The 5200 Ultra is already 50% faster than the plain 5200FX (both core and memory clocks). Does anyone have any numbers for how fast the iMac's GPU runs? Could be interesting if Apple had procured a 5200 Ultra+. \
Not surprising to be honest, Doom3 is essentially a glorified tech demo, it just failed to deliver the goods, it basically has next to no gameplay, it's too repetitive and predictable.
That's OK. With the exceptions of original Doom, Half-Life and AvP single player games, I've found FPS mods to be the real deal, instead of the "game" that is tacked on the engine. It seems Doom3 engine is really good (at least for smallish, closed environments), so now we just have to wait for the awesome mods that people will build on it.
My past favorites are Team Fortress (Quake), Gloom, ActionQuake (Quake2), Counterstrike (HL).
Thirty frames per second is considered the minimum for comfortable viewing. Any game-player shouldn't have to compromise this figure. The basic specification of any PC or Mac should meet this and more.
Doom III is frame-rate capped at 60 fps. Any game-player wanting a system to be proud of, any manufacturer wanting a system for their users to be proud of, should offer a configuration option which aims for this.
PC users have the option of making compromises, or putting their well-earned money on the table and buying better - or the best.
Any manufacturer who does not offer a low-end, middle-end, and high-end series of options (for graphics) in this case, is essentially saying to their customers: Sorry, we don't want your money.
Good rules of Business:
- Give a customer what he wants, when he wants it.
- Make him pay for it.
- A satisfied customer, is a repeat customer.
Gone_Pearshaped.
Not for the first time, I fully agree with Gone_Pearshaped. (Who must be a PC user judging by his use of the 'footnote'... ) He hits the nail, succinctly, on the head of Apple's shortcomings.
Apple is giving us no choice in graphic card.
They aren't allowing us even the option to choose.
So, I couldn't be a satisified iMac G5 customer even if I wanted to buy it. Lustworthy though it is.
So, I agree, they are saying to me (a fair Apple Loyalist, it has to be said...though I just sold my shares for Studio Max...) that they don't want my business. Not only that, many thousands more will go, 'Nice...but where are my choices beyond a 20 inch screen..?'
Can I put a 2 gig cpu in there? What about 2.5?
Wintel laptops have 3 gig cpus in them in about the same thickness as the iMac.
Can I put in a better graphics card eg Nvidia 6600GT? (ie you can have any graphics card for the iMac G5 as long as it it is crap... Yeesh, 64 meg card for the playing off Doom 3. 'Stand out' performance? YOU gotta be kidding me...)
Go to Tom's hardware and check out the graphic cards comparison for a decent game of Doom 3.
The 'ultra' (heh, misnoma...) ranks alongside integrated crap that won't give a satisfactory game of Doom 3.
Shame. iMac G5 has got everyting going for it to be a great gaming Mac.
Stick 2-2.5 gig in it and a Nvidia GT 6600 or 6800 and I'd tear your arm off for one of them.
Ok people, we all know the new G5 iMac's video card blows more chunks than a Pentium 4 trying to emulate Mac Os X however, it's the first revision! If you don't like the machine, don't buy it! Remember it will get better over time. We can sit here and complain about Apple's marketing/pricing strategy but it's not going to change because of our whining. Yes, I want a 3.0 Ghz G5 iMac running a PCI-Express Nvidia 6600GT with 256MB of Vram but that won't happen for quite some time! Apple will adopt PCI-E eventually and then it will filter down into the non-Powermac lines until it reaches the iMac. Things will get better! So just be patient! If we could all be Steve Jobs for a while we would build the most powerful and cheap mac for the masses but Apple does not want to do that. As painful as it is, we must either buy what's available or wait until something better comes along. With the new G5 iMac all it means is that to play current generation games on the highest settings (or even close) you will need a Powermac, simple as that. I know this sounds stupid but Apple does have financing options and student discounts on their hardware, so it may take you four years to pay it off but you will have droolworthy PowermacG5. That's what I am doing next summer. I am not going to buy a non-upgradeable imac that's molded around a screen. Never! It just doesn't fit what I want to do. Hell, I've already changed the graphics card twice on my G4 tower added ram and another hard drive, not to mention external peripherals. The only reason I am not upgrading the cpu is because I want to save up for a new G5 tower. Anyways, all ranting aside, the bottom line is: Buy the best machine you can and you will be happy for a very long time.
