[PEHowland]

Originally posted by jamesa:
$$$$, maybe? Being even more el cheapo that Apple did with the GPU?
And maybe that's why they're doing so well?
-- james

And I guess the same goes for Gateway with their stunning 17" Profile 5X-C machine? This beauty is a mere $1500 like the 17" iMac but features the explosive Intel Integrated Extreme Graphics. It even comes with a floppy drive - now why didn't Apple think of that?

Shame those industry newcomers like Apple, Sony and Gateway don't have the engineering and business expertise of this forum on the staff. They'd be laughing!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
And I guess the same goes for Gateway with their stunning 17" Profile 5X-C machine? This beauty is a mere $1500 like the 17" iMac but features the explosive Intel Integrated Extreme Graphics. It even comes with a floppy drive - now why didn't Apple think of that?

Shame those industry newcomers like Apple, Sony and Gateway don't have the engineering and business expertise of this forum on the staff. They'd be laughing!

This is not an engineering problem. This is a business decision. All 3 makers have assumed that the AIO market won't care what GPU is in the machine and have therefore milked a few extra pennies of profit margin by putting in a cheap chipset.

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
This is not an engineering problem. This is a business decision. All 3 makers have assumed that the AIO market won't care what GPU is in the machine and have therefore milked a few extra pennies of profit margin by putting in a cheap chipset.

Lets not forget that both companies offer consumer machines (towers) with much better card options, and that are upgradeable at a "consumer" price. With Apple you don't have a choice, it's either all ($3,000 Powermac) or nothing (iMac, eMac).

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Lets not forget that both companies offer consumer machines (towers) with much better card options, and that are upgradeable at a "consumer" price. With Apple you don't have a choice, it's either all ($3,000 Powermac) or nothing (iMac, eMac).

Which is why my wife will be getting an iBook instead of an iMac.

[toti]

I say... I have been monitoring the ( rather one-sided ) discussion here, and I really can't see what all the fuss is about...

I have a dual 1.8 GHz G5 with a 5200 graphics card, and I don't see any problems with UT2004, SecondLife or any other game I have thrown at it on a 20" monitor.

The only problem I have had with that computer was the measly memory supplied with it, but once it was upgraded to 1.5GB everything runs silk smooth, and I have not felt any need to upgrade the card.

My brother has a dual 2.0GHz G5 with the BTO card ( 9800 ? ) and it looks to us both as a waste of money in regard to how well the 5200 is performing..

I do play games, occationally. SecondLife has much of my spare time these days, and I am getting me the 20" iMac to play that ( along with the normal activities like iPhoto, FCE, and work stuff being a sysadmin ).

I agree that it might have been nice to get a more powerful graphics card, considering all the eye-candy that is coming our way, but I still find the 20" iMac to be tremendous value for money in every respect.

Feel free to flame me, I have a good asbestos suit, and am immune to most trolls

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by toti:
I agree that it might have been nice to get a more powerful graphics card, considering all the eye-candy that is coming our way, but I still find the 20" iMac to be tremendous value for money in every respect.

Feel free to flame me, I have a good asbestos suit, and am immune to most trolls

Yes, I'm sure the 5200 will play existing games pretty well. The sticking point is how well it will handle upcoming and future games.

The bane of all gamers is that games push hardware so quickly that GPUs really only last a couple of seasons of games before they show their limitations.

The 5200 is already at the bottom of the list of supported cards for some games. It won't be long before lots of games don't list it all.

[jasonv1]

I did my part, I cancelled my G5 20" order and bought a refurbed Dual 1.8 G5.

The sales rep asked my why, and I said that I was concerned with the choice in video cards. I plan on keeping the unit for a good 3-5 years and I felt that the G5 would "age" much better than the iMac.

Seriously though, you have to forward your concerns to Apple.

Originally posted by george68:
Look, I don't WANT a tower. I like the iMac because it's smaller, more compact, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I like how it includes the screen.

But since it's inception, Apple has always stuck a complete **** video card in the imac, making it pretty embarassing to play games with. Why!?

Look at an average person who'd like to play games. Chances are, they don't have the bling for a nice G5 tower setup with the monitor and accessories. But they like macs, so they get an iMac. For the past 5 years I've owned iMacs exclusively, and htey've ALWAYS been subpar when it comes to gaming.

WHY!?!?!

