Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iMac Graphics card question

harveypooka said:
What a disappointing iMac refresh it was.

Games are not coming back to the Mac. They are coming to the Mac Pro... :mad:
Click to expand...

I am not familiar with the new graphics cards in the new iMacs. I assume they are nothing special then? All I heard was they're "HD" version of some ATI cards, whatever that truly means... :confused: ;)
 
~Shard~ said:
I am not familiar with the new graphics cards in the new iMacs. I assume they are nothing special then? All I heard was they're "HD" version of some ATI cards, whatever that truly means... :confused: ;)
Click to expand...
Replace HD with X and you'd get a X2600 Pro.

Apple picked low/low midrange video cards for the new iMacs.
 
I was very disappointed in the iMac update. But even so, I made the decision to buy one when Leopard is released. After thinking about it for an hour or so, I came to my senses. I have been holding off buying a new Mac waiting for another tower like the G3, G4, G5. So I will continue using my Blue & White G3 tower and my Compaq Athlon 64 with 2.41 Ghz processor while waiting for Apple to produce another tower. I just do not need the power of a Mac Pro. I am tempted to buy a Mini, tear it apart and install it in at G3 tower so it will be able to run cooler.
 
harveypooka said:
What a disappointing iMac refresh it was.

Games are not coming back to the Mac. They are coming to the Mac Pro... :mad:
Click to expand...

Alright, I've had just about enough of this. It's getting ridiculous!

$300 price drop, with a bigger screen and better processor and bigger hard drive and better hardware overall (gigabit ethernet, firewire 800, etc), and the graphics card was only barely improved.


And it's disappointing because the graphics card was not as much an improvement as you hoped.

As a general disclaimer to all the posts I keep reading along this line:
If a $300 price drop along with VASTLY better hardware in all respects except the GPU which is only slightly improved is "disappointing" to you, then you are insatiable and unreasonable.
 
GFLPraxis said:
Alright, I've had just about enough of this. It's getting ridiculous!

$300 price drop, with a bigger screen and better processor and bigger hard drive and better hardware overall (gigabit ethernet, firewire 800, etc), and the graphics card was only barely improved.


And it's disappointing because the graphics card was not as much an improvement as you hoped.

As a general disclaimer to all the posts I keep reading along this line:
If a $300 price drop along with VASTLY better hardware in all respects except the GPU which is only slightly improved is "disappointing" to you, then you are insatiable and unreasonable.
Click to expand...

And physics processing support to boot...
 
GFLPraxis said:
Alright, I've had just about enough of this. It's getting ridiculous!

$300 price drop, with a bigger screen and better processor and bigger hard drive and better hardware overall (gigabit ethernet, firewire 800, etc), and the graphics card was only barely improved.


And it's disappointing because the graphics card was not as much an improvement as you hoped.

As a general disclaimer to all the posts I keep reading along this line:
If a $300 price drop along with VASTLY better hardware in all respects except the GPU which is only slightly improved is "disappointing" to you, then you are insatiable and unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Better Processor? Am I missing something? 20" iMac: Previous processor 2.16 Ghz, current processor 2.0 Ghz.
 
Thats great. A photoshop filter will execute in 4 seconds instead of 4.6... but unfortunately heavy games will probably also run at 4.6fps ;)

All the CPU power in the world wont help if the video processor is a bottleneck. The imac would have been better to go down to 1.8Ghz instead but slip in a heavier GPU!

Eidorian said:
The 800 MHz front side bus allows the 2.0 GHz model to outperform the 2.16 GHz one.
Click to expand...
 
contoursvt said:
Thats great. A photoshop filter will execute in 4 seconds instead of 4.6... but unfortunately heavy games will probably also run at 4.6fps ;)

All the CPU power in the world wont help if the video processor is a bottleneck. The imac would have been better to go down to 1.8Ghz instead but slip in a heavier GPU!
Click to expand...
The post that I replied to was only talking about the processor clock speeds. *sigh*
 
Oh I know, and I was not implying that you said anything wrong, I was just suggesting that people are obsessed (not you) in general about CPU power even though there are larger bottlenecks to tackle that might show more improvement.

I'd love to see if anyone has ever swapped a raptor in an imac :)



Eidorian said:
The post that I replied to was only talking about the processor clock speeds. *sigh*
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back