[macgfx]

Just an FYI.......

The GeForce FX 5200 is no faster than an GF4MX.

When the 4MX shipped it was too slow and NV took alot of Heat because it said GF4. The GF2Ti or GF3(any) were faster. The 4MX could use some features of DX and OpenGL that the older cards could not, however it did not matter because these features made everything look like a "Great Slide Show".

The same is true of the 5200FX, do your home work before you try to defend this misstake.

Just because "Most People" will be happy, i.e. won't know any better until it's too late, does not make it right.

"Hay Bob, what are you up to."

"Just got a great new computer, an Apple iMac!"

"An Apple are you crazzy, so much money and you can't get any software for them."

"That's not true anymore, I payed $1399 for it, a bit more than my last PC, but it has a Built-in 17" LCD, you got to see this thing." "As to software I got Office for the Mac with it so I can use it for work too!"

"Sounds better, I still don't know"

"Come on over and have a look this weekend, I ordered Doom3, just came out for Mac, should be here this Friday!"

"Sure, I've got some new ideas for that cost savings we are working on, we can frag then work. Your Excel will work?"

"It will, all my old files from my PC open right up, see you then..........."


"What's wrong with it......."

"I don't know........it just seems real slow."

"Quit it and run it agin, must be a bug because this computer is much faster than my old PC, it was only a PIII 800"

"Just can't seem to get this thing to Play Right"

"Well it looks pretty good, but I gess what they say about Mac's and Games it true."

"Damn, I liked this thing until today, this is the first time I had time to play. Should have gotten that Dell, I called them and they Asked me what I was going to do with it. I told them mostly Office, but I do like a Game now and then." "They told me I could upgrade to some kind of Radeon XT or what ever and it would cost about $200 more, but when I Added the LCD it put the price too high for me to do without talking to the wife."

"Next day I was at CompUSA and they brought this in. I Had to have it, the sales guy said it could do everything a PC could and everyone knows Apples do Graphics better than anything. When I saw this Mac OS X , I knew he was right and it was only a little more than that PC"

"Damn it, I'll just give this to the Kids and get that Dell, my wife is going to Kill me. Damn you Apple!"

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Yep. Sh!t is real popular, too.
Millions of flies like it !

-t

So you're saying that because hardly anybody here agrees with you... our opinions are ****?

[turtle777]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
So you're saying that because hardly anybody here agrees with you... our opinions are ****?

1) I was refering to george68's rants.

2) Let the facts speak for themselves:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=226551

-t

[Lateralus]

Let the facts speak indeed...

[turtle777]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Let the facts speak indeed...

75% of the posts are george68 rants. Facts ?

What are you smokin' ?

-t

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by turtle777:
75% of the posts are george68 rants. Facts ?

What are you smokin' ?

-t

What am I smokin' ?

I'm not the one blindly defending the fact that Apple is including a $40 video card in a $1,900 computer and automatically assuming that nobody else plays games on their Mac because I don't.

[macgfx]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Yep. Sh!t is real popular, too.
Millions of flies like it !

-t

Now that was funny, showed wit, unlike most of your posts. If you are going to insult everyone Please use this new found wit. Folks are not going to get offended so easy when you make them laugh at them selves or you. Keeps the flame wars down a bit.




Nit............................................... .................................................. ......................................

[hldan]

Originally posted by macgfx:
Just an FYI.......

The GeForce FX 5200 is no faster than an GF4MX.
"Hay Bob, what are you up to."

"Just got a great new computer, an Apple iMac!"

"An Apple are you crazzy, so much money and you can't get any software for them."

"That's not true anymore, I payed $1399 for it, a bit more than my last PC, but it has a Built-in 17" LCD, you got to see this thing." "As to software I got Office for the Mac with it so I can use it for work too!"

"Sounds better, I still don't know"

"Come on over and have a look this weekend, I ordered Doom3, just came out for Mac, should be here this Friday!"

Okay you are mentioning the Macs ability to run MS Office and then Doom3 in nearly the same paragraph?
Most people don't shop for a computer telling the salesman that they are going to occasionally play games and then buy Doom3. Anyone who buys Doom3 to play on their computer is an avid heavy game player.