WAKE THE HELL UP APPLE. Make a GAMING edition with a decent video card!

Christ.... they'll never get this concept. It'd sell like hotcakes, but whatever.

- Ca$h

[jamesa]

Originally posted by jasonv1:
I did my part, I cancelled my G5 20" order and bought a refurbed Dual 1.8 G5.

The sales rep asked my why, and I said that I was concerned with the choice in video cards. I plan on keeping the unit for a good 3-5 years and I felt that the G5 would "age" much better than the iMac.

Seriously though, you have to forward your concerns to Apple.

-- james

[Pierre B.]

Originally posted by toti:

I have a dual 1.8 GHz G5 with a 5200 graphics card, and I don't see any problems with UT2004, SecondLife or any other game I have thrown at it on a 20" monitor.

You forgot to specify at what resolution do you play these games on this monitor. Or even better, you can post here the fps you obtain when playing, e.g., UT2004 in the native resolution of the 20" display.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Pierre B.:
You forgot to specify at what resolution do you play these games on this monitor. Or even better, you can post here the fps you obtain when playing, e.g., UT2004 in the native resolution of the 20" display.

especially when you've got a few other people in a fire-fight, close up

-- james

[george68]

Still waiting for the additional information.....

[the_glassman]

I want frame rates!!!!

[PEHowland]

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by george68:
Still waiting for the additional information.....

Well, I dunno about toti, but my friend has a G5 tower (single 1.6 I believe, PCI rather than PCI-X slots) with a GeForceFX5200. Halo runs wonderfully at 1280x1024 which is roughly equivalent to the iMac G5's LCD's native resolution. He played through most of the game and never had the framerate fall noticably low. He was using the fixed function codepath with all the visual options turned all the way up. UT2004 runs awesome at the same resolution, even with a half dozen people all shooting in a big arena (he's got FSAA turned off, otherwise has the quality settings set to normal). In all cases in both games, frame rates stay consistantly above about 20fps, there is no visible lag or stutter at any time, and the graphics are beautiful.

[JC Denton]

Just a small portion of Inside Mac Games One on One with Glenda Adams (Director of PC/Mac Game Dev at Aspyr Media)

Tuncer: One of the biggest complaints about the new iMac is the graphics chip inside. What are your thoughts on the subject?

Glenda: Obviously we also want to see the latest and greatest chip in the iMac, particularly because the user can't upgrade it. I'm glad Apple at least moved to the FX5200 Ultra, which is faster than the original 5200. But I have to be honest I was hoping to see something even a bit faster, like a 5600 or a ATI 9600. I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons Apple had to choose the 5200 Ultra (heat, cost, size, etc), and I hope they'll continue to push better and better chips as they can. I think we actually will see that happen with OS X Tiger taking so much advantage of the graphics processor- if the OS really needs a fast video card that's one more reason to include one on the all-in-one machines like the iMac.

If there was one thing I could have changed on the G5 iMac it would have been to have a special build to order model the user could pay an extra $100 to get a 5600 or 9600 instead of the base chip. That would make gamers happier but not take away the $1299 base price.


And the follow-up question...

Tuncer: So do you think gamers should stay away from the new iMac and opt for a desktop Power Mac G5 instead?

Glenda: I've been looking at both options myself, to replace my aging G4 733 at home. Since I don't work at home any more, I don't need a monster dual 2.5 for development, but I'd like a nice fast machine for games and iMovie/iDVD stuff. It's a tough choice- the all in one 20" G5 iMac is a very nice option, but since I already have a good LCD I could plug into a desktop I'm leaning towards the low end Dual 1.8 G5 desktop. I know the machine will last longer with upgradeable graphics (I can start with a 9600 and put in a different whiz-bang card in a year).

If I didn't have a good LCD monitor already, or was looking more to spend $1300-$1400 instead of $2000, the G5 iMac would be a great replacement for an older G4 desktop or iMac. It really does depend on how hardcore you want to be about games, and how much expandability is going to matter. I can say no one will be disappointed in game performance if they are still holding on to a sub 1Ghz G3/G4 and upgrade to even the low end imac. The difference the G5 and the faster bus speed makes is incredible.

End of interview excerpt...

Considering I've got a Cube 450 with a GF2 (running Panther just fine) plus a PS2/GC fulfilling most of my gaming needs, I don't think I'd have any reservations buying a iMac in its current incarnation. I could upgrade now and start enjoying a G5-based Mac now, or wait awhile, save some money, and maybe get an iMac with a better GPU. Either way, I'd be a happy Mac user. I'd finally be able to run that copy of WC3 gathering dust on my desk.

