somebody's head has swelled!

[gloss]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.

 

[maverick808]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Well you succinctly lay out the problem yourself right there. This expensive, designer, all-in-one machine is not actually an all-in-one due to having a poor graphics card. How can a machine be all-in-one if it's definitely not a gaming machine? It's an all-in-one minus one.

 

[Grenadier]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.

Crysis ?! Pah - forget about that, this would have trouble running Far Cry

Why the hell should I build a PC if I want to game ? Most people game to a certain degree these days, and its a popular hobby.

Video playback isnt bad, yes, but the damn thing has no power behind it !

Please, stop being such a fanboy, and look at the facts - the GPU is insulting.

 

[Eidorian]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.

We're Mac users, don't push Windows on us.

Apple isn't offering a well rounded computers anymore. It's all about the processors.

 

[holland]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.

Yes! I like your post Also gamers are not the only ones who buy iMacs! I play CSS but I don't need anything more than this current video card. This card is good because it is an upgrade from the old one but it isn't overkill for people who don't need it and people who need more graphic power that is what the Mac Pro is for.

 

[Eidorian]

Yes! I like your post Also gamers are not the only ones who buy iMacs! I play CSS but I don't need anything more than this current video card. This card is good because it is an upgrade from the old one but it isn't overkill for people who don't need it and people who need more graphic power that is what the Mac Pro is for.

People who need more graphics power buy $400 Dells. Even the Mac Pro camp is being tempted by cheap Q6600 based machines. If Apple once again had a few more build to order options we wouldn't complain and they'd make more money off of those of us that want more graphical power.

 

[I'mAMac]

Sounds like someone needs to visit Apple's Feedback page, and add another request for a better GPU:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/338795/

Posting here in forums won't give them the feedback they need. We need as many people as possible to submit feedback. The last iMac lineup later received an option for a faster card, so we can only assume they do listen to feedback!

Where can you submit feedback? Support section? (of apple page)

 

[Eidorian]

Where can you submit feedback? Support section? (of apple page)

http://www.apple.com/feedback/imac.html

 

[Grenadier]

Yes! I like your post Also gamers are not the only ones who buy iMacs! I play CSS but I don't need anything more than this current video card. This card is good because it is an upgrade from the old one but it isn't overkill for people who don't need it and people who need more graphic power that is what the Mac Pro is for.

Thats why they should offer a choice - you can have a 2400 Pro, while others can choose a 8600GTS, or I dare say, a even better GPU (The likely hood of this is zero though - we as Apple fans should know this by now)

We dont need a abandunace of GPU choices just perhaps a slection for 'average joe checking his email, downloading music, etc (2400)', and 'power user (8600GTS)'. I wont mention the 8800GTS since, as stated, this will likely not ever make it to the iMac.

I am strongly against the 2600 Pro - its a pseudo upgrade.
The only choices I feel there should be are the 2400 and 8600GTS.

 

[gloss]

Well you succinctly lay out the problem yourself right there. This expensive, designer, all-in-one machine is not actually an all-in-one due to having a poor graphics card. How can a machine be all-in-one if it's definitely not a gaming machine? It's an all-in-one minus one.

Because the average consumer is not a gamer. You and I may be, but that's no reason to assume (falsely) that the target market for the machine CARES about the GPU in their computer. In this case, we're the minority.

Crysis ?! Pah - forget about that, this would have trouble running Far Cry

Why the hell should I build a PC if I want to game ? Most people game to a certain degree these days, and its a popular hobby.

Video playback isnt bad, yes, but the damn thing has no power behind it !

Please, stop being such a fanboy, and look at the facts - the GPU is insulting.

It'd be fine for Far Cry, really. It's a bit more powerful than my old 6800GT from three years ago, and that had no problem handling the game maxed out. Combined with the far faster CPU, I think it would be more than satisfactory. Hell, it'll play Half-life 2 at average framerates above 60 fps.

