I laughed my ass off reading the first page of this thread. Tons of zingers pointing at the impotence of Apple's chosen iMac G5 video solution.
I've been arguing the same points even when the rumored specs came out with the pathetic FX5200 64MB card. The problem is, I did it on macrumors.com and was nearly flamed off the boards.
Nice to see some non fan boys for a change, this board rocks.
In regards to Doom3, here's my rig:
Athlon XP 3200+
1GB Corsair PC3200 RAM
2 x Seagate SATA 80GB HDs in RAID 0 (hardware)
GeForce FX 6800 GT (It runs Doom3 better overclocked passed the 6800 Ultra's frequency)
Doom 3 ate my computer for lunch running maximum settings.
I basically got what HardOCP got.
I actually didn't like Doom3 all that much, which sucks because I bought the video card specifically to play Doom 3 (for everything else, I hear the x800 is better).
My brother has basically the same rig I do, aside from he had a 5200 Ultra 128MB card.
Yes, on the low settings, the game did technically run.. but after seeing what it looked like on my computer, he bought my old 5950U.. There really is no comparison: if you're playing doom3 on a 5200, you aren't playing doom3. You miss EVERYTHING. It looks "OK" but the total effect is lost.
I mean hell, the game isn't very substantive anyway, if you're not going to have good graphics what's the point?
Oh by the way, is anyone else partly blaming Apple's choice in iMac G5 Video card for the Doom 3 for mac delay/permanent delay?
Given the fact that the majority of Mac buyers buy iMacs/laptops/eMacs, economically speaking the demand was made much lower by Apple's decision.
Not that I'm complaining, Apple did what it had to do, and besides, I have a PC for the gaming stuff.
Apple should do everything it can to bring gaming to the Mac.
It's a vicious cycle too: the 3rd party video cards are scarce partly due to the lack of games, and the lack of games is partly due to the lack of good video cards owned by 99% of mac users.
Desktop computers are here to stay as a gaming platform, by neglecting games, Apple's losing out. And if they're losing out, it means I'll be losing out when tiger didn't have the R&D money to come out on time .
I blame apple's choosing the 5200 on Nvidia and ATI. The fastest card apple could put in the current g5's was the 9800xt when they were released... a 12 month old card at the time. Why? Because NVidia was slacking on mac cards. NVidia could have easily produced a 5700ultra or a 5900ultra for the mac. Putting the lowend 5700ultra in the lowend powermacs could have allowed room to put something faster in the iMac... such as 9600pro... but... in all fairness. The MAIN reason there is a 5200ultra in the iMacs is due to heat. The 9600 and 9800 run WAAAAAAAAY too hot for that set up. Most (almost all) 9600 and 5700 cards have fans or heatpipes. Heatpipes are a no-go because of space... and the need for space for the heat to dissipate.
If NVidia can release a 6600 for the mac... (runs a lot cooler than most cards) than expect the Powermacs to get that and the iMacs to get a crippled 9600 (lower memory and gpu frequencies).
The MAIN reason there is a 5200ultra in the iMacs is due to heat. The 9600 and 9800 run WAAAAAAAAY too hot for that set up. Most (almost all) 9600 and 5700 cards have fans or heatpipes. Heatpipes are a no-go because of space... and the need for space for the heat to dissipate.
The 9800 mobility and the 9700 mobility were out way before production on the imac G5 began. Do they have heat problems? I should hope not, they're for laptops.
Not to mention that they could have at _least_ put 128mb of video RAM in there. Though that might create more heat so you have me there.
I guess ATI could've had porting problems with the 9x00's to mac, but Apple could have bought its way out of that situation and I'm sure the difference would've been made up in the extra sales made by gamers.
Regardless, now we know for sure that the 9700 mobility is out for mac (as it's in the current powerbooks), and Apple should at the very least release a revision within the next couple of months (though they'll probably wait till January, like they always do).
I mean.. to have the laptops out bench a desktop? that's nuts!
Or maybe they should have just added an inch onto the thing and put in a 9800XT option.
