Compare the radeon HD2600 Pro to the GeForce 7600GT. It's a large leap backwards. They might end up being not all that much faster than the x1600 machines.
I disagree. Comparing them on the wonderful Tom's Hardware Guide VGA Charts, the HD2600 is a superior card in most tests that I cared to look at. Even though it does win most, it will win by a larger margin once the driver issues with the HD series are handled. The HD2600 is a competent card and will play many games at acceptable consumer iMac levels, while providing enough performance for those who dabble or hobby in 3D graphic tasks.
Unfortunately the 8600M isn't on the VGA charts [as no mobile is], but I'm sure in a few days BareFeats will have a review up showing the iMac clean sweep the MacBook Pro as usual. If the desktop HD2600 beats the desktop 7600 GT, which beat the 8600M GT already, I think that's a safe bet.
Here's another thing that bugs me is I was quite happy to see the $1199 price tag because at the current exchange rate, that is £594 in the UK. Add VAT at 17.5% and you get £697 so why is the UK entry iMac at £799 and not £699? What's the extra £100 for?
Hasn't it always been that way?
I live in Belgium, we use euro's. I was under the impression that they just took the $ price and replaced $ by ? (more or less, the last few years it has improved a little bit)
Here's another thing that bugs me is I was quite happy to see the $1199 price tag because at the current exchange rate, that is £594 in the UK. Add VAT at 17.5% and you get £697 so why is the UK entry iMac at £799 and not £699? What's the extra £100 for?
you should already know the answer: rip-off britain, mate!
I disagree. Comparing them on the wonderful Tom's Hardware Guide VGA Charts, the HD2600 is a superior card in most tests that I cared to look at. Even though it does win most, it will win by a larger margin once the driver issues with the HD series are handled. The HD2600 is a competent card and will play many games at acceptable consumer iMac levels, while providing enough performance for those who dabble or hobby in 3D graphic tasks.
Unfortunately the 8600M isn't on the VGA charts [as no mobile is], but I'm sure in a few days BareFeats will have a review up showing the iMac clean sweep the MacBook Pro as usual. If the desktop HD2600 beats the desktop 7600 GT, which beat the 8600M GT already, I think that's a safe bet.
The card they listed is the much faster 2600XT. The card Apple uses is the pro with no upgrade path to the XT.
Looks to me from many reviews that there is not much of a consensus on the performance one recent review puts the Radeon HD 2600 Pro right between the higher XT and the lower GeForce 8600 GT in many tests and below the 8600 in a few other tests. Then again, after finding another similar one, there was the 3rd review which had the 8600 GT in more tests.
One factor on the PC side that we always seem to forget is that the cards vary from maker to maker; it's not ATI and NVIDIA making the cards [or just Apple building the spec sheet ATI/NVIDIA cards], there are dozens of ATI and NVIDIA card makers. Needless to say a BFG 8600 GT would slaughter almost everything else we spoke of.
I think the HD 2600 is a competent card that is plenty fine to replaced a 7600 GT. There were obviously considerations Apple made. Perhaps one of the biggest ones was the change in the NVIDIA line up; in the 7 series there was the 7300 then the 7600, making the 7600 a clearer choice on the higher end. Yet, in the 8 series consists of the 8300, 8400, and 8600 in the lower end. The 8400 is the more midrange model with the 8600 progressing into a 'low high end' style card.
In all reviews I've seen the 8400 is the slowest of the HD 2600 series vs. 8 series tests. For this reason Apple may have seen the 8600 as too hot or expensive and saw the 8400 as a downgrade from the 7600 and HD 2600. In any case, the HD 2600 Pro is good enough for the iMac; sure, higher would be nicer, but I don't know who you think Apple is supposed to be targeting. If you're very concerned about it, just wait until the Mac benchmark sites get their hands on the iMacs to compare the card[s]. I'd be interest to see how the HD 2600 Pro 256MB does in the 20-inch vs. the 24-inch's HD 2600 Pro 256MB -- the MBP 17-inch's 8600M outperforms the 15-inch's 8600M because Apple clocked it up a bit more.
Comments
Compare the radeon HD2600 Pro to the GeForce 7600GT. It's a large leap backwards. They might end up being not all that much faster than the x1600 machines.
