Hydra said:
yes.... indeed. That info can be found on Apple's http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html. My bad
I was caught staring at ATi's site.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
128mb Vs 256mb for Intel iMac
- Thread starter majorp
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yes.... indeed. That info can be found on Apple's http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html. My bad
I was caught staring at ATi's site.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2645&p=2 has a bit of detail about H.264 and the x1600
check out this conclusions review thread on the 1600xt.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/230/10
My comment saying it's not a powerhouse was meant simply as that, the card is not a powerhouse of a video card, and was SPECIFICALLY designed to be a midrange card. I will though agree that the card is a vast improvement over the older card in the iMac's, but sadly this new 1600xt is slower than the older chipset from ATI, the x800 series.
The MSRP is 200 for the 128mb, and 250 for the 256mb, so I don't see why Apple has the price at 75 for the upgrade. They probably got a huge surplus discount for the 128mb, or are charging us 25 bucks to upgrade the card.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/230/10
My comment saying it's not a powerhouse was meant simply as that, the card is not a powerhouse of a video card, and was SPECIFICALLY designed to be a midrange card. I will though agree that the card is a vast improvement over the older card in the iMac's, but sadly this new 1600xt is slower than the older chipset from ATI, the x800 series.
The MSRP is 200 for the 128mb, and 250 for the 256mb, so I don't see why Apple has the price at 75 for the upgrade. They probably got a huge surplus discount for the 128mb, or are charging us 25 bucks to upgrade the card.
Sdashiki said:
While it's easy to upgrade the HD in my G5, they've changed the design in the Intel systems and it's now a nightmare - you have to remove the LCD!
We have to pay +90 for the 256MB VRAM upgrade here in Finland, and 1 is 1.2$...Zman5225 said:
But at least the X1600 is a huge improvement compared to old Apple GPUs.
9550=9600=9650=9700mobility=X600 it's the same damn GPU with only 4 pipelines and DDR, not to even mention the sad old R9000=R9200 crap.
Now this new X1600 has latest shader supports, 12 pipes and GDDR3.
So, I went to the apple store and got on a 17" with 512 ram and 128 video. Downloaded the "poseiden" trailer in 1080i and let 'er rip. Played without a hitch.
fre:k said:
Firstly, the X1600M is the fastest graphics card you can put in the MacBook Pro because anything faster would have the laptop a lot bigger and kill the battery life even more. Having a look at the PC benches, the X1600M is inbetween the speed of the G6800Go and G6800U Go, so it isn't too bad.
You mention the Dell with 4 graphics cards, but you don't mention it's cost, close to $10,000. Plus putting that many graphics cards with a system with a P4 is silly since that cpu isn't fast enough to keep up with the graphics cards. You won't see much difference over 2 cards (unless you are benching).
I can't see Apple ever using SLI because Macs aren't aimed at gamers. Plus a single X1900XT or G7900GTX will be offer plenty of performance for your needs and have none of the draw backs of SLI (and there are quite a few like V-sync not working probably).
Just spend the $75 for the upgrade. The cost is almost nothing when compared to the cost of the machine. If you want to save money, get the 17".
lasuther
lasuther
thats all true
I do completly agree with you - but the fact that the industry will go into multicore-everything is there - I do wonder how much faster for example a rendering is when use one 6800 or 2 6800 - the dell xps renegade has the same purpose as a Mercedes SLR - it's not required/it's way to expensive for it's performance/etc -but it's the latest THINGY - that's what keeps that industry alive - economics... represent & represent
mobility 9600 -> 9700 happened
mobility x1600 -> upgrade - should get possible i hope (x1700,x800...)
lol check the price for a apple 7800 GT and check the windows market.... 7900GTX - people have to sell there cars if they want that card
i'm here to mess brake the happy happy movement
cheers
I do completly agree with you - but the fact that the industry will go into multicore-everything is there - I do wonder how much faster for example a rendering is when use one 6800 or 2 6800 - the dell xps renegade has the same purpose as a Mercedes SLR - it's not required/it's way to expensive for it's performance/etc -but it's the latest THINGY - that's what keeps that industry alive - economics... represent & represent
mobility 9600 -> 9700 happened
mobility x1600 -> upgrade - should get possible i hope (x1700,x800...)
lol check the price for a apple 7800 GT and check the windows market.... 7900GTX - people have to sell there cars if they want that card
i'm here to mess brake the happy happy movement
cheers
The Radeon 9600, X600 and X1600 are similar in performance, but the X1600 has faster memory and supports more advanced rendering commands which makes it able to help the main processor accelerate video encoding and decoding for instance.
The Radeon 9800, X800 and X1800 with varieties make up the high-end class. The 800-series typically had 2-4 times as many pixel pipelines as the 600-series which make them potentially 2-4 times faster at rendering. As for the 600-series, the newer 800-versions have faster memory, slightly higher clockspeeds and support more advanced rendering commands.
The Radeon 9800, X800 and X1800 with varieties make up the high-end class. The 800-series typically had 2-4 times as many pixel pipelines as the 600-series which make them potentially 2-4 times faster at rendering. As for the 600-series, the newer 800-versions have faster memory, slightly higher clockspeeds and support more advanced rendering commands.
