[Simon]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
But it is entirely wrong to say that the 5200 Ultra is "slaughtered" by the Mobility 9700. The Mobility 9700 is marginally faster. Nothing more.
...
And that's what your two graphs show. The Mobility 9700 is 5fps faster in Halo and 3 fps faster in UT2004. 5fps and 3fps. Hardly slaughtered. Marginally faster.

You might believe it's just marginally faster because you look at absolute values that seem small (3 and 5 fps).

Let's be more realistic and look at relative gain: In Halo we're talking about +17%, in UT is +15%. That's far more than the error margin. So a cooler, lower power consuming (and I guess older) chip is beating a pumped up version of a desktop chip. What an embarassement. I'd call that slaughter.

But it really doesn't matter what I call it. Matter of fact is I was challenged that Apple couldn't find a better performing chip that would fit in the iMac's tight heat and power constraints. Well, here it is. Better and cooler. That's now proven. I'm anxious to hear Apple's excuses for this decision...

[arekkusu]

Originally posted by P:
Jobs is still pissed at ATI over all the stuff that they did a couple of years ago (... terrible drivers for the Rage 128s in the B&W G3s, etc)

The driver situation, at least, should no longer be a factor. The quality of ATI's Mac drivers has really improved over the last nine months. The Radeon 9600+ supports full OpenGL 1.5 now, whereas all the nvidia cards are still at 1.3 + extensions.

(That's not to say that the drivers are great, there are still problems. But they've improved *a lot*.)

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by Simon:

But it really doesn't matter what I call it. Matter of fact is I was challenged that Apple couldn't find a better performing chip that would fit in the iMac's tight heat and power constraints. Well, here it is. Better and cooler. That's now proven. I'm anxious to hear Apple's excuses for this decision...

Proven? I must have missed the bit where you actually showed what the heat output of the Mobility 9700 was versus that of the 5200 Ultra. Anyway, congratulations, you found a chip that will buy you 3 fps more in a game (that is, after all, what matters - not percentages). You're obviously easily pleased.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Proven? I must have missed the bit where you actually showed what the heat output of the Mobility 9700 was versus that of the 5200 Ultra. Anyway, congratulations, you found a chip that will buy you 3 fps more in a game (that is, after all, what matters - not percentages). You're obviously easily pleased.

there's no way a laptop GPU - a GPU used in any of Apple's portable machines - should be beating the GPU of one of Apple's desktop machines.

Put those statistics in the context of the iMac have a 6x faster system bus, faster RAM, a faster G5 vs a slower laptop G4, there is no way the Powerbook should be in front. No way at all.

It goes to prove how bad the gpu is in the iMac.

-- james

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:
there's no way a laptop GPU - a GPU used in any of Apple's portable machines - should be beating the GPU of one of Apple's desktop machines.

Put those statistics in the context of the iMac have a 6x faster system bus, faster RAM, a faster G5 vs a slower laptop G4, there is no way the Powerbook should be in front. No way at all.

It goes to prove how bad the gpu is in the iMac.

-- james

The Mobility Radeon 9700 is marginally faster than the 5200 Ultra. That's all. It therefore marginally beats the 5200 Ultra in those tests where GPU is the bottleneck. No surprise there. In situations where the GPU is the bottleneck, discussion about the faster system bus, CPU performance and memory speed are irrelevant. Of course, in those benchmarks where the GPU is not the limitation, the iMac is faster than the Powerbook, for the reasons you cite. Your logic doesn't make sense in the above example.

Maybe it would be nice to have the Mobility 9700 instead of the 5200 Ultra. But it frankly wouldn't make a huge difference. The iMac wouldn't suddenly be able to offer amazing performance on games it can't handle now. Nor would it become a stellar Motion renderer. A 10% increase of a small number is still a small number. It wouldn't suddenly become any more future proof, or any more able to handle or not handle Quartz Extreme.

Secondly, you talk about "one of Apple's portable machines" as if this is a second class citizen. Remember a 17" Powerbook with Mobility 9700 costs $1600 more than the 17" iMac. That's a lot of money. Put another way, you could buy two 17" iMac's and still have $200 change compared with the Powerbook. It bloody well ought to perform well at that price! I think that actually illustrates what good value the iMac is, given that it is basically just a laptop on a stand.

Finally, I'd be very interested to see how much cooler the Mobility 9700 actually is, when it's running games. It's a notorious power eater. Where it differs from the 5200 Ultra is that it can power down and hence save battery power and heat when it's not gaming. Saving power is not an issue in the iMac, so this is of no real interest. I doubt the Mobility 9700 is any cooler than the 5200 Ultra when under load - but I'd be interested to see figures on that.

[pliny]

A few things about these barefeats tests and some of the comments generated.

First and most obvious is the comparison of the iMac G5 performance to the Apple Powerbook. According to the barefeats tests, a machine with an older chip and slower fsb and memory, performs marginally better than the new iMac ontwo or three of the tests.

But. Any one of the Powerbooks will cost you quite a bit more than the iMac 17".

In fact, barefeats in its tests used the 17" Powerbook, which as everyone knows, is not like any off the shelf laptop, and it retails for $2799, roughly twice the cost of the 17" iMac. For $2799, you will get a few more frames per second in the tests presented, and if you are spending twice as much to play Halo 3fps faster, then maybe you are cuckoo.

Second, as barefeats noted, on Apple's tests, the iMac performed better, *perhaps* because Apple put the settings to minimum while barefeats used maximum.





Third, there are the other tests barefeats did, where the Imac fared much better.













Fourth, there are barefeats' own conclusions about the iMac based on its tests, and I add that barefeats is not the dispositive decision maker on what to buy. Even so, they say the iMac is a good buy:

CONCLUSION
The iMac G5 is not just faster and slimmer than its predecessor. It's a very good value. The 17" G5/1.8GHz iMac costs $1096 less* than the 17" PowerBook G4/1.5GHz. The 20" G5/1.8GHz iMac costs $1499 less* than the G5/1.8GHz dual processor Power Mac with a 20" Cinema display.

(* When playing "what if" with prices, we equipped each with 512MB memory, comparable hard drive, AirPort Extreme card, and Bluetooth module. Of course, the iMac G5 doesn't have FireWire 800 or Gigabit Ethernet, but I still say it has a great price/performance ratio.)

It's been said that 80% of Mac buyers never upgrade their machine beyond adding memory. If that's true, the iMac G5 is ideal for most Mac desktop buyers.

If you are considering a PowerBook or iBook but need portability more than mobility, the iMac G5 might be a better choice. I observed one customer who entered the Apple Retail Store to buy an iBook or Powerbook. He left with an iMac G5. You see, he works in two offices in two different towns. He decided when it was time to travel to the other office, he would just pack up the iMac G5 in its original box and treat it as carry-on luggage.

What may we conclude from all this?

1. Apple may have been able to use a better chip, but didn't. Why not? Obviously to me, because it uses those chips in more expensive machines, and if you want that chip, they want you to pay more, and if you want that chip in a G5, they want you to buy a Powermac. But what about BTO? If you can get excellent performance for $1400, then why would you spend $2500? You wouldn't, therefore the 5200 Ultra in the iMac G5 is soldered and it is the only chip in the iMac G5.

2. So this will be the iMac G5 chip, is the iMac G5 a piece of crap now? No. It has a great looking screen, a generous hard drive, a dvd-burner, and MacOS X and good software bundle, this to me adds up to a very good value.

3. But we could we have gotten more value with another chip! Maybe yes. But this is STILL a good computer, because with it you can do alot of stuff.

4. I hate that fukking 5200 Ultra chip!!! See #1.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
The Mobility Radeon 9700 is marginally faster than the 5200 Ultra. That's all. It therefore marginally beats the 5200 Ultra in those tests where GPU is the bottleneck. No surprise there. In situations where the GPU is the bottleneck, discussion about the faster system bus, CPU performance and memory speed are irrelevant.

Absolutely. So it doesn't matter the fact there's a G5 or anything else - what it comes down to is the GPU, which is a very poorly performing one. All the other stuff counts for zip.

And with the increased reliance on the GPU for a number of tasks, shipping a 5200U is unforgivable.

Maybe it would be nice to have the Mobility 9700 instead of the 5200 Ultra. But it frankly wouldn't make a huge difference. The iMac wouldn't suddenly be able to offer amazing performance on games it can't handle now. Nor would it become a stellar Motion renderer. A 10% increase of a small number is still a small number. It wouldn't suddenly become any more future proof, or any more able to handle or not handle Quartz Extreme.

They need more than a mob9700 - plus those things are too expensive. There are however desktop GPUs that run cool, it's not just 5200U or go packing.

Secondly, you talk about "one of Apple's portable machines" as if this is a second class citizen. Remember a 17" Powerbook with Mobility 9700 costs $1600 more than the 17" iMac. That's a lot of money. Put another way, you could buy two 17" iMac's and still have $200 change compared with the Powerbook. It bloody well ought to perform well at that price! I think that actually illustrates what good value the iMac is, given that it is basically just a laptop on a stand.

The reason you pay more for the laptop is because everything has to be minituarised and handle being moved about, everything has to run cooler, plus it has to support a battery and has a limit to how much power it can consume at any one time. The comparison in price is irrelevant. what is relevant is the fact that there's a GPU shipping with all these constraints in place that is faster than in the iMac, which doesn't have anywhere near the same constraints.