[galarneau]

Who cares about Halo and UT2004? I don't think anyone ever had a problem with the GeForce5200 FX playing these games.

The problem is the games that are going to be played for the life of the iMac (i.e. FUTURE games).

If you look at Quake 3 (which was released in 1999), most of the big games of the next 4-5 years were based on that engine.

The next big engine will be Doom 3, and if the iMac can't play that game, you're FOREVER screwed for any game that uses that engine (and there will probably be a lot of them).

The point is that I don't buy my computers for what they can do now. I buy them for what I want them to do for their lifespan.

See the difference?

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by galarneau:
Who cares about Halo and UT2004?

Well evidently somebody cares, because my post was in direct response to a question about UT2004 performance. Some people on this forum are apparently under the mistaken impression that the iMac wouldn't even run current games very well, and this is, of course, absurd.

As for games in the future, based on the performance of the PC version of the game, the Doom3 engine should run quite well on a GeForce FX 5200 at lower resolutions (800x600 or 1024x768 tops), but the iMac's native 1440x900 resolution probably won't be playable. So as long as you're not terribly picky about resolution and visual quality, the iMac should be sufficient (barely) for the next few years.

[the_glassman]

Courtesy of Barefeats

[thunderous_funker]

Those benchmarks aren't the 5200 Ultra correct? Unless I'm totally mistaken, the Ultra does have features that should change those numbers substantially.

I guess the question is how substantially. Anyone know?

[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
As for games in the future, based on the performance of the PC version of the game, the Doom3 engine should run quite well on a GeForce FX 5200 at lower resolutions (800x600 or 1024x768 tops), but the iMac's native 1440x900 resolution probably won't be playable. So as long as you're not terribly picky about resolution and visual quality, the iMac should be sufficient (barely) for the next few years..

Switching the resolution on LCDs is not an option. The antialiasing will create a blurry screen. This is one advantage that CRTs have over LCDs (other advantages include deeper blacks, a wider color gamut, and a wider viewing area). That you even suggested this makes me wonder if you've ever actually used an LCD and/or played games on one.

-S

[pliny]

I was just using an iMac g4, stock everything (800 mhz g4, 100 mhz bus, 256 mg ram, 32 mg geoforce, 10.2.8); and it opened up everything I did very quickly and ran it all well. (ppt, word, explorer <gasp>, iphoto, idvd, imovie) Granted not everythinhg went through every possible pace but launch time was very quick, instaneous in some cases, and there were lots of photos and clips in iphoto and imovie.

Bottom line: I can only guess that the g5 iMac will run even better; and the picture quality looks superior.

I really wnat to try one out.

[Luca Rescigno]

Here's something to shut up you FX5200 defenders:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/...5200/index.htm

The Radeon 9550, which costs approximately the same as the FX5200 (both in the $60-$70 price range), and runs COOLER (reviewer said his 5200 was extremely hot to the touch after playing an intense game), also happens to be about TWICE AS FAST!

So, is there any reason whatsoever to use the FX5200, when there is another option that is almost twice as fast, costs the same, and runs cooler? No.

I rest my case.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Those benchmarks aren't the 5200 Ultra correct?

Apple has only used the Ultra variant.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Apple has only used the Ultra variant.

Ah. Thanks, that clears up a lot.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
Switching the resolution on LCDs is not an option. The antialiasing will create a blurry screen. This is one advantage that CRTs have over LCDs (other advantages include deeper blacks, a wider color gamut, and a wider viewing area). That you even suggested this makes me wonder if you've ever actually used an LCD and/or played games on one.

I have, but never on an iMac. How bad it is depends on the manufacturer of the LCD, in some cases it can be quite acceptable. In cases where it's not, there are two solutions to the problem, though I don't know if they work on iMacs. One is to run the game at precisely half the resolution of the screen (if you have a 1024x768 screen, run in 512x384 mode, or if you have a 1280x960 screen, run in 640x480). This simple double-pixel scaling looks fine. Dunno how well that'd work on an iMac's oddball 1440x900 screen though. The other option is to turn off scaling entirly, so that lower resolutions simply are smaller. This is how I played games on my IBM laptop; on a 1024x768 screen, running a 640x480 game simply results in 640x480 square in the middle of you screen with a black border around the edge. I've never known an LCD panel or PC laptop for which this is not an option, but I'm not certain that iMacs have a switch or control panel to turn off scaling. Anybody own an iMac G4 that can confirm/deny?

