I asked someone what he thinks of the iMac's Graphics Card (Without saying it's on an iMac) then he said it's probably a laptop.
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.
Why did Apple put a Mobile Graphics Card on the iMac?!
- Thread starter iAppleseed
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Due to power consumption and heat generation, the iMacs use mobile GPUs, as those consume less power and generate and radiate less heat. A desktop GPU is also a wee bit bigger than its mobile counterpart, and the iMac does not have that much room.
Well, just have a look at your average high-end desktop GPU. Its heatsink alone is thicker than an iMac. How are you going to put something like that inside iMac's case?
I often have an impression that people think of Apple as that big, evil company which tries to milk money out of consumers by trying to sell them overpriced crappy hardware. To some extent, this is true (RAM/HDD prices). But more often than not, Apple is bound by the existing technological progress. If their goal is to build a thin, light, functional all-in-one, they have to use components which are suitable for that task. Believe me, Apple would be more than happy to put a desktop class GPU in the iMac, just because desktop GPUs are MUCH cheaper than mobile GPUs — but there would be no way to cool that thing down. With these kinds of design, thermal engineering is the most important thing, or you will end like Lenovo, with their all-in-one computers suddenly bursting in flames.
I often have an impression that people think of Apple as that big, evil company which tries to milk money out of consumers by trying to sell them overpriced crappy hardware. To some extent, this is true (RAM/HDD prices). But more often than not, Apple is bound by the existing technological progress. If their goal is to build a thin, light, functional all-in-one, they have to use components which are suitable for that task. Believe me, Apple would be more than happy to put a desktop class GPU in the iMac, just because desktop GPUs are MUCH cheaper than mobile GPUs — but there would be no way to cool that thing down. With these kinds of design, thermal engineering is the most important thing, or you will end like Lenovo, with their all-in-one computers suddenly bursting in flames.
They use something along the lines of these. That one is a 7000 series mobile version
Some of them were upgradable
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Apple/6615578/
Last edited:
Why? So it doesn't catch fire!
Seriously, mobile GPUs these days are pretty powerful for the power they draw...
Seriously, mobile GPUs these days are pretty powerful for the power they draw...
Usually when you see people with high-end systems, you'd expect them to know a thing or two about computers. Here it seems that this isn't the case...
Heat and size, as everybody else has said. And what's wrong with a mobile GPU exactly? It's not about the form factor or anything like that, it's about the performance. And in the case of the current top-end iMac, the performance is pretty darn good for an all-in-one, actually. More to my previous point, it's quicker than your graphics card in your Mac Pro.
Heat and size, as everybody else has said. And what's wrong with a mobile GPU exactly? It's not about the form factor or anything like that, it's about the performance. And in the case of the current top-end iMac, the performance is pretty darn good for an all-in-one, actually. More to my previous point, it's quicker than your graphics card in your Mac Pro.
It does use a mobile video card, which is fine for what I use my iMac for. Its an example of form factor/looks over performance. And if thats what your after its fine. Not really powerful enough for my needs at work, but for most people its fine.
Plus its a super thin all in one, do you really expect them to stuff multiple desktop GPUs in there?
Plus its a super thin all in one, do you really expect them to stuff multiple desktop GPUs in there?
The muppets are out in force again I see. Down voting what is actually a decent question.
Heat and size.
The form and look was just as if not more important than over all performance. When for a little bit more you could get a Mac Pro, or at the lower end a Mac Mini.
The same reason they use mobile variants of the CPU's. An iMac is a top of the range laptop with a stand at its most basic. Nothing wrong with it, many people seem happy with what the iMacs can offer.
Heat and size.
The form and look was just as if not more important than over all performance. When for a little bit more you could get a Mac Pro, or at the lower end a Mac Mini.
The same reason they use mobile variants of the CPU's. An iMac is a top of the range laptop with a stand at its most basic. Nothing wrong with it, many people seem happy with what the iMacs can offer.
I really wish Apple would make a Mac miniTower. The Mac Pro is too much [money] for my needs and the iMac isn't really enough. I'd settle for the guts of the iMac in a case with an easily accessible HDD and a desktop GPU. The Performa came in both all-in-one and tower versions.
Have you seen how big a desktop graphics card is? It won't fit.
----------
The iMac uses desktop CPUs.
It sure won't and don't hate on apple here, I have a sony Vaio VGC-LN2M (great name right) pic below, its an all in one and has a mobile Core 2 Duo as well as an Nvidia 9300M (which is a mobile graphics cars incase you couldn't guess what the M stood for) its the price you pay for an all in one design.
Attachments
The top-end iMac has both a faster CPU and a faster GPU than the basic Mac Pro, while being cheaper and including the monitor.
So what is your point, again?
The Mac Pro's ability to throw multiple processing streams at CPU-intensive tasks e.g what a work station does. The Mac Pro has more pure CPU-based number crunching power than the iMac 27-inch but the iMac 27-inch is faster at day-to-day tasks that use other components like the hard drive and graphics. Thats why a iMac is a consumer product and a Mac pro is a professional workstation system. Hence i for consumer and pro for professional. Oh and the Mac pro is upgradeable and not just the ram and hard drive.
No it is not. The i7-2600 CPU in the iMac is significantly faster than the W3530 in the Mac Pro, period. Both in single-processing and multi-processing environment.
Of course there are valid reasons why the Mac Pro is more expensive, and you listed some of them. But that is not the point. I am not trying to insult the Mac Pro. I was simply answering to this G4DP character who seems to suggest that the iMac is 'looks only' and uses slower components.
Oh you talking about the build to order option I was talking about the base top end but then really are getting close to a mac pro in price. Yer the iMac has some physical design constraints e.g there's no box on the floor and most people don't want a box. They want something that can do everything they need to run there business and still look good and the iMac covers both perfectly especially the top end as you said.
At least attempt to be accurate. I'm not sure about the lower imacs. The gpu in the top imac isn't exactly cheap. It's probably more expensive than than the 5770. The 6970m would typically be found in gaming laptops, so there is a bit of overlap there with desktop gpus. The 6770m and the 6750m in the lower ones are a little bleh, but this is not significantly cheaper than using a desktop gpu. If you don't believe me, look at macbook pro cpus and their launch pricing.
This is the cto version in the 15" and 17" macbook pros. The cheaper one is suggested at $378.
This is used in the cheapest mac pro, and don't give me the argument that big aluminum cases are expensive to build. They're no more labor intensive than using machined cases for the macbook airs.
The point is that you don't use mobile parts specifically to cut costs. Now if we're going to look at money, they do lock in a high minimum sale from an imac. If it was just as easy to use a modest desktop gpu, they would already be using one to cut costs.
Even HP's Z1 was using Quadro M options. It's fully possible that we'll see a real trend toward performance per watt that will eventually make these somewhat more convergent. I don't know how fast gaming needs are growing though.
Last edited:
Pretty much every All-In-One that has a dedicated graphics card uses a mobile graphics card. If they don't do that then they're using whatever integrated graphics processor came on the motherboard.
I also agree with the person who posted about a Mac Pro Mini-like tower. That would be great for people who need more than a Mac Mini or iMac but less than a Mac Pro.
I also agree with the person who posted about a Mac Pro Mini-like tower. That would be great for people who need more than a Mac Mini or iMac but less than a Mac Pro.