You know it's easy as hell to put in a cheap tiny slow machine into a small space latched onto the back of a monitor, it's impressive if the machine actually has the specs to back up it's self-titled "revolutionariness." An extra inch is not that bad, just look at the 20" model: it's an inch thicker and no one's the wiser!
But again... they couldn't put anything faster in there, because it would be faster than 2 of the 3 powermacs... IMO they should have released the Powermacs with AT LEAST a 9600xt. But really it should go 9600xt, 9800xt, 6800 ultra.
I ended up getting a 9600xt in my mac (i'm happy but I don't play games). I just use it for cinema... and I'm content with it's performance.
Long story short... If powermac cards were faster... perhaps the iMacs would be too.
Wanted to mention to you... You should try farcry... your computer would LOVE it... its a very cool game... has some scary parts too (not as scary as doom 3 but pretty intense)... and graphics IMO are better than doom 3. Especially the physics.
a) the 20" has plenty of extra space for cooling a hotter chip.
b) graphics chips need to be matched to the performance of the cpu, put a fast gpu in a slow computer and it wont do much, as the cpu cant feed it enough information to make a difference. It is conceivable that the 5200 is the fastest gpu that the iMac can drive, faster gpus wouldnt provide much bang for their buck. Perhaps someone could post specmarks for the imac g5 to get a feel for how it compares to an x86 ( and hence what sort of gpu it can support ).
c) Apple should have put 128mb in there. Im sure that when someone really opens one up and looks they'll see that the space is there on the motherboard for the extra vram, just like it is on the emac.
d) The feature I really wish they had of put in is DVI in. Then I could buy a powermac next year but use the imac as the monitor. I think the 20" is well worth it in that scenario.
True you have to feed the gpu if you will, but a better graphics means you can at least turn up the resolution with no frame loss. Imac G5 may be able to play but its going to look like Crap just like any game running on a minimum spec machine. I have a 3500+ & 6800gt so im fine now but if i was a Mac Gamer i would voicing my 2 cents over at apple's home page on Apple love affair with the fx5200. But enough of Doom3 because Halflife2 will be out next month and is getting rave reviews.
Half Life 2 will spank that tech demo, hopefully it should show you all what a real game is supposed to be like, but hell I only played it for a little bit.
The iMac is well capable of handling faster cards... its the design AND the lack of available options from ATI and Nvidia that a faster card isn't in that machine.
can't remember my point...
OH YAH!! WE all hashed this out a few months ago about the graphics cards in the Powermacs. According to cineme 4D benchmarks the PC cards were KICKING THE MACS ASS in graphics cards. Example: a Geforce Ti4200 was beating the 2.5ghz g5 6800. Members of these forums emailed Maxon for their opinion of why that is... They stated it was apple's poor implementation of OpenGL into OS X. If you compare games... again the porting cuts frames per second down on PC->Mac games.
Because apple hasn't done a great job of implementing OpenGL into OS X (maybe a quartz extreme issue) going from a 9600xt to a 6800ultra does not prove to be that big of a difference. Going from a 5200ultra to a 9600xt ALSO does not prove to be a large difference. I can post specs if anyone is interested in looking at them. I'm on my pc right now (help me) and the bookmark is on my mac.
Long story short, even if apple did put a 9600xt in the iMac, it wouldn't help it a whole lot. I doubt the extra money would be worth it. (besides the extra 64mb vram which isn't going to help much anyways).
OK, folks. Time to clear up the mystery of Apple?s choice of video card.
A) Marketing: IMO, marketing is first and foremost and trumps all other considerations. This is true in all of its product lines and choices. It is like asking why the iBook doesn?t have spanning enabled. It is strictly for the purpose of product differentiation. The iMac will never be given a better component than the PM. If Apple could help it, no component would be as good. There is no mystery here. The real question is why the 5200 is in the PM. Answer that, and you will have a much better grasp of the iMac issue.
