150 out my pocket to go for the 2.33 instead of the 2.16. I'm leaning toward the latter though, considering it's likely only a 5% real-life performance difference.

Oh, and DAMMIT! The Free educational iPod deal does NOT apply to the new iMac.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:25 PM
 
Ordered.



My Cube is now officially orphaned.
     
Parky
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
Do they come with Firewire 800 to Firewire 400 adapters? If not, I'll have to buy one.

P.S. I'm still debating whether to get the 2.16 or 2.33.
They have 1 Firewire 400 and 1 Firewire 800 port, so you should not need a convertor unless you can't daisy chain your FW400 devices.

Ian
Computers - Au MacBook 2.4Ghz, iMac 24" 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
iPods - 5GB original iPod, 4GB nano - Red, 1GB 2G shuffle - Silver, 4GB 3G Shuffle - Black, 16GB touch, 16GB nano Red, 16GB iPhone 3G.
OSX User Since Public Beta, current OS 10.6.1, iTS UK purchases - 5377 songs.... and growing!
My website - www.idparkinson.co.uk
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jasoco
The one thing I hate about the iMacs is the distance from the desk to the bottom of the screen. It's too high up! I have a 20" ACD and it's sometimes uncomfortably high on my 30" desk. (30" from the floor to the top of the desk.), and the iMac is even MORE than that. Can't they make it smaller and lower?

I don't mind the chin, but it's too high up.

It's the reason I'm still not sure I want an iMac over a mini. I'm tempted to just get the mini just because of the high chin.
The optimal height for a display used when seated is such that your eyes are at the same level as a line 1/3 down the display. Any lower causes you to bend your neck down, which is bad.

tooki
     
Parky
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO
Good for you!
I cancelled it..... and then reordered on the Education site, I forgot I could get the discount !!
My partner is a teacher, so I saved £100, spent it on the AppleCare, so no better off in the end.
It least I will have peace of mind for three years with the new baby !

Ian
Computers - Au MacBook 2.4Ghz, iMac 24" 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
iPods - 5GB original iPod, 4GB nano - Red, 1GB 2G shuffle - Silver, 4GB 3G Shuffle - Black, 16GB touch, 16GB nano Red, 16GB iPhone 3G.
OSX User Since Public Beta, current OS 10.6.1, iTS UK purchases - 5377 songs.... and growing!
My website - www.idparkinson.co.uk
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005
Alright, it's time for me to throw my opinion on the iMac out there.

The iMac is ideally suited for a very small minority of people. It has a nice design, but the looks of it doesn't nearly make up for all the disadvantages that the design causes.

Not to mention the fact that apple has not only made a "nearly impossible to upgrade" computer, but they have complimented it with always making sure to give it the technology that "just" fell off the edge.

The iMac has always been a computer for only those people that A. Have NO plans to EVER need anything more than what the computer comes with for a LONG time, B. Don't care if they have yesterdays technology.

For the majority of people out there, the iMac simply isn't good enough. It just doesn't have enough. Absolutely no expandability! Alot of people would refrain from buying it simply because they don't know whether they'll need more than it within a year or two.
...
Yeah, um, no.

ACTUAL statistics show that most computers sold are never upgraded. Both home users and businesses tend to buy computers, use them for a few years, and then replace the computer and the display. Few computer buyers, relatively speaking, actually replace computers without getting a new display at the same time. A similarly low number perform any upgrades to their computers. Initial configurability is somewhat important, but being able to upgrade down the line is essentially unimportant.

The iMac is actually perfect for the vast majority of people.

tooki
     
::maroma::
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:38 PM
 
So can someone fill me in a little more on the pros and cons of the 2.16 GHz version as opposed to the 2.33 GHz version? Is the difference really so minor that its not worth the cost? I'm almost 100% positive I'll be ordering one of these 24" iMacs, but I'm still unsure about the speed difference in the 2 chip options.
     
