[iBorg]

Originally posted by PookJP:
1. Where'd you hear that sales are below expectations? Link?

2. Nobody but people who are very much in the know even understand what a GPU is, let alone care if theirs is top of the line. The vast majority of consumers care about style, price, and basic performance (GHz).

Ummmmm ..... how about clicking the link I included in the post you responded to .....



iBorg

[iBorg]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Only time will tell, but the article at the link you provide is meaningless.

"Meaningless?" I don't know - it's from a marketing analyst with some expertise in these things. (You expect this forum to value your technical opinions based upon your credentials in the area ..... )

I'm not vouching for the validity of this article - just pointing it out as a Mac news item on the G5 iMac!



iBorg

[PEHowland]

Originally posted by iBorg:
"Meaningless?" I don't know - it's from a marketing analyst with some expertise in these things. (You expect this forum to value your technical opinions based upon your credentials in the area ..... )

I'm not vouching for the validity of this article - just pointing it out as a Mac news item on the G5 iMac!

Yeah, I'm prepared to stand by the meaningless statement. Judging iMac sales by comparing waiting lists to those for iPods is pretty meaningless. If they compared the waiting lists to those of earlier iMacs and analysed the production runs of the two machines, stockpiles, etc, then it might be of some interest. Don't believe everything you read. Although, having said that, the majority of all the other armchair analysts I've read online (including the popular PC press) can't seem to stop gushing about how good the iMac is going to be for Apple. Like I said, time will tell. Waiting for Apple to announce their sales figures would be a good start.

Remember, market analysts don't have a good history with the IT business - they also recommended investors to buy .com stocks...

EDIT: Somewhat amusingly, I see today's press is reporting comments by market analysts First Albany who have raised the stock rating, citing, among other reasons "substantial demand for its new iMacs" - see here . Pick an analyst, any analyst...

[jamesa]

Originally posted by PEHowland:
Although, having said that, the majority of all the other armchair analysts I've read online (including the popular PC press) can't seem to stop gushing about how good the iMac is going to be for Apple. Like I said, time will tell. Waiting for Apple to announce their sales figures would be a good start.

I agree. The analysts tend to be vastly over-enthusiastic about sales figures.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,49565,00.html

See that Wired article above for a quote from an analyst that thought Apple would ship 12 million iMac G4s (they managed to ship between 5-6 million iMac G3s by comparison)

-- james

[aafuss]

Apple could have included a Radeon 9200/9600 in the iMac, butn obviously for cooling issues they decided a FX5200 would be more suitable. Also having more than 64MB VRAM maybe overkill for some uses, and would suit a PMG5 better.

[terrancew_hod]

Originally posted by aafuss:
Apple could have included a Radeon 9200/9600 in the iMac, butn obviously for cooling issues they decided a FX5200 would be more suitable. Also having more than 64MB VRAM maybe overkill for some uses, and would suit a PMG5 better.

Wasn't there a post earlier that said the radeon 9000 series run no hotter than the 5200's? I don't think it was a cooling issue, it was more likely a cost issue. If they were serious about putting something better in the machine and heat was an issue, i'm sure the case could have been made a little bigger to accomodate the card and improve air circulation.

Nvidia probably made a deal with Apple to provide these cards cheap to beat out ATI. Perhaps this is why we see so much flip flopping in cards between revisions and models. I would think apple would want to provide a better graphic experience and provide better video cards across their line. I think even the newer revisions of powermacs have underpowered cards as well; 9800s should be the standard across the board, then offering Nvidia 6800 or ATI X800s as BTO. Using more current or at least better video cards would give game manufactures better machines to work with and would only improve the amount of games ported to mac.

Also newer games are looking for more than 64MB VRAM, so this makes the issue of keeping video cards current or offering a BTO (or video card swapping) in the iMacs more important. I would think there could be a market for people to buy replacement video in the iMacs; it would make the life of iMac longer and allow the machine to be more fully user-servicable. Also it would allow people to upgrade their machines who wouldn't normally afford to buy another machine.

Terrance

[jamesa]

Originally posted by aafuss:
Apple could have included a Radeon 9200/9600 in the iMac, butn obviously for cooling issues they decided a FX5200 would be more suitable. Also having more than 64MB VRAM maybe overkill for some uses, and would suit a PMG5 better.

hey aafuss... welcome

the debate in the past few pages has raged a bit, and what you've said has been raised a few times. However, if Apple were going to have had cooling problems, it would have been with the 1.8g5 with 17". The 20" 1.8G5 imac has the same heat producing components at the 1.8 17, but with significantly more volume (thicker, taller, wider), therefore more heat dissipation. so at the very least a better GPU was an option on this model.

