I just want some modern hardware, the HD 3000 series are available, why should I pay 1749 for a computer with old/outdated graphics?
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.
Any guesses as to what Graphics cards the updated iMac will use?
- Thread starter Tsurisuto
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So after today's MacBook Pro updates, it's looking more likely that the next update to the iMacs will include a 512MB graphics card option, to match that of the MacBook Pros. Also Apple will probably stick with ATI as that would be a nice even spread between the use of NVIDIA and ATI graphics chips in Apple branded computers.
The only question now is, whether Apple will offer a ATI Radeon 3600 in the top-of-the-range option, or will the iMacs top out with the Radeon 3400?
The only question now is, whether Apple will offer a ATI Radeon 3600 in the top-of-the-range option, or will the iMacs top out with the Radeon 3400?
One of the reasons Apple used the 2400, 2600 cards was that they were quiet, did not consume power, and were really cool. I think after seeing some feedback about the cards and the quietness of the imacs, they might put a more powerful card in.
I remember the day they were released. I remember thinking, I've never heard of those cards before. When I learned how bad they were, I almost considered waiting for the next revision. But I didn't, and now I'm glad. The 2600xt is much better than people give it credit for.
I remember the day they were released. I remember thinking, I've never heard of those cards before. When I learned how bad they were, I almost considered waiting for the next revision. But I didn't, and now I'm glad. The 2600xt is much better than people give it credit for.
What makes you think that Apple will put a 512 MB card in iMac?
MBP is a pro machine, iMac isn't. Pro machines should have more of goodies, than consumer machines. Even the standard Mac Pro card has 256 MB, why would they make iMac have more VRAM than their top of the line desktop??
A 512MB mobile card can be outperformed by a 256MB desktop card. Also historically, the top-of-the-range iMac model has also had a comparable (or better) graphics card option than the MacBook Pro.
I know that speed of the graphics card is not measured by VRAM, no need to tell me that
When was that? (taking into consideration the GPU of MP's GPU of the time)
That was more of an exception. If you haven't noticed, Apple no longer offers a more powerful CTO graphics card option to iMacs.
By the time iMacs had HD2x00 cards, MBPs already had GeForce 8600.
Barefeats should redo their tests with the new XP drivers from ATI. The performance has improved remarkably from what it was 7 months ago. The HD2600 is now probably close to, if not faster than, the 7600GT. Apple usually does not upgrade graphics cards as frequently as it does processors. The X1600 was used for a long time on the white iMacs.
We may get an HD3870 or 9600GT option in a few months but I doubt it.
We may get an HD3870 or 9600GT option in a few months but I doubt it.
Thank you very much for saying this, Flopticalcube. I have been shouting the same thing in here to all the 2600 naysayers who keep referring to those old benchmarks. They were indeed released the same week these aluminum iMacs came out.
But wouldn't the new Apple drivers that we have received via software update (10.5.2 and graphics update, etc) have improved the 7600GT's performance as well?
That's a neat spin.
I guess you could say that of ANY maker. Drivers improve with each revision. That's sort of their purpose.
It's a law of diminishing returns at some point with driver improvements over the life of a product.
Anyway, I would be interested to see an updated series of benchmarks just to settle it one way or the other.
Under OSX, perhaps. But I doubt either Apple or nVidia (or ATI/AMD for that matter) are really interested in improving the performance of cards they no longer sell.
And of course the Barefeats benchmarks that everyone keeps pointing out consisted entirely of Windows games.
I get the best results in Boot Camp using the latest ATI Catalyst drivers (courtesy of Mobility Modder)
is it just me, or is the big problem with Apple is they like to keep massive great big gulf's between their product ranges.
The iMac is great and I'd even be willing to pay more money for a higher spec'd machine - but the impression I get is that Apple's plan is that I should buy a Mac Pro - but I don't want a Mac Pro - it's too much.
They won't make a midrange headless desktop because they fear it'll cannablise iMac sales and they won't make a top range iMac for fear it'll cannabalise Mac Pro sales.
Personally I think it's a crock, when you look at the range of x86 based offerings in the PC world, Apple could do with a few more models to round out their range and encourage more customers.
for me I'm poised with money for a top end iMac - the GPUs in the current range are rubbish - I'm hoping they're better in the next update, but I'm not holding out hope and may have to go for a low end Mac Pro and a cheap display from somewhere.
I think its particularly galling for gamers - all that rubbish they punt about - the support Apple give game developers is a joke - and the latest imacs really rub people's face in it.
The iMac is great and I'd even be willing to pay more money for a higher spec'd machine - but the impression I get is that Apple's plan is that I should buy a Mac Pro - but I don't want a Mac Pro - it's too much.
They won't make a midrange headless desktop because they fear it'll cannablise iMac sales and they won't make a top range iMac for fear it'll cannabalise Mac Pro sales.
Personally I think it's a crock, when you look at the range of x86 based offerings in the PC world, Apple could do with a few more models to round out their range and encourage more customers.
for me I'm poised with money for a top end iMac - the GPUs in the current range are rubbish - I'm hoping they're better in the next update, but I'm not holding out hope and may have to go for a low end Mac Pro and a cheap display from somewhere.
I think its particularly galling for gamers - all that rubbish they punt about - the support Apple give game developers is a joke - and the latest imacs really rub people's face in it.
Dorfdad,
Don't worry about being outdated. My iMac G4 800 Mhz is something like 6 years old. The thing still looks great. It still makes almost no noise. The screen is still nice. It could probably run Apple's latest operating system is if cared to upgrade from Tiger. The machine has been a rock. I'm in the market to upgrade in part because I just want a bigger screen and I want faster wireless connection (in current set up can't run an ethernet to my computer, so running desktop off old wireless a or b card).
There will be something better every year and often every six months. That is just Moore's law. It doesn't make your last computer bad.
Example, that a friend used to say as he talked about his G3 that he used for almost 10 years (also able to run OSX Tiger on it, can you imagine a windows machine from 1997 trying to run Vista?). "It still does everything it did when I bought and more, how can I call it broken." Now he finally stepped up and bought a Mac Pro. Guess what. At the end of this year, that is going to be outdated by Nehlam. That is just the way it goes. But he is loving his new machine.
Don't worry about being outdated. My iMac G4 800 Mhz is something like 6 years old. The thing still looks great. It still makes almost no noise. The screen is still nice. It could probably run Apple's latest operating system is if cared to upgrade from Tiger. The machine has been a rock. I'm in the market to upgrade in part because I just want a bigger screen and I want faster wireless connection (in current set up can't run an ethernet to my computer, so running desktop off old wireless a or b card).
There will be something better every year and often every six months. That is just Moore's law. It doesn't make your last computer bad.
Example, that a friend used to say as he talked about his G3 that he used for almost 10 years (also able to run OSX Tiger on it, can you imagine a windows machine from 1997 trying to run Vista?). "It still does everything it did when I bought and more, how can I call it broken." Now he finally stepped up and bought a Mac Pro. Guess what. At the end of this year, that is going to be outdated by Nehlam. That is just the way it goes. But he is loving his new machine.
Nah, your iMac is 67 MHz too slow for running Leopard
Oh no, you're screeeeewed ^^ Damn Apple
Nah, your iMac is 67 MHz too slow for running Leopard
Oh no, you're screeeeewed ^^ Damn Apple
as long as its countered by 1 GB of ram, you should be able to run leopard on a 800 mhz G4.
well said sir, too many people here have their tongue too far up apples rectal cavity
its time for uncle Steve to show some balls and take on ShuttlePC!