[Strix]

So after reading all the complaints (whether valid or not), what should be in the iMac G5?

I looked at ATI and Nvidia's websites and drawn up the above list. For more info check out the following:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/macintosh.html
http://www.ati.com/products/mac.html

Cheers
Strix

[deboerjo]

That being a list of just the cards that are available, Apple's options would be somewhat wider when selecting what chip to integrate onto the motherboard. If it was me, I'd have used a 128MB Radeon 9600XT or a GeForceFX 5700 (non-Ultra). Good mix of GPU power and low heat/wattage.

[jamesa]

who wanted the GF2mx? C'mon, own up, who would be willing to sacrifice all 3D GPU performance for an extra $15 off?

-- james

[moep]

Nvidia 6600GT/6800GT... if the G5 can have a 6800 Ultra, why shouldn't the iMac get AT LEAST a 6600?

[Lateralus]

Other: Radeon 9600 128MB.

[DaBeav]

Radeon 9600XT or GF FX5700, 128MB as a BTO option.

[galarneau]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Other: Radeon 9600 128MB.

What he said.

Fast, programmable shaders, and passively cooled.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by galarneau:
What he said.
Fast, programmable shaders, and passively cooled.

According to www.insidemacgames.com there's very little difference between the 9600 and the 5200 Ultra. To quote:

"Ignoring numbers and benchmarks for a bit, let�s just take a look at how both cards feel. How do they stack up in qualitative terms? The answer is, uninterestingly, �pretty much the same.� I played a dozen or so games on both cards, and after much thought, I concluded that while the Radeon 9600 did feel faster in most cases, the difference wasn�t as noticeable as the benchmarks might imply. However, the fact that I'm running them in a G5 might account for this.

The Radeon 9600�s graphics capabilities really come into their own with Halo�s pixel shaders, and its speed advantage is clear at higher resolutions; but for the moment, few Mac gamers will be able to combine these advantages. Even on this G5, Halo�s pixel shaders bring the game to a crawl at higher resolutions on either card, so gamers will have to sacrifice either image quality or resolution, preventing ATI�s card from obtaining the lead in Halo to the extent it does in the other games.

A notable exception, however, is SimCity 4, which looked and performed better with the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra than it did with the Radeon 9600 Pro. The Radeon 9600 failed to render shadows and often failed to render entire buildings. Other graphical glitches abound, from incorrectly lit tiles to redraw errors, and somewhat lower performance. The recent 1.0.2 fixes some of these problems, but for now, only the 5200 performs well with SimCity 4.

Outside of gaming, the cards are essentially equal. Both are fast enough that they tackle DVD and MPEG decoding without issue, and share about the same feature set. (The differences in video features between the two cards are pretty obscure.)

Adding all of it up, the decision is difficult. If making Halo look good is a priority, then get the 9600. If making SimCity look good and play faster is a priority, stay with the 5200. Outside of that, the Radeon 9600 will deliver better performance.

A Power Macintosh G5 with either card will certainly handle the majority of games without issue. A few newer games will likely require the power of a Radeon 9800 to operate effectively, meaning that neither the 9600 nor the 5200 will bring sky-high frame rates. However, aside from this case, both video cards are likely to satisfy most gamers. It�s the G5 inside that will ensure fast and furious gaming for years to come."

[pantalaimon]

Interesting, I'd like to get the G5 imac... and this review seems to confirm that the included graphics card is absolutely fine for everyone that isn't going to be doing heavy 3D work or 3D gaming.

If this review is accurate then i'm almost certainly going to get the G5 imac, for graphic design and light gaming and Tiger this will be fine for years. And no, I don't believe people who say the G5 imac won't be able to run Tiger well, I think thats just gamers trying to bring something else into their arguament. If i'm proven wrong I can easily sell on Ebay and upgrade at minimal cost.

I'm almost convinced... just waiting for people to actually get the machines and give accurate feedback on here. Any idea hen people will be getting the first imacs?

