The FX 5200 Ultra isn't anywhere near the bottom of the pile. It's better than the GPUs on most entry level PCs, which are generally Intel shared-memory crap.
DOOM 3, with all features maxed out, is so punishing that it hardly runs well on anything. Fortunately, if you're willing to turn some things down, it runs well enough. At any rate, that's like saying that the iBook is a terrible notebook because it can't run Motion.
This issue is blown way, way out of proportion.
True some cheap PCs do have integrated graphics, but you'll also find many with pretty decent cards in them.
Yes Doom 3 is very demanding, but the interesting point here is that it's the first of the new wave of PC games. Over the coming 6 months to a year more and more games will appear which need Doom 3 levels of power and higher. Any PC which cannot run Doom 3 well will not hand any technologically advanced PC game at all in 12 months time.
That so many people have crticised the iMac's GPU must mean that it's more than a few moaners who don't like it. The machine is so good in so many ways, it's a tragedy that the weak GPU lets it down so badly.
I wonder would it even be able to handle 3D applications such as Maya and ZBrush?
I'll concede the iMac G5 looked good on my desk; a kind of laptop on a stick. Using the wireless keyboard and mouse, there were only two wires coming out of the iMac's back: the power cord and an Ethernet cable to my home network.
The G5 processor, along with other hardware improvements, makes a difference, too. The iMac starts up and loads applications faster, and the applications themselves are peppier.
And the iMac really is whisper-quiet, as Apple claims, making only the faintest hum. Apple also made an unusual design decision with the speakers, putting them along the bottom edge and having the sound bounce off the desk surface. Sound quality was surprisingly good, although anyone who wants to seriously listen to music would want to buy external speakers.
My only significant design gripe is ergonomic. The 17-inch model has the screen's top edge several inches too low for average adults, who will have to look down to work instead of straight ahead. You can stick a phone book underneath the pedestal, but that ruins the iMac's elegance.
There's also the bigger issue of cost. Apple's relatively high prices have limited its popularity -- its global market share is hovering around 2 percent. Windows takes almost all the rest. The Mac might be a few points higher in U.S. homes, but it's still nowhere near double digits.
In the Windows world, you can pick from a wide selection of systems for $600 to $800 -- with a computer tower and separate monitor, rather than all-in-one design -- that offer comparable hardware features to the iMac. Apple seems to be tacitly acknowledging the gap by continuing to sell the eMac, an all-in-one design with a bulky tube monitor and the older G4 processor, for $799 to $999.
The bottom line: Apple's many loyal customers, who are willing to pay more for the Mac's elegant design and ease of use, will be justifiably happy with the iMac G5. Windows users will remain unimpressed, as they have with previous iMac innovations, and Apple's market share won't be much changed a year from now.
The FX 5200 Ultra isn't anywhere near the bottom of the pile. It's better than the GPUs on most entry level PCs, which are generally Intel shared-memory crap.
And those entry level PCs don't cost $1300. Most anything even in Apple's range has a more powerful GPU.
Quote:
DOOM 3, with all features maxed out, is so punishing that it hardly runs well on anything. Fortunately, if you're willing to turn some things down, it runs well enough.
"Well enough" is rather subjective... especially after turning everything down. Obviously by the noise being made over the issue, people think the 5200 was "good enough" 2 years ago. This GPU isn't going to run any modern game adequately a year from now if it already can't handle today's without crippling the features.
Quote:
At any rate, that's like saying that the iBook is a terrible notebook because it can't run Motion.
Games are consumer applications too. When your only option is to fork over $3000-$5000 for a complete professional system just to be able to game respectably, then Apple clearly has a gaping hole in their product lineup that appeals to as few as their marketshare evidently illustrates.
Quote:
The 9600 has worse support for programmable textures, and it's less programmable overall. So, in one increasingly crucial respect, the 5200 Ultra is a better GPU both for next-generation games and for Tiger. And, it's all too easy to buy a retail PC with much worse graphics acceleration than the iMac's.
There are plenty of other more powerful entry-level GPUs out there. Pick your poison.
The 9600 has worse support for programmable textures, and it's less programmable overall. So, in one increasingly crucial respect, the 5200 Ultra is a better GPU both for next-generation games and for Tiger. And, it's all too easy to buy a retail PC with much worse graphics acceleration than the iMac's.
Not true: both cards have the same programmable pixel shader support (DirectX 9/Pixel shader 2.0). The plain 9600 is slightly slower for Quake 3 (a fairly old game, no pixel shading) due to the 5200 Ultra's higher clock speed, but the 5200U is soundly beaten by a 9600 is DirectX 9 intensive games.
The Radeon 9000/9100/9200 might be the cards you're thinking of.
The plain 9600 is slightly slower for Quake 3 (a fairly old game, no pixel shading) due to the 5200 Ultra's higher clock speed, but the 5200U is soundly beaten by a 9600 is DirectX 9 intensive games.
The 9600 is beaten because Quake 3 is an OpenGL based game. ATI's cards simply don't perform as well on OpenGL based games since they aim them quite solidly at DirectX. That's fine for a PC but not so great for Linux, a Mac or any Workstation that focuses on OpenGL graphics.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
yes. I entirely agree with Amorph. My only legitimate grip with the Imac 20 is that I did not recieve mine yet.
