I have faith in Apple, so I'm going to wait, and see what they put in after its update.
I am too very curious to see what GPU they will put in the next generation of iMac G5. For now, I don't see where to base any speculation and I am not sure if any of the other 5xxx series members can go into a relatively slim machine like the iMac. Then it remains the 6xxx series. We forget af course the 6800. The 6600 and 6200 are PCIe and I am not sure if they will run on AGP. So, I would not be surprised to see once again the 5200 Ultra, perhaps with a 128 MB VRAM option.
the more I think about it I am betting that the GPU will remain the same.
I do, however, think that the midplane will be the upgrade path for the future of this design. For the third revision of the imac we may get a better GPU and a new generation of the G5, and it will be "ala" the midplane upgrade. The midplane contains the CPU and GPU, so it makes sense. Also it is listing as replacable/fixable part on the mac parts list.
FWIW, my guess is that the iMac will get a speed bump around April or so. If anything, maybe a 200 MHz speed increase. SuperDrive bumped up to 8x, GPU improved. I hope the RAM is upped to 512MB. All in all, it should be a decent improvement about 2 months or so off (spring).
This is what I would like to see on the next mid-range iMac (the superdrive 17incher) that I think is reasonable. I might be in the market this summer, and if they met the following I'd be buying.
My guess is that the iMac will get an update in mid-March at the earliest, and only after the PowerMacs. I still don't think my particular predictions have changed:
- 1.8 & 2.0 GHz G5s
- 512 MB RAM standard
- 120 & 250 GB drives standard (400 GB optional)
- 128 MB GeForce 6200 video
- possible price cuts
The CPU performance jump wouldn't be dramatic (unless Apple gets chips with 1 MB of L2 cache), but I'd like to think that such an update would breathe a lot of life into the iMac by itself.
Doom3 performance won't be so hot with any of the low budge graphic card Apple will most likely stick in the next iMac rev. As long as it's not a 5200 I will probably grab one myself however. It really frustrates me that Apple continues to jerk us around with video performance. A 64 meg card for a 20 inch monitor is almost comical if not a down right shame.
I'm personally tired of being told to get a gaming console every time I ask about a graphics card update to the iMacs barely adequate card. There are games on the mac, and I like to idea of occasionally playing a game when I'm not writing or playing with music files, or maybe even do some light video editing. The point really is, when you spend $2400 (cdn) on an iMac, you expect more than a $20 video card (yes I know software figures in as well, but still thats a large price to play for a non-upgradable video solution)
There's nothing wrong with the card, only the price. iMacs need to start at 999, and ther's no reason why they shouldn't. The base HDDs are too small by half, as is the standard RAM, and with superdrives at $25 per, it's time to start spec'ing out iMacs more appropriately given their rather high cost.
I had one other question: with all of the fan issues people have had - does anyone know if Apple has actually "tweaked" anything in this model from a quality control standpoint or is the reality that only .0001 of iMac computers have loud fans? Thanks again.
Steve
I don't think anyone else has touched this, so I will.
My iMac was noisier when I first bought it then it is now. One of the fans used to make an annoying pitch. It wasn't loud, but it was annoying. Somehow this was fixed in the .3.7 and .3.8 updates. The fan was quieted down in .3.7 and was somehow made more silent in .3.8 . My iMac doesn't make that annoying whining sound anymore and if there's anything else in the room making noise (TV, radio) I don't hear it at all.
What do you really need a better graphics card for?
Do you intend to do high end graphics work?
If it's only for playing games then may I suggest buying a Gamecube, Xbox or Playastation.
Hmmm. Well. When the iMac G5 were introduced in september. Phil Schiller made a big point out of it being designed as a big-brother to the iPod. And the iPod-nations is mostly made out of younglings. Who play games . . . .
Also. The iMac is expensive. Putting an old video-card inside of it smells kinda cheap. Think about it. A 17 year old girl with a DV-cam, an iMac G5 rev b or c, and Apple Motion . . . . . . sweet vibrations.
Clearly, the Mac mini is for the parents. A slightly upgraded iMac G5 would be the ultimate machine for making teenagers go nuts !
I'm personally tired of being told to get a gaming console every time I ask about a graphics card update to the iMacs barely adequate card. There are games on the mac, and I like to idea of occasionally playing a game when I'm not writing or playing with music files, or maybe even do some light video editing. The point really is, when you spend $2400 (cdn) on an iMac, you expect more than a $20 video card (yes I know software figures in as well, but still thats a large price to play for a non-upgradable video solution)
^^^What he said. In addition, Apple itself seems to think the iMac G5/NVidia GeForce 5200 combination is some sort of formidable gaming powerhouse.
From apple.com:
"And then there?s the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. It?s a combination that delivers unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience with up to two times the frame rate of previous-generation processors."
But an eighth of the framerate of current top end processors... :-(
Nothing wrong with complaining about gaming performances given the above quote's tenuous link to the truth.
