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

iMac or MacBookPro

F

full0ut

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 7, 2007
17
0
Ok... new imacs and refresh mbp is out!!...

But... WTF an ATI HD 2600 Pro card?!?!... i didnt buy a macbook pro with nvidia, and guess what?!.. an ATI card and to make it worst, a low end card.

Come on.. at least they had to charge 1999, and put a decent card, for christ sake, its a desktop...

Dont get me wrong, Im a huge fan of apple, but now they s*** up!!..

Noow i or we ( many of u guys ) have to decide what to do!.. buy a nice iMac ( yes i like the new look ) with a crap video card or stick with a mbp with a decent video card.

OUCH APPLE!!....

regards,
 
MIDI_EVIL

MIDI_EVIL

macrumors 65816
Jan 23, 2006
1,320
14
UK
full0ut said:
Ok... new imacs and refresh mbp is out!!...

But... WTF an ATI HD 2600 Pro card?!?!... i didnt buy o macbook pro with nvidia, and guess what?!.. an ATI card and to make it worst, a low end card.

Come on.. at least they had to charge 1999, and put a decent card, for christ sake, its a desktop...

Dont get me wrong, Im a huge fan of apple, but now they s*** up!!..

Noow i or we ( many of u guys ) have to decide what to do!.. buy i nice iMac ( yes i like the new look ) with a crap video card or stick with a mbp with a nice video card.

OUCH APPLE!!....

regards,
Click to expand...

It's as good as or better than the card in the MBP.

Rich.
 
OTA

OTA

macrumors newbie
Aug 7, 2007
12
0
I think it´s equal.
Butt.
Why apple didn´t put a 8600gt or something better on imac entry!??!
Hd2400xt really sucks, i read some reviews.
It´s a 65$ cheap ultra low end, directx 10 card.

Apple:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


I think that this card will be great only for multimedia center and some video edition.

For games? Just Mac Pro!!
8600gt it´s garbage too!!!
 
F

full0ut

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 7, 2007
17
0
holland said:
Actually the ATI HD 2600 Pro is about the same or better performance with the Macbook Pro because that site is comparing the Nvidia Geforce 6800GT/GTS. Those Nvidia cards are for desktops the Macbook Pros use 6800M which aren't going to have the same power as the desktop ones ;)
Click to expand...

nope again.. i think u made a mistake typo, its 8600, not 6800..
its desktop comparison indeed, but for mobile follow the same specs, just a little underclock, so the nvidia M series beats a simillar ati mobile, which is hd series.

To justify that, another bench..

http://www.hothardware.com/articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_2600_and_2400_Performance/?page=5
 
S

spac3man

macrumors newbie
Aug 7, 2007
11
0
Apple should of had 8800 GTS option for the iMacs. Looks like they wanna get rid of professionals cause of the glossy screen, and also don't want to introduce PC gamers to iMac. Sux.
 
S

SiliconDioxide

macrumors member
May 15, 2007
48
0
Look the vid card in the MPB is sup par and so is the one in the new imac. But since the imac is a desktop computer. One would think that one of the models would have a vid card that isn't a joke. I mean they retail for like $100. But I have made my piece with the fact that Apple will never make a computer with a good vid. card. This is the one thing that keeps apple from making a perfect computer.
 
F

full0ut

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 7, 2007
17
0
SiliconDioxide said:
Look the vid card in the MPB is sup par and so is the one in the new imac. But since the imac is a desktop computer. One would think that one of the models would have a vid card that isn't a joke. I mean they retail for like $100. But I have made my piece with the fact that Apple will never make a computer with a good vid. card. This is the one thing that keeps apple from making a perfect computer.
Click to expand...

Yes, i awalys thought that... and i was hope that they fix it now with new iMacs.. butt.....

They even could put the same mpbs 8600m series cards, sad real sad...

I still cant belive..... :mad:

and more

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q3/radeon-hd-2400-2600/index.x?pg=1
 
F

full0ut

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 7, 2007
17
0
HardBall said:
That's wrong, you are comparing apples to oranges, the NV cards in that link are desktop graphics chips which are entirely different than 8600M in the MBP; different cores and different memory interface.
Click to expand...

see post #6.. the mobile specs and scores is always similar with mobile, if the ati desktop version is slower than nv desktop card, mobile will NEVER be oppose it.
 