Finally, I'd be very interested to see how much cooler the Mobility 9700 actually is, when it's running games. It's a notorious power eater. Where it differs from the 5200 Ultra is that it can power down and hence save battery power and heat when it's not gaming. Saving power is not an issue in the iMac, so this is of no real interest. I doubt the Mobility 9700 is any cooler than the 5200 Ultra when under load - but I'd be interested to see figures on that.

It doesn't matter - if the 9700m doesn't get hot enough that you're not melting down the Powerbook, it's certainly not going to melt down an iMac that has cooling zones and is significantly bigger.

the long and short of this is still that Apple need to put a better GPU in the iMac.

-- james

[pliny]

Originally posted by jamesa:
Absolutely. So it doesn't matter the fact there's a G5 or anything else .... All the other stuff counts for zip.

This is a ridiculous position which you have stated repeatedly for weeks, and which people actually using the iMac and reviewing it, have not bothered to repeat themselves, because for it to be factual every task would have to be the most GPU intensive task and this is not the case.

Your point applies to two or three tests when compared to more expensive machines.

And ignoring the fact that other machines cost quite a bit more, does nothing for your position, nor does ignoring the entirety of the system.

The GPU is ONE aspect of the machine, and while you obviously detest it and view it as unforgivable etc., you ignore the rest of the machine and seem to assume that the machine will always be used to run tests or games where it ends up 2-4 frames slower in some part of the games or where it otherwise performs somewhat slower than machines costing hundreds or thousands more.

It's called a tradeoff, jamesa, and computer companies do it all the time across all their lines.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:
Absolutely. So it doesn't matter the fact there's a G5 or anything else - what it comes down to is the GPU, which is a very poorly performing one. All the other stuff counts for zip.

Which I think everyone has agreed on in this thread about 2 weeks ago. The iMac is not for gaming. Nor will it ever be in its current configuration. Nor has any iMac in the past been any good for gaming.

And with the increased reliance on the GPU for a number of tasks, shipping a 5200U is unforgivable.

I have yet to see what this increased reliance actually is. Quartz Extreme isn't going to bring the 5200U to its knees - it's only an API that makes 3D programming easier. We all agree that the iMac is not aimed at Motion users either. So exactly what application, other than gaming or Motion, is so GPU intensive? I can't imagine any MacOS X desktop ever using even the eye candy of Quake III, which the 5200U runs very well. What are all these 3D applications which the iMac can't run?

They need more than a mob9700 - plus those things are too expensive. There are however desktop GPUs that run cool, it's not just 5200U or go packing.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of a GPU with significantly better performance that runs as cool or cooler. So far I haven't seen anyone provide a single figure for power consumption. It's all been wishful thinking so far.

The reason you pay more for the laptop is because everything has to be minituarised and handle being moved about, everything has to run cooler, plus it has to support a battery and has a limit to how much power it can consume at any one time. The comparison in price is irrelevant. what is relevant is the fact that there's a GPU shipping with all these constraints in place that is faster than in the iMac, which doesn't have anywhere near the same constraints.

Actually, the iMac has almost identical constraints to a laptop. It's slightly thicker, and Apple have used this to squeeze in a regular hard disk, regular processor and a power supply. That's actually quite an achievement.

I won't even bother addressing your point that the comparison in price is irrelevant. I think most people on these forums would think an extra $1600 is highly relevant. I guess it's convenient to ignore though, when it doesn't support your point of view. Two iMacs for less than one Powerbook. I'd say that's relevant.

It doesn't matter - if the 9700m doesn't get hot enough that you're not melting down the Powerbook, it's certainly not going to melt down an iMac that has cooling zones and is significantly bigger.

Significantly bigger - but also containing a PSU, full sized hard disk and much hotter CPU/chipset. I's dsay the constraints are pretty similar. There's already a steady stream of complaints that either the iMac feels too hot and/or the fans run too loud. I'd be interested to hear on what grounds you think the iMac has thermal capacity to spare.

the long and short of this is still that Apple need to put a better GPU in the iMac.

What for? It'll never be a decent gaming machine - unless, perhaps as Simon suggested, they ditch the internal PSU and use the resulting saved heat to allow a significantly faster GPU. Maybe that will occur in Rev B - but it'll be the first ever iMac that does try to become a gaming solution. Even then, you'll still need to contend with no decent gaming sound system and a paucity of games.

[LBlue]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of a GPU with significantly better performance that runs as cool or cooler. So far I haven't seen anyone provide a single figure for power consumption. It's all been wishful thinking so far.

geForce FX 5200 Ultra specifications which peg it at 20 w. Using the graph from the previous page, my guess is that the ATi Radeon 9600 Pro (-1.6 w), Radeon 9600 XT (+2.7w), and the nVidia geForce 5700 (+4.6w) are in the same ball park, with a 10 to 20 fps gain in Doom 3 depending on the card. (I'm not an iMac GPU should be better proponent - while I think that a BTO option would have been nice, I'm happy with my LC580 )

That aside, since the new iMacs seem to be selling well - so it doesn't seem that Apple is under pressure to change the GPU - all of this is is a silly exercise in logic. :-P

N.B. - Since the geForce FX 5200 Ultra power consumption and the rest of the GPU consumptions are not from the same source, there could be some error.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by pliny:
This is a ridiculous position which you have stated repeatedly for weeks, and which people actually using the iMac and reviewing it, have not bothered to repeat themselves, because for it to be factual every task would have to be the most GPU intensive task and this is not the case.

Well gee, maybe that's because the people who want decent GPU performance aren't going to buy this machine?

I'm yet to see a review when some negative aspect of the GPU wasn't mentioned - whether it be performance, or the fact you can't pull it out.

The GPU is ONE aspect of the machine, and while you obviously detest it and view it as unforgivable etc., you ignore the rest of the machine and seem to assume that the machine will always be used to run tests or games where it ends up 2-4 frames slower in some part of the games or where it otherwise performs somewhat slower than machines costing hundreds or thousands more.

yes, maybe if you just compare it to Apples machines. I mean, if Apple put the price of the Powermac up to $10000 and the iMac up to $5000 would you still make out a case that the iMac is good value? But the iMac also performs slower than machines costing hundreds and thousands less, also, if you take a look at what you get for the amount you spend elsewhere on the PC landscape.

the point - as soon as you want to run 3D apps, or an app that relies on the 3D part of the GPU, your system becomes as slow as it's weakest link. Which, in this case, is far and away the 5200U. Which makes your $2000 machine look like quite a poor performer.

It's called a tradeoff, jamesa, and computer companies do it all the time across all their lines.

Yep, just not quite as much as Apple does at the $2000 price point.

Originally posted by PEHowland:
I have yet to see what this increased reliance actually is. Quartz Extreme isn't going to bring the 5200U to its knees - it's only an API that makes 3D programming easier.

::sigh::

We all agree that the iMac is not aimed at Motion users either. So exactly what application, other than gaming or Motion, is so GPU intensive? I can't imagine any MacOS X desktop ever using even the eye candy of Quake III, which the 5200U runs very well. What are all these 3D applications which the iMac can't run?

I've had this out with you before, I think. Where did I say it couldn't run something?

I've said it won't run Motion well, which, as I've said before, is not what you expect for a $2000 machine.

My problem is more than just this though - it's that Apple expect you to pay for a Powermac before you can even get the option of a decent GPU.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of a GPU with significantly better performance that runs as cool or cooler. So far I haven't seen anyone provide a single figure for power consumption. It's all been wishful thinking so far.

Well, on the flipside, I'm waiting for someone to prove that a GPU that runs hotter wouldn't work inside the iMac. So far, it's all been wishful thinking.

Actually, the iMac has almost identical constraints to a laptop. It's slightly thicker, and Apple have used this to squeeze in a regular hard disk, regular processor and a power supply. That's actually quite an achievement.

The iMac is nowhere near the same constraints as a laptop! Don't be ridiculous. There's no need for the portable case with folding bezels, there's no need to keep weight down, and the iMac is nigh on twice as thick as my Powerbook. It weights four times as much as a 17" laptop. It doesn't need a battery, and the size of the screen (and hence the amount of volume behind the screen) is, on the smallest iMac, the same as on the largest powerbook. And the iMac is not like the Powerbooks where the case of the machine virtually stops where the screen does - it keeps on going! There's way more space in there.

If the constraints were anywhere near similar, I assure you Apple would have worked on getting a G5 powerbook out long before a G4 iMac! The $$$ are much better.

I won't even bother addressing your point that the comparison in price is irrelevant. I think most people on these forums would think an extra $1600 is highly relevant. I guess it's convenient to ignore though, when it doesn't support your point of view. Two iMacs for less than one Powerbook. I'd say that's relevant.

Are you out of your mind? How many review sites do you see stacking up a portable machine and bench testing it against a desktop machine, with a view that "they should perform the same for the same price"? What a ludicrous thing to suggest!

The reason it's not relevant because you have to pay more for a portable is because the whole damn thing is made using portable specific components - i.e. small laptop hard drive, small laptop GPU, etc. All the components have to reduce the amount of heat they give out too. That makes them expensive.