C.A.T.S. CEO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: eating kernel
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
My Cube is now officially orphaned.
Can i hve it? Please!!!!?
Signature depreciated.
     
indigoimac
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:40 PM
 
These look very nice, the 24" is a little pricy for me right now, but that 7600GT is oh so tempting.
15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz i7 4GB RAM 6490M 120GB OWC 6G SSD 500GB HD
15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz C2D 2GB RAM 8600M GT 200GB HD
17" C2D iMac 2.0GHz 2GB RAM x1600 500GB HD
     
kikkoman
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
Yeah, um, no.

ACTUAL statistics show that most computers sold are never upgraded. Both home users and businesses tend to buy computers, use them for a few years, and then replace the computer and the display. Few computer buyers, relatively speaking, actually replace computers without getting a new display at the same time. A similarly low number perform any upgrades to their computers. Initial configurability is somewhat important, but being able to upgrade down the line is essentially unimportant.

The iMac is actually perfect for the vast majority of people.

tooki
Yes this has been my experience as someone who works as systems admin at a university. Even though all our PC's have expansion slots they very rarely get used. We literally surplus thousands of old PC's every year with empty slots. In my own department I will do memory upgrade during the mid-life of a machine if the situation demands. Otherwise, there is no use in putting more money in deappreciating assets. The way I see it, the money you save now will always buy you more computing power later. A benefit of Moore's Law I guess.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Parky
They have 1 Firewire 400 and 1 Firewire 800 port, so you should not need a convertor unless you can't daisy chain your FW400 devices.

Ian
Yeah thx. Not all my devices can be daisychained easily. I do have a FireDino Firewire hub though. And I guess I can finally unplug that digital camcorder I was using as an iSight.


Originally Posted by ::maroma::
So can someone fill me in a little more on the pros and cons of the 2.16 GHz version as opposed to the 2.33 GHz version? Is the difference really so minor that its not worth the cost? I'm almost 100% positive I'll be ordering one of these 24" iMacs, but I'm still unsure about the speed difference in the 2 chip options.
2.33333 GHz is 7.7% higher clock speed than 2.16667 GHz. However, speed scaling doesn't match Hz scaling exactly, so my ballpark guess is that the 2.33 is about 5% faster in real-life. (Both have 4 MB L2 cache.)

Thus, I didn't feel the 2.33 was worth it. The only reason I considered the 2.33 is because I can claim some of the upgrade costs back through work.


Originally Posted by indigoimac
These look very nice, the 24" is a little pricy for me right now, but that 7600GT is oh so tempting.
It was a downer that no HDCP support was listed. However, that 7600GT and the 256 MB were what clinched the deal for me. I can deal with having no HDCP support for the next few years.

24", 7600GT with 256 MB GDDR3, 2 GB RAM, dual-core Merom - Sweet Aperture computer.

P.S. Here are some PC gaming benches:

OpenGL:


Direct3D:
( Last edited by Eug; Sep 6, 2006 at 04:10 PM. )
     
shawmanus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 06:20 PM
 
Is there any reason Apple is not offering options like 7900GS or 7900GTX in these computers. Dell laptops have them so it should fit the thermal envelope.
     
houstonmacbro
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 07:25 PM
 
24" and announced today WITH core2 duo. Apple
     
indigoimac
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 07:26 PM
 
I feel like hijacking this thread w/ a few questions...lol

I'd love to have a 24" but it isn't gonna happen, so, I think I'm gonna be looking at the 2.0GHz 17" as the EDU discount puts it at 1099$ And I hava a couple questions,
1) I have used the old EDU version w/ the 1.83GHz Yonah w/ 1gig of RAM and in Handbrake it handily beat the powerbook in the sig (twice as fast, w/ even more agressive settings)
How will the new one compare?? Even better I'd assume.

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.

Also looking ahead would the machine I've tentatively chosen be a good choice for Leopard and will it likely support all of the features, including fulfilling gfx req??

