So if I put my TiBook 400/ATI Rage 8MB on ebay and say it'll run UT at 50 fps, that's marketing?
No, of course they won't say the GPU sucks, but they go too far in the opposite direction. I played around with a 1.8 Ghz iMac yesterday, and it was stuttering /badly/ on Nanosaur 2 - hardly the pinnacle of demanding games! And about as far from an "unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience" as you could imagine.
Check Pangea's site.Nanasaur2 needs a minimum of 512 to play.They say it will play with as little as 384 but would be choppy.With 256 forget it.I tried it on a duel 2 ghz tower with 256.No way!
Check Pangea's site.Nanasaur2 needs a minimum of 512 to play.They say it will play with as little as 384 but would be choppy.With 256 forget it.I tried it on a duel 2 ghz tower with 256.No way!
Im glad you said that! I tried out a stock 1.8 Ghz iMac at an Apple reseller yesterday - I tried Nanosaur as it was the only game installed. It ran 'okay' at higest resolution, but it was a bit jerky at times, and it did have an occational 'jump' in framerates!
I was ready to buy an iMac G5 until I read which GPU it had.
To all you non gamers, I have a Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb in my PC, and it isn't quick enough. Running at my monitor's native res (1680x1050) Doom 3 and Far Cry both struggle. Half Life 2 runs okay as long as I turn anti-aliasing off.
So I'm swapping out my 9800 for an X800 XT PE soon. I'm only running a Shuttle XPC with an old P4 3ghz, but I can still upgrade the thing as more demanding games come along.
And yes I have lots of game consoles and enjoy the games they offer, but a PC offers it's own gaming experiences. iMac should be able to do the same, but it's GPU is crippling it.
Had the thing had a 9800 Pro at launch, I may well have been upset now that I couldn't upgrade it, but I would be a Mac owner now buying Apple products. Instead I am still with Windows and still waiting for Apple to offer a home PC with a decent GPU.
Had the thing had a 9800 Pro at launch, I may well have been upset now that I couldn't upgrade it, but I would be a Mac owner now buying Apple products. Instead I am still with Windows and still waiting for Apple to offer a home PC with a decent GPU.
It's very, very doubtful that the iMac will ever have anything but the budget video chipset of a given generation; Apple doesn't position it as a gamer box, and there are likely technical challenges as well (such as heat generation and power requirements).
The most we'll likely get out of the forthcoming iMac update is a 128 MB GeForce 6200; that's a lot better than a 64 MB FX 5200, of course, but it's still not particularly fast.
What Apple should really focus on for people like you is making the $1499 PowerMac a better buy, such as through giving it dual processors and 512 MB of RAM out of the box. That way, you get a truly performance-oriented system. You can also use the money you save over the 20" iMac towards a nice CRT (or even an LCD), and won't have to sell the entire computer just to get better video performance a year or two later.
It's very, very doubtful that the iMac will ever have anything but the budget video chipset of a given generation; Apple doesn't position it as a gamer box, and there are likely technical challenges as well (such as heat generation and power requirements).
The most we'll likely get out of the forthcoming iMac update is a 128 MB GeForce 6200; that's a lot better than a 64 MB FX 5200, of course, but it's still not particularly fast.
What Apple should really focus on for people like you is making the $1499 PowerMac a better buy, such as through giving it dual processors and 512 MB of RAM out of the box. That way, you get a truly performance-oriented system. You can also use the money you save over the 20" iMac towards a nice CRT (or even an LCD), and won't have to sell the entire computer just to get better video performance a year or two later.
Im pretty sure the Powermac will get 512 Mb across the line, since the powerbooks are there now.
And I still dont think it makes sense not to give the top end iMac a better graphics card. A gamer would still get the powermac, and the iMac would get a slightly better reputation!
And I still dont think it makes sense not to give the top end iMac a better graphics card.