-Jon

[pliny]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
Here's something to shut up you FX5200 defenders:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/...5200/index.htm

The Radeon 9550, which costs approximately the same as the FX5200 (both in the $60-$70 price range), and runs COOLER (reviewer said his 5200 was extremely hot to the touch after playing an intense game), also happens to be about TWICE AS FAST!

So, is there any reason whatsoever to use the FX5200, when there is another option that is almost twice as fast, costs the same, and runs cooler? No.

I rest my case.

Sure the 9550 runs cooler--it has a built-in fan! I have seen mods of these lines of cards with whoppin heat sinks, they run very hot, and I wodner how much louder the fan would have made the iMac, silent running seems to have been a design priority.

And anyway that is a CARD, not a gpu, so where are talking different architectures.

i bet the iMac won't see a card layout anytime soon since they never have.

[JC Denton]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:


So, is there any reason whatsoever to use the FX5200, when there is another option that is almost twice as fast, costs the same, and runs cooler? No.

I rest my case.

But what case is that? Apple is stupid? Apple likes releasing computers with less-than-optimal components when they there is absolutely no reason to? Maybe it's possible that there is a reason that has nothing to do with cost or heat that hasn't been addressed. I have no idea why Apple chose the Nvidia part over the ATI one. Maybe it's driver-related. Maybe Apple gets a really, really good deal on 5200s. Maybe Apple has decided it's worth all this strum und drang if it prompts gamers to forgo the iMac and get the Dual G5 PM. Who knows?

I'm not defending Apple's choice, since I'd love to be able to buy an iMac with a better GPU right now and not have the tiny amount of doubt whether I should have waited for a RevB or continued saving up for a PM. I just doubt Apple made this decision for the sole reason of angering potential customers if there was no benefit whatsoever (economic, design, engineering, etc.) for doing so.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by pliny:
Sure the 9550 runs cooler--it has a built-in fan! I have seen mods of these lines of cards with whoppin heat sinks, they run very hot, and I wodner how much louder the fan would have made the iMac, silent running seems to have been a design priority.

You are incorrect. I have a Radeon 9550 in my PC and it has a very small HSF that is very quiet. To be honest, I am not even sure why it has the fan. It certainly doesn't move much air and the GPU certainly doesn't get hot enough to need it. Which explains why many other 9550s do not have a fan.

And obviously silent running wasn't the priority since the iMac G5 has three fans already.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by pliny:
Sure the 9550 runs cooler--it has a built-in fan!

Did you actually read the article? The 9550 tested had this tiny little 1.5inch square passive heatsink. No fan. The 5200 tested had a massive heatsink that covered the entire board, and still it ran hotter. The 9550 would have reduced noise, if anything.

[pliny]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
You are incorrect. I have a Radeon 9550 in my PC and it has a very small HSF that is very quiet. To be honest, I am not even sure why it has the fan. It certainly doesn't move much air and the GPU certainly doesn't get hot enough to need it. Which explains why many other 9550s do not have a fan.

And obviously silent running wasn't the priority since the iMac G5 has three fans already.

Do you people read? Who said silent running was the priority? I just said it's a priority.

And as for the heat sink, I said I have seen some whopping heat sink MODS on these, I never said they ALL come with whopping heat sinks, if the shipping heat sink is 1.5 or whatever, great, and if in fact that is so great, well then, go tell the modders.

But don't tell me you don't need a fan on it if it comes with a fan, go tell ATI.

And I am not going to defend from an engineering standpoint a soldered gpu versus a card in this machine, because it is as much a business decision as an engineering one.

But like I said, I bet we will not see a card in this thing anytime soon. BTO maybe. We'll see how it does.

As far as the fan noise, what is that PC anyway?

Edit: I forgot, I've read abotu a couple of different 9550s, one is fanless, I forget the difference between the two.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by pliny:
Do you people read? Who said silent running was the priority? I just said it's a priority.

Doesn't really matter. The point is that the iMac should be quiet, and the 9550 can get by fine with very quiet cooling.

