While the loss of variety is unfortunate, I really don't see an $80 difference in price being a show-stopper when one is going to spend $4k US on hardware and software.
As I said in another thread, to you, with educational discount, you can get a mac pro stock for $2,300.
$80 is a lot of money for some of us.
For instance, I'm not going to buy a new video card for my mac pro until they come down in price.
It's .034789 % of the purchase price or less than a nice weekend (or less) of partying.
That's 3.4%, not .034%. I sill have a hard time believing a person would jump onboard buying the most expensive Mac offered and then fussing over the cost the cheapest add-on offered for it. Sure, a Mac Pro is nice, but if $80 is such a dire no-go problem then I would suggest that the other $2300 probably shouldn't have been spent in the first place.
I went through college too, and generally didn't spend more than $1000 on a computer.
That's 3.4%, not .034%. I sill have a hard time believing a person would jump onboard buying the most expensive Mac offered and then fussing over the cost the cheapest add-on offered for it. Sure, a Mac Pro is nice, but if $80 is such a dire problem then I would suggest that the other $2300 probably shouldn't have been spent in the first place.
I went through college too, and generally didn't spend more than $1000 on a computer.
I have to agree with JeffDM. Slughead, why are you getting a Mac Pro anyways?? And what sort of graphics card would you really need?? Are you playing PC Games? Since you are obviously (I'm not being sarcastic) well versed in PC build tech, just make your own solid highly affordable gaming rig with a 7600GT or 7900GT, sorted. Otherwise, um... Mac mini for Macness and PS2 for gaming. Hell you probably got some nice Asus motherboards and other "for testing" stuff lying around. And maybe graphics cards to "test" the SLI'ed 7900GTX's on mobos as well???
Let's see.. they're based on UNIX which is that old.. wait, but you say all old technology is bad... how can we turn this around in Apple's favor..
Yeah, old is bad... Unless it's good. Like Unix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slughead
You're also wrong about 'convoluted boot menus' being a product of BIOS. Yes, it's text based, but they could have volume labels and drive types if they wanted to.
VGA or EGA* text is bad, evil, and wrong.
*What exactly is the resolution for most text BIOS screens?? It's certainly less than XGA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slughead
I saw an HP laptop the other day which gathered the volume labels and gave you a list of valid boot partitions (not just drives!) ...And last time I checked, NTFS boot volumes are all labeled "WINDOWS" in the option menu.. OMG COUNTER INTUITIVE! It's amazing, if I had 2 windows partitions, I'd have a better chance of knowing which is which on *gasp* A PC!
Is that still a TEXT based selection screen to choose the partitions? I'm confused here. If you had 2 windows partitions and both are labelled WINDOWS, how would I know which to choose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by slughead
Oh no! 256 colors! 640x480! Cry me a river...A 3rd option would be to have the motherboard detect the ROM on the card and see if it supports full color boot menus or not. If so, use purdy icons, if not, use text. BIOS itself may not be necessary, but neither is the 128kbyte ROMs on all the Apple video cards just to show some full-color boot menu.
You'll probably be able to tell us the percentage of pretty full-color boot/ setup menus for PC mobos - less than 1% of mobos on the market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by slughead
And say what you want about 'pc's and their decades-old 'BIOS', if you put a 6800 Ultra FOR MAC into a G5 without the driver installed, you'll get a kernel panic on bootup! So great! we get full color graphics! ... unless the driver isn't installed, in which case we get pwn[d].... Apple to graphics cards: "My precioussss.."
Actually I was going to say something really intelligent here but the Lord of the Rings reference kinda threw me.... rock and pool is nice and cool, so juicy sweet. our only wish to catch a fish so juicy sweet! [homer]mmmm..... raw fish.....[/homer] [actual homer line]Dammit! FUGU me! [/homer]
I hope so! But as long as you can't buy the 1900xt you just can't know..
If it coasts in 4 weeks as much as it does now, it'll be much more expensive as its pc-counterparts (still affordable though).
What I wanted to say is that I don't see a reason at all to spend more for a graphic-card just because apple wants a higher margin, but whats far more worse is the limited choice we have!
I prefer using old stuff that still works. It's my way of fighting elitism with more elitism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
VGA or EGA* text is bad, evil, and wrong.
*What exactly is the resolution for most text BIOS screens?? It's certainly less than XGA.
640?