Whoops, 2 more things, is the upgrade to 2.16 worth it or could I just upgrade it myself like the Yonahs later?

And I should be alright w/ a gig for the moment and then wait for the prices to come down and jump to 2 or 3, right?

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate the help, it's gonna be a big change from my old iMac!

EDIT: houstonmacbro--Thank You captain obvious...lol
15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz i7 4GB RAM 6490M 120GB OWC 6G SSD 500GB HD
15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz C2D 2GB RAM 8600M GT 200GB HD
17" C2D iMac 2.0GHz 2GB RAM x1600 500GB HD
     
houstonmacbro
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by indigoimac
I feel like hijacking this thread w/ a few questions...lol

I'd love to have a 24" but it isn't gonna happen, so, I think I'm gonna be looking at the 2.0GHz 17" as the EDU discount puts it at 1099$ And I hava a couple questions,
1) I have used the old EDU version w/ the 1.83GHz Yonah w/ 1gig of RAM and in Handbrake it handily beat the powerbook in the sig (twice as fast, w/ even more agressive settings)
How will the new one compare?? Even better I'd assume.

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.

Also looking ahead would the machine I've tentatively chosen be a good choice for Leopard and will it likely support all of the features, including fulfilling gfx req??

Thanks a lot, it's gonna be a big change from my old iMac!

EDIT: houstonmacbro--Thank You captain obvious...lol
no harm done. you actually asked some interesting questions as i am wondering about day to day use with integrated graphics too ... seems like there are several camps that either shun integrated graphics or see it as no big deal. but looking ahead 12 months when leopard arrives, how with the macbooks (not pro), minis, and iMacs with integrated graphics chips stand up to the more (assuming) demanding 10.5.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 07:44 PM
 
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.
     
indigoimac
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 07:45 PM
 
I didn't mind the integrated but I didn't really do anything that was 3d intensive, but it certainly didn't seem to get in the way as some have proposed.

And Eug, I can see above that the 6600gt is roughly equiv to the x1600, and if the 6800 is an improvment on that, i dunno, i hate this...lol
15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz i7 4GB RAM 6490M 120GB OWC 6G SSD 500GB HD
15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz C2D 2GB RAM 8600M GT 200GB HD
17" C2D iMac 2.0GHz 2GB RAM x1600 500GB HD
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by indigoimac
I didn't mind the integrated but I didn't really do anything that was 3d intensive, but it certainly didn't seem to get in the way as some have proposed.
Yeah, GMA 950 is totally fine for basic OS usage. It's not very pleasant for stuff like Aperture though of course.

If you don't use 3D much then GMA 950 is fine. I do wonder what will happen when OS X Leopard hits though. It's supposed to be resolution independent, and I don't know how much GPU bandwidth/power it will suck from the system.

OTOH, stuff like Exposé works very smoothly on GMA 950. My main beef with GMA 950 under OS X is the arbitrary 64 MB limitation. It'd be nice if Apple would have a 128 MB option if you had 1 GB or more and are running a large screen or dual screens.
     
indigoimac
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:00 PM
 
Stepping away from the 950 as that's not what I'll be getting, in general how will the x1600 be for future use, leopard, etc. And the rest of my slew of questions for future posters. Thanks!
15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz i7 4GB RAM 6490M 120GB OWC 6G SSD 500GB HD
15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz C2D 2GB RAM 8600M GT 200GB HD
17" C2D iMac 2.0GHz 2GB RAM x1600 500GB HD
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
Yeah, GMA 950 is totally fine for basic OS usage. It's not very pleasant for stuff like Aperture though of course.
Honestly, Aperture doesn't run horribly on GMA950-based Macs. Some of the visual effects (like the fading effect to/from full screen mode) are choppy, but actual image organizing and manipulation works well. Aperture on an unsupported MacBook is day-and-night better than Aperture on my "supported" 1.25GHz AlBook with Radeon 9600 graphics. From what I remember reading somewhere, the GMA950 is actually a faster GPU than the Mobility Radeon 9600.

