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.
For those who ordered the ATI 4850....
- Thread starter cwazytech
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just did the set-up that you described (at 1920x1200 on my 3.06GHz 4850 system). Here are the results:
Test 1.1 362 FPS
Test 1.2 363 FPS
Test 1.3 356 FPS
Test 1.4 340 FPS
Test 1.5 277 FPS
Test 2.0 282 FPS
Test 2.1 131 FPS
Here is a screen-shot of the Viewer's settings and results:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HJVvJmsj3cAWspW8KinA5Q?feat=directlink
If I were to guess, without having had any experience with that test and how it works, I would say the number we're interested in is the last one, the "2.1". In that case, the result is pretty much expected: better than the iMac with GT130 and not as good as the Mac Pro with Radeon 4870.
Still, it's encouraging to see that it does pretty well.
I suspect that Barefeats results were for that last 2.1 test. If that's true then we are seeing a healthy improvement with the 4850 over the GT130, at least 5%. Hopefully differences in other applications is more noticable.
Very possibly yes, because it might not be 5% across the board. It could be 30% faster in some applications or games and a minimum of 5% faster in others.
you're comparing a mobile (4850) chip to a desktop (4870). 4870 is aimed at high-end price range and performance, while 4850 is aimed at affordable price range. also take into consideration that a desktop 4850 version would be faster than the mobile 4850 version. also let's not forget that the mp's cpu is faster than imac's.
hopefully we'll get some game benchmarks posted in the near future comparing the nvidia and ati imacs.
Someone please help clarify this for me..... the general consensus seems to be that the ATI card offered in these iMacs is the mobility version, correct? If so, then why does Apple not clearly state that in the product description? Here is a copy from the apple website's description:
ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR3 memory
Nowhere in there do i see the word "mobility." ATI clearly differentiates their two cards by the use of that magic word "mobility." For Apple to leave that word out of the description of the card is misleading at best, unlawful at worst.
I ordered this card back on March 9 and have been patiently waiting my 6 weeks for delivery. If this is truly a "mobile" version of the card, then i don't want it! I guess I was naive enough to think Apple had found a way to make the iMacs capable of using a desktop card in their machines.
Now here's where i get REALLY confused... ATI's website lists both versions of this card (mobility and desktop) as only having 256Mb of dedicated VRam, yet Apple's version claims to have 512Mb!
ATI Mobile version specs here: http://ati.amd.com/products/mobilityradeonhd4800/specs.html
ATI Desktop version specs here: http://ati.amd.com/products/radeonhd4800/specs.html
Oh yeah.. and here's my FAVORITE part. According to ATI, these are the only cards they even have available for Macs: http://ati.amd.com/products/mac.html
Nowhere on that list do I see a 4850 (mobility OR desktop)...
Is there something in the wording of this device that I'm missing? Or is this some magic NEW card no one has ever heard of, carrying the same name as a widely available current card?
If Apple is going to continue to offer this card, they need to CLEARLY note that it is the mobile version, and not try to sucker us into thinking we're getting a more powerful card...
ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR3 memory
Nowhere in there do i see the word "mobility." ATI clearly differentiates their two cards by the use of that magic word "mobility." For Apple to leave that word out of the description of the card is misleading at best, unlawful at worst.
I ordered this card back on March 9 and have been patiently waiting my 6 weeks for delivery. If this is truly a "mobile" version of the card, then i don't want it! I guess I was naive enough to think Apple had found a way to make the iMacs capable of using a desktop card in their machines.
Now here's where i get REALLY confused... ATI's website lists both versions of this card (mobility and desktop) as only having 256Mb of dedicated VRam, yet Apple's version claims to have 512Mb!
ATI Mobile version specs here: http://ati.amd.com/products/mobilityradeonhd4800/specs.html
ATI Desktop version specs here: http://ati.amd.com/products/radeonhd4800/specs.html
Oh yeah.. and here's my FAVORITE part. According to ATI, these are the only cards they even have available for Macs: http://ati.amd.com/products/mac.html
Nowhere on that list do I see a 4850 (mobility OR desktop)...
Is there something in the wording of this device that I'm missing? Or is this some magic NEW card no one has ever heard of, carrying the same name as a widely available current card?
If Apple is going to continue to offer this card, they need to CLEARLY note that it is the mobile version, and not try to sucker us into thinking we're getting a more powerful card...
iMacs have always raised questions concerning their graphic cards. When the iMacs with the 8800s first came out, it took a while to find out what the card really was. Apple always is less than straight forward on the product page, it seems, and the people who have called customer service have been given conflicting (most mobility, though) answers.
Consider yourself lucky. I also ordered on March 5 around 2 a.m,
and I still have no idea where in the world my iMac is.
Did you pay extra for the shipping? Or just the normal free shipping?
Please just ship our iMacs out already!
No, this is the normal free shipping. Anyway, if can help you...in my shipping details I STILL have as delivery date: April, 24th.
So, try to be optimist: maybe your iMac will arrive before its time
Ciao
Fabio
As far as nVidia v AMD gose, I have built my own PC's for years and even now that I don't have the time to build and maintain them I still keep up to date.