Listen, Apple's computers have always had better graphics then PC's. The GUI on OSX wouldn't look as well as it does if Macs had subpar graphics capabilities.
I will add that Apple is making a huge statement on their web page about how well the iMac G5 will play games based on the GeForce 5200. They seem to be standing behind it very strongly.
I also know that they will do that for marketing purposes but it's really best for everyone to wait and see when the iMac hits the stores and I'm sure there will be a good demo game installed on one the store demos.
I like this machine and it's great to see Apple make a high speed machine with a lot of great features and looks good.
However we can all wait for Rev B or C.

[funkboy]

Originally posted by iBorg:
Personally, I think that most of the people in this thread who express disappointment and dissatisfaction with the new iMac zero in on the video card, because it's the only shortcoming that is dead-ended.
...
I think that the specs are otherwise damned good, and would have bought one right away, except for the GPU.

Totally agreed. If Apple fixes this (hopefully it's not too difficult to fit a 9600 or 9800 in there) and offers an upgrade to that for, say, $100, I would buy it right now.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
What am I smokin' ?

I'm not the one blindly defending the fact that Apple is including a $40 video card in a $1,900 computer and automatically assuming that nobody else plays games on their Mac because I don't.

And I'm not denying the fact that some people are not happy with the graphics choice.

Given the design of the iMac and the fact that most GPU need active cooling (except the much more expensive mobile GPUs), adding a more powerful GPU would have bumped the price disproportionally.

How would Apple loose more customers ?

By building in a medium GPU, that is enough for at least 95% of the users, or by charging extra $ 150 for a high-end GPU ?

-t

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by turtle777:
And I'm not denying the fact that some people are not happy with the graphics choice.

Given the design of the iMac and the fact that most GPU need active cooling (except the much more expensive mobile GPUs), adding a more powerful GPU would have bumped the price disproportionally.

How would Apple loose more customers ?

By building in a mdeium GPU, that is enough for at least 95% of the users, or by charging extra $ 150 for a high-ned GPU ?

-t

As with most of the statistics you have used throughout the thread, the above is incorrect.

Many substantially more advanced GPUs use passive cooling, such as the 9600 Pro, and could have been used in the iMac with little to no additional engineering effort involved.

The difference between a Radeon 9600 GPU and a GeForce FX 5200 GPU for a company like Apple, who buys in such bulk, would be a matter of dollars. The only reason for Apple to have not included a faster GPU is to protect higher-end G5 Power Mac sales. And unfortunately, that is not a good reason since the best way to protect high-end sales would be to equip those high end machines with high-end graphics.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
The difference between a Radeon 9600 GPU and a GeForce FX 5200 GPU for a company like Apple, who buys in such bulk, would be a matter of dollars. The only reason for Apple to have not included a faster GPU is to protect higher-end G5 Power Mac sales. And unfortunately, that is not a good reason since the best way to protect high-end sales would be to equip those high end machines with high-end graphics.

Even if that is true, it remains a fact that the majority of the prospective iMac user's will NEVER need 3D GPU processing power, and wouldn't be willing to pay extra for it.

Besides some 3D games and rendering software, where do you need that much GPU power ? YOU DON'T !

For everything else, the 5200 will be just fine.


-t

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Even if that is true, it remains a fact that the majority of the prospective iMac user's will NEVER need 3D GPU processing power, and wouldn't be willing to pay extra for it.

Besides some 3D games and rendering software, where do you need that much GPU power ? YOU DON'T !

For everything else, the 5200 will be just fine.


-t

As I've said, you're referring to statistics that you are creating.

[george68]

Originally posted by turtle777:
75% of the posts are george68 rants. Facts ?

What are you smokin' ?

-t

Your f'acts' are at the bottom of this forum. My thread is at the top. Considerig you've posted links to your own threads OVER three times in this thread, and mine is still on top, I think you should



You lost dumbass. I didn't vote in your stupid thread, neither di dmost people. Please go suck your own dick.

- Ca$h

[george68]

Originally posted by hldan:
They seem to be standing behind it very strongly.

Of course they are, they're tryign to sell it. However, being an informed consumer, isntead of a stupid lemming that looks at ads and instantly takes them as truth, I realize what a piece of **** the graphics card is in the iMac and will NOT buy one. Same with quite a few people here.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Even if that is true, it remains a fact that the majority of the prospective iMac user's will NEVER need 3D GPU processing power, and wouldn't be willing to pay extra for it.

Besides some 3D games and rendering software, where do you need that much GPU power ? YOU DON'T !

For everything else, the 5200 will be just fine.


-t

I can tell you must play game a pogo.com right?

