What is the reason for the 4850 GPU in the iMac?

[MythicFrost]

I think the iMac i7 27.5" is fantastic except for the GPU.
Why would have Apple used 4850, I've read it's possible it's the mobile version that offers even less performance than the desktop version, and on top of that it's possible that Apple underclocked it to reduce TDP (What does TDP stand for, thermal something?).

Is it because there's not enough room, or a better GPU generates too much heat or simply that there was just nothing else better to use?
I think the iMac needed the GTX 285 1GB and the Mac Pro needs a new consumer card with 2GB memory.

I'd be interested to here what people think.

 

[MRU]

Another poster demanding Apple produce the 'holy grail' of computers that does everything they ever wanted.




Apple made the choice probably for a number of factors including cost, heat dispensation, clarifying a line between the pro & consumer audience etc....

The 4850 is a great GPU that does everything software wise that Apple throws at it... Apple is and never has been that pushed about providing a gaming experience, after-all the majority gamers on mac's are using bootcamp and a windows operating system.

There are trade offs in life, and the 27" iMac is one of them. You get cutting edge Apple design, great processor choices, decent GPU. So it wont run CRYSIS as fast as an ugly Alienware... For the vast majority of Apple consumers - they don't give a s**t and Apple know this.

Acceptance is the first step to moving on........

 

[MTI]

The iMac and Mac Mini product lines aren't, and likely never will be, "bleeding edge" platforms; which is fine by Apple since they sell to a broader market than trying to appeal to market segments, like "gamers." Those specialized market segments don't generate the profits that the more conservative models do . . . Baskin Robbins still sells a lot of vanilla, chocolate and strawberry compared to Jamocha Almond Fudge.

 

[MythicFrost]

Another poster demanding Apple produce the 'holy grail' of computers that does everything they ever wanted.

I have a Mac Pro and won't be upgrading, just interested why, but yes I want ONE computer that can do everything I need, not want.

The 4850 is a great GPU that does everything software wise that Apple throws at it... Apple is and never has been that pushed about providing a gaming experience

If it can't handle high end games, then it's not a great GPU imo.

after-all the majority gamers on mac's are using bootcamp and a windows operating system.

Yep, and the card will be sucky.

So it wont run CRYSIS as fast as an ugly Alienware

It will barely run crysis on low/medium settings, compared to an alienware getting probably 50-70+ fps on a 2560x1600 resolution.

It's a less than decent GPU that probably won't play most high end games on any good settings even on a 1920x1200 resolution yet alone the 2560x1440 resolution, that's not what I call acceptable.
I have a GTX 285 1GB for Mac and it gets me an average of 20FPS mad in Crysis on max settings w/ a 1920x1200 resolution, what is this card gunna do....

I know they're not bleeding edge platforms, if I had to rate the iMac, I'd say everything is 10 and the GPU is 3.
I just want to know what the reason might be, as I stated in my original post other than the fact that it isn't a priority, I think Apple would put a better card in if it would attract the gaming market and not effect the others.

 

[MTI]

I just want to know what the reason might be, as I stated in my original post other than the fact that the market isn't there, I think Apple would put a better card in if it would attract the gaming market and not effect the others.

It would affect the build costs, which would result in an even higher marketing price penalty for a market segment that Apple doesn't need or pursue. Like the comments about not being able to easily swap drives or change video cards in iMacs and Minis . . . Apple could easily build less "attractive" or stylish enclosures for it's devices, even a removable battery in the notebooks, iPhones and iPods . . . but then it lose some of the aesthetic that makes it an Apple product.

Wouldn't we all love a shiny new Ferrari California . . . that could be serviced at Jiffy Lube and have parts available at Pep Boys? Or would we?

 

[MythicFrost]

Yep that makes sense, although how much more expensive can it be? $100 - $200 dollars? say the 4870, it can't be that much more expensive than the 4850. Or does the 4870 not offer much more performance than the 4850?

 

[MRU]

^

You're assuming Apple care about the gaming market. They care about the Apple market, and they are not going to offer a better GPU in their consumer model machine (regardless if its the top of the range imac) than they currently offer in their PRO range.

Regardless of that the form factor of the iMac would probably not handle the heat created by a card that run's crysis at a level that would make you happy.

It doesn't take much effort to rationalise 'the reason for the 4850 GPU in the imac'.

As for 'I think Apple would put a better card in if it would attract the gaming market and not effect the others.' but the 'TOP END' gaming market is niche (on a mac - much smaller still) and this is evident simply in the sales of top of the line graphics cards compared to middle range and lower graphics cards, and it speaks volumes in itself.

If it pains you so much, then simply stay away from the imac, and keep that dream alive of the ever elusive 'holy grail' of mac computers. It simply is not going to happen.

 

[MythicFrost]

It doesn't even have to play Crysis at max settings, I just need a min. of 30 FPS on medium settings, I don't think it'll handle that (could be wrong tho).
Apple care about what's going to make them money, but they could at least try a little harder to please gamers imo.

It's no where near the holy grail of computers, but if they brought the GPU up a little it'd match the upgrades to the processor and RAM.
I don't intend to ever use these iMac's for gaming, if it could handle it then it'd be a good comp for me, and I want Apple to have all their bases covered.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

The thing is most people don't care how thin their iMac is, but they do care about the graphics power... Apple just looks at it differently

 

[itommyboy]

^
Well said. I'm guessing you meant elusive though?

