or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › EA backtracking on claims of simultaneous Mac game releases
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EA backtracking on claims of simultaneous Mac game releases - Page 2

post #41 of 48
iMacs could eat practically any kind of chips with a hardcore cooling system.

Possibly the most hardcore of them all would be to design the case to heatpipe off CPU and GPU straight into thick aluminum chassis slabs, using them as heatsinks. This would be more practical for Apple than anyone else.

Here's the same concept but I'm sure you can see how this is contrived, and how the iMac's flat shape and totally integrated design would do the same thing about a zillion times better.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9002

Taking a large external chassis area to 40-50ºC would do wonders. This would be a one-two punch on noise since not only does the need for mechanical cooling and a lion's share of all noise go totally away for normal use, but HD and optical drive vibrations and leftover HD/optical vibrations are further dampened by heavy chassis. As long as you don't need to make the hottest, heatpiped parts easily swappable, this is a great design. Not a lot of airflow would be required inside the case, convection could be able to handle it. Less airflow, less dust. Add air filters in vents for good measure. This recipe would net you a silent, incredibly fail-proof computer totally off the shelf and still in flatscreen format, and I bet it would be able to have a 8800GTS chip without the occurrence of any major fan screaming, melting or explosion.

Thinking further, if they were ready to compromise a little on the case thinness, they'd be able to remove the small fans (which by this point would be purely "backup") for extreme stress) and put in two huge fans or so, strongly tilted, in the middle of the case. Only when the computer was under heavy stress they'd start up and run up to medium rpm, and still be virtually silent at the volume of airflow where the small fans can't help screaming.
post #42 of 48
The heat in the iMac is only 1/2 the issue. The other issue would to supply a powersupply that can handle sourcing a high end graphics card. Today's high end graphics cards (8800 and 2900) both use some tremendous amounts of watts... 280 8800gts / 346 2900xt

http://www.behardware.com/articles/6...d-2900-xt.html

It could be difficult to provide a powersupply INSIDE the iMac's enclosure that can provide watts for the cpu, ram, harddrive, dvd drive, LCD, graphics card, fans, I/O ports, etc. They would need at least 600 watts and that would be cutting it close. The biggest microATX PS I know that is produced is 400watts.

Then there is the issue of more heat again because bigger powersupplies produce more heat.

I don't agree that there isn't a market for a mid tower. The discussion has been disected and produced so much it's not even funny. There are huge threads here with people that highly disagree with you. There is no reason to be so against a mid-tower since it would solve so many problems (including gaming switchers that don't have a computer to switch to because mac pro is way too much overkill and nothing else provides a half way decent graphics card).

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #43 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

The heat in the iMac is only 1/2 the issue. The other issue would to supply a powersupply that can handle sourcing a high end graphics card. Today's high end graphics cards (8800 and 2900) both use some tremendous amounts of watts... 280 8800gts / 346 2900xt

http://www.behardware.com/articles/6...d-2900-xt.html

It could be difficult to provide a powersupply INSIDE the iMac's enclosure that can provide watts for the cpu, ram, harddrive, dvd drive, LCD, graphics card, fans, I/O ports, etc. They would need at least 600 watts and that would be cutting it close. The biggest microATX PS I know that is produced is 400watts.

From the article you linked it looks like the 8800GTS would produce (roughly) 150W of heat inside the case at peak power, and that includes heat wasted from the power supply. The HD 2600 Pro takes about 70W. So 80W more inside the case, that's one light bulb's worth. No problem whatsoever.

The numbers you quote are for the whole test setup at the wall. Not the cards.
post #44 of 48
Well, adding a 80 W lightbulb inside an already tightly packed box is most likely not the best of ideas really. Powerwise its not the biggest of difference, but apple cuts things very short in the imacs to get the formfactor they deem viable for their business.

I am very convinced that the descision to use the 2600's in the new Imacs is purely based on the size of the cards, and the performance relative to that. And while you can get nvidia cards small, they are bigger than the radeon ones, unless my memory serves me wrong... which is does do at times.

Besides, the 2600 Pro can run Bioshock at native resolution on the new Imac, not at peak performance, but it can, and thats not too shabby at all. Also when looking at benchmarks the 2600 Pro narrows down the difference to the geforce cards when the resolution goes up, for both OSX and XP games.
post #45 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igameonmac View Post

Well, adding a 80 W lightbulb inside an already tightly packed box is most likely not the best of ideas really. Powerwise its not the biggest of difference, but apple cuts things very short in the imacs to get the formfactor they deem viable for their business.

Either you didn't read my post previous to the one you commented on, or you just ignored it. This is a solvable problem staying the same form factor.