And as for the heat sink, I said I have seen some whopping heat sink MODS on these, I never said they ALL come with whopping heat sinks, if the shipping heat sink is 1.5 or whatever, great, and if in fact that is so great, well then, go tell the modders.

But don't tell me you don't need a fan on it if it comes with a fan, go tell ATI.

Overclockers push their cards to the limit. They take a 9550, see that it has a lot of potential because it's really cheap, and then put a huge heatsink on it so they can overclock it to higher speeds than the 9600 Pro. At stock speeds, it doesn't generate much heat. Also, FYI, the Mac versions of the Radeon 9600 Pro and XT are fanless, even though the PC versions have fans. So just because ATI's card comes with a fan doesn't mean it HAS to. On the other hand, the Mac 9600s are clocked lower - 365 and 400 MHz vs. 400 and 500 MHz. Still much faster than the 9550.

And I am not going to defend from an engineering standpoint a soldered gpu versus a card in this machine, because it is as much a business decision as an engineering one.

But like I said, I bet we will not see a card in this thing anytime soon. BTO maybe. We'll see how it does.

I agree there. The iMac, I think, will never, ever get replaceable graphics. Ever. Apple will do anything to avoid that. At best, it MIGHT get a BTO graphics option. But that's being optimistic.

As far as the fan noise, what is that PC anyway?

PowerMacMan showed me his case on NewEgg a while back - it's a low-end enermax with two case fans. But he'd be better to comment on it.0

Edit: I forgot, I've read abotu a couple of different 9550s, one is fanless, I forget the difference between the two.

Yeah, there's a 9550 SE and a regular 9550. I haven't seen benchmarks of the 9550 SE, but I don't think it would be a whole lot better than the 5200. It's the full 9550 that I'd want in the iMac.

[Luca Rescigno]

Another tidbit...

Here's the GeForce FX5200 that was reviewed in that link I posted above:



And here's the Radeon 9550 (full 9550, not a slower 9550SE):

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
Here's something to shut up you FX5200 defenders:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/...5200/index.htm

The Radeon 9550, which costs approximately the same as the FX5200 (both in the $60-$70 price range), and runs COOLER (reviewer said his 5200 was extremely hot to the touch after playing an intense game), also happens to be about TWICE AS FAST!

So, is there any reason whatsoever to use the FX5200, when there is another option that is almost twice as fast, costs the same, and runs cooler? No.

I rest my case.

I'd pick your case up again if I were you. That article is reviewing the FX5200 not the FX5200 Ultra used in the iMac. There's a significant difference in performance, and the Ultra would almost certainly have scored higher than the 9550 across the board.

Still not the world's greatest gaming card - but just pointing out that your link was irrelevant.

By the way, the_glassman's graphs from Barefeats actually seem to sum up this whole thread. Performance of 5200 Ultra on most current generation games using Quake III engine - 66 fps - perfectly acceptable. Performance on newer engine, UT2003, OK but may need to be run at lower resolutions. Performance on Motion, slow, and not the best - but it does run! Summary: don't get the iMac if you want to run the latest FPS games or do serious professional video rendering. Otherwise, it's a great machine and will serve you well.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
There's a significant difference in performance, and the Ultra would almost certainly have scored higher than the 9550 across the board.

Hahahaha!

[the_glassman]

Don't forget those numbers are also on a DP 2 GHz full bus speed Powermac, I would expect the iMac to perform even worse.

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Hahahaha!

Well see this comparison at The Tech Report. This does actually compare the two cards - and they're actually pretty even.

In some tests, the 5200 Ultra is far ahead of the 9550 - eg. 3Dmark03 texturing rate of 931 Mpixels/s vs. 570 MPixels/s on the 9550; or 7.4 fps on the Vertex Shader vs. 6.5 fps, or 147 fps vs. 128 fps on Wings of Fury, or 149fps on Return to Castle Wolfenstein vs 99fps on the 9550. So, on these tests the 5200 Ultra is consistently much better than the 9550.

On other test, they are evenly matched. eg. almost identical scores on Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow, Need For Speed and UT2004.

And on some other tests the 9550 was marginally better than the 5200 Ultra. For example higher multi-texturing fill rate in 3DMark03 (974 vs. 912 Mtexels/s), higher Pixel Shader 2.0 results (16.2fps vs. 9.4 fps), overall higher 3Dmark03 score (2913 vs 2602), higher score in Far Cry (69fps vs 55 fps).