Certainly it does not make sense, especially in the high end 20" iMac. Knowing Apple, we should be happy if we see a 128 MB Geforce 6200 option in the next update. A 6600 GT would be godsend.
Without having the intention to resurrect again the iMac graphics chip debate, I would like to make another point, perhaps already made by someone else: seeing Apple making explicit parallelism between the iPod and iMac G5 designs, it becomes clear that the target age group of the iMac is largely young people, having probably already an iPod. Now the problem is that this is exactly the age group that plays mostly games. Too bad the iMac is crippled in the graphics performance department.
It is a bit too easy to just come up with that " just buy a powermac" . . . . .
Quite.
I have looked at Powermacs, but the prices are silly and the system itself is far too bulky for my purposes. I want something compact, but powerful.
My Shuttle XPC is both of those things. Single CPU but that's fine, games rarely use dual CPUs anyway and I wouldn't notice the difference when doing other tasks.
All Apple need to do is add some BTO options for quicker GPUs in the iMac. Keep the entry level as the 5200, then add a 9800 mid range chip with 128mb RAM, and an X800 XT with 256mb as a high end option.
Cooling would take some magic, but Shuttle can do it and they have a fraction of the budget and resources Apple do. More importantly it would take a shift in attitudes at Apple, and that is proving to be a considerably tougher challenge.
Quite possible, since it is the new iPods that are coming tomorrow, not the iMac.
iMac G5: From the creators of the iPod.
think about it.
its more likely apple will boost iMac G5 sales and reorganize the entire line of iPods at the same time. imagine if they update and switch around every iPod tmrw...then the iPods will be revised the same time for a while. isnt that better marketing? consumers will have the choice of any NEW iPod. no more "damn they made new iPods and i just bought one last week". a PC- switcher walks into an apple store and comes across a line of fresh or equivalent iPods with different features. they pick one to their liking and right next door theres a line of refreshed iMacs. "Hey, btw, we just got in new imacs, theyve been selling like mad." the consumer walks out with a new iPod and iMac.
good things usually come in pairs.
not to mention the manufacturing benefits. apple could put together multiple factories that produce different iPod models for the same timeframe. when a refresh period occurs every half a year or so, the factories incorporate technology for the new features. and there will be no lull in supply, since everything will be equally available or proportioned to monthly sales analyses.
so dont shoot down my idea... its economical and extremely beneficent to the company...
so in my opinion: iMac G5s and new line of refreshed iPods tmrw...
I just cannot remember when was the last time that Apple updated the same day two product lines...
i can probably think of an instance but im not going to... but then again, everyone knows apple is anything but predictable. if it doesnt happen u can laugh in my face, but its my idea. if apple doesnt end up doing something like that soon then theyre going to lose ground...consumers are evolving, theyre beginning to distinguish between old products that will be updated and new products. theyre not just buying products because they need them anymore.
Certainly it does not make sense, especially in the high end 20" iMac. Knowing Apple, we should be happy if we see a 128 MB Geforce 6200 option in the next update. A 6600 GT would be godsend.
Exactly. Not everyone needs überRadeonX800p0w4! Nor 3 PCI ports... (Who use them anyway now?)
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
I just cannot remember when was the last time that Apple updated the same day two product lines...
eMac (USB 2.0) and iBook 1.0/1.25 in April '04.
Quote:
Originally posted by ineedag5pbnow
the ache in my right ankle is telling me rev b iMac tmrw...i need some tylenol...
If you are right, I'll marry your ankle and put the proof of it in my sig!
Exactly. Not everyone needs überRadeonX800p0w4! Nor 3 PCI ports... (Who use them anyway now?)
Most people have no use for PCI slots, but an X800 would do nicely!
Do not fear graphics power, who could resist running Doom 3, Half Life 2, or Far Cry at native W/S resolution at 60fps+ with detail on max and anti-aliasing!
Most people have no use for PCI slots, but an X800 would do nicely!
