[hldan]

With all the talk about the GPU in the new iMac G5 I decided to on nvidia's web sight and they do in fact show 2 different models of the FX5200. One is the Ultra which is what Apple uses but nvidia doesn't mention the differences. I was curious if people on this forum are confusing one for the other and maybe the Ultra offers substancially more GPU performance since Apple is promoting high performance 3D gaming on the iMac with this GPU.
Any feedback?

[Commodus]

No, people aren't confused - the main differences between the normal and Ultra versions are, I believe, memory bandwidth and clock speed. The non-Ultra version is rarely if ever seen in any computer; the cost and heat differences are negligible by this point.

And both are basically the bottom-end of nVidia's current lineup. To see a real difference in performance, you have to go to the FX 5700, then the 5900, and finally the 6-series.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by hldan:
With all the talk about the GPU in the new iMac G5 I decided to on nvidia's web sight and they do in fact show 2 different models of the FX5200. One is the Ultra which is what Apple uses but nvidia doesn't mention the differences. I was curious if people on this forum are confusing one for the other and maybe the Ultra offers substancially more GPU performance since Apple is promoting high performance 3D gaming on the iMac with this GPU.
Any feedback?

The Ultra is a 5200 with higher clock speeds. It's about 50% faster than the basic 5200 in most tests. The 5200 was pretty poor, the 5200 Ultra is fine for pre-Doom 3 generation games on moderate settings, and all non First Person Shooter games. However, if you're a serious gamer or into GPU-intensive activites there are much better alternatives. Despite Apple's marketing, the 5200 Ultra is not designed for high-performance 3D gaming. Nor, indeed, is any Mac.

[PeterKG]

PLEASE don't start another LONG thread on this subject

[hldan]

Originally posted by PeterKG:
PLEASE don't start another LONG thread on this subject

Just tryin' to get some info, not tryin to play the game of beating a dead horse when it comes to GPU debates, however I disagree with PEhowland saying that "No Mac is designed for 3D gaming". Whatever satisfiable GPU you slide in a G5 tower will make it a high performance gaming machine. I play UT2004 on my Powerbook with the Radeon mobility 9600 w/64Megs online everynite and it plays well on high settings. Macs can do anything, it's uncessary to be so closed minded because of the unwritten rule of PC's being the only machines to play 3D games on. The PC in question has to be capable of playing 3D games good as well.

[Luca Rescigno]

I'm sure the PowerMac G5s can be pretty good gaming machines if you use a very powerful graphics card. However, they are very expensive considering the performance. I got a PC recently for gaming, and though it only cost me $450, the performance exceeds any Mac under $2000.

[Commodus]

Luca:

Yeah, that's the real problem Apple has - that the entry point for real enthusiasts is so high. Even if you're a student and configure the system properly, a PowerMac will cost you $1683 (more like $1728, since no self-respecting gamer will use an FX 5200 now). That's a lot to get started. This is why most geeks tend to get an iBook or PowerBook instead.

But with the iMac, it's not the smartest choice to begin with if you're looking at gaming. You can't upgrade the CPU or video chipset - even if there was a Radeon 9600 XT in there, why would you want to be saddled with it so long as you own the computer? As such, the iMac merely needs to have a video chip with modern features, as the FX 5200 does.

And as a parting shot... if you think the iMac's video is pokey, be thankful that you aren't looking at a Gateway Profile 5!

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by hldan:
Just tryin' to get some info, not tryin to play the game of beating a dead horse when it comes to GPU debates, however I disagree with PEhowland saying that "No Mac is designed for 3D gaming". Whatever satisfiable GPU you slide in a G5 tower will make it a high performance gaming machine.

Well, buying a dual processor G5 is a very expensive way to get to play Doom 3. You could get a far more powerful PC for less (bearing in mind that Doom 3 won't take advantage of dual processors anyway). I was not just talking about the GPU - although the range of available of graphics cards on the Mac is tiny compared with the PC market. No Mac ships with a decent hardware accelerated audio card - like the Audigy 2 for instance - which is standard kit in any gamers machine (and is equally important for achieving high frame rates). There is no support for DirectX, the maintstay of gaming programming. There is very small range of games compared to the PC. And those games which are released are often several months late.

Sure, you can play games on a Mac, but it is not a gamer's machine of choice. I don't state that as a flame. Just trying to point out that if gaming is your thing, a PC is a far better choice.