Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

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

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > FX5200 Supporters, Defend your Graphics Card!

FX5200 Supporters, Defend your Graphics Card! (Page 5)
Thread Tools
3.1416
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 03:37 PM
 
Originally posted by 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.
Yes, that's essentially correct. Doom 3-class engines are going to be very common in the near future, so a machine that can't run Doom 3 well is going to be severely limited even for casual gaming.

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.
Then your standards are rather low. If I spend $2000 on a computer, I expect it to run today's games flawlessly and next year's adequately. "Probably" playing "most" current games is what I'd expect from a $1000 budget machine like an eMac.
     
PEHowland
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 04:16 PM
 
Originally posted by 3.1416:

Then your standards are rather low. If I spend $2000 on a computer, I expect it to run today's games flawlessly and next year's adequately. "Probably" playing "most" current games is what I'd expect from a $1000 budget machine like an eMac.
Not everyone buys computers for 3D gaming, believe it or not. You have one set of standards, other people have different sets. Vive la difference.
Paul

Wassenaar, The Netherlands.

Home: iMac G5 1.8GHz
Work: Powermac Quad and MacbookPro 17" C2D
     
Daddy Bartholomew
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 04:18 PM
 
My nephew bought the 20" iMac, single 512MB RAM chip, had it arrive last week, and I bought and installed UT2004 for him. It runs very acceptably at maximum resolution (1980x1260, if I remember correctly), 32-bit, all settings on highest quality possible. No, I don't have a framerate, but then I'm not a hardcore gamer. The action was very smooth -- too quick at times, when dodging, spinning, etc. Sometimes I lost track of where I was...

It performed *much* better than my old 1GHz G4 with the Radeon 9000, 1GB RAM. I want one. When I've got a spare couple grand to drop on something I can't justify rationally, I'll buy one.

Bottom line is, for an average consumer, it will run games perfectly well. If you want/need maximum performance to satisfy that "my computer is faster than your computer when playing games that will run better on a dedicated console anyway" lust, buy a tower.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by 3.1416:
If I spend $2000 on a computer, I expect it to run today's games flawlessly and next year's adequately. "Probably" playing "most" current games is what I'd expect from a $1000 budget machine like an eMac.
Well, then enjoy your Wintel PC !

-t
     
pantalaimon
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 05:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Daddy Bartholomew:
My nephew bought the 20" iMac, single 512MB RAM chip, had it arrive last week, and I bought and installed UT2004 for him. It runs very acceptably at maximum resolution (1980x1260, if I remember correctly), 32-bit, all settings on highest quality possible. No, I don't have a framerate, but then I'm not a hardcore gamer.
THANK YOU!

at last, someone who has used the iMac for gaming and not had to blabber about framerates, just simply describing how it runs and on what settings...

"look at this frame rate compared to that, there is a 3fps difference!!"

does anyone know if enabling 128 bit ram will improve game performance?
1.33GHz G4 iBook 12"
     
3.1416
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 07:14 PM
 
Originally posted by PEHowland:
Not everyone buys computers for 3D gaming, believe it or not.
Didn't say they did. Computers are general purpose devices used for a variety of purposes. A $2000 computer should be able to perform well for *all* common purposes, of which gaming definitely qualifies. I'm really surprised this statement is controversial.

Well, then enjoy your Wintel PC !
I'm quite happy with my dual 1.8 G5, thanks. But it's this kind of attitude that keeps Apple's market share low and falling.

My nephew bought the 20" iMac, single 512MB RAM chip, had it arrive last week, and I bought and installed UT2004 for him. It runs very acceptably at maximum resolution (1980x1260, if I remember correctly), 32-bit, all settings on highest quality possible.
Interesting. On my tower (with Radeon 9600 64 MB), there's a definite slowdown at 1920x1200 so I run at 1280x800. The 20" iMac resolution is 1680x1050, so I'm impressed if it can run that well. Although IIRC UT2004 is more dependent on the CPU rather than the GPU compared to other (3d) games.

Bottom line is, for an average consumer, it will run games perfectly well.
This will not be true a year from now, and there will be no options to fix it. (Barring some wacky motherboard upgrade).
     
a2daj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 07:36 PM
 
Originally posted by pantalaimon:
THANK YOU!

at last, someone who has used the iMac for gaming and not had to blabber about framerates, just simply describing how it runs and on what settings...

