[P]

Originally posted by dandbj:
Go back and read my post. I said that Apple is positioning the iMac as a gaming rig, not that it was.

Duh. Of course that is what you said, and that is what I was responding to, because I disagree with your statement. Try some other manufacturers to see how they write when they're really promoting a gaming machine:

http://www.alienware.com/main_gaming.aspx

OK, so Alienware may be extreme. Let's try someone larger, like HP:

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/sh...evel=1&AOID=78

Dell.com seems to be down as write this, but I'll check it later and edit if it's relevant one way or another.

My point is that the first thing a prospective customer sees if he comes looking for an iMac, is the page www.apple.com/imac, where gaming performance is only mentioned far down the page. That is not promoting the machine as a gaming rig, that is promoting it as a digital hub that can also do some gaming. Which is entirely true - it runs anything on the market today and should limp along in Doom 3.

[Simon]

Excuse me but I would like to finish this ridiculous discussion off with a little quote from http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html:

Apple babbled:
And then there�s the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. It�s a combination that delivers unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience with three times the frame rate of previous-generation processors.

Now what the **** should the 5200U have to do with 'unparalleled 3D graphics performance' and 'photorealistic gaming experience'???

That's an outright lie and Apple deserves to be sued for it. The guys who wrote this are really full of ****.

Even though I am convinced the iMac G5 is a terrific computer, seeing Apple write such crap about it makes me wonder if they themselves don't even honestly believe it's a good computer. If you have to make up such a fat fart, you don't really have faith in your product, do you?

[lpetschauer]

BareFeats.com (not bearfeets.com) has posted updated results from his testing, and, in his own words:

CONCLUSION
More than two weeks have passed since my first posting of results. It's been a wild ride, as some of you have seen. I've contended from the start that iMac G5 is a great machine at a great price. It has as much as a 93% advantage over the iMac G4 running iLife apps.

However, when it comes to two of the top 3D "run-and-shoot" games, rather than the 179% to 212% advantage trumpeted by Apple, we are now convinced that the real numbers are more like 39% to 93% -- still good numbers. We still think the iMac G5 is a great replacement for the iMac G4, but words like "unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance" are a bit over the top.

Pretty interesting read.

[QuadG5Man]

Apple, tsk tsk.....this has to be addressed.

Is Apple honest with the customer here? NO. So make nice.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by lpetschauer:
BareFeats.com (not bearfeets.com) has posted updated results from his testing, and, in his own words:

Pretty interesting read.

I have no doubt he's right - now, when are Apple taking down their extremely deceptive 3d benchmarks?

-- james

[lpetschauer]

I thought it was hilarious that Apple initially claimed that the (enormous) discrepancy in speed was b/c a 20" iMac was faster than a 17" iMac w/the same processor.

[joe]

Even if Apple agrees with Barefeats and lowers their G5 iMac game benchmarks, the iMac still needs a more capable GPU for the home computer market. Hopefully Apple will upgrade the GPU at the refresh. They're going to need something more than a few MHz as a selling point next year.

[P]

Originally posted by joe:
Even if Apple agrees with Barefeats and lowers their G5 iMac game benchmarks, the iMac still needs a more capable GPU for the home computer market. Hopefully Apple will upgrade the GPU at the refresh. They're going to need something more than a few MHz as a selling point next year.

Apple is never going to update their marketing material, I think. Yes, they will need something other than MHz at the refresh, but it could be other things: Bluetooth as standard, Gigabit Ethernet, Firewire 800, more HD or RAM as standard, new optical drives (dual layer?) etc. I just have a hard time seeing which chip Apple should switch to at this point. While the 9600 is a better choice, as I think all will agree by now, I suspect that a switch from nVidia to ATi is hard at this point - not to mention my point above (Apple doesn't see the iMac as a gaming machine, so why use an enthusiast board?). The 5500U? Sure, could be, but the difference to the 5200U is tiny. The 5700? A bit too hot, and not available on the Mac yet - why bring it over now when the 6x00 boards are already here? 6200? PCIe only at this point (see separate thread) - but it's still the most likely if nVidia decides to put an AGP version on the market. Note that the 6800 has an AGP version, so it's not impossible. It could just be 9 long months and nothing new at the end of it.