Ok people, we all know the new G5 iMac's video card blows more chunks than a Pentium 4 trying to emulate Mac Os X however, it's the first revision!
Remember folks, the iMac has been balanced to meet a set of user needs at a price point. I can appreciate the needs that it meets, and I think that it is well balanced. Putting a better gpu in there ( at the cost of other components ) doesnt make sense. Gamers buy PCs, and games are written for PCs. The iMac isnt going to break the cycle, so putting in a card that few users will take advantage of isnt balanced.
The problem is that there is a $1200 gap in Apple's desktop lineup, between the 20" iMac and the Powermac with 20" monitor. I cant imagine Apple failing to plug that gap. Quite how they do it remains to be seen. But for all of you asking for a better gpu, it seems reasonable that it will fall into that bracket.
What about a cheap machine that can play games? Just look at the release schedules for the two platforms. PCs get more games than I can count. Few are ported to the Mac, and the Mac gets few originals ( which do not require hot graphics ).
While the gpu market remains so fast ( todays gpu is tomorrows paper weight ) Apple cannot make a move in the gaming market. However, this is going to change soon. GPUs have hit the limit of what is affordable. Current designs place such huge burdens on the rest of the machine ( heat, power requirements ) that they really represent the end of the road. GPUs are only going to advance at the rate of process enhancements, which themselves are getting harder and harder to make. In a couple of years Apple will be able to play in a market that has really slowed down. Perhaps other GPU manufacturers will be able to as well.
On the flip side, ATI is managing to put 9600 power into and integrated chipset solution. Very impressive.
But Apple need to increase the options on CPU and GPU.
They are artificially castrated.
While I believe that Apple are more than happy to ruin otherwise good machines with artificial limitations ( USB 1, firewire 800, dual monitors, optical drives, narrow memory buses for video memory ) Im not sure that the iMac is limited for purely marketing reasons. To be precise, Id like to see some numbers ( perhaps from an enterprising iMac owner ) about how much heat they are putting out, and how much they can handle.
The iMac power supply is only 160[?] watts. It would be interesting to see if that is the limit due to cooling issues.
There are a couple of lessons that we would suggest Apple learns here. The first, Mr Jobs, is to stop being so darned frugal with systems, and let reviewers review your products. Publications are the route to market for your products, don't make life difficult for them.
As a relative newcomer, I've heard rumour Apple holds a tight leash on all things Apple-shaped. Is this true?
Quote:
The second is to stop under-speccing your products - an FX5200 in a product costing over £1,000 is inexcusable and reeks of corner-cutting.
My point exactly in a previous post.
Quote:
Lastly, stop trying to educate and spin at the same time. You may want your buyers to know all about Mac gaming, but you can't then stamp on real-world gaming testing that shows your products for what they really are. The answer is to create a machine that's better for gaming.
The Inquirer can be from left field from time to time, yet these comments struck me as insightful truths.
While I believe that Apple are more than happy to ruin otherwise good machines with artificial limitations ( USB 1, firewire 800, dual monitors, optical drives, narrow memory buses for video memory ) Im not sure that the iMac is limited for purely marketing reasons. To be precise, Id like to see some numbers ( perhaps from an enterprising iMac owner ) about how much heat they are putting out, and how much they can handle.
The iMac power supply is only 160[?] watts. It would be interesting to see if that is the limit due to cooling issues.
I don't buy "cooling issues". They could have, as Lemon Bon Bon suggested, put in a Mobility Radeon. If not the new 9800, then the 9700 - which is under my fingertips right now, but Powerbook's G4 is so slow the graphics card is of no use. An iMac would have sped up a *lot* with that card. If a laptop is able to manage the heat, a desktop is definitely capable of doing the same. And, if for some strange reason the GPU squeeze was about heat issues, this would prove the iMac chassis design bad.