[thesearcher]

There may not be a difference between the two for games, but there apparently is for CoreVideo.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
According to www.insidemacgames.com there's very little difference between the 9600 and the 5200 Ultra.

Read that more carefully. There's a big difference when you play modern games. Nobody's complaining about the FX5200's ability to play Warcraft III. The FX5200 plays most modern games just fine, the only ones that really strain it are Halo and UT2003/2004, and even then at lower resolutions and with options turned off they're perfectly playable. The concerns with the 5200 are how well it's going to play games a few years from now. Doom 3 is going to be only barely playable (but still playable). Apple's Motion animation and FX software performs quite slowly. The issue with Apple's choice in GPUs isn't so much concern with how the iMacs will perform today, but rather how gracefully they'll age.

[AlfaMunky]

I'm torn as to what I should do. Get the 20" IMac and enjoy having an all in one taking up very little space. Or... just getting a kick ass dualie G5 and keep my large 21" CRT that hogs about half my desk.

Until I see some telling benchmarks the real difference is this GPU.

I have had no trust in Nvidia cards since the 1st TNT. Ever since thay goobled up 3Dfx they have gotten larger, better know, but have been less dependable.

I have had no less then 3 computers that I have owned where I have had a Nvidia card for some reason or another, all had problems. Crashes, unstable systems, glitches, and less than expected game performance were all that I got with every Nvidia cards. In two of the case switching to Radeon based cards ended up in more relable systems, better gaming performance, and in my opinion video and dvd playback.

I want any radeon w/ 64mb or better and I'd buy iMac for sure. Even the Radeon 9200 from the eMac if it had 64mb of ram would be fine. I am an ATi fan and am very discouraged by the 5200. The same type of chip thats sitting in my Rev. B 12" powerbook.

[george68]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
Read that more carefully. There's a big difference when you play modern games. Nobody's complaining about the FX5200's ability to play Warcraft III. The FX5200 plays most modern games just fine, the only ones that really strain it are Halo and UT2003/2004, and even then at lower resolutions and with options turned off they're perfectly playable. The concerns with the 5200 are how well it's going to play games a few years from now. Doom 3 is going to be only barely playable (but still playable). Apple's Motion animation and FX software performs quite slowly. The issue with Apple's choice in GPUs isn't so much concern with how the iMacs will perform today, but rather how gracefully they'll age.

That is horseshit. I'd like to see an imac running FULL RESOLUTION (1440X900), and I PROMISE you it'll play like ****,unless you turn down all the options.

- Rob

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by george68:
That is horseshit. I'd like to see an imac running FULL RESOLUTION (1440X900), and I PROMISE you it'll play like ****,unless you turn down all the options.

- Rob

What are you referring to, playing Halo or playing an older game like Warcraft III or UT? If you're referring to Halo, that's what I said. You have to turn down the resolution but at still quite decent res (1024x768 works fine) it's great. If you're referring to older games, my friend's roommate has a 1.25GHz G4, which is considerably slower than the G5 iMac and has the same video, and it plays UT X and Warcraft III perfectly fine at FULL RESOLUTION with all the options turned on.

-Jon

[mitchell_pgh]

If they put a 128 in it... people would say they should have put a 256 in it...

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
If they put a 128 in it... people would say they should have put a 256 in it...

[turtle777]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
If they put a 128 in it... people would say they should have put a 256 in it...

Unfortunately.



-t

[Simon]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
If they put a 128 in it... people would say they should have put a 256 in it...

Baloney. The benefit would be nowhere comparable to the benefit of spending $30 more on a decent 9600.

[pantalaimon]

Originally posted by Simon:
Baloney. The benefit would be nowhere comparable to the benefit of spending $30 more on a decent 9600.

I thought we established that there wasn't much difference between the two cards anyway.