tooki
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
Honestly, Aperture doesn't run horribly on GMA950-based Macs. Some of the visual effects (like the fading effect to/from full screen mode) are choppy, but actual image organizing and manipulation works well. Aperture on an unsupported MacBook is day-and-night better than Aperture on my "supported" 1.25GHz AlBook with Radeon 9600 graphics. From what I remember reading somewhere, the GMA950 is actually a faster GPU than the Mobility Radeon 9600.

tooki
GMA 950 is not even in the same league as Mobility Radeon 9600. Not even close. GMA 950 doesn't even have hardware T&L.

The issue here is that the G4 1.25 sucks donkeys' testicles. Each core of Core Duo is twice as fast, and there are two cores. Remember, Aperture's RAW conversion is 100% CPU, and RAW conversion is extremely important in Aperture for overall "feel".

Anyways, here's my own test "proving" your contention in a way.
I just exported a project to jpg on a MacBook with GMA 950 and iMac with Radeon 9600.



However, this test is mostly RAW conversion, where the MacBook shines. The key though the MacBook would do even better in some stuff if it had Core Duo and a better GPU.
( Last edited by Eug; Sep 6, 2006 at 08:48 PM. )
     
Velocity211
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:43 PM
 
I really wanted the 20" iMac graphics card to be upgraded. The X1600 isn't good enough. They should offer the 7300 or 7600 for the 20". But I'm glad to see FW800.
iMac 24" | Core 2 Extreme 2.8GHz | 4GB RAM | 500GB HD
PowerBook G4 15" HR | 1.67GHz | 2GB RAM | 100GB HD
R.I.P 1995 Toyota Supra NA-T
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Velocity211
I really wanted the 20" iMac graphics card to be upgraded. The X1600 isn't good enough. They should offer the 7300 or 7600 for the 20". But I'm glad to see FW800.
FW 800 is only available on the 24 incher.
     
kman42
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
FW 800 is only available on the 24 incher.

Sure, kick him while he's down
     
Jasoco
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:13 PM
 
Wow. A 24"?

Oh, and cool! All the lower models have more standard stuff. Like 1GB standard on the 20". Sweet! I don't even have to config it now.

Side note: The Mac mini low end now had a Duo as well instead of a Solo. I <3 Apple.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 10:07 PM
 
Damn. DealRAM says 2 GB SODIMMs from 3rd party vendors start at US$700.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 10:38 PM
 
Let's keep this thread going about the 24".

I hope someone can quickly locate internal pics of this new machine as I'd like to see its layout.

Kowadarisan usually does one within a few days of availability.

I know it won't have two HDs (or room for two). That was a pipe-dream. I guess the dream of a 24" iMac has finally been realized. And then some (FW800 baby! Can you say RAID?).

I thought 20" was insane for a G4, but after I bought one for the wife, I thought it was perfectly sized. Now I have a 20" Core Duo iMac for myself and wish I had a 24" as my desk has only space for ONE display. At least I know I can upgrade my CPU.
( Last edited by Eriamjh; Sep 6, 2006 at 11:07 PM. )

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Velocity211
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
FW 800 is only available on the 24 incher.
, well then.....
iMac 24" | Core 2 Extreme 2.8GHz | 4GB RAM | 500GB HD
PowerBook G4 15" HR | 1.67GHz | 2GB RAM | 100GB HD
R.I.P 1995 Toyota Supra NA-T
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 12:12 AM
 
     
stefanicotine
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 02:31 AM
 
:o so I could buy a Core 2 Duo chip and plop it in my Intel? Is it actually worth it?
 Certified AppleCare Technician
     
houstonmacbro
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 04:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
Weird. I went to Apple.com and wanted to try the Driving Lessons trailer to see how much load it puts on my MBP.