Truth be told, scholars lost that information centuries ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
Is that still a TEXT based selection screen to choose the partitions? I'm confused here. If you had 2 windows partitions and both are labelled WINDOWS, how would I know which to choose?
Size of the partition, location on the bus, maybe even a volume label (something other than 'windows'--drive letter, for instance).
Yes, it's all text based. The obvious reason for this is that you need a driver to get most resolutions over 640, or you need Apple's modified video card ROM chips.
The ONLY reason to have this ROM is to have full color and full resolution before the OS loads. This is why mac pro users who use 64kbyte-ROM video cards get a black screen until windows starts loading. I, for one, care much more about having standard video cards than having a full color 'boot selection screen'.
Ideally, they'd let users have their choice--have an auto detection scheme in the firmware which switches from full-color to text boot menu depending on what kind of video card you're using as your primary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
You'll probably be able to tell us the percentage of pretty full-color boot/ setup menus for PC mobos - less than 1% of mobos on the market?
I've never seen a 'full color' setup menu apart from in Apple products, likely because with 64kbyte ROMS, video cards don't do many colors before the OS loads so nobody even bothered. I'm not sure if I implied I had. I hope not.
edit: sorry about the typos, one of my eyes is screwy today
I have to agree with JeffDM. Slughead, why are you getting a Mac Pro anyways?? And what sort of graphics card would you really need?? Are you playing PC Games? Since you are obviously (I'm not being sarcastic) well versed in PC build tech, just make your own solid highly affordable gaming rig with a 7600GT or 7900GT, sorted. Otherwise, um... Mac mini for Macness and PS2 for gaming. Hell you probably got some nice Asus motherboards and other "for testing" stuff lying around. And maybe graphics cards to "test" the SLI'ed 7900GTX's on mobos as well???
1) I got a mac pro for the following reasons (in no particular order):
- to replace my aging PC, which I use for gaming and internet explorer (I'm a web developer).
- I do a lot of video and audio editing -freelance, in my spare time; so I need a mac with some power
- I had an opportunity to sell my DP 2.5 Ghz for an inordinately high price to a 'need it now!' kind of person.
- For reasons unknown, I had a $500 surplus in my savings account.
- $500 + Sale of my PC + Sale of G5 = Mac pro!
- Studio apartment means I'd like as few towers as possible.
- It's a huge productivity boost--to run internet explorer in parallels instead of using a KVM
- Since I do case mods to my macs and add 3rd party components whenever possible, iMacs and Mac Minis are worthless to me. I've already filled up all 4 hard drive bays of this thing, and when I get my new video card (whatever that ends up being), I'll be usign two video cards at once to power a total of 3 monitors (2 + a TV).
- It's got FOUR FREAKIN PROCESSORS IN IT! How could I resist?
2) I need a $250-300 range video card to bring this thing up to par the PC which it replaces, and a RAM upgrade because I'll be running 2 OS's simultaneously when doing web development.
Yeah, it's true, I didn't need a mac pro, but this is going to be my only opportunity to buy or even upgrade my machine(s) to any significant degree for probably another 3 or 4 years (and I'll probably be in grad school so the money would probably go toward migraine medication and coffee).
I'm not one to get reamed on the details. $80 extra for RAM, $100 extra for a video card = a whole gigabyte of extra RAM, or four months worth of laundry tokens.
nVidia 7600GT now available as BTO option on iMac. THERE ARE OS X drivers for 7600GT. Anybody figure out yet/ going to figure out how to get a stock/ OEM 7600GT to work in the Mac Pro?
YES. 7600GT 256mb RAM. The line-up for graphics cards has NEVER looked better on Macs. EVER.
The 7600GT still won't work in the Mac Pro because of EFI. It may make it easier for Apple to add the 7600GT as a BTO option now that they've set the drivers in place (then again, the difference between 7300 and 7600 drivers can't be enormous since the 7300 is just a neutered 7900)
The 7600GT still won't work in the Mac Pro because of EFI. It may make it easier for Apple to add the 7600GT as a BTO option now that they've set the drivers in place (then again, the difference between 7300 and 7600 drivers can't be enormous since the 7300 is just a neutered 7900)
<nitpick>
Strangedogs.com says that it may work, the problem not being with EFI but with the onboard ROM (which is used as a driver for the card until the OS loads)..
Someone, who sounded very smart, said that most modern video cards will work in EFI, but that does not mean they'll work with the Mac Pro, being as how Apple requires a special ROM to show the on-screen boot menu.