"look at this frame rate compared to that, there is a 3fps difference!!"

does anyone know if enabling 128 bit ram will improve game performance?
"acceptably" is completely subjective. What may be a slide show for one person may be smooth for someone else. I use to think Quake on my PowerBook 1400 was smooth at 14 fps until I tried it with a Voodoo1 in a 200 MHz PowerMac 7500. That's why for first person shooters, or any games where framerate can heavily affect playability, I prefer to see numbers. At least with numbers, I can use them as a reference point.

BTW, for anyone that wants to actually see the framerate while playing UT2K4 hit either `/~ to bring down the console or tab to bring up a small cursor and type:

stat fps

and hit enter. The current framerate will be displayed.
     
hldan
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 10:20 PM
 
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.
Sorry.
iMac 24" 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Extreme
500GB HDD
4GB Ram
Proud new Owner!
     
hldan
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 10:26 PM
 
Originally posted by pliny:
Whatever you're on you should stop taking it NOW.
iMac 24" 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Extreme
500GB HDD
4GB Ram
Proud new Owner!
     
klinux
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 10:41 PM
 
Originally posted by hldan:
Sorry.
Appreciate your response. Thanks. No more from me on this topic.
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
     
hldan
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2004, 12:29 AM
 
Originally posted by klinux:
Appreciate your response. Thanks. No more from me on this topic.
Good, let's have fun talking about Macs, not fighting about them. It's only worth fighting about PC's which is why this is a Mac forum.
iMac 24" 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Extreme
500GB HDD
4GB Ram
Proud new Owner!
     
PEHowland
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2004, 01:24 AM
 
Originally posted by hldan:
Good, let's have fun talking about Macs, not fighting about them. It's only worth fighting about PC's which is why this is a Mac forum.
I don't know. It made a refreshing change from "5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer", "5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer","5200 Ultra sucks", "only if you're a gamer" ... ad nauseam
Paul

Wassenaar, The Netherlands.

Home: iMac G5 1.8GHz
Work: Powermac Quad and MacbookPro 17" C2D
     
Daddy Bartholomew
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2004, 10:39 AM
 
>>Interesting. On my tower (with Radeon 9600 64 MB), there's a definite slowdown at 1920x1200 so I run at 1280x800. The 20" iMac resolution is 1680x1050, so I'm impressed if it can run that well. Although IIRC UT2004 is more dependent on the CPU rather than the GPU compared to other (3d) games.


>>quote:
Bottom line is, for an average consumer, it will run games perfectly well.

>>This will not be true a year from now, and there will be no options to fix it. (Barring some wacky motherboard upgrade).

True. It won't ever be upgradeable. But, he'll just employ the same strategy he has for the last five years -- buy what he can afford, use it until something better comes out, then sell it while there is still a decent market and buy another, newer, faster model. He's young enough that he doesn't have major financial responsibilities (second year in college, with scholarships and grants, so he spends the money he earns on what he values.

The max resolution we were running UT was whatever the max resolution of the monitor was -- 1680x1024 sounds about right. I wasn't really taking notes, and I no longer have the machine at hand. But, I've done a fair amount of gaming on various machines in a non-serious way, and I have to say that I didn't really notice any difference between his iMac and, say, playing Halo on an X-Box. Is that good enough for a purist, or a game fanatic? Well, nothing ever is, really. But as long as I don't feel like the computer is hobbling me ("I wouldn't have gotten killed, except nothing happens when I try to dodge until it's too late!"), then I'm perfectly happy.

After playing Diablo II on a G3-upgraded 8500 with the 16MB Rage Orion, and being unable to participate in any battle where fire effects were being rendered, I think I know what SLOW means, anyway, and his 20" G5 iMac is definitely NOT slow.

By the time I can afford one, Apple will have bumped the specs a bit, anyway.

I'll also be curious to see if there's any subjective improvement when he eventually adds a matched 512MB RAM chip...
     
klinux
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2004, 09:09 PM
 
Despite all I have said about the iMac GPU, I bought one anyway and it arrived Tuesday from Shanghai.

I took it out, set it up, but ultimately decided to repack it to prep for a return to the Apple store in Pasadena.