"Ignoring numbers and benchmarks for a bit, let�s just take a look at how both cards feel. How do they stack up in qualitative terms? The answer is, uninterestingly, �pretty much the same.� I played a dozen or so games on both cards, and after much thought, I concluded that while the Radeon 9600 did feel faster in most cases, the difference wasn�t as noticeable as the benchmarks might imply."

[Simon]

Originally posted by pantalaimon:
I thought we established that there wasn't much difference between the two cards anyway.

Who did?

old Radeon 9600 != newer 9600 XT, etc.

old review, old games, old benchmarks.

check deboerjo's post above

and once again, check this page to see almost every other GPU wipe the floor with the 5200, including a 9600 XT.

[george68]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
What are you referring to, playing Halo or playing an older game like Warcraft III or UT? If you're referring to Halo, that's what I said. You have to turn down the resolution but at still quite decent res (1024x768 works fine) it's great. If you're referring to older games, my friend's roommate has a 1.25GHz G4, which is considerably slower than the G5 iMac and has the same video, and it plays UT X and Warcraft III perfectly fine at FULL RESOLUTION with all the options turned on.

-Jon

Of COURSE it'll play UTX and warcraft3 fine, they're OLD GAMES. Halo will suck. YOu will not be able to run it at FULL resolution (1440X900) and get respectable framerates (40-50, WHICH IS NEEDED, so when you go into a big map with lots of baddies that the fps doesn't drop to 10fps).

- $

[Commodus]

A GeForce FX 5700 - Apple probably isn't going to switch to ATI on the iMac front for awhile, so I'd just choose the next step up on the graphics front.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by george68:
Of COURSE it'll play UTX and warcraft3 fine, they're OLD GAMES. Halo will suck. YOu will not be able to run it at FULL resolution (1440X900) and get respectable framerates (40-50, WHICH IS NEEDED, so when you go into a big map with lots of baddies that the fps doesn't drop to 10fps).

Really, Halo and UT2004 run great on 1.25GHz iMacs, they'll run even better on the G5. With a GeForceFX 5200, if you use the fixed function rendering path (not as pretty but oh well), you can run Halo at full resolution (I haven't played it at 1440x900 but I've seen an FX5200 doing 1280x1024 which is the same number of pixels) at consistantly playable (15+) framerates. Personally I prefer a lower resolution (1024x768, still looks damn nice) and the vertex shader rendering path. UT2k4 looks even better running at full resolution (the options you have to turn off are barely noticable visually). Have you ever actually played some of these games on a GeForce 5200, george? I have, It's really pretty good. Based on my experiences with the PC version, even Doom should stay well above 15fps on a GeForceFX 5200 at low res.

[Lancer409]

its not about what gpu it should come with. what it has is fine (FOR MOST PEOPLE!), what they need to do is make it user upgradeable so they can get the machine out at a low price point but people who want more can up it themselves

[Simon]

Originally posted by Lancer409:
its not about what gpu it should come with. what it has is fine (FOR MOST PEOPLE!), what they need to do is make it user upgradeable so they can get the machine out at a low price point but people who want more can up it themselves

Exactly.

[Truepop]

Originally posted by Lancer409:
its not about what gpu it should come with. what it has is fine (FOR MOST PEOPLE!), what they need to do is make it user upgradeable so they can get the machine out at a low price point but people who want more can up it themselves

I think that would be a bit hard. you must be talking about retail video cards so I can't see how it would really work. they are designed for dvi input. I guess it would have to have dvi connection inside the imac so once you get the card inserted you could hook the monitor up. I take it back it could work I guess.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Truepop:
I think that would be a bit hard. you must be talking about retail video cards so I can't see how it would really work. they are designed for dvi input. I guess it would have to have dvi connection inside the imac so once you get the card inserted you could hook the monitor up. I take it back it could work I guess.

Hence my earlier suggestion of a "new Cube"; AGP video card that either feeds an external monitor or an optional LCD on a flexible arm that attaches to the top of the cube (a la G4 iMac).