 

[MRU]

^
Well said. I'm guessing you meant elusive though?

Corrected for you

It doesn't even have to play Crysis at max settings, I just need a min. of 30 FPS on medium settings, I don't think it'll handle that (could be wrong tho).
Apple care about what's going to make them money, but they could at least try a little harder to please gamers imo.

It's no where near the holy grail of computers, but if they brought the GPU up a little it'd match the upgrades to the processor and RAM.
I don't intend to ever use these iMac's for gaming, if it could handle it then it'd be a good comp for me..

Err ok now your really getting us confused. What are you complaining about so....

I want Apple to have all their bases covered.

They do... That's why they offer a MacPro range with better graphics card options.

Still not good enough to appease you ?

 

[Muncher]

If it can't handle high end games, then it's not a great GPU imo.

Software does not equal games. OpenCL.

Yep, and the card will be sucky.

Said with class.

It will barely run crysis on low/medium settings, compared to an alienware getting probably 50-70+ fps on a 2560x1600 resolution.

It's a less than decent GPU that probably won't play most high end games on any good settings even on a 1920x1200 resolution yet alone the 2560x1440 resolution, that's not what I call acceptable.
I have a GTX 285 1GB for Mac and it gets me an average of 20FPS mad in Crysis on max settings w/ a 1920x1200 resolution, what is this card gunna do....

I know they're not bleeding edge platforms, if I had to rate the iMac, I'd say everything is 10 and the GPU is 3.
I just want to know what the reason might be, as I stated in my original post other than the fact that it isn't a priority, I think Apple would put a better card in if it would attract the gaming market and not effect the others.

I'd love it if Apple put some real gaming ability into their macs. It's one of the things macs still lack; even the iPhone boasts good graphics capabilities for its class. And, (I hope) I do think we're seeing a trend here as iMacs get more capable cards, like the 8800 a little while ago. The problem is space and venting. But with Apple gaining market share all the time, we'll start to see the apple engineers spend more time on that problem. However, this is what it is now.

Aside from all that, you'd be hard pressed to find a single card setup that would run games at high settings on a 2560x1440 screen.

The coolest thing that could happen IMO would be if Apple were to work out a deal like with intel to get high end parts early (i.e. Mac Pro) from the video card companies. If apple could get mid-range next gen parts that'd be a pretty good compromise.

 

[canyonblue737]

since GPU aren't replaceable in an iMac and since true PC gamers need to swap out the card on a near yearly basis to keep up with the newest games it makes no sense for apple to even *try* to position an imac has a high end gaming platform. i am happy to get a moderate 3D card with support for snow leopards use of the acceleration.

 

[Bubba Satori]

It's only one generation behind the latest video cards from ATI. That actually pretty good for Apple.

 

[Maven1975]

Bump the resolution down. It will still look fantastic compared to any other iMac ever created.

 

[Sambo110]

The 4850 can run a lot of games at 1080P, it can run Crysis smoothly on high/very high if you put the resolution down to about 1280x800, which is fine by me. But there are movies of people using the last get iMac, running the new Operation Flashpoint maxed at 1080P, Arkham Asylum, Resident Evil 5 etc. So it's a great card for gamers, and a great card for everything else.

 

[MythicFrost]

Err ok now your really getting us confused. What are you complaining about so....

I'm not complaining (not really anyway), since I never intended to buy it in the first place, was simply interested in people's opinions of why Apple haven't used a better GFX card.

I hope they come out with a better graphics card for the iMac & Mac Pro.

 

[jamesryanbell]

Another poster demanding Apple produce the 'holy grail' of computers that does everything they ever wanted.

What's wrong with them merely offering something higher end to those that want it? It's not like it has to be standard.

 

[MythicFrost]

Exactly!

Also I found this HP All In One with a GT 230M 1GB... it looks smaller than the iMac, why can't we fit that card in there

 

[admanimal]

Exactly!

Also I found this HP All In One with a GT 230M 1GB... it looks smaller than the iMac, why can't we fit that card in there

Why would you want to fit that card in an iMac? Even the GT130 in the previous generation 24" iMac destroys it.

Look at the FPS scores in the "Lab Tests" section of this review of the HP compared to those in this review of the previous gen iMac. For example, in UT3 on Highest settings @1680x1050 the iMac (GT130) gets 67.15 FPS where the HP (GT230M) gets 23.17.

 

[MythicFrost]

Ah, I'm thinking it's a better card because I think GTX 280m's are better, since the name is similar and the model number is just a bit lower.

Well that's very good, do you know of any of these review sites that show FPS in Crysis?

 

[SpinThis!]

true PC gamers need to swap out the card on a near yearly basis to keep up with the newest games

Nailed it. I have a few of friends who are gamers and they all pretty much gave on PC gaming because of this reason. At least with a PS3 or 360 your hardware stays current for a good 3 years. And developers are still eeking out better performance on those consoles.

I've always thought if you want to game, get a console; if you want to get some work done, get a Mac.

 

[Pressure]

What graphic card do you get in other All-in-Ones?

Oh yeah...silence.

 

[MTI]

What graphic card do you get in other All-in-Ones?

Oh yeah...silence.

Isn't a laptop considered an "all in one?"

 

[MythicFrost]

Yep, I guess it is a good card for an All In One, but since Apple don't have anything like a desktop model that has similar pricing to the iMac, the iMac needs to keep up with the GPU's imo.