Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

wow the 2600 xt really sucks compared to the other cards?

T

togermano

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 10, 2007
174
0
Pixel Fill Rate:
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 11.8 billion/sec
GeForce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion/sec
Quadro FX 5600 = 19.2 billion/sec

Triangles Per Second
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 700 million
Geforce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion
Quadro FX 5600 = 28.0 billion

Memory Bandwidth
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 25.6 GB/sec
GeForce 8800 GT = 72.0 GB/sec
Quadro FX 5600 = 76.8 GB/sec



Do you think a 3rd party vender will come out with an update to repalce the card inside the imac?
 
Caris said:
Macs aren't really ment for games, therefore you don't need a top end card.
Click to expand...

What are they ment for then? Browsing an email? You don't need a 2.4ghz proccessor for that they should just sell 1ghz proccesor only and sell a cheaper mac since a due2 intel 2.4ghz will only be useful for games
 
Um...is it me or are the cards you're comparing the 2600XT (Mid-Range) with Higher-End cards?
 
togermano said:
Do you think a 3rd party vender will come out with an update to repalce the card inside the imac?
Click to expand...

No.

iMacs are built out of laptop technology. They do not have standard PCI-e cards so the chance of an upgrade are approximately 0%. Some previous iMacs had their graphics on MXM expansion modules instead of soldered to the logic board. Even those don't have upgrades available.

Lack of upgradability was the choice you made when you bought an iMac.
 
daneoni said:
Um...is it me or are the cards you're comparing the 2600XT (Mid-Range) with (Higher-End) cards?
Click to expand...


Mhmm, definitely.

he's comparing the top nvidia quadro fx to a mid range video card, and also comparing it to an 8800gt, one of the best affordable, these arent even in the same category
 
togermano said:
What are they ment for then? Browsing an email? You don't need a 2.4ghz proccessor for that they should just sell 1ghz proccesor only and sell a cheaper mac since a due2 intel 2.4ghz will only be useful for games
Click to expand...

They did not include a Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz inside the iMac for gaming reasons.

Processor power is much more relevant for applications, other than games, to reduce the time it takes to do a given task.

At lower resolutions you can be limited by the processor but as the resolution increases the bottleneck increasingly becomes the graphic card.
 
togermano said:
What are they ment for then? Browsing an email? You don't need a 2.4ghz proccessor for that they should just sell 1ghz proccesor only and sell a cheaper mac since a due2 intel 2.4ghz will only be useful for games
Click to expand...

Buy a macpro if you're so concerned about the graphic card on a mac.
 
togermano said:
Pixel Fill Rate:
GeForce 6800 Ultra = 6.4 billion/sec
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 11.8 billion/sec
GeForce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion/sec
Quadro FX 5600 = 19.2 billion/sec

Triangles Per Second
GeForce 6800 Ultra = 600 million
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 700 million
Geforce 8800 GT = 33.6 billion
Quadro FX 5600 = 28.0 billion

Memory Bandwidth
GeForce 6800 Ultra = 35.2 GB/sec
Radeon HD 2600 XT = 25.6 GB/sec
GeForce 8800 GT = 72.0 GB/sec
Quadro FX 5600 = 76.8 GB/sec

Memory Bandwidth 35.2 GB/sec.
Fill Rate 6.4 billion texels/sec.
Vertices per Second 600 Million

Do you think a 3rd party vender will come out with an update to repalce the card inside the imac?
Click to expand...


I think you have to put this in perspective.
The numbers for the Radeon 2600 look excellent when the GeForce 6800 Ultra is included in the comparison. (in Bold)
This is especially true if you consider the power and cooling restrictions of the iMac, and the fact that the Radeon2600 has 128bit memory interface.

In any event, why does any of this matter?
The 2600 chipset is more than adequate for running Leopard at high resolutions.
In fact, the performance of my 24" iMac @ 1900x1200 exceeds that of my "upgradable PC" @ 1024x768 in OpenGL games.

Upgrading my PC to even come close to the performance of my iMac would require that I replace the MOBO/RAM/CPU/GPU/PSU.
That's basically a complete rebuild.
"upgradability" usually ends up being a lotta hogwash unless you do it every three-six months. (gamers and hardware-junkies)
 
Sometimes you just have to forget the dorky numbers for a moment and actually use the thing. Does it do what you want it to? If so, then its good enough.
I can use my iMac for games, and its actually pretty damn good. I don't play many games, but as an example, frame rates in UT2004 will nearly always be maxed out. I can also play UT3 (No mac version yet, so playing in Winblows via bootcamp) and i'll see 25-45fps regularly. Not brilliant, but perfectly playable and smooth looking, and thats what counts.

For a cheap bundled card, it does a pretty good job. My only concern is the quality of the drivers and ATI's poor track record. The drivers are better now, but still need work.

Its not entirely fair to compare the performance of the iMacs gfx card to other cards that cost quite a lot more.
 
robbieduncan said:
Lack of upgradability was the choice you made when you bought an iMac.
Click to expand...

Heck it's a choice you make even when you buy a Mac Pro, as I don't recall them offering an upgraded video card at any time during the previous model's life-cycle of August 2006 to January 2008.
 
togermano said:
What are they ment for then? Browsing an email? You don't need a 2.4ghz proccessor for that they should just sell 1ghz proccesor only and sell a cheaper mac since a due2 intel 2.4ghz will only be useful for games
Click to expand...

I make use of the processor for real time high-def effects, and h264 encoding. The graphics card make little difference in those processor-intense tasks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back