Also, as a general rule, nVidia graphics cards consume more energy than ATIs for the same performance, so if Apple were really dead serious about heat they'd have switched GPU provider.

-- james

[klinux]

Analyst, forecast, some wild guess, whatever.

Here are some real numbers:
.

Can the iMac G5 reverse and then sustain the trend? I doubt it.

[Crusoe]

Just another comment on target for iMacs.

I was in the U Village store in Seattle working on getting my battery replaced on my Powerbook. While waiting for the battery to run down I browsed the store.

During the hour, 4 iMacs left the store from 3 grey hair ladies and a younger couple, and one eMac with an elderly couple.

It is certainly a shame that Apple doesn't have some low end Powermac for us light to heavy gamers but as noted the AIO systems are selling to the crowd that doesn't care about the graphics power.
A SP 1.8 or 2.0 Powermac at $1599ish would be a sweet spot for some, and a hook for folks on the fence between the iMac and Powermac.

But Apple's marketers and business planners I'm sure have simulated many sales projections of many configurations, though no plan is close to perfect, they know what they're doing better than most of us.

[toti]

Okay, defenders and offenders, saddle yer horses

Check this out.

Definitely no G5, and $200 more expensive than the mid-range iMac ( 17" 1.8 ), yet the same form-factor, better graphics ( but a much much cooler cpu - and slower ). Same specs in overall as the iMac 17" tho... and looks better

When it comes to the stores, I guess Apple will have some serious competition from the PC side ?

[Simon]

Looks like crap. No competition. Not even close.

[ApeInTheShell]

Well I am back not to defend the graphics card.

Instead I would rather focus on how Mac OS X Tiger will take advantage of this video card. Do we even care anymore? Must this constant bickering overcome the fact that we use a Macintosh for other things. We always have. Games were an afterthought. Its a creative machine afterall

Now maybe people do not like this strategy but it is part of a formula that Apple understands and pc users don't. Even mac users are a little clueless but that is okay.

[P]

Originally posted by terrancew_hod:
Wasn't there a post earlier that said the radeon 9000 series run no hotter than the 5200's? I don't think it was a cooling issue, it was more likely a cost issue. If they were serious about putting something better in the machine and heat was an issue, i'm sure the case could have been made a little bigger to accomodate the card and improve air circulation.

Nvidia probably made a deal with Apple to provide these cards cheap to beat out ATI. Perhaps this is why we see so much flip flopping in cards between revisions and models. I would think apple would want to provide a better graphic experience and provide better video cards across their line. I think even the newer revisions of powermacs have underpowered cards as well; 9800s should be the standard across the board, then offering Nvidia 6800 or ATI X800s as BTO. Using more current or at least better video cards would give game manufactures better machines to work with and would only improve the amount of games ported to mac.

Also newer games are looking for more than 64MB VRAM, so this makes the issue of keeping video cards current or offering a BTO (or video card swapping) in the iMacs more important. I would think there could be a market for people to buy replacement video in the iMacs; it would make the life of iMac longer and allow the machine to be more fully user-servicable. Also it would allow people to upgrade their machines who wouldn't normally afford to buy another machine.

Terrance

Yes, there were some comments a ways back that the 9600 GPU runs about as hot as the 5200U. Note that the video RAM is clocked well up and generates a lot of heat on its own - heat could have been a reason for the 64 MB VRAM.

Also, the Radeon 9200 is even slower than the 5200U, plus that it doesn't support all the shader features used by CoreImage.

[terrancew_hod]

Originally posted by P:
Yes, there were some comments a ways back that the 9600 GPU runs about as hot as the 5200U. Note that the video RAM is clocked well up and generates a lot of heat on its own - heat could have been a reason for the 64 MB VRAM.

Also, the Radeon 9200 is even slower than the 5200U, plus that it doesn't support all the shader features used by CoreImage.

If heat was a problem, then it should have been addressed in the design. Making a case a little bigger may allow for a little more air circulation. But more importantly, Apple should offer a BTO option with a more current processor, or interchangable processors as a user-installable item.

