[jamesa]

Originally posted by MrForgetable:
yep, 25 is fine with me

if you could guarantee that as a minimum, sure, but you can't.

-- james

[Simon]

The problem with low frame rates is that they don't reflect sustained performance.

Of course MOH is fine for me (just some casual gaming) with 20fps. But, as soon as I enter a room with 5 other players and everybody is spraying bullets and grenades around the place the frame rate drops by a factor 5. That's when I get down to 4fps which is just no fun.

Nobody's eye can see 100fps, but when crap hits the fan and the rate drops down, you'll be glad to have enough margin so that game play always stays smooth.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Like all of the arguing in these threads, this quote is entirely without data. There are no tests, no benchmarks, nothing to back up the writer's claim.I have posted links to threads showing Motion running just fine on machines with 5200s.

Bottom line: people just like to complain.

alright, let's chew on this:



A G5 desktop is barely able to outperform a G4 laptop in Motion thanks to the pitiful graphics card! All that G5 power all amounts to nothing thanks to a crappy GPU!

How about this one then:


There's nothing that really needs to be said. The one thing that changes is the graphics card, and look at the performance difference.

Thanks to barefeats.com

-- james

[george68]

Originally posted by MrForgetable:
yep, 25 is fine with me

As soon as things start getting exciting you'll be getting 5-10 fps.

- Rob

[nudnik1972]

Well, my old PC is about to die after 6 years. I think it's safe to say that whatever is in the G5 IMAC is better than what I am dealing with right now.

There is only one game I still like to play - Diablo II - which I am also sure this FX5200 will support sufficiently for me to enjoy it. The rest is/will be light photo-work, internet, e-mail, letters, etc ...

I will not be going for the 20" version, just contemplating over whether or not I need 1.8ghz and superdrive. Other than adding a CD-RW drive and some RAM I did not do many upgrades, so I don't see myself needing it in the future although I do like the idea of being able to ...

Although I do not enjoy the fact that I am spending money on a new computer containing one (or more? I haven't gotten much past those numerous threads about the GUI yet) outdated parts, I do not see the graphics card as a dealbreaker.

How long before Apple generally does the first revision?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by jamesa:



There's nothing that really needs to be said. The one thing that changes is the graphics card, and look at the performance difference.

Yes, the 5200 does suck, but why is the G5 1.6 doing better than the dual G5 2.0?

[pliny]

the iMac will likely compare quite similarly to the 1.8 g5 tower with the same card, anybody have any numbers on that?

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by jamesa:
alright, let's chew on this:



A G5 desktop is barely able to outperform a G4 laptop in Motion thanks to the pitiful graphics card! All that G5 power all amounts to nothing thanks to a crappy GPU!

How about this one then:


There's nothing that really needs to be said. The one thing that changes is the graphics card, and look at the performance difference.

Thanks to barefeats.com

-- james

You've shown the 5200 is slower - no ****. However, the claim has been made that the 5200 renders Motion "unusable". I see no proof for this, and have found reviews which claim just the opposite: while Motion is, obviously, faster with a faster GPU, it runs just fine with the stock 5200 in the G5. This undermines any statement that the iMac G5 will be unable to handle Core Image.

[george68]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Like all of the arguing in these threads, this quote is entirely without data. There are no tests, no benchmarks, nothing to back up the writer's claim.I have posted links to threads showing Motion running just fine on machines with 5200s.

Bottom line: people just like to complain.

Wrong.

Look:

Design: Brand new.

G5: Apple's newest processor

LCD: Sweet, top of the line

Ram: Fine

Hardrive: Fine, you can upgrade it.

Superdrive: A pretty high end option, you can upgrade it also.

Graphics card: Not only is it COMPLETELY UNUPGRADABLE, it is OLD. It is the OLDEST piece of hardware in the entire computer. They used this card on the iMac G4s, beginning in september of 2003, and guess what? IT SUCKED THEN. So a YEAR later, and they're still using the exact same shitty video card that sucked when they first started using it.

It's a MAJOR downside to the new iMac, and it's keeping me from purchasing one.

- Rob

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
You've shown the 5200 is slower - no ****. However, the claim has been made that the 5200 renders Motion "unusable". I see no proof for this, and have found reviews which claim just the opposite: while Motion is, obviously, faster with a faster GPU, it runs just fine with the stock 5200 in the G5. This undermines any statement that the iMac G5 will be unable to handle Core Image.

I never made that claim - all I have ever said was that the 5200 sucks. You asked for data, I provided it. The fact is, the graphics card sucks so much that a lower clocked G4 laptop can beat a higher clocked G5 desktop with the 5200 in it.