And of course if Apple wasn't so hell bent on making things thin for no practical purpose, it would be even easier.
Quote:
I am very convinced that the descision to use the 2600's in the new Imacs is purely based on the size of the cards, and the performance relative to that. And while you can get nvidia cards small, they are bigger than the radeon ones, unless my memory serves me wrong... which is does do at times.

It's possible. After dropping the 17", and already having a nVidia chip in the last high end model, it's a little hard to believe they are short on space though. I think it's mostly just utter disregard for graphics performance, plus buying "politics" (can't buy only from nVidia even at times ATi only sells crap).
Quote:
Besides, the 2600 Pro can run Bioshock at native resolution on the new Imac, not at peak performance, but it can, and thats not too shabby at all. Also when looking at benchmarks the 2600 Pro narrows down the difference to the geforce cards when the resolution goes up, for both OSX and XP games.

My GMA950 can run World of Warcraft at 1920x1200 without crashing. Not too shabby, I guess. But what resolution is low enough to be playable? None.

And it's going to be almost that bad with the 2600 Pro and Bioshock. From the benchmarks I've seen, I figure playable framerates are at roughly 1024x768 and below.

How a card scales doesn't matter when it fails to have enough oomph to begin with.
post #46 of 48
Ok guys,

So I bought need for speed carbon this weekend. It plays very smoothly on a 2.33 MBP with ATI x1600 256mb 2gig ram. The settings I play it on are custom... basically 4x AA and medium settings. I'd say it looks better than the console by far. I doubt it could do high settings (haven't tried), but I do know it is chugging right along just fine in this fast paced game. I'd say EA / Transgaming did an excellent job porting this game.

Anyways, yah the 2600pro isn't the best card in the world but it is better than the x1600! And if the x1600 can play most games, I feel the 2600pro will last at least until penryn comes out.

My biggest complaint about apple and graphics cards is putting GMA cards in the mb and the mac mini. I say bump those to real gpu's like they ALWAYS DID BEFORE INTEL and all macs will have gpus that can play games across the board. And update the mac pro for crying out loud!

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #47 of 48
Did read your post about using the case as a heatsink, which isnt a bad concept at all, but still requires more room than what the Imac in its current design offers. Had they kept the previous formfactor of the old Imacs, and converted the space to cooling through the case heatsink, plus a bigger/better GPU, then sure, it would be a better option gaming wise.

But when looking at the shape they decided to go for, I have a hard time imagining them fitting in anything but what they got into the machines, be it case heatsinks or similar. Even the slim cabinet in the link you posted could fit in 2 20 inch imacs almost

And yeah, there is of course a framerate issue about when things are slow to the point of being back in school looking at slideshows. And the whole political part about using different companies to supply gpus to avoid monopoly charges and such.

The Imac 2.8 ghz runs 120 fps at 1920x1200 high settings in quake 4 on vista according to Barefeats, and thats definitely not on the short end of the gaming stick, except for the fact you have to resort to Vista to do that.

Am not saying its an excellent machine, but it is capable enough to enjoy most current games, unless you play for the benchmark and not the fun. Part of me just thinks that there is more to the new Imacs than whats initially suggested.
post #48 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igameonmac View Post

Did read your post about using the case as a heatsink, which isnt a bad concept at all, but still requires more room than what the Imac in its current design offers. Had they kept the previous formfactor of the old Imacs, and converted the space to cooling through the case heatsink, plus a bigger/better GPU, then sure, it would be a better option gaming wise.

All true. I think it wouldn't need more than one cm of extra depth at the hottest parts for some rather effective heatsinking, though. Could be a very beautiful and distinctive design. I have this idea of a negative honeycomb pattern of varying depth on a flat surface. If I had a modeling package of some kind, I'd squeeze out some impressions but alas I don't.
Quote:
The Imac 2.8 ghz runs 120 fps at 1920x1200 high settings in quake 4 on vista according to Barefeats, and thats definitely not on the short end of the gaming stick, except for the fact you have to resort to Vista to do that.

That's certainly better than I expected, but the fact remains this is a two year old game based on a three year old engine.
Quote:
Am not saying its an excellent machine, but it is capable enough to enjoy most current games, unless you play for the benchmark and not the fun.

The graphics chip is barely enough for FEAR, another two year old game, at 1280x1024 resolution. It's pretty awful for Oblivion, a one and half year old game. STALKER, Supreme Commander, Bioshock and some other current games won't really run playably or will do so only at a postage stamp resolution.

Dropping to an iBook resolution from your native (say, 1680x1050 on the 20" iMac) resolution will hurt immersion a lot. In a game like SupCom, the lack of resolution makes it distinctly harder to see what's happening, and thus takes away your control. Immersion and control result in fun. Looking at maximum benchmark numbers is virtual wankery; looking at minimum / average numbers to find out if you can experience the game anywhere near what the developers intended and have fun is common sense.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › EA backtracking on claims of simultaneous Mac game releases