What a complete idiot. So you're saying majority rules right? Maybe apple should just go out of business, after all 95+% of the marketplace runs windows. Who needs that extra 5%?!?! The MAJORITY uses PCs so who gives a ****?

****ing moron.

I hope you lose your hands tomorrow so I never have to read something ast stupid as your posts again.

BTW: This topic will be more popular than yours so kiss my ass

- Ca$h <- drunk and annoyed @ retards like turtle.

[macgfx]

Originally posted by hldan:
Okay you are mentioning the Macs ability to run MS Office and then Doom3 in nearly the same paragraph?
Most people don't shop for a computer telling the salesman that they are going to occasionally play games and then buy Doom3. Anyone who buys Doom3 to play on their computer is an avid heavy game player.

Listen, Apple's computers have always had better graphics then PC's. The GUI on OSX wouldn't look as well as it does if Macs had subpar graphics capabilities.
I will add that Apple is making a huge statement on their web page about how well the iMac G5 will play games based on the GeForce 5200. They seem to be standing behind it very strongly.
I also know that they will do that for marketing purposes but it's really best for everyone to wait and see when the iMac hits the stores and I'm sure there will be a good demo game installed on one the store demos.
I like this machine and it's great to see Apple make a high speed machine with a lot of great features and looks good.
However we can all wait for Rev B or C.

It may have been lost on you that I did mention Office and Doom3 with a purpose. It was very deliberate. Read it again. If you don't get it sorry others here may.

The Office place is being expanded with a younger more tech savvy work force. It has been said the if you seek up on the "new guy" you may just find him trying to get in a few quick fragz between Excel spreadsheets. i.e. some people use Office and play games, more people than you may think.

Folks who only game once in awhile will not buy Doom3?

What will they buy?

"Boy, this Doom3 looks good, but I don't have my 'I GAME ALL THE TIME' tag with me so the store won't sell it to me."

You contradict yourself once also.

Please see ANY benchmarks of the 5200FX vs ANYTHING better than a Radeon 7000. The R8500 and GF3 are far and away faster.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
chalk up another lost sale due to the 5200. I might have bought two of them if they at least offered a better option. One for the bedroom and one for the living room.
Maybe people are right, should just jump ship now and give up!

count me in that category. I'd have purchased two as well, but for the graphics card.

Originally posted by hldan:
You expect Apple to make a "Gaming Edition" iMac? You can't be serious???
Only a hand full of game manufacturers will be kind enough to make a fair amount of games for Mac.
For example; Doom 3. It's already out on the PC. It's not like all PC's will play the game well. Only newer PC's with a high end graphics card will even play that game. It will be out on the Macintosh but when???
You can't expect Apple to slap in a high level graphics card into the iMac when most gaming companies won't support the Mac on demand.

hldan, you're absolutely right. Let's look at Doom 3.

The reason it's not out was that id weren't satisfied with the performance they were getting. In particular, the graphics cards on the platform weren't up to scratch - only the PowerMac having the option of getting a decent graphics card.

So they withheld it to work on it more.

-- james

[iBorg]

Originally posted by turtle777:
And I'm not denying the fact that some people are not happy with the graphics choice.

Given the design of the iMac and the fact that most GPU need active cooling (except the much more expensive mobile GPUs), adding a more powerful GPU would have bumped the price disproportionally.

How would Apple loose more customers ?

By building in a medium GPU, that is enough for at least 95% of the users, or by charging extra $ 150 for a high-end GPU ?

-t

It's called BTO - "Build To Order" - look it up. Base price doesn't change for you, but offers the rest of us an upgrade, at our cost, with extra profit for Apple!

And FYI: The 5200 isn't a "medium GPU" - it's a bottom-feeder, bucko.



iBorg

[Link]

The Geforce 5200 is a souped up geforce 4mx, which is a geforce 2gts, which was a souped up geforce 2. This all begins to come together, no?

Yeah it's a real piece of

[jamesa]

Originally posted by turtle777:
And I'm not denying the fact that some people are not happy with the graphics choice.

Given the design of the iMac and the fact that most GPU need active cooling (except the much more expensive mobile GPUs), adding a more powerful GPU would have bumped the price disproportionally.

How would Apple loose more customers ?

By building in a medium GPU, that is enough for at least 95% of the users, or by charging extra $ 150 for a high-end GPU ?

-t

I'll tell you how they will lose more customers.