Ummm ever heard of "Marketing"? Apple isn't going to just come out and say "actually the GPU sux..." are they? I am willing to bet that they got a really good deal from Nvidia and already had the driver and hardware support ready (after all it was already in the 20 inch iMac G4) so it was easy to drop in, lower power consumption, lower heat, etc, etc. I'm not making excuses, I think its as lame as the next guy, but I think thats it the reason they did it , just being cheap....
Ummm ever heard of "Marketing"? Apple isn't going to just come out and say "actually the GPU sux..." are they? I am willing to bet that they got a really good deal from Nvidia and already had the driver and hardware support ready (after all it was already in the 20 inch iMac G4) so it was easy to drop in, lower power consumption, lower heat, etc, etc. I'm not making excuses, I think its as lame as the next guy, but I think thats it the reason they did it , just being cheap....
So if I put my TiBook 400/ATI Rage 8MB on ebay and say it'll run UT at 50 fps, that's marketing?
No, of course they won't say the GPU sucks, but they go too far in the opposite direction. I played around with a 1.8 Ghz iMac yesterday, and it was stuttering /badly/ on Nanosaur 2 - hardly the pinnacle of demanding games! And about as far from an "unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience" as you could imagine.
So if I put my TiBook 400/ATI Rage 8MB on ebay and say it'll run UT at 50 fps, that's marketing?
No, of course they won't say the GPU sucks, but they go too far in the opposite direction. I played around with a 1.8 Ghz iMac yesterday, and it was stuttering /badly/ on Nanosaur 2 - hardly the pinnacle of demanding games! And about as far from an "unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience" as you could imagine.
Something sounds borked on that machine. On my 20" iMac G5 I can play nanosaur2 with every setting on max and get a solid 60 FPS. Maybe not super spectacular to everyone who's used to 200 FPS, but definitely no stuttering at 1680x1050 res. Of course, I have 2GB RAM, not the crappy 256MB standard.
What do you really need a better graphics card for?
Do you intend to do high end graphics work?
If it's only for playing games then may I suggest buying a Gamecube, Xbox or Playastation.
Ok, I own an XBOX, and a PS2, and I am pleased with my investment in both systems, but I'm not much of a gamer. I play about 3 to 4 games a year because I do think they are really fun. And even though I normally wouldn't comment in this thread because I'm not interested in an iMac, I have to say that gaming on a console sucks compared to gaming on a computer. Half life, and DOOM 3, are going to suck comparatively on the console. I'm not even sure HL is going to be on a console.
Aside from my opinion on gaming, and my rare game play. The graphics card that came in the iMac G5 is by far it's weakest point, and could even be hurting what would be better sales. It was outdated before the iMac came out. The NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR is not going to give this system a long life expectancy. Not with todays demands. If Core Image can help it more power to it, but it is still a pretty sad graphics card for Apples bread, and butter computer.
Comments
Originally posted by Alcibiades
I have faith in Apple, so I'm going to wait, and see what they put in after its update.
I am too very curious to see what GPU they will put in the next generation of iMac G5. For now, I don't see where to base any speculation and I am not sure if any of the other 5xxx series members can go into a relatively slim machine like the iMac. Then it remains the 6xxx series. We forget af course the 6800. The 6600 and 6200 are PCIe and I am not sure if they will run on AGP. So, I would not be surprised to see once again the 5200 Ultra, perhaps with a 128 MB VRAM option.
I do, however, think that the midplane will be the upgrade path for the future of this design. For the third revision of the imac we may get a better GPU and a new generation of the G5, and it will be "ala" the midplane upgrade. The midplane contains the CPU and GPU, so it makes sense. Also it is listing as replacable/fixable part on the mac parts list.
just speculation
Trout
$100 price drop to $1400
2.0 Ghz G5
512 Mb of RAM
120 Gb HD
9600 XT GPU.
- 1.8 & 2.0 GHz G5s
- 512 MB RAM standard
- 120 & 250 GB drives standard (400 GB optional)
- 128 MB GeForce 6200 video
- possible price cuts
The CPU performance jump wouldn't be dramatic (unless Apple gets chips with 1 MB of L2 cache), but I'd like to think that such an update would breathe a lot of life into the iMac by itself.
Trout
Doom3 performance won't be so hot with any of the low budge graphic card Apple will most likely stick in the next iMac rev. As long as it's not a 5200 I will probably grab one myself however. It really frustrates me that Apple continues to jerk us around with video performance. A 64 meg card for a 20 inch monitor is almost comical if not a down right shame.
HalfLife looks promising though;
Do you intend to do high end graphics work?
If it's only for playing games then may I suggest buying a Gamecube, Xbox or Playastation.
Originally posted by womblingfree
What do you really need a better graphics card for?
Do you intend to do high end graphics work?
If it's only for playing games then may I suggest buying a Gamecube, Xbox or Playastation.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH........
Originally posted by Relic
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH........
Care to elaborate?
Originally posted by womblingfree
Care to elaborate?