Mobility just means it's a laptop GPU, which it is. Just like it uses a laptop CPU and laptop RAM. You really think they could fit a full size card in there?BakedBeans said:
In actuality, it's probably an Apple specific card somewhere in the middle, but I would bet it uses the core of the x1600 Mobility GPU.
Ryan T. said:
For goodness sake.... Mobility is a different model to the vanilla and has slightly different specs
Mobility doesnt JUST mean its a laptop gpu - it is a product name.
the vanilla is another model with slightly different specs... it doesnt have the mobility in it.
I'd go with the 256MB option. I think it would be money well spent and high resolution displays (like in the 20" iMAc) need extra memory. I had a 128MB GeForce 6600GT before with my Dell 20" and had problems hitting higher resolutions in games sometimes. After upgrading to the 256MB version i had none of these problems.
One other thing to consider, and this is of high importance to me, is that Windows Vista needs 256MB of graphics memory for the full Aero Glass experience on a 20" display. With only 128MB memory you won't be able to keep the native resolution and aero glass.
The extra memory will also help re-sale value as most consumers think more is better (even if it's not that much better).
One other thing to consider, and this is of high importance to me, is that Windows Vista needs 256MB of graphics memory for the full Aero Glass experience on a 20" display. With only 128MB memory you won't be able to keep the native resolution and aero glass.
The extra memory will also help re-sale value as most consumers think more is better (even if it's not that much better).
gekko513 said:
The main difference between the 600 and 800 series has been the memory bus, with the 800 series using 256bit and the 600 using 128bit. This is a massive performance killer. The X1600 with 256bit bus would be a fair bit faster than the 128bit version at high res.
True enough, so the 800 series has twice the memory bandwidth and at least twice the pixel processing capacity, but I would guess that real world performance requires them to be somewhat evenly matched. Doubling the memory bandwidth without doubling the pixel pipelines will not fully double performance, but double both and you will double performance in many cases.TBi said:
Anyway, the point I guess I was trying to make was that the X1600 is in the 9600 and X600 family and is a mid-range card, not a high-end card.
Whats the problem people have with the X1600. Regardless of it's performance, it better than what is currently supplied. It's a mid range card in Apple's mid range machine - that makes sense..
Yes we would all love top of the range specs on apples mid range system, but that just isn't going to happen for obvious reasons...
Whether to get 256 v 128 is simple, get the 256 as it can't be upgraded afterwards..
If you are ever using dual monitors, remember that the memory get's shared between the two so you will end up with 2 @ 128mb rather than 2 @ 64mb and there would be a big difference in that scenario.
It's better to get the best specs your money can stretch to, rather than regretting not getting them in a years time..
Yes we would all love top of the range specs on apples mid range system, but that just isn't going to happen for obvious reasons...
Whether to get 256 v 128 is simple, get the 256 as it can't be upgraded afterwards..
If you are ever using dual monitors, remember that the memory get's shared between the two so you will end up with 2 @ 128mb rather than 2 @ 64mb and there would be a big difference in that scenario.
It's better to get the best specs your money can stretch to, rather than regretting not getting them in a years time..
You should think about what you do. I don't even care about H.264 decoding, really, although the 128MB version does this flawlessly anyway. I don't game, and even if I were to watch a movie or something on my computer, obviously any card is gonna do it for me, even my 32MB Nvidia 5200Go. They all play video fine. Email, Word, Excel, MacRumours also displays fine.
I don't know what type of video card you had before, or what you want to do with your computer, but if you were happy or slightly discontent with the 64 MB video card (or whatever) you had before, then I say you're ok with the 128 MB video card. It has all the new tech, so it'll be much better than any "pro" card from back in 2003.
I don't know what type of video card you had before, or what you want to do with your computer, but if you were happy or slightly discontent with the 64 MB video card (or whatever) you had before, then I say you're ok with the 128 MB video card. It has all the new tech, so it'll be much better than any "pro" card from back in 2003.
Gaming
Are you going to be playing alot of games? The more video RAM you have the more performance you will get with gaming. Also, If you watch a lot of DVDs or videos then you might notice a slight improvement there too.
majorp said:
Are you going to be playing alot of games? The more video RAM you have the more performance you will get with gaming. Also, If you watch a lot of DVDs or videos then you might notice a slight improvement there too.
Like a laptop, it is best to spec out your iMac with the highest you can get - or afford - of the stuff you cannot add later, like VRAM.
You can add more RAM and it is possible to swap out the hard drive - or have it done for you - but there is no way whatsoever to change the graphics memory at any time.
It costs all of $75, so what harm can come of it? If the cash is a breaking point, you might want to hold off on buying the computer for a while.
You can add more RAM and it is possible to swap out the hard drive - or have it done for you - but there is no way whatsoever to change the graphics memory at any time.
It costs all of $75, so what harm can come of it? If the cash is a breaking point, you might want to hold off on buying the computer for a while.