Those people that want a reasonably priced machine (i.e around the iMac level, not at the PowerMac G5 level) with a decent graphics card in it.

At the moment, these people have zero options from Apple.

Have you noticed how many people there are here who want a better graphics card? And how many people don't (i.e. pretty much only you)

Originally posted by turtle777:
Even if that is true, it remains a fact that the majority of the prospective iMac user's will NEVER need 3D GPU processing power, and wouldn't be willing to pay extra for it.

Besides some 3D games and rendering software, where do you need that much GPU power ? YOU DON'T !

For everything else, the 5200 will be just fine.
-t

Well ok then, if we have to justify the power of the computer, I can pretty much guarantee that 95% of people that buy an iMac don't need a G5! Their needs for iMovie and iPhoto would easily be served by the existing G4 iMac.

Furthermore, how many people will use the DVD burner? Not all of them?

Well, gee, maybe that's why Apple included an option on their high-end machines for a DVD burner as well. Why they couldn't have added a decent graphics card on that top machine is beyond me - because I'm betting a lot of people would have bought one, whereas now they won't.

Don't make the ridiculous assumption that either a) because you don't need it, nobody else does, or b) that because Apple don't offer it, 95% of Apple users don't need it. Some may purchase the iMac anyway because it's the only thing that gets close to their needs, but that doesn't make Apple's decision any better.

-- james

[george68]

Originally posted by Link:
The Geforce 5200 is a souped up geforce 4mx, which is a geforce 2gts, which was a souped up geforce 2. This all begins to come together, no?

Yeah it's a real piece of

<enter turtle mode>

But wah! Nobody pays attention to my threads! You shouldn't care because thousands of rich ****ing old peopl ewill buy the computer and download porn WITHOUT the need for a good 3d graphics card, like myself! I am turtle and my iMac without a 3d card downloads porn all day just fine! You don't need a 3d card!

wah wah wah

<exit turtle mode>

[macgfx]

Originally posted by Link:
The Geforce 5200 is a souped up geforce 4mx, which is a geforce 2gts, which was a souped up geforce 2. This all begins to come together, no?

Yeah it's a real piece of

Your telling me, I bought one

They did get better with the latest PC drivers, but forget D3@ over 640x480 with 128mb VRam.

Only thing that can be said for one on the Mac is "CoreVideo".

Mybe Apple wanted a better chip, but it was not ready and with all the other delays they thought it better to take this heat than see order sh!t canned because of late ship dates.

[Simon]

Cash, why don't you stop embarrassing yourself with rants that sound like the stuff 12 year olds come up with (suck your own dick, my thread has more views than yours, etc.). The reason I'm mentioning it is because originally you had a very legit complaint. I hope people will acknowledge the complaint regardless of the inappropriate manner you chose to post it.

Back on topic:

� Fact 1 is iMac G5 buyers will be extremely unhappy whenever they want to play a 3D game.
� Fact 2 is the iMac is a consumer machine. That's where games get played. A lot of games. A lot of dollars.
� Fact 3 is the iMac G5 is otherwise a great computer and a great deal.
� Fact 4 is everybody would be happy if Apple had been smart enough to offer a better GPU as BTO.
� Fact 5 is this would have been a good business for them as well. They make profit on the BTO upgrade and production cost does not increase since Apple gave away logic board commonalty in the first place by choosing to develop and manufacture three boards for three iMacs.

Until somebody can tell me here and now why BTO would be bad for Apple, I'll assume it's just that Steve and the rest of the bunch weren't smart enough to realize their blunder.

It's sad to see people here mention that Apple lost a sale with them because they will not put up with this crappy GPU. I'm certain this iMac will sell well, but nowhere does that imply it wouldn't have been nice to sell even more by not locking out (even casual) gamers.

[Powerbook]

Wow, nice arguing here... not!

I got an interesting thread at Appleinsider, in short: Apple most likely put the GF5200 into the iMac because it only needs passive cooling. I know, the iMac has three fans, but I guess they have enough to do with G5, HD & optical drive, all in this thin enclosure!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=45858

Regards,
PB.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
I got an interesting thread at Appleinsider, in short: Apple most likely put the GF5200 into the iMac because it only needs passive cooling.

It has been mentioned in this thread already that there are faster GPUs that need only passive cooling as well. IIRC the 9600 and the 9700 were such examples.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by george68:
I can tell you must play game a pogo.com right?