Design Philosophy: Those of you who believe heat is the culprit are wrong on at least two counts of logic. Yes, this is a logic and philosophical issue, not an engineering issue. Those of you who are figuring out the cubic volume in the iMac for heat dissipation and heat characteristics of various cards are cute and probably brilliant, but you?re barking up the wrong tree. You people are taking the chassis of the iMac as a given. Once you assume that limitation, then you laud Apple for working within those design constraints. That is the first flaw in your logic. The problem is not engineering limitations. The problem is philosophical. Instead of starting out with the question How can we put the most powerful components into a pleasing AIO package, Apple asked How can we stuff the lowest acceptable system requirements (as dictated by marketing) in the smallest yet most efficient space. These two questions produce vastly different results. The iMac 3 is the answer to the second question. The first question would have produced a unit more like some of the mock-ups that were produced. Apple?s consumer lines are all about ?just enough? and ?minimum system requirements?. They want you to have to buy a new one in two years. (It all keeps coming back to marketing, doesn?t it?)
The second flaw in the heat argument is, if true, the iMac can never be upgraded much past what it is now. In fact, this was a major problem for its predecessor. We can only assume Apple has learned its lesson. If Apple intends this design to last for more than two years, it must be able to take more heat. Either that, or they have a plan to expand the chassis in the near future. I do not believe this design has no room for growth, especially when considering the 20? model. No, this is not some insurmountable engineering dead end that is artificially imposed on Apple. This is marketing and design philosophy, nothing more. Now I gladly offer myself to the flames.
Yes apple could slap a GPU cooler on the faster video cards. But that isn't apple's style. In fact the 9600xt (which normally has a cooler) is just a heat sink. I'm not sure about the 9800xt but I'm guessing that is a heat sink too. Apple has never been a fan of "fans" on GPU's. When I was talking about heat dissipation I was talking about heat pipes like on some GPU cards. If you read the specifications they need air flow and cubic inches. The iMac is lacking cubic inches around the gpu area and much air flow around the gpu.
Could apple have added fans? Yes. Could apple have done a different design and placed the gpu more strategically? Yes.
But as you said, apple started with "what minimum spec can we start with".
I've brought up both arguments of A) Can't go passed PowerMac speed heat issues.
We all agree on A. B, on the other hand, is debatable. The g5 in the iMac produces A LOT of heat. Put your hand over the top of an iMac and you'll know what I'm talking about. If that gpu is anywhere NEAR the g5 it better be cooled. I believe it is about 2 1/2 inches away from it. It is also a 5200 which doesn't have much heat in the first place. But if you try and stick a 5700ultra or a 9600xt (not to mention a 256bit card) you're going to start receiving graphic artifacts.... which will lead to underclocking the gpu and memory buses.
I'm not an apple engineer. These guys surprise me bi-monthly with new designs. Anything is possible... and eventually they will have to upgrade the graphics card... hopefully they don't have to underclock them to get them to work.
Wanted to mention to you... You should try farcry... your computer would LOVE it... its a very cool game... has some scary parts too (not as scary as doom 3 but pretty intense)... and graphics IMO are better than doom 3. Especially the physics.
I got a copy with my PC's Video card
I haven't had the time to get through the purported learning curve but I'll try it in a couple weeks.
The tiny mac idea I've heard of should be a gaming-only platform, and here's how they could "govern" it:
1. dvd-Combo with custom mounts, no superdrive
2. 80GB hard drive with custom mounts
3. 3 PC3200 RAM slots (up to 1GB each)
4. single 1.6ghz G5 or lower
5. ON-board 9800XT
6. Single DVI
7. No firewire, USB 1.1 only
8. 100BaseT
9. Airport + bluetooth compatible
10. No extra slots
$900 price tag, make upgrading anything but the RAM a total pain if not impossible.
That puny CPU is not going to be able to feed the 9800 quickly enough.
As a PC gamer myself the only way to play is to have the biggest machine you possibly can. A weak CPU is as bad as a weak GPU or a small amount of memory.
