Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

PlacidTubs · Nov 18, 2004, 05:30 PM

I normally hate these speculation threads, but my original plan was to get a powerbook. Now I have changed my mind, and am getting an iBook in the next couple of months, and when i move to London in a years time, im going to get myself an iMac. How many iMac revisions are there in a year usually? will there be any by the time i move? It would be nice for me to imagine what I'll have at that time.

any ideas?

DaBeav · Nov 18, 2004, 06:28 PM

Refreshes at six months is the norm. No major redesign. If/when IBM can get faster G5 chips in mass production, we'll see a PowerMac speed bump. After that, expect the iMac to jump up to 2GHz. I don't think we'll see a GPU update, except possibly to the FX 5500, which isn't much improvement over the 5200U. The new 6200 is PCIe only unfortunately. I don't think Apple will switch to ATi, but you never know. HD capacity will likely remain the same. When faster slot-loading laptop DVD drives are available and inexpensive enough, optical drives will be updated.

I wouldn't expect any major configuration changes for some time, just a speed bump in a few months - if it's feasible.

MrForgetable · Nov 18, 2004, 10:46 PM

please apple, just put a better video card in to please all the whiners.

jamil5454 · Nov 18, 2004, 11:31 PM

the FX 5500 is actually a lot slower than a stock 5200 ultra. My guess is a 9600XT or 5700 Ultra (do they exist for mac?)

the_glassman · Nov 19, 2004, 01:29 AM

Maybe they'll just get rid of the 5200 Ultra and go with integrated graphics all together!
We can only hope!

DaBeav · Nov 19, 2004, 05:14 PM

The 9600XT is standard in the 2.5GHz PM. The 5700U isn't in any current Mac. The only Macs current using nVidia chips are the 1.8 and 2.0GHz PMs, the iMac G5 and the 12" PB. However, nVidia uses one set of drivers for their graphics cards, so if they decided to stick in a 5700 or other chipset, then theoretically new drivers wouldn't be required.

I think we're stuck with the 5200U for at least one more revision. Hopefully Apple will soon update their mobo designs to include PCI-Express.

Superchicken · Nov 20, 2004, 06:01 PM

The iMac is generally reved every 6 months just like most Apple computers.

iPoder · Nov 21, 2004, 11:12 AM

I hate to speculate too. But if we don't see a significant update of PowerBook in MacWorld SF in January, then Apple typical 6-month update cycle might be off for a few months.

If you examine the current Apple product lineup, PowerBook's price/performance ratio is not that great compared to iMac or iBook. Apple will have to protect PowerBook price premium by handicapping iMac/iBook performance. I believe that it is why the new iMac G5 does not get a better graphic chip than 5200U.

Without the announcements of new G4 or G5 chip, iMac might only get a minor upgrade in the next revision.

P · Nov 21, 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by DaBeav:
The 9600XT is standard in the 2.5GHz PM. The 5700U isn't in any current Mac. The only Macs current using nVidia chips are the 1.8 and 2.0GHz PMs, the iMac G5 and the 12" PB. However, nVidia uses one set of drivers for their graphics cards, so if they decided to stick in a 5700 or other chipset, then theoretically new drivers wouldn't be required.

I think we're stuck with the 5200U for at least one more revision. Hopefully Apple will soon update their mobo designs to include PCI-Express.

I suspect that a 5700 (regular, there's no way they could cool a 5700U inside the iMac box) would require new drivers. It supports some better FSAA and CineFX effects in addition to the Z-buffer and color compression (which is what's holding back the performance of the 5200U) and I can't see them porting it this late. Still, I suppose they could use parts of the 6800 drivers - at least in theory that part is similar - but... Nah.

P · Nov 21, 2004, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by jamil5454:
the FX 5500 is actually a lot slower than a stock 5200 ultra.

Yes, the 5500 is a little bit better than a 5200, and a 5500U is a little bit better than a 5200U. The 5200U is between 50% and 200% faster than the regular 5200, depending on the test.

Does anyone have any info on exactly what is the difference between a 5500U and a 5200U? I know that the 5500s are built on a smaller process, so they can be clocked slightly higher (which is what they've done) but is that it? Hardly worth a new model number, if you ask me.

P · Nov 21, 2004, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Maybe they'll just get rid of the 5200 Ultra and go with integrated graphics all together!
We can only hope!