Gaming is simply not a strength of the Mac. If you really want to game, you use Windows. And if you care enough to complain about a mid-range consumer card being placed in a mid-range consumer machine, you should probably just build your own. It'd be cheaper and the performance would be greater.

I'm hardly a fanboy. I'll be replacing a PC that I built myself three years ago out of (at the time) top-of-the-line components. I was also disappointed at the choice in GPU, or rather that there was no faster alternative choice, but for my purposes (I recently realized I don't play anything newer than WoW and CS:S, which this machine is more than powerful enough to play happily), it works. It's not a Dell XPS, but it works.

I simply am willing to look outside my own interests, or at least to remind myself that I do not represent the majority, and to see what the reasoning might have been behind Apple's hardware design choices. And it seems obvious - for the type of consumer which Apple is trying to appeal to (read: average people who hate Windows - not gamers), it's a great machine.

 

[holland]

How many of you have this new iMac? And has anyone tried gaming on it? Because it looks to be you are saying it sucks from looking at a couple of Windows benchmarks. Try some games to see how it is on a Mac.

 

[Grenadier]

Because the average consumer is not a gamer. You and I may be, but that's no reason to assume (falsely) that the target market for the machine CARES about the GPU in their computer. In this case, we're the minority.



It'd be fine for Far Cry, really. It's a bit more powerful than my old 6800GT from three years ago, and that had no problem handling the game maxed out. Combined with the far faster CPU, I think it would be more than satisfactory. Hell, it'll play Half-life 2 at average framerates above 60 fps.

Gaming is simply not a strength of the Mac. If you really want to game, you use Windows. And if you care enough to complain about a mid-range consumer card being placed in a mid-range consumer machine, you should probably just build your own. It'd be cheaper and the performance would be greater.

I'm hardly a fanboy. I'll be replacing a PC that I built myself three years ago out of (at the time) top-of-the-line components. I was also disappointed at the choice in GPU, or rather that there was no faster alternative choice, but for my purposes (I recently realized I don't play anything newer than WoW and CS:S, which this machine is more than powerful enough to play happily), it works. It's not a Dell XPS, but it works.

I simply am willing to look outside my own interests, or at least to remind myself that I do not represent the majority, and to see what the reasoning might have been behind Apple's hardware design choices. And it seems obvious - for the type of consumer which Apple is trying to appeal to (read: average people who hate Windows - not gamers), it's a great machine.

You seem to carry the false assumption that this is a 'mid range video card'. I would struggle to label this as 'low range'.
The X2600 Pro is essentially a repackaged and very lightly overclocked X1600XT. This is only somewhat more powerful than ATi or NVidia integrated graphics.

You see, as someone else stated, this is a AIO - its meant to handle all tasks with decent performance. It handles gaming however with less than decent performance. Apple is stating false facts about the new iMac, since if it was a AIO, its GPU wouldnt suck more than a vaccum cleaner.

 

[BlackMax]

I think it's funny that the GPU in the iMac is really pertinent to only one thing = gaming. And yet people are kicking up this gigantic *****torm because their designer all-in-one will not be able to play Crysis at full detail.

Boo hoo. Build a PC if you want to game. For every single other purpose, the GPU in the iMac is perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the video playback/decompression/etc is SUPERIOR on this Radeon card to ANY of its NVidia counterparts. Considering that Apple seems to put most of their eggs in that particular basket (video/music/photos, as opposed to Company of Heroes), I think the choice in GPU makes sense.

Apple has a completely different philosophy on home computers than most other companies. It's not about getting the most powerful technology, and it's certainly not about gaming. It's about simplicity in form and utility, and on those marks the iMac is an ideal consumer level machine.

I believe I speak for many on this thread when I say we LOVE the all-in-one simplicity of the iMac and we are not saying the GPU should be upgraded across all iMac models. Just make an upgraded GPU an OPTION for a built-to-order iMac purchase. Plain and simply.

