iMac Graphics Card Details and Comparisons (HD 2X00 Series)

[aliquis-]

Sorry if this sounds out of place and just plain silly, but why are people comparing these cards to DX10 performance? Isn't that Vista only? Shouldn't we really only be concerned about OpenGL 2.0 performance and how Leopard will handle the new EA Games/ID games to be coming to the new kitty soon?

But Nvidia have always been better with opengl haven't they? So if we does the 8600gt will become even better.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Fact is current benches show this 2600 Pro is a very Ho Hum card. Maybe one day it will be worth a ...... but all these mobile componets make iMac a laptop that sits on your desk. Apple must hate Gamers, Prosumers, and their Developers. Crippling throughout all models below MacPro seems so silly.

 

[fblack]

I think that's because they are really just going after the casual user and the Pro user.

That middle-range is where a lot of the home PC system builders are. I just don't think it's a market Apple wants to be in. We're talking about people who, by and large, want to buy a cheap mac they can run Windows on and swap their GPUs out to there hearts content.

Even though Mac-compatible GPUs aren't in huge abundance, are they? More support costs, more hassles for Apple. People who want to open their machines and tinker with them, and expect everything to work... then call Apple when they break something (by, say, installing a PC-only GPU).

I think your right they don't want to be there. I don't think its a support issue tho. I mean there are no 3rd party alternatives, no ASUS, no XFX, no Sapphire,etc. They don't have to worry about that. As far as the main 2 ATI and NVIDIA we've never gotten much after market choices. And Apple could find ways to just limit the choices of upgrades in order to control support issues. Heck they've done that with the imac haven't they?

I think they don't want something that may steal sales from the iMac. Especially if that something does not have the same iconic power that the iMac has. It wouldn't just steal sales, it might lose Apple some of its mystique particularly if a consumer tower was just another "box".

I mean I'm happy with the cpu's they got in the iMacs, give me that in a tower, with some choice of GPUs, and choice of screen size and I'm happy.

I just think that offering some choices (like a BTO or is it CTO now?) can make people feel empowered and that can also create brand loyalty. I think Apple may at times forget this...

Hmmm...I'm not to sure about the glossy screens, I'm gonna have to look at them in person...

BTW I think Barham had a really good point about the low end iMac, for about $200 more we are getting a bigger screen 20 vs 17 and a graphics card over the integrated intel graphics. If you dont care about gaming, and you find the mini lacking, this is not a bad choice.

What I'm saying is that we should be comparing the 2400 to the old 17" which had integrated graphics. So, in that light, the new iMacs are a huge upgrade.

 

[panzer06]

I'd go with the 7600GT any day.

Here, here!!

Me2

 

[contoursvt]

hope you dont die young with all those radiation waves coming at you!!!

Hope you know that the radiation levels from the front of the monitor are so low that its probably even less harmful than having a cellphone on your desk from that distance away. Now just dont be standing right behind the CRT because that area is not so good...so dont ever work in a place where the person right behind your head has a monitor who's back side is less than a foot or two away.

 

[DoFoT9]

Hope you know that the radiation levels from the front of the monitor are so low that its probably even less harmful than having a cellphone on your desk from that distance away. Now just dont be standing right behind the CRT because that area is not so good...so dont ever work in a place where the person right behind your head has a monitor who's back side is less than a foot or two away.

hahahah yes i know that. i do have some intelligence!!

is it just me or wen you look at crt monitors does it kill your eyes after a little while?? i must jsut be used to LCD, im sure you would get used to crt.

 

[contoursvt]

I'm probably just used to the CRT. I use them at home and LCD at work. I'm fine with both in that situation but I cannot do LCD at home because my computer is not in a bright room at home so I find LCD monitors TOOOO bright and when I try and tone it down, it tends to lose too much colour quality no matter how I set it. I usually run at 1600x1200@75Hz at home.

hahahah yes i know that. i do have some intelligence!!

is it just me or wen you look at crt monitors does it kill your eyes after a little while?? i must jsut be used to LCD, im sure you would get used to crt.

 

[unclefudgly]

Whew!!!

Thanks.. Some great posts which have allyed my fears somewhat as to the integrity of the GPU on the new iMac...
now if I can just get round the Glossy Screen thing!!

 

[Haoshiro]

I think your right they don't want to be there. I don't think its a support issue tho. I mean there are no 3rd party alternatives, no ASUS, no XFX, no Sapphire,etc. They don't have to worry about that. As far as the main 2 ATI and NVIDIA we've never gotten much after market choices. And Apple could find ways to just limit the choices of upgrades in order to control support issues. Heck they've done that with the imac haven't they?