Do not fear graphics power, who could resist running Doom 3, Half Life 2, or Far Cry at native W/S resolution at 60fps+ with detail on max and anti-aliasing!
Theres a difference between 'need' and 'could use'...
Certainly it does not make sense, especially in the high end 20" iMac. Knowing Apple, we should be happy if we see a 128 MB Geforce 6200 option in the next update. A 6600 GT would be godsend.
Without having the intention to resurrect again the iMac graphics chip debate, I would like to make another point, perhaps already made by someone else: seeing Apple making explicit parallelism between the iPod and iMac G5 designs, it becomes clear that the target age group of the iMac is largely young people, having probably already an iPod. Now the problem is that this is exactly the age group that plays mostly games. Too bad the iMac is crippled in the graphics performance department.
While I would love to see a faster GPU in the iMac, I personally think the fact that the 5200 boards are the only nVidia based GFX cards available which features passive cooling is kinda interesting. If you go any bigger, they start to consume a extreme amount of power (which is why they feature external power connectors) and ofcourse a lot of heat is generated.
I don't think the iMac design could easily handle this extra heat, maybe one of their mobile editions would be possible (like 6200 go).
Comments
Originally posted by jouster
So if I put my TiBook 400/ATI Rage 8MB on ebay and say it'll run UT at 50 fps, that's marketing?
No, of course they won't say the GPU sucks, but they go too far in the opposite direction. I played around with a 1.8 Ghz iMac yesterday, and it was stuttering /badly/ on Nanosaur 2 - hardly the pinnacle of demanding games! And about as far from an "unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance and an immersive, photorealistic gaming experience" as you could imagine.
Check Pangea's site.Nanasaur2 needs a minimum of 512 to play.They say it will play with as little as 384 but would be choppy.With 256 forget it.I tried it on a duel 2 ghz tower with 256.No way!
Originally posted by cuneglasus
Check Pangea's site.Nanasaur2 needs a minimum of 512 to play.They say it will play with as little as 384 but would be choppy.With 256 forget it.I tried it on a duel 2 ghz tower with 256.No way!
Im glad you said that! I tried out a stock 1.8 Ghz iMac at an Apple reseller yesterday - I tried Nanosaur as it was the only game installed. It ran 'okay' at higest resolution, but it was a bit jerky at times, and it did have an occational 'jump' in framerates!
756 Mb should do the trick...
To all you non gamers, I have a Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb in my PC, and it isn't quick enough. Running at my monitor's native res (1680x1050) Doom 3 and Far Cry both struggle. Half Life 2 runs okay as long as I turn anti-aliasing off.
So I'm swapping out my 9800 for an X800 XT PE soon. I'm only running a Shuttle XPC with an old P4 3ghz, but I can still upgrade the thing as more demanding games come along.
And yes I have lots of game consoles and enjoy the games they offer, but a PC offers it's own gaming experiences. iMac should be able to do the same, but it's GPU is crippling it.
Had the thing had a 9800 Pro at launch, I may well have been upset now that I couldn't upgrade it, but I would be a Mac owner now buying Apple products. Instead I am still with Windows and still waiting for Apple to offer a home PC with a decent GPU.
Originally posted by kotatsu
Had the thing had a 9800 Pro at launch, I may well have been upset now that I couldn't upgrade it, but I would be a Mac owner now buying Apple products. Instead I am still with Windows and still waiting for Apple to offer a home PC with a decent GPU.
It's very, very doubtful that the iMac will ever have anything but the budget video chipset of a given generation; Apple doesn't position it as a gamer box, and there are likely technical challenges as well (such as heat generation and power requirements).
The most we'll likely get out of the forthcoming iMac update is a 128 MB GeForce 6200; that's a lot better than a 64 MB FX 5200, of course, but it's still not particularly fast.
What Apple should really focus on for people like you is making the $1499 PowerMac a better buy, such as through giving it dual processors and 512 MB of RAM out of the box. That way, you get a truly performance-oriented system. You can also use the money you save over the 20" iMac towards a nice CRT (or even an LCD), and won't have to sell the entire computer just to get better video performance a year or two later.