I mean, that's utterly pathetic.

-- james

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by jamesa:
I never made that claim - all I have ever said was that the 5200 sucks. You asked for data, I provided it. The fact is, the graphics card sucks so much that a lower clocked G4 laptop can beat a higher clocked G5 desktop with the 5200 in it.

"Sucks" is qualitative, and therefore non-quantifiable.

I mean, that's utterly pathetic.

In your opinion.

Anywho, others have made the claim vis a vis Core Image.

[george68]

Hi Don Pickett. I must be one of those unfortunate souls who are born without a logic function in their brain. seeing as how a video card can make a HUGE difference in rendering video, or games, I am officially a moron. I should please refreain from posting here ever again, I am making everyone else dumber.

- Rob

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
"Sucks" is qualitative, and therefore non-quantifiable.

Maybe it is, but the "sucks" comment came after quantifiable statistics comparing the graphics cards in Motion.

But if you'd like to prevent all non-quantifiable comments on these boards, we might as well pack our bags and go home.

In your opinion.

Yes, my opinion, backed up with evidence. Which is a lot more than yours has been so far.

-- james

[yikes600]

The FX5200 is a card that can be picked up now for $45 RETAIL. I find it unfathomable how Apple chose this card for their $1300+ iMacs.

Anyone willing to put down this much for a computer should surely hope it will last them a good 5 years. Consider it an investment. Now, why on earth would someone buy a computer which can barely, and I emphasize *barely* -- run modern software? What's for the next 5 years to come?

The iMac G5 is outdated from the time you open the box. With a different computer at least you have the option to upgrade the graphics later. With the iMac G5 it's a total dealbreaker. You're immediately stuck with a slow, outdated card which is soldered to the motherboard forever.

When the time comes to toss this graphics card in the trash (if that time isn't already), you'll be tossing the whole iMac -- beautiful 17" LCD and all, with it.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by yikes600:
The FX5200 is a card that can be picked up now for $45 RETAIL. I find it unfathomable how Apple chose this card for their $1300+ iMacs.

Even worse that they've forced it upon their $1900 iMac!



iBorg

[macgfx]

Originally posted by yikes600:
The FX5200 is a card that can be picked up now for $45 RETAIL. I find it unfathomable how Apple chose this card for their $1300+ iMacs.

Anyone willing to put down this much for a computer should surely hope it will last them a good 5 years. Consider it an investment. Now, why on earth would someone buy a computer which can barely, and I emphasize *barely* -- run modern software? What's for the next 5 years to come?

The iMac G5 is outdated from the time you open the box. With a different computer at least you have the option to upgrade the graphics later. With the iMac G5 it's a total dealbreaker. You're immediately stuck with a slow, outdated card which is soldered to the motherboard forever.

When the time comes to toss this graphics card in the trash (if that time isn't already), you'll be tossing the whole iMac -- beautiful 17" LCD and all, with it.

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by george68:
Hi Don Pickett. You must be one of those unfortunate souls who are born without a logic function in their brain. seeing as how a video card can make a HUGE difference in rendering video, or games, you are officially a moron. Please refreain from posting here ever again, you are making everyone else dumber.

- Rob

Do you feel better now that you have called me names? Make you feel like less of a loser?

Good. Now, pay attention, cause there are some big words here:

A claim was made that the 5200 made using Motion unusable and, by extension, would make Core Image unusable. However, no one was able to post a link proving this. There were links showing that Motion was slower on a 5200 (duh!) but nothing showing it to be "unusable". In fact, I posted links from reviewers stating that Motion runs just fine on a 5200. That was my issue.

Now, I know that was a lot of big words, so you may want to take a nap before replying. And, dude, there's no way you could get any dumber.

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by jamesa:
Yes, my opinion, backed up with evidence. Which is a lot more than yours has been so far.

-- james

Not the issue I was arguing. There is no evidence that Motion, and by extension Core Image, is "unusable" on a 5200.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
And, dude, there's no way you could get any dumber.

Don, don't bet your money on that.

-t

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:
alright, let's chew on this:

Interesting how G5/2.0MP 9800SE is only 17% faster than the G5/2.0MP GeFX5200. Guess that makes the 9800SE pretty pitiful as well? Or perhaps it simply indicates how benchmarks can be used to prove whatever you want...

[Lateralus]

[Nevermind]

[DaBeav]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Interesting how G5/2.0MP 9800SE is only 17% faster than the G5/2.0MP GeFX5200. Guess that makes the 9800SE pretty pitiful as well? Or perhaps it simply indicates how benchmarks can be used to prove whatever you want...