[jewing80]

So far, at least from what I�ve read, Barefeats is the only publication/website calling Apple to task on the GPU performance claims. Although Barefeats may be well known in Mac communities they are a relatively small operation with limited visibility to the public. As such their really is no reason for Apple to modify their marketing or advertisements. While I don�t necessarily agree with the approach, it is very, very common in the corporate world. If CNET, PC Mag, Macworld or any other highly visible publication made similar claims Apple might reevaluate their position on the matter, as it stands today I doubt they will.

The fundamental problem with benchmarking anything mainstream or consumer is the attempt to quantify things that mean little or nothing to the target buyer. If I stood in front of an iMac display reciting benchmark scores to potential buyers how many do you think would comprehend let alone care what all the numbers meant. I was at the Apple Store at The Grove in LA this past Saturday and I took some time to really watch and listen to some of the potential buyers looking at the new iMac. Of the myriad of questions that I heard asked not once did anyone question the graphics card/gaming performance. Does this mean people don�t care? Not necessarily, but it does illustrate that when considering the purchase of a highly stylized (to the point of novelty for some), fairly pricy, mainstream computer, gaming performance, at least in the small test group I observed, was not paramount.

This of course has nothing to do with the facts of the original post. If Barefeats benchmarks are taken as the truth Apple did/continues to make unsubstantiated claims and/or inflate results to better position their product. Unfortunately the practical ramifications of such claims are absolutely nil. The concept of acceptable deception is very common and in most cases unquestioned in industry. How many of us actually get 4.5 hours of battery life out of our Powerbooks?

Would a better GPU make the iMac more desirable? Of course. More is generally always accepted as better, especially in the computer world. From Apple�s standpoint they must look at the potential sales loss vs. profit gain by going with an older thus less expensive GPU. For their target buyer who wants to occasionally play Tony Hawk, watch DVDs and listen to music the included GPU is perfectly fine. For the hundreds or thousands of us who know enough about technology to understand the addition of a better GPU would greatly extend the life of our machine the 5200 maybe a deal breaker. For the hundreds of thousands who don�t know, don�t care, or just don�t need high caliper graphics performance the GPU issue will be irrelevant.

We would all like to think Apple cares about our needs; that they will go out of their way to produce the highest end product they can. In actuality they are a business, a for profit business. They can not make everyone happy. Had they included a 128 MB Radeon 9600 and raised the price to let�s say $2299, how many people would be complaining that the machine was overpriced?

Personally I�m still on the fence. The Radeon 9000 in my Ti still works just fine for my needs so GPU performance is not my primary concern. Seeing as I loved my 20� CD and I don�t necessarily have to have a notebook the iMac looks to have a great deal of potential. At this point I�m waiting to see if there are any radical changes in the next revision of the Powerbooks before I spend the $2000.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by jewing80:
Had they included a 128 MB Radeon 9600 and raised the price to let�s say $2299, how many people would be complaining that the machine was overpriced?[/B]

That's exceptionally unlikely considering it's only $50 to upgrade a G5 tower from a 5200 to a 9600XT.

[jewing80]

I�m not talking about adding it as an option; I�m talking about the initial unit pricing. Apple could introduce a model at any price they want as long as it falls in a range of perceived acceptability. It�s easy to now say a $50 option would result in a minimal cost above the baseline, i.e. $100 price increase. However prior to launch there is no actual baseline, the launch price becomes that baseline. So far as I can tell prior to introduction a $2100-$2300 price point although high would not have been inconceivable considering the addition of the G5 and overall size reduction.

[QuadG5Man]

This board should not be used to speculate on the iMacs GPU, it should be used to discuss the fact that Apple is claiming ~ 200% faster performance over iMac G4 when in reality it's ~ 50%.

Let's get on topic.