Now tell me, how many laptop components are there in an iMac?

And despite these constraints, I can go to the Apple store and buy a $1999 15" powerbook, which does better at a whole lot of 3D tasks than the $1899 iMac.

As I've just pointed out, your numbers are a bit out - a laptop Apple sells for $100 more beats their top of the line consumer desktop in 3D. Not quite two iMacs for one Powerbook, eh?

Significantly bigger - but also containing a PSU, full sized hard disk and much hotter CPU/chipset. I's dsay the constraints are pretty similar. There's already a steady stream of complaints that either the iMac feels too hot and/or the fans run too loud. I'd be interested to hear on what grounds you think the iMac has thermal capacity to spare.

I'd be interested to think on what grounds it doesn't. I tried to find the exact dimensions of the iMac, but they only give the dimensions of it standing on the stand. Either way, the volume of the machine is at least twice as much as a Powerbook (because it's twice as thick, on the 20" model); and remember, the Powerbooks would be thinner still if they didn't have to open and shut (there'd be less case) like with the iMacs.

What for? It'll never be a decent gaming machine - unless, perhaps as Simon suggested, they ditch the internal PSU and use the resulting saved heat to allow a significantly faster GPU. Maybe that will occur in Rev B - but it'll be the first ever iMac that does try to become a gaming solution. Even then, you'll still need to contend with no decent gaming sound system and a paucity of games.

It's not just games, as those Barefeats graphs point out. But until decent 3D GPUs start coming along, there won't be any... in this case, the egg really does have to come before the chicken.

-- james

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:

And despite these constraints, I can go to the Apple store and buy a $1999 15" powerbook, which does better at a whole lot of 3D tasks than the $1899 iMac.

As I've just pointed out, your numbers are a bit out - a laptop Apple sells for $100 more beats their top of the line consumer desktop in 3D. Not quite two iMacs for one Powerbook, eh?

Try comparing like with like - not a 15" screen with a 20" screen. The LCD is the cost driver. A 17" 1.5GHz Powerbook is $2800, a 17" 1.6GHz iMac is $1300. That's two iMac's for one with $200 change. That's incredible value, whichever way you package it. You do have a habit of ignoring the screen when discussing the iMac, though, and whilst convenient for your argument, is entirely unreasonable.

A mobile GPU, laptop disk and laptop processor are slightly more expensive than their desktop equivalents. Not $1500 more expensive. Despite what you claim, the design constrains between the 2" iMac with desktop components and a 1" Powerbook with mobile components would be remarkably similar. However, you are obviously a far greater engineer than Apple has or indeed the rest of the computer industry, and I'm sure they're kicking themselves for not employing you to explain to them how to produce a thinner all-in-one machine years ago. It's obviously a trivial problem - just cram it all in the box, right?

Regarding thermal capacity to spare - read some of the other threads here and in the Apple forums about fan noise and the heat of DVD's coming out the drive. There's lots of evidence that the iMac has no thermal capacity to spare (without suddenly going from "whisper quiet" to "hairdrier" in terms of noise). I don't think that's any surprise at all considering what they've squeezed into the screen. Geez, my 17" 171P Samsung LCD I'm sitting in front of right now is 3" thick - and that''s regarded as an elegant screen!

Like it or not, the iMac is a 2"-thick all-in-one computer. That does imply massive design constraints and also dictates the market it is aimed at. The iMac is never going to be good for gaming - but it will be fine at any other task the home user might throw at it. That's the reality, and its reflected in the overwhelming positive response in the press and sales figures.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Try comparing like with like - not a 15" screen with a 20" screen. The LCD is the cost driver. A 17" 1.5GHz Powerbook is $2800, a 17" 1.6GHz iMac is $1300. That's two iMac's for one with $200 change. That's incredible value, whichever way you package it. You do have a habit of ignoring the screen when discussing the iMac, though, and whilst convenient for your argument, is entirely unreasonable.

Yes, well you have a habit of ignoring the fact that you can pick the laptop up, move it and use it anywhere in your argument, and the cost of creating something that needs to work with these characteristics. The fact that other PC manufacturers typically charge more for their laptop machines than their desktop machines with the same performance is reflective of this.

However, I bet you won't be able to find me many other PC manufacturers whose laptops beat their desktops at virtually the same price point when it comes to GPU performance!

I'm not disputing the fact that there is a nice 20" monitor on the iMac, and that this costs. What I am disputing is that there shouldn't be a crap GPU driving the monitor!

A mobile GPU, laptop disk and laptop processor are slightly more expensive than their desktop equivalents.

Slightly? Slightly? You've got to be kidding me.

I don't have easy access to the price of GPUs and processors for laptops, but I do have access to the price of both laptop and desktop hard drives.

$$$'s taken from macsales:
Desktop 80GB 7200RPM Hitachi hard drive: $64.95
Laptop 80GB 5400RPM Hitachi hard drive: $197.99

That's over three times more expensive, and that's just for starters. It's also ignoring the fact that the desktop component performs significantly better than the laptop component.

Now do you see how much more expensive the components for laptops are?

And now do you see why a laptop within $100 of price should not be matching, or even beating, the performance of a desktop machine?

Not $1500 more expensive. Despite what you claim, the design constrains between the 2" iMac with desktop components and a 1" Powerbook with mobile components would be remarkably similar. However, you are obviously a far greater engineer than Apple has or indeed the rest of the computer industry, and I'm sure they're kicking themselves for not employing you to explain to them how to produce a thinner all-in-one machine years ago. It's obviously a trivial problem - just cram it all in the box, right?

You twit. Let's take a look at the comparative design constraints.

Thanks to some basic (and rough) calculations from a picture at Apple's site; I knew the monitor was 20'' from opposite edges, so I worked out the dimensions of height and width; it's 19" high and 16" wide. I know from the site it's 2" deep.

That gives a volume of 608 cubic inches

The specs on the powerbook 17'' are 15.4 x 10 x 1

That gives a volume of 154 cubic inches

Now if you're going to tell me that a design with approximately four times the volume of a powerbook is equivalent, you're off with the pixies. A laptop with a volume one quarter of the iMac shipping with a better GPU, and you claim it's heat? Yeah, right, whatever.

This is not an engineering problem. It is a cost/margins problem - Apple is screwing it's customers over this, by forcing them to buy up to the Powermac over this issue.

Regarding thermal capacity to spare - read some of the other threads here and in the Apple forums about fan noise and the heat of DVD's coming out the drive. There's lots of evidence that the iMac has no thermal capacity to spare (without suddenly going from "whisper quiet" to "hairdrier" in terms of noise). I don't think that's any surprise at all considering what they've squeezed into the screen. Geez, my 17" 171P Samsung LCD I'm sitting in front of right now is 3" thick - and that''s regarded as an elegant screen!

Well, you claim there's lots of anecdotal evidence. I disagree, and as Apple have allowed for the option of turning the fan speed up on their other desktop computer to improve cooling, I don't see why they shouldn't here. It has the same "cooling zones" principle as the Powermac, and the fans are already installed.

Like it or not, the iMac is a 2"-thick all-in-one computer. That does imply massive design constraints and also dictates the market it is aimed at. The iMac is never going to be good for gaming - but it will be fine at any other task the home user might throw at it. That's the reality, and its reflected in the overwhelming positive response in the press and sales figures.

I'm not saying it's not a good machine! I'm saying this component is inadequate for a machine of this price, and that there should be an option of a better GPU. Which is what a lot of other people are saying! If I didn't care, or didn't want one other than for this problem, I wouldn't be here arguing about it!

-- james

[Simon]

Originally posted by jamesa:
I'm not saying it's not a good machine! I'm saying this component is inadequate for a machine of this price, and that there should be an option of a better GPU.

Hallelujah.

Despite all the bullsh!tting around here there are just a couple of plain and simple facts. Apple chose an inferior GPU for reasons of cost. We have seen better performing & cooler (Howland, go look up the definition of 'mobile' GPU if you can't understand this) GPUs available and being used by Apple itself. They chose not to offer BTO probably also for reasons of cost. But they're still selling a non-upgradeable consumer machine for $2000.

Now, some Apple apologists here say this is great value and so you have to be happy with what Apple is feeding you. Other people here chose to think for themselves and won't buy a $2000 machine because apart from all its other nice specs, the forced GPU just plain sucks.

Apple is losing sales here because they are trying to cut corners on an expensive Mac. This is not the el-cheapo eMac where people expect some shortcomings. Unless you like the idea of Apple selling less Macs, you can't really agree with their choices here.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:

However, I bet you won't be able to find me many other PC manufacturers whose laptops beat their desktops at virtually the same price point when it comes to GPU performance!

Neither can I find any PC manufacturer who squeezes their PC into a 2" thick monitor. Well, I can find some PC manufacturers that try to do that, like Sony and Gateway, but the computer is more expensive than the iMac and only has integrated graphics. Whatever way you cut it, the iMac is a long way ahead of the competition here.

I'm not disputing the fact that there is a nice 20" monitor on the iMac, and that this costs. What I am disputing is that there shouldn't be a crap GPU driving the monitor!

Crap, but entirely adequate for anything other than gaming and Motion. Hence the overwhelming success of the machine so far.