What a complete idiot. So you're saying majority rules right? Maybe apple should just go out of business, after all 95+% of the marketplace runs windows. Who needs that extra 5%?!?! The MAJORITY uses PCs so who gives a ****?

****ing moron.

I hope you lose your hands tomorrow so I never have to read something ast stupid as your posts again.

BTW: This topic will be more popular than yours so kiss my ass

- Ca$h <- drunk and annoyed @ retards like turtle.

You don't get sick of making a fool of yourself, do you ?



-t

[Silas]

Originally posted by george68:
Sure it would. Unfortunatly, here in the real world, it doesn't work like that. I remember them touting the 'powerful' rage IIc in the original iMac for use in applications that rely heavily on 3D. It's a sham.

And what resolution are those FPS's at? Probably not native screen res, which means it's going to look like ****. And with every singal option turned off.

That is UNACCEPTABLE, and I will not purchase a new imac because of it.

- Rob

George, I understand that your complaints are that the stats that Apple publishes on their webpage concerning game performance are completely false and I assume that this is what you refer to as "the real world." Wouldn't that make it just as likely that the specs of the new machine are completely false and perhaps they included the 6800 in the new iMac. I only point this ridiculous assumption out to demonstrate that those gaming stats on Apple's webpage aren't completely false.

Apple's stats show what res the games are being played at and those stats tell us that the res is 1024x768 at 32 bit color, which happens to be the native res for both the 17 and 20 inch LCD with the 4:3 aspect ratio. This would show that games will look nice at that res. Not sure, and you may be correct concerning options being turned off. What you don't recognize is that this makes little difference in the manner that Apple's stats are presented, which is probably why they display them in terms of percentage of increase rather than actual FPS. Three times the performance is three times the performance no matter how you slice it. Therefore, if you wanted to turn the options all the way on and it played on the previous iMac at 5 FPS, that would mean you could expect 15 FPS on the iMac G5. I understand that this performance may not be acceptable to you but can not take away from the stats that Apple is presenting.

I am inbetween many in this argument. I am in the market for a new machine and I would have liked to have had an option for a better video card, which I would have paid for. That did not keep me from purchasing the new iMac. I am also fully aware of what that means in terms of performance of the games that I would like to play. Unlike many, I could care less how Doom III will play on it. From many of the reviews of the game, it seems that the game is pretty horrible other than the eye-candy.

Finally, you didn't mention the link that I provided to you. I really hope that you checked it out. I am also sorry that you aren't interested in the iMac simply because of how you "think" games will perform but let me ask you a final question. Considering the link on Apple's website concerning replaceable parts, would you buy an iMac if you had definite knowledge that in a year from now you could upgrade the logic board with a 2.5 G5 and a fast 128 meg video card?

[jamesa]

Originally posted by turtle777:
You don't get sick of making a fool of yourself, do you ?

-t

Turtle, if the iMac graphics card is good enough for your needs, why do you keep coming back to this thread?

-- james

[turtle777]

Originally posted by iBorg:
It's called BTO - "Build To Order" - look it up. Base price doesn't change for you, but offers the rest of us an upgrade, at our cost, with extra profit for Apple!

And FYI: The 5200 isn't a "medium GPU" - it's a bottom-feeder, bucko.



iBorg

Yes, in your simple world, BTO is just another option to chose in the Apple Online Store. So how hard can it be to add another drop-down menu for a 9600 or 9700, right ?

*lol*

You guys don't cease to amaze me...

-t

[turtle777]

Originally posted by jamesa:
Turtle, if the iMac graphics card is good enough for your needs, why do you keep coming back to this thread?

-- james

Thx, James, that's a good point. I'll guess I do exactly that.
The only thing I would miss here is infantile bitching from george68.

-t

[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by Marid:
I would argue that Apple cannot afford a single quarter without a net profit. They cannot afford "short-term" losses. Any news of financial trouble hits Apple hard and starts "APPLE IS DOOMED" chants again. That in turn hurts sales. For crying out loud, Apple recalls a few thousand PowerBook batteries and it makes headlines. I doubt any other company with 2% marketshare in their prime business gets the attention Apple does.

OK. But Apple is not exactly struggling. They've got no debt, millions in the bank, and not just decent quarters but excellent quarters. They can afford to take some risks and go on the offensive. iPod has opened a tiny window into the PC world, and Apple needs to exploit this as much as possible before MS slams it shut. The iMac could expand market share, but not with that graphics card.