Lastly, stop trying to educate and spin at the same time. You may want your buyers to know all about Mac gaming, but you can't then stamp on real-world gaming testing that shows your products for what they really are. The answer is to create a machine that's better for gaming.
Yeah, Apple talks quality...and their machines are...so why skimp on ram and gpu? Ram you can sort. Stick 2 gig of ram in iMac G5 1.8 gig and you'll flatten most Wintel mainstream machines running Photoshop.
But...the gpu is non-upradeable. At least include a slot graphic card similar to the standard Nvidia is proposing for portables... Something that can be upgraded at the store or at home...
There seems little reason not to include an extra 256 megs of ram and a Radeon Mobility as included in the Powerbook.
It does stink of corner-cutting in an otherwise amazing design.
I know. I've touched both the 17 inch and 20 inch iMac G5s.
The back of the computer is stunning. All the points in a line. The fit, the bevel so subtle, the finish...sublime.
The screen bright and clear.
I played a game of Nanosaur 2 and the iMac G5 will hold up for casual gaming. But no way for Doom III is the ultra crap acceptable for playing said game in any shape or form. I'll take Tom's Hardware's opinion on this any day.
Apple skimped on the graphic card. It's pathetic to have the same graphic card in your low end machine in the high end machine. What is that all about?
Cost cutting. But in this instance, an extra £100 quid could have given the iMac G5 512 megs of ram and a decent graphics card. A 9600 could have done it. A 9700 mobility. A 9800 mobility. If they can fit in a Powerbook then a $16 ultrafxcrapthing is...derisory.
The iMac G5. A fine machine. It is fast. As fast as any 2 gig-ish Pentium 4. No doubt. It runs all apps fine. Rendering iMovie transitions is wayyyyyyyy faster than on my Wife's ibook G3 (and so it should BE!) Everything is fairly snappy. But the lack of ram chokes the top end machine.
Rev B. GPU. This could be the ultimate gamer's machine! And RAM! And up the cpu to 2-2.5 gig.
The thing is...cost-cutting aside...it wouldn't cost that much to make these machines look even better...
...just how much is 256 megs of ram?
...just how much is a decent GPU? (See the pending Nvidia 6600 GT, a fantastic and cheap mainstream card!)
My one criticism of the iMac G5 aesthetic. There's no glass in front of the LCD. It's bare plastic. Scratch. Scratch...blemish. Grrrrrrrr.
Its all tier structure folks, dont like imac buy powermac this is what apple wants. its not about you its about apple. sounds almost evil doesnt it. Most companies have consumer as king.....Apple does what it wants you either follow or get a PC.
however, it's the first revision! If you don't like the machine, don't buy it! Remember it will get better over time.
Thats just stupid! How about they put a 1 Mhz CPu in it? "Geez, its the first revision, it'll get better over time!" I dont want a machine that cant play the games that come out now! ;P
Ram and GPU on that machine screams 2002 - helllooo - 2004!!
That's not how Apple's marketting guys see it. Check out Apple's own pages on iMac G5. Games get a BIG mention. They even specifically mention DOOM 3!
" NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB graphics memory. So you?ll be able to play World of Warcraft, Doom III and other fantastic entertainment. "
Amusing.
I'm one of those people who would love to buy an iMac G5. The thing is gorgeous but I won't spend that much money on a system with such a poor GPU.
All they need do is stick another BTO option in there. By all means keep costs down on the stock systems, but for those that want the power, give it to them. Radeon 9800 Mobility with 256Mb RAM would do fine.
As a relative newcomer, I've heard rumour Apple holds a tight leash on all things Apple-shaped. Is this true?
[...]
The Inquirer can be from left field from time to time, yet these comments struck me as insightful truths.