The unfortunate thing is that I have a 21" Trinitron tube at home and use a 19" LCD at work. Anything smaller just does not seem right to my eyes.

Sure, my iBook is a measly 12" but that was acceptable to me since it is a laptop and sits closer to my eyes.

The iMac is not totally out of the running yet, however. There's a rebate on Amazon which makes the 17" iMac $1230 after rebate with shipping (I paid ~$1320 - $1200 with corporate discount + tax + free shipping). For ~$1200, I may just put up with a "small" screen!
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 02:54 AM
 
Originally posted by klinux:
I took it out, set it up, but ultimately decided to repack it to prep for a return to the Apple store in Pasadena.
The unfortunate thing is that I have a 21" Trinitron tube at home and use a 19" LCD at work. Anything smaller just does not seem right to my eyes.
klinux, just get a 20" iMac G5. Apart from its GPU it's a very nice computer.
     
klinux
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 02:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Simon:
klinux, just get a 20" iMac G5. Apart from its GPU it's a very nice computer.
IMHO, the $700 difference between the 17" and 20" iMac is better spent on a couple of iPods, or a BT KB/mouse + iSight + another LCD panel to do the spanning, or etc. You get the point.
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 03:10 PM
 
Originally posted by klinux:
IMHO, the $700 difference between the 17" and 20" iMac is better spent on a couple of iPods, or a BT KB/mouse + iSight + another LCD panel to do the spanning, or etc. You get the point.
I only see $400 for the screen upgrade. And if you compare with the 1.6GHz it's $600 IIRC...

I don't know about spanning. I think a 20" iMac looks much better than a 17" plus some other external display. Even the ACD wouldn't really fit the color scheme.
     
PookJP
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 09:47 PM
 
I'm going to put this as simply as I can:


People who are too involved in the computer world (some call them "nerds") have a bad habit of freaking out over relatively insignificant things. They also are prone to exaggerating weaknesses, and playing them up as fatal flaws, things that completely collapse the structure of an otherwise fantastic device. Put differently, they are drama queens.

The graphics card in the iMac is just fine for normal usage. The reason for that is many of these too-involved-in-the-computer-world types assume their lives are representative of the mainstream's lives. What they don't seem to understand is that average consumers are not interested in spending time on the latest game, squeezing the highest frame rate out of their 3D interactive, shoot-em-up environment. Quite to the contrary, normal people work on their machines, write emails, type letters, listen to music, and polish up their photos. For this overwhelming majority, the iMac's graphics card is more than enough. Take it from me: I'm a designer who works in the Adobe suite, Final Cut, and Quark all day long while listening to music and typing letters on a 2 year old Powerbook that has a *gasp* worse chip than the new iMac's. I'm doing just fine.

So know your needs. If you're a person who will buy the latest greatest game that requires a powerful chip, accept the fact your hobby requires an investment and buy a G5 tower. If you're a person who doesn't live in the digital 3D game world, the iMac is more than enough.

It's the devil's way now.
     
alternate_bit
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 11:08 PM
 
if i've got a pc that i use for gaming, the iMac should be plenty fine for everything else, right? that is what I, alternate_bit, apple consumer #167,899,461 wants. i tried the 'buy a powermac for the power, you can always upgrade the video card later' route. that sounds like a great plan until you price a mac video card against a PC one for an upgrade.
i've decided it's cheaper to get Apple's consumer line iMac and a PC than to get a dual G5 + 20" lcd.
i've got the PC, i'm selling the dual G4 and i'm gonna buy the iMac. the best of every world! why restrict yourself?
     
a2daj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 12:20 AM
 
Because I don't want to waste money on a Windows PC?
     
jamesa
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: .au
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 01:59 AM
 
Originally posted by turtle777:
Well, then enjoy your Wintel PC !

-t
you are a goddamm troll. if anyone here wanted to buy a Windows PC... well, they wouldn't be here.

go troll somewhere else.