I struggle to see how gaming will ever take off on the Mac until Apple start to ship consumer machines capable of playing games. I really think they are underestimating the size of the games market. It's big, really big, even if many just like to play The Sims 2. (which incidentally needs a pretty good GPU and CPU to run well)
Half Life 2 is going to be massive. Little wonder it's not coming to Mac with iMac's hopeless GPU.
Everyone seem to agree that even on a pc, it requires near top of the line gaming rig to play doom3 with eye-candy on with decent fps.
If that is the case, why are you demanding bottom of the line mac model to perform like the hot gaming pc?...
Whether the GPU on a imac is upgradeable or not, one is not being fair judging how imac should peform.
Simple question of whether imac can run doom3, which I think it will, but with all the eye candy, I would doubt. However, you would expect poor doom3 performance from a consumer line pc with onboard GPU, but why is new imac's gaming performance being measured to the high end pc?...
You can upgrade the GPU on a pc?... true, but most people who buys consumerline pc's will not upgrade more than the ram. Also, most pc gamers would not buy a consumerline pc and turn it into a gaming rig, either.
If one had asked a similar question regarding doom3 performance on the consumerline dell pc from a game enthusiast's board, one will be laughed at for sure.
So, what's the point?
Can a consumer line pc run doom3?....... probably....
Can a consumer line pc run doom3 with eye candy at kick ass resolution?..... no!...
So, what's the solution?.... Get a PM G5 or Build a Gaming PC.
That puny CPU is not going to be able to feed the 9800 quickly enough.
As a PC gamer myself the only way to play is to have the biggest machine you possibly can. A weak CPU is as bad as a weak GPU or a small amount of memory.
I struggle to see how gaming will ever take off on the Mac until Apple start to ship consumer machines capable of playing games. I really think they are underestimating the size of the games market. It's big, really big, even if many just like to play The Sims 2. (which incidentally needs a pretty good GPU and CPU to run well)
Half Life 2 is going to be massive. Little wonder it's not coming to Mac with iMac's hopeless GPU.
Yes, the games market is really really really big, but that incorporates the considerable portion taken up by consoles -- which by and large are the best gaming platform. The computer as game machine is only really better for RTS type games and serious muscle isn't needed for that. Then there is the dull as shit FPS genre, and apart from the sound and fury, it really is dull. Ironically, the best contemporary iteration was made for a console first (x-box-Halo), so it isn't as if the console interface (control pad) can't be utlized effectively for that purpose aswel.
Interestingly, the console genre teaches us that the real key to "power" is a common hardware platform -- you know what you're building for, and so you get the most out of the system. Ironically, the iMac is the most console like computer on the market. A developer pretty much knows what they're getting and could exploit it IF they weren't just trying to do quick and dirty Windows ports. Apple's Core technologies could help -- you could guarantee a minimum performance on a vast range of mac hardware if you built the app up the right way.
That doesn't happen.
Not for the PC side either, where games have to accomodate a variety of hardware variations and it shows -- the majority are crap, with perhaps 3-4 worthwhile titles every year, certainly NOT worth the cost of a computer for anyone but a mal-adjusted teen recluse about one pea-shot in the ear away from going columbine on his homeroom class. Doom 3 is no substitute for a good hummer...
And it's no reason to buy a computer either. PS2/xBox will do, or whatever replaces them.
On-board Video isn't supported by Doom 3. I believe the minimum cards are ATI 9200 and NVidia 5200 ultra. HOWEVER, Those WILL BARELY RUN IT... even wtih eye candy off.
You're right, if you are a gamer... buy a powermac or a high end pc.
Also you have to remember that mac's OpenGL implementation isn't not opimized on any level. The results are poor compared to PC's. Asking the iMac with a 5200 to run doom 3 is like asking a PC with a geforce 4 or 3 to run doom 3.
*shrugs*
If you want to game don't buy an iMac... you won't be happy unless you are playing last years games.
Ironically, the best contemporary iteration was made for a console first (x-box-Halo), so it isn't as if the console interface (control pad) can't be utlized effectively for that purpose aswel.