I haven't really heard about Apple being stingy, but what they're referring to in the last paragraph you quoted is the change in policy brought about by Rob Art Morgan's using store models for testing. Leander Kahney has the scoop for Wired. Now, Morgan says that he's used demo models for years, variously in CompUSA and in Apple Stores. But for years, his results have been held at arm's length by serious system benchmarkers.
Apple is actually going to start sending Morgan systems to test. It's not clear whether they did so in response to the article being published (it wouldn't be the first time Apple had changed course in similar circumstances), but they're going to do it. It'll be interesting to see what the results are, but I think the central thing to remember in this thesis is that neither Apple nor Morgan have a great deal of credibility as far as benchmarking goes.
My one criticism of the iMac G5 aesthetic. There's no glass in front of the LCD. It's bare plastic. Scratch. Scratch...blemish. Grrrrrrrr.
Thats just like complaining that the AR coating on CRTs doesnt have a piece of glass over it. Scratch the AR and the screen is pretty much screwed. Ive seen a few. Ive never seen a scratched LCD, although Im sure it happens. Ive seen broken ones tho.
At a more fundamental level, I dont want a bit of glass in my screen. I dont get a lot of choice about my monitor placement, and changing to LCD has significantly reduced the reflected glare I get off of my screen. It seems like a pretty easy third party addition, if there is any demand.
Ive got a 3.06GHz HT P4, 1GB ram, 128MB 9600SE and out of the box Doom3 runs unacceptable on the lowest setting, after updating the video drivers, and applying a 3rd party patch it runs OK on the 2nd to lowest setting(800x600). But then again, after installing that 3rd party patch, it randomly freezes
I've got a athlon 64 3500, 1 gb ram and a 6800GT, can run it smooth at 1600x1200 at almost the top setting (no one can really run the top ultra setting with good frame rates yet), no patches
btw Trent Reznor did not to the music for Doom3, one guy from NIN did one or two songs and then an in-house id guy did the soundtrack.
no matter how much you don't want to believe it, the imac just just too thin at this point to use a high-end GPU. the 9600 and 9800 are wayyyy too hot still. you HAVE to keep this in mind. its not a cost issue, its a space and heat issue. and putting a 2 or 2.5 ghz G5 in there?! rediculous at this point. the PM 2.5 needs, what... 8 fans? AND liquid cooling?! you think they could do it in a computer 2 inches thick? yeah right. you may as well write yourself a check for a 20-inch flaming piece of plastic and metal. i'm sorry, i'm really not up for that...
if the video card is REALLY that important, wait a few months, the first revision should kick some major PC ass
jaegermann: the weakest link in your PC looks like the 9600SE, which is actually significantly worse than the original 9600, 9600 Pro or 9600 XT. The difference is that the 9600 SE has 64bit wide RAM, rather than 128bit wide, making its performance severely VRAM bandwidth bound.
Comments
Originally posted by mattyj
Not surprising to be honest, Doom3 is essentially a glorified tech demo, it just failed to deliver the goods, it basically has next to no gameplay, it's too repetitive and predictable.
That's OK. With the exceptions of original Doom, Half-Life and AvP single player games, I've found FPS mods to be the real deal, instead of the "game" that is tacked on the engine. It seems Doom3 engine is really good (at least for smallish, closed environments), so now we just have to wait for the awesome mods that people will build on it.
My past favorites are Team Fortress (Quake), Gloom, ActionQuake (Quake2), Counterstrike (HL).
Regarding Visual fps:
Thirty frames per second is considered the minimum for comfortable viewing. Any game-player shouldn't have to compromise this figure. The basic specification of any PC or Mac should meet this and more.
Doom III is frame-rate capped at 60 fps. Any game-player wanting a system to be proud of, any manufacturer wanting a system for their users to be proud of, should offer a configuration option which aims for this.
PC users have the option of making compromises, or putting their well-earned money on the table and buying better - or the best.
Any manufacturer who does not offer a low-end, middle-end, and high-end series of options (for graphics) in this case, is essentially saying to their customers: Sorry, we don't want your money.