Yeah, you are probably right about that. It's also true they do the same with the Mac Pro, but it's price keeps it away from the average tinkering consumer (which are support nightmares).

It might be picking back up, but I was definitely under the impression that PC gaming has been on the decline the last couple years, with console use on the rise. That could be a tell tale sign that it's not as important of a market for Apple as people think.

People do want to be able to play games, and it does effect switchers. But many of those were won over simply knowing they can dual-boot into Windows now. The truth is, most of even those people will probably be spending more time in OS X when all is said and done.

So while I don't think it would be bad for Apple to come up with another computer for their lineup that can target this other audience, I also don't think it's as important as other do.

The iMac covers the general consumer / mass-market, and when you factor in all the top quality software, is an excellent deal. The Mac Mini covers people who are very casual users and want to switch cheaply, and people who just want to test the waters. The Mac Pro is their for the serious professional user who needs more then even most gamers care for (even if they snag a few gamers with it). Those other people, by and large, are probably over estimating their needs.

What Mac Gaming needs, IMO, is not iMacs with better GPUs or another desktop product, but studios that focus on making Mac-specific titles. That's unlikely without more Gaming support and push by Apple - regardless of GPU.

Just like you have studios making games for Nintendo Wii exclusively (a system known to be "under powered"), that's also what we need for Mac Gaming. Developers that tailor the games to the GPUs in macs (X1600, HD 2400/2600, etc). If that was happening, it wouldn't matter that their is something better out there.

So in the end, people's complaints seem to be geared towards playing Windows Games on a Mac - why should that be Apple's problem?

BTW I think Barham had a really good point about the low end iMac, for about $200 more we are getting a bigger screen 20 vs 17 and a graphics card over the integrated intel graphics. If you dont care about gaming, and you find the mini lacking, this is not a bad choice.

Yeah, that is exactly what I thought when I saw the new lineup "Nice! The low-end model has a dedicated GPU now!" a great improvement over the GMA950, even if low-end.

 

[mattraehl]

hardware encoding/decoding of H.264

Supposedly these chips can decode and encode H.264. I am really interested to see if Leopard makes use of this, and if Apple makes it available to third party developers.

 

[Chone]

What Mac Gaming needs, IMO, is not iMacs with better GPUs or another desktop product, but studios that focus on making Mac-specific titles. That's unlikely without more Gaming support and push by Apple - regardless of GPU.

Just like you have studios making games for Nintendo Wii exclusively (a system known to be "under powered"), that's also what we need for Mac Gaming. Developers that tailor the games to the GPUs in macs (X1600, HD 2400/2600, etc). If that was happening, it wouldn't matter that their is something better out there.

So in the end, people's complaints seem to be geared towards playing Windows Games on a Mac - why should that be Apple's problem?

Yeah, that is exactly what I thought when I saw the new lineup "Nice! The low-end model has a dedicated GPU now!" a great improvement over the GMA950, even if low-end.

Optimization can only take you so far and most Mac developers are keen on just slapping cider on their games. So while developers optimizing for those GPUs might alleviate the situation (though it might also yield worse looking games) its just too much to ask and not enough to have all these great games on Mac on time and not have them stripped of features.

The performance is weak on windows games on a Mac but when you try to play them on Mac OS X then its even worse, THAT is WHY its Apple's problem. Especially when they mention the word "game" so much in their iMac descriptions.

And for the last time, there was never an integrated GPU on the iMac, only on that $999 model that was geared towards education markets (no apple remote, no ded. graphics, etc). The $1200 iMac has ALWAYS had a dedicated GPU, in fact, last $1200 iMac had a X1600, which is much better than the HD 2400 XT on the new $1200 iMac coupled with the 17" screen and suddenly the previous generation iMac is a MUCH MORE versatile solution for gaming (yes even casual gaming) than the new iMac. This issue fades on the HD 2600 Pro 20" models but it resurfaces on the 24" model. So isn't this something to complain about?

The truth is I'm not liking the way Apple is taking the iMac but I've always hated all-in-ones, especially the mobile component geared one. It has got to be the most stupid computer form factor mankind has ever idealized though I have to admit Apple has done wonders with the iMac, its still an deficient design.

 

[Haoshiro]

Optimization can only take you so far and most Mac developers are keen on just slapping cider on their games. So while developers optimizing for those GPUs might alleviate the situation (though it might also yield worse looking games) its just too much to ask and not enough to have all these great games on Mac on time and not have them stripped of features.