This is why OS X can sometimes view a video card in the system profiler (as mentioned in some reports) but will not make use of it.
HOWEVAH! If an OS X driver is introduced for ANY PC video card with EFI capability, it's very possible that OS X could run the card, but the pre-OS video would remain 'black', and therefore the boot menu (which shows up when you hold option) would be unviewable on that card.
If that's the case.. well I'ma gettin one! Screw the boot menu!
I really can't give the results benchmarking sites much weight here because they usually test on Windows. OS X is a different beast and the results may be very different depending on circumstances. The most direct comparisons I do find showed significantly different results depending on the test material.
Quote:
or you could do what I do and look at prior posts by the people and determine who's smarter.
Intelligent people can and do get things wrong sometimes, especially if they let their biases get in the way. I am willing to give Sunilraman a strong benefit of the doubt because Sunil casts a very wide net for information gathering.
Intelligent people can and do get things wrong sometimes, especially if they let their biases get in the way. I am willing to give Sunilraman a strong benefit of the doubt because Sunil casts a very wide net for information gathering.
I was joking. Good call on Sunilraman, though. I think he taught my quantum mechanics class.
I was joking. Good call on Sunilraman, though. I think he taught my quantum mechanics class.
One day y'all gonna find out I'm just a big fraud. Heh, thanks anyway for now.
1. JeffDM is right in that we only have more info on the Windoze benchmarking side to go on. But realistically, if one is arguing about graphic card power it's more related to playing PC games in Bootcamp Windoze. I think for OS X, it's a bit of a weird area because you can do quite a lot without having to have a really kickass graphics card. But anyways, in OS X:
This compares the X1600 PRO vs 7300GT. The 7300GT comes up okay to some degree:
"Having all that said, it is safe to say the X1600 Pro is a superior product in terms of performance, even if overclocking is on the agenda. For about $10-15 extra, the X1600 Pro should be a worthwhile investment versus the GeForce 7300GT, that is without taking merit from NVIDIA's product which is a very solid one....The particular 7300GT board we tested here offered a nice advantage of using a passive cooling unit versus the Radeon's standard HSF. This is something you may want to take into account, and while it is a much more common feature seen in GeForces than Radeons of this range, there are also (very few) offerings of Radeon X1600 Pro cards using a passive cooling design."
4. I can't find in a short time space a decent X1600_normal vs 7300GT, only X1600 pro. With Apple's benchmarks, it makes sense that the 7300GT leads the X1600_normal, if you read the review above Doom3 and Quake4 favour the 7300GT quite strongly over the X1600 pro.
5. Given the difference between The X1600 and X1600 Pro, it is safe to say that 7300GT has an edge overall over the X1600_normal, from this preliminary data presented here. I think realistically in PC gaming under Bootcamp Windows it can swing from side to side depending on the game, your AA and AF settings, and the resolution you're playing at. It has to be mentioned though that the nVidia 7-series architecture is pretty good, so the 7300GT, despite being a lower-end 7-series, has a good heritage. I am not able to trawl the 3Dmark05/06 online result database at this stage. In any case, that method is quite hit-and-miss, since people enter results at a wide range of clockspeeds, and the X1600 is underclocked in the iMac. What is the clockspeed of the 7300GT in the iMac? Is it underclocked as well? Hmm...
6. Overall, let's take Apple's comments with a grain of salt and still give the 7300GT a nudge over the X1600_normal... Up to 60%, not all the time. Probably 20-40% average gain.
"And, talk about performance, graphics on the 24-inch iMac are powered by the NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT, which delivers up to 60% performance increase over the 20-inch model. It comes with 128MB of GDDR3 SDRAM and offers great games performance and sensational response for video and photo editing"
5. Thus it is safe to say that 7300GT may have a slight edge overall over the X1600_normal, from this preliminary data presented here.
On a Mac, NVidia cards are usually better as they are more OpenGL oriented. The Doom III and Quake 4 tests were probably chosen because those are both highly OpenGL games (as opposed to directX--where ATI takes the cake).
Comments
While the loss of variety is unfortunate, I really don't see an $80 difference in price being a show-stopper when one is going to spend $4k US on hardware and software.
As I said in another thread, to you, with educational discount, you can get a mac pro stock for $2,300.
$80 is a lot of money for some of us.
For instance, I'm not going to buy a new video card for my mac pro until they come down in price.
As I said in another thread, to you, with educational discount, you can get a mac pro stock for $2,300.
$80 is a lot of money for some of us.
For instance, I'm not going to buy a new video card for my mac pro until they come down in price.
It's .034789 % of the purchase price or less than a nice weekend (or less) of partying.
It's .034789 % of the purchase price or less than a nice weekend (or less) of partying.
That's 3.4%, not .034%. I sill have a hard time believing a person would jump onboard buying the most expensive Mac offered and then fussing over the cost the cheapest add-on offered for it. Sure, a Mac Pro is nice, but if $80 is such a dire no-go problem then I would suggest that the other $2300 probably shouldn't have been spent in the first place.
I went through college too, and generally didn't spend more than $1000 on a computer.
That's 3.4%, not .034%. I sill have a hard time believing a person would jump onboard buying the most expensive Mac offered and then fussing over the cost the cheapest add-on offered for it. Sure, a Mac Pro is nice, but if $80 is such a dire problem then I would suggest that the other $2300 probably shouldn't have been spent in the first place.
I went through college too, and generally didn't spend more than $1000 on a computer.
I have to agree with JeffDM. Slughead, why are you getting a Mac Pro anyways?? And what sort of graphics card would you really need?? Are you playing PC Games? Since you are obviously (I'm not being sarcastic) well versed in PC build tech, just make your own solid highly affordable gaming rig with a 7600GT or 7900GT, sorted. Otherwise, um... Mac mini for Macness and PS2 for gaming. Hell you probably got some nice Asus motherboards and other "for testing" stuff lying around. And maybe graphics cards to "test" the SLI'ed 7900GTX's on mobos as well???
Let's see.. they're based on UNIX which is that old.. wait, but you say all old technology is bad... how can we turn this around in Apple's favor..
Yeah, old is bad... Unless it's good. Like Unix.
You're also wrong about 'convoluted boot menus' being a product of BIOS. Yes, it's text based, but they could have volume labels and drive types if they wanted to.
VGA or EGA* text is bad, evil, and wrong.
*What exactly is the resolution for most text BIOS screens?? It's certainly less than XGA.
I saw an HP laptop the other day which gathered the volume labels and gave you a list of valid boot partitions (not just drives!) ...And last time I checked, NTFS boot volumes are all labeled "WINDOWS" in the option menu.. OMG COUNTER INTUITIVE! It's amazing, if I had 2 windows partitions, I'd have a better chance of knowing which is which on *gasp* A PC!
Is that still a TEXT based selection screen to choose the partitions? I'm confused here. If you had 2 windows partitions and both are labelled WINDOWS, how would I know which to choose?
Oh no! 256 colors! 640x480! Cry me a river...A 3rd option would be to have the motherboard detect the ROM on the card and see if it supports full color boot menus or not. If so, use purdy icons, if not, use text. BIOS itself may not be necessary, but neither is the 128kbyte ROMs on all the Apple video cards just to show some full-color boot menu.
You'll probably be able to tell us the percentage of pretty full-color boot/ setup menus for PC mobos - less than 1% of mobos on the market?
And say what you want about 'pc's and their decades-old 'BIOS', if you put a 6800 Ultra FOR MAC into a G5 without the driver installed, you'll get a kernel panic on bootup! So great! we get full color graphics! ... unless the driver isn't installed, in which case we get pwn[d].... Apple to graphics cards: "My precioussss.."
Actually I was going to say something really intelligent here but the Lord of the Rings reference kinda threw me.... rock and pool is nice and cool, so juicy sweet. our only wish to catch a fish so juicy sweet! [homer]mmmm..... raw fish.....[/homer] [actual homer line]Dammit! FUGU me! [/homer]
The Apple upgrade price is pretty competitive.
I hope so! But as long as you can't buy the 1900xt you just can't know..
If it coasts in 4 weeks as much as it does now, it'll be much more expensive as its pc-counterparts (still affordable though).
What I wanted to say is that I don't see a reason at all to spend more for a graphic-card just because apple wants a higher margin, but whats far more worse is the limited choice we have!
Yeah, old is bad... Unless it's good. Like Unix.
I prefer using old stuff that still works. It's my way of fighting elitism with more elitism.
VGA or EGA* text is bad, evil, and wrong.
*What exactly is the resolution for most text BIOS screens?? It's certainly less than XGA.
640?
Truth be told, scholars lost that information centuries ago.