Right now nVidia have the fastest GPU's available, but, that's only at the very high end of the market with cards like the GTX295 range, but these cards make a Mac Pro look like a cheap computer, they are that expensive.
At the next level down you have nVidia with it's 9800 series and AMD with it's HD 48xx series, these GPU's give really good performance without a major price tag.
Right now in the price/performance category the 4850 is in AMD has more performance for less money and uses less power.
And if your wondering if the 4850 is better than a GT130. The GT130 is a renamed 9500. The nVidia range from slowest to fastest is 9300, 9500, 9600, 9800. The AMD 4850 is faster than the fastest single GPU 9800 the nVidia 9800GTX+.
made the right call from a performance/cost/power stand point in choosing AMD as the high end video card.
Keep in mind this is an on going battle and by the next generation of GPU's nVidia may have cheaper, faster, power efficient GPU's.
Right now nVidia have the fastest GPU's available, but, that's only at the very high end of the market with cards like the GTX295 range, but these cards make a Mac Pro look like a cheap computer, they are that expensive.
At the next level down you have nVidia with it's 9800 series and AMD with it's HD 48xx series, these GPU's give really good performance without a major price tag.
Right now in the price/performance category the 4850 is in AMD has more performance for less money and uses less power.
And if your wondering if the 4850 is better than a GT130. The GT130 is a renamed 9500. The nVidia range from slowest to fastest is 9300, 9500, 9600, 9800. The AMD 4850 is faster than the fastest single GPU 9800 the nVidia 9800GTX+.
made the right call from a performance/cost/power stand point in choosing AMD as the high end video card.Keep in mind this is an on going battle and by the next generation of GPU's nVidia may have cheaper, faster, power efficient GPU's.
Well, first, on the iMac, not including "mobility" is probably just marketing
Also, Apple usually have customized parts so it doesn't surprise me to see 512mb ram on the card. For example, on my old PowerMac with ATI 9800 Pro a while back, I had the ATI 9800 Pro with 512mb with the BTO on Apple's site. There is retail version of this same card, but it only goes up to 256MB vram. You can only get the 512MB version from Apple.
Oh, and I don't think AMD list those those built-in or OEM cards on their website because they don't sell them in retail.
To Blazer24K:
It's the mobility version and, as you can see here, it has 512 MB.
The screenshot is owned by an user of this forums that has got the new iMac with ATI graphic card
Are there screen shots of the motherboard chipset used? I'm wondering if it's using nVidia's motherboard chipset (you can have nVidia motherboard and AMD video card) or if they changed to a AMD or Intel motherboard chipset.
I am well aware of this, sir. Thanks. I was merely pointing out how Tom Dahl's results with the 3.06Ghz iMac/4850 compared with Barefeats' results with the other machines. I would never put an iMac against a souped up Mac Pro and call it a fair fight.
It's interesting how it's called an HD 4850 in system profiler yet the device ID isn't lying about it being a Mobility HD 4850.
Thanks for helping to clarify, knowing that we're "lucky" enough to get the 512 instead of the 256 is great - must be one of the benefits of paying my Apple tax
I still have issues with their "marketing" of the card.. you can't change the specs of a device and keep the same name. That's like me rolling a Ferrari off the assembly line with a Pinto engine in it, and still calling it a Ferrari! (we just won't tell the public about the whole Pinto thing, and still call it a Ferrari) That's not marketing, that's deceptive business practices...
No problem. Don't get it, and then settle for the slower, not-as-good GT130.
However, if it were me, I'd go for the higher-performing 4850!
Bryan
Thanks for helping to clarify, knowing that we're "lucky" enough to get the 512 instead of the 256 is great - must be one of the benefits of paying my Apple tax
I still have issues with their "marketing" of the card.. you can't change the specs of a device and keep the same name. That's like me rolling a Ferrari off the assembly line with a Pinto engine in it, and still calling it a Ferrari! (we just won't tell the public about the whole Pinto thing, and still call it a Ferrari) That's not marketing, that's deceptive business practices...
No problem. Well, I guess people get what they paid for in some parts and not other. Unfortunately, they are often not very clear on details and this is just another example on how Apple aren't very clear on details.
Apple often gets custom cards built for them... If you look at the specs between the desktop and mobility versions for the 4850, not much is different apart from the clockspeed. The mobility part uses less power. They're still both a 4850. Both have the same number of transistors on the chip etc (956 million).
Apple could take a 'desktop' 4850, clock it down to lower speeds, and still legally call it a 4850. It's marketing.
Thankfully, the clockspeeds look like the default ones with this card, which is a good thing. Even being a 'mobility card' it's far from bad.
ok, so the base imac is 9400, the gt130 is 9500, then gt120 is?
but more importantly - who was phone?
Thanks, Tom.
This test isn't the be-all-end-all but does indicate the Radeon 4850 is a true upgrade. For $50, I believe it's worth it but I'm still looking forward to seeing how it does with some real world GPU intensive apps.
ok, so the base imac is 9400, the gt130 is 9500, then gt120 is?
but more importantly - who was phone?
The GT130 in the iMac is NOT a 9500
A simple forum search shows that it's a 9800 mobility variant.