Originally posted by PookJP:
So know your needs. If you're a person who will buy the latest greatest game that requires a powerful chip, accept the fact your hobby requires an investment and buy a G5 tower. If you're a person who doesn't live in the digital 3D game world, the iMac is more than enough.
Actually, I think that's the point. My needs are pretty simple - an iMac 20" with a good GPU would do me perfectly. I don't want to have to (can't) pay an $1100 Apple tax for the luxury of a decent (~$300) GPU. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

-- james
     
alternate_bit
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 02:44 AM
 
Originally posted by a2daj:
Because I don't want to waste money on a Windows PC?
woah i don't think you got the point of my post. people on here were asking 'omg who woudl buy teh iMac????????' and i just thought i'd post up, along with my reasons. i'm not trying to 'convert' anyone to my wicked ways. everyone has a different scheme in mind when it comes to computers, i'm just sharing mine =)
besides, owning a PC doesn't make you evil. you can build a pretty dang good one for around $400 + $80 or so for a CRT monitor and you've got a nice, upgradable gaming/whatever machine.
     
Crusoe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Globetrotting
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 01:04 PM
 
My response in the benchmarks thread,

Summary, If you're not a gamer the 1.8 is a deal and the 5200 is a PoS no matter what system you put it in.

I took the Call of Duty demo to a local store here in Italy and ran it in 1024 x 768 with features maxed. The 20" had 768 MB Ram and I set the processor to highest. Results were the game was unplayable. Setting everything back to the default and leaving the res to 1024 x 768 brought things back to a good playable level.

Other small notes, the screen is very nice and clear to me. The fans were on after playing but barely audible in a quiet shop.

I'm going to get a 17"er. I don't game much anymore but still play something once a week. I personally would have preferred it have 128MB of memory for 3D model texture rendering and a smidge of futureproofing.

We can only hope Apple responds to your pleas in Rev B but with past consumer products it's best not to hold your breath. This system will work well for me as a casual gamer, developer and animation hobbyist coupled with my Rev A. 17 PB they'll be happy together doing distributed compiles of code.
If a group of mimes are miming a forest and one falls down, does he make a sound?
     
PookJP
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 03:48 PM
 
Originally posted by jamesa:
you are a goddamm troll. if anyone here wanted to buy a Windows PC... well, they wouldn't be here.

go troll somewhere else.



Actually, I think that's the point. My needs are pretty simple - an iMac 20" with a good GPU would do me perfectly. I don't want to have to (can't) pay an $1100 Apple tax for the luxury of a decent (~$300) GPU. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

-- james
And similarly, why is it so hard for you to understand that simply adding the option for a higher end card would increase the cost of the iMac, which would then put it out of your very own price range. This isn't like Lego's, people.
It's the devil's way now.
     
3.1416
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 04:04 PM
 
Originally posted by PookJP:
What they don't seem to understand is that average consumers are not interested in spending time on the latest game
Who does play games, if not consumers? And don't give me the "hardcore gamer" routine; they exist, but are far outnumbered by casual gamers, for whom the iMac would be almost perfect if not for the poor GPU.

Quite to the contrary, normal people work on their machines, write emails, type letters, listen to music, and polish up their photos. For this overwhelming majority, the iMac's graphics card is more than enough.
For what you describe, a G4 is more than enough; I guess Apple wasted their time with the G5. This isn't about what people "need", it's about value. A $2000 machine should play modern games well, period.
     
Silas
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 05:32 PM
 
Originally posted by Crusoe:
My response in the benchmarks thread,

Summary, If you're not a gamer the 1.8 is a deal and the 5200 is a PoS no matter what system you put it in.

I took the Call of Duty demo to a local store here in Italy and ran it in 1024 x 768 with features maxed. The 20" had 768 MB Ram and I set the processor to highest. Results were the game was unplayable. Setting everything back to the default and leaving the res to 1024 x 768 brought things back to a good playable level.

Other small notes, the screen is very nice and clear to me. The fans were on after playing but barely audible in a quiet shop.

I'm going to get a 17"er. I don't game much anymore but still play something once a week. I personally would have preferred it have 128MB of memory for 3D model texture rendering and a smidge of futureproofing.

We can only hope Apple responds to your pleas in Rev B but with past consumer products it's best not to hold your breath. This system will work well for me as a casual gamer, developer and animation hobbyist coupled with my Rev A. 17 PB they'll be happy together doing distributed compiles of code.
It is very strange that you got those results. I play the retail version of CoD (1.4) on my 17" iMac 1.8 with only 512 MB of RAM at 1024x768 with everything up high except Marks on Walls cut off and I average above 40 FPS. I am pleased with the way this game performs. Now if First to Fight is playable, I will be extremely happy for my gaming needs.
     
