I Vote for the 256mb Upgrade. As a Mac gamer, you can never have too much VRAM. If you are even considering running games get the upgrade. It will make your life a lot better.
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
Macmaniac said:
Even if your not a gamer, your useage of a computer does change over time and extra power is always better in the long run..
Upgrading more often could be better in the long run.MacRumorUser said:
You could buy a computer costing $2500 every 4 years or a computer costing $1250 every 2 years. Which will give you best performance in the long run? In most cases I'd say the $1250 every 2 years.
MacRumorUser said:
Not only do your uses change, but software requirements do too and while it is unlikely that your uses and needs will change to that you need a program that will require 256MB VRAM, it could happen.
MacRumorUser said:
The problem with the X1600 is that it isn't the fastest you can get. Just because it is faster than what you had doesn't mean it is good. I want a card that will run a game at native resolution of the 20" screen at good speed. Apple can charge me for the privilege but at least then i'd have the option. However i must agree that this card is good enough for casual users.
As for dual monitors, i don't know if the split memory is a fact with all apple computers but i know for certain it isn't with windows. Running dual screen on windows slightly lowers game speed slightly but doesn't make the card behave like a 128MB card.
I have a dell 20" i want to keep and i want an apple to power it which the iMac 20" with DVI will do well. I'm used to dual monitors so it will suit me fine although it will be ultra ultra wide screen
. I hope it doesn't split the memory down the middle because i want to play wow on this thing.
TBi said:
It does, check out System Profiler when you have two monitors attched. Each monitor is awarded 50/50 graphics card memory.
X1600 isn't a gamercard fair enough, but only 5-10% of mac users are 'gamers'.. Just not that big a market that apple have to worry about in it's mid range models. and if your so serious about gaming (hardcore) then go for an upgradeable powermac or just buy a 360 and plug it into your dell monitors vga port
MacRumorUser said:It does, check out System Profiler when you have two monitors attched. Each monitor is awarded 50/50 graphics card memory.
X1600 isn't a gamercard fair enough, but only 5-10% of mac users are 'gamers'.. Just not that big a market that apple have to worry about in it's mid range models. and if your so serious about gaming (hardcore) then go for an upgradeable powermac or just buy a 360 and plug it into your dell monitors vga port
I thought the 50/50 split was only a problem with the iBook hack i have, or maybe i'm just mistaking it with the fact that you can't actually have 32MB for the external even if you turn off the internal...
I could always just keep my own SN25P, but i really really want Mac OSX. I love my little mini but it is just too slow at WOW
Hydra said:
Well if it will run at full res with 128MB then you might not see much benefit but the extra ram might let you use higher quality textures. For me i have to get it because i want to run dual screen and 64MB per screen would definately not be enough.
Hydra said:
Yes I think it would, however we will only fully ever know when WOW is updates to Universal Binary and things like FrameRate will be better to judge than running through Rosetta..
a bit off topic...but i was just curious.
how does my radeon x600 256mb compare with the x1600? just wanna know any benchmarks or gap between the two.
how does my radeon x600 256mb compare with the x1600? just wanna know any benchmarks or gap between the two.
anamznazn said:
I think it will whip the pants off the X600. Here is the first review with both cards benchmarked i found on google.