Check out this lame Macworld "interview"...
http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/09...wiak/index.php

Boy, they really asked the tough questions, huh? Not a peep about Apple's GPU...

-S

[george68]

Originally posted by Simon:
Cash, why don't you stop embarrassing yourself with rants that sound like the stuff 12 year olds come up with (suck your own dick, my thread has more views than yours, etc.). The reason I'm mentioning it is because originally you had a very legit complaint. I hope people will acknowledge the complaint regardless of the inappropriate manner you chose to post it.

Sorry, I was pretty drunk last night. Turtle was pissing me off. He's just so close minded. The rest of us say "yes playing a game decently would be good, it should be an option, and I would have purchase the new imac G5"

and then he turns around and says "nobody plays games on imacs! Nyar!"

what an IDIOT...

Back on topic:

� Fact 1 is iMac G5 buyers will be extremely unhappy whenever they want to play a 3D game.
� Fact 2 is the iMac is a consumer machine. That's where games get played. A lot of games. A lot of dollars.
� Fact 3 is the iMac G5 is otherwise a great computer and a great deal.
� Fact 4 is everybody would be happy if Apple had been smart enough to offer a better GPU as BTO.
� Fact 5 is this would have been a good business for them as well. They make profit on the BTO upgrade and production cost does not increase since Apple gave away logic board commonalty in the first place by choosing to develop and manufacture three boards for three iMacs.
.

Werd.

- Ca$h

[george68]

Originally posted by Silas:
Apple's stats show what res the games are being played at and those stats tell us that the res is 1024x768 at 32 bit color, which happens to be the native res for both the 17 and 20 inch LCD with the 4:3 aspect ratio.

The 17 is 1440 X 900. Not sure about the 20.

This would show that games will look nice at that res.

Actually it wouldn't. You need to run the full LCD resolution in order for it to look decent.

Finally, you didn't mention the link that I provided to you. I really hope that you checked it out. I am also sorry that you aren't interested in the iMac simply because of how you "think" games will perform but let me ask you a final question. Considering the link on Apple's website concerning replaceable parts, would you buy an iMac if you had definite knowledge that in a year from now you could upgrade the logic board with a 2.5 G5 and a fast 128 meg video card?

Stupid. Upgrading a logic board?! Do you realize how much MONEY that would be?! If the graphics card was a daughtercard of some sorts, and you could replace JUST THAT, then yes, I would feel a lot better about it. But replacing the whole logic board? Not only would that be big bucks, but what would you do with the old one??? Sell it on ebay? Who'd want it?

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Thx, James, that's a good point. I'll guess I do exactly that.
The only thing I would miss here is infantile bitching from george68.

-t

Won't miss you. Glad you're gone. Have fun in your own unpopular thread.

- Ca$h

[hldan]

Originally posted by george68:
Won't miss you. Glad you're gone. Have fun in your own unpopular thread.

- Ca$h

It's amazing how Apple can can make an innocent product, introduce it and all of a sudden so many hurt feelings. The pitty is the hurt feelings end up between the consumers arguing between one another and Apple ends up being out of the argument that started because of their product.

[Silas]

Originally posted by george68:
[B]The 17 is 1440 X 900. Not sure about the 20.

[B]

Actually it wouldn't. You need to run the full LCD resolution in order for it to look decent.



Stupid. Upgrading a logic board?! Do you realize how much MONEY that would be?! If the graphics card was a daughtercard of some sorts, and you could replace JUST THAT, then yes, I would feel a lot better about it. But replacing the whole logic board? Not only would that be big bucks, but what would you do with the old one??? Sell it on ebay? Who'd want it?

- Rob

Actually it would. The full LCD res at the 4:3 aspect ratio that games are played is 1024x768 for both displays (the same res Apple tested their games for their website stats).

Directly from Apple's website concerning the iMac G5:

Graphics support

* NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with AGP 8X support
* 64MB of dedicated Double Data Rate (DDR) video memory
* 17-inch display resolutions:
o 16:10 aspect ratio
+ 1440 x 900 pixels (native)
+ 1152 x 720
+ 1024 x 640
+ 800 x 500
o 4:3 aspect ratio
+ 1024 x 768 pixels
+ 800 x 600
+ 640 x 480
* 20-inch display resolutions:
o 16:10 aspect ratio
+ 1680 x 1050 pixels (native)
+ 1344 x 840
+ 1280 x 800
+ 1024 x 640
+ 840 x 524
+ 800 x 500
o 4:3 aspect ratio
+ 1024 x 768 pixels
+ 800 x 600
+ 640 x 480

Also, I do recognize the approximate costs for the entire logic board but it would be much cheaper than replacing the entire machine - which is what would have been required of previous versions of the iMac. To me, it seems more positive than shelling out the cash for a new machine.