PookJP
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 07:50 PM
 
Originally posted by 3.1416:
Who does play games, if not consumers? And don't give me the "hardcore gamer" routine; they exist, but are far outnumbered by casual gamers, for whom the iMac would be almost perfect if not for the poor GPU.


For what you describe, a G4 is more than enough; I guess Apple wasted their time with the G5. This isn't about what people "need", it's about value. A $2000 machine should play modern games well, period.
It does play modern games, it just doesn't do it with the facility you'd like it to. I agree that a $2000 machine should be pretty damn good, but the reality of the situation is that the machine would cost more if there were a better card in it. Apple's not under-powering it for sport.

And as for the iMac being perfect or imperfect for casual gamers, it's more than enough. A hardcore gamer is a person who needs hardcore hardware to run the software. A casual gamer doesn't really care about having maximum framerates, and more to the issue, plays games like The Sims and chess. For those things, you're right, a G4 is ample. But that doesn't speak to things like Photoshop usage.
It's the devil's way now.
     
mintcake
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 08:15 PM
 
Originally posted by klinux:
IMHO, the $700 difference between the 17" and 20" iMac is better spent on a couple of iPods, or a BT KB/mouse + iSight + another LCD panel to do the spanning, or etc. You get the point.
Um, I thought you couldn't span displays with the iMac? Very happy to stand corrected if this isn't so. Are we talking about that hack that people use?
     
terrancew_hod
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ft Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 08:56 PM
 
Two weeks and the battle still rages on, eh?

From what I've been reading, i thinking everyone agreeing that the graphic card in the iMac is inadequate... from those that are defending the card are using words that concede to those attacking the card... saying that TODAY'S games run "acceptably" or "fine"... I haven't seen a comment that say it runs it great or wonderfully, which I would expect if you're gonna defend it. I think no one dares to say it will run the next batch of games great...

Right now I think they are missing the market for gaming; I'm not a hardcore user, but I think I would be fooling myself to think if I did happen to want to buy Doom3 I could see it run well on a iMac. I have an old Athlon 1.4GHz with a Geforce 500 Ti in it and I have to turn all the settings down on it to run at an acceptable clip. That machine is over 3 years old so I expect such, but should I expect such with a new machine? Not at all, and that's what I think a lot of people are complaining about. Knowing this, I'd be better off buying a PC (which I'm gonna be doing for work and gaming) instead of buying this machine. But I'd rather move all the things I use my computer for to Mac and Apple is not helping with this. I can buy a powermac and that's definitely on the list down the line, but there will be a lot more people with iMacs and eMacs... and the game developers have to write to the most common denominator. When writing games for the PC they have much higher quality GPUs to work with than the mac, so that's why a lot of games won't be ported over. In order to change this, Apple has to stay current in not only it's processor speeds, but it's graphic capabilities as well.

Terrance
15.2" 1.25GHz Powerbook G4
(First official mac)

My Ghetto Hot Mess
     
Crusoe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Globetrotting
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 02:35 AM
 
Originally posted by Silas:
It is very strange that you got those results. I play the retail version of CoD (1.4) on my 17" iMac 1.8 with only 512 MB of RAM at 1024x768 with everything up high except Marks on Walls cut off and I average above 40 FPS. I am pleased with the way this game performs. Now if First to Fight is playable, I will be extremely happy for my gaming needs.
I maxed everything. I couldn't check FPS on the demo it's disabled but it was slow enough I could visually count them. Dunno if the demo version has the latest optimizations of the retail but the demo version is 1.3. Running the settings at default was nice enough for me so I'm going to be a iMac G5 buyer.
If a group of mimes are miming a forest and one falls down, does he make a sound?
     
Crusoe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Globetrotting
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 02:44 AM
 
Originally posted by mintcake:
Um, I thought you couldn't span displays with the iMac? Very happy to stand corrected if this isn't so. Are we talking about that hack that people use?
Here's the thread. Didn't follow the links but it's likely from the same folks that did a hack for the G4 iMac.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=229099
If a group of mimes are miming a forest and one falls down, does he make a sound?
     
mintcake
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 07:54 AM
 
Aha, thanks Crusoe.
     
