[analogika]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

IThe way you say that makes it sound like sane people wouldn't ever care about computer hardware and messing around with computer hardware. This isn't the case. Some people simply enjoy working with hardware and upgrading their machines, similar to how some people inexplicably enjoy complex physics or math as a hobby. Macs are flat-out not designed with the hardware/hardcore geek in mind.

Oh, I didn't mean to insult anybody.

But the market of people who don't consider a car "theirs" unless they've completely disassembled it, upgraded or replaced some parts, and re-assembled it at least once a year is VERY small compared to the market that owns a car that takes them shopping.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by analogika 

But the market of people who don't consider a car "theirs" unless they've completely disassembled it, upgraded or replaced some parts, and re-assembled it at least once a year is VERY small compared to the market that owns a car that takes them shopping.

Excellent analogy!

[ghporter]

I completely agree with Railroader-great analogy! I have upped the RAM in both my MBP and my mid'07 iMac, but they are no less "mine." Having put together a large number of PCs, I can't say that my Macs are any less mine because I didn't get all scraped up working inside them... (Yes, even with "safety" PC frames and everything, I ALWAYS manage to find a way to cut or scrape myself inside one.)

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Oh, I didn't mean to insult anybody.

But the market of people who don't consider a car "theirs" unless they've completely disassembled it, upgraded or replaced some parts, and re-assembled it at least once a year is VERY small compared to the market that owns a car that takes them shopping.

If anything, taking apart my Power Mac (and losing a few ounces of blood) has made me not want to ever rip apart a computer again.

[Si-man]

I've just seen the new iMac - it's fantastic! I would recommend one in a breath. It's so fast (most of the apps opened instantaneously) and looks great. Hi gloss finish isn't the horror that most would leave you to believe.

Recommend!

Don't see the point in all this upgrade stuff, RAM aside. Sell your old mac for a good s/h price and buy a new system. Will give you much more than swapping the chip out for a faster one.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

If anything, taking apart my Power Mac (and losing a few ounces of blood) has made me not want to ever rip apart a computer again.

The same thing happens to many people with a car restoration project. I think I have seen more cars in the middle of an restoration attempt that will never get finished than I have seen of completed restorations.

[Si-man]

You've hit the nail on the head Railroader.

Stop dreamin' start livin'

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Si-man 

I've just seen the new iMac - it's fantastic! I would recommend one in a breath. It's so fast (most of the apps opened instantaneously) and looks great. Hi gloss finish isn't the horror that most would leave you to believe.

Let's see if you're actually qualified to judge its weak points:

1. Do you usually hate glossy screens?
2. Do you play any games?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Let's see if you're actually qualified to judge its weak points:

1. Do you usually hate glossy screens?
2. Do you play any games?

Well, we've already heard one other guy extoll one of the biggest "weak points" of this machine:

It's not battery-powered.

Do you usually use a laptop?

If not, you're obviously not qualified to judge its weak points.

Right?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Well, we've already heard one other guy extoll one of the biggest "weak points" of this machine:

It's not battery-powered.

Do you usually use a laptop?

If not, you're obviously not qualified to judge its weak points.

Right?

Uh…what? (The answer is yes, I do use a laptop, though I didn't understand anything around that.)

[analogika]

Nor did your post make any sense, for exactly the same reasons.

What sort of circuitous logic dictates that his needs must be completely contrary to what the iMac is aimed at for him to be able to judge its weaknesses?


"Unless you hate desktops, you're not actually qualified to judge it's weak point: its lack of battery power."

Dig?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

What sort of circuitous logic dictates that his needs must be completely contrary to what the iMac is aimed at for him to be able to judge its weaknesses?

I didn't ask him to use it as a corporate server; I asked him whether he cares about things it's supposed to be good for but isn't (i.e., consumer gaming and a good display). If he doesn't use it for these things, fine, it's still good for him — but that's not much comfort to anyone who would have been on the fence to begin with.