I'm personally tired of being told to get a gaming console every time I ask about a graphics card update to the iMacs barely adequate card. There are games on the mac, and I like to idea of occasionally playing a game when I'm not writing or playing with music files, or maybe even do some light video editing. The point really is, when you spend $2400 (cdn) on an iMac, you expect more than a $20 video card (yes I know software figures in as well, but still thats a large price to play for a non-upgradable video solution)
They should be
999 combo 17, 160GB HDD, 512MB RAM
1299 super 17, 250GB HDD, 512MB RAM
1599 super 20, 250GB HDD, 512MB RAM
Originally posted by steven413
I had one other question: with all of the fan issues people have had - does anyone know if Apple has actually "tweaked" anything in this model from a quality control standpoint or is the reality that only .0001 of iMac computers have loud fans? Thanks again.
Steve
I don't think anyone else has touched this, so I will.
My iMac was noisier when I first bought it then it is now. One of the fans used to make an annoying pitch. It wasn't loud, but it was annoying. Somehow this was fixed in the .3.7 and .3.8 updates. The fan was quieted down in .3.7 and was somehow made more silent in .3.8 . My iMac doesn't make that annoying whining sound anymore and if there's anything else in the room making noise (TV, radio) I don't hear it at all.
Originally posted by womblingfree
What do you really need a better graphics card for?
Do you intend to do high end graphics work?
If it's only for playing games then may I suggest buying a Gamecube, Xbox or Playastation.
Hmmm. Well. When the iMac G5 were introduced in september. Phil Schiller made a big point out of it being designed as a big-brother to the iPod. And the iPod-nations is mostly made out of younglings. Who play games . . . .
Also. The iMac is expensive. Putting an old video-card inside of it smells kinda cheap. Think about it. A 17 year old girl with a DV-cam, an iMac G5 rev b or c, and Apple Motion . . . . . . sweet vibrations.
Clearly, the Mac mini is for the parents. A slightly upgraded iMac G5 would be the ultimate machine for making teenagers go nuts !
Zon
Originally posted by Alcibiades
I'm personally tired of being told to get a gaming console every time I ask about a graphics card update to the iMacs barely adequate card. There are games on the mac, and I like to idea of occasionally playing a game when I'm not writing or playing with music files, or maybe even do some light video editing. The point really is, when you spend $2400 (cdn) on an iMac, you expect more than a $20 video card (yes I know software figures in as well, but still thats a large price to play for a non-upgradable video solution)
^^^What he said. In addition, Apple itself seems to think the iMac G5/NVidia GeForce 5200 combination is some sort of formidable gaming powerhouse.
From apple.com:
"And then there?s the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. It?s a combination that delivers unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience with up to two times the frame rate of previous-generation processors."
But an eighth of the framerate of current top end processors... :-(
Nothing wrong with complaining about gaming performances given the above quote's tenuous link to the truth.
Originally posted by Thereubster
Ummm ever heard of "Marketing"? Apple isn't going to just come out and say "actually the GPU sux..." are they? I am willing to bet that they got a really good deal from Nvidia and already had the driver and hardware support ready (after all it was already in the 20 inch iMac G4) so it was easy to drop in, lower power consumption, lower heat, etc, etc. I'm not making excuses, I think its as lame as the next guy, but I think thats it the reason they did it , just being cheap....
So if I put my TiBook 400/ATI Rage 8MB on ebay and say it'll run UT at 50 fps, that's marketing?
No, of course they won't say the GPU sucks, but they go too far in the opposite direction. I played around with a 1.8 Ghz iMac yesterday, and it was stuttering /badly/ on Nanosaur 2 - hardly the pinnacle of demanding games! And about as far from an "unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience" as you could imagine.
Originally posted by jouster
So if I put my TiBook 400/ATI Rage 8MB on ebay and say it'll run UT at 50 fps, that's marketing?
No, of course they won't say the GPU sucks, but they go too far in the opposite direction. I played around with a 1.8 Ghz iMac yesterday, and it was stuttering /badly/ on Nanosaur 2 - hardly the pinnacle of demanding games! And about as far from an "unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience" as you could imagine.
Something sounds borked on that machine. On my 20" iMac G5 I can play nanosaur2 with every setting on max and get a solid 60 FPS. Maybe not super spectacular to everyone who's used to 200 FPS, but definitely no stuttering at 1680x1050 res. Of course, I have 2GB RAM, not the crappy 256MB standard.
Originally posted by womblingfree
What do you really need a better graphics card for?
Do you intend to do high end graphics work?
If it's only for playing games then may I suggest buying a Gamecube, Xbox or Playastation.
Ok, I own an XBOX, and a PS2, and I am pleased with my investment in both systems, but I'm not much of a gamer. I play about 3 to 4 games a year because I do think they are really fun. And even though I normally wouldn't comment in this thread because I'm not interested in an iMac, I have to say that gaming on a console sucks compared to gaming on a computer. Half life, and DOOM 3, are going to suck comparatively on the console. I'm not even sure HL is going to be on a console.
Aside from my opinion on gaming, and my rare game play. The graphics card that came in the iMac G5 is by far it's weakest point, and could even be hurting what would be better sales. It was outdated before the iMac came out. The NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR is not going to give this system a long life expectancy. Not with todays demands. If Core Image can help it more power to it, but it is still a pretty sad graphics card for Apples bread, and butter computer.