Originally posted by Commodus
It's very, very doubtful that the iMac will ever have anything but the budget video chipset of a given generation; Apple doesn't position it as a gamer box, and there are likely technical challenges as well (such as heat generation and power requirements).
The most we'll likely get out of the forthcoming iMac update is a 128 MB GeForce 6200; that's a lot better than a 64 MB FX 5200, of course, but it's still not particularly fast.
What Apple should really focus on for people like you is making the $1499 PowerMac a better buy, such as through giving it dual processors and 512 MB of RAM out of the box. That way, you get a truly performance-oriented system. You can also use the money you save over the 20" iMac towards a nice CRT (or even an LCD), and won't have to sell the entire computer just to get better video performance a year or two later.
Im pretty sure the Powermac will get 512 Mb across the line, since the powerbooks are there now.
And I still dont think it makes sense not to give the top end iMac a better graphics card. A gamer would still get the powermac, and the iMac would get a slightly better reputation!
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
And I still dont think it makes sense not to give the top end iMac a better graphics card.
Certainly it does not make sense, especially in the high end 20" iMac. Knowing Apple, we should be happy if we see a 128 MB Geforce 6200 option in the next update. A 6600 GT would be godsend.
Without having the intention to resurrect again the iMac graphics chip debate, I would like to make another point, perhaps already made by someone else: seeing Apple making explicit parallelism between the iPod and iMac G5 designs, it becomes clear that the target age group of the iMac is largely young people, having probably already an iPod. Now the problem is that this is exactly the age group that plays mostly games. Too bad the iMac is crippled in the graphics performance department.
You want a new gaming system with a lcd screen. Very few people can justify that amount of money you have to put into it, just for gaming.
The iMac should be a "middle of the road" gaming-machine. And honestly, I don´t believe it would take that much of an effort for Apple to do it.
Zon
Originally posted by ineedag5pbnow
the ache in my right ankle is telling me rev b iMac tmrw...i need some tylenol...
Quite possible, since it is the new iPods that are coming tomorrow, not the iMac.
Originally posted by zenarcade
It is a bit too easy to just come up with that " just buy a powermac" . . . . .
Quite.
I have looked at Powermacs, but the prices are silly and the system itself is far too bulky for my purposes. I want something compact, but powerful.
My Shuttle XPC is both of those things. Single CPU but that's fine, games rarely use dual CPUs anyway and I wouldn't notice the difference when doing other tasks.
All Apple need to do is add some BTO options for quicker GPUs in the iMac. Keep the entry level as the 5200, then add a 9800 mid range chip with 128mb RAM, and an X800 XT with 256mb as a high end option.
Cooling would take some magic, but Shuttle can do it and they have a fraction of the budget and resources Apple do. More importantly it would take a shift in attitudes at Apple, and that is proving to be a considerably tougher challenge.
Originally posted by PB
Quite possible, since it is the new iPods that are coming tomorrow, not the iMac.
iMac G5: From the creators of the iPod.
think about it.
its more likely apple will boost iMac G5 sales and reorganize the entire line of iPods at the same time. imagine if they update and switch around every iPod tmrw...then the iPods will be revised the same time for a while. isnt that better marketing? consumers will have the choice of any NEW iPod. no more "damn they made new iPods and i just bought one last week". a PC- switcher walks into an apple store and comes across a line of fresh or equivalent iPods with different features. they pick one to their liking and right next door theres a line of refreshed iMacs. "Hey, btw, we just got in new imacs, theyve been selling like mad." the consumer walks out with a new iPod and iMac.
good things usually come in pairs.
not to mention the manufacturing benefits. apple could put together multiple factories that produce different iPod models for the same timeframe. when a refresh period occurs every half a year or so, the factories incorporate technology for the new features. and there will be no lull in supply, since everything will be equally available or proportioned to monthly sales analyses.
so dont shoot down my idea... its economical and extremely beneficent to the company...
so in my opinion: iMac G5s and new line of refreshed iPods tmrw...
