and we get the Nvidia 6200 card - is this a monstrous upgrade from the 5200?
The 6200 is a faster card than the 5200. Here is a review. Check out the Doom 3 benchmark, showing that the 6200 is a much better performer in OpenGL, which is of interest for the Mac platform.
I won't be surprised if Apple announces a major event in the middle of March in which the iMacs gets a bump with GPU and .2 CPU, whilst they release tiger and welcome in the 2.8-3.0 G5 towers. The fact remains that the iMac is stuck where it is clockwise until the Powermac gets updated. There would be too much overlap otherwise.
And AFAICS, that review stated that the 6600 was much better for a bit more money.
True. Only problem is that the 6600 GT is so much better than the 5200 Ultra we have now in the iMacs, that Apple would never consider it for the next update in this year. We talk about more than 700% graphics performace increase in higher resolutions (OpenGL). Just not gonna happen.
True. Only problem is that the 6600 GT is so much better than the 5200 Ultra we have now in the iMacs, that Apple would never consider it for the next update in this year. We talk about more than 700% graphics performace increase in higher resolutions (OpenGL). Just not gonna happen.
Unfortunately it really doesnt make sense for Apple to sell the iMac without such a good graphics card.. At least in the high-end!
I would simply die to know why they still sell the iMac as underpowered..
Unfortunately it really doesnt make sense for Apple to sell the iMac without such a good graphics card.. At least in the high-end!
Indeed, that 20" monitor and the G5 processor are crying for a 6600 GT.
Quote:
I would simply die to know why they still sell the iMac as underpowered..
It is the Power Macs that hold back the iMacs. Even the dual 2GHz still comes with a 5200 Ultra in the standard configuration \ . Only the 2.5 GHz model has something better (Radeon 9600 XT).
Comments
Originally posted by steven413
and we get the Nvidia 6200 card - is this a monstrous upgrade from the 5200?
The 6200 is a faster card than the 5200. Here is a review. Check out the Doom 3 benchmark, showing that the 6200 is a much better performer in OpenGL, which is of interest for the Mac platform.
And AFAICS, that review stated that the 6600 was much better for a bit more money.
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
And AFAICS, that review stated that the 6600 was much better for a bit more money.
True. Only problem is that the 6600 GT is so much better than the 5200 Ultra we have now in the iMacs, that Apple would never consider it for the next update in this year. We talk about more than 700% graphics performace increase in higher resolutions (OpenGL). Just not gonna happen.
Originally posted by PB
True. Only problem is that the 6600 GT is so much better than the 5200 Ultra we have now in the iMacs, that Apple would never consider it for the next update in this year. We talk about more than 700% graphics performace increase in higher resolutions (OpenGL). Just not gonna happen.
Unfortunately it really doesnt make sense for Apple to sell the iMac without such a good graphics card.. At least in the high-end!
I would simply die to know why they still sell the iMac as underpowered..
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Unfortunately it really doesnt make sense for Apple to sell the iMac without such a good graphics card.. At least in the high-end!
Indeed, that 20" monitor and the G5 processor are crying for a 6600 GT.
I would simply die to know why they still sell the iMac as underpowered..
It is the Power Macs that hold back the iMacs. Even the dual 2GHz still comes with a 5200 Ultra in the standard configuration \ . Only the 2.5 GHz model has something better (Radeon 9600 XT).
I can´t think of a different reason...
(Although I tend to think different )