I disagree. Comparing them on the wonderful Tom's Hardware Guide VGA Charts, the HD2600 is a superior card in most tests that I cared to look at. Even though it does win most, it will win by a larger margin once the driver issues with the HD series are handled. The HD2600 is a competent card and will play many games at acceptable consumer iMac levels, while providing enough performance for those who dabble or hobby in 3D graphic tasks.
Unfortunately the 8600M isn't on the VGA charts [as no mobile is], but I'm sure in a few days BareFeats will have a review up showing the iMac clean sweep the MacBook Pro as usual. If the desktop HD2600 beats the desktop 7600 GT, which beat the 8600M GT already, I think that's a safe bet.
What's the extra £100 for?
To send little Steve to college.
Here's another thing that bugs me is I was quite happy to see the $1199 price tag because at the current exchange rate, that is £594 in the UK. Add VAT at 17.5% and you get £697 so why is the UK entry iMac at £799 and not £699? What's the extra £100 for?
Hasn't it always been that way?
I live in Belgium, we use euro's. I was under the impression that they just took the $ price and replaced $ by ? (more or less, the last few years it has improved a little bit)
iMac: 1199$-1199?
Macbook: 1099$-1049?
Macbook pro: 1999$-1899?
At current exchange rate:
iMac: 1199$ = 872? ( difference 227?, 312$)
Macbook: 1099$ = 799? ( dif. 300?, 412$)
Macbook pro: 1999$ = 1453? ( dif. 464?, 638$)
zaqarov
Here's another thing that bugs me is I was quite happy to see the $1199 price tag because at the current exchange rate, that is £594 in the UK. Add VAT at 17.5% and you get £697 so why is the UK entry iMac at £799 and not £699? What's the extra £100 for?
you should already know the answer: rip-off britain, mate!
I disagree. Comparing them on the wonderful Tom's Hardware Guide VGA Charts, the HD2600 is a superior card in most tests that I cared to look at. Even though it does win most, it will win by a larger margin once the driver issues with the HD series are handled. The HD2600 is a competent card and will play many games at acceptable consumer iMac levels, while providing enough performance for those who dabble or hobby in 3D graphic tasks.
Unfortunately the 8600M isn't on the VGA charts [as no mobile is], but I'm sure in a few days BareFeats will have a review up showing the iMac clean sweep the MacBook Pro as usual. If the desktop HD2600 beats the desktop 7600 GT, which beat the 8600M GT already, I think that's a safe bet.
The card they listed is the much faster 2600XT. The card Apple uses is the pro with no upgrade path to the XT.
One factor on the PC side that we always seem to forget is that the cards vary from maker to maker; it's not ATI and NVIDIA making the cards [or just Apple building the spec sheet ATI/NVIDIA cards], there are dozens of ATI and NVIDIA card makers. Needless to say a BFG 8600 GT would slaughter almost everything else we spoke of.
I think the HD 2600 is a competent card that is plenty fine to replaced a 7600 GT. There were obviously considerations Apple made. Perhaps one of the biggest ones was the change in the NVIDIA line up; in the 7 series there was the 7300 then the 7600, making the 7600 a clearer choice on the higher end. Yet, in the 8 series consists of the 8300, 8400, and 8600 in the lower end. The 8400 is the more midrange model with the 8600 progressing into a 'low high end' style card.
In all reviews I've seen the 8400 is the slowest of the HD 2600 series vs. 8 series tests. For this reason Apple may have seen the 8600 as too hot or expensive and saw the 8400 as a downgrade from the 7600 and HD 2600. In any case, the HD 2600 Pro is good enough for the iMac; sure, higher would be nicer, but I don't know who you think Apple is supposed to be targeting. If you're very concerned about it, just wait until the Mac benchmark sites get their hands on the iMacs to compare the card[s]. I'd be interest to see how the HD 2600 Pro 256MB does in the 20-inch vs. the 24-inch's HD 2600 Pro 256MB -- the MBP 17-inch's 8600M outperforms the 15-inch's 8600M because Apple clocked it up a bit more.
In my experience with Poser and other graphics programs, the ATI cards seem to be related to more problems, crashes, etc.
I make it a point to only get nVidia cards, like I have on my "older" 24" iMac... bought maybe 3 months ago.
I just love my iMac... I chose specs close to what is now offered on the new 24" iMac... 2 GB RAM, 500 GB hard drive.
I don't use the Apple keyboard. It's impractical for me. I'm a big guy, and have arthritis. So I use a Microsoft Natural Keyboard... works just fine.