[pantalaimon]

add me to the growing list of people who won't be buying the imac untill a decent graphics card is a least a BTO.

ah well, I can wait for the next revision, gives me time to save up

is there any chance of them giving a BTO before revision b?

[Spliff]

Okay, can someone please explain to me this business of non-native LCD resolutions and poor gaming graphics. I'm clueless about this sort of thing.

I've never owned an LCD, but all the games I've seen played on them look fine. Why would games look lousy at certain resolutions when the OS doesn't? How does a LCD monitor support non-native resolutions?

[iBorg]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Yes, in your simple world, BTO is just another option to chose in the Apple Online Store. So how hard can it be to add another drop-down menu for a 9600 or 9700, right ?

*lol*

You guys don't cease to amaze me...

-t

Since your reading ability and memory appears to be compromised, I'll requote your original inane post:

Given the design of the iMac and the fact that most GPU need active cooling (except the much more expensive mobile GPUs), adding a more powerful GPU would have bumped the price disproportionally.

How would Apple loose more customers ?

By building in a medium GPU, that is enough for at least 95% of the users, or by charging extra $ 150 for a high-end GPU ?

You imply that the only way to make a decent graphic card available is to include it in the base purchase - since you appear unaware of BTO, I sought to help you learn about this ..... dimwit.....



iBorg

[Mike Pither]

Originally posted by Simon:


Back on topic:

� Fact 1 is iMac G5 buyers will be extremely unhappy whenever they want to play a 3D game.
� Fact 2 is the iMac is a consumer machine. That's where games get played. A lot of games. A lot of dollars.
� Fact 3 is the iMac G5 is otherwise a great computer and a great deal.
� Fact 4 is everybody would be happy if Apple had been smart enough to offer a better GPU as BTO.
� Fact 5 is this would have been a good business for them as well. They make profit on the BTO upgrade and production cost does not increase since Apple gave away logic board commonalty in the first place by choosing to develop and manufacture three boards for three iMacs.

While many may agree with you here I don't think that any of these are FACTS, they are all simply your opinion (that happens to be shared by some here and not by others).

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Okay, can someone please explain to me this business of non-native LCD resolutions and poor gaming graphics. I'm clueless about this sort of thing.

I've never owned an LCD, but all the games I've seen played on them look fine. Why would games look lousy at certain resolutions when the OS doesn't? How does a LCD monitor support non-native resolutions?

screens are designed with the right number of pixels in mind for maximum height and width

however, when you choose a less than maximum resolution, you don't have the right number of pixels anymore - you have too many

let's say you take an 1024 pixel monitor and want to display only 800 pixels with it. This means 1024 pixels are trying to draw 800. 1024/800 = 1.28 hardware pixels per resolution pixel. The problem being, of course, that you can't have .28 hardware pixels; a pixel can only fire one colour at once. So you have to interpolate, and to be honest it doesn't look too good. The sharpness goes out the window, and the further you get away from native res, the worse it gets; because then you might have TWO hardware pixels drawing a resolution pixel, which takes up quite a lot display space and sharpness gets even worse.

The other problem with LCDs and gaming is that the pixel response rate is generally pretty poor. Only one very good LCDs will you get a decent pixel response rate - under 20 ms is what you're looking for, and that's up AND down, not just one way. Anything under 10 ms is great, but very rare.

Back to the topic at hand. Why can't Apple ship a decent graphics card in the iMac?

-- james

[macgfx]

The "User serviceable" logic-Board is yet another good selling point of the iMac G5. It also does leave room for Apple to sell you a New Lobo........tho I don't think they will go back to that.

,BUT what does it say for the failure rate of the LoBo?

I can see GrandMa calling AppleCare and being told" We are shipping you a new Logic-Board for your iMac. Please put the old one in the box and ship it back!"

I've never needed my AppleCare so I don't know if they will Pay to have a "User serviceable part" put in.