Good rules of Business:
- Give a customer what he wants, when he wants it.
- Make him pay for it.
- A satisfied customer, is a repeat customer.
Gone_Pearshaped.
Not for the first time, I fully agree with Gone_Pearshaped. (Who must be a PC user judging by his use of the 'footnote'...
Apple is giving us no choice in graphic card.
They aren't allowing us even the option to choose.
So, I couldn't be a satisified iMac G5 customer even if I wanted to buy it. Lustworthy though it is.
So, I agree, they are saying to me (a fair Apple Loyalist, it has to be said...though I just sold my shares for Studio Max...) that they don't want my business. Not only that, many thousands more will go, 'Nice...but where are my choices beyond a 20 inch screen..?'
Can I put a 2 gig cpu in there? What about 2.5?
Wintel laptops have 3 gig cpus in them in about the same thickness as the iMac.
Can I put in a better graphics card eg Nvidia 6600GT? (ie you can have any graphics card for the iMac G5 as long as it it is crap... Yeesh, 64 meg card for the playing off Doom 3. 'Stand out' performance? YOU gotta be kidding me...)
Go to Tom's hardware and check out the graphic cards comparison for a decent game of Doom 3.
The 'ultra' (heh, misnoma...) ranks alongside integrated crap that won't give a satisfactory game of Doom 3.
Shame. iMac G5 has got everyting going for it to be a great gaming Mac.
Stick 2-2.5 gig in it and a Nvidia GT 6600 or 6800 and I'd tear your arm off for one of them.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by macaddict74
Ok people, we all know the new G5 iMac's video card blows more chunks than a Pentium 4 trying to emulate Mac Os X however, it's the first revision!
Remember folks, the iMac has been balanced to meet a set of user needs at a price point. I can appreciate the needs that it meets, and I think that it is well balanced. Putting a better gpu in there ( at the cost of other components ) doesnt make sense. Gamers buy PCs, and games are written for PCs. The iMac isnt going to break the cycle, so putting in a card that few users will take advantage of isnt balanced.
The problem is that there is a $1200 gap in Apple's desktop lineup, between the 20" iMac and the Powermac with 20" monitor. I cant imagine Apple failing to plug that gap. Quite how they do it remains to be seen. But for all of you asking for a better gpu, it seems reasonable that it will fall into that bracket.
What about a cheap machine that can play games? Just look at the release schedules for the two platforms. PCs get more games than I can count. Few are ported to the Mac, and the Mac gets few originals ( which do not require hot graphics ).
While the gpu market remains so fast ( todays gpu is tomorrows paper weight ) Apple cannot make a move in the gaming market. However, this is going to change soon. GPUs have hit the limit of what is affordable. Current designs place such huge burdens on the rest of the machine ( heat, power requirements ) that they really represent the end of the road. GPUs are only going to advance at the rate of process enhancements, which themselves are getting harder and harder to make. In a couple of years Apple will be able to play in a market that has really slowed down. Perhaps other GPU manufacturers will be able to as well.
On the flip side, ATI is managing to put 9600 power into and integrated chipset solution. Very impressive.
Why the hell couldn't they put that in it..?
Shipping times.
So, why not in the next revision?
GPU doesn't have to be limited. If ATI is putting 9600 'power' into an integrated solution then Apple does have options for superior iMac graphics.
GPU blah in the lower two tiers. But in the high end?
64 megs of 'ultra'? SUCKS.
And iMac buyers are paying to suck hard on this one.
The iMac AIO could be a real awesome machine.
It aint THAT far away.
Ram you can sort.
But Apple need to increase the options on CPU and GPU.
They are artificially castrated.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
But Apple need to increase the options on CPU and GPU.
They are artificially castrated.
While I believe that Apple are more than happy to ruin otherwise good machines with artificial limitations ( USB 1, firewire 800, dual monitors, optical drives, narrow memory buses for video memory ) Im not sure that the iMac is limited for purely marketing reasons. To be precise, Id like to see some numbers ( perhaps from an enterprising iMac owner ) about how much heat they are putting out, and how much they can handle.