I don't have easy access to the price of GPUs and processors for laptops, but I do have access to the price of both laptop and desktop hard drives.
$$$'s taken from macsales:
Desktop 80GB 7200RPM Hitachi hard drive: $64.95
Laptop 80GB 5400RPM Hitachi hard drive: $197.99
That's over three times more expensive, and that's just for starters. It's also ignoring the fact that the desktop component performs significantly better than the laptop component.

Point conceded, in terms of cost. But this shows exactly the design compromises the Apple engineers had. To keep costs down they had to use mainstream components, but try to squeeze them into a something the size of a large laptop. You seem incapable of appreciating the feat of engineering that is. Suggest you might be the twit around here if you want to make things personal.

And now do you see why a laptop within $100 of price should not be matching, or even beating, the performance of a desktop machine?

Come on. Compare like with like. The equivalent laptop is $1600 more, not $100 more.

You twit. Let's take a look at the comparative design constraints.

Thanks to some basic (and rough) calculations from a picture at Apple's site; I knew the monitor was 20'' from opposite edges, so I worked out the dimensions of height and width; it's 19" high and 16" wide. I know from the site it's 2" deep.

That gives a volume of 608 cubic inches
The specs on the powerbook 17'' are 15.4 x 10 x 1

That gives a volume of 154 cubic inches

Now if you're going to tell me that a design with approximately four times the volume of a powerbook is equivalent, you're off with the pixies. A laptop with a volume one quarter of the iMac shipping with a better GPU, and you claim it's heat? Yeah, right, whatever.

Try not to make it personal James, that's rather childish. Just to continue your excellent engineering logic, a normal PC (let's take the PowerMac as an example) has dimensions 20.1 x 18.7 x 8.1 inches. That's a volume of 3044 cubic inches - excluding the screen! So, the iMac has 1/5 the volume of a regular PC but uses similar components and includes a 17" or 20" screen, and you claim cooling isn't an issue? Time to go learn some engineering I think...

This is not an engineering problem. It is a cost/margins problem - Apple is screwing it's customers over this, by forcing them to buy up to the Powermac over this issue.

I dispute that it's so simple, but even if it were, Apple have obviously done their sums correctly if current media and publiuc enthusiasm and sales figures are anything to go by. Apple are, after all, in business to make money.

Well, you claim there's lots of anecdotal evidence. I disagree, and as Apple have allowed for the option of turning the fan speed up on their other desktop computer to improve cooling, I don't see why they shouldn't here. It has the same "cooling zones" principle as the Powermac, and the fans are already installed.

It's clear to me that one of the goals of the iMac was to provide whisper-quiet computing. As indeed they try to achieve with most of their range. That really isn't compatible with fast graphics cards and the iMac form factor. Just go sit next to a gaming PC for a few seconds and you see the volume of air that needs to be pushed to keep such machines quiet. Sure, the fan speeds could be turned up, but the iMac is already getting complaints about the fan noise. Read the forums. Maybe Apple need to offer a "fast but noisy" variant and a "normal but quiet" variant. I don't think this matches their vision though.

I'm not saying it's not a good machine! I'm saying this component is inadequate for a machine of this price, and that there should be an option of a better GPU. Which is what a lot of other people are saying! If I didn't care, or didn't want one other than for this problem, I wouldn't be here arguing about it!

I understand your point. What irritates me is the implication (not necessarily by you) that the machine is crippled by the GPU. It's not. Only if you want to do gaming or Motion rendering. I have no interest in either and so will be perfectly satisifed with the GPU. The 5200 Ultra is more than adequate for all other consumer applications - including Quartz Extreme. I think if the "anti GPU camp" would concede that point then much of this silly debate would fizzle out. It's a bit of a pointless pissing contest.

Regarding a better GPU, I genuinely believe that with the current design it would be very hard for Apple to provide a significantly better GPU. Sure, you can probably find some GPU that gives you 10% better performance in some games for a few extra dollars, but that isn't really going to address the real concern. That's not goiung to make the iMac a screaming gaming platform. To really provide a decent GPU needs a significantly more expensive and significantly hotter and more power-greedy part. That isn't compatible with the current iMac design. As I've said before, maybe Rev B will dispense with the internal PSU and free up scope for a better GPU. Maybe. But I personally don't think Apple are interested in that market - none of their iMacs have ever had decent GPU's.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Neither can I find any PC manufacturer who squeezes their PC into a 2" thick monitor. Well, I can find some PC manufacturers that try to do that, like Sony and Gateway, but the computer is more expensive than the iMac and only has integrated graphics. Whatever way you cut it, the iMac is a long way ahead of the competition here.

I'm sorry, narrowly defining the competition as two machines based on design is not a sensible way to proceed. It's not just competing on that basis - it's competing against every other desktop machine at $2000. Sure, it might have the advantage of a better designed case, but in functional/performance terms that does nothing for it.

Point conceded, in terms of cost. But this shows exactly the design compromises the Apple engineers had. To keep costs down they had to use mainstream components, but try to squeeze them into a something the size of a large laptop. You seem incapable of appreciating the feat of engineering that is.

Thank you for conceding the point. However, the iMac is 4 times the size of a laptop and weights something like 4 times as much, so can we stop pretending that they're a big laptop?

Come on. Compare like with like. The equivalent laptop is $1600 more, not $100 more.

I'm comparing performance. I can get a laptop from Apple that performs at the level of their $1900 desktop for $100 more in 3d tasks!

Try not to make it personal James, that's rather childish. Just to continue your excellent engineering logic, a normal PC (let's take the PowerMac as an example) has dimensions 20.1 x 18.7 x 8.1 inches. That's a volume of 3044 cubic inches. So, the iMac has 1/5 the volume of a regular PC but similar components and you claim cooling isn't an issue? Time to go learn some engineering I think...

Well, like I said, I was irritated by the "Apple should hire you" comment.

Let's take a look at the volume in the Powermac. First, it's hosting two G5 processors, running at speeds up to 2.5ghz. Second, it has room for two hard drives. Third, it has sufficient RAM slots to take 8 RAM DIMMs. Plus, it has room for four expansion cards. This is all in addition to what the iMac has. The extra space allows for additional expansion, but that's all unnecessary on the iMac.

What I have said is that the iMac has more space in it than a Powerbook, by a factor of 4, and yet the much smaller Powerbook, even on the 15'' model, has a superior graphics card. To say heat is preventing the installation of a better GPU simply misses the convenient fact that they're doing it with a machine that's 1/4 the size.

I dispute that it's so simple, but even if it were, Apple have obviously done their sums correctly if current media and publiuc enthusiasm and sales figures are anything to go by. Apple are, after all, in business to make money.

They sure are, and by forcing people to buy a Powermac if they want a desktop with a decent graphics card they're sure missing out on a lot more money.

Time will tell how well the iMac sells. At this stage of the game, the cube was selling remarkably well, despite the flaws being pointed out on forums like these. Look how successful it was. I'm not saying the iMac will be a Cube, but I am saying Apple should listen to people who want their product but for one fault.

It's clear to me that one of the goals of the iMac was to provide whisper-quiet computing. As indeed they try to achieve with most of their range. That really isn't compatible with fast graphics cards and the iMac form factor. Just go sit next to a gaming PC for a few seconds and you see the volume of air that needs to be pushed to keep such machines quiet. Sure, the fan speeds could be turned up, but the iMac is already getting complaints about the fan noise. Read the forums. Maybe Apple need to offer a "fast but noisy" variant and a "normal but quiet" variant. I don't think this matches their vision though.

Whisper quiet computing is an admirable design goal, but if all I was interested in was silence I wouldn't buy a computer at all. I, like most other people, purchase a computer to do a task, and when I drop $2k on a machine I want to do it well. I am not disputing the iMac does many things well, but the GPU performance is abysmal and it's something that's important to me as well as numerous other people on this board.

I understand your point. What irritates me is the implication (not necessarily by you) that the machine is crippled by the GPU. It's not. Only if you want to do gaming or Motion rendering. I have no interest in either and so will be perfectly satisifed with the GPU. The 5200 Ultra is more than adequate for all other consumer applications - including Quartz Extreme. I think if the "anti GPU camp" would concede that point then much of this silly debate would fizzle out. It's a bit of a pointless pissing contest.

Well, it is crippled in 3D tasks.

But let's extend your "perfectly satisfied" argument. All I want to do is internet access and photo editing. A G4 would have been perfectly adequate for that. All I want to do is word processing and email! Well, then we've got ourselves a G3 as being perfectly adequate.

This isn't about adequacy - this is about people paying $2k and getting a machine that can do pretty much any task - 3d tasks (gaming or otherwise) or motion - well. Because of the poor GPU, this machine cannot.

Regarding a better GPU, I genuinely believe that with the current design it would be very hard for Apple to provide a significantly better GPU. Sure, you can probably find some GPU that gives you 10% better performance in some games for a few extra dollars, but that isn't really going to address the real concern. That's not goiung to make the iMac a screaming gaming platform. To really provide a decent GPU needs a significantly more expensive and significantly hotter and more power-greedy part. That isn't compatible with the current iMac design. As I've said before, maybe Rev B will dispense with the internal PSU and free up scope for a better GPU. Maybe. But I personally don't think Apple are interested in that market - none of their iMacs have ever had decent GPU's.

