Any guesses as to what Graphics cards the updated iMac will use?

[Tsurisuto]

With all this talk of Penryn and Montevina, I don't see much discussion with regards to which Graphics Card the next iMac will use.

If Apple decide to stick with ATI, I was thinking they would go with the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 Series in all the iMacs except the top of the range one, which will use the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3600 Series.

Any thoughts?

 

[Lord Zedd]

Something that helps display pixels on the screen?

 

[Tsurisuto]

And if by magic, NVIDIA unveils Quadro FX 3600M for laptops today!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/21/nvidia-unveils-quadro-fx-3600m-for-laptops/

Although they seem a little too powerful for Apple, as Apple don't like to have the latest and greatest with regards to Graphics chips, but maybe they could have this as a BTO option for the 24" iMac?

 

[netherfred]

Something like this maybe?

 

[Tsurisuto]

Something like this maybe?

No, I think that uses the wrong memory slots, but thanks anyway.

 

[Muncher]

I think the low-end cards will stay the same, with an option on the higher end iMacs towards an 8600GT mobile or 8700.

EDIT: Oh, I thought you meant the revision that is due right now. I think it's too early to tell anything past the rev due now, and I don't see major changes to the iMac line until next year.

 

[Tsurisuto]

I think the low-end cards will stay the same, with an option on the higher end iMacs towards an 8600GT mobile or 8700.

EDIT: Oh, I thought you meant the revision that is due right now. I think it's too early to tell anything past the rev due now, and I don't see major changes to the iMac line until next year.

I did mean the revision that is due right now!

 

[eXan]

Some low-mid range Radeon hd3000 series, or they will keep the current cards.

 

[Tsurisuto]

Some low-mid range Radeon hd3000 series, or they will keep the current cards.

I hope they don't keep the current cards, as they were low-to-mid-range when the Alu iMacs were 1st released... now they are just embarrassing.

I know Apple has cost and heat to consider, but why not offer a BTO option? I personally would prefer the choice of a beefier graphics card.

 

[Dorfdad]

I hope to hell they stay the same. I just spent almost 2K on an IMAC to have the latest est and greatest not to have my entire investment go south in less than 6 months...

 

[Tsurisuto]

I hope to hell they stay the same. I just spent almost 2K on an IMAC to have the latest est and greatest not to have my entire investment go south in less than 6 months...

But the iMac you bought is coming up to 7 months old. You had to expect that the iMacs were getting an update VERY soon. Especially as Apple tends to update their computers every 6 months or so.

 

[Aegelward]

i'd welcome an optional BTO high end card, like the 8800M or whatever its successors are

 

[Dorfdad]

But the iMac you bought is coming up to 7 months old. You had to expect that the iMacs were getting an update VERY soon. Especially as Apple tends to update their computers every 6 months or so.

to be honest no I did not know that... WOuld there be any way to upgrade IMACS or are we one and done..

This is my first venture into Apple land..

 

[SaSaSushi]

I hope they don't keep the current cards, as they were low-to-mid-range when the Alu iMacs were 1st released... now they are just embarrassing.

Humor me. Please tell me why they are "embarassing" now 6 months after they were introduced in the iMacs.

I keep seeing stuff like this being written in these forums and I keep saying the same thing:

I've had zero issues with the HD2600XT on my 24" iMac. Tell me how it's holding you back if you can. I'm no gamer but I play the occasional Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Counter-Strike: Source and Crysis in Boot Camp with fluid frame rates at the native 1920x1200 resolution of the machine. It provides crisp, clean color and smooth graphics in OS X.

Not bad for an "embarassing" antique.

I'm really eager to find out what you find so embarassingly bad about it and how it's holding you back.

 

[SaSaSushi]

to be honest no I did not know that... WOuld there be any way to upgrade IMACS or are we one and done..

This is my first venture into Apple land..

You can upgrade the RAM and buy external hard disks, etc but no, you cannot upgrade video cards or CPUs, etc.

Fear not, you bought a fine machine and it is not about to be "antiquated" anytime soon despite what you might hear the pundits saying in here.