The iMac power supply is only 160[?] watts. It would be interesting to see if that is the limit due to cooling issues.
There are a couple of lessons that we would suggest Apple learns here. The first, Mr Jobs, is to stop being so darned frugal with systems, and let reviewers review your products. Publications are the route to market for your products, don't make life difficult for them.
As a relative newcomer, I've heard rumour Apple holds a tight leash on all things Apple-shaped. Is this true?
The second is to stop under-speccing your products - an FX5200 in a product costing over £1,000 is inexcusable and reeks of corner-cutting.
My point exactly in a previous post.
Lastly, stop trying to educate and spin at the same time. You may want your buyers to know all about Mac gaming, but you can't then stamp on real-world gaming testing that shows your products for what they really are. The answer is to create a machine that's better for gaming.
The Inquirer can be from left field from time to time, yet these comments struck me as insightful truths.
Originally posted by mmmpie
While I believe that Apple are more than happy to ruin otherwise good machines with artificial limitations ( USB 1, firewire 800, dual monitors, optical drives, narrow memory buses for video memory ) Im not sure that the iMac is limited for purely marketing reasons. To be precise, Id like to see some numbers ( perhaps from an enterprising iMac owner ) about how much heat they are putting out, and how much they can handle.
The iMac power supply is only 160[?] watts. It would be interesting to see if that is the limit due to cooling issues.
I don't buy "cooling issues". They could have, as Lemon Bon Bon suggested, put in a Mobility Radeon. If not the new 9800, then the 9700 - which is under my fingertips right now, but Powerbook's G4 is so slow the graphics card is of no use. An iMac would have sped up a *lot* with that card. If a laptop is able to manage the heat, a desktop is definitely capable of doing the same. And, if for some strange reason the GPU squeeze was about heat issues, this would prove the iMac chassis design bad.
Apple decided people don't need 3D games, period.
quote:
Lastly, stop trying to educate and spin at the same time. You may want your buyers to know all about Mac gaming, but you can't then stamp on real-world gaming testing that shows your products for what they really are. The answer is to create a machine that's better for gaming.
Yeah, Apple talks quality...and their machines are...so why skimp on ram and gpu? Ram you can sort. Stick 2 gig of ram in iMac G5 1.8 gig and you'll flatten most Wintel mainstream machines running Photoshop.
But...the gpu is non-upradeable. At least include a slot graphic card similar to the standard Nvidia is proposing for portables... Something that can be upgraded at the store or at home...
There seems little reason not to include an extra 256 megs of ram and a Radeon Mobility as included in the Powerbook.
It does stink of corner-cutting in an otherwise amazing design.
I know. I've touched both the 17 inch and 20 inch iMac G5s.
The back of the computer is stunning. All the points in a line. The fit, the bevel so subtle, the finish...sublime.
The screen bright and clear.
I played a game of Nanosaur 2 and the iMac G5 will hold up for casual gaming. But no way for Doom III is the ultra crap acceptable for playing said game in any shape or form. I'll take Tom's Hardware's opinion on this any day.
Apple skimped on the graphic card. It's pathetic to have the same graphic card in your low end machine in the high end machine. What is that all about?
Cost cutting. But in this instance, an extra £100 quid could have given the iMac G5 512 megs of ram and a decent graphics card. A 9600 could have done it. A 9700 mobility. A 9800 mobility. If they can fit in a Powerbook then a $16 ultrafxcrapthing is...derisory.
The iMac G5. A fine machine. It is fast. As fast as any 2 gig-ish Pentium 4. No doubt. It runs all apps fine. Rendering iMovie transitions is wayyyyyyyy faster than on my Wife's ibook G3 (and so it should BE!) Everything is fairly snappy. But the lack of ram chokes the top end machine.
Rev B. GPU. This could be the ultimate gamer's machine! And RAM! And up the cpu to 2-2.5 gig.
The thing is...cost-cutting aside...it wouldn't cost that much to make these machines look even better...
