- Aug 27, 2004
That's good to hear. I just wish one of these sites that already have the 27" imac would put up some benchmarks!
The combination of the still-high pixel pitch and a good scaling engine would minimize the impact of non-native gaming. The question is: is Apple using a good scaler? It'd make a lot of sense given the supposed quality of the panel, but then they've been using great panels for years in tandem with fairly mediocre scaling engines, so it's tough to call at the moment.Yeah, but gaming at the non native rez tends to look like crap.
is there a difference now between the 13 macbookpro and the 13'' macbook? besides it being white, the new macbook is basically the same isn't it?
I think it's somewhat disturbing that the new MacBook now has only a fraction of the I/O options of even my relatively low-end laptop. I mean, 2 USB ports, shared headphone/line-in? Why not cut out the optical drive while they're at it? It's less useful than more USB ports and a FW port or two to most people, I would imagine. Now you get to lug a USB hub around with your fancy new MB
Yes mobile, yes slow. And that on a 27" they are joking to keep the same GPU as last iMac .
Could be desktop but that wouldn't be thin. Still to slow for that resolution.Do you have a link that shows this? They did switch to desktop CPUs on one iMac line. I'd say it's doubtful that they also switched to desktop GPU, but I haven't heard anything about the chipset even on the new model. The iMac with the i5/i7 has to be considerably different from the other ones.
Yes, thats why i don't have an iMac yet.Apple is always behind with GPUs, unfortunately.
Could be desktop but that wouldn't be thin. Still to slow for that resolution.
I don't see why everyone is so up in arms over the lack of high end graphics options. I mean, when has an iMac ever had anything yummy in the graphics department?
What do you mean? So, do you think Apple iMac uses Desktop HD4850?
And the 27" display with the higher resolution is harder on video cards. The 4850 is barely adequate, for some games. It's expected that because of the higher rez they would put in better cards. There are much higher end mobility cards they could have used.
The 4850 is more than adequate to drive 2560x1600 and fill the usual graphical needs of OS X: Core Image, Core Animation, Quicktime X, and some OpenCL work on the side. The 4850's been doing it on the Mac Pro for a while.
I'm not sure which other chips Apple could have used while still including Core i5 and i7 support. There are no 5xxx daughterboards yet, nor could they have used nvidia's parts thanks to the Intel lawsuit. Now, Apple could have waited a few months for 5xxx daughterboards, but they wanted to have new products in place to respond to the Windows 7 launch.
Not really sure what you expected in these machines that could have realistically been delivered.
The 4850 is not adequete IMO for gaming at that resolution. Yes, there are native mac games. World of Warcraft would not perform well with that card at that rez. Call of Duty 4 may also be barely adequte. With an all in one computer I expect to be able to do all things.
If you take gaming out of the equation than there is no point in these imacs having a 4850 at all. They could have used a cheaper, lower end card and achieved the same thing for all other apps.
It would be nice if they gave us an option for a real card. There are many Nvidia Mobility GTX cards that would work far better. The Intel lawsuