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.
So much for an iMac gaming machine...
- Thread starter capran
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pro for ATI means lower end.
I believe that since the iMac has a built in screen you can view protected content on the built in screen.
The ATI 2400 and 2600 are all HDCP compliant and have universal decoders for H.264 for example meaning they can reduce a CPU's load on decoding anywhere from like 50% to 10%.
Also, they support HDMI output as well though that doesn't really pertain here. Makes great work for a Home Theater PC though.
And yeah, honestly, the iMac really isn't for those who understand video cards and what heavy gaming. As a theater platform and so on, it's a great buy. For gaming though, you'll have to go with the Mac Pro or a PC.
As far as heat dissipation, the 2400's and 2600's were chosen probably because they ARE indeed cooler and less power hungry than the 8400 and 8600 from Nvidia. That's because the 2400 and 2600 are running on the 65nm process already.
And understatement of the year on the 2400 & 2600 running cooler than the 8800's.... my 8800 GTX on the PC idles at over 60 degrees C and can load up into the 80's C on load. Just a bit more and it'll make coffee for me. That's not even considering the fact that they draw something like 130-180W of power alone. But they are the undisputed kings of performance right now.
Also, they support HDMI output as well though that doesn't really pertain here. Makes great work for a Home Theater PC though.
And yeah, honestly, the iMac really isn't for those who understand video cards and what heavy gaming. As a theater platform and so on, it's a great buy. For gaming though, you'll have to go with the Mac Pro or a PC.
As far as heat dissipation, the 2400's and 2600's were chosen probably because they ARE indeed cooler and less power hungry than the 8400 and 8600 from Nvidia. That's because the 2400 and 2600 are running on the 65nm process already.
And understatement of the year on the 2400 & 2600 running cooler than the 8800's.... my 8800 GTX on the PC idles at over 60 degrees C and can load up into the 80's C on load. Just a bit more and it'll make coffee for me. That's not even considering the fact that they draw something like 130-180W of power alone. But they are the undisputed kings of performance right now.
That's my guess why we didn't see big graphics updates. More of a sidestep; about the same 3D performance, but the addition of hardware video decoding, HDCP compliance, and reduced thermal output make it a pretty decent trade, I suppose.
Also, they dropped the 17" so they needed to get the price down on the 20" so they needed a lower priced chip. To bad they didn't offer something better on the 24" though. More room for added cost, more room for heat dissipation, etc. Ah well, I'm pretty happy with the 360 for gaming.
I totally agree here. Similar or slightly better performance then the last generation, but a lot more stuff done in hardware. Don't forget though that all Apple games are OpenGL (as far as I'm aware), and ATI has always been pretty strong there. It is my understanding that in the newer (x2x00) architecture they have increased OpenGL performance. Also, the 8600GT etc need extra power, whereas the x2600 does not. There is also significantly less heat output.
The new hardware features may be designed to support blu-ray or HD-DVD playback, not to mention hi def quicktime content. It's not the first time Apple bumps up the "capability" of a machine just by unlocking previously locked firmware. Didn't iDVD get upgraded recently?
Another thing I would like to comment on - Apple seems to have closed the gap between the Mac Pro and the high end iMac, and also made the mini closer to the low-end one with the speed bump. There seems to be less room for a mid-range headless mac to fit in there now - It seems to clearly be "use your own monitor and get a cheapo mac, buy an imac or get a mac pro." It's always been this way but now I think there isn't really room for anything else like there was before.
One wonderes if they are dropping the 17" form factor entirely, or if they will keep it going as an eMac. I haven't checked the store - are the 17" with the GMA950 still availible, or have they been booted as well? If so, that opens up the educational sector. I believe, though, that Apple will keep the lowlow end iMac950 around because it doesn't make much sense to create a new product to fill this section when they clearly have one that is completely distinguishable from the other iMacs already in place.
While I agree that, since the imac is so thin they needed to worry about heat. But they have a number of smart engineers I assume. I would have to imagine that they could have worked a solution that would have allowed the imac to have a better vid card. But to put a garbage end vid card in a beautiful computer like the imac is a sin.
I'm sure that if they could put a video card from this generation in there that was good they would do so but there's just nothing good from this generation in that form factor. Maybe the next one, which is right around the corner.
So does anyone think it would be a considerable upgrade from what is in my sig even the best imac there?
EDIT: http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q3/radeon-hd-2400-2600/index.x?pg=1
It does not fare badly but couldnt apple have at least put in the 2600 XT? Or there is the possibility that this site is completely incredible.