Originally Posted by analogika 

"Unless you hate desktops, you're not actually qualified to judge it's weak point: its lack of battery power."

Dig?

If the last generation of desktops had battery power, and the only significant difference here is that they removed the battery power, that might actually be a legitimate comparison. They didn't, and it's not.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I didn't ask him to use it as a corporate server; I asked him whether he cares about things it's supposed to be good for but isn't (i.e., consumer gaming and a good display). If he doesn't use it for these things, fine, it's still good for him — but that's not much comfort to anyone who would have been on the fence to begin with.

From a *consumer* standpoint, the screen on at least the 24" iMac is much *improved* - watching an HD video on it is quite the experience, really.

And honestly, the only reference to "consumer gaming" on the iMac I had to really *search* for, and this is it:

Originally Posted by http://www.apple.com/imac/technology/graphics.html

A powerful graphics processor with dedicated memory makes your entire computing experience better. Its job is to display 2D and 3D images on your display so that the CPU can focus on other computing tasks. The effects are most visible when working with three-dimensional graphics, high-resolution photos, high-definition video, and 3D games. But high-performance graphics also make such everyday tasks as viewing web pages and iPhoto libraries much faster, too.

That's a whole third of the page, there. Did you catch the reference?

Boy, they're sure marketing the hell out of it as a consumer gaming machine, aren't they?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If the last generation of desktops had battery power, and the only significant difference here is that they removed the battery power, that might actually be a legitimate comparison. They didn't, and it's not.

Ah, I see what you mean.

But again, the screen is actually *improved* over the last version (on the 24").

And if you considered the old iMac suitable for real professional graphics work, or for heavy gaming, then I'm not quite sure where you're coming from on this.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

And honestly, the only reference to "consumer gaming" on the iMac I had to really *search* for, and this is it:


That's a whole third of the page, there. Did you catch the reference?

Still, it does say the iMac is good for games. There are also several parts of the Gaming section of the site that tout the iMac for games (actually, it says the iMac is equivalent to a high-powered gaming rig, but I know them copywriters sometimes get carried away in their prose). I know it's not the main thrust of the iMac's advertising, but I don't think you can say I'm being unreasonable if I expect it to play games fairly well.

Originally Posted by analogika 

And if you considered the old iMac suitable for real professional graphics work, or for heavy gaming, then I'm not quite sure where you're coming from on this.

I'm going in the direction of "The new iMac is worse in both areas." Glossy screens are piss-poor for color graphics. Even for the fairly imprecise newspaper color I mostly work with these days, a glossy screen is noticeably worse than a matte screen.

[analogika]

Yes, but for watching DVDs, and for home entertainment, the glossy screen totally kicks ass.

[Chuckit]

True, but if that's the only thing you want it for, you can save about 2300% and get a $99 DVD player.

[analogika]

*sigh*

AND a $900 TV.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm going in the direction of "The new iMac is worse in both areas." Glossy screens are piss-poor for color graphics. Even for the fairly imprecise newspaper color I mostly work with these days, a glossy screen is noticeably worse than a matte screen.

And then there's those photographers of us who color accuracy is paramount and appreciate the sharpness and (yes, I'm going to say it) color accuracy. The negative effects of a glossy surface is eliminated in a room that does not reflect in the screen. I work in a relatively dark room and the glossy screen is preferred for it's depth of blacks, color saturation, and sharpness.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

And then there's those photographers of us who color accuracy is paramount and appreciate the sharpness and (yes, I'm going to say it) color accuracy. The negative effects of a glossy surface is eliminated in a room that does not reflect in the screen. I work in a relatively dark room and the glossy screen is preferred for it's depth of blacks, color saturation, and sharpness.

Sorry, but you are NOT getting accurate colors.

You are getting OVERsaturated colors and artificially enhanced contrast, much the same way Velvia and Ektachrome film will overemphasize colors to make everything seem more "vivid".