Broaden the iMacs appeal just a little bit to what I believe is a sizable contingent of Mac gamers. Apple is the one out there with all the Mac versus PC advertisements trying to gain converts. Apple is the one inviting EA and Carmack to WWDC for what I can only imagine is an attempt to win even more converts. Well, a lot of PC owners are gamers, so step up to the plate and give them an OPTION with the iMac.

Apple is even using a picture of a new iMac with a 3D Harry Potter game on the screen on their website at: http://www.apple.com/imac/technology/graphics.html

Apple goes on to describe the new iMac/GPU as "offering great gaming performance and then mentions 3D gaming specifically in the next paragraph.

Odd things to advertise if Apple has a "completely different philosophy" that is "certainly not about gaming"

I sometimes get the impression some Mac fans believe it would be sacrilege for Apple to offer a gaming friendly Mac. If you're not a gamer that is great, but don't expect everyone to fit into your mold. Macs are great machines and the new iMac is no exception, but it could be even better with a improved GPU as an OPTION.

 

[holland]

Thats why they should offer a choice - you can have a 2400 Pro, while others can choose a 8600GTS, or I dare say, a even better GPU (The likely hood of this is zero though - we as Apple fans should know this by now)

We dont need a abandunace of GPU choices just perhaps a slection for 'average joe checking his email, downloading music, etc (2400)', and 'power user (8600GTS)'. I wont mention the 8800GTS since, as stated, this will likely not ever make it to the iMac.

I am strongly against the 2600 Pro - its a pseudo upgrade.
The only choices I feel there should be are the 2400 and 8600GTS.

That would be sweet if you could get Apple to let people choose what video card they want but for now iMac just has those nice 2600 Pros

 

[dollystereo]

First forget all the big cards, because they would never fit on the imac.
I think the card offered sux bigtime. I'm waiting for a Mac Pro refresh because I need the computer to do Motion and 3d, and some ocasional gamming. So the offered 1.5 years old high priced, big delay Radeon x1900xt is not an option.
So now macs, all of them have crappy GPUs, now the imac is thinner so less space to put a decent video. (For the ram I dont care, they lowered the price, and is so cheap now). But for the MacPro they should have at least 4 cards to choose. (Nvidia 88xx, Radeon HD28xx, Hd29xx, ...).
People here dont realize how bad are the HD2400 and HD2600, they are the worst 2 cards of the market (2007-2008, hdcp-DX10) cards. They are extremely cheap, and are outperformed by any other, even older cards (even the 7600GT of the previous imac).
My 2 cents.

I NEED A NEW MAC PRO WITH: eSata, Better Video Cards, 2gb standard (as MBP)

 

[gloss]

I believe I speak for many on this thread when I say we LOVE the all-in-one simplicity of the iMac and we are not saying the GPU should be upgraded across all iMac models. Just make an upgraded GPU an OPTION for a built-to-order iMac purchase. Plain and simply.

I totally concur that there should have been an option for a nicer NVidia GPU - I certainly wouldn't complain. I imagine that there will be an update in the near future that offers something. They've done it before. I'll probably wait until that happens, myself.

I just think that the backlash, while warranted, slips into some pretty ridiculous hyperbole.

 

[Eidorian]

How many of you have this new iMac? And has anyone tried gaming on it? Because it looks to be you are saying it sucks from looking at a couple of Windows benchmarks. Try some games to see how it is on a Mac.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4019578/

I believe I speak for many on this thread when I say we LOVE the all-in-one simplicity of the iMac and we are not saying the GPU should be upgraded across all iMac models. Just make an upgraded GPU an OPTION for a built-to-order iMac purchase. Plain and simply.

Broaden the iMacs appeal just a little bit to what I believe is a sizable contingent of Mac gamers. Apple is the one out there with all the Mac versus PC advertisements trying to gain converts. Apple is the one inviting EA and Carmack to WWDC for what I can only imagine is an attempt to win even more converts. Well, a lot of PC owners are gamers, so step up to the plate and give them an OPTION with the iMac.

