[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Most of those games listed are at least five years old. Some of them are 10. I think WOW is the most graphically intensive listed there. Like I said, it will probably run OK if you have the settings low, but I wouldn't really try turning up any of the effects. Which is a shame, because the game is much cooler with the graphics turned up.

I'd be really interested to hear reports on whether the new iMac's card is as annoying as it sounds or if there's some trickery going on here.

I don't know what you mean about having to run WoW with low settings on an iMac. My 24" iMac runs WoW with all settings maxed out and gets 30fps at the low end, 60fps at the high. That's plenty of fps for that game. Everything looks beautiful and runs smooth. I highly doubt the new iMac's vid card is that much worse, if at all.

Also, my iMac runs Doom 3 perfectly with all settings maxed out. I haven't tried any of the UT games (which I hear bog down all computers pretty good).

I read somewhere that the new vid card supports DirectX 10, which means if you want to play Windows only games, it will play them quite nicely. And hell, if you're a serious gamer then you'll want to play your games in Windows anyways.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I don't know what you mean about having to run WoW with low settings on an iMac. My 24" iMac runs WoW with all settings maxed out and gets 30fps at the low end, 60fps at the high. That's plenty of fps for that game. Everything looks beautiful and runs smooth. I highly doubt the new iMac's vid card is that much worse, if at all.

According to the numbers Eug posted, it looks like it'll be a little more than half as fast. That's what I've been talking about. So far, nobody's really contradicted it.

[Eug]

little more than half as fast

I wouldn't go that far. Let's just say it's unlikely the new GPUs are significantly faster than the 7600 GT, and they may be significantly slower in some benches.

I think it should be quite fine with WoW. However, WoW is a very old game.

[ReardenMetal]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I think Crob is the only one saying that the video card is significantly slower. Peter and others in the iMac forum are saying that it is actually quite faster. Would a level headed person please explain what's what?

Peter is wrong. He ignores my specs, and other poster's links that prove how much slower the new card really is, and then claims we aren't posting any data to back up what we are saying.

[ReardenMetal]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

We will have to see when people get them and detailed benchmarks are run... but I think they should still be pretty good unless you want to play Quake 4 or something really intensive like that. All I care about personally is Lego Star Wars II and Jedi Academy and Empire at War

Quake 4 is NOT super intensive anymore. It came out almost 2 years ago, in October of 2005. Will it run on the new iMac? Sure. Just not very well. The MAIN PROBLEM, which you still seem to understand, is the display it's connected to. LCDs like to run at native resolution. Lowering the resolution on an LCD = performance hit, since hte GPU has to double pixels and whatnot. So basically, with a huge 1900X1200 LCD, you need a pretty POWERFUL graphics card to run most 3d games decently. This is the MAIN PROBLEM. If you turn everything down, and lower the res, you will get SLIGHTLY better perforamnce, but not a ton, and it will look like ****. Who wants a game to look like **** and run like crap after they just dropped almost 2 grand, with NO WAY TO UPGRADE THE PERFORMANCE?! Not me!

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Exactly what games are we talking about here? What is the most hardware intensive game on the market today for the Mac?

(The latest games I've played are WoW and Doom 3)

Collin McRae Rally 2005, the Ciderized version, runs somewhat choppy on my 24" imac with 7600GT. It will run even worse on this new iMac. UT2k4 gets about 30-70fps, on the new iMac it will run slower than that, and will probably be choppy in firefights.

Originally Posted by Andhee 

I'm sure 99% of home users arnt hardcore gamers, and those who play games occasionally will think it is a massive upgrade from their x-computer. I'm sure if I got an iMac i'd be surprised about how fast it runs, as all the games i've played have been on a toshiba laptop with 512mb ram and a 128mb graphics card.

Here's hte issue: SCREEN SIZE. 128 meg graphics card is probably okay for the resolution your running at on your laptop. The iMac, however, has an LCD 1900X1200. It will not run well.

Originally Posted by sek929 

If Doom 3 won't run properly on it then it sucks.

A game that's been out for like 5 years should be able to run on a computer than costs over a grand, end of story.

No ****.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because they now have absolutely zero computers that are suitable for casual gaming?

Ding ding ding.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Wouldn't an iMac be fine for casual gaming? I define casual gaming as playing a game to have fun, not to wow yourself with the latest and greatest graphics. I think I'm a casual gamer. I enjoy playing Star Wars games like Jedi Academy and Empire at War and KOTOR II, but I don't care a ton about graphics. I care more about content and enjoying myself. Heck, for most of the games that I like a MacBook would do fine.