H

HardBall

macrumors regular
Jan 10, 2006
234
88
full0ut said:
see post #6.. the mobile specs and scores is always similar with mobile, if the ati desktop version is slower than nv desktop card, mobile will NEVER be oppose it.
Click to expand...

Well, that's clearly not the case, if you remember the difference between the desktop X1800 versus GF7800, and the difference between the mibility counterparts. And even if that is the case, you are still comparing the 8600 GT to the vanilla HD 2600; but the HD 2600XT would actually be the equivalent counterpart. You better do your homework better before you post.

The only necessarily similar aspects between the mobile and desktop parts is the numerical designnation; the graphics chips themselves are not guaranteed to have any similarity.
 
F

full0ut

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 7, 2007
17
0
HardBall said:
Well, that's clearly not the case, if you remember the difference between the desktop X1800 versus GF7800, and the difference between the mibility counterparts. And even if that is the case, you are still comparing the 8600 GT to the vanilla HD 2600; but the HD 2600XT would actually be the equivalent counterpart. You better do your homework better before you post.

The only necessarily similar aspects between the mobile and desktop parts is the numerical designnation; the graphics chips themselves are not guaranteed to have any similarity.
Click to expand...

Well, i think u better start do some googling, before attack!!!...

Ok... if u compare 1800xl with 7800gt clear 7800 win, but with 1800xt win.. but

Back to iMac, in a mbp has 8600m gt which is FASTER than x1600, right?!.. so
in a Desktop like iMac is and month back we had an announcement from id and EA games, that they will return to invest in mac game development. Doesnt make any sense apple do that, put a low end video card like 2600pro. Its like a shot in blind, got it?..

I dont care what card, but get a decent card!!.. and i garantee that i am not alone!!

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575&p=4 ( x1800 and 7800 )

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=5 ( 2600 and
8600 )


btw see https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/338795/ - nice thread!!

regards,
 
cluthz

cluthz

macrumors 68040
Jun 15, 2004
3,118
4
Norway
SiliconDioxide said:
Look the vid card in the MPB is sup par and so is the one in the new imac. But since the imac is a desktop computer. One would think that one of the models would have a vid card that isn't a joke. I mean they retail for like $100. But I have made my piece with the fact that Apple will never make a computer with a good vid. card. This is the one thing that keeps apple from making a perfect computer.
Click to expand...

Is the 8600M GT subpar?
I believe that 8600M GT is the far best option to have in the MBP and it was a really nice speedbump compared to the x1600.

No GPU with better performance is possible to fit in an 1-inch thick laptop!
There is better mobile GPUs out there, but they require alot more cooling and power and therefore not an option in a MBP.

But, the iMac..
Last gen iMac topend was nearly 50% faster than the best MBP counterpart (7600GT vs x1600mobility), the 2600Pro is not faster than the 8600M GT.
 
H

HardBall

macrumors regular
Jan 10, 2006
234
88
full0ut said:
Well, i think u better start do some googling, before attack!!!...

Ok... if u compare 1800xl with 7800gt clear 7800 win, but with 1800xt win.. but
Click to expand...

You are suffering from the same mental infirmity as before. No one would actually compare an 1800XL with a 7800GT, since the GS of most series of Geforce cards are in the same pricing as well as performance bracket as the XL version from the Radeon lines; while GT/GTS would correspond to those with XT suffix.

Back to iMac, in a mbp has 8600m gt which is FASTER than x1600, right?!.. so
in a Desktop like iMac is and month back we had an announcement from id and EA games, that they will return to invest in mac game development. Doesnt make any sense apple do that, put a low end video card like 2600pro. Its like a shot in blind, got it?..
Click to expand...

Talking about blindly attacking the other poster, did you read anything in my posts that says MBP actually has inferior graphics than the imac?? I simply pointed out your fallacy of using comparison of irrelevant desktop graphics chips to justify a statement that you made about a comparison between a desktop and a mobile chip.

I dont care what card, but get a decent card!!.. and i garantee that i am not alone!!

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575&p=4 ( x1800 and 7800 )

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=5 ( 2600 and
8600 )


btw see https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/338795/ - nice thread!!

regards,
Click to expand...

They probably would like a more powerful card, but considering all of these Radeon cards consume less than 40W under normal usage, due to smaller number of execution units as well as 65nm process, almost no card that's significantly more powerful would come close to this level of power consumption.