For that single test, yes. Now, look at the results from the rest of the tests and you'll see that the graphics card does make a noticeable difference.

Here are the numbers for games. The 5200 is playable, and thanks to the G5 CPU, will likely do OK in BotMatches in UT2K4. Halo runs like crap, but if you really want to play Halo (and don't want to wait forever to play Halo 2), get an XBox. The 5200U works, if you don't turn on additional features such as FSAA to smooth things out.

As you can see, in most tests - especially for newer titles (not Q3A), the 9600 offers a considerable speed boost. It would have been nice to have the option to upgrade. "Good enough" is good for a $800 PC. A supposedly cutting-edge machine costing $1299 - $1899 should at least have the option for "kick-ass" - especially where you can't upgrade the video card.

I game primarily on my XBox, so it's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but it would be nice to play the occasional title only available for PC/Mac. As for tossing it away, max out the HD and in a few years from now, throw LinuxPPC on it and use it as a file or media server.

[Hiramw]

Hello,

People should really be able to state their position without insulting those with whom they disagree.

I really do not understand why the moderators of this forum tolerate this kind of behavior.

Cordially,

Hiram

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Don, don't bet your money on that.

-t

Oy. This is one of the reasons I don't post here a lot. The zealotry can get out of hand, and I get swept up in it. We have the most important election in twenty years coming up and we're here throwing bricks at each other because of a GPU.

I repeat: Oy!

[george68]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
A claim was made that the 5200 made using Motion unusable and, by extension, would make Core Image unusable. However, no one was able to post a link proving this. There were links showing that Motion was slower on a 5200 (duh!) but nothing showing it to be "unusable". In fact, I posted links from reviewers stating that Motion runs just fine on a 5200. That was my issue..

That's great, but a link was provided that clearly showed how much the 5200 sucks. IN fact, it is the suckiest card that was tested. You claim that sucks is just a matter of opinion, but if it's the LOWEST denominator, the slowest freaking card that can even POSSIBLY run program whatever, it SUCKS. Period.

- Ca$h

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by george68:
That's great, but a link was provided that clearly showed how much the 5200 sucks. IN fact, it is the suckiest card that was tested. You claim that sucks is just a matter of opinion, but if it's the LOWEST denominator, the slowest freaking card that can even POSSIBLY run program whatever, it SUCKS. Period.
- Ca$h

Well buy a Powermac or PC then and get over it. I don't think the majority of iMac owners could care less about the GPU. Here's an alternate view of the world:

• The GPU in the iMac is a class ahead of other rival all-in-one computers. The current $1900 Sony W uses integrated Sis651 graphics, and the current $1500 Gateway Profile 5X-C uses Integrated Intel Graphics. Neither offers an upgrade option. Put against the competition, the iMac is remarkably attractive - better GPU, better price, better OS and *far* nicer design
• The iMac's GPU is the same as that in the standard Powermacs. I haven't yet seen a flood of posts from Powermac owners claiming that their machines are unusable.
• The 5200 Ultra has more than enough power to provide hardware acceleration to Quartz Extreme (again, no complaints from current Powermac owners on this front)
• The 5200 Ultra will have more than enough power for the iLife suite, for web browsing, for email, for Photoshop, for Office applications, for software development, for home finance, for audio applications, for web page creation, etc, etc. There really is more to life than gaming...
• The 5200 Ultra supports full hardware acceleration of the new Core Video and Core Image API's. Even so, these are only API's and so no software even uses these yet. They're there to make the programmer's life easier, not the user's. If the 5200 Ultra can run a 3D accelerated application today, it will run just as well when the 3D calls are refactored to use the APIs.
• Noone has yet proposed a GPU that has a lower power consumption than the 5200 Ultra and is more powerful. If you know of one, let us hear how many Watts each consumes and how much more powerful the cooler GPU is. Thermal design is critical in the iMac - witness the fact that Apple haven't yet been able to get a G5 Powerbook working & that's despite the fact that the Powerbook uses an external power supply - a major source of heat. So, until someone proves otherwise, I remain unconvinced it is even technically feasible to include a significantly faster GPU in the iMac at this point in time. [Not to mention the fact that a faster GPU would probably require a larger internal PSU, which in itself would generate more heat]

However, on the negative side, I think most would agree that:

• The iMac is not a machine for gamers. It will play current generation games moderately well with moderate settings. It will probably choke on the Doom 3 generation. However, all Mac's suck as gaming platforms. Get a PC - better value, better performance, better choice of games.
• The iMac is not designed for professional video rendering using Motion. A single CPU is suboptimum, 2Gb of memory is suboptimum, the GPU is suboptimum. Get a Powermac for that. However, how many home users do professional video rendering? If you have time on your hands, however, the iMac will run Motion, just not at blistering frame rates.