Well, here are some pics of mine
Originally posted by Amorph
The FX 5200 Ultra isn't anywhere near the bottom of the pile. It's better than the GPUs on most entry level PCs, which are generally Intel shared-memory crap.
DOOM 3, with all features maxed out, is so punishing that it hardly runs well on anything. Fortunately, if you're willing to turn some things down, it runs well enough. At any rate, that's like saying that the iBook is a terrible notebook because it can't run Motion.
This issue is blown way, way out of proportion.
True some cheap PCs do have integrated graphics, but you'll also find many with pretty decent cards in them.
Yes Doom 3 is very demanding, but the interesting point here is that it's the first of the new wave of PC games. Over the coming 6 months to a year more and more games will appear which need Doom 3 levels of power and higher. Any PC which cannot run Doom 3 well will not hand any technologically advanced PC game at all in 12 months time.
That so many people have crticised the iMac's GPU must mean that it's more than a few moaners who don't like it. The machine is so good in so many ways, it's a tragedy that the weak GPU lets it down so badly.
I wonder would it even be able to handle 3D applications such as Maya and ZBrush?
Link
The conclusion of the article:
Laptop on a stick
I'll concede the iMac G5 looked good on my desk; a kind of laptop on a stick. Using the wireless keyboard and mouse, there were only two wires coming out of the iMac's back: the power cord and an Ethernet cable to my home network.
The G5 processor, along with other hardware improvements, makes a difference, too. The iMac starts up and loads applications faster, and the applications themselves are peppier.
And the iMac really is whisper-quiet, as Apple claims, making only the faintest hum. Apple also made an unusual design decision with the speakers, putting them along the bottom edge and having the sound bounce off the desk surface. Sound quality was surprisingly good, although anyone who wants to seriously listen to music would want to buy external speakers.
My only significant design gripe is ergonomic. The 17-inch model has the screen's top edge several inches too low for average adults, who will have to look down to work instead of straight ahead. You can stick a phone book underneath the pedestal, but that ruins the iMac's elegance.
There's also the bigger issue of cost. Apple's relatively high prices have limited its popularity -- its global market share is hovering around 2 percent. Windows takes almost all the rest. The Mac might be a few points higher in U.S. homes, but it's still nowhere near double digits.
In the Windows world, you can pick from a wide selection of systems for $600 to $800 -- with a computer tower and separate monitor, rather than all-in-one design -- that offer comparable hardware features to the iMac. Apple seems to be tacitly acknowledging the gap by continuing to sell the eMac, an all-in-one design with a bulky tube monitor and the older G4 processor, for $799 to $999.
The bottom line: Apple's many loyal customers, who are willing to pay more for the Mac's elegant design and ease of use, will be justifiably happy with the iMac G5. Windows users will remain unimpressed, as they have with previous iMac innovations, and Apple's market share won't be much changed a year from now.
Originally posted by Amorph
The FX 5200 Ultra isn't anywhere near the bottom of the pile. It's better than the GPUs on most entry level PCs, which are generally Intel shared-memory crap.
And those entry level PCs don't cost $1300. Most anything even in Apple's range has a more powerful GPU.
DOOM 3, with all features maxed out, is so punishing that it hardly runs well on anything. Fortunately, if you're willing to turn some things down, it runs well enough.
"Well enough" is rather subjective... especially after turning everything down. Obviously by the noise being made over the issue, people think the 5200 was "good enough" 2 years ago. This GPU isn't going to run any modern game adequately a year from now if it already can't handle today's without crippling the features.
At any rate, that's like saying that the iBook is a terrible notebook because it can't run Motion.
Games are consumer applications too. When your only option is to fork over $3000-$5000 for a complete professional system just to be able to game respectably, then Apple clearly has a gaping hole in their product lineup that appeals to as few as their marketshare evidently illustrates.
The 9600 has worse support for programmable textures, and it's less programmable overall. So, in one increasingly crucial respect, the 5200 Ultra is a better GPU both for next-generation games and for Tiger. And, it's all too easy to buy a retail PC with much worse graphics acceleration than the iMac's.
There are plenty of other more powerful entry-level GPUs out there. Pick your poison.
The 9600 has worse support for programmable textures, and it's less programmable overall. So, in one increasingly crucial respect, the 5200 Ultra is a better GPU both for next-generation games and for Tiger. And, it's all too easy to buy a retail PC with much worse graphics acceleration than the iMac's.
Not true: both cards have the same programmable pixel shader support (DirectX 9/Pixel shader 2.0). The plain 9600 is slightly slower for Quake 3 (a fairly old game, no pixel shading) due to the 5200 Ultra's higher clock speed, but the 5200U is soundly beaten by a 9600 is DirectX 9 intensive games.
The Radeon 9000/9100/9200 might be the cards you're thinking of.
Tom's Hardware has some charts comparing nearly every card except the X800/6800: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...229/index.html.
Originally posted by Stoo
The plain 9600 is slightly slower for Quake 3 (a fairly old game, no pixel shading) due to the 5200 Ultra's higher clock speed, but the 5200U is soundly beaten by a 9600 is DirectX 9 intensive games.
The 9600 is beaten because Quake 3 is an OpenGL based game. ATI's cards simply don't perform as well on OpenGL based games since they aim them quite solidly at DirectX. That's fine for a PC but not so great for Linux, a Mac or any Workstation that focuses on OpenGL graphics.