I find Apple's false claims shocking. I bet now they'll back up and say the 'preproduction unit' used for testing had a better video card. I thought Apple was above shifty #$%@ like this. What happened here? Aren't mac folk offended by this? I am.

[joe]

Originally posted by QuadG5Man:
What happened here? Aren't mac folk offended by this? I am.

I'm not offended. I checked out Rob's FX5200 G5 Tower benchmarks at Barefeats.com before ordering my iMac. So I had a good idea of what to expect. I'd put Apple's exaggerated iMac game performance in the same category as print speed, pixel response, and hard drive capacity - typical marketing hype. That's why sites like Barefeats, xlr8yourmac, and these forums exist.

I'm actually more offended by one of Apple's responses to the iMac GPU that went something like (from memory - may not be 100% accurate) "look to the G5 Towers for hard core gaming." That completely misses the point.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by joe:
I'm not offended. I checked out Rob's FX5200 G5 Tower benchmarks at Barefeats.com before ordering my iMac. So I had a good idea of what to expect. I'd put Apple's exaggerated iMac game performance in the same category as print speed, pixel response, and hard drive capacity - typical marketing hype. That's why sites like Barefeats, xlr8yourmac, and these forums exist.

True, but only to the extent that if Apple had only presented qualitative stuff along the lines of "it's a great gaming machine, with a cool graphics card". But they didn't... they put benchmarks - quantitative representations, numbers, whatever you want to call them - up. Those benchmarks have had a serious amount of doubt cast over them.

Now, if it turns out (as most people suspect) that those numbers are false, you could well have a legal basis for nullifying the contract between you and Apple for the purchase of the machine. They held out a specific performance figure, which a number of people would have seen and probably taken into account when they purchased the machine (else why put it up at all?).

If it's wrong, you could quite rightly claim that you purchased the machine on a false premise. At the least, I imagine this argument would get you your money back.

I'm actually more offended by one of Apple's responses to the iMac GPU that went something like (from memory - may not be 100% accurate) "look to the G5 Towers for hard core gaming." That completely misses the point.

That pisses me off too, because it does miss the point. It shouldn't be "if you're joe blow average" buy the iMac, and if you want one tiny little thing different about the machine, "sorry, you have to spend an extra $X000 to get what you want". Have a mid level offering (i.e. monitor and everything else) under $2000 with a decent graphics card is a mainstay. That Apple don't offer it, and expect you to buy a pro machine to get it, really, really sucks.

-- james

[terrancew_hod]

Originally posted by jamesa:
That pisses me off too, because it does miss the point. It shouldn't be "if you're joe blow average" buy the iMac, and if you want one tiny little thing different about the machine, "sorry, you have to spend an extra $X000 to get what you want". Have a mid level offering (i.e. monitor and everything else) under $2000 with a decent graphics card is a mainstay. That Apple don't offer it, and expect you to buy a pro machine to get it, really, really sucks.

-- james

And don't forget even then will have to swap out the GPU for a better card as well. I'll plan on getting a Powermac w/6800, but not after Doom 3 is released and the Powermac gets up to around 3GHz. Until then, I'm buying that big Dell Laptop monstrosity because it's somewhat mobile (will be staying between several cities for the next few months) and it's the only laptop (to date) with the ATI Mobility 9800 in it. That way I can finish playing Doom 3 on better equipment than i have now.

Terrance

[dandbj]

Originally posted by QuadG5Man:
Let's get on topic.

I find Apple's false claims shocking. I bet now they'll back up and say the 'preproduction unit' used for testing had a better video card. I thought Apple was above shifty #$%@ like this. What happened here? Aren't mac folk offended by this? I am.

Bingo!

A person loses all credibility at the point when they start defending blatant lies. You knew they were lying when they claimed the difference was in the screen size. Shoot! You knew they were lying when they started pimping high-end gaming performance. We all know the target market for the iMac is those who don't know what a graphics card is. If you are techy enough to check the claims or be suspicious of them, then you are not the target market. Apple is trying to deceive the uninformed into thinking that all those games they hear their kids talking about will scream on the iMac just like on the PC. They are trying to convince new gamers who are not in the platform know that they can experience the same kind of gaming performance on the Mac as they can on a PC. Not everyone knows that Macs blow for gaming. You think salespeople are divulging that fact? Apple just believes that people will believe it if it is in print and won't question it. When it comes to the target market, their right. That's why it's despicable.

