the graphic card of the new i mac is better

powerdoc · January 8, 2002 11:04AM

An interesting point , when we see the specifications of the new I mac : the graphic cards based on the geforce 2 mx use 32 mb of DDR memory instead of 32 MB of SDRAM for the powermac line.

This imply that the performances will be better because of the great improvement of the memory bandwitch.

doctorgonzo · January 8, 2002 11:15AM

The Geeforce 2 MX is also an old and slow card.

Newer games such as Doom 3 will not even run on it.

It's not future-proof at all. I just hope Apple doesn't keep it around for 3 years like the pathetic Rage 128.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: DoctorGonzo ]

seb · January 8, 2002 11:22AM

Eh, if I was really concerned about games, there are plenty of great new consoles out. That's where the real gaming fun is anyways - on the couch.

Let's see $300/$200 for a complete console or $400 for just a graphics card? Well, most people aren't super game nerds, and probably would be happy with the $300/$200 console. A person who spends several thousand on a game PC wouldn't get an iMac no matter which card it had.

Always nice to have a decent graphics card in your computer though for the occasional game. The GeForce should make the iMac display look great.

It would be nice if the card was upgradable, I guess. But it's not oh well. It's not upgradable in consoles either.

groverat · January 8, 2002 11:22AM

Yeah, and the G3 in the iBook smokes Pentium IIs!

Take that, Intel!

powerdoc · January 8, 2002 12:04PM

[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:

The Geeforce 2 MX is also an old and slow card.

Newer games such as Doom 3 will not even run on it.

It's not future-proof at all. I just hope Apple doesn't keep it around for 3 years like the pathetic Rage 128.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: DoctorGonzo ]<hr></blockquote>

Yes but i have a geforce 2 mx card on my G4 533 without DDR ram and i can play at quake 3 arena without problem. So i'll said it's a good choice that let people playing 3 D game if they will. Of course nobody will buy an i mac to play games ...But this graphic card is enough if he want to try a 3D game. That was not the case with the rage 128 pro (less than 3 millions of triangle per second compared to 20 millions for the geforce 2 mx).

Personnaly i was not expecting a better card on a i mac.

My question was essentially : what increase of performance the use of DDR ram can bring compared to the SDRAM ?

willoughby · January 8, 2002 12:15PM

[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:



Newer games such as Doom 3 will not even run on it.

<hr></blockquote>

Are you sure about this? Where are you getting this information? What exactly is it about this card that won't allow Doom 3 to run on it? The amount of memory?

So that means that Doom 3 on the Mac will only run under an Nvidia GeForce 3 with 64 megs of RAM?

I have no idea, I'm not disagreeing with you....I'm just really surprised if this is the case. So please explain. Thank You

marcuk · January 8, 2002 12:36PM

Id have said thet Doom3 requires a GF3 minimum, theres no technical reason why it couldn't run on a 2MX, but I guess that Id consider the performance to be well below par, and you'd lose many of the effects taken care of by the GF3

ghost_user_name · January 8, 2002 12:47PM

For $1800 you should get a better card. Plus will Apple drop support for it in 3 years. You can bet on it.

doctorgonzo · January 8, 2002 1:23PM

[quote]Are you sure about this? Where are you getting this information? What exactly is it about this card that won't allow Doom 3 to run on it? The amount of memory?

So that means that Doom 3 on the Mac will only run under an Nvidia GeForce 3 with 64 megs of RAM?<hr></blockquote>

John Carmack has stated that Doom 3 will not run on anything less than a Geeforce 3.

The Geeforce 2, especially the bargin-basement MX is simply not powerful enough to handle it.

I believe Apple should offer a choice between a Geeforce 3 and a Superdrive. (with the former costing a bit less). Not everyone wants to spend $300 more so they can get a DVD burning capability they will never use. Not everyone is even interested in editing camcorder footage. Apple shouldn't be deciding what the user will do with their computer.

eman · January 8, 2002 1:26PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

Plus will Apple drop support for it in 3 years. You can bet on it.<hr></blockquote>

Shut up.

bradbower · January 8, 2002 1:33PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

For $1800 you should get a better card. Plus will Apple drop support for it in 3 years. You can bet on it.<hr></blockquote>

Hehehe. I'm with you, man. Why couldn't this iMac (BoobCube?) have the upgradable card like the Cube?

big mac · January 8, 2002 1:57PM

Wow guys, you really do expect a whole lot out of Apple, don't you? The Geeforce 2 is still a viable card in every respect. Apple puts the card in its high end towers, and while I know people on this board don't consider it high end, Apple obviously does. Should Apple feel compelled to put a Geeforce 3 in an iMac when its high end doesn't even have it standard on any standard configuration?

In case you're not aware, the Geeforce 3 is still quite expensive, and only hyper geeks on this forum will care about it not being available on the iMac. It is an iMac, not a Power Mac. Apple's given you a G4 processor, Super Drive and their beautiful 15" LCD for $1800, an outrageous value in comparison to their previous offerings, but it still falls short of expectations around here. The Geeforce 4 isn't even formerly announced yet. Wait for the Power Macs to get Geeforce 3s across the board, and then we can talk about upgrading these wonderful iMacs. If all you want to do with your computer is play games, the Macintosh is not for you anyway. Get a bit of perspective - it's not the end of the world!

torifile · January 8, 2002 2:21PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

For $1800 you should get a better card. Plus will Apple drop support for it in 3 years. You can bet on it.<hr></blockquote>

Scott, why don't you just put this in your sig and save me the trouble?

willoughby · January 8, 2002 2:35PM

[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:



John Carmack has stated that Doom 3 will not run on anything less than a Geeforce 3.