NO. It will only be okay for casual gaming if you play games like the Sims, and other games that really don't require much hardware at all. If you run Doom3, which is an OLD GAME, it probably will NOT run very well at full res. I'm a casual gamer, I don't play games that often, maybe like 3-5 times a week, maybe 1 hour each time if I'm lucky. If you think a macbook would be 'just fine', then you aren't even a gamer, you're just a regular consumer that plays games that require only slightly more hardware than that is reuqired to play solitaire.

[Rumor]

Just let it go.

[ReardenMetal]

No. If I want to voice my opinion, I will. I am not breaking any rules.

[ort888]

You're breaking the rules just by being here.

An escaped criminal walking down the street isn't breaking any rules either, but you can bet your ass that he'll be arrested on sight.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ReardenMetal 

voice my opinion

You have. Several times. You keep repeating yourself. Over and over.

You remind me of someone else that post here...

[ReardenMetal]

Depends if hte guy is truly a criminal or not, or of it was just the 'law' making things up about him. And yes, I am voicing my opinion about the iMac's GPU in RESPONSE to other posts. That is why I am repeating myself.

[ort888]

The criminal has to abide by the laws of society, not the ones he makes up in his head. That's how the world works.

[Rumor]

Rob,

As I have noted before, I don't really have a problem with you. That is until you start pulling this ****. You need to relax a little bit.

The manner in which you post appears that you are taking this video card thing way to seriously.

You contantly scream about how you did nothing wrong, then insult a moderator or another member in the same post. How can you not get it? You are acting like a child.

You were ranting more than anything else and it began to get on everyones nerves. When you failed to calm down is when you got the boot.

If you just chill out some, you will avoid that all together. I've seen you do before, so I know you can.

Before you respond to this, take some time and think about the point I am trying to put across to you. It has been echoed many times by more than myself.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

You're breaking the rules just by being here.

An escaped criminal walking down the street isn't breaking any rules either, but you can bet your ass that he'll be arrested on sight.

No, read the earlier posts in this thread to see why he was banned.

[D.O.G.S. CEO]

OUCH.

iMac Aluminum versus Others

The OLD iMac with the 7600GT is 245% faster than the new one at Quake4, 145% faster in Doom3, and 225% faster in Halo. Man that thing is getting CREAMED. It's not even CLOSE to the performance of the old iMac.... it's roughly 50% as fast. Jeeeeez.

[sek929]

Wow, so Halo for Mac (which is how old now?) runs better on an old machine that the new iMac.

Apple, you lost an iMac sale.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by D.O.G.S. CEO 

OUCH.

iMac Aluminum versus Others

The OLD iMac with the 7600GT is 245% faster than the new one at Quake4, 145% faster in Doom3, and 225% faster in Halo. Man that thing is getting CREAMED. It's not even CLOSE to the performance of the old iMac.... it's roughly 50% as fast. Jeeeeez.

I would check your math.

29 fps + 245% = 100 fps.

[besson3c]

Could it be that the cost of all of these fancy environmentally friendly materials increased costs for Apple, and decided to cut corners by skimping on the video card?

[TETENAL]

I doubt the new case is any more environmentally friendly than the old was. Jobs was just saying this to appease Greenpeace.

More likely Apple's market research showed that a high quality looking case makes them more sales than going after the gamer market with an expensive graphics card.

[D.O.G.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I would check your math.

29 fps + 245% = 100 fps.

Check yours. 29 X 2.45= 71.05

[Chuckit]

Yes, 245% = 71.

So 29 + 71 = 100.

Not that it really matters a whole lot.

[D.O.G.S. CEO]

Uh, I don't understand your math. 29 FPS. 245% faster than 29fps= 71fps.

[ort888]

Two steps forward, one step back.

That's our Apple.

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Two steps forward, one step back.

That's our Apple.

That's about it. Someone has a head up their ass at Apple when it comes to hardware decisions. I mean, Apple's done some dumb **** before, but hot damn, that's just sad.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by D.O.G.S. CEO 

Uh, I don't understand your math. 29 FPS. 245% faster than 29fps= 71fps.

So if it was 45% faster it would be 13 fps? Of course not, because when you say "% faster" you need to add the original 100%. Therefore if you say 245% faster than 29 fps that makes 100 fps. You mean 245% the speed which is 71 fps.