What is this talk of acceptable deception? That's called FALSE ADVERTISING! It is not "regrettable" or "unfortunate", it's ILLEGAL! It doesn't matter who else has gotten away with it.

My biggest gripe here is not so much with Apple for doing it. They have done such things many times in the past. It is the fan-boy apologist who idealizes Apple as a better, more moral, more people-centric company that really pisses me off. You people who think that Apple is the "good guys" really get on my nerves. They are as slimy, greedy, crafty, shifty, deceptive, corrupt, and downright evil as everyone else. They do not care about you. They do not like you. They are not your friend. They laugh at you behind your back and they spit on your loyalty. You are an easy mark to them, nothing more. They can lie to your face and you still defend them. No wonder they don't respect you.

The irony is they make great products for what they are. The iMac is a great lifestyle machine at a great price (for those who have more money than average). Apple could have told the complete, unvarnished, no-hype truth about the machine and it would not have taken anything away from it. Instead, they chose to push it into a category that it was not meant for and lie their way into a few extra sales. Don't bother bad mouthing the marketing department. SJ is the one at the helm. Nothing on those pages gets there without his approval.

I don't know why I let my blood pressure rise over this stuff. Anyway I feel much better now. Truth is, I might purchase one of these things eventually. I just hate being lied to and treated like a fool. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

[Commodus]

Apple doesn't necessarily need to make the iMac's GPU faster (although it almost certainly will with the next revision - the FX 5200 has been around since 2003). What they really need to do is to lower the entry price on the PowerMac lineup. Even $1799 would be better.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Commodus:
Apple doesn't necessarily need to make the iMac's GPU faster (although it almost certainly will with the next revision - the FX 5200 has been around since 2003). What they really need to do is to lower the entry price on the PowerMac lineup. Even $1799 would be better.

I think a bit more overlap over the product lines would help matters. Whether that means moving the iMac up or the PowerMac down, giving users more choice can only be a good thing

-- james

[Link]

I think if apple is going to argue with barefeats and perhaps hint at taking the benchmarks down, barefeats should sue apple for false advertising -- nuff said.

[joe]

Originally posted by jamesa:
If it's wrong, you could quite rightly claim that you purchased the machine on a false premise. At the least, I imagine this argument would get you your money back.

I guess I'm not quite as upset about that part because I knew what to expect. But even if I were, I doubt I'd get my money back. Otherwise BenQ, Epson, HP, Samsung, and pretty much the rest of the tech industry would already have been held accountable for specs ranging from print speed <arguably the most innacurate> to hard drive capacity. And anyone even casually running FPS shooters will tell you a 12ms LCD pixel response doesn't come close to the speed of an 83Hz CRT. This has been an unfortunate industry trend for years. And it really sux to see Apple following that trend. But I'd rather see this addressed across the entire tech industry than single out Apple.

Have a mid level offering (i.e. monitor and everything else) under $2000 with a decent graphics card is a mainstay. That Apple don't offer it, and expect you to buy a pro machine to get it, really, really sucks.

Exactly! I'd add that it should be available in an iMac rather than a new lower priced Tower. Again - I wouldn't expect a high end GPU. But it should least have an option for a mid-level GPU.

[joe]

Originally posted by dandbj:
What is this talk of acceptable deception? That's called FALSE ADVERTISING! It is not "regrettable" or "unfortunate", it's ILLEGAL! It doesn't matter who else has gotten away with it.

...They are as slimy, greedy, crafty, shifty, deceptive, corrupt, and downright evil as everyone else. They do not care about you. They do not like you. They are not your friend. They laugh at you behind your back and they spit on your loyalty.

