Why did Apple put a Mobile Graphics Card on the iMac?!

[chibiterasu]

Performance per watt is key because in smaller machines there less space for cooling which is obvious.

They did have a slightly bigger mac mini which was smaller than a mac pro, it took better graphics cards and failed miserable it was the G4 cube so there you go apple was thinking ahead. Why did it fail?? Price the bigger box thing was cheaper and more powerful that's why its in a big box.

 

[G4DP]

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.

Who put your knickers in a twist?

I did not suggest it was looks only. I said they compromised on performance for the look. If you can't see that then that is up to you.

theSeb, I stopped paying attention to what type of CPU went in to it years ago when they did use mobile variants.

 

[mark28]

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.

It is if you look what's inside of it. It's all laptop grade components except for the CPU.

ATI is going to 22nm, so maybe Apple might be able to put a desktop GPU in the iMac due to less heat.

 

[kitsunestudios]

ATI is going to 22nm, so maybe Apple might be able to put a desktop GPU in the iMac due to less heat.

Why? The 7970m is about as good as the 7870 desktop chip anyways; the only thing better would be the desktop 7900 series*. Putting in a desktop 7900 chip would be too much power and heat. Even if they do use a desktop chip, it's not going to be on a replaceable PCI card. They'd have to solder it to the motherboard. The mobile chip already has a flat-format fan and heatsink setup.

Faster is simply not practical from an engineering standpoint. Replaceable could be done with the MXM form factor, if Apple cared about upgrading the graphics card or processor in their consumer systems (hint, they don't)

*ditto the 680m versus the desktop 680/580/590

 

[SaltSlasher]

n/a

 

[zhandri]

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.

actually right now i guess there are only 2 desktop single gpu cards that perform better than the 680MX which are the desktop 680 and the ati 7970. that 27" imac is a beast

 

[NemesisOxide]

Mac power

There is one thing that we can all probably agree on, and that is that Macbook Pro's are significantly better than windows based laptops. I don't even understand why people call them expensive piles of crap. First of all, at least we aren't cheap and buy laptops that are running a semi-stable software that probably costs less than a box of briefs. Secondly when my dad was looking at buying a new laptop (in 2011) he compared the prices and specs of all the brand new and most powerful laptops and what he found was that the Macbook Pro early 2011 (with a 2.3GHz i7 2820QM and AMD Radeon HD 6750M 1024 VRAM and 8GB DDR3 Ram) was the same price and just a bit more powerful than the other laptops but it also had a better display so my dad bought it and he gladly uses it, even up until today. And he's a wise guy because he got his Masters Degree in Computer Science and bachelors in electrical engineering from Imperial College (UK). Apparently, at the time, there was only 3 windows desktop computers in the school as they crashed too much, so the school invested in a suite of macs and the possibility of them crashing was little to none. Plus as a side note UNIX (what mac OS X is built on) is way more stable than windows and thats a fact but windows is more popular for gaming and thats why lots of people favour windows but they go overboard when they talk about what windows is better than OS X for.

 

[MartinAppleGuy]

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.

I think he meant the Xeon processor. That in either 4 core, 6 core or 12 core variants destroys the 27"

 

[leman]

I think he meant the Xeon processor. That in either 4 core, 6 core or 12 core variants destroys the 27"

I know that W3530 is a Xeon processor. It is still 50% slower than the i7-2600 in the iMac. Look up the benchmarks before you post - only takes 30 seconds to type in the processor names in Geekbench results browser.

P.S. Why are you responding to a 1.5 year old post?

 

[MartinAppleGuy]

I know that W3530 is a Xeon processor. It is still 50% slower than the i7-2600 in the iMac. Look up the benchmarks before you post - only takes 30 seconds to type in the processor names in Geekbench results browser.

P.S. Why are you responding to a 1.5 year old post?

Sorry; I meant the Xeon processor in the new Mac Pro. Which would explain what you meant if the comment is that old.

 

[dumastudetto]

The mobile graphics card in the iMac is still very high-end and faster than most graphics cards in Windows PCs. Apple has coupled it with some very innovative engineering to deliver incredible performance you just don't see on the Windows side.

 

[phrehdd]

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.

Why not have a new Mac Mini that looks like a the new Mac (mini) Pro? Internally have an upgradable vid card (though possibly proprietary in nature) and room for a 2.5 drive that uses zero insert so that either a typical or SSD can be put in. This shouldn't be too hard to do.

As for mobile cards in the iMac - this is typical of Apple to put form over function. Look how much the latest iMacs follow design of the iPads. This is no big deal to those that simply want a turn and and use system but for those that want a more custom system are flat out of luck for the most part. In short, iMacs are turn-key solutions not PCs designed for upgrades and again its more form over function.