Sure, there's always a new model on the way. That's the nature of the game. That doesn't mean the next iMac bump will make yours into useless junk.

Congratulations on a fine purchase and welcome to the club.

 

[Tsurisuto]

I've had zero issues with the HD2600XT on my 24" iMac. Tell me how it's holding you back if you can. I'm no gamer but I play the occasional Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Counter-Strike: Source and Crysis in Boot Camp with fluid frame rates at the native 1920x1200 resolution of the machine. It provides crisp, clean color and smooth graphics in OS X.

Not bad for an "embarassing" antique.

I'm really eager to find out what you find so embarassingly bad about it and how it's holding you back.

The Graphics card in the current iMacs do not perform well in OS X for gaming, as mentioned in the Barefeats' benchmark tests:

"The Aluminum iMac (2.8GHz, 2.4GHz) with the Radeon HD 2600 Pro GPU disappointed us when it came to 3D gaming. It lost to the previous generation iMac (2.33GHz) with the optional GeForce 7600 GT in most 3D games we tested."

http://www.barefeats.com/imacal3.html

And even in Windows (XP and Vista) the OLD white iMac's graphics card (GeForce 7600 GT) still outperformed the current iMac's Radeon 2600. So a machine that Apple released in September 2006 is still outperforming their current top-of-the-range iMac in 2008! EMBARRASSING!

 

[Superman07]

For what it is worth, a first (unofficial?) cut at the NVIDIA 9 series roadmap has come out. Obviously no idea if Apple will decide to go with that (an 8 series) or stick with AMD/ATI.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7386.html

 

[SaSaSushi]

The Graphics card in the current iMacs do not perform well in OS X for gaming, as mentioned in the Barefeats' benchmark tests:

"The Aluminum iMac (2.8GHz, 2.4GHz) with the Radeon HD 2600 Pro GPU disappointed us when it came to 3D gaming. It lost to the previous generation iMac (2.33GHz) with the optional GeForce 7600 GT in most 3D games we tested."

http://www.barefeats.com/imacal3.html

And even in Windows (XP and Vista) the OLD white iMac's graphics card (GeForce 7600 GT) still outperformed the current iMac's Radeon 2600. So a machine that Apple released in September 2006 is still outperforming their current top-of-the-range iMac in 2008! EMBARRASSING!

OK, let's be perfectly fair shall we?? That review was made one week after the aluminum iMacs were released with VERY early drivers. They have improved quite a lot since then. I don't play World of Warcraft but I've heard the latest drivers released with 10.5.2 have really sped things up considerably.

Instead of spending so much time reading benchmarks hop on over to Youtube and have a look at some videos of the aluminum iMacs in action.

The GeForce 7600 GT is a DirectX 9 card as opposed to the DirectX 10 HD2600XT. I did not see one poor result in those benchmarks even with the early drivers. 44fps is BAD?? I'd like to see someone update those benchmarks with the latest drivers.

I actually own one and use it. Just go lightly with the hype. The HD2600XT is a solid part not nearly deserving of all the crap it gets.

 

[Tsurisuto]

The GeForce 7600 GT is a DirectX 9 card as opposed to the DirectX 10 HD2600XT. I did not see one poor result in those benchmarks even with the early drivers. 44fps is BAD?? I'd like to see someone update those benchmarks with the latest drivers.

For what it's worth, DirectX 10 would only come into consideration if you plan on playing games with Vista (as Windows XP supports only DirectX 9). Secondly DirectX 10 games are still in the minority, as most games are developed with DirectX 9 in mind. Thirdly the new drivers that came with 10.5.2 would only affect games running in OS X.

I get that you're happy with your machine, but I for one would welcome with open arms a better graphics card option in the top of the range model.

 

[SaSaSushi]

For what it's worth, DirectX 10 would only come into consideration if you plan on playing games with Vista (as Windows XP supports only DirectX 9). Secondly DirectX 10 games are still in the minority, as most games are developed with DirectX 9 in mind. Thirdly the new drivers that came with 10.5.2 would only affect games running in OS X.

