Correct me if I'm wrong (I've been a Mac user for @ 5 years) , but didn't Mac gain its early reputation for being THE go to computer for GRAPHICS? What happened along the line? Is the ball in the PC court now (rhetorical)?
A travesty and a tragedy!
It's not that they need to include a 8800GTX.
Their last gpu on the 'white' iMac sucked. There was uproard. So they quickly issued the rather decent at the time, 7600GT.
If they'd have gone iwth the 8600GT this time? I'd have bought one.
Why no uproar this time? I don't know. But I suggest we all put the boot in on Apple's suggestion box on their site.
The gpu update is basically 2600 Pro. It's lame. They could have at least gone iwth the XT variant.
You go upto a 2.8 extreme cpu, a 1 terrabyte hd...but can't have a 'high-mainstream' card? eg 8600GT? It's not like the other components won't get 'warm'. Shakes head. Great cpu option. But you'd need a great gpu option to make it shine.
Shakes head. What happened? Ati is late to market and offered Apple a good deal. It's not the 1st time Apple has 'side graded' a machine. The mini mac got it on the transition to Intel. And the Macbooks.
Apple. Just offer a choice. How can you have no choice? HOW can you have the same gpu on all iMacs from £900-£1400? Oh. I have a choice of 2600 Pro...or...or...scratches...looks down list of options.
Poor. Very, very poor. Because the iMac is superb in every other aspect. The 24 incher is flat, out gorgeous. If I could get a 8600GT in there with a 2.8? I'd have bought one by now. Guess what? I'm waiting. AGAIN.
The thing is...the 24 inch iMac is pushing around way more pixels than the 20 inch version. IT NEEDS a more powerful GPU to run in it's native resolution.
And the crap gaming performance? Partly 2600Pro. Lame compared to 2600xt. See Tomshardware for comparative gpu table. Partly? Shocking AMD/Apple drivers. Go to barefeats and see gaming performance in Vista to Tiger. Shocking. Just shocking. 6 times slower in some instances.
Leopard better address this.
Lemon Bon Bon.