Form over function also follows in the iPhone and iPad with making them look pretty by only offering tiny text on the screens and having a very clumsy offering to enlarge certain parts of the system texts. Even some of the Samsung phones have easier to read text than the iPads. No wonder people (including myself) are starting to be less fans of Apple. Please understand, many LOVE the iPhone, iPad and computers just the way they are and I am glad for them. I guess I'll just live with my iPhone, look for a tablet elsewhere and decide between a new Mac Mini or a new Mac Pro when refurb/returns start to appear in 2014.

The way things used to be and seems to be somewhat the same -

Windows holds the hardware captive while Mac computers hold OSX captive.

Just more peanuts from the gallery

 

[Jambalaya]

Why not have a new Mac Mini that looks like a the new Mac (mini) Pro? Internally have an upgradable vid card (though possibly proprietary in nature) and room for a 2.5 drive that uses zero insert so that either a typical or SSD can be put in. This shouldn't be too hard to do.

As for mobile cards in the iMac - this is typical of Apple to put form over function. Look how much the latest iMacs follow design of the iPads. This is no big deal to those that simply want a turn and and use system but for those that want a more custom system are flat out of luck for the most part. In short, iMacs are turn-key solutions not PCs designed for upgrades and again its more form over function.

Form over function also follows in the iPhone and iPad with making them look pretty by only offering tiny text on the screens and having a very clumsy offering to enlarge certain parts of the system texts. Even some of the Samsung phones have easier to read text than the iPads. No wonder people (including myself) are starting to be less fans of Apple. Please understand, many LOVE the iPhone, iPad and computers just the way they are and I am glad for them. I guess I'll just live with my iPhone, look for a tablet elsewhere and decide between a new Mac Mini or a new Mac Pro when refurb/returns start to appear in 2014.

The way things used to be and seems to be somewhat the same -

Windows holds the hardware captive while Mac computers hold OSX captive.

Just more peanuts from the gallery

A bit off the original thread topic but some comments from me

There are plenty of threads and interest for a more powerful mini, including one with a "mini pro" mock up. Whether Apple extend the range is open to debate, I doubt it. It's more likely they just refresh the Mini with better chips etc.

For me the iMac has always been a fabulous combination of form and function, it's a great package as it stands and has stood the test of time with the basic form in place and continual improvements in function. When I can I will will upgrade the Mini to an iMac.

Text size on iPad and iPhone is easy to change and increasing app developers are creating their apps to use the text size set on the phone within their apps. It works really well. With my eyesight I use larger text size as it saves me always having to have my reading glasses.

iPad, the original and still the best. I use my iPad1 a lot every day.

I am not held captive to OS X, it's a positive choice

 

[jordanm86]

OP - don't think of the iMac as a desktop-class machine... it's more a hybrid laptop/desktop.

It uses a desktop class processor with mobile graphics, mobile sized SODIMMs RAM and small form factor HDD's/SSD's.

However, hardware technology has come a long way and a high end iMac will hold it's own amongst many a desktop. This machine will suit anything from the casual user to those who work in web/print design and even some video editing (though if you were constantly working in video editing, the nMP would be the better choice).

Also, to the person that stated that a top end iMac performs better than a base level nMP, I have seen geekbench results that would confirm this.

 

[The Phazer]

I do think it's a bit of a shame that we don't see something like a more modular iMac where you could plug in an external graphics card enclosure, possibly into a Thunderbolt port.

I feel like there'd be a lot of applications for that, especially for gaming. I fully expect Microsoft to go down that route with the Surface Pro at some point.

 

[yjchua95]

I do think it's a bit of a shame that we don't see something like a more modular iMac where you could plug in an external graphics card enclosure, possibly into a Thunderbolt port.

I feel like there'd be a lot of applications for that, especially for gaming. I fully expect Microsoft to go down that route with the Surface Pro at some point.

I remembered there was some guy over at TechInferno forums who rigged up a GTX 570 over Thunderbolt to his 11" MacBook Air, and it played games smoothly at high settings.

It's also possible on any Mac with Thunderbolt, but you need the correct configuration files first, which can be found over at the TechInferno forums. So good luck finding it for the Mac that you have.

 

[phrehdd]

A bit off the original thread topic but some comments from me

There are plenty of threads and interest for a more powerful mini, including one with a "mini pro" mock up. Whether Apple extend the range is open to debate, I doubt it. It's more likely they just refresh the Mini with better chips etc.

For me the iMac has always been a fabulous combination of form and function, it's a great package as it stands and has stood the test of time with the basic form in place and continual improvements in function. When I can I will will upgrade the Mini to an iMac.

Text size on iPad and iPhone is easy to change and increasing app developers are creating their apps to use the text size set on the phone within their apps. It works really well. With my eyesight I use larger text size as it saves me always having to have my reading glasses.

iPad, the original and still the best. I use my iPad1 a lot every day.