Originally posted by ineedag5pbnow
so dont shoot down my idea... its economical and extremely beneficent to the company...
so in my opinion: iMac G5s and new line of refreshed iPods tmrw...
I just cannot remember when was the last time that Apple updated the same day two product lines...
Originally posted by PB
I just cannot remember when was the last time that Apple updated the same day two product lines...
i can probably think of an instance but im not going to... but then again, everyone knows apple is anything but predictable. if it doesnt happen u can laugh in my face, but its my idea. if apple doesnt end up doing something like that soon then theyre going to lose ground...consumers are evolving, theyre beginning to distinguish between old products that will be updated and new products. theyre not just buying products because they need them anymore.
Originally posted by PB
Certainly it does not make sense, especially in the high end 20" iMac. Knowing Apple, we should be happy if we see a 128 MB Geforce 6200 option in the next update. A 6600 GT would be godsend.
Exactly. Not everyone needs überRadeonX800p0w4! Nor 3 PCI ports... (Who use them anyway now?)
Originally posted by PB
I just cannot remember when was the last time that Apple updated the same day two product lines...
eMac (USB 2.0) and iBook 1.0/1.25 in April '04.
Originally posted by ineedag5pbnow
the ache in my right ankle is telling me rev b iMac tmrw...i need some tylenol...
If you are right, I'll marry your ankle and put the proof of it in my sig!
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Exactly. Not everyone needs überRadeonX800p0w4! Nor 3 PCI ports... (Who use them anyway now?)
Most people have no use for PCI slots, but an X800 would do nicely!
Do not fear graphics power, who could resist running Doom 3, Half Life 2, or Far Cry at native W/S resolution at 60fps+ with detail on max and anti-aliasing!
Originally posted by kotatsu
Most people have no use for PCI slots, but an X800 would do nicely!
Do not fear graphics power, who could resist running Doom 3, Half Life 2, or Far Cry at native W/S resolution at 60fps+ with detail on max and anti-aliasing!
Theres a difference between 'need' and 'could use'...
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Theres a difference between 'need' and 'could use'...
Well yes, but none of us needs to play games. But we do because it's fun!
I know Doom 3 is less fun on my Radeon 9800 Pro than it would be on an X800, as the frame rate renders it unplayable when things get busy.
How about some percentages,
ill go first,
ipod updates = 90%
iMac updates = 75%
what do you think?
trout
Originally posted by trout
Still wondering how Apple will announce updates? Do they release a statement, or do they just do it.
How about some percentages,
ill go first,
ipod updates = 90%
iMac updates = 75%
what do you think?
trout
ipod updates: 99.998%- unless apple hates ai revealed the 8:30 announcement time tmrw morning and then changes the updates...
imac updates: 90%- only because i have hope....
Originally posted by PB
Certainly it does not make sense, especially in the high end 20" iMac. Knowing Apple, we should be happy if we see a 128 MB Geforce 6200 option in the next update. A 6600 GT would be godsend.
Without having the intention to resurrect again the iMac graphics chip debate, I would like to make another point, perhaps already made by someone else: seeing Apple making explicit parallelism between the iPod and iMac G5 designs, it becomes clear that the target age group of the iMac is largely young people, having probably already an iPod. Now the problem is that this is exactly the age group that plays mostly games. Too bad the iMac is crippled in the graphics performance department.
While I would love to see a faster GPU in the iMac, I personally think the fact that the 5200 boards are the only nVidia based GFX cards available which features passive cooling is kinda interesting. If you go any bigger, they start to consume a extreme amount of power (which is why they feature external power connectors) and ofcourse a lot of heat is generated.
I don't think the iMac design could easily handle this extra heat, maybe one of their mobile editions would be possible (like 6200 go).