What do you mean, "integrated graphics"? All iMacs have the graphics chip integrated on the motherboard as in there is no AGP port anywhere. I can't see how they can be more integrated. How tightly they're fit in with the chipset is hard to say, but I suspect that they're fairly tightly wound.

Also, the integrated graphics on the PC side of things are fairly mediocre. The nForce boards have a Geforce2 derivative, something resembling a Geforce4 MX in the most recent ones. Intel uses a pathetic thing they bough in the late nineties and never developed - it doesn't even have a T&L unit. It remains to be seen exactly what ATi's version is capable of, but from what I heard it's been cut down to 2 rendering pipelines. This sounds like it's a recent design that's been hobbled - possibly a 9200/8500 (they're the same) with the pipes cut in half again (they have 4 pipes by default) but of course I'm just guessing here. Doesn't matter though - even if its's a 9600 with 2 pipes shut down, it won't be a very powerful chip. All of these examples are worse than the current 5200U.

Bookie · Nov 22, 2004, 11:25 AM

Some variation of the Radeon 9600 or 9700 would be nice - I'm hoping Apple heard loud and clear what most folks think of the 5200 - they are usually pretty good about listening to customer feedback.

P · Nov 22, 2004, 01:45 PM

It may not be possible to switch to ATi chips without a major redesign - and don't forget supplier politics. If nVidia loses the iMac, the only volume product they have, why should they continue to develop the chips for Mac at all? Apple has to keep all options open, and you don't do that by focusing exclusively on one graphics chip supplier.

DaBeav · Nov 22, 2004, 02:27 PM

Perhaps Apple could persuade nVidia to create an AGP version of the 6200 for the iMac. Or, maybe Apple will switch to PCI-Express at MWSF…

iREZ · Nov 22, 2004, 04:11 PM

I gotta agree with P's post.

macaddict0001 · Nov 22, 2004, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Maybe they'll just get rid of the 5200 Ultra and go with integrated graphics all together!
We can only hope!

integrated graphics would most likely be a lot worse than a 5200 ultra in fact since there is no physical card the 5200 ultra could be considered integrated graphics.

jrramsey · Nov 29, 2004, 01:06 PM

What about the "ATI Mobility Radeon X600" which is being used in the "competing" ClientPro 414 AIO XP based machine (http://www.omnitechcorp.com/solution...ntpro_414.html)

Just curious how these card stack up.

hldan · Nov 29, 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by jrramsey:
What about the "ATI Mobility Radeon X600" which is being used in the "competing" ClientPro 414 AIO XP based machine (http://www.omnitechcorp.com/solution...ntpro_414.html)

Just curious how these card stack up.

This may be slightly off topic but it's sorta on topic. Why are there more graphics solutions available on the PC side? What's the difference? Why can't any GPU work in a Mac or PC? Is it just a driver issue or is Apple's architecture too difficult for Nvidia and ATI to make cards for? Just lookin' for info.

P · Nov 29, 2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by jrramsey:
What about the "ATI Mobility Radeon X600" which is being used in the "competing" ClientPro 414 AIO XP based machine (http://www.omnitechcorp.com/solution...ntpro_414.html)

Just curious how these card stack up.

It's PCI Express, so no - not at this point. Otherwise it's OK, it's pretty much a X600 with some powersaving. The X600 is in turn a 9600 with PCIe bridge, so expect performance very similar to the 9600.

P · Nov 29, 2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by hldan:
This may be slightly off topic but it's sorta on topic. Why are there more graphics solutions available on the PC side? What's the difference? Why can't any GPU work in a Mac or PC? Is it just a driver issue or is Apple's architecture too difficult for Nvidia and ATI to make cards for? Just lookin' for info.

Drivers is part of it. The big-endian/little-endian thing is another piece of it all. Not just the drivers (which are generally the same for one generation of boards, more or less) but the onboard BIOS would have to be redone to cope with this. ATi makes most of their boards available (not the All-in-Wonder ones, but the rest). nVidia does not sell complete boards, but rather the chips (technically Apple makes the boards - that's also why new nVidia drivers can only be had by updating the OS), and they sell to whoever wants them. Their 5th generation boards weren't very good, particularly not at the important midrange, and even the high-end boards weren't a match for the 9800s. (It's a bit absurd, but the 5200 that everyone loves to complain about was by far the biggest hit of that series. It far outperformed the 9200 which was it's main competition and stayed enough under the 9600 pricewise to carve a big niche for itself). I guess Apple didn't bother with them, and noone else felt the need.