Those photographers to whom colour accuracy is paramount are HELL-BENT on AVOIDING glossy displays, because they are not, and can never be, colour-neutral.

Consumers love Velvia and Ektachrome because it makes everything seem much more "lifelike" and colorful than it actually was, but it's how they remember it. And they love glossy displays for the same reasons.

But anybody whose PROFESSION it is to carve out precisely those nuances would NEVER work on a display he couldn't trust.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Sorry, but you are NOT getting accurate colors.

You are getting OVERsaturated colors and artificially enhanced contrast, much the same way Velvia and Ektachrome film will overemphasize colors to make everything seem more "vivid".

Those photographers to whom colour accuracy is paramount are HELL-BENT on AVOIDING glossy displays, because they are not, and can never be, colour-neutral.

Consumers love Velvia and Ektachrome because it makes everything seem much more "lifelike" and colorful than it actually was, but it's how they remember it. And they love glossy displays for the same reasons.

But anybody whose PROFESSION it is to carve out precisely those nuances would NEVER work on a display he couldn't trust.

After calibrating the screen on my MacBook, it is definitely less "vivid" than it was from the factory. but you have to remember, LCDS have horrible color accuracy to begin with. The only thing that changed going from a matte finish screen to one with a glossy coating was the amount of light that is output. Matte screens tend to wash out blacks and de-saturate colors.

In a room that does not reflect light onto the screen, glossy will give you a deeper color gamut and better black reproduction.

Now, if you are working in a big office with lots of overhead lighting and an abundance of windows that reflect on the screen, then matte is better.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

After calibrating the screen on my MacBook...

How did you do that calibration? I've scanned this thread but not found a mention of a tool to do this. I have a matte MBP and a glossy iMac-both "look gorgeous" to me, but I'm certain that the blues in the default desktop are not exactly the same on both.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

After calibrating the screen on my MacBook, it is definitely less "vivid" than it was from the factory. but you have to remember, LCDS have horrible color accuracy to begin with. The only thing that changed going from a matte finish screen to one with a glossy coating was the amount of light that is output. Matte screens tend to wash out blacks and de-saturate colors.

Apart from the fact that every single photography and graphics professional I have talked to has completely disagreed with what you're saying, everything I've read on the web *also* suggests the contrary.

I'm not a pixel-pusher, so I'll just stop here.

Might I suggest you talk to this guy, though: Rob Galbraith DPI: Home

They've been evaluating every laptop LCD for use in photography for years. They were also the guys that decided that the current LED-lit 15" MacBook Pro screens are by far the best screens ever used in any laptop: Rob Galbraith DPI: Evaluating the MacBook Pro 15 inch LED-backlit display .

He doesn't have specific references to glossy vs. matte displays, but I'm sure he'll be able to say a thing or two on the subject.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

How did you do that calibration? I've scanned this thread but not found a mention of a tool to do this. I have a matte MBP and a glossy iMac-both "look gorgeous" to me, but I'm certain that the blues in the default desktop are not exactly the same on both.

I started with a Pantone Eye One. I also have a color calibration print from a color calibration place that I use to compare it to.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Apart from the fact that every single photography and graphics professional I have talked to has completely disagreed with what you're saying, everything I've read on the web *also* suggests the contrary.

I'm not a pixel-pusher, so I'll just stop here.

Fine. Again, tell me what the difference is in the pixels of a LCD screen with a matte finish and a glossy finish? I'll give you a hint, not a thing. The Matte finish will wash out light coming from the screen a lot more than a screen with a glossy finish. It will also diffuse edges and add a slight blur.

Originally Posted by analogika 

Might I suggest you talk to this guy, though: Rob Galbraith DPI: Home

They've been evaluating every laptop LCD for use in photography for years. They were also the guys that decided that the current LED-lit 15" MacBook Pro screens are by far the best screens ever used in any laptop: Rob Galbraith DPI: Evaluating the MacBook Pro 15 inch LED-backlit display .