[MallyMal]

You know, Apple wouldn't do this kind of stuff if the "Mac Faithful" wouldn't allow them to. For some reason people allow Apple to dictate the flow of the relationship instead of the other way around. Apple would be nothing if we did not buy their stuff. Perhaps it's time for Apple to learn that.

Before we had a CPU problem. Now we have a GPU problem. The Mac Pro has an old GPU, the iMac has a slow GPU, and the MacBook has integrated graphics. MacBook Pro's GPU seems to be the only one that is both up to date and up to snuff. tsk, tsk

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Two steps forward, one step back.

That's our Apple.

I know it, but damn it's still addicting....that is, being an Apple enthusiast.

[D.O.G.S. CEO]

Nice balls.

[ort888]

We're like pathetic beggers, huddled into a ball and holding out our dirty hands for scraps.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by D.O.G.S. CEO 

Nice balls.

I'm digging the empty single star as well.

[::maroma::]

There's always some component of a Mac that is lacking. Or at least, people will find something. If its not the CPU, then its the GPU. Or its the HD, or its the RAM. A lackluster GPU in an iMac is nothing new, its just a different component than what was lacking before. Not an excuse, just reality.

Also, Apple has never used focus groups of any kind for their products. Therefor they will listen to the customer base, but only so far. They made a phone because their customer base begged them to for 5 years. But on details like this, I doubt they go out looking for what we're talking about.

Apple has always been this way. I don't see why people are surprised.

[MallyMal]

To be honest, the inflexibility is becoming a real turn-off. I need to buy a Mac Pro soon. However, the GPUs are over a year old yet still demand a premium price. This wouldn't be so bad if I could buy my own GPU but nope can't do that because there isn't an up-to-date one to buy. I can't get an updated GPU from Apple because they would rather be inflexible and ignore the needs of their customers. Basically, this is bullsh*t.

[D.O.G.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

There's always some component of a Mac that is lacking. Or at least, people will find something. If its not the CPU, then its the GPU. Or its the HD, or its the RAM.

The difference is the RAM and Hard drive have always been upgradable. The GPU, however, has never been, excluding the original 8 meg Gamewizard for the original iMac (and MAYBE the MXM based cards on the last 24" iMac, and today's iMacs).

A lackluster GPU in an iMac is nothing new, its just a different component than what was lacking before.

A few years ago, you would have been correct.... apple consistently put in total CRAP videocards in the iMac lineup, but all that changed when they released the 24" iMac with 7600GT. Finally, the iMac had a pretty gnarly card, that was capable of driving a game at full resolution on it's display. And you know what? I bought one.

Apple has always been this way. I don't see why people are surprised.

Apple has never, to my knowledge, released an iMac with vastly inferior graphics as an 'upgrade'.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MallyMal 

To be honest, the inflexibility is becoming a real turn-off. I need to buy a Mac Pro soon. However, the GPUs are over a year old yet still demand a premium price. This wouldn't be so bad if I could buy my own GPU but nope can't do that because there isn't an up-to-date one to buy. I can't get an updated GPU from Apple because they would rather be inflexible and ignore the needs of their customers. Basically, this is bullsh*t.

All they had to do was provide a BTO option for a better card, problem solved.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I doubt the new case is any more environmentally friendly than the old was.

Metal is easier to recycle and reuse than plastic and not as toxic during the recycling process. Plastic is also part of the oil industry. The more plastics demand there is the higher the cost of oil and thus gas too.

[besson3c]

Now that we seem to mostly be accepting the fact that this was a bizarre decision, this is *exactly* the sort of thing I was referring to in my bizarre Apple thread I recently created. Not only is it bizarre, but inconsistent. One just never seems to know what they will get from Apple, and that can be a problem.

Apple needs to think bigger.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by D.O.G.S. CEO 

Finally, the iMac had a pretty gnarly card, that was capable of driving a game at full resolution on it's display.

All iMacs have been able drive concurrent games (ie games that came out at the same time) at full resolution on their displays with playable frame rates, including the new iMac.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Apple needs to think bigger.

Apple needs to think Linux and just ship a complicated OS with a suite of almost mundane and unproductive and backwards looking applications like Ubuntu has.

[MallyMal]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All they had to do was provide a BTO option for a better card, problem solved.

Seems simple, right?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by MallyMal 

Seems simple, right?