Apple - Trailers - Driving Lessons - HD

The 1080p wouldn't fit on my 23" ACD. That's why I'm wondering how you do the testing.

Are there different aspect ratios making some 1080p clips wider than others?
you can do apple+0 (when the quicktime window opens) to make the video HALF size. also the mouse commands (to do the same thing) are under the VIEW menu.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 11:28 AM
 
Dammit. Now I wish the last Firewire drive I bought had Firewire 800. It was only $30 more or something.

Not that it's that important though. 30+ MB/s is sufficient for my purposes for external drives.

P.S. Has ANYONE ordered the 2.33? All the ones I've seen so far have been the 2.16.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
GMA 950 is not even in the same league as Mobility Radeon 9600. Not even close. GMA 950 doesn't even have hardware T&L.

The issue here is that the G4 1.25 sucks donkeys' testicles. Each core of Core Duo is twice as fast, and there are two cores. Remember, Aperture's RAW conversion is 100% CPU, and RAW conversion is extremely important in Aperture for overall "feel".

Anyways, here's my own test "proving" your contention in a way.
I just exported a project to jpg on a MacBook with GMA 950 and iMac with Radeon 9600.

[snipped image]

However, this test is mostly RAW conversion, where the MacBook shines. The key though the MacBook would do even better in some stuff if it had Core Duo and a better GPU.
Yes and no; I shoot 99% JPEG, and Aperture's still slow. The fact is, in terms of overall Aperture performance and responsiveness, the MacBook works pretty darned good. The GMA950 isn't holding it up that much.

If you read what I post carefully, you will note that I never claim the GMA950 is a stellar GPU. It's not. But it's not as slow as many would have you believe.

And though you claim the GMA950 isn't "even close" to a Radeon 9600, real-world performance scores show them as being surprisingly close. (Don't ask me where I saw them, it was a while ago.)

The August 2006 edition of MacUP (the top German Mac magazine) did a test of the MacBook 2GHz with 1GB RAM for video editing (pp. 24-25). One of the apps tested was Motion 2. In their test, the MacBook's GMA950 rendered at a minimum of 6fps, while the Radeon 9600 Pro in a Power Mac G5 (dual 2GHz, 2.5GB RAM) managed only 2fps. No, that's not a typo. The maximum frame rate achieved on the MacBook in that test was 11fps, the Power Mac maxed out at 8fps. (For comparison, the MacBook Pro's X1600 managed 12-17fps.)

Clearly, in real-world apps (excluding games, as I have carefully done before), the GMA950 does not do badly at all. Do better GPUs exist? Clearly. But it's not as awful as most people think.

tooki
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 11:54 AM
 
Actually, from what I've been told:

1) Motion is still heavily reliant on the CPU when outputting its renders.
2) Motion is faster on Intel Macs, when you compare GHz for GHz.

And for "GPU" rendering, I should point out that some of the major functions on GMA 950 are actually emulated. ie. Some hardware functions common to basically all modern GPU are completely missing on GMA 950. They're done on the CPU, but the drivers for GMA tell the OS that the GPU can handle it. Intel's driver team is quite good, and manages to get tons of stuff working on GMA 950 that really shouldn't work on it at all. However, it's still problematic. There are tons of games that have major problems on GMA 950. I'm not talking about slow speed. I'm talking about bugs that make them crash.

Now... Aero Glass works beautifully on my MacBook. However, if you look at the specs of GMA 950, it technically cannot handle what is required of it. It just passes things off to the CPU. GMA 950's prowess at these things isn't a function of GMA 950's features. It's a function of the excellent CPU backing it up.

Interestingly, if you look at Intel's details about Vista support for GMA 950, it doesn't work with Core Solo. Why? Part of it is marketing of course, but part of it is due to the fact that Core Solo is a bit too slow to cope well with all the extra work needed with Vista's Aero Glass eye candy, even though Core Solo with a modern GPU can.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:16 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,