He doesn't have specific references to glossy vs. matte displays, but I'm sure he'll be able to say a thing or two on the subject.

I will certainly agree with the LED comments. The fluorescent tube used on most LCD panels is the largest flaw with LCD screens and color accuracy. I also keep a Apple CRT for extremely high end work and about the only difference is in the intensity of the blacks and a slight difference in blues that I cannot eliminate with my MacBook LCD screen. But not a single person who has seen the two next to each other has noticed even when I pointed it out to them.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I also keep a Apple CRT for extremely high end work and about the only difference is in the intensity of the blacks and a slight difference in blues that I cannot eliminate with my MacBook LCD screen. But not a single person who has seen the two next to each other has noticed even when I pointed it out to them.

That's good to hear.

I think you might be of help in this thread: http://forums.macnn.com/66/macbook-a...ations-needed/

How do you deal with the off-axis colour shift on the MacBook?

One reason why all photographers I've met completely rejected the glossy displays - at least in the MacBooks/MacBook Pros - is because if you move ten degrees to the right, the whole screen gets a yellowish tinge.

Quote one of them "That's complete bullshit! - Show something to a client on location and you'll NEVER be talking about the same image!"

Verdict: Unusable.

This problem is not *nearly* as pronounced with matte screens, due to the differences in how light is diffused by the surface.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

*sigh*

AND a $900 TV.

If you're paying $900 for your TV, you'd better be getting something better than 24 inches. Seriously, the iMac is good for a lot of things, but if you just want to watch movies and stuff, you can get better equipment for a lot less than $2200.

[kcmac]

If I didn't know better, I would have thought I have stepped into the Battlefront....

The iMac is awesome. It has jumped from the consumer to the prosumer. Doesn't mean it truly competes with the Mac Pro, but for a lot of us professionals, it is as much or more than we need. And at a great price.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you're paying $900 for your TV, you'd better be getting something better than 24 inches. Seriously, the iMac is good for a lot of things, but if you just want to watch movies and stuff, you can get better equipment for a lot less than $2200.

It's the "and stuff" part that most TV's don't exactly excel at.

But before this drifts off into facetiousness: I think we've both made our points.

[Si-man]

If I didn't know better, I would have thought I have stepped into the Battlefront....

he he looks like you have!

Let's see if you're actually qualified to judge its weak points:

1. Do you usually hate glossy screens?
2. Do you play any games?

Err.. yes and yes!

Do I qualify?

I've been a web designer for ten years. I've been from matte to glossy and back to matte. I didn't like the gloss finish on my (pc) laptop and was glad when I went back to Matte. The gloss gave solid fills a gradient, which looked cool but didn't help when matching colours. The imac is different because you look at the screen head on. I currently have a superb formac 20" screen - matte of course. I think it uses better technology than the current imac screens (MVA as opposed to TN). I was still impressed with the new iMac.

Been playing computer games since the original doom. Just recently had a blast from the past: Duke Nukem. It ran fast on my G4 mini I have to say that the zero level loading times more than made up for dated graphics. I've played Age Of Mythology etc on a mac too. If you're into fast action games though, I can't believe you'd want to use a mac. (no offence) I've done clan Doom3 and I tell you, those guys change processors & gfx cards every 6 months. They don't care that the imac will last them 6 years, they want the fastest thing possible. Seriously.

So where is this going?

[RumorsAreWrong]

Si-Mann, you're obviously new here, but the issue is the LAST 24" iMac could play doom3 flawlessly, it can play almost any new game at full resolution with incredible speed. The new graphics card in the newest iMac is crap in comparison.

[analogika]

**** off, Rob.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by analogika 

**** off, Rob.

In this thread, that's not a bad sentiment--but it is the WRONG way to express it. "Buzz off"... "Toddle off..." "Flake off..." etc. would be more effective and not invoke worse wording.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"Buzz off"... "Toddle off..." "Flake off..." etc. would be more effective...