...just how much is 256 megs of ram?
...just how much is a decent GPU? (See the pending Nvidia 6600 GT, a fantastic and cheap mainstream card!)
My one criticism of the iMac G5 aesthetic. There's no glass in front of the LCD. It's bare plastic. Scratch. Scratch...blemish. Grrrrrrrr.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by macaddict74
however, it's the first revision! If you don't like the machine, don't buy it! Remember it will get better over time.
Thats just stupid! How about they put a 1 Mhz CPu in it? "Geez, its the first revision, it'll get better over time!" I dont want a machine that cant play the games that come out now! ;P
Ram and GPU on that machine screams 2002 - helllooo - 2004!!
Originally posted by Gon
Apple decided people don't need 3D games, period.
That's not how Apple's marketting guys see it. Check out Apple's own pages on iMac G5. Games get a BIG mention. They even specifically mention DOOM 3!
" NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB graphics memory. So you?ll be able to play World of Warcraft, Doom III and other fantastic entertainment. "
Amusing.
I'm one of those people who would love to buy an iMac G5. The thing is gorgeous but I won't spend that much money on a system with such a poor GPU.
All they need do is stick another BTO option in there. By all means keep costs down on the stock systems, but for those that want the power, give it to them. Radeon 9800 Mobility with 256Mb RAM would do fine.
Originally posted by Gone_Pearshaped
The Enquirer tells it how it is
As a relative newcomer, I've heard rumour Apple holds a tight leash on all things Apple-shaped. Is this true?
[...]
The Inquirer can be from left field from time to time, yet these comments struck me as insightful truths.
I haven't really heard about Apple being stingy, but what they're referring to in the last paragraph you quoted is the change in policy brought about by Rob Art Morgan's using store models for testing. Leander Kahney has the scoop for Wired. Now, Morgan says that he's used demo models for years, variously in CompUSA and in Apple Stores. But for years, his results have been held at arm's length by serious system benchmarkers.
Apple is actually going to start sending Morgan systems to test. It's not clear whether they did so in response to the article being published (it wouldn't be the first time Apple had changed course in similar circumstances), but they're going to do it. It'll be interesting to see what the results are, but I think the central thing to remember in this thesis is that neither Apple nor Morgan have a great deal of credibility as far as benchmarking goes.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
My one criticism of the iMac G5 aesthetic. There's no glass in front of the LCD. It's bare plastic. Scratch. Scratch...blemish. Grrrrrrrr.
Thats just like complaining that the AR coating on CRTs doesnt have a piece of glass over it. Scratch the AR and the screen is pretty much screwed. Ive seen a few. Ive never seen a scratched LCD, although Im sure it happens. Ive seen broken ones tho.
At a more fundamental level, I dont want a bit of glass in my screen. I dont get a lot of choice about my monitor placement, and changing to LCD has significantly reduced the reflected glare I get off of my screen. It seems like a pretty easy third party addition, if there is any demand.
Originally posted by jaegermann
Ive got a 3.06GHz HT P4, 1GB ram, 128MB 9600SE and out of the box Doom3 runs unacceptable on the lowest setting, after updating the video drivers, and applying a 3rd party patch it runs OK on the 2nd to lowest setting(800x600). But then again, after installing that 3rd party patch, it randomly freezes
I've got a athlon 64 3500, 1 gb ram and a 6800GT, can run it smooth at 1600x1200 at almost the top setting (no one can really run the top ultra setting with good frame rates yet), no patches
btw Trent Reznor did not to the music for Doom3, one guy from NIN did one or two songs and then an in-house id guy did the soundtrack.
if the video card is REALLY that important, wait a few months, the first revision should kick some major PC ass
I haven't really heard about Apple being stingy
?!
Ram and GPU are perfectly adequate.
No, I can't say it with a straight face...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by exhibit_13
if the video card is REALLY that important, wait a few months, the first revision should kick some major PC ass
Are you speaking with any knowledge of what is to come? Or just hoping for the best?
I hope you're right, I have money waiting.