Definitely if you're running multiple screens. 128MB is enough but 256MB is better. Macs use their graphics cards for a lot of the visual processing and effects you see.
Yowch!. I ordered an intel iMac last evening from Apple, and asked about this, and the sales fellow said the 128MB would work fine(in an office), with two displays, if I wanted that.
I think I will call in the morning and see about changing the order, as it is 75$ difference.
Yowch!. I ordered an intel iMac last evening from Apple, and asked about this, and the sales fellow said the 128MB would work fine(in an office), with two displays, if I wanted that.
It will.
But, Quartz Extreme buffers as much as it can in video RAM so that it doesn't have to hit the main ram of the computer. If you want expose and dashboard to be quick, run lots of windows, lots of fonts, it's all stored in video RAM. Now double the number of screens or run larger screens - the more RAM the better.
Also, when Apple finally gets around to enabling Quartz2D Extreme which now seems likely they'll only do that in 10.5, they farm off even more of the graphics processing to the graphics card. More RAM helps there.
I think to future proof yourself, 256MB is a good idea.
Also, when Apple finally gets around to enabling Quartz2D Extreme which now seems likely they'll only do that in 10.5, they farm off even more of the graphics processing to the graphics card. More RAM helps there.
I think this will only happen if they remove QuickDraw support from 10.5. I hope they do, but it will mean that any app that uses QuickDraw will have to be updated to work in 10.5.
You are right - now we have things like CoreImage and CoreVideo, non - gamers have a reason to get as powerful a graphics card as they can.
Thanks, gentlemen. I should know that. First thought was for an office. But if I end up using some programmes like Sketchup, or Dr. Frame 3D, or Drsoftwares other programmes, it would be best for me to get the better graphics cards.
The difference is £50 in the UK between 128 and 256. I'm sure some PC gamer fanboy will now rip in to me for suggesting paying that much extra for a 256MB X1600 (Dude it's not even the XT Ultra GT FX SE version! etc) but hey life's too short to worry about £50 and gamer dudes.
The difference is £50 in the UK between 128 and 256. I'm sure some PC gamer fanboy will now rip in to me for suggesting paying that much extra for a 256MB X1600 (Dude it's not even the XT Ultra GT FX SE version! etc) but hey life's too short to worry about £50 and gamer dudes.
dude, anyway it's all about the nvidia 7800gtx 512mb. in SLI. word.
Cool, sunilramnan... sold my 12" PB Rev A (with VGA out) few months back... still contemplating whether to get a iMac or MacBook Pro or wait for while, this wait kills...
iMac seems just nice for s$... thinking whether i can get most out by using my current 20 ACD and mac mini or just get a imac or macbook pro (now with dual link DVI)... too many choice, too much confusion
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Definitely if you're running multiple screens. 128MB is enough but 256MB is better. Macs use their graphics cards for a lot of the visual processing and effects you see.
Yowch!. I ordered an intel iMac last evening from Apple, and asked about this, and the sales fellow said the 128MB would work fine(in an office), with two displays, if I wanted that.
I think I will call in the morning and see about changing the order, as it is 75$ difference.
Originally posted by NordicMan
Yowch!. I ordered an intel iMac last evening from Apple, and asked about this, and the sales fellow said the 128MB would work fine(in an office), with two displays, if I wanted that.
It will.
But, Quartz Extreme buffers as much as it can in video RAM so that it doesn't have to hit the main ram of the computer. If you want expose and dashboard to be quick, run lots of windows, lots of fonts, it's all stored in video RAM. Now double the number of screens or run larger screens - the more RAM the better.
Also, when Apple finally gets around to enabling Quartz2D Extreme which now seems likely they'll only do that in 10.5, they farm off even more of the graphics processing to the graphics card. More RAM helps there.
I think to future proof yourself, 256MB is a good idea.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Also, when Apple finally gets around to enabling Quartz2D Extreme which now seems likely they'll only do that in 10.5, they farm off even more of the graphics processing to the graphics card. More RAM helps there.
I think this will only happen if they remove QuickDraw support from 10.5. I hope they do, but it will mean that any app that uses QuickDraw will have to be updated to work in 10.5.
You are right - now we have things like CoreImage and CoreVideo, non - gamers have a reason to get as powerful a graphics card as they can.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The difference is £50 in the UK between 128 and 256. I'm sure some PC gamer fanboy will now rip in to me for suggesting paying that much extra for a 256MB X1600 (Dude it's not even the XT Ultra GT FX SE version! etc) but hey life's too short to worry about £50 and gamer dudes.
dude, anyway it's all about the nvidia 7800gtx 512mb. in SLI. word.
Originally posted by sunilraman
dude, anyway it's all about the nvidia 7800gtx 512mb. in SLI. word.
SLI!
I think the picture is going to be absolutely moosey, and sorry about that, you may criticise my efforts.
http://www.danamania.com/temp/g5vsintel.jpg
Originally posted by NordicMan
Here is a link I found with comparative pics of the insides of various iMacs, including the intel iMacs. I hope I get it in here right.
I think the picture is going to be absolutely moosey, and sorry about that, you may criticise my efforts.
Better just post the link only. The image is too big.
Originally posted by PB
Better just post the link only. The image is too big.
Yes, I am sorry about that. Now I went and distended the whole thread size.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/...dia/page5.html
1GB of Video Memory,
over 13,000 in 3dMark05 (that's BLOODY MASSIVE in gamer land)
on beautifully bevelled, textured, and antialiased interfaces,
there are others that dream in frames-per-second.
yes, that's the x1600 that's in the "latest and greatest macs"
somewhere down the bottom of that chart
you're all forgetting about the 7900GTX 512MB. In SLI. Word.
Originally posted by NordicMan
Yes, I am sorry about that. Now I went and distended the whole thread size.
so can you fix it then
Wow, that's mental!
You've got to really like your games to blow that kind of money on a gaming rig and put up with all that heat and noise.
on beautifully bevelled, textured, and antialiased interfaces,
there are others that dream in frames-per-second.
yes, that's the x1600 that's in the "latest and greatest macs"
somewhere down the bottom of that chart
probably we will see that in PowerMacs ooops Mac Pro
you do not like hv 30 mins of Battery life rite? Do not you?
and noise and powerconsumption is just all insane on
those kinds of rigs. for the hardcore, most certainly...
shanmugan, the x1600 in the new intel macs and 7800gt
as an option on the powermac g5, it's all good. i got a pc
as well (6600gt 128mb - 4,100 3dmark05 - overclocked 10%)
so i've more or less stopped complaining about the gpu in
macs (i am writing this on an iBook g4 933mhz, with a
little ati radeon 9200 32mb vram)
iMac seems just nice for s$... thinking whether i can get most out by using my current 20 ACD and mac mini or just get a imac or macbook pro (now with dual link DVI)... too many choice, too much confusion