I am not held captive to OS X, it's a positive choice

The text size the iPad and iPhone in certain areas of the screens is static and cannot be changed. Front screen text under the matrix of icons will always be that size as will the bottom options. Go into Music, and at the bottom are options that too, are not movable nor able to have the text size increased. - Again some areas can be increased by its not the basic iPad/iPhone screens themselves. It would be a good move on Apple's part (though we all know they are doing very well with these devices) to offer up a choice of screen levels such as instead of the 4x5 traditional icon screen to a perhaps 3x4 and then make also the bottom option bar also with choices for text size on the iPhone. As for the iPad, so much real estate on the screen is wasted and absolutely has plenty of room for increasing text under icon size, options within items like Music and so much more. The choice of Apple to use "baked in" screens is rather sad.

If you read my statement before about OSX. I said OSX is held captive by Apple hardware (meaning that to easily use OSX, you only can do it on an Apple machine).

 

[orgasmatron]

hi guys i find the forum jfrom google.com i just found it when i was trying to find more detailing specs for the imac or so calld all in one pc so when i find out that is a mobile gpu (whell it was close to the brain) i sayd to my self wtf thei sell some ting like that so expensive and why why for what cos it looks nice ??????? for that mach money i can buy better performance speed screen all dont know why ppl buy imac i understand iphone but imac no
macbookpro and all the mac laptops for big price ok but imac why it is simple not that powerful like desktop if u whant quality and performance in one u build your self a desktop and not to mention if someting breAK ON THE IMAC u play all day to fix it if u can when the desktop is ther u open it and fix it ok desktop eat more power but ho cares thes days if u whant performance and quality obviously u not gona care for the electricity bill so i still think that imac is crab

 

[benjai]

hi guys i find the forum jfrom google.com i just found it when i was trying to find more detailing specs for the imac or so calld all in one pc so when i find out that is a mobile gpu (whell it was close to the brain) i sayd to my self wtf thei sell some ting like that so expensive and why why for what cos it looks nice ??????? for that mach money i can buy better performance speed screen all dont know why ppl buy imac i understand iphone but imac no
macbookpro and all the mac laptops for big price ok but imac why it is simple not that powerful like desktop if u whant quality and performance in one u build your self a desktop and not to mention if someting breAK ON THE IMAC u play all day to fix it if u can when the desktop is ther u open it and fix it ok desktop eat more power but ho cares thes days if u whant performance and quality obviously u not gona care for the electricity bill so i still think that imac is crab

Looking nice is a very important factor for me as I don't want an ugly box/monitor in my living room. It also happens to do everything I need it to so paying a premium for looks is perfectly acceptable for me.

 

[orgasmatron]

yeah i understand look we all need i was just saying that IF U WHANT performance and quality u need to build a desktop imac look nice i can wach movie on it it is ok and that it but when it comes to gameing then we need a desktop and the parts for the desktop are mach more strong than the laptop parts

 

[benjai]

Not everyone plays games on their iMac.

 

[AxoNeuron]

It's simple size. Regular desktop sized graphics cards are ENORMOUS. My 970's are huge, an absolute monster. You really just couldn't fit that into an iMac.

Honestly, if you want a big bulky graphics card (or two) and don't want to pay enormous amounts of money, build yourself a hackintosh. It's fun and rewarding, and you can add as much RAM as you want, upgrade the GPU whenever you want, upgrade your display, and basically everything in it.

I've never understood why Apple tries to make the iMac thinner, it's not really useful to have a thin iMac. It's not like you're going to be using it in an airport. Size just doesn't matter that much with desktops. So it's completely unacceptable that you can't upgrade basically anything inside of it except possibly the SSD and the RAM. Good luck ever having to replace that motherboard, and an actual upgrade of the motherboard or the video card would be nearly impossible. But my hackintosh is a totally different story, I've upgraded my old GTX 760 to two SLI GTX 970's. You could never hope to do that with an iMac.

 

[AlexisV]

It doesn't actually matter whether it's a mobile GPU. It just means it has the same power as a lower model desktop equivalent. The M395X is basically a desktop R9 380X.

There is still a large fan, heat sink and pipes in the iMac, covering both the GPU and CPU.

There is actually more than enough room in an SSD 27" to fit even more cooling where the hard drive is absent. It's a cost issue there though - Apple doesn't want to add more cost by allowing a more powerful GPU with SSD models, which is a shame.

 

[Georgio]

I still think there should be an iMac Pro, gun-metal grey styling, thicker form to accomodate a full-sized GPU, Retina screen and a compact external PSU to keep the heat down.
Firmly targeted between the standard top-end iMac and the base Mac Pro, would be a winner I'm sure.

 

[\-V-/]

It doesn't actually matter whether it's a mobile GPU. It just means it has the same power as a lower model desktop equivalent. The M395X is basically a desktop R9 380X.

There is still a large fan, heat sink and pipes in the iMac, covering both the GPU and CPU.

There is actually more than enough room in an SSD 27" to fit even more cooling where the hard drive is absent. It's a cost issue there though - Apple doesn't want to add more cost by allowing a more powerful GPU with SSD models, which is a shame.

No, it's a thin obsession issue.