I doubt it's effective at all. Effective would be to ban every nick he choses. There's a report button to notify mods about inappropriate posts. Adding comments like the "**** off" above just fills threads with useless OT bloat. It certainly doesn't impress Rob either.

[analogika]

"Buzz off" is precisely what I wrote, of course.

I wasn't sure if it was permissible, so I censored it with asterisks before the forum software got to it.

[Macadvo]

The talk of upgrading towers always reminds me of the old joke,

"I've had this broom for 25 years. It's had four new handles and 6 new heads but it's the same broom!"

Although the form factor of the iMac is very appealing I too am holding off purchasing the 24 inch that I initially lusted after.

I'm waiting to see what Apple does with the Mac Pro line this year.

[Natz]

I find this thread quite interesting as I'm trying to make a decision on a new Mac at the moment.

I have to say that I think the iMac is a pretty good fit of a computer for a fair number of people, myself included.

I currently use a Mac mini, connected to a Dell 2407 widescreen display, which has been a lovely machine for me for iLife, web browsing, etc. Recently I've gotten into playing World of Warcraft, which the mini's intergrated graphics really struggles with at any decent resolution. I've not really played many games before so it's a requirement I didn't have when I purchased the mini.

I've been looking around at which Mac would be a good replacement system for me and I think I've decided on the iMac.

Initially I thought the Mac Pro might be a better buy because of it's "upgradabillity" however looking at the past, at the PowerMac G5, I'm left wondering just how "upgradable" this system will be.

In the Mac Pro there seem to be some very fast processors that I couldn't see myself having a need to upgrade before other bits of the system become outdated. It would also seem that the big difference for games would be the graphics card.

Looking at the previous options for the PowerMac G5 and the current lack of change in the Mac Pro graphics cards leaves me wondering if these systems are actually upgradable, will we see new graphics cards for the Mac Pro in the future or will the hardware be revised and the new cards are then only compatible with the next version Mac Pro?

Admittedly in my case this question is largely rhetorical as I don't anticipate playing anything but World of Warcraft with the system, but that said I didn't anticipate playing games when I bought the mini.

Either way I think it's a bit of a shame because I really do like the tiny Mac mini's size and styling, and I already have a very nice 24" display with handy USB ports and flash memory card readers in the side.

The new iMacs graphics card seems to be resonable for World of Warcraft, and after playing it on the built in graphics card of the mini I think it would definately be a big improvement.

I'm not terribly put off by the glossy screen as I'd still use my Dell flat panel as the main display, with the built in one as a secondary display.

I don't really want the second display of the iMac sitting there on my desk though and I tend to just turn the display off on my mini leaving it to always be ready for me to start using, I'm not sure what I'd have to do with the iMac to get the built in display to be off too during these times when I'm not using it.

Looking at the pricing of the Mac Pro, it would seem that I'd almost be able to buy two of the iMacs that I'm considering purchasing, for the price of the Mac Pro, which is hard to ignore when there would seem to be no guarantees that new graphics cards for the current Mac Pro will be available and the fact that for the same price I could buy an iMac now and replace it with another if and when I need a little more power.

I'm aware that you get a lot more power with the Mac Pro, but for me I think it's largely irrelevent.

If I'm overlooking something here please do let me know but otherwise I think I'll be purchasing a new iMac shortly

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Natz 

I currently use a Mac mini, connected to a Dell 2407 widescreen display, which has been a lovely machine for me for iLife, web browsing, etc. Recently I've gotten into playing World of Warcraft, which the mini's intergrated graphics really struggles with at any decent resolution. I've not really played many games before so it's a requirement I didn't have when I purchased the mini.

I've been looking around at which Mac would be a good replacement system for me and I think I've decided on the iMac.