Seems simple on the surface. The problem is political. Apple has to make Nvidia and ATI happy so they will continue to work with Apple in the future. If they don't have any ATI cards in their computers that can hurt their relationship. ATI could withhold drivers and Mac support in the future. What happens then if ATI comes out with a new chip that kills Nvidia? Bad news. So Apple had to use an ATI chip for the iMac because the MacBook Pro went from ATI to Nvidia, and the Mac Pro has Nvidia and ATI options. To balance it out the iMac had to go from Nvidia to ATI. Sadly new Radeons don't have the best performance right now but still they are good enough for most things.

[D.O.G.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by MallyMal 

Seems simple, right?

Indeed. Especially since they are all MXM Type II based daughtercards. All they'd need would be the drivers. It would plug right in.

[MallyMal]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Seems simple on the surface. The problem is political. Apple has to make Nvidia and ATI happy so they will continue to work with Apple in the future. If they don't have any ATI cards in their computers that can hurt their relationship. ATI could withhold drivers and Mac support in the future. What happens then if ATI comes out with a new chip that kills Nvidia? Bad news. So Apple had to use an ATI chip for the iMac because the MacBook Pro went from ATI to Nvidia, and the Mac Pro has Nvidia and ATI options. To balance it out the iMac had to go from Nvidia to ATI. Sadly new Radeons don't have the best performance right now but still they are good enough for most things.

Do you think once their pro customers get tired of waiting that their politics are going to matter?

Edit: It's not like their pro apps are easy on the GPU. Color runs better on the MacBook Pro's GPU than it does on the standard Mac Pro GPU, I've tested this at Apple store. That sucks.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

All iMacs have been able drive concurrent games (ie games that came out at the same time) at full resolution on their displays with playable frame rates, including the new iMac.

Congrats to Apple for living in the now. What happens next year when something new comes out?

[D.O.G.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

All iMacs have been able drive concurrent games (ie games that came out at the same time) at full resolution on their displays with playable frame rates, including the new iMac.

Liar. The first generation of iMacs did not play Quake 3 decently at all, or UT. The 2nd gens did even worse than the first gen, but they could play DVDs. The Third gens were okay for a little while, they had 5200s. Only with the introduction of the 24"/7600GT did apple ever release an iMac that could push a game at decent FPS at full resolution.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by D.O.G.S. CEO 

Liar. The first generation of iMacs did not play Quake 3 decently at all, or UT.

I don't know which first generation are you talking about? G3, G4, G5 or Intel? All of them could play concurrent games at fullscreen resolution.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Congrats to Apple for living in the now. What happens next year when something new comes out?

All all-in-one systems suffer from becoming outdated for gaming after 18 months to two years. Notebooks too.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by MallyMal 

Do you think once their pro customers get tired of waiting that their politics are going to matter?

Edit: It's not like their pro apps are easy on the GPU. Color runs better on the MacBook Pro's GPU than it does on the standard Mac Pro GPU, I've tested this at Apple store. That sucks.

Color? You're not supposed to use an iMac or anything with a glossy screen for that matter with Color. Since when did pro Final Cut users get so cheap and low rent that they had to buy a consumer computer?

[MallyMal]

Another problem with Apple doing everything as an all-in-one is that there isn't a lot of incentive for 3rd parties to make cards for Apple. A 3rd party could only sell to the Mac Pro owners.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

All all-in-one systems suffer from becoming outdated for gaming after 18 months to two years. Notebooks too.

Unfortunately the new iMac became outdated last year.

[MallyMal]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Color? You're not supposed to use an iMac or anything with a glossy screen for that matter with Color. Since when did pro Final Cut users get so cheap and low rent that they had to buy a consumer computer?

I was referring to my other post where I mentioned the GPUs for the Mac Pro.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Metal is easier to recycle and reuse than plastic and not as toxic during the recycling process. Plastic is also part of the oil industry. The more plastics demand there is the higher the cost of oil and thus gas too.

Aluminium requires a lot of energy to be extracted (makes gas more expensive too). Plastic can also be recycled, especially if it's in larger and properly labeled parts. And the oil consumption for production of plastic is neglectable compared to what is burned for energy creation.

I'm pretty sure that the new casing was a design decision to make the product look more valuable and not an ecological decision. Jobs even said their survey showed that consumers thought the product looks more valuable and prosumer and professionals thought it looks more like a pro-product. That they made this survey makes me think that that was their design goal.