For me, the former list is more important than the latter. I've bought a 20" iMac as a result. For you, the second list may be more important. The point here is not to fan the flames even further - I think each of these points has been discussed to death , so please don't bother responding to each clause on a piece-by-piece basis. The point is to simply point out that for certain market segments (and I would claim a large market segment) the 5200 Ultra doesn't suck at all. It is perfectly matched to the tasks that will be expected of it. What is irritating is that the naysayers extrapolate from valid complaints about mediocre gaming and Motion performance, to unsubstantiated speculation that the 5200 Ultra will be too underpowered to run future versions of MacOS or to support the Core Video and Core Image API's. There is simply no justification or evidence for such claims. It's horses for courses. If the iMac doesn't meet your needs, so be it - but that doesnt't mean it sucks for everyone. "Period".

[Simon]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
The point here is not to fan the flames even further - I think each of these points has been discussed to death , so please don't bother responding to each clause on a piece-by-piece basis.

You wish. Since this is a forum for discussion I will respond to points that are incorrect or incomplete, if you like it or not. Sorry.

The GPU in the iMac is a class ahead of other rival all-in-one computers. The current $1900 Sony W uses integrated Sis651 graphics, and the current $1500 Gateway Profile 5X-C uses Integrated Intel Graphics. Neither offers an upgrade option. Put against the competition, the iMac is remarkably attractive - better GPU, better price, better OS and *far* nicer design

Absolutely true, but it's not the complete picture. Apple isn't just competing with the AIO market here. They are also competing against any mid-range computer in general. So Dell's cheap towers come up. They are but-ugly, cheap and I'll be damned if I ever buy one, but fact is they offer inexpensive GPU BTO options, like countless other PC manufacturers in this market as well. What I'm trying to say is that Apple shouldn't let their competitors win an important spec so easily. It's not harder to offer BTO for them than for other manufacturers.

The iMac's GPU is the same as that in the standard Powermacs. I haven't yet seen a flood of posts from Powermac owners claiming that their machines are unusable.

Of course not, silly argument. Those PowerMac buyers that find the 5200 too weak opted for a BTO Radeon or went out to buy another card on their own. Why should they complain? They got all the options. Nobody in this forum is asking for more. This is what you (and others here) fail to understand: Apple isn't at all stupid for using a 5200, but they're (rightfully) getting bashed for not offering other options.

Thermal design is critical in the iMac - witness the fact that Apple haven't yet been able to get a G5 Powerbook working & that's despite the fact that the Powerbook uses an external power supply - a major source of heat.

Here you 'forget' to point out that the PowerBook offers about half the thickness of the iMac which is of course an additional constraint the iMac doesn't have. And you 'forget' to point out that Apple chose to use a cool GPU and insert a hot PS, instead of chosing a (maybe) warmer GPU and refrain from installing a hot PS internally.

For me, the former list is more important than the latter. I've bought a 20" iMac as a result.

Congratulations. But I would have respected your choice exactly the same if you would have stuck to correct and complete arguments instead of 'hiding' important aspects like the above. Let's just stick with the facts.

[PEHowland]

Oh Lord, here we go again. Seeing as you insisted on taking apart each paragraph, looks like I'll have to respond again. By the time we've finished this discussion the Rev B will be out I suspect...

Originally posted by Simon:
Here you 'forget' to point out that the PowerBook offers about half the thickness of the iMac which is of course an additional constraint the iMac doesn't have. And you 'forget' to point out that Apple chose to use a cool GPU and insert a hot PS, instead of chosing a (maybe) warmer GPU and refrain from installing a hot PS internally.

Why do you raise this again and again? I thought we'd already discussed this one to death - maybe on the other thread. We already agreed that had the iMac used an external PSU then quite possibly Apple could have used a more powerful GPU. But they didn't. So, it seems rather pointless continually shouting at Apple for not offering a BTO upgrade option on the iMac.

Regarding thickness, this is a red herring. Sure the iMac is 2" thick, not 1" thick. But it also has a faster, hotter disk, a built-in PSU, a faster processor and a much hotter chipset. That all generates lots of extra heat. That must pretty well cancel out the extra 1" advantage over a laptop with a 4200rpm disk, slower processor/chipset and external PSU.