Obviously the iMac is the next logical step up from a mini. If you're not playing a ton of games, or are spending hours working with photoshop or other pro software then the Mac Pro makes little sense. Unless of course you have the budget to splurge on such a great computer. It is more expandable, but that doesn't mean the iMac is inferior. Its a great computer that can hold its wait in most tasks.

Initially I thought the Mac Pro might be a better buy because of it's "upgradabillity" however looking at the past, at the PowerMac G5, I'm left wondering just how "upgradable" this system will be.

You can add a second optical drive, 3 other hard drives for a maximum of 4, swap out the GPU and even swap out the CPUs. Most people 99.99% will not touch the CPUs, I'm conjecturing a lot of the owners will not even upgrade the GPU. Perhaps at the time of purchase but not after that. Having 4 internal drive bays is a nice feature, a lot of people use the extra space to create a RAID array.

In the Mac Pro there seem to be some very fast processors that I couldn't see myself having a need to upgrade before other bits of the system become outdated. It would also seem that the big difference for games would be the graphics card.

You're right, and maybe I'm an atypical user but (and maybe no other upgrades are available) but I hve the X1900xt in my MacPro and I have no desire to upgrade that. Too much $$ was sunk into buying that and it does the job for me.

Either way I think it's a bit of a shame because I really do like the tiny Mac mini's size and styling, and I already have a very nice 24" display with handy USB ports and flash memory card readers in the side.

Sell both on ebay/craigs list this will help offset the cost of a new computer.

The new iMacs graphics card seems to be resonable for World of Warcraft, and after playing it on the built in graphics card of the mini I think it would definately be a big improvement.

First let me say I don't play games, so I'm going on what I've read. Throw out the hyperbole and see the actual iMac benchmarks and they seem decent, Frame rates appear to be high enough so as not to be a drag. I've seen benchmarks from macworld and barefeats (sorry no url handy) but again I'm not a gamer never played WOW so take my advice here for what its worth.
I'm not terribly put off by the glossy screen as I'd still use my Dell flat panel as the main display, with the built in one as a secondary display.

Finally because of the purchase price and potential usage of the computer that you've posted I'd say go for an iMac and not look back. The MacPro while more powerful and more expandable is much more expensive but it doesn't appear that you need that processing power and why pay for it.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by Natz 

I'm not terribly put off by the glossy screen as I'd still use my Dell flat panel as the main display, with the built in one as a secondary display.

I don't really want the second display of the iMac sitting there on my desk though and I tend to just turn the display off on my mini leaving it to always be ready for me to start using, I'm not sure what I'd have to do with the iMac to get the built in display to be off too during these times when I'm not using it.

Unless you are talking from prior experience of two displays, you might be surprised at how useful it actually is in practice.

FWIW, the new iMac will play WoW incredibly well*. Despite all the hooplah from certain parties at the forum, the new iMac and graphics card is actually better than the old top end 24" with Nvidia GeForce 7600 GT for WoW (according to Real World Speed Tests for Performance Minded Mac Users). Also, you shouldn't knock its potential as a gaming machine - if you are happy to play the current and older titles (that is, ones released today and for the past year and a half as Universal Binaries) for the next 3 years then it will be a great gaming machine. It is only going to start showing its limitations with newer titles released over that same period. FWIW, my ancient PowerBook still plays the Quake 4 demo passably well (at low resolution and without all the graphical niceties, of course, but it still looks good enough to me) and it is over 3 years old and is specced a fair bit below the recommended minimum requirements.

* Of course a top of the line PC will play it even better, but compared to a mini, the difference will be night and day.

[Simon]

It depends a lot on the type of games you play. If you'll stick with just WoW you'll be ok:


If however, you also want to play other games performance can change quite dramatically:

(Yes, that's an old 2.33 GHz iMac getting more than twice the frame rate of a new 2.8 GHz iMac!)

BareFeats is hoping for a HD 2600 driver update to improve the graphics performance on the new iMacs.