Apple is even using a picture of a new iMac with a 3D Harry Potter game on the screen on their website at: http://www.apple.com/imac/technology/graphics.html

Apple goes on to describe the new iMac/GPU as "offering great gaming performance and then mentions 3D gaming specifically in the next paragraph.

Odd things to advertise if Apple has a "completely different philosophy" that is "certainly not about gaming"

I sometimes get the impression some Mac fans believe it would be sacrilege for Apple to offer a gaming friendly Mac. If you're not a gamer that is great, but don't expect everyone to fit into your mold. Macs are great machines and the new iMac is no exception, but it could be even better with a improved GPU as an OPTION.

Post of the day quality. You've covered everything.

 

[I'mAMac]

I sent feedback, probably wont do anything but if enough people do it, maybe. As for the post above (like 5 up or something where he mentions windows benchmarks), mac users should know by now that video cards in macs always run better than video cards in pc's. I had a pc with 3ghz dual core, 1.5gb RAM, and an X1600 256mb. It could run bf2, company of heroes and the like on medium settings getting about 35fps. Got the imac, turned the settings up high, and im getting 40fps. Now i know thats still not good but hey its something. If they even offered the 2600XT as a BTO option i would probably get it.

 

[macjonny1]

At least the old imac 24" had a pretty good video card in it....why not have an option to build one in? There really is no reason to not have this, other than apple does not think it is worthwhile. Somewhere, a bean counter has presumed that there wouldn't be enough demand to make this a BTO and that is what I believe it comes down to.

 

[Grenadier]

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4019578/

Post of the day quality. You've covered everything.

+1.
Totally agree.
Great post BlackMax

 

[roland.g]

Sorry but those graphics cards are more than adequate for photo editing and for most consumer level video editing, unless you are doing animation and 3-D. If you need 512MB of graphics performance get a Mac Pro for the level of work you need to do. It's a consumer level machine with good processors now and 4GB RAM limit. The iMac has always had a decent but not great video card that handles all the needs for which the machine is designed for. If you have needs outside of that, then you need a different rig.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

Its threads like this that make me want to cancel my MacRumors account, and go buy a PC. Just so I don't have to listen to such primadonnas and their psuedo-expert evaluations on what Apple releases.
Would you like some Cheese with that whine?
or How about I call a Waaaaa-mbulance?

Gimme a break.

 

[roland.g]

Gaming is to computers what porn is to the internet.
If you have the disease, seek help.
If you must game, get a machine that does it, or get a PSXBOCWii thing.

 

[Grenadier]

Sorry but those graphics cards are more than adequate for photo editing and for most consumer level video editing, unless you are doing animation and 3-D. If you need 512MB of graphics performance get a Mac Pro for the level of work you need to do. It's a consumer level machine with good processors now and 4GB RAM limit. The iMac has always had a decent but not great video card that handles all the needs for which the machine is designed for. If you have needs outside of that, then you need a different rig.

Did you not read atleast one page of this thread ?
I state again, the choice should be there however.

We dont need 512MB of VRAM - that seldom has huge advantages anyway.

Look, as BlackMax stated, the iMac is advertised as having gaming capabilites, and yet they include what are deemed as two of the biggest GPU flops in quite a long time.

 

[roland.g]

Did you not read atleast one page of this thread ?
I state again, the choice should be there however.

We dont need 512MB of VRAM - that seldom has huge advantages anyway.

Look, as BlackMax stated, the iMac is advertised as having gaming capabilites, and yet they include what are deemed as two of the biggest GPU flops in quite a long time.

Ok, I'll play ignorant. Is the new card not an improvement over the 7300 and 7600 options from the last revision?

Not what you wanted. But are they any better. Are you telling me that the 2600 Pro 256 is actually a poorer performance card than the 7600 GT