It's not "acceptable deception", it sucks! But I take issue with the precise opposite fanatic that bashes the hell out of Apple for the same crap the entire industry pulls. It DOES matter who else is getting away with it.

[joe]

Originally posted by Commodus:
Apple doesn't necessarily need to make the iMac's GPU faster (although it almost certainly will with the next revision - the FX 5200 has been around since 2003). What they really need to do is to lower the entry price on the PowerMac lineup. Even $1799 would be better.

I'm all for lowering prices But I don't want another Tower. The iMac desperately needs a decent mid-range GPU. It doesn't matter if it's standard or a BTO. Gamers would pay a little more for a decent GPU. And those that aren't into gaming would save money going with the standard FX5200.

[klinux]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
You're saying that iTunes is not MP aware? I don't even know how to respond to that one other than to say that the rip speed of a dual is nearly double that of an equally clocked single processor system.

As far as the other iApps, I have no concrete proof. I have just read repeatedly that Apple has made all of their apps MP aware. And it certainly makes sense since most of Apple's Power Mac sales for the past four years have been duals.

What? So you are saying just because most PM sales are dual therefore iApps are MP aware. I am sorry but that deductive reasoning does not work in this case. In order to prove that the iApps are MP aware, show me some bench marks where something is twice as fast on a dualie than a single.

Case in point, this is an example where something is MP optimized:


This, for example, clearly shows iMovie is not dual optimized:
.

iMovie is one app that can benefit from MP optimization more than any other iApp - wouldn't you think Apple would optimize iMovie first before iTunes?

Furthermore, the reason why you believe that "Apple has made all of their apps MP aware" is because it is oft-repeated here. Where's the proof? As you said, you have no concrete evidence. Instead, you have people here saying "look at how many threads iTunes got!"

Don't take my word for it. Talk to your CS prof or a programmer. Find out how easy it is to make something multiprocessor aware.

If you do, you will find that it is notoriously difficult to make an application MP aware. In fact, it is not worthwhile on all but the most expensive (time, cost, resource, etc) application/process. Therefore, I laugh at remarks of people who thinks iCal, iChat, Safari are MP aware. You think if all iApps are MP aware wouldn't you think Apple would mention that?

[Luca Rescigno]

What about OS X managing tasks between the two processors? Maybe iMovie can only take advantage of one processor at a time, but if you're rendering something in iMovie in the background, won't OS X then allocate the other processor to other tasks? In that regard, you will see a major improvement, because the processor being used for iMovie will be left alone and you'll have a whole other processor for handling other stuff.

Correct?

[Lateralus]

Okay klinux, I give. You kicked my ass real good with your mountain-o-evidence.

[klinux]

Correct. OS X does a fabulous job in managing tasks between dual processors and Powermac demonstrate that quite capably. Given a choice, anyone of us here would take a dualie.

Nevertheless, there is a big difference beween a MP-aware app that can utitlize two CPUs and a non-MP aware app that runs sightly faster on a dualie due to its using 100% of one of the two CPUs available instead of 80% of one CPU.

Originally posted by Lateralus:
Okay klinux, I give. You kicked my ass real good with your mountain-o-evidence.

Now now, this is not about who's kicking who's ass. I just want the correct information to be passed along to people as I too once considered a dualie but ended up not getting one because I do not use any of the applications were MP aware. If you choose to spread blatant misinformation, like saying like all iApp is MP aware including Safari, well, someone else has to correct it.

Here's another example, check out Macworld's benchmark. There's no major difference between iTunes' and iMovie's performance running on a single and a dual 1.8 ghz G5. However, one can see the processing time of Cinema 4D, which has been MP aware for 7+ years, cut by half as it harnesses the power of two CPUs.

[UnixMac]

I see it like this, for the $.. the iMac G5 is not a bad deal. I ordered one for my mom to replace her aged G4 400mhz tower, and it's gonna be a major leap in performance for her. She's a Safari, Mail, iPhoto type user and the iMac is basically meant for the iApp user.. not for the hard core 3D gamer.... and Apple shouldn't have bragged about the graphics like they did.