Power is irrelevant in except that it relates to heat - this is a desktop. Heat is a concern that's been raised, but I think this concern is overstated.

I did a bit of digging. The max power consumption on the 5200 U is 20W. The only real info I can find on it is here
http://support.buympc.com/apps/specs.asp?ID=8764
It says max 20W, though this is the 128MB version.
This is comparable (though slightly higher) than the ATI Radeon 9600 pro, according to here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...-power_10.html
(of note: Graphics cards on ATI�s GPUs generally require less power than their counterparts from NVIDIA�s line-up.) So If Apple were really serious about power/heat, then they wouldn't be using nVidia in the first place.

Now, go to that IMG review, and take a look at the performance difference when we're looking at GPU rather than CPU bound operations. Here's a nice graph:
http://www.insidemacgames.com/hardwa...03fsaaaf_l.jpg
Here's another nice one:
http://www.insidemacgames.com/hardwa...exshader_l.jpg

I raise the games because they're reflective of GPU performance, not because they're the only thing people that use the iMacs for.

Anyway, not so interested in the low res performance - that's CPU bound. Look at what happens when you start to bump it up around the native rez of the iMac's display - we're talking a double the difference in performance in some cases. This is from the 9600 pro, which uses 8W of power on idle cycle, or MAX 18W. Compare that to an IBM G5 processor, which uses approximately 90W at 1.8ghz during non-nap mode. I mean, even if the 5200U at 64MB uses half the power of it's 128MB brother (which it won't), we're talking less than an 8W difference in power - which, in heat terms, is nothing. Nada. Zilch.

And finally - if they can fit the 5200U into a thinner and smaller 17'' case with a 1.8ghz processor, they sure as hell can fit a hotter and faster GPU into a 20" case! Nothing else has changed other than the volume of the machine, meaning a greater heat dissipation capacity!

The ATi cards are more heat effective and perform better. Apple could have used them if heat and performance were an issue, but they didn't - they picked the nVidia with it's performance issues. I know I'm right, and the further I dig into this my suspicions are only confirmed. They've done this to try to force more people up to the Powermac - there's no other explanation.

-- james

[iLikebeer]

To start, I'll tell u I have an original iMac 233 w/ Voodoo 2 in the mez. slot. I also have the original iMac2 g4 800 w/ MX2 card.

The apologists are right. No serious gamer would ever buy an iMac. The new iMac as it is will do everything u need but game. Apple is screwing themselves over. My g4 800 will burn movies and cd's fine, it does the internet fine, ...., it does everything fine except play games. Why ever buy another computer? I know I won't buy another mac for many years. Here's why:
1) OSX rules, but my 233 iMac on 8.6 is much "snappier", i prefer to websurf on it
2) I'm a casual iMovie, iDVD, iTunes user; which means that I can do stuff overnight.
3) I love the adjustability of the screen on the iMac 2. If you don't have one, u don't know what we're talking about. It is seriously the best screen a computer could ever have if you move around or fidget a lot. Which leads into:
4) If the graphics card isn't upgradeable and I can't do monitor spanning in the future, u can add in the cost of the screen to the iMac all u want, but when this thing is too slow to run OSX, I'm stuck w/ a useless 15" FP.
5) Like I said, this 800 g4 can do everything I need from a Mac, but there's still a lot of specialized programs that don't run on Macs. I really need to be able to run some of these.
6) I won't need another apple computer for at least a few years because i can do what i need to that this computer is capable of doing

All this means, thank u apple for the 2 great computers that I use all the time, please keep upgrading the software and iPods, but the next few comps on my desk will take up the slack where u don't give us options.

[pliny]

Originally posted by jamesa:

They've done this to try to force more people up to the Powermac - there's no other explanation.

No, there isn't, and this is what Apple has done for years with the iMac, and it's obvious in this model, becasue as you have said perhaps 1000 times, the GPU is avergae, whereas the other components are excellent.

But this doesn't mean the iMac is crippled or that it is not a good value.

The iMac's gpu is not the most powerful GPU. This has been conceded various times throughout this thread yet you and Simon just keep saying it over and over as if it hasn't been said and acknowledged.

The point is, how much difference does it make? The barefeats tests simon introduced show the iMac's performance, and Rob's conclusion is that the iMac is a good value.

Why?

With the exception of some GPU intensive tasks that perform, but do not perform as well as other GPU's, the GPU is not an issue, and since we have not yet gotten our greedy hands on an iMac G5 running Tiger, which may in fact improve 3d performance, we do not know how less of an issue it may be.

Neither you or Simon have conceded this, and not having done so suggests that you are approaching this entire thing from the principle of well, every desktop computer should be BTO or every Apple should be BTO.

Because otherwise, there is no difference of opinion really.

1. But the iMac could have been a gamer's iMac!! Possibly. But Apple are defending their PM sales. And I have yet to read a position where Apple should not be doing this. Do you have figures on PM sales vs iMac sales and how one might cut into the other and reduce Apple's bottom line, or in fact increase margins/shares? I don't. Perhaps Apple will alter their strategy as the iMac wades into the market.


2. BTO is a simple option!!! It sure is.

3. The iMac is crippled vs. I have to get that iMac vs. I like PCs. YMMV.

[toti]

Havn't you guys beaten this issuee to death several times by now

By the looks of it ( threads on forums, sales in stores and waiting lists ) the iMac is getting a very good response, regardless of all the { whining | bitching | complaining } that is going on here. For most people the iMac is a very good deal because of footprint, low noise and good screen. It will sell well in the consumer market, just because of these points, and so will it in the office appliance market. These are the target markets for the iMac, and as such, it can well be considered a success.

Please find something creative to do, Apple wont change their production line just for the handful of whiners in here..

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:
I'm sorry, narrowly defining the competition as two machines based on design is not a sensible way to proceed. It's not just competing on that basis - it's competing against every other desktop machine at $2000. Sure, it might have the advantage of a better designed case, but in functional/performance terms that does nothing for it.

Once again you use the $2000 figure. Look, it's $2000 for a computer and 20" LCD display. So, firstly its competing against computers worth more in the $600-1000 range. Secondly, as I explained earlier in this thread, you have to take the whole package. You can't just pretend it is competing on GPU and memory alone. People buy a Mac as much (more?) for the operating system and design/lifestyle statement. It's not just competing with the average Dell.

Thank you for conceding the point. However, the iMac is 4 times the size of a laptop and weights something like 4 times as much, so can we stop pretending that they're a big laptop?

And less than a 1/5 of the size of a normal PC and half the weight of a normal PC. It's closer to a laptop in terms of design issues than it is a normal PC. It's an entirely relevant point.

I'm comparing performance. I can get a laptop from Apple that performs at the level of their $1900 desktop for $100 more in 3d tasks!

No, you're comparing price and performance. Given that the LCD is the biggest cost driver, it is entirely unreasonable to choose to compare a 20" iMac against a 15" Powerbook. Can the 15" Powerbook provide me 3D images at 1680x1050? No, so if you want to play that game, the Powerbook can't even compete. The cheapest 17" Powerbook is $2800, the cheapest 17" iMac is $1300. And, needlesstosay, on everything other than gaming/Motion, the iMac is vastly better than its more expensive cousin. As I think everyone is agreed.

Let's take a look at the volume in the Powermac. First, it's hosting two G5 processors, running at speeds up to 2.5ghz. Second, it has room for two hard drives. Third, it has sufficient RAM slots to take 8 RAM DIMMs. Plus, it has room for four expansion cards. This is all in addition to what the iMac has. The extra space allows for additional expansion, but that's all unnecessary on the iMac.

And all that extra room offers considerable extra airflow.

What I have said is that the iMac has more space in it than a Powerbook, by a factor of 4, and yet the much smaller Powerbook, even on the 15'' model, has a superior graphics card. To say heat is preventing the installation of a better GPU simply misses the convenient fact that they're doing it with a machine that's 1/4 the size.

Indeed, but we're only talking about a Mobility 9700 here. It's marginally faster - 3 or 4 fps. The difference in performance is pretty negligible. Sure it's slightly better. It's also considerably more expensive (if your earlier statements about mobile component costs are correct). Is that extra 3fps worth $100 more? I don't think so. What you want (I assume) is significant extra performance - something like the GeForce 6800 or Radeon X800. Then you really would see benefit, and be able to run Doom 3, do rapid Motion rendering, etc. But that is never going to fit in a current iMac. I really don't think Apple could offer that as a BTO. And I don't think offering a Mobility 9700 is worth the effort.

But let's extend your "perfectly satisfied" argument. All I want to do is internet access and photo editing. A G4 would have been perfectly adequate for that. All I want to do is word processing and email! Well, then we've got ourselves a G3 as being perfectly adequate.

Well, there's more to life than Internet access. I want my PC to be responsive - an iMac G5 is - the G3 is certatinly not. I want to rip music. I want to do heavy Photoshop - something which the G5 processor will help a lot. I want to do Internet and office applications, of course. I want to develop software. I want to play the occasional DVD, and make the occasional DVD. That needs good CPU power too. There are a whole raft of things I want to do with my computer that require a fast CPU, fast memory and fast disk. But don't need a GeForce 6800. There really is no need for a high-end GPU if you don't game or do video rendering.