You can upgrade the GPU on a pc?... true, but most people who buys consumerline pc's will not upgrade more than the ram. Also, most pc gamers would not buy a consumerline pc and turn it into a gaming rig, either.
So, what's the solution?.... Get a PM G5 or Build a Gaming PC.
For some people that may be true, but the option IS there, and whenever I am in my local PC superstore I see plenty of people from all walks of life buying new gfx cards. They may not all be buying the top end stuff, but they are most certainly buying middle of the range cards such as Radeon 9800 128Mb.
And you can buy a PC with a perfectly good GPU and CPU for a hell of a lot less than an iMac.
iMac is an excellent machine, so much so I and a few other PC owners I know would like to buy into them. But the GPU prevents us from doing that.
Bottom line - add the option for a proper GPU and Apple will sell more iMacs. How many I don't know, but from the universal criticism of the crappy GPU they shoved in there, it would seem to be a substantial amount.
Comments
I've been arguing the same points even when the rumored specs came out with the pathetic FX5200 64MB card. The problem is, I did it on macrumors.com and was nearly flamed off the boards.
Nice to see some non fan boys for a change, this board rocks.
In regards to Doom3, here's my rig:
Athlon XP 3200+
1GB Corsair PC3200 RAM
2 x Seagate SATA 80GB HDs in RAID 0 (hardware)
GeForce FX 6800 GT (It runs Doom3 better overclocked passed the 6800 Ultra's frequency)
Doom 3 ate my computer for lunch running maximum settings.
I basically got what HardOCP got.
I actually didn't like Doom3 all that much, which sucks because I bought the video card specifically to play Doom 3 (for everything else, I hear the x800 is better).
My brother has basically the same rig I do, aside from he had a 5200 Ultra 128MB card.
Yes, on the low settings, the game did technically run.. but after seeing what it looked like on my computer, he bought my old 5950U.. There really is no comparison: if you're playing doom3 on a 5200, you aren't playing doom3. You miss EVERYTHING. It looks "OK" but the total effect is lost.
I mean hell, the game isn't very substantive anyway, if you're not going to have good graphics what's the point?
Given the fact that the majority of Mac buyers buy iMacs/laptops/eMacs, economically speaking the demand was made much lower by Apple's decision.
Not that I'm complaining, Apple did what it had to do, and besides, I have a PC for the gaming stuff.
Apple should do everything it can to bring gaming to the Mac.
It's a vicious cycle too: the 3rd party video cards are scarce partly due to the lack of games, and the lack of games is partly due to the lack of good video cards owned by 99% of mac users.
Desktop computers are here to stay as a gaming platform, by neglecting games, Apple's losing out. And if they're losing out, it means I'll be losing out when tiger didn't have the R&D money to come out on time
I blame apple's choosing the 5200 on Nvidia and ATI. The fastest card apple could put in the current g5's was the 9800xt when they were released... a 12 month old card at the time. Why? Because NVidia was slacking on mac cards. NVidia could have easily produced a 5700ultra or a 5900ultra for the mac. Putting the lowend 5700ultra in the lowend powermacs could have allowed room to put something faster in the iMac... such as 9600pro... but... in all fairness. The MAIN reason there is a 5200ultra in the iMacs is due to heat. The 9600 and 9800 run WAAAAAAAAY too hot for that set up. Most (almost all) 9600 and 5700 cards have fans or heatpipes. Heatpipes are a no-go because of space... and the need for space for the heat to dissipate.
If NVidia can release a 6600 for the mac... (runs a lot cooler than most cards) than expect the Powermacs to get that and the iMacs to get a crippled 9600 (lower memory and gpu frequencies).
Originally posted by emig647
The MAIN reason there is a 5200ultra in the iMacs is due to heat. The 9600 and 9800 run WAAAAAAAAY too hot for that set up. Most (almost all) 9600 and 5700 cards have fans or heatpipes. Heatpipes are a no-go because of space... and the need for space for the heat to dissipate.
The 9800 mobility and the 9700 mobility were out way before production on the imac G5 began. Do they have heat problems? I should hope not, they're for laptops.