The HD2600XT probably would be the closest, but still no cigar in the thinner iMac; and you can forget about cramming a 8600GTS in there, not going to happen.
 
D

Durmortec

macrumors newbie
Aug 8, 2007
29
0
Cupertino, CA
Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan

macrumors 65816
Jun 3, 2007
1,202
0
Melbourne, Australia
i do agree the iMac is not suited to running the latest games like a PC equivalent which could just upgrade the graphics

but we've always known the iMac was never a gaming rig

none of the apple computers are aimed at gaming...the mac pro has the graphics power needed, but costs that bit too much and the iMac hasn't got the graphics
 
F

full0ut

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 7, 2007
17
0
HardBall said:
They probably would like a more powerful card, but considering all of these Radeon cards consume less than 40W under normal usage, due to smaller number of execution units as well as 65nm process, almost no card that's significantly more powerful would come close to this level of power consumption.
Click to expand...


Consume?.. we're are talking about desktop not mobile... a enter gaming computer... "all-in-one"

HardBall said:
The HD2600XT probably would be the closest, but still no cigar in the thinner iMac; and you can forget about cramming a 8600GTS in there, not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Now u got it!!.. excelent!!.. but should be, thats why A LOT ppl are claiming, doesnt make any sense a hd series, even with a xt... but put a card slower than which it have in mbp.. is even WORST...

Shame!!!
 
F

full0ut

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 7, 2007
17
0
Genghis Khan said:
i do agree the iMac is not suited to running the latest games like a PC equivalent which could just upgrade the graphics

but we've always known the iMac was never a gaming rig

none of the apple computers are aimed at gaming...the mac pro has the graphics power needed, but costs that bit too much and the iMac hasn't got the graphics
Click to expand...

Yeap.. thats what i think too, i was waiting to replace my rig, to a new iMac game machine.. and now what!?!.. i dont want play solitare with paralles..
 
J

Jimmdean

macrumors 6502a
Mar 21, 2007
648
647
It's not like this is really Apple's fault. DX10 has been a complete disaster and has set back the whole industry. There really should have been another round of DX9 cards to work out efficiency issues, but NVIDIA just had to push out those DX10 parts a year before anyone actually needed them, forcing ATI to do the same. Really, with heat and power concerns, but still being modern what choice did Apple really have?
 
H

HardBall

macrumors regular
Jan 10, 2006
234
88
full0ut said:
Consume?.. we're are talking about desktop not mobile... a enter gaming computer... "all-in-one"
Click to expand...

Look at the size of the iMac compared to most consumer desktops, and you will have the answer as to why these graphics would be in there. iMac simply doesn't have the necessary volume and airflow to cool a card with high TDP.

Now u got it!!.. excelent!!.. but should be, thats why A LOT ppl are claiming, doesnt make any sense a hd series, even with a xt... but put a card slower than which it have in mbp.. is even WORST...

Shame!!!
Click to expand...

Got what, that you are as dense as you appeared to be at first?

The 2600 Pro is not a bad card, but consume much less power than its higher performance cousins the 2600XT and 8600GTS. The best option would have to be either Mobility HD 2600XT, which would be significantly better than the 8600M GT. http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-2600-XT.3770.0.html
Or possibly a 8700M GT if they can squeeze it in there.

But using mobile parts would inevitably drive up the cost of this gen of iMacs, which is probably not what they were going for.
 
F

Flaki

macrumors member
May 14, 2007
36
0
well have you any prove that 2600 pro is worse than 8600m GT?

barefeat.com , today(?) they will try the new iMac, the game that they gona try is(as usual) WoW, quake 4, pray, DOOM.

they will also compare older models how much % faster/slower they are to the new iMac.
 
D

Durmortec

macrumors newbie
Aug 8, 2007
29
0
Cupertino, CA
The evidence from the review already posted, as well as this site http://www.webshopper.com/article/id,135777-c,macs/article.html-iMac
http://www.webshopper.com/article/id,135062-page,1-c,notebooks/article.html-MBP
show that the new iMac performs either slightly above or very close to a MBP in all the tests. Note the Worldbench score, 82 for an iMac and 88 for a MBP. It is important to keep in mind that the MBP they used has 4 GB of RAM while the iMac has the stock 1G.

I know I know, it's not game scores, but it's all we got for now. I'm not even gonna takebarefeat benchmarks I see in OSX seriously since the mac versions of games seem to run slower.
 
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