Once again, I have yet to see anyone actualy demonstrate that a faster GPU exists that uses the same or less power. Until they can, it seems like a rather pointless exercise bashing Apple for not providing something that may not be technically possible (without removing the PSU which we agree on).

Let's hope, for people who do need a faster GPU for Motion or gaming, that they use an external PSU in Rev B of the iMac. I thought we agreed on this point, I don't know why you keep raising it.

My main point was simply to point out that the 5200 Ultra doesn't suck for a vast number of users. The implications of the naysayers is that the iMac is a waste of time with this GPU. It's not. It's just no good for gamers or people expecting lightening performance from Motion.

I think the fact that Powermac 5200 Ultra owners aren't complaining is relevant. I agree that they are fortunate that faster BTO options are available, but it does dispell the nonsense that some people are putting about here that the 5200 Ultra is insufficient for Quartz Extreme and that gaming/Motion isn't the only thing that will really suffer. Au contrair. I would say that these classes of applications are about the only ones that are sufficiently graphically intensive to merit something more than the 5200U. If you don't game and don't do Motion, then the this whole GPU discussion is immaterial - other than the fact that it is probably scaring off a load of potential iMac owners who would be perfectly happy.

[pliny]

I'm going to go try out a new iMac once it arrives at the local Apple Store, that has always been the best way for me to tell if I think a machine is a good deal or not.

I stand/sit in front of it for a time and use it.

I'm sure it will look good and run very well for all the stuff *I* use computers for and is certain to deliver far better performance than my very trusty iMac dv from 1999, which as I've mentioned, for all my uses, has done very well on a creaky ATI Rage with 8mb and a chip two generations old, and which by the way, has never once stopped working or needed repair. (Which is my way of saying, just because some parts are interchangeable or the same vis a vis PCs, all computers are not made the same, if they were, customer satisfaction and rates of repair would be identical. They're not.)

With the exception of some frames of some games, and the occasional Motion effect which may be a bit more delayed than when compared to a dual g5, I'm sure the g5 iMac will perform very well.

The question for many users is later on, when I want to open it up and swap some stuff, I can do it with the hdd, optical drive, RAM (with no thermal paste thank goodness) LCD (a very nice development), PSU, logic board, everything but the gpu.

I'll have to see how big of a factor this last point is when I stand in front of the machine and use it.

I've been able to swap out a video CARD in PCs for years and I have still to stand in front of one and say, "I must have this machine!"

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:

Once again, I have yet to see anyone actualy demonstrate that a faster GPU exists that uses the same or less power. Until they can, it seems like a rather pointless exercise bashing Apple for not providing something that may not be technically possible (without removing the PSU which we agree on).

You're talking in hypotheticals - I'm yet to see anyone demonstrate putting in a faster GPU that uses more power would have created a problem. The fact is, Apple ship the 5200 in the PowerMac G5s, but does it create problems when you swap it out and put in a new GPU?

To say that "because this is the GPU that's in, nothing else would have worked" is just ridiculous!

I think the fact that Powermac 5200 Ultra owners aren't complaining is relevant. I agree that they are fortunate that faster BTO options are available, but it does dispell the nonsense that some people are putting about here that the 5200 Ultra is insufficient for Quartz Extreme and that gaming/Motion isn't the only thing that will really suffer. Au contrair. I would say that these classes of applications are about the only ones that are sufficiently graphically intensive to merit something more than the 5200U. If you don't game and don't do Motion, then the this whole GPU discussion is immaterial - other than the fact that it is probably scaring off a load of potential iMac owners who would be perfectly happy.

That is total rubbish!

If I buy a PowerMac G5 to put in my business and only do Photoshop only with it, of course 3D performance is going to be fine. Why would I complain? I'm not doing 3d stuff with it, I can choose what I need.

If I want a PowerMac G5 at home and think I'm going to game on it, do you think I'm going to get a 5200? No. I'll swap it out. So I won't be complaining - I'll get the option to suit my needs.

Which I can't do with the iMac.

I think a better question to ask is if Apple soldered a 5200U onto the mobo of the Powermac G5 and refused to support other graphics cards, would people be complaining then? You bet your ass they would.

If you don't need 3d, who gives a **** what graphics card is in there? Of course you're not going to complain. But if you do need 3d, then a 5200U royally screws you up.

-- james

[george68]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
[*]The iMac's GPU is the same as that in the standard Powermacs. I haven't yet seen a flood of posts from Powermac owners claiming that their machines are unusable.