Not to mention that they could have at _least_ put 128mb of video RAM in there. Though that might create more heat so you have me there.
I guess ATI could've had porting problems with the 9x00's to mac, but Apple could have bought its way out of that situation and I'm sure the difference would've been made up in the extra sales made by gamers.
Regardless, now we know for sure that the 9700 mobility is out for mac (as it's in the current powerbooks), and Apple should at the very least release a revision within the next couple of months (though they'll probably wait till January, like they always do).
I mean.. to have the laptops out bench a desktop? that's nuts!
Or maybe they should have just added an inch onto the thing and put in a 9800XT option.
You know it's easy as hell to put in a cheap tiny slow machine into a small space latched onto the back of a monitor, it's impressive if the machine actually has the specs to back up it's self-titled "revolutionariness." An extra inch is not that bad, just look at the 20" model: it's an inch thicker and no one's the wiser!
But again... they couldn't put anything faster in there, because it would be faster than 2 of the 3 powermacs... IMO they should have released the Powermacs with AT LEAST a 9600xt. But really it should go 9600xt, 9800xt, 6800 ultra.
I ended up getting a 9600xt in my mac (i'm happy but I don't play games). I just use it for cinema... and I'm content with it's performance.
Long story short... If powermac cards were faster... perhaps the iMacs would be too.
Wanted to mention to you... You should try farcry... your computer would LOVE it... its a very cool game... has some scary parts too (not as scary as doom 3 but pretty intense)... and graphics IMO are better than doom 3. Especially the physics.
b) graphics chips need to be matched to the performance of the cpu, put a fast gpu in a slow computer and it wont do much, as the cpu cant feed it enough information to make a difference. It is conceivable that the 5200 is the fastest gpu that the iMac can drive, faster gpus wouldnt provide much bang for their buck. Perhaps someone could post specmarks for the imac g5 to get a feel for how it compares to an x86 ( and hence what sort of gpu it can support ).
c) Apple should have put 128mb in there. Im sure that when someone really opens one up and looks they'll see that the space is there on the motherboard for the extra vram, just like it is on the emac.
d) The feature I really wish they had of put in is DVI in. Then I could buy a powermac next year but use the imac as the monitor. I think the 20" is well worth it in that scenario.
can't remember my point...
OH YAH!! WE all hashed this out a few months ago about the graphics cards in the Powermacs. According to cineme 4D benchmarks the PC cards were KICKING THE MACS ASS in graphics cards. Example: a Geforce Ti4200 was beating the 2.5ghz g5 6800. Members of these forums emailed Maxon for their opinion of why that is... They stated it was apple's poor implementation of OpenGL into OS X. If you compare games... again the porting cuts frames per second down on PC->Mac games.
Because apple hasn't done a great job of implementing OpenGL into OS X (maybe a quartz extreme issue) going from a 9600xt to a 6800ultra does not prove to be that big of a difference. Going from a 5200ultra to a 9600xt ALSO does not prove to be a large difference. I can post specs if anyone is interested in looking at them. I'm on my pc right now (help me) and the bookmark is on my mac.
Long story short, even if apple did put a 9600xt in the iMac, it wouldn't help it a whole lot. I doubt the extra money would be worth it. (besides the extra 64mb vram which isn't going to help much anyways).
A) Marketing: IMO, marketing is first and foremost and trumps all other considerations. This is true in all of its product lines and choices. It is like asking why the iBook doesn?t have spanning enabled. It is strictly for the purpose of product differentiation. The iMac will never be given a better component than the PM. If Apple could help it, no component would be as good. There is no mystery here. The real question is why the 5200 is in the PM. Answer that, and you will have a much better grasp of the iMac issue.
The second flaw in the heat argument is, if true, the iMac can never be upgraded much past what it is now. In fact, this was a major problem for its predecessor. We can only assume Apple has learned its lesson. If Apple intends this design to last for more than two years, it must be able to take more heat. Either that, or they have a plan to expand the chassis in the near future. I do not believe this design has no room for growth, especially when considering the 20? model. No, this is not some insurmountable engineering dead end that is artificially imposed on Apple. This is marketing and design philosophy, nothing more. Now I gladly offer myself to the flames.