I raise the games because they're reflective of GPU performance, not because they're the only thing people that use the iMacs for.

Exactly, we're all agreed on this. The iMac can't game. Don't buy an iMac if you want to game. That's what the benchmarks show. Nothing more. They don't say anything about its excellent performance in most other tasks.

I don't think Apple are pushing people onto the PowerMac. I think most people with $2000 to spend who want to game will just get a PC. Not spend $3000-5000 on a PowerMac, when the sound is so poor and the gaming selection so limited. So, if anything, Apple are pushing the $2000 gamer market onto PC's. Why would they want to do that? That's one reason why I don't think this is as simple as you believe.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:

<snip>

the laptop vs desktop thing is a distraction. If you want to convince me, and I daresay you do because you keep coming back, all I'd ask is that you address the points I raise here, and I'll leave the forum in peace.

If heat was really an issue, and that seems to be your primary argument, the heat would be the greatest issue in the 17" iMac with a 1.8Ghz G5. The 20" iMac has the exact same heat-producing componentry as the 17" 1.8 G5. Yet, because the 20" is bigger and thicker, it has a substantially greater heat dissipation capability. As a result, there is going to be the capacity to install at least one faster and hotter running component.

Given that this link says that Graphics cards on ATI�s GPUs generally require less power than their counterparts from NVIDIA�s line-up, and that the power output from a 9600 pro is approximately the same (or even less) than a 5200 (links in prior post), but that both graphics cards have such a lower power output as not to produce much heat (relative to the G5), what reason does Apple have to not install a better graphics card?

I've mounted a reasonably solid argument that it's not heat, because the heat difference between a 9600pro and a 5200 is negligible, and the 20" machine could most likely take it over the 17" based on my logic above.

It's not cost or logistics, because on their cheap education version, they've already swapped the GPU.

So what reason can they have?

The silly thing is, I spoke to a PC-using friend today, and he wants to buy the machine but for the exact reason I do - the GPU sucks. He even raised it with me - "the new iMac is pretty cool, but the graphics card sucks for that much". I nearly died when he said that.

If they want to get savvy PC people switching, that's one of the few things left that they have to address.

-- james

[jamesa]

Originally posted by pliny:
But this doesn't mean the iMac is crippled or that it is not a good value.

Maybe for you, and I am glad this is the case. I wish I was in the same boat, but I'm not, because without decent 3d performance it's crippled for my uses.

Apple is the only big vendor that does not offer the option of a decent GPU on its midrange model.

The iMac's gpu is not the most powerful GPU. This has been conceded various times throughout this thread yet you and Simon just keep saying it over and over as if it hasn't been said and acknowledged.

Because various people keep giving me reasons why I should be satisfied, and why a better GPU is impossible. I will keep arguing on those points, though I am in agreement that the GPU is pretty useless.

The point is, how much difference does it make? The barefeats tests simon introduced show the iMac's performance, and Rob's conclusion is that the iMac is a good value.

Yes, I'm not disputing that. But if 3d performance is just as important to you as CPU performance, then it's not really, is it?

Neither you or Simon have conceded this, and not having done so suggests that you are approaching this entire thing from the principle of well, every desktop computer should be BTO or every Apple should be BTO.

It's not that, but I have a few peeves actually:
1. Apple locks you in to its hardware - you can't buy it from anyone else. So it's reasonable they make an effort to meet your needs. Instead of doing this, they're taking advantage of the lock in in the same way they did with .mac, and saying "sorry, you want a half-way decent GPU, go buy a Powermac for $xxx more"
2. No other vendor offers a mid range system without the option of a decent GPU, so why should Apple?
3. They've already swapped the GPU on the motherboard of the same machine, why can't they swap one in to improve performance on the top end?

1. But the iMac could have been a gamer's iMac!! Possibly. But Apple are defending their PM sales. And I have yet to read a position where Apple should not be doing this.

Here, let me help you out. There are people (like me, and others in this thread) who want to buy an iMac, but for the crap GPU. I have a lot of friends who want to switch to the Mac platform, but won't because the 3D performance is crap, and to get a decent card they have to buy a Powermac which they don't want/don't need/can't afford.

So in defending margins, Apple loses sales. Not many of those lost iMac sales translate into Powermac sales... I know of very few people who are buying a Powermac just because they can't get their GPU in the iMac. The difference is huge. At the same time, I know a lot of people who aren't buying an iMac because the GPU sucks.

I mean, there are so many differences - the internal vs external screen, the dual processors, the massive expandability, the gigabit, the FW800, the ability to run lots of monitors, the ability to change the GPU after purchase, etc. There's no way they're going to cannibalise each other - they are too different.

Oh, and tell me - if I offered you the ability to put an ATI Radeon 9600 pro in your iMac for $50 - the cost difference between the two cards - would you take it?

-- james

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:
the laptop vs desktop thing is a distraction. If you want to convince me, and I daresay you do because you keep coming back, all I'd ask is that you address the points I raise here, and I'll leave the forum in peace.

OK, I doubt I'll succeed though

I agree that the laptop issue is a distraction, but I wasn't the one who started that. You (or someone else, I can't be bothered to scroll back up) claimed the iMac sucked comapred to a Powerbook. I was just pointing out that a) an equivalent Powerbook cost over twice as much; and b) the iMac has similar design constraints to a laptop - it does have a slightly larger volume, but significantly less volume than a normal PC and yet uses the same components. I agree the laptop argument is a distraction - the iMac can hold its head up high in a price/performance discussion compared with a Powerbook.

With the GPU, perhaps it's easiest to summarise my point of view as follows:

• I agree the 5200 Ultra sucks at most 3D gaming - especially the FPS genre. If you want to game, don't get an iMac. They never were any good at these games and I doubt they ever will be. I'd say get a $1000 PC - and get the chance to stick in a decent soundcard too, and get a much wider range of games.
• I agree the 5200 Ultra sucks at Motion. But there again, a single CPU isn't much use at that either. Get a Powermac. Luckily, few if any consumers use Motion, so I don't think this is really an issue for the iMac. But it is a convenient benchmark, so it serves as somewhat of a distraction in these debates.
• The 5200 Ultra is fine for pretty much any other application. Fine, as in, not the performance bottleneck. If you don't game, you really don't need more than the 5200 Ultra.
• If you do game, you need much more than the 5200 Ultra. You need much more than the Radeon 9600 Pro (which is only slightly faster than the 5200 Ultra). You need much more than the Mobility Radeon 9700. To have any kind of gaming future you need something in the class of the GeForce 6800 or Radeon X800. I honestly don't believe you'd really be any more satisfied with a Radeon 9600 Pro than you are with a 5200 Ultra. It wouldn't suddenly open up a new class of games. If it can't run on a 5200 Ultra, it'll suck on a 9600 Pro or Mobility 9700 too. I think squabbling over which of a set of budget cards would be the least bad is missing the point.
• Graphics cards in the GeForce 6800/Radeon X800 class are not compatible with the current iMac design. That represents a huge increase in power consumption (meaning a larger PSU is requried) and a huge increase in heat output. Perhaps Apple's Rev. B wil have an external PSU to create space for a 6800, but I doubt it.

And that's about the long and short of my point of view. I agree the GPU sucks if you game. I disagree that its relevant for anything else in the consumer market. And I don't think you can solve the gaming issue with a Mobility 9700 or 9600 Pro. The release of Doom 3 has opened the floodgates for the next generation of FPS games based on its engine, and if you want the iMac to have any kind of gaming future it'll need at least the 6800 or 9800.

I'm surprised that any of the above is particularly contentious. But there again, forums like these exist for argument, so perhaps it isn't really any surprise.

I'm not familiar enough with the history of Apple's business practices to really comment on whether there is a conspiracy to force people to the Powermac. But it does seem to me that Apple have nothing to gain by this, and are more likely to force consumers to the PC platform if gaming's their thing.

And for what it's worth, the iMac will be my first Mac, and I'm switching from a PC with a Radeon 9700 Pro inside. Which I never use. Without blowing my own trumpet too much, I'm about as PC savvy as they get. I'm technical editor at one of the web's leading PC hardware review sites and I have an MEng and PhD in Electronic Engineering. I understand what I need in a computer and what I don't. And I don't need an uber-GPU. But I do need a quiet machine and a great OS and something I can enjoy sitting in front of for several hours a day. That's the iMac.

I hope that addresses your points.

(ps. I don't expect this to convince you that the iMac is right for you - it's not. I hope, however, that it might persuade you that the iMac can be right for those who don't game & also that the iMac will probably never be right for you, as it's unlikely to ever support a GPU that really meets your needs.)

[Spliffdaddy]

Quartz Extreme proved that the GPU is important for more stuff than just 3D games.

My advice: Don't whine if the next OSX upgrade features aren't supported by your iMac's archaic FX5200 GPU. Because there's no way you can plead ignorance.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Quartz Extreme proved that the GPU is important for more stuff than just 3D games.

My advice: Don't whine if the next OSX upgrade features aren't supported by your iMac's archaic FX5200 GPU. Because there's no way you can plead ignorance.