No sh*t, Sherlock. If they want a better card they buy one and unplug the 5200 and plug in the new one. They can GET a different video card.

[*]The 5200 Ultra will have more than enough power for the iLife suite, for web browsing, for email, for Photoshop, for Office applications, for software development, for home finance, for audio applications, for web page creation, etc, etc. There really is more to life than gaming...

Have I ever said "M y whole life revolves around gaming it's so l33t and rad!"? NO. The sad fact is that hte 5200 is such a shitty card it will not even provide a casual gamer with a good experience. You're going to have to turn down all the options of any modern game to get decent FPS at full screen (1440X900).

[*]The 5200 Ultra supports full hardware acceleration of the new Core Video and Core Image API's. Even so, these are only API's and so no software even uses these yet. They're there to make the programmer's life easier, not the user's. If the 5200 Ultra can run a 3D accelerated application today, it will run just as well when the 3D calls are refactored to use the APIs.

It meets the MINIMUM system requirements for Core Video. Have you ever run a program on a computer that was just BARELY able to do so? It's not real fun. Especially considering the ONLY way to get a better graphics card is to spend over TWICE as much and buy a huge honking dual G5 tower.

Considering that there are many many threads about this subject and it's by FAR the most outdated pieceof hardware in the new iMac, I think you're a freakin' idiot and an apple apologist.

- Rob

[pliny]

Originally posted by george68:

It meets the MINIMUM system requirements for Core Video. Have you ever run a program on a computer that was just BARELY able to do so? - Rob

How many times does it need to be pointed out that Core Video is not a program? It's an API. Is everything in Tiger going to call Core Video? No. Is every application going to call Core Video? No. If you think it is, please tell us why in detail you think it will be necessary. Is every program suddenly or even in five years going to demand full hardware graphics acceleration? No. If so, please tell us why. In detail. Do you know how well Core Video will scale? No. And do you know how H.264 will improve performance so that when things scale they will still look good? No.

Saying that fps is this or that is one thing, saying that the iMac will run unacceptably on Tiger, is another. There's no evidence or support for your position, it's hyperbole verging on hysteria.

Stick to the facts, which is that (1) there is clear evidence for the 5200's performance on some games and when you are running Motion, it takes it longer to process filters, (2) ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING will run better on a dual 2.0 g5, (3) it would be GREAT if the gpu could be bto or swAppable.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by pliny:
How many times does it need to be pointed out that Core Video is not a program? It's an API. Is everything in Tiger going to call Core Video? No. Is every application going to call Core Video? No. If you think it is, please tell us why in detail you think it will be necessary. Is every program suddenly or even in five years going to demand full hardware graphics acceleration? No. If so, please tell us why. In detail. Do you know how well Core Video will scale? No. And do you know how H.264 will improve performance so that when things scale they will still look good? No.

This is a very misguided response. If you take a look at what's was done on 3d GPUs 3 years ago (i.e. nothing except explicit 3d work) and then take a look at what's being done now (i.e. a hell of a lot more than just 3d work) and then take a peek at the future you might start to realise that the 3D aspect of a computer is becoming increasingly important.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't even SJ say in the keynote when the new APIs were introduced that he wanted Adobe to use it in Photoshop?

It is very shortsighted of Apple including this GPU, and not fair on those customers who want a reasonably priced machine with a good 3D GPU.

-- james

[turtle777]

+1

(since there is really nothing that hasn't been said yet )

-t

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by george68:
It meets the MINIMUM system requirements for Core Video. Have you ever run a program on a computer that was just BARELY able to do so? It's not real fun. Especially considering the ONLY way to get a better graphics card is to spend over TWICE as much and buy a huge honking dual G5 tower.

If this were true, you'd be correct. However, to quote Apple, "The performance gains and features supported by Core Image ultimately depend on the graphics card. Graphics cards capable of pixel-level programming deliver the best performance. But Core Image automatically scales as appropriate for systems with older graphics cards, for compatibility with any Tiger-compatible Mac.". In case you hadn't realised, the GeForce 5200 Ultra does fully support pixel level programming and therefore it is far from the minimum supported card. You're spreading misinformation again. It's never going to satisfy gamers - but it will be perfectly satisfactory for Core Video, Core Image, Quartz Extreme and pretty much all the applications that anyone other than gamers or Motion professionals use. I don't know why you refuse to accept this.

Considering that there are many many threads about this subject and it's by FAR the most outdated piece of hardware in the new iMac, I think you're a freakin' idiot and an apple apologist.