[ghporter]

Is there a perceptual difference in Quake 4 at a ~30 fps rate versus a 45 fps or 60+ fps rate? I don't have the game, so I can't just check it out myself. It looks like WoW gives at least TV-level frames on both of the new iMacs, so that's not a big problem. I just want to know if around 30 fps "feels" like live video, because US TV runs at a 30 fps rate, but that's 30 scan fields which are interlaced, and the interlacing is actually traced at a 60 hz rate.

[JKT]

So long as any game remains above 30 fps permanently, you are unlikely to be able to see any difference at all between 30fps and 200fps. The problem is that maintaining 30fps and above at all times is difficult in most high-end graphics games (e.g. if you have a lot of other players and enemies present on screen in Quake 4 even a top end PC will sometimes struggle).

(Edit: There is a demo of Quake 4 available for download if you want to see how well it runs.)

FWIW, the Quake 4 results are obviously a gross anomaly on the Mac side as the PC version posts less drastically different (XP) or very similar results (Vista) between the new and old iMac:



Evidently some optimisation is required from either ATi and/or id.

[ghporter]

I downloaded and tried the Q4 demo (and the technical term for my performance in the game is that "I suck at it"). I did notice a couple of places where the action wasn't as smooth as I'd have liked, but I couldn't tell if that was due to the effects (sparks flying, baddies popping out of walls, etc.) or the frame rate. It seemed ok to me-but just ok. It did not feel like "live TV," but it was close.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by JKT 

FWIW, the Quake 4 results are obviously a gross anomaly on the Mac side as the PC version posts less drastically different (XP) or very similar results (Vista) between the new and old iMac:
...
Evidently some optimisation is required from either ATi and/or id.

I think on the Mac this is more of a driver issue with the HD 2600 than just a Quake 4 problem. There are other game benchmarks where the old 2.33 GHz iMac easily beats the new 2.8 GHz iMac.



On the other hand, take a look at this. Although for WoW you could argue the new iMac will be just as good as the old one, take a look at how the 2600 compares to the old 7600 under Vista.



I'm anxious to see if driver improvements will lead to a more consistent picture. And of course I hope eventually the HD 2600 will beat the 7600 GT in every benchmark - especially when it's done on an iMac with a substantially better CPU and chipset.

[rubaiyat]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't know what's "really high" to you, but in a room of about 70° F, they can sound like they're getting ready to explode.

I wouldn't say my G5 iMac is that loud but at certain times the fans just build up to being quite loud. I've never been able to make sense of why and when. For instance it is the wee hours of the morning, late winter here and my feet are freezing but the fans are going!

I have a few apps running but if I look at my Activity Monitor they are not using all of the CPU or RAM. Sometimes just a simple, single application can set it off and yet when I expect it to be straining, I have dead silence.

It's a mystery wrapped up in an enigma.

[Pencil]

Originally Posted by rubaiyat 

I wouldn't say my G5 iMac is that loud but at certain times the fans just build up to being quite loud. I've never been able to make sense of why and when. For instance it is the wee hours of the morning, late winter here and my feet are freezing but the fans are going!

I have a few apps running but if I look at my Activity Monitor they are not using all of the CPU or RAM. Sometimes just a simple, single application can set it off and yet when I expect it to be straining, I have dead silence.

It's a mystery wrapped up in an enigma.

If CPU EIST is enabled, the processor will lower the voltage under half/full load. Under idle conditions, it will go back to the stock voltage. Higher voltage = Higher temps. So that might explain why the fans are revving up under idle conditions. It depends on the motherboard and the CPU (motherboards usually have 2 thermal regulation options and the intel core 2 duos have EIST function). You can try undervolting your processor to see if it reduces temp/noise. I was able to get my quadcore from 1.35v stock to 1.075v...which made the load temps go from 55C to 45C, idle temps from 45C to 36C.

I have a quadcore PC and it's passively cooled. I have a Ninja Scythe as the heatsink (it's huge). The whole case has 3 120mm VERY silent (5db) fans. It runs very cool.