The Geeforce 2, especially the bargin-basement MX is simply not powerful enough to handle it.

I believe Apple should offer a choice between a Geeforce 3 and a Superdrive. (with the former costing a bit less). Not everyone wants to spend $300 more so they can get a DVD burning capability they will never use. Not everyone is even interested in editing camcorder footage. Apple shouldn't be deciding what the user will do with their computer.<hr></blockquote>

I did my own researching

From <a href="http://doomworld.com/files/doom3faq.shtml"; target="_blank">http://doomworld.com/files/doom3faq.shtml</a>; ::

[quote]

What sort of system will be required to play Doom 3?

Early indications suggest that the target system for Doom 3 will be a 700 mhz system with 128 megabytes of RAM and a "high-end" video card (assumably GeForce-level or higher). However, these specs are very tentative and will probably change multiple times. There will probably be versions released for Windows, Linux, and Mac.

In an interview on 9/18/00, John Carmack had the following to say about the Doom 3 engine and how fast it will run:

I am spending a huge amount of graphics horsepower to allow the engine to be flexible in ways that game engines have never been before. It is a little scary to drop down from the ultra-high frame rates we are used to with Q3, but I firmly believe that the power of the new engine will enable a whole new level of game content.

I am hoping that the absolute top-of-the-line system available when the game ships will be capable of running it with all features enabled and anti-aliasing on at 60hz, but even the fastest cards of today are going to have to run at fairly low resolutions to get decent frame rates. Many will choose to drop a feature or two to get some speed back, but they still won't be able to get near 60hz.

Remember, the game won't ship for a long time yet, and today's cards will seem a bit quaint by then.

<hr></blockquote>

Doesn't sound like it won't run on the GeForce 2 MX to me.

I still have an ATI Rage 128 with 16 megs and its served me well playing in plenty of Quake III tournaments. Going to 32 and Nvidia sounds great to me. Besides, I'd much rather have the Superdrive anyway.

ghost_user_name · January 8, 2002 3:15PM

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:

Scott, why don't you just put this in your sig and save me the trouble?

<hr></blockquote>

Maybe I would need some of that if I wasn't basing my complaint on cold hard facts. I'm not lying or making stuff up when I state that Apple dropped support for three year old machines. Fact is Apple dropped support for the tray loading iMac.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]

applenut · January 8, 2002 3:18PM

[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:



John Carmack has stated that Doom 3 will not run on anything less than a Geeforce 3.

The Geeforce 2, especially the bargin-basement MX is simply not powerful enough to handle it.

I believe Apple should offer a choice between a Geeforce 3 and a Superdrive. (with the former costing a bit less). Not everyone wants to spend $300 more so they can get a DVD burning capability they will never use. Not everyone is even interested in editing camcorder footage. Apple shouldn't be deciding what the user will do with their computer.<hr></blockquote>

1.) Carmack never said that

2.) DVD-R is a lot mor eimportant to Apple's target market than an overpriced graphic card to be used fully with games 2 years down the road. Buy an Xbox if you want a geforce 3. it's actually cheaper than the card

ghost_user_name · January 8, 2002 3:19PM

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:



1.) Carmack never said that

2.) DVD-R is a lot mor eimportant to Apple's target market than an overpriced graphic card to be used fully with games 2 years down the road. Buy an Xbox if you want a geforce 3. it's actually cheaper than the card<hr></blockquote>

Or you can just buy a BTO PeeCee.

torifile · January 8, 2002 3:20PM

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:



Maybe I would need some of that if I wasn't basing my complaint on cold hard facts. Fact is Apple dropped support for the tray loading iMac.<hr></blockquote>

That's true and I'm not denying that fact. You have a legitimate beef, but you can't deny that your extension of what has happened in the past to the future of the iMac is FUD. You can't predict what'll happen any more than I can. If I were to say that the iMac is a great computer that will not be outdated in 3 years, I could be guilty of being RDF'd. It's all a matter of perspective...

[edit: I'm having some ish-yous typing today]

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]

seb · January 8, 2002 3:23PM

applenut, that's the ironic part. He already has an xbox.

Just wants to gripe about something he's not gonna buy anyways. Imagine that.

Why? Nobody knows.

norfa · January 8, 2002 4:12PM

OK everybody who is going to buy this card, just to play this game, put up your hands. Does that look like the kind of target market that will keep a company the size if Apple alive?

ghost_user_name · January 8, 2002 4:21PM

[quote]Originally posted by norfa:

OK everybody who is going to buy this card, just to play this game, put up your hands. Does that look like the kind of target market that will keep a company the size if Apple alive?<hr></blockquote>

I'm sure more people want to play games on the iMac than burn DVDs.

the graphic card of the new i mac is better

Comments