Quartz Extreme has been in existence since MacOS 10.2. It's even fully supported on the GeForce 2. It works fine. Do you think the graphics requirements of a window manager even comes close to that of something like Quake 3, which even the 5200 Ultra eats for breakfast. What's your point?

Incidentally, if you read this thread you'll see that one developer here in these forums has actually tested a beta release of Tiger on the iMac and confirms that it works beautifully. I've no concerns over the next OS X upgrade, and neither should you.

[P]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Quartz Extreme proved that the GPU is important for more stuff than just 3D games.

My advice: Don't whine if the next OSX upgrade features aren't supported by your iMac's archaic FX5200 GPU. Because there's no way you can plead ignorance.

Every tech spec on Tiger (Core Image etc) lists the 5200 as fully supported. It is at the bottom of the list yes, but supported it is. If Tiger ends up not supporting it, then there will be whining, and I'd say it's warranted.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
OK, I doubt I'll succeed though

<snip>
[*]If you do game, you need much more than the 5200 Ultra. You need much more than the Radeon 9600 Pro (which is only slightly faster than the 5200 Ultra). You need much more than the Mobility Radeon 9700. To have any kind of gaming future you need something in the class of the GeForce 6800 or Radeon X800. I honestly don't believe you'd really be any more satisfied with a Radeon 9600 Pro than you are with a 5200 Ultra. It wouldn't suddenly open up a new class of games. If it can't run on a 5200 Ultra, it'll suck on a 9600 Pro or Mobility 9700 too. I think squabbling over which of a set of budget cards would be the least bad is missing the point.

Is this as close to an admission I'll get that it's quite possible that something other than the 5200U would have fit?

And that's about the long and short of my point of view. I agree the GPU sucks if you game. I disagree that its relevant for anything else in the consumer market. And I don't think you can solve the gaming issue with a Mobility 9700 or 9600 Pro. The release of Doom 3 has opened the floodgates for the next generation of FPS games based on its engine, and if you want the iMac to have any kind of gaming future it'll need at least the 6800 or 9800.

Maybe that's fair, about only needing it for gaming; however, if you compare the iMac to a PC from dell that comes with a monitor at the same price (yes, it's not as nicely designed, I know this) then at the very least they give you an option of a better graphics card. I know I'm in the same boat as many other people here - but I also realise that some people don't care. A better option, or even a better card shipping on the 20" would have been nice. And I think I would have bought one if that was the case.

I'm not familiar enough with the history of Apple's business practices to really comment on whether there is a conspiracy to force people to the Powermac. But it does seem to me that Apple have nothing to gain by this, and are more likely to force consumers to the PC platform if gaming's their thing.

Well, I've been an Apple user for a good what, 15 years now, I've written for an Apple trade publication *like you), so I guess I'm rusted on. They do pull crap like this to make you pay more, and they get away with it because they've differentiated themselves with OS X and their hardware.

And for what it's worth, the iMac will be my first Mac, and I'm switching from a PC with a Radeon 9700 Pro inside. Which I never use. Without blowing my own trumpet too much, I'm about as PC savvy as they get. I'm technical editor at one of the web's leading PC hardware review sites and I have an MEng and PhD in Electronic Engineering. I understand what I need in a computer and what I don't. And I don't need an uber-GPU. But I do need a quiet machine and a great OS and something I can enjoy sitting in front of for several hours a day. That's the iMac.

It sounds like the tool to fit your needs. If you have any probs/questions, drop me a mail - I've helped a fair few friends switch and can handle most questions thrown at me

(ps. I don't expect this to convince you that the iMac is right for you - it's not. I hope, however, that it might persuade you that the iMac can be right for those who don't game & also that the iMac will probably never be right for you, as it's unlikely to ever support a GPU that really meets your needs.)

The funny thing is, Apple know it's important (they give a whole page to games on the iMac site, they've trotted out Halo and John Carmack/Doom 3 at various Macworlds), and then they go pull these stupid stunts.

-- james

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:

It sounds like the tool to fit your needs. If you have any probs/questions, drop me a mail - {email redacted} - I've helped a fair few friends switch and can handle most questions thrown at me

Thanks James, I'll bear that in mind. The only switching issue I've identified so far is the migration from MS Money on my PC. There's no Quicken for Europe, so I'm going to install fink and try GnuCash. If that fails, I might need to resort to Virtual PC, but I'd regard that as a real admission of failure. Glad we've come to some kind of agreement over all this.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Thanks James, I'll bear that in mind. The only switching issue I've identified so far is the migration from MS Money on my PC. There's no Quicken for Europe, so I'm going to install fink and try GnuCash. If that fails, I might need to resort to Virtual PC, but I'd regard that as a real admission of failure. Glad we've come to some kind of agreement over all this.

you should take advantage of your press creds, and put pressure on Apple/Quicken to provide a solution...

-- james

[turtle777]

Originally posted by jamesa:
there's no way a laptop GPU - a GPU used in any of Apple's portable machines - should be beating the GPU of one of Apple's desktop machines.

Put those statistics in the context of the iMac have a 6x faster system bus, faster RAM, a faster G5 vs a slower laptop G4, there is no way the Powerbook should be in front. No way at all.

It goes to prove how bad the gpu is in the iMac.

Hahahaha !

That post is such a nonsense !
Good laugh. Thanks ! !

-t

[jamesa]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Hahahaha !

That post is such a nonsense !
Good laugh. Thanks ! !

-t

well, unlike virtually every one of your posts turtle, mine is substantiated by facts. as is typical, yours is just flagrant trolling.

in fact, I think I could pretty much copy and paste what I've quoted of you just above and use it to reply to every post you've made. such is the crap that you normally post. you invariably check your logic and rationality in at the log in page, and all that's left when you post is a string of words that looks like it's come off The Dummies Guide to Trolling in Online Forums.

if you want to actually explain why my assertion that a laptop that costs only $100 more than a desktop shouldn't be outperforming the desktop at 3D tasks is wrong, by all means do. Otherwise, I'll leave you to continue your mental flatulation in public.

-- james

[turtle777]

Originally posted by jamesa:
if you want to actually explain why my assertion that a laptop that costs only $100 more than a desktop shouldn't be outperforming the desktop at 3D tasks is wrong, by all means do. Otherwise, I'll leave you to continue your mental flatulation in public.

-- james

Because you are comparing apples and oranges.
But since this is all bananas to you anyways, I don't bother to go into details. If you are really interested in facts, read PEHowland's posts.

-t

[Spliffdaddy]

nah, I'd really like to hear your answer.

[hldan]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Once again you use the $2000 figure. I don't think Apple are pushing people onto the PowerMac. I think most people with $2000 to spend who want to game will just get a PC. Not spend $3000-5000 on a PowerMac, when the sound is so poor and the gaming selection so limited. So, if anything, Apple are pushing the $2000 gamer market onto PC's. Why would they want to do that? That's one reason why I don't think this is as simple as you believe.

If anyone is gonna spend $2000.00 to play a game that they can also play on the PS2 or the XBOX for only $200-$300.00 then that same customer will spend $3000-$5000.00 on a PowerMac if they can play the games they want to play.
Your logic is crippled if you think a gamer would be willing to spend $2000.00 more on a PC to play UT2004 but they wouldn't do it for $3000.00 on a PowerMac.

[klinux]

Nonsense. It has already been established numerous times that people buy different gaming machines (console vs PC) for different purposes. Otherwise, there would be no reason for people to drop the money to buy a $300 video card when they can get a console and 3 games for that price.

There are plenty of people who are not willing to shell out $3k for Powermac. Just look at how many units Apple shipped from 1999 to 2003 - a straight line down. Any facts from you about how willing people are willing to shell out $3k to game?

[toti]

One question to jamesa: HOW did you come to the conclusion that you would get exchangeable graphics cards in the budget DELL machines ?

We have 400 GX270 machines. These came at EDU prices for $1500 with a 17" flatpanel. 40GB drives ( ATA66 ), CD-ROM, really crappy sound card and built in, shared-memory graphics cards.

The street price for these machines is quite a bit over $1500 ( or was... tha last batch we got was in august ).

The iMac at least has a REAL graphics card with its own memory and a decent amount for most things ( medium gaming as well ! ).

The point you are making on the graphics card is really daft. You put the iMac up agains similarily ( or lower ) priced computer, and point out that you can change the graphics card. But you silently ignore the fact that a high end graphics card does NOT perform at its best in a low-en to medium PC system.

The DELL Dimension XPS system, which essentially is up to par with the iMac in most areas but design and noise specifications comes at $2108 in a similarily configured specification as the 20" iMac, except for the following:

* iMac has 256MB RAM, Dell has 1GB ( special offer on memory at the moment - this is lowest available )
* iMac has FX5200U, Dell has X800

But at that price, the Dell has a 17" CRT monitor.

At 20.1" Dell TFT, the Dell comes in at $2767

So.. for a little less than $1000 more, you have a comparable system with better graphics. Increasing the memory in the iMac even narrows this gap.

So what is there to lose other than a few hundred dollars ?

* Space
* Noise ( or the lack of it )
* Usability
* Visual design

It may WELL be so that Apple MIGHT have been able to put a better GPU in the iMac, neither have you in ANY way proven that they COULD, NOR has anybody been able to prove that they CANT.