The performance is weak on windows games on a Mac but when you try to play them on Mac OS X then its even worse, THAT is WHY its Apple's problem. Especially when they mention the word "game" so much in their iMac descriptions.

And for the last time, there was never an integrated GPU on the iMac, only on that $999 model that was geared towards education markets (no apple remote, no ded. graphics, etc). The $1200 iMac has ALWAYS had a dedicated GPU, in fact, last $1200 iMac had a X1600, which is much better than the HD 2400 XT on the new $1200 iMac coupled with the 17" screen and suddenly the previous generation iMac is a MUCH MORE versatile solution for gaming (yes even casual gaming) than the new iMac. This issue fades on the HD 2600 Pro 20" models but it resurfaces on the 24" model. So isn't this something to complain about?

The truth is I'm not liking the way Apple is taking the iMac but I've always hated all-in-ones, especially the mobile component geared one. It has got to be the most stupid computer form factor mankind has ever idealized though I have to admit Apple has done wonders with the iMac, its still an deficient design.

I don't even think you get it, if you do, you're just ignoring my comments and repeating what you've already said.

I'm not talking about games "optimized" for the iMacs. I'm talking about games developed exclusively for Mac, specifically targetted at iMacs.

This is the same concept as a developer developing exclusively for a Wii or GameCube. No, that's not going to yield the same results as going exclusive for 360/PS3, no arguement their. These games would run optimally on Mac machines, there is no reason that has to compromise anything but some visual fidelity.

You act as if the poly count on a game is going to effect how good or fun it is, as if you're being cheated if you can't get a game that is capable of taxing the latest PC graphics cards. That's not true, and I think you know that.

As for the $1200 iMac, the old one was also 17". The old models had a Low end, and so do the new models. It just so happens that the old low end was a 17" GMA950 system, and the new low end iMac is a 20" HD 2400 XT. It's $200 more, but what do you expect with a bump in screen size?

There's also a bump in the other specs for these models, for example every system past the Low end now has a 256MB GPU stock.

 

[Chone]

I don't even think you get it, if you do, you're just ignoring my comments and repeating what you've already said.

I'm not talking about games "optimized" for the iMacs. I'm talking about games developed exclusively for Mac, specifically targetted at iMacs.

This is the same concept as a developer developing exclusively for a Wii or GameCube. No, that's not going to yield the same results as going exclusive for 360/PS3, no arguement their. These games would run optimally on Mac machines, there is no reason that has to compromise anything but some visual fidelity.

You act as if the poly count on a game is going to effect how good or fun it is, as if you're being cheated if you can't get a game that is capable of taxing the latest PC graphics cards. That's not true, and I think you know that.

As for the $1200 iMac, the old one was also 17". The old models had a Low end, and so do the new models. It just so happens that the old low end was a 17" GMA950 system, and the new low end iMac is a 20" HD 2400 XT. It's $200 more, but what do you expect with a bump in screen size?

There's also a bump in the other specs for these models, for example every system past the Low end now has a 256MB GPU stock.

Like I said, that kind of optimization is not something developers are willing to do, maybe (just maybe) id with their tech 5 engine but most developers are just happy with cider ports or half assed ports. When was the last time you saw a decent OSX port? And no, that situation is not going to change soon, its just too much too ask from the developers. And no, its not the same as optimizing for a console.

And no I don't mind getting slightly worse graphics for an enjoyable experience but you know well developers are never going to commit to Macs that way. For now we should be grateful we get near-PC performance with cider.

And consumers don't care about the word low-end, they care about price, if there was a $1200 iMac before and a $1200 now then you should compare those two, not the $999 iMac with the new $1200, honestly I don't know why you are even arguing about this.

 

[Haoshiro]

Like I said, that kind of optimization is not something developers are willing to do, maybe (just maybe) id with their tech 5 engine but most developers are just happy with cider ports or half assed ports. When was the last time you saw a decent OSX port? And no, that situation is not going to change soon, its just too much too ask from the developers. And no, its not the same as optimizing for a console.

And no I don't mind getting slightly worse graphics for an enjoyable experience but you know well developers are never going to commit to Macs that way. For now we should be grateful we get near-PC performance with cider.

And consumers don't care about the word low-end, they care about price, if there was a $1200 iMac before and a $1200 now then you should compare those two, not the $999 iMac with the new $1200, honestly I don't know why you are even arguing about this.

So what if that's what happens and will continue to happen? That's not even what my post was about. I said that, imo, it's what Mac Gaming needs.