I think the higher end iMac should have come with a 128mb card like the 9600XT or equivalent. But really, if you want a super gaming machine, you have to fork out a lot more than $1200-$2000 inclusive of a 20" flat screen display. In Apple land, you have to spend just north of $8000 (like I did on my machine) to achieve great gaming, and digital performance which frankly is a testament to how stupid we Apple users can be sometimes when a PC for 1/4 the price can do almost (not quite though) the same!

[P]

There is now a good gaming Mac - the single G5 tower. Upgrade with whatever you want in the AGP slot, get a CRT (better for gaming anyway, the lower response rate is annoying in LCD gaming) and you're set. And no, it's not cheap compared to Dell or whatever, but it's OK (I can't seem to BTO two machines that are comparable), and the "Mac tax" is IMHO worth it.

And I know that I'm repeating myself: The iMac was never meant to be a gaming rig. This is the machine that was missing from Apple's lineup. Now all we need is PCIe - that's the reason Apple can't offer say a 6600 or X700. The gap between the 9800 and the 6800 is sort of large.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by P:
There is now a good gaming Mac - the single G5 tower. Upgrade with whatever you want in the AGP slot, get a CRT (better for gaming anyway, the lower response rate is annoying in LCD gaming) and you're set. And no, it's not cheap compared to Dell or whatever, but it's OK (I can't seem to BTO two machines that are comparable), and the "Mac tax" is IMHO worth it.

And I know that I'm repeating myself: The iMac was never meant to be a gaming rig. This is the machine that was missing from Apple's lineup. Now all we need is PCIe - that's the reason Apple can't offer say a 6600 or X700. The gap between the 9800 and the 6800 is sort of large.

Well said... totally, 100% agree... iMac is just that... an iMac, not a Gaming rig (which is the other end of the speed/power spectrum). Apple should remove the Game stats and focus on itoons, ichat, etc...

[dandbj]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Well said... totally, 100% agree... iMac is just that... an iMac, not a Gaming rig (which is the other end of the speed/power spectrum). Apple should remove the Game stats and focus on itoons, ichat, etc...

And that has been my whole point, well, mostly. The other part is that Apple should not get a pass from its fans or the media when it makes measurably false and misleading claims about its products. The over the top copy about the iMac's standout gaming performance is clearly intended to purposely deceive the uninformed. Let's face it. The technically uniformed is largely who the iMac is targeted for.

[Bookie]

I really don't understand Apple carrying over the same graphics card from the previous version. When they replaced the gumdrop with the lamp, they swapped out the Rage 128-16 for the GeForce2-32, a marked improvement. Logically, they should have gone grom the 5200 Ultra-64 to something better with 128, say a Radeon 9600. If you want to wow people with a new design, don't skimp on the innards. The 5200 is the only thing keeping me from buying one, based on performance reports like Bare Feats and Tom's Hardware. It's a total bottleneck for any graphics intensive task.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Bookie:
I really don't understand Apple carrying over the same graphics card from the previous version. When they replaced the gumdrop with the lamp, they swapped out the Rage 128-16 for the GeForce2-32, a marked improvement. Logically, they should have gone grom the 5200 Ultra-64 to something better with 128, say a Radeon 9600. If you want to wow people with a new design, don't skimp on the innards. The 5200 is the only thing keeping me from buying one, based on performance reports like Bare Feats and Tom's Hardware. It's a total bottleneck for any graphics intensive task.

Have you seen Apple's stock price lately? Skimp is corporate america these days, all companies, and all departments.... And S. Job's is a "liberal democrat" with the likes of Gore on his board... don't kid yourself... IF they can sell it to the masses, they don't care what the few enlightened web surfers think.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Have you seen Apple's stock price lately? Skimp is corporate america these days, all companies, and all departments.... And S. Job's is a "liberal democrat" with the likes of Gore on his board... don't kid yourself... IF they can sell it to the masses, they don't care what the few enlightened web surfers think.

So...your saying the reason that the iMac didn't get a new video card is because Jobs is a democrat?