Overall, however, I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that one card is better than the other. It depends entirely on the game or test chosen to illustrate your point of view. Interestingly, however, the 9550 does run slightly cooler - 88W idle vs 92W on the 5200Ultra, and 130W vs 153W respectively under load.

So, not sure what the laugh was all about. The two cards are pretty evenly matched.

[ps. Incidentally, the power consumption figures are odd. Tech Report don't state how they measure them. For comparison, for instance, Xbit-Labs measured power consumption of ATI Radeon cards and had figures of closer to 20W under load! You therefore clearly can't directly compare power consumption figures from different sites.]

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Don't forget those numbers are also on a DP 2 GHz full bus speed Powermac, I would expect the iMac to perform even worse.

The DP won't make any difference on the games. Hard to say with Motion - it looks like the GPU is the driving factor on this benchmark too. So, the difference will be about 10-15% due to the slower 1.8GHz CPU and FSB.

[terrancew_hod]

Talk about your heated arguments!

I've been eyeing the new iMac G5 as well, and most likely will use it as a "guest" computer--you know the one everyone jumps on to surf the internet or check mail when they come over; they can't be trusted with my old PC since many tend to go to "questionable" sites when I leave the room or go to sleep ...

Anyway, I have an issue as well with the GPU in the machine as well, sure it's enough for games now, but what about the next generation of games (which has been touched on previously)? Maybe that's one of the reasons that Doom 3 is not ready for the Mac or hasn't found a distributor by now (unless I missed the announcement). I think the game software companies have a lot of obstacles to overcome when the PC ports have more graphic sets to work with and are restricted when it comes to porting to the mac. Either they'll have to tweak or reduce the graphic quality to support the majority of "common" mac users. The companies won't get much of a profit when people realize that either their port won't run well on the majority of machines and the "new common" standard machine sports a GPU that is at least a generation behind. I think unless this changes, game diehards that are also Mac users will either have to suffer through "good enough" to inadequate performance or have a PC in their household as well. I guess Steve Jobs isn't a game player, otherwise we would have had a better video card in the machine by now.

But then maybe in the case of the iMac G5, we're paying more for the display than the internals, or maybe the 5200 may have been used to keep the heat down with the 2 inch casing.

Maybe the Rev B of the iMac may have a better card in it... we can only hope. In meantime, I'll build a new game computer in a Shuttle case, and perhaps get a PowerMac G5 with a Geforce 68000 when Doom 3 for the Mac actually ships...

Terrance

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by terrancew_hod:
Talk about your heated arguments!

I've been eyeing the new iMac G5 as well, and most likely will use it as a "guest" computer--you know the one everyone jumps on to surf the internet or check mail when they come over; they can't be trusted with my old PC since many tend to go to "questionable" sites when I leave the room or go to sleep ...

Anyway, I have an issue as well with the GPU in the machine as well, sure it's enough for games now, but what about the next generation of games (which has been touched on previously)? Maybe that's one of the reasons that Doom 3 is not ready for the Mac or hasn't found a distributor by now (unless I missed the announcement). I think the game software companies have a lot of obstacles to overcome when the PC ports have more graphic sets to work with and are restricted when it comes to porting to the mac. Either they'll have to tweak or reduce the graphic quality to support the majority of "common" mac users. The companies won't get much of a profit when people realize that either their port won't run well on the majority of machines and the "new common" standard machine sports a GPU that is at least a generation behind. I think unless this changes, game diehards that are also Mac users will either have to suffer through "good enough" to inadequate performance or have a PC in their household as well. I guess Steve Jobs isn't a game player, otherwise we would have had a better video card in the machine by now.

But then maybe in the case of the iMac G5, we're paying more for the display than the internals, or maybe the 5200 may have been used to keep the heat down with the 2 inch casing.

Maybe the Rev B of the iMac may have a better card in it... we can only hope. In meantime, I'll build a new game computer in a Shuttle case, and perhaps get a PowerMac G5 with a Geforce 68000 when Doom 3 for the Mac actually ships...

Terrance

Good response. By the way, if you're going to build a Shuttle, don't forget to check out the website in my signature! It's the home of SFF machines in the 'net!

[terrancew_hod]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Good response. By the way, if you're going to build a Shuttle, don't forget to check out the website in my signature! It's the home of SFF machines in the 'net!

Thanks, and will look at your site.