Is that still a TEXT based selection screen to choose the partitions? I'm confused here. If you had 2 windows partitions and both are labelled WINDOWS, how would I know which to choose?
Size of the partition, location on the bus, maybe even a volume label (something other than 'windows'--drive letter, for instance).
Yes, it's all text based. The obvious reason for this is that you need a driver to get most resolutions over 640, or you need Apple's modified video card ROM chips.
The ONLY reason to have this ROM is to have full color and full resolution before the OS loads. This is why mac pro users who use 64kbyte-ROM video cards get a black screen until windows starts loading. I, for one, care much more about having standard video cards than having a full color 'boot selection screen'.
Ideally, they'd let users have their choice--have an auto detection scheme in the firmware which switches from full-color to text boot menu depending on what kind of video card you're using as your primary.
You'll probably be able to tell us the percentage of pretty full-color boot/ setup menus for PC mobos - less than 1% of mobos on the market?
I've never seen a 'full color' setup menu apart from in Apple products, likely because with 64kbyte ROMS, video cards don't do many colors before the OS loads so nobody even bothered. I'm not sure if I implied I had. I hope not.
edit: sorry about the typos, one of my eyes is screwy today
I have to agree with JeffDM. Slughead, why are you getting a Mac Pro anyways?? And what sort of graphics card would you really need?? Are you playing PC Games? Since you are obviously (I'm not being sarcastic) well versed in PC build tech, just make your own solid highly affordable gaming rig with a 7600GT or 7900GT, sorted. Otherwise, um... Mac mini for Macness and PS2 for gaming. Hell you probably got some nice Asus motherboards and other "for testing" stuff lying around. And maybe graphics cards to "test" the SLI'ed 7900GTX's on mobos as well???
1) I got a mac pro for the following reasons (in no particular order):
- to replace my aging PC, which I use for gaming and internet explorer (I'm a web developer).
- I do a lot of video and audio editing -freelance, in my spare time; so I need a mac with some power
- I had an opportunity to sell my DP 2.5 Ghz for an inordinately high price to a 'need it now!' kind of person.
- For reasons unknown, I had a $500 surplus in my savings account.
- $500 + Sale of my PC + Sale of G5 = Mac pro!
- Studio apartment means I'd like as few towers as possible.
- It's a huge productivity boost--to run internet explorer in parallels instead of using a KVM
- Since I do case mods to my macs and add 3rd party components whenever possible, iMacs and Mac Minis are worthless to me. I've already filled up all 4 hard drive bays of this thing, and when I get my new video card (whatever that ends up being), I'll be usign two video cards at once to power a total of 3 monitors (2 + a TV).
- It's got FOUR FREAKIN PROCESSORS IN IT! How could I resist?
2) I need a $250-300 range video card to bring this thing up to par the PC which it replaces, and a RAM upgrade because I'll be running 2 OS's simultaneously when doing web development.
Yeah, it's true, I didn't need a mac pro, but this is going to be my only opportunity to buy or even upgrade my machine(s) to any significant degree for probably another 3 or 4 years (and I'll probably be in grad school so the money would probably go toward migraine medication and coffee).
I'm not one to get reamed on the details. $80 extra for RAM, $100 extra for a video card = a whole gigabyte of extra RAM, or four months worth of laundry tokens.
....four months worth of laundry tokens....
YES. 7600GT 256mb RAM. The line-up for graphics cards has NEVER looked better on Macs. EVER.
Integrated Graphics (pfft. rubbish, but if you don't play games ok cool.)
ATI X1600 Mobility
ATI X1600
nVidia 7300GT
nVidia 7600GT
ATI X1900XT
nVidia Quadro FX4500
The 7600GT still won't work in the Mac Pro because of EFI. It may make it easier for Apple to add the 7600GT as a BTO option now that they've set the drivers in place (then again, the difference between 7300 and 7600 drivers can't be enormous since the 7300 is just a neutered 7900)
<nitpick>
Strangedogs.com says that it may work, the problem not being with EFI but with the onboard ROM (which is used as a driver for the card until the OS loads)..
Someone, who sounded very smart, said that most modern video cards will work in EFI, but that does not mean they'll work with the Mac Pro, being as how Apple requires a special ROM to show the on-screen boot menu.
This is why OS X can sometimes view a video card in the system profiler (as mentioned in some reports) but will not make use of it.
HOWEVAH! If an OS X driver is introduced for ANY PC video card with EFI capability, it's very possible that OS X could run the card, but the pre-OS video would remain 'black', and therefore the boot menu (which shows up when you hold option) would be unviewable on that card.