Minch_Yoda
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 11:43 AM
 
i see the new imac as apple testing us i mean its a new design there lots of rumors and such when people found out it was a g5 so it had some automatic appeal people like it before they new about it now its released yes the gfx card sucks in my opinion because it barely handles motion and some of the other apps like that from apple and it is inadequate for gaming it will have semi-ok gaming now and crappy future gaming
not good now the reason i think this is a major test is if apple can make a success out of a machine that the majority thought had a bad gfx card and others thought it had insufficient ram or that then they can do it with next generation machines the only way i see good things in the imacs future is if they stop selling forcing apple to up the bar on imac performance
     
jamesa
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: .au
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 11:50 AM
 
Originally posted by PookJP:
I agree that a $2000 machine should be pretty damn good, but the reality of the situation is that the machine would cost more if there were a better card in it. Apple's not under-powering it for sport.
Yeah, well, we're not mac users because we like skimping on computers either. I think most people here would be happy - and this whole argument would dissolve - if Apple provided the option of a better GPU. Nobody is expecting something for nothing, we're already willing to plonk down $2k on the damn thing, what's a few hundred more between friends?

-- james
     
PEHowland
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 12:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Minch_Yoda:
i see the new imac as apple testing us i mean its a new design there lots of rumors and such when people found out it was a g5 so it had some automatic appeal people like it before they new about it now its released yes the gfx card sucks in my opinion because it barely handles motion and some of the other apps like that from apple and it is inadequate for gaming it will have semi-ok gaming now and crappy future gaming
not good now the reason i think this is a major test is if apple can make a success out of a machine that the majority thought had a bad gfx card and others thought it had insufficient ram or that then they can do it with next generation machines the only way i see good things in the imacs future is if they stop selling forcing apple to up the bar on imac performance
Can you try reposting with some punctuation and capital letters? They exist for good reason and might even lend your argument some credibility.
Paul

Wassenaar, The Netherlands.

Home: iMac G5 1.8GHz
Work: Powermac Quad and MacbookPro 17" C2D
     
Joona
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 05:25 PM
 
Originally posted by PEHowland:
Can you try reposting with some punctuation and capital letters? They exist for good reason and might even lend your argument some credibility.
exactly, it is extremely difficult to get something out of that text...
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 02:48 AM
 
Originally posted by PookJP:
...why is it so hard for you to understand that simply adding the option for a higher end card would increase the cost of the iMac...
Why do some people here repeat this even though it's been mentioned a dozen times that it simply isn't true?

Apple already has at least two completely different motherboards in use. They are not losing money by changing a unified design - there has never been a unified design. And the additional overhead of having to handle orders for an additional BTO board can be payed by the BTO buyers, not the buyers of the standard config.

Up to this day, no rational argument against offering another BTO option with a better GPU has been presented in this forum or anywhere else on the net. All we have heard is, 'shut up, you couldn't ever need more than a 5200, buy a PC, blabla...'.
     
iBorg
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 02:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Simon:
Why do some people here repeat this even though it's been mentioned a dozen times that it simply isn't true?

Apple already has at least two completely different motherboards in use. They are not losing money by changing a unified design - there has never been a unified design. And the additional overhead of having to handle orders for an additional BTO board can be payed by the BTO buyers, not the buyers of the standard config.

Up to this day, no rational argument against offering another BTO option with a better GPU has been presented in this forum or anywhere else on the net. All we have heard is, 'shut up, you couldn't ever need more than a 5200, buy a PC, blabla...'.
Bingo!



iborg
     
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 12:03 PM
 
The 5200 is good. It is among the 35 fastest video cards in the market today !


http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.c...charts-04.html
^ I wonder how it will compare in six months from now.

Apple has officially dropped support for 3D games, just like they did with the iMac/A in 1998.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 12:32 PM
 
Originally posted by The Godfather:
The 5200 is good. It is among the 35 fastest video cards in the market today !


-t
     
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 05:53 PM
 
sorry, turtle:

assume sarcasm.
     
terrancew_hod
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ft Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 09:09 PM
 
Originally posted by The Godfather:
The 5200 is good. It is among the 35 fastest video cards in the market today !
As my friends and i would put it, the 5200 is riding "The Booger Bus"; in fact it is pretty much holding the door for the others to get on (BTW "Booger Bus" is reserved for those ranking last in a competition).