And did I say 68000? LOL!!! Guess that tells you how much of a game player I am these days!

Right now I do the little bit of gaming on my Powerbook; it's got the Radeon 9600 so it's not bad for what I do. Of course it'll be a different story in a few months. At least in the case of a PC or Powermac, you can pop out the video card and update it... of course you don't have that luxury with the powermac or powerbook. But then Apple could take a page from Alienware and allow user-swapable GPUs in their iMacs... this solution would probably be too bulky in the Powerbooks, though it would be great--the 'books probably need to be a bit bigger to keep the "singe factor" from happening to my lap!

Terrance

[Lancer409]

it already has a decent video card... i dont know when it'll have a video card that you would be happy with though..

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Lancer409:
it already has a decent video card... i dont know when it'll have a video card that you would be happy with though..

when there's one that comes out that we consider decent! It's fine for a low end machine but at the very least give us something better on the top end!

-- james

[Pierre B.]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
The DP won't make any difference on the games.

Partially true. In the recent DP aware UT games, where the sound processing can eat up to 50% of processing power, the second processor makes a huge difference. Check out this one, in particular the comments after the graphs.

[terrancew_hod]

Originally posted by Lancer409:
it already has a decent video card... i dont know when it'll have a video card that you would be happy with though..

That may be true for today's games, like i said before; but for the next batch of games that we would like to see on the Mac (Far Cry, Doom 3, Half Life 2, etc), it becomes woefully inadequate. No one wants to pay $35-50 for a game that will be stripped down or perform poorly, when PC gamers can enjoy the full game for about the same price they would put down on a iMac. A new iMac G5 shouldn't have a last generation GPU in them; they should have at the least the lowest of the new generation in them.

Apple needs at least to expand the graphic options available on all their machines; the low end graphics are being taken care of, at least there should a gamer's option. And that will at least should give game developers something to work with and allow them to do less reworking to bring a product to the Mac market.

Terrance

[jamesa]

Originally posted by terrancew_hod:
That may be true for today's games, like i said before; but for the next batch of games that we would like to see on the Mac (Far Cry, Doom 3, Half Life 2, etc), it becomes woefully inadequate. No one wants to pay $35-50 for a game that will be stripped down or perform poorly, when PC gamers can enjoy the full game for about the same price they would put down on a iMac. A new iMac G5 shouldn't have a last generation GPU in them; they should have at the least the lowest of the new generation in them.

Apple needs at least to expand the graphic options available on all their machines; the low end graphics are being taken care of, at least there should a gamer's option. And that will at least should give game developers something to work with and allow them to do less reworking to bring a product to the Mac market.

Terrance

which is exactly what glenda adams said in that interview with IMG (it was Glenda, wasn't it?)

it just would help the mac market out immensely

-- james

[cash]

...but for the next batch of games that we would like to see on the Mac (Far Cry, Doom 3, Half Life 2, etc)...

Far Cry and Half-Life 2 both use Microsoft DirectX to power them. I dont see them coming to the mac platform any time soon...

--
cash

[jamesa]

Originally posted by cash:
Far Cry and Half-Life 2 both use Microsoft DirectX to power them. I dont see them coming to the mac platform any time soon...

maybe, but that's not necessarily anything to do with DirectX. Most of the porting houses have done all the conversions before so the amount of time it takes (unless there's something weird in the code) is not that long.

-- james

[Pierre B.]

Surprisingly enough, PC Magazine believe the new iMac should be a decent gaming machine. Their words:

The integrated nVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics chipset means that the iMac G5 can play fairly strenuous 3D games, like Unreal Tournament 2004 and Halo. The iMac G5 won't match the performance of a high-end Windows PC or PowerMac dual G5 (with their higher-powered Radeon X800XT or GeForce 6800 Ultra graphics processors), but it should prove to be a capable gaming box.

Here is the article.

[storer]

i bet they are right...

[QuadG5Man]

Barefeats.com has new benchmarks for the iMac G5. In Apple's Motion RAM preview bench, the iMac G5 outperforms a dual 1.8 G5........?

Perhaps not enough credit is being given to the iMac's 'measly' 5200 ULTRA video card.

This may reflect that the current iMac G5 will run Tiger very nicely.

For those of you 'on the fence' about buying the iMac G5, I would take a look at barefeats.com. It's the best mac EVER (price/performance). Wow.



____________