Are always so rude? Or just when safely tucked behind your keyboard? Just because I disagree with you makes me neither an idiot nor an Apple apologist. I'm discussing a video card with you, not laughing at the size of your dick.

[pliny]

Originally posted by jamesa:
the 3D aspect of a computer is becoming increasingly important.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't even SJ say in the keynote when the new APIs were introduced that he wanted Adobe to use it in Photoshop?

It is very shortsighted of Apple including this GPU, and not fair on those customers who want a reasonably priced machine with a good 3D GPU.

I am all for bto but no OS requires full hardware acceleration. Obviously, the more power you have the better, this does not mean that the iMac will not run fine or even WELL in Tiger as configured.

And I hope Adobe does use the Api's; so? These API's will scale. If your hardware can take advantage of the calls, it will, if it can't it won't; either way, you will see either the same program on a faster system, or better performance on a faster system. And like everything else, the better your system the better your performance will be, and the better the app programmers the better the performance as well.

If there is one thing that I think we all agree on is that Apple's OS engineers have doing pretty fancy footwork with the OS; so I'm confident that Tiger will offer improved performance, as these api's are only one aspect of under the hood improvements to the entire thing.

I'd wait until at least an SDK to say how or whether certain cards will perform and I'm not prepared to say " Holy shitpig the iMac gpu is not bto therefore Tiger will never work with an iMac g5!!!". Becasue it's not reasonable to say so.

The bang for the buck argument you include, I tend to agree with, but its not the same as saying the imac doesn't offer enough bang to run Tiger well.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:
You're talking in hypotheticals - I'm yet to see anyone demonstrate putting in a faster GPU that uses more power would have created a problem. The fact is, Apple ship the 5200 in the PowerMac G5s, but does it create problems when you swap it out and put in a new GPU?

To say that "because this is the GPU that's in, nothing else would have worked" is just ridiculous!

I think everyone in this thread is talking in hypotheticals, given that none of us have got our hands on an iMac yet and none of us have seen the design details. I'm not exactly sure how you would have expected to have seen someone replace the GPU in an iMac at this point at time. Hopefully you would admit that the cooling issues in a Powermac and those in an iMac are a completely different ballgame. There's no way you can even start to extrapolate from one to the other.

However, I do have considerable experience of building PC's. I have direct experience of swapping out a GeForce Ti4200 in a Shuttle small form factor PC with a 200W power supply and then putting in a Radeon 9700 and see the machine fail to boot due to a lack of power. I have seen the size of the heatsink and fan on my 9700 Pro compared with the Ti4200 and also seen how the temperatures in my tower PC rose when the 9700 was inserted. I have also heard the noise of the fans on it, even when idle. I have also heard that Apple can't get a G5 working in a Powerbook due to thermal problems - despite having an external PSU and a slower, cooler disk. I therefore readily admit that I am infering that it is probably not a trivial upgrade to give the current generation iMac a faster GPU. But it seems an entirely reasonable inference.

Now, it could be that I'm correct, and there are valid technical reasons why Apple could not achieve anything faster. Or it could be that I'm wrong, and there's cooling capacity to spare in the iMac, and Apple are just ignoring the huge market demand for a faster GPU. Who knows? But I do wonder exactly what you think all this griping and abuse is actually going to achieve?

My guess is that you won't see a faster GPU with the current design - it will probably require the Rev B iMac to use an external PSU to reduce the heat within the iMac and hence allow the introduction of a hotter GPU. If they do have thermal capacity to spare in the current generation, they'll probably save that for introducing faster processors - most consumers look at the GHz of the machine long before they worry about the type of GPU.

[Eriamjh]

Did anyone consider that any other chipset was too hot to fit into the G5 case? If this GPU is the only one, and using a better one would have delayed the G5 iMac by 6 months or more, would you really be better off?

My wife doesn't need a better video card. Heck, she doesn't even need a G5, but the price is right compared to the G4.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Did anyone consider that any other chipset was too hot to fit into the G5 case? If this GPU is the only one, and using a better one would have delayed the G5 iMac by 6 months or more, would you really be better off?

Apple did, but that's just a minor detail, since everyone else here knows so much better.

The only real option would have been to put in some high-powered laptop GPU. But that would have brought up the price disproportionally.

-t

[Luca Rescigno]

Only other option a laptop GPU? There are lower-end GPUs from ATI that could work. The Radeon 9600 Pro or even a lower-end 9600 non-Pro would work. So would the Radeon 9550. Both are better than the FX5200, but not as fast as the 9600 Pro or XT, and therefore not as hot. Besides, ATI is known for making slightly cooler GPUs than nVidia.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Apple did, but that's just a minor detail, since everyone else here knows so much better.