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by discotronic:
So...your saying the reason that the iMac didn't get a new video card is because Jobs is a democrat?

... basically.

No! you silly, just making the point that the so called greedy corporate Republican machine is also running smoothly deep inside the bowls of the Democratic party.

Totally off topic... forget I ever said it. It was just because he had a Kerry/Edwards ad in his signature.

The main point is that iMac buyers aren't concerned with high end graphics (with the exception of us here.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
... basically.

No! you silly, just making the point that the so called greedy corporate Republican machine is also running smoothly deep inside the bowls of the Democratic party.

Totally off topic... forget I ever said it. It was just because he had a Kerry/Edwards ad in his signature.

The main point is that iMac buyers aren't concerned with high end graphics (with the exception of us here.

Just giving you a hard time

Your post gave me a laugh.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by discotronic:
Just giving you a hard time

Your post gave me a laugh.

anytime.

[P]

Originally posted by Bookie:
I really don't understand Apple carrying over the same graphics card from the previous version. When they replaced the gumdrop with the lamp, they swapped out the Rage 128-16 for the GeForce2-32, a marked improvement. Logically, they should have gone grom the 5200 Ultra-64 to something better with 128, say a Radeon 9600. If you want to wow people with a new design, don't skimp on the innards. The 5200 is the only thing keeping me from buying one, based on performance reports like Bare Feats and Tom's Hardware. It's a total bottleneck for any graphics intensive task.

I suspect that the compactness of the sunflower iMac made it necessary to have a non-standard, compact, connection between the graphics chip, it's memory and the motherboard - AGP slots are large. You presumeably save a lot of space by integrating these features into chipset (nVidia does something similar in the nForce board son the PC side).

Apple had already decided to go with nVidia at that point (ATi had burned their boats with the preannoucing thing) and had developed the connection with them. They could only use nVidia chips in it, and used the weakest chip nVidia had. Note that the very first revision switched to Geforce4 MX - not a lot better, but still an improvement. Future upgrades followed the pattern of using nVidia's low-end.

This is pure conjecture, of course, but if the same design is carried forward into the iMac G5, we can yell for a 9600 until the cows come home. We get an nVidia chip, and with the 5700 being much too hot, a 5200 it is - until PCIe, or until nVidia backports the 6200 to AGP.

And btw, the chip in the last slot-loaders was a Rage 128 Pro/16 MB. </nitpick>

[iBorg]

Originally posted by P:
And btw, the chip in the last slot-loaders was a Rage 128 Pro/16 MB. </nitpick>

Having been discontinued way back in February of 2003, how does the graphics card of the "gumdrop" G3 iMac relate to the demands of the G5 iMac released in late 2004, 2 iMac generations later???



iBorg

[P]

Originally posted by iBorg:
Having been discontinued way back in February of 2003, how does the graphics card of the "gumdrop" G3 iMac relate to the demands of the G5 iMac released in late 2004, 2 iMac generations later???



iBorg

Not a lot. I just felt that since I have been correcting 5200 to 5200 Ultra so many times by now I probably ought to be consistent. There was also just a tiny bit of self-irony there.

[QuadG5Man]

So much for this thread staying on the topic of Apple's over-inflated iMac G5 benchmarks.....there's another thread to complain about the 5200 GPU, sigh...

BTW, today barefeats.com pointed out that Apple has indeed changed the iMac G5's gaming benchmark graphic to more resemble the barefeats findings.

from barefeats.com

"December 27th, 2004 -- Apple has updated their iMac G5 game graphs. They now show the iMac G5/1.8 as 47% faster than the iMac G4/1.25 when running Halo and 99% faster when running UT2004. Those percentages are more realistic than their original posting of the 179% and 212% respective advantage -- and now closely match our findings. You might recall the article we posted challenging the original graphs."

Better late than never?

Qg5m

[Pierre B.]

Originally posted by QuadG5Man:
Better late than never?

Certainly. Especially when no one can see the alleged performance improvements.

[Kenneth]

I read that as well.

Used to be this. (data from Aug/2004)



Now. (data from Nov/2004)