I get that you're happy with your machine, but I for one would welcome with open arms a better graphics card option in the top of the range model.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly how the HD2600XT is "inferior" or holding you back. What can it NOT do that these "better" cards you dream of can? I don't think I'm going to get the answer judging by your evasiveness. You're welcome to your dreams it was mostly the "embarassing" comment you made with nothing behind it that ticked me off.

The DX10 was just another 'for example' in the list of comparisons since YOU brought up the 7600GT. It will obviously make a difference as more DirectX 10 games are released but it's not really a factor for me personally except with Bioshock.

 

[Ironduke]

Apple need to offer more options, instead of just 2 poor gfx cards, they should offer Nvidias High end, why not they offer intels high end.

The go on about heat?

fair enough take it under consideration when designing ffs

 

[Tsurisuto]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly how the HD2600XT is "inferior" or holding you back. What can it NOT do that these "better" cards you dream of can? I don't think I'm going to get the answer judging by your evasiveness. You're welcome to your dreams it was mostly the "embarassing" comment you made with nothing behind it that ticked me off.

I thought I did answer your questions? I feel the HD2600 is "inferior" because it is outperformed by a card that it's predecessor had, even though the predecessor is almost 2 years old.

The DX10 was just another 'for example' in the list of comparisons since YOU brought up the 7600GT. It will obviously make a difference as more DirectX 10 games are released but it's not really a factor for me personally except with Bioshock.

I agree that DX10 will (hopefully) become a more common place for future releases, but there are some people who buy iMacs that won't be installing Windows on their machines. So any benefits of DX10 support will fall on blind eyes.

If for example you take Windows out of the equation and look at hugely popular Mac games like World of Warcraft, the 7600GT still outperforms the 2600HD. I just want a graphics card that's likely to last moderately longer than Apple's current offerings. You said that 44fps is not bad for a game, (but the setting for that game weren't even turned to the max). I would like to believe that a game with only moderate graphics can run a lot faster on my brand new iMac, with all the bells and whistles turned to max. Is that too much to ask of Apple?

 

[Tsurisuto]

fair enough take it under consideration when designing ffs

Sorry, it's early and I'm tired, but what is ffs?

 

[SaSaSushi]

I thought I did answer your questions? I feel the HD2600 is "inferior" because it is outperformed by a card that it's predecessor had, even though the predecessor is almost 2 years old.

I agree that DX10 will (hopefully) become a more common place for future releases, but there are some people who buy iMacs that won't be installing Windows on their machines. So any benefits of DX10 support will fall on blind eyes.

If for example you take Windows out of the equation and look at hugely popular Mac games like World of Warcraft, the 7600GT still outperforms the 2600HD. I just want a graphics card that's likely to last moderately longer than Apple's current offerings. You said that 44fps is not bad for a game, (but the setting for that game weren't even turned to the max). I would like to believe that a game with only moderate graphics can run a lot faster on my brand new iMac, with all the bells and whistles turned to max. Is that too much to ask of Apple?

It's all good. I'm certainly for Apple moving onward and upward with every new product release and revision. I hope you get the product you're waiting for in the next iMac.

I just wanted to be clear that there is nothing "embarassing" about the performance of the current HD2600XT and that its only going to get better with improved driver support. I already theorized that the results of that benchmark test might be quite different if it was run again today, 6 months later with much more refined drivers.

Most gamers on Macs at the moment do so in Windows and Boot Camp. I hope this changes in the future as well with more OS X ports of popular games. With the growing popularity of Macs and the increase in their sales I think this is a very good possibility.

As it is DirectX 10 support is quite important for those who want to play the latest and greatest in Boot Camp though.

I'm a casual gamer at best and as I said the machine currently handles all the games I throw at it with ease at native resolution and with high (not max) graphic settings.

 

[G-Force]

Mobility Radeon HD 3400 in the low-end 20" model, Mobility Radeon HD 3600 in all the other models. That seems to me as the choice Apple would make.

I prefer NVIDIA over ATI, so I'd rather see a GeForce M chip in the iMac. But performance wise, the 2600XT would be enough for me. I just want some modern hardware, the HD 3000 series are available, why should I pay € 1749 for a computer with old/outdated graphics?