EDIT: http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q3/radeon-hd-2400-2600/index.x?pg=1
It does not fare badly but couldnt apple have at least put in the 2600 XT? Or there is the possibility that this site is completely incredible.
I'm a gamer too and this sucks..
psst.
dell.com outlet has 3ghz dual core intels with 2gb ram for 400.00 bucks
they are the e520's I think and have the 16X pci-express port.
check it.
slap in a nice video card and your good to go.
500-520.00 tops for a decent gaming machine that will last a while.
nuff said.
I hate windows but for a gaming machine this is about the same as a playstation but much better.
psst.
dell.com outlet has 3ghz dual core intels with 2gb ram for 400.00 bucks
they are the e520's I think and have the 16X pci-express port.
check it.
slap in a nice video card and your good to go.
500-520.00 tops for a decent gaming machine that will last a while.
nuff said.
I hate windows but for a gaming machine this is about the same as a playstation but much better.
I would have traded in my PC for one of these, the glossy screen doesn't bother me for what I'd use it for and I like the rest of the specs but the video card isn't even one I'd consider putting in a PC, lol!
Now I'm going to have to keep waiting till I can get a Macbook Pro, but I would have continued with the 20in and the desktop form factor. I mean I was hoping I'd see some semi-decent performance videowise. My 6800GS probably out does it.
Now I'm going to have to keep waiting till I can get a Macbook Pro, but I would have continued with the 20in and the desktop form factor. I mean I was hoping I'd see some semi-decent performance videowise. My 6800GS probably out does it.
I'm waiting until Leopard comes out to get my iMac. I'm thinking Apple just might upgrade the video by then. Fingers crossed.
Rich
Rich
So will I be able to play the latest EA games on the new 24" imac? What was that all about at E3- gaming for MACs... who will be able to play these games when they are released for the MAC??? Did I just waste $2800?
It really depends.
Even on my 8600 Pro MacBook Pro (which is a faster card) Civ IV crawls. I would have done better research if I were you. And yes, for all intents and purposes, if your objective is in gaming you have just wasted $2800 on an upgradeable piece of ****. For that kind of money anyone would have gotten a Mac Pro. The X2600 is arguably just a X1600 that supports DX-10.
Have a nice weekend staring at yourself in the 24" mirror
I believe that Civ IV still has performance issues with the 8600M GT. Still, bottom of the barrel Dell at $400 can get a 8600 GT. *sigh*It really depends.
Even on my 8600 Pro MacBook Pro (which is a faster card) Civ IV crawls. I would have done better research if I were you. And yes, for all intents and purposes, if your objective is in gaming you have just wasted $2800 on an upgradeable piece of ****. For that kind of money anyone would have gotten a Mac Pro. The X2600 is arguably just a X1600 that supports DX-10.
Have a nice weekend staring at yourself in the 24" mirror
That $2,800 would have been a very nice Mac Pro.
Mac Pro + $300 22" 'Chimei' screen > 24" iMac IMO.
If you are spending that much, might as well think a bit ahead into the future.
I have my Gateway 22" Widescreen connected to my Dell Latitude D800. You should see the inputs on this monitor!
I'm once again hoping for some sort of Mac Pro update but being let down now at MWSF 2007, WWDC, and today's event. I don't have very high hopes that I'll be buying a Mac again.
welcome to the wonderful world of the mac
waiting a year for an upgrade and finding it's slower than the machine it replaces , uglier and more expensive
if that's progress you can keep it
waiting a year for an upgrade and finding it's slower than the machine it replaces , uglier and more expensive
if that's progress you can keep it
Macs are really good for their laptops and workstations.
For everything else there is Hackint0sh.
It wouldnt be a big deal if they didnt hype it up so much. "YAY, some big name games are now compatible with a mac...except you can't play them" If theyre going to have all these games now they should have put something better into it. damn it 
" If theyre going to have all these games now they should have put something better into it. damn it
ive been reading and around and some people say that the poor performance is from poor drivers... could this be true with the 2600?? it is a dx10 card right?? so the drivers that good yet?? or are those sites just garbage.
It's new hardware ... probably will perform better under Leopard.
I'd wait until Leopard is out before making any judgment calls on the new Mac hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if all the Intel machines saw a significant speedup.
I'd wait until Leopard is out before making any judgment calls on the new Mac hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if all the Intel machines saw a significant speedup.