Could apple have added fans? Yes. Could apple have done a different design and placed the gpu more strategically? Yes.
But as you said, apple started with "what minimum spec can we start with".
I've brought up both arguments of A) Can't go passed PowerMac speed
We all agree on A. B, on the other hand, is debatable. The g5 in the iMac produces A LOT of heat. Put your hand over the top of an iMac and you'll know what I'm talking about. If that gpu is anywhere NEAR the g5 it better be cooled. I believe it is about 2 1/2 inches away from it. It is also a 5200 which doesn't have much heat in the first place. But if you try and stick a 5700ultra or a 9600xt (not to mention a 256bit card) you're going to start receiving graphic artifacts.... which will lead to underclocking the gpu and memory buses.
I'm not an apple engineer. These guys surprise me bi-monthly with new designs. Anything is possible... and eventually they will have to upgrade the graphics card... hopefully they don't have to underclock them to get them to work.
Originally posted by emig647
Oh slughead...
Wanted to mention to you... You should try farcry... your computer would LOVE it... its a very cool game... has some scary parts too (not as scary as doom 3 but pretty intense)... and graphics IMO are better than doom 3. Especially the physics.
I got a copy with my PC's Video card
I haven't had the time to get through the purported learning curve but I'll try it in a couple weeks.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
They want you to have to buy a new one in two years.
I agree.
I just wish they would've just allowed a $300 9x00 mobility option.
It'd just be enough for the occasional gamer, the pros wouldn't want a LCD anyway.
The tiny mac idea I've heard of should be a gaming-only platform, and here's how they could "govern" it:
1. dvd-Combo with custom mounts, no superdrive
2. 80GB hard drive with custom mounts
3. 3 PC3200 RAM slots (up to 1GB each)
4. single 1.6ghz G5 or lower
5. ON-board 9800XT
6. Single DVI
7. No firewire, USB 1.1 only
8. 100BaseT
9. Airport + bluetooth compatible
10. No extra slots
$900 price tag, make upgrading anything but the RAM a total pain if not impossible.
Originally posted by slughead
The tiny mac idea I've heard of should be a gaming-only platform, and here's how they could "govern" it:
1. dvd-Combo with custom mounts, no superdrive
2. 80GB hard drive with custom mounts
3. 3 PC3200 RAM slots (up to 1GB each)
4. single 1.6ghz G5 or lower
5. ON-board 9800XT
6. Single DVI
7. No firewire, USB 1.1 only
8. 100BaseT
9. Airport + bluetooth compatible
10. No extra slots
$900 price tag, make upgrading anything but the RAM a total pain if not impossible.
That puny CPU is not going to be able to feed the 9800 quickly enough.
As a PC gamer myself the only way to play is to have the biggest machine you possibly can. A weak CPU is as bad as a weak GPU or a small amount of memory.
I struggle to see how gaming will ever take off on the Mac until Apple start to ship consumer machines capable of playing games. I really think they are underestimating the size of the games market. It's big, really big, even if many just like to play The Sims 2. (which incidentally needs a pretty good GPU and CPU to run well)
Half Life 2 is going to be massive. Little wonder it's not coming to Mac with iMac's hopeless GPU.
If that is the case, why are you demanding bottom of the line mac model to perform like the hot gaming pc?...
Whether the GPU on a imac is upgradeable or not, one is not being fair judging how imac should peform.
Simple question of whether imac can run doom3, which I think it will, but with all the eye candy, I would doubt. However, you would expect poor doom3 performance from a consumer line pc with onboard GPU, but why is new imac's gaming performance being measured to the high end pc?...
You can upgrade the GPU on a pc?... true, but most people who buys consumerline pc's will not upgrade more than the ram. Also, most pc gamers would not buy a consumerline pc and turn it into a gaming rig, either.