Like I've said before, Apple should be providing up-to-date processors with more video RAM in the machines. This will solve the issue of attracting games to the mac in a more timely manner. The next generation of games are going to require faster GPUs with more video memory; not offering this to the general mac users that may not have enough money to get a Powermac is doing the gaming community a disservice. Game designers have to write their software to work on the most common machine because they simply won't make a profit if they rely on just the powermacs for their sales. Thus the decision to port a game to the mac will depend if the translation can technically be done. If you offer a GPU that is 1-2 generations old in the current "common" machine for whatever the reason, it makes it harder for game designers to bring the game to market. Since Apple is the only supplier of macs, they can control the gaming situation by making the latest GPUs available so it will be easier to port games to the Mac, thus increasing the number of games available. Until then, the state of gaming on the mac will stay the same, and game players will have to have a PC system in their house as well to play the game as it was originally intended.

Terrance

[Eug Wanker]

Check out the post by filmmaker2002 here.

His PowerBook, likely a G4 1.5 with Radeon 9700 Mobility (which is based off the Radeon 9600 series) runs Motion better than his dual G5 2.0 with FX5200U.

I'll buy an iMac when the GPU gets better.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Check out the post by filmmaker2002 here.

His PowerBook, likely a G4 1.5 with Radeon 9700 Mobility (which is based off the Radeon 9600 series) runs Motion better than his dual G5 2.0 with FX5200U.

I'll buy an iMac when the GPU gets better.

ditto.

-- james

[P]

Originally posted by terrancew_hod:
If heat was a problem, then it should have been addressed in the design. Making a case a little bigger may allow for a little more air circulation. But more importantly, Apple should offer a BTO option with a more current processor, or interchangable processors as a user-installable item.

Everything in engineering is a tradeoff. Of course the case could have been made a little bigger, but if gaming is not a priority (like I have argued before that it was likely not - see the "arguing with barefeats" thread for details) why do that? More relevant would be to have 128 MB in the 20" where there already is more room - maybe they just wanted to keep the mobo versions down (but in that case I can't understand the onboard Bluetooth as an option). Just different priorities I guess...

[toti]

Well, this MacNN news item should silence some of the naysayers voices, eh ?

Apple offers single-processor 1.8GHz Power Mac G5
Apple today also added a 1.8GHz single processor Power Mac G5 desktop priced at $1,499 to its 64-bit Power Mac G5 line. Complementing the existing lineup of dual-2.5GHz, dual-2.0GHz and dual-1.8GHz Power Mac G5 models, the new single-processor 1.8GHz Power Mac G5 provides an expandable tower configuration at an affordable price. It ships with a NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra graphics card with 64MB of RAM. Other features include 600MHz front-side bus, 80GB drive, AGP 5x Pro graphics slot, 3 PCI slots (64-bit, 33MHz), an 8x SuperDrive, and 256MB of RAM. The new configuration is available immediately in a single standard configuration at the Apple Store and other authorized resellers.

Sounds fair to me.. $1499 plus a $500 3rd party monitor, still cheaper than the 20" iMac and you CAN upgrade your GPU.

Now can we put this to rest ?

[toti]

Oh... I didn't notice at first... the FSB speed is the same as the iMac ( 3:1 ) not as the G5 standard tower speed ( 2:1 )... strange..

[turtle777]

Originally posted by toti:
Now can we put this to rest ?

Nah. That would mean that all those iMac bitchers were seriously interested in buying a machine, and not only bitching about the iMac...

Well, we'll see.
If they shut up now and buy the new single G5, everything is alright.

But here is my prediction: they are going to bitch about the new PowerMac as they did with the iMac.

-t

[toti]

Originally posted by turtle777:
But here is my prediction: they are going to bitch about the new PowerMac as they did with the iMac.

Guess your'e right

[P]

Originally posted by toti:
Well, this MacNN news item should silence some of the naysayers voices, eh ?

<new Powermac>

Sounds fair to me.. $1499 plus a $500 3rd party monitor, still cheaper than the 20" iMac and you CAN upgrade your GPU.

Now can we put this to rest ?

Yes please. That's the best Apple could do for Mac gamers.

[dav]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Nah. That would mean that all those iMac bitchers were seriously interested in buying a machine, and not only bitching about the iMac...

Well, we'll see.
If they shut up now and buy the new single G5, everything is alright.

But here is my prediction: they are going to bitch about the new PowerMac as they did with the iMac.

-t

i would have bought the new powermac G5 single 1.8, but as of last friday i bought a refurb powermac g5. should have it by this friday.