And while nobody is willing to take their iMac, drill it full of holes and plant thermometer inside it, measure exactly how it handles heat under stress, and compare the data to concrete information on other GPUs performing the same tasks under the exact same circumstances, BOTH parties WILL have moot point.

[hldan]

Originally posted by klinux:
Nonsense. It has already been established numerous times that people buy different gaming machines (console vs PC) for different purposes. Otherwise, there would be no reason for people to drop the money to buy a $300 video card when they can get a console and 3 games for that price.

There are plenty of people who are not willing to shell out $3k for Powermac. Just look at how many units Apple shipped from 1999 to 2003 - a straight line down. Any facts from you about how willing people are willing to shell out $3k to game?

I don't need facts, you just confirmed that. Did you even read what you wrote? You mentioned that people buy different gaming machines for different reasons. You said that people will drop $300.00 on a video card, and alone that will only last through a couple of seasons worth of 3D games so why not drop $3000.00 on a PowerMac that will do it all and outlast the $300.00 GPU.
People in general will spend any amount to satisfy their needs and even if it doesn't fully satisfy them they will spend $$$ anyway to be the first on the block for bragging rights. Even though people are bitching about the GPU in the iMac G5 the computer is selling like crazy and the 20" is the most requested model.

[klinux]

Toti, I would not brag about those #s if I were you. We are/were a major Dell house. Virtually every single one of the PCs here have a Dell 1901FP - a 19" LCD. Just because you paid that much does not mean everybody paid that much, not to mention your grossly inflated "street" price.

Also, XPS is not in the same league as the iMac. One has PCIe and DDR2, among other things.


Oh, and hldan. You do need facts. You make the leap of faith that people who spend $300 on video cards should have no problem going up to $3000 PM. Is there evidence of that? Do you see someone looking at an x800 card or a Dell XPS/Alienware/Voodoo and say to themselves, I should get a Mac? Please supply some evidence to back that up.

Or, how about this? Video card and game market is hot. Gaming machines and console salea ar hot. Expensive cards are flying off the shelves. PM sales are down. Please justify.

[hldan]

Originally posted by klinux:
Toti,

Oh, and hldan. You do need facts. You make the leap of faith that people who spend $300 on video cards should have no problem going up to $3000 PM. Is there evidence of that? Do you see someone looking at an x800 card or a Dell XPS/Alienware/Voodoo and say to themselves, I should get a Mac? Please supply some evidence to back that up.

Or, how about this? Video card and game market is hot. Gaming machines and console salea ar hot. Expensive cards are flying off the shelves. PM sales are down. Please justify.

Klinux, that wasn't my point, my point was people are saying that since the iMac G5 has such a low end GPU and gaming will suffer then the only option for good gaming performance and selection for video cards is to get a PowerMac and they say the costs are way too high.
I never said that anyone looking at a sub PC for $2000.00 with a fantastic GPU will decide to get a $3000.00 Mac instead just to throw away money.
My point is these same games and many more are available on a $300.00 Xbox so if a "Mac User" is in such dire need to play these games on a computer instead and they are willing to shell out $2000.00 for a PC then they would be willing to shell out $3000.00 on a machine that they will get much more use out of.
Most Mac Users don't care to use a PC on a daily basis so it's stupid to buy a $2000.00 PC just for gaming. Does this clear up my point or do you need to be held at gun point to understand?

[Spliffdaddy]

um, the 'same' games made for console play are most decidedly *not* always available for PCs. Even if they were, the game experience is vastly more configurable and the hardware and software is easily upgradeable on the PC.

Besides, you'd need to own all the available game consoles in order to play all the available games. What would that initial cash outlay set you back? OK, how much did the TV cost? You gotta factor that in, too.

[klinux]

Originally posted by hldan:
Does this clear up my point or do you need to be held at gun point to understand?

Is that a threat? Did you just threaten to make me understand by using a gun? I hope this is simply a poor choice of semantics on your part and you will apologize for that poor judgment before this escalates further.

If not, however, I will be glad to give you my address in Los Angeles or you give me yours in Oakland and we will see if you can make me understand your point while held a gunpoint.

[pantalaimon]

lots of repetative comments on here, most people are assuming that anyone who plays the occassional game is going to need a gpu that plays doom 3 and future games.

Can someone predict how well Homeworld 2 and Knights of the Old Republic will perform on the 1.8 G5? It has double the amount of processing power and vram that are in the system requirements for the games. I'm guessing they will run extremely well but I really don't know too much about gaming performance on macs. Can someone here let me know how I shoud expect them to perform?

If these will perform fine then the iMac G5 will be perfect for my gaming requirements, not everyone who games need to play the latest and greatest, Doom 3 doesn't interest me in the slightest. As someone who is 'patiently' awating the arrival of my 20" iMac G5 I find it extremely annoying people claiming it 'sucks' for gaming when it can probably play most current games for the mac perfectly well.

[pliny]

[hldan]

Originally posted by klinux:
Is that a threat? Did you just threaten to make me understand by using a gun? I hope this is simply a poor choice of semantics on your part and you will apologize for that poor judgment before this escalates further.

If not, however, I will be glad to give you my address in Los Angeles or you give me yours in Oakland and we will see if you can make me understand your point while held a gunpoint.

Temper, temper, you need to relax and get a reality check, This is a forum for helpful discussions and debates on Mac computers. Shocking how you would take that comment seriously seeing as there's no way anyone could harm you physically over the internet. U Take Care.

[a2daj]

I'll admit, I've never been a big fan of barefeats testing techniques, but at least he's willing to go out there and test the machines. So, a few things to note in the barefeats games tests.

rob-ART likes to use Vertex Shaders only for his "High" tests. There're no Pixel Shader or NV Shaders activated. While it puts the test on even ground, it doesn't use any of the pixel shader effects (improved textures, and shiny Master Chief). I think a number of people would like to see numbers with more eyecandy.

The UT2K4 tests use a CPU bound test, the botmatch. If you want to test the GPU with UT2K4 you go with Flybys, or even better, scripted demos where the AI doesn't have to be used. Those will stress the video subsystem more (GPU, video interface, system bus).

Oh, and rob-ART updated his page with "minimum quality results. Interesting numbers.

[Simon]

Originally posted by a2daj:
Oh, and rob-ART updated his page with "low" quality results. Interesting numbers.

Yep, there is a new page with some interesting results.

Regarding the comparison of the Mobility 9600 in the 1.5GHz PB with the 5200U in the 1.8GHz iMac: In UT2k4 the iMac wins clearly (+39%) and as I understand this is due to the fact that this test relies mainly on the CPU, so who wouldn't expect a 1.8GHz 970fx to win against a 1.5GHz 7447...

The real sucker is this GPU-dependent test:



The faster iMac with a 5200U running on an 8xAGP is getting a solid whipping by a 9600 Mobility on 4xAGP. The older and slower PowerBook is actually getting 58% more fps than the brand-new iMac. This graph is really sad.

[Spliffdaddy]

ouch

[pantalaimon]

*yawn*

has anyone tried the imac out with other games apart from Halo and UT?? I'd like to know how Homeworld 2 performs... not every game made is a fps.

[klinux]

Originally posted by hldan:
Temper, temper, you need to relax and get a reality check, This is a forum for helpful discussions and debates on Mac computers. Shocking how you would take that comment seriously seeing as there's no way anyone could harm you physically over the internet. U Take Care.

hldan, I want to take this seriously. It was all fun and jokes and friendly discussion until you stated "does this clear up my point or do you need to be held at gun point to understand?"

So what do you mean by that? What would it take for you to understand that I am taking this seriously? Would a subpoena to macnn.com and you to compel your personal information so I can identify who is hldan in Oakland that made this threat help?

So here it is again: you wrote "does this clear up my point or do you need to be held at gun point to understand?"

This statement is an either-or. Either I understand or I need to be held at a gun point, presumably by you, so I "understand". It is not far fetched that I perceive that statement as a threat.

Or alternatively, hldan, you made a poor choice of semantics on your part and that was not your intention.

If the latter, you can be a man right now and resolve this by apologizing for that poor choice of words and we can all move on before this escalates further. If you don't think that is a poor choice of words and you mean every word of "do you need to be held at gun point to understand?" Fine. Just let me know.

[pliny]

Originally posted by klinux:
hldan, I want to take this seriously. It was all fun and jokes and friendly discussion until you stated "does this clear up my point or do you need to be held at gun point to understand?"

So what do you mean by that? What would it take for you to understand that I am taking this seriously? Would a subpoena to macnn.com and you to compel your personal information so I can identify who is hldan in Oakland that made this threat help?

So here it is again: you wrote "does this clear up my point or do you need to be held at gun point to understand?"

This statement is an either-or. Either I understand or I need to be held at a gun point, presumably by you, so I "understand". It is not far fetched that I perceive that statement as a threat.

Or alternatively, hldan, you made a poor choice of semantics on your part and that was not your intention.

If the latter, you can be a man right now and resolve this by apologizing for that poor choice of words and we can all move on before this escalates further. If you don't think that is a poor choice of words and you mean every word of "do you need to be held at gun point to understand?" Fine. Just let me know.

Whatever you're on you should stop taking it NOW.