Terrance
15.2" 1.25GHz Powerbook G4
(First official mac)

My Ghetto Hot Mess
     
jamesa
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: .au
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2004, 03:49 AM
 
Originally posted by The Godfather:
The 5200 is good. It is among the 35 fastest video cards in the market today !

^ I wonder how it will compare in six months from now.

Well, it's rankings will very much depend on how many graphics cards get released in the next six months

-- james
     
iBorg
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2004, 05:18 PM
 
Wonder if this has anything to do with the crap GPU in the G5 iMac?

The brokerage house Soleil Securities Group downgraded Apple Computer stock on Tuesday to 'Hold' from 'Buy' on concerns that the G5 iMac is not flying off store shelves and delays continue in the shipment of high-end PowerMacs.

In the report obtained by The Mac Observer, Soleil analyst Shannon Cross wrote she is concerned the G5 iMac might not be selling as well as many expected.

"Our continuous checks...of over 50 Apple stores and channel partners lead us to conclude that demand (for the G5 iMac), while solid, is not overwhelming," Ms. Cross wrote. "During the last couple of weeks of September, most stores weren't keeping lists (of people wanting iMacs) as they had done for iPod mini's."

Ms. Cross credited her contention that G5 iMacs have not sold phenomenally well by noting that Apple has not put out a press release since the announcement of the G5 iMac on August 31st indicating the number of pre-orders for the product, "as they had done earlier this year for the iPod mini and AirPort Express."
The bottom-feeder GPU has been a hotly debated shortcoming of the new iMac - could this be the reason for sales not meeting expectations? Hope revision B comes soon .....



iBorg
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2004, 05:40 PM
 
Originally posted by iBorg:
Hope revision B comes soon .....
It won't.

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
PookJP
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2004, 06:32 PM
 
Originally posted by iBorg:
Wonder if this has anything to do with the crap GPU in the G5 iMac?



The bottom-feeder GPU has been a hotly debated shortcoming of the new iMac - could this be the reason for sales not meeting expectations? Hope revision B comes soon .....



iBorg
1. Where'd you hear that sales are below expectations? Link?

2. Nobody but people who are very much in the know even understand what a GPU is, let alone care if theirs is top of the line. The vast majority of consumers care about style, price, and basic performance (GHz).
It's the devil's way now.
     
klinux
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2004, 12:30 AM
 
Originally posted by PookJP:
1. Where'd you hear that sales are below expectations? Link?
iMac sales have never been too spectacular since 2001. See here.

Of course, no one (here) has the data for Q3 yet but iMac sales for Q3 will be dismal due to the lack of avalability of the iMac G4.
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
     
PEHowland
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2004, 01:22 AM
 
Originally posted by iBorg:

The bottom-feeder GPU has been a hotly debated shortcoming of the new iMac - could this be the reason for sales not meeting expectations? Hope revision B comes soon .....
Only time will tell, but the article at the link you provide is meaningless. Apple hasn't even released sales figures yet, so a small market survey company asked at a few Apple stores how long the back orders for the iMac were and concluded that as the back orders were shorter than they were for the mini-iPod, the iMac sales are poor. LOL. What well thought through analysis. Perhaps someone should point out to them that the iPod has a 58% market share, whilst the iMac has, what, 0.5%? The only thing this proves is how inept the market survey company is...
( Last edited by PEHowland; Oct 6, 2004 at 01:44 AM. )
Paul

Wassenaar, The Netherlands.

Home: iMac G5 1.8GHz
Work: Powermac Quad and MacbookPro 17" C2D
     
PEHowland
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2004, 01:24 AM
 
Paul

Wassenaar, The Netherlands.

Home: iMac G5 1.8GHz
Work: Powermac Quad and MacbookPro 17" C2D
     
kokkao
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2004, 03:01 AM
 
Yesterday, as I am almost on the point of ordering a 20" , I visited 2 central London resellers to see what the wait time might be like.
One had back orders for 16 20" BTO but had 11 standard 20" in stock. Delivery expected in about 2 weeks. Interestingly, their usual BTO config of 512RAM + BT combo appears to carry a �30 premium over the Apple price.
The other was awaiting a delivery - again about 2 weeks - of 25, although they were not sure how many would actually turn up! No info as to orders.
Apple UK yesterday were quoting 4 weeks for a BTO 20".
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:19 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,