And that has nothing to do with just "optimizations", we're talking tech, engines, and games designed by studios for the Mac platform specifically.

id Tech 5 is obviously being designed that way, to support Mac "out of the box", what that means in terms of quality and performance we don't know, nor do we know if developers will take advantage of that for Mac games or if they'll just toss it out.

As for the $1200 iMac, it's not even the same as the old $1200 model, the only thing that makes your comparison valid is the price point. This new model has advantages over both 17" models, barring the GPU if the "upper" 17" class.

 

[fblack]

It might be picking back up, but I was definitely under the impression that PC gaming has been on the decline the last couple years, with console use on the rise. That could be a tell tale sign that it's not as important of a market for Apple as people think.

I'm not sure if its picking up or not. The thing is I don't want a wii, an xbox, a mac, and a PC box sitting in my living room to play different games and do work. Its a bit expensive and the clutter is too annoying. I want one machine. A mac can be all of that if we have the games and some of the hardware.

What Mac Gaming needs, IMO, is not iMacs with better GPUs or another desktop product, but studios that focus on making Mac-specific titles. That's unlikely without more Gaming support and push by Apple - regardless of GPU.

Just like you have studios making games for Nintendo Wii exclusively (a system known to be "under powered"), that's also what we need for Mac Gaming. Developers that tailor the games to the GPUs in macs (X1600, HD 2400/2600, etc). If that was happening, it wouldn't matter that their is something better out there.

So in the end, people's complaints seem to be geared towards playing Windows Games on a Mac - why should that be Apple's problem?

This always turns into a sort of the chicken or egg scenario, which comes first the hardware or the games? Its more than hardware vs software issue.

The thing is that it also comes down to market share. Should we develop for the smaller mac market, and out of that market how many people play games? Then out of those people who only plays specific genres like casual, strategy, and shooters. If more people in general play shooters and not just to shoot, but because of the eye candy (eye candy in strategy IMHO is not as important to gamers) then that's where we might be interested in going. Eye candy is going to sell. Look at all the junk that sells at movie theatres, sometimes with the thinnest pretense of a plot.

We might not make a ton of money because its a smaller market. What we need is a big title with alot of eye candy that will motivate that smaller market share to go out and buy! But wait how dificult is it to develop on the mac? Well, its gotten easier with the move to Intel, but we need better GPUs for the eye candy. Uhh, doesn't sound good. Can we talk to steve and see if we can work with them? We called steve and he says you must first kiss his chimichanga. Hmmm...might have to rethink this gaming on the mac thing.

It is Apple's problem if they want to grow market share and keep it. College students with all those macbooks, they would like to play games too. It's one way of getting them and keeping them as customers. Game developers for years had problems getting any help from Apple. Apple wanted to be taken seriously, and not as a toy. This was before Jobs came back and even afterwards. Developers that did develop games for the mac without much apple support did so because they loved the system and thought they could make some money.

Its not only the hardware and software, but you need the will from Apple to support games. They've been slow to recognize it, and maybe they will make a bigger push now but their track record is spotty at best.

 

[Haoshiro]

Software comes first. That's just how it will need to be. PCs didn't used to have games, they were business machines (moreso then early macs, actually).

id Software started out with a couple guys making a PC version of Super Mario Bros. with CGA graphics. They tried to pitch it to Nintendo, and were turned down flat 'Gaming on PCs will never take off', so they refit the game and release the classic Commander Keen.

Time goes on, more and more developers are releasing episodic shareware games, growth continues and after awhile, Microsoft finally takes notice. Eventually, around DirectX 6, DX finally establishes itself in PC gaming.

Point is, it took a long time for good support to come to Windows and the software came first - which showed Microsoft it was a worthwhile investment. The same is need on the Mac, imo. Mac users just have not been gaming that much, and Apple has probably been comfortable with their sales numbers, so there was no real "push", no underground gaming movement that Apple could capitalize on.

Eye candy is great, but it only sells a game so far. A really great AAA exclusive game could definitely help things, and some talented garage developers are probably going to need to step up (Valve started off like this, Project Offset, etc).

Mac market share is growing, so I believe now is probably the best time in Mac history to start making games on Mac.

The GPUs in even the iMacs, for the most part, are capable of making some impressive visuals if a developer were to cater specifically to the systems, and then it needs to sell, and Mac gaming needs to expand greatly in popularity... and that needs to happen before Apple makes a hardware change based on gaming.

They pacified the first complaints of people (that there were no games), by making Boot Camp. Now people complain about GPUs. I guess you can please some of the people...