If that's the case.. well I'ma gettin one! Screw the boot menu!
In order of power:
Integrated Graphics (pfft. rubbish, but if you don't play games ok cool.)
ATI X1600 Mobility
ATI X1600
nVidia 7300GT
nVidia 7600GT
ATI X1900XT
nVidia Quadro FX4500
Someone in another thread claimed that the X1600 was better than the 7300GT. How do I know which is right?
Someone in another thread claimed that the X1600 was better than the 7300GT. How do I know which is right?
You could look it up on a benchmarking website, or you could do what I do and look at prior posts by the people and determine who's smarter.
You could look it up on a benchmarking website
I really can't give the results benchmarking sites much weight here because they usually test on Windows. OS X is a different beast and the results may be very different depending on circumstances. The most direct comparisons I do find showed significantly different results depending on the test material.
or you could do what I do and look at prior posts by the people and determine who's smarter.
Intelligent people can and do get things wrong sometimes, especially if they let their biases get in the way. I am willing to give Sunilraman a strong benefit of the doubt because Sunil casts a very wide net for information gathering.
Intelligent people can and do get things wrong sometimes, especially if they let their biases get in the way. I am willing to give Sunilraman a strong benefit of the doubt because Sunil casts a very wide net for information gathering.
I was joking. Good call on Sunilraman, though. I think he taught my quantum mechanics class.
I was joking. Good call on Sunilraman, though. I think he taught my quantum mechanics class.
1. JeffDM is right in that we only have more info on the Windoze benchmarking side to go on. But realistically, if one is arguing about graphic card power it's more related to playing PC games in Bootcamp Windoze. I think for OS X, it's a bit of a weird area because you can do quite a lot without having to have a really kickass graphics card. But anyways, in OS X:
Pic here: From http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html
2. OK, according to Apple 7300GT is better.
3. On the PC Windows side :
http://www.techspot.com/review/7-nvi...deon_x1600pro/
This compares the X1600 PRO vs 7300GT. The 7300GT comes up okay to some degree:
"Having all that said, it is safe to say the X1600 Pro is a superior product in terms of performance, even if overclocking is on the agenda. For about $10-15 extra, the X1600 Pro should be a worthwhile investment versus the GeForce 7300GT, that is without taking merit from NVIDIA's product which is a very solid one....The particular 7300GT board we tested here offered a nice advantage of using a passive cooling unit versus the Radeon's standard HSF. This is something you may want to take into account, and while it is a much more common feature seen in GeForces than Radeons of this range, there are also (very few) offerings of Radeon X1600 Pro cards using a passive cooling design."
4. I can't find in a short time space a decent X1600_normal vs 7300GT, only X1600 pro. With Apple's benchmarks, it makes sense that the 7300GT leads the X1600_normal, if you read the review above Doom3 and Quake4 favour the 7300GT quite strongly over the X1600 pro.
5. Given the difference between The X1600 and X1600 Pro, it is safe to say that 7300GT has an edge overall over the X1600_normal, from this preliminary data presented here. I think realistically in PC gaming under Bootcamp Windows it can swing from side to side depending on the game, your AA and AF settings, and the resolution you're playing at. It has to be mentioned though that the nVidia 7-series architecture is pretty good, so the 7300GT, despite being a lower-end 7-series, has a good heritage. I am not able to trawl the 3Dmark05/06 online result database at this stage. In any case, that method is quite hit-and-miss, since people enter results at a wide range of clockspeeds, and the X1600 is underclocked in the iMac. What is the clockspeed of the 7300GT in the iMac? Is it underclocked as well? Hmm...
6. Overall, let's take Apple's comments with a grain of salt and still give the 7300GT a nudge over the X1600_normal... Up to 60%, not all the time. Probably 20-40% average gain.
"And, talk about performance, graphics on the 24-inch iMac are powered by the NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT, which delivers up to 60% performance increase over the 20-inch model. It comes with 128MB of GDDR3 SDRAM and offers great games performance and sensational response for video and photo editing"
5. Thus it is safe to say that 7300GT may have a slight edge overall over the X1600_normal, from this preliminary data presented here.
On a Mac, NVidia cards are usually better as they are more OpenGL oriented. The Doom III and Quake 4 tests were probably chosen because those are both highly OpenGL games (as opposed to directX--where ATI takes the cake).