[tigas]

Ever heard of pin-compatible chipsets? The main variables would be what kind of memory support Apple would build into the motherboard (64, 128, 256bit, GDDR-2, GDDR-3). After having those motherboard traces set in stone (or in copper), building to order would mean ordering a different pin-compatible chip of the same series.

And if Apple was really serious about this, there would have been MXM. However, since Apple doesn't have *any* PCI-Express solution or roadmap, maybe it doesn't have any brains working on that.

About MXM:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/mxm.html
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjE1
http://www.hothardware.com/viewartic...?articleid=524

No, really, Apple customers are uneducated and will buy on impulse based on "landmarks" ("Whow! A G5!" - after the noise about the G5's advantage coming from fast and fat buses, here's one with a 50% slower system bus). Apple can sell them whatever they choose. And they'll be happy, the same way an unloved child can still be happy: she doesn't know any other kind of love.

**edit**
Sorry, Apple and roadmaps can't fit in the same sentence. It doesn't know the concept. All that's left is to hold for RevB and then bitch again.
**end edit**

[BenN]

Originally posted by george68:
YOU ARE A COMPLETE ****ING IDIOT!

What a ****ing idiot.......THE ARGUMENT IS CIRCULAR YOU STUPID ****

Go away you insecure dipshit

You lost dumbass. I didn't vote in your stupid thread, neither di dmost people. Please go suck your own dick

****ing moron

This topic will be more popular than yours so kiss my ass

Most impressive.

I`ve been in uber-lurk mode, so don`t know these forums so well, but....

Is this the normal standard of debate here? Do people really care about the `popularity` of their threads? Or is this some sort of elaborate in-joke?

Back on topic, I`m surprised that Apple used the same GPU for all iMac models (i.e. not using a better GPU to lure buyers towards the more expensive models). If Apple could offer a better GPU as BTO, that would be ideal; those who want a better GPU could get one - just like BlueTooth & AirPort.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by BenN:
Back on topic, I`m surprised that Apple used the same GPU for all iMac models (i.e. not using a better GPU to lure buyers towards the more expensive models). If Apple could offer a better GPU as BTO, that would be ideal; those who want a better GPU could get one - just like BlueTooth & AirPort.

Precisely. That's all that I, and most others dissatisfied with the high-end iMac option, have wanted. Guess that we'll just wait for rev. B, and hope that there won't be many potential buyers that simply give up on Apple, and buy a PC. Every report of increasingly lower market-share for Mac OS is bad news for any Mac user.



iBorg

[george68]

Originally posted by BenN:
Do people really care about the `popularity` of their threads? Or is this some sort of elaborate in-joke?

I don't really give a crap about the popularity of threads,but apparently this 'turtle' character does. He linked to his 'official imac bitching thread' from this thread over 3 times; I guess he's pissed that people are posting in this one instead of his own.

Who knows, he sucks.

- Ca$h

[klinux]

Originally posted by Mike Pither:
While many may agree with you here I don't think that any of these are FACTS, they are all simply your opinion (that happens to be shared by some here and not by others).

Au contrare, I think they are as close to facts as you can get here. Gaming is a lot of $$$, possibly more than the pro segment. it's simply wrong for Apple to put such a low end card into a medium end syste,.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by klinux:
Au contrare, I think they are as close to facts as you can get here. Gaming is a lot of $$$, possibly more than the pro segment. it's simply wrong for Apple to put such a low end card into a medium end syste,.

Precisely!

And I'm starting to laugh out loud, every time I read some "Apple Apologist's" post that "the iMac is a low-cost consumer computer!" At almost $2,000, the top-of-the-line iMac (which is still crippled with this POS video card) is hardly "low cost" in anyone's book!



iBorg

[jamesa]

Originally posted by iBorg:
Precisely!

And I'm starting to laugh out loud, every time I read some "Apple Apologist's" post that "the iMac is a low-cost consumer computer!" At almost $2,000, the top-of-the-line iMac (which is still crippled with this POS video card) is hardly "low cost" in anyone's book!



iBorg

I think the Apple community is great the way it bands behind Apple, but at the same time, if they just take what's being dished out to them when it's clearly insufficient it's a recipe to get a technically lazy Apple that'll start shipping inferior (spec-wise) machines and asking us to pay a premium.

It's our job as Apple customers to keep them on their toes, and tell them what we want. Not just dribble like rabid fan-bois every time Apple release something (unless, of course, it's to convert a Wintel user, in which case graphics cards etc can be overlooked in the interests of helping the person off Windows

-- james