[hldan]

This is not a blast against anyone here but this thread has gotten beat up to death. Has it occurred to anyone that Apple put the GeForce FX5200 Ultra in the iMac's because they just chose to and for no other reason? It also ships with some of the PowerMacs. It doesn't always have to be a technical reason as to why they didn't choose better.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by hldan:
This is not a blast against anyone here but this thread has gotten beat up to death. Has it occurred to anyone that Apple put the GeForce FX5200 Ultra in the iMac's because they just chose to and for no other reason? It also ships with some of the PowerMacs. It doesn't always have to be a technical reason as to why they didn't choose better.

You are absolutely right.
They did it because they can !.

-t

[toti]

Since UT2K4 has been "THE" game used to test the iMac G5 20", I decided I'd make a test of my own. Not very scientific, but adequate, I think

I installed UT2K4 ( which btw takes half an hour ) and started it up.

Graphics set to 1600x1050, all details on "highest" or "high" ( highest selection availble in each option ).

Playability ? Great. No jitter, no frame drops. Just unbelivable. My PowerBook 15" couldn't take that with full-screen and detail set to "high" and "medium" ( all settings on medium ).

So I think using the 5200U is a good choice after all. It performs well, and I seriously think that >>I<< for one won't be worrying about it not being adequate for the next three-four years or so

[klinux]

Depends on which PB you have. No doubt the PB with ATI Mobility 9700 128MB will perform better.

[toti]

Originally posted by klinux:
Depends on which PB you have. No doubt the PB with ATI Mobility 9700 128MB will perform better.

I had the 1.25GHz 15" SD Alu PowerBook.

The graphics card hasn't been updated since.

No, it can't do better.

[P]

Originally posted by toti:
I had the 1.25GHz 15" SD Alu PowerBook.

The graphics card hasn't been updated since.

No, it can't do better.

Actually it has. It's now a Radeon Mobility 9700/128 MB at best, yours was a 9600/64MB. I really don't know the exact differences between them, ATi's naming scheme makes my head spin. Anyway, I think that the iMac's fast FSB is what makes it work.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by toti:
Since UT2K4 has been "THE" game used to test the iMac G5 20"

THE game to test will be Doom III in Feb. UT2003/2004 is an older game. Fortunately, there should be a new G5 iMac out maybe a couple of months after Doom III is out. I'll buy then.

[toti]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
THE game to test will be Doom III in Feb. UT2003/2004 is an older game. Fortunately, there should be a new G5 iMac out maybe a couple of months after Doom III is out. I'll buy then.

Yeah, and "THE" program to test PC's will be Longhorn.

What do we care ? We don't. It's not out yet. And ? Neither is Doom3.

[DaBeav]

Doom 3 is out, just not for Mac…

[toti]

Originally posted by DaBeav:
Doom 3 is out, just not for Mac…

And that is precisely what makes it irrelevant.

MacOS X is out for Apple/PPC, but not for x86 ( even tho it could be ). You don't use that as a measurement for the PC platform ?

[DaBeav]

Looking at the current specs on Aspyr's website, the iMac G5 will barely meet them. Much will depend on the degree to which Aspyr can optimize the game for Mac. Here are some PC benchmarks, the 5200U does OK, as long as you stay at 800x600 - and that's medium settings.

I suppose if you wanted to compare platforms, you'd need to find a Linux distro that supports x86, AMD64,PPC and PPC64 and has optimizations for each platform, then compile and run a common set of apps.

[klinux]

Originally posted by DaBeav:
I suppose if you wanted to compare platforms, you'd need to find a Linux distro that supports x86, AMD64,PPC and PPC64 and has optimizations for each platform, then compile and run a common set of apps.

Like Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, or even better, *BSD?

[DaBeav]

I don't think that a full working non-beta version of ppc64 is shipping yet. I know that the Gentoo team is still working out a few bugs, as is TerraSoft (Yellow Dog) and trying to resolve the fan control issue. Graphics drivers for LinuxPPC are somewhat lacking however, so testing games or other OpenGL apps would be difficult. Still, it would be an interesting comparison.

[CincyGamer]

The new iMac is based more on design than performance. Just like how the iPod mini is selling like hotcakes where the nerd would spend the extra $50 to ge the other 15 GB or whatever it is.

I have a 1 GHZ TiBook PB and games like CoD and WoW run pretty well on it. The 5200 is the same as whats in the base Power Mac. That seems reasonable to have the cards match up and from an engineering feat is impressive anywhay you slice it. I bet Steve will announce a G5 Powerbook with the same GPU.. What are you guys going to do?
You cant have your cake and eat it too. Apple is about how you get there more than how fast you get there. Thats how they suckered $400 for an ipod from me.