If one had asked a similar question regarding doom3 performance on the consumerline dell pc from a game enthusiast's board, one will be laughed at for sure.
So, what's the point?
Can a consumer line pc run doom3?....... probably....
Can a consumer line pc run doom3 with eye candy at kick ass resolution?..... no!...
So, what's the solution?.... Get a PM G5 or Build a Gaming PC.
Originally posted by kotatsu
That puny CPU is not going to be able to feed the 9800 quickly enough.
As a PC gamer myself the only way to play is to have the biggest machine you possibly can. A weak CPU is as bad as a weak GPU or a small amount of memory.
I struggle to see how gaming will ever take off on the Mac until Apple start to ship consumer machines capable of playing games. I really think they are underestimating the size of the games market. It's big, really big, even if many just like to play The Sims 2. (which incidentally needs a pretty good GPU and CPU to run well)
Half Life 2 is going to be massive. Little wonder it's not coming to Mac with iMac's hopeless GPU.
Yes, the games market is really really really big, but that incorporates the considerable portion taken up by consoles -- which by and large are the best gaming platform. The computer as game machine is only really better for RTS type games and serious muscle isn't needed for that. Then there is the dull as shit FPS genre, and apart from the sound and fury, it really is dull. Ironically, the best contemporary iteration was made for a console first (x-box-Halo), so it isn't as if the console interface (control pad) can't be utlized effectively for that purpose aswel.
Interestingly, the console genre teaches us that the real key to "power" is a common hardware platform -- you know what you're building for, and so you get the most out of the system. Ironically, the iMac is the most console like computer on the market. A developer pretty much knows what they're getting and could exploit it IF they weren't just trying to do quick and dirty Windows ports. Apple's Core technologies could help -- you could guarantee a minimum performance on a vast range of mac hardware if you built the app up the right way.
That doesn't happen.
Not for the PC side either, where games have to accomodate a variety of hardware variations and it shows -- the majority are crap, with perhaps 3-4 worthwhile titles every year, certainly NOT worth the cost of a computer for anyone but a mal-adjusted teen recluse about one pea-shot in the ear away from going columbine on his homeroom class. Doom 3 is no substitute for a good hummer...
And it's no reason to buy a computer either. PS2/xBox will do, or whatever replaces them.
On-board Video isn't supported by Doom 3. I believe the minimum cards are ATI 9200 and NVidia 5200 ultra. HOWEVER, Those WILL BARELY RUN IT... even wtih eye candy off.
You're right, if you are a gamer... buy a powermac or a high end pc.
Also you have to remember that mac's OpenGL implementation isn't not opimized on any level. The results are poor compared to PC's. Asking the iMac with a 5200 to run doom 3 is like asking a PC with a geforce 4 or 3 to run doom 3.
*shrugs*
If you want to game don't buy an iMac... you won't be happy unless you are playing last years games.
Originally posted by Matsu
Ironically, the best contemporary iteration was made for a console first (x-box-Halo), so it isn't as if the console interface (control pad) can't be utlized effectively for that purpose aswel.
you mean made for a mac first
Originally posted by bitemymac
You can upgrade the GPU on a pc?... true, but most people who buys consumerline pc's will not upgrade more than the ram. Also, most pc gamers would not buy a consumerline pc and turn it into a gaming rig, either.
So, what's the solution?.... Get a PM G5 or Build a Gaming PC.
For some people that may be true, but the option IS there, and whenever I am in my local PC superstore I see plenty of people from all walks of life buying new gfx cards. They may not all be buying the top end stuff, but they are most certainly buying middle of the range cards such as Radeon 9800 128Mb.
And you can buy a PC with a perfectly good GPU and CPU for a hell of a lot less than an iMac.
iMac is an excellent machine, so much so I and a few other PC owners I know would like to buy into them. But the GPU prevents us from doing that.
Bottom line - add the option for a proper GPU and Apple will sell more iMacs. How many I don't know, but from the universal criticism of the crappy GPU they shoved in there, it would seem to be a substantial amount.