The only real option would have been to put in some high-powered laptop GPU. But that would have brought up the price disproportionally.

-t

Putting you in the category of "everyone else here knows so much better", how are you able to say with any authority that "the only real option" would have been to put in a laptop GPU?

I'm yet to see any real evidence that the reason Apple put in a crap GPU was for $$$ and not because of heat. All that's here is speculation.

-- james

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
But I do wonder exactly what you think all this griping and abuse is actually going to achieve?

Well, I know for a fact that Apple watches web boards, and if there are enough people kicking up a stink then it gets passed up the chain.

That's the main reason why I'm doing it, anyway. Because I want there to be an improvement so I can get the machine.

-- james

[klinux]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
[list][*]The GPU in the iMac is a class ahead of other rival all-in-one computers. The current $1900 Sony W uses integrated Sis651 graphics, and the current $1500 Gateway Profile 5X-C uses Integrated Intel Graphics. Neither offers an upgrade option. Put against the competition, the iMac is remarkably attractive - better GPU, better price, better OS and *far* nicer design.

First of all, AIO PCs make up an extreme tiny part of the PC market. It never caught on and it will never catch on - least of which is due to the fact that it has poor graphics performance. In addition, PC buyers have a lot of alternatives.

However, Apple's consumer line does not have a lot of alternatives, just the iMac and eMac. I like to think people who are bashing Apple's poor decision to use the 5200U is not because we dislike Apple. Rather, we want Apple to succeed and 5200U is not the way to go about it.

[george68]

If there was a better GPU I would sell my g4 imac and get the G5 iMac.

- Rob

[jamesa]

Originally posted by george68:
If there was a better GPU I would sell my g4 imac and get the G5 iMac.

- Rob

you amongst many others of us, too.

I think that's the point many of us are trying to make.

-- james

[Joona]

and I think by now, you have succeeded in making that point, seriously most of these posts are just repeating themselves, there doesnt seem to be any more new to add...

To put it one more time: You are not happy with the graphic card that comes with new iMac and thats why you're not buying it, got it.

[a2daj]

And hopefully, if more people that voice that opinion, Apple might actually do something about it.

[Link]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Apple did, but that's just a minor detail, since everyone else here knows so much better.

The only real option would have been to put in some high-powered laptop GPU. But that would have brought up the price disproportionally.

-t

Why don't you just stop before your posts become nothing but a blatent attitude driven rant? We've all proved that 1. The Geforce 5200 is a bottom feeder card, 2. For the same price Apple could have used a card that was faster, cooler running, and probably even consumed less power.

IN essence, apple had absolutely NO reason to stick a geforce 5200 in there, and have lost a lot of potential sales because of that, and to top it off they don't even offer a faster GPU as a BTO option, yet they have a "BTO" for a slower one!

Your posts might have held some ground while it took us all some time to find these facts you demanded but now you have absolutely nothing but a pointless rant, granted it won't kill apple's product sales and the imac WILL sell, it just won't sell like it would have.

To think about it, we were actually NICE enough to say WHY, probably even tell apple why they've lost a few potential sales so they could go back and fix that in the future, yet it's hard to make these points clear when a bunch of people come fourth to accuse us as "apple haters", giving a bunch of non-factoral reasons that because Apple did it, it must be right, etc.. geez they're a company like any other company.

So let's not hear any more about it? eh?

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by Link:
Why don't you just stop before your posts become nothing but a blatent attitude driven rant? We've all proved that 1. The Geforce 5200 is a bottom feeder card, 2. For the same price Apple could have used a card that was faster, cooler running, and probably even consumed less power.

Oh I must have missed that. Where's the post that states the power consumption of the 5200 Ultra and compares it to the power consumption of faster cards? Without that information your claim that Apple could have used a faster, cooler running card that consumed less power is complete fantasy. Provide me the figures - power consumption in Watts - and a comparitive performance graph and I'll be glad to agree with you.

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Oh I must have missed that. Where's the post that states the power consumption of the 5200 Ultra and compares it to the power consumption of faster cards? Without that information your claim that Apple could have used a faster, cooler running card that consumed less power is complete fantasy. Provide me the figures - power consumption in Watts - and a comparitive performance graph and I'll be glad to agree with you.

Here is a chart.

The 5200 is so low end and old, it's not even on it. However you can see that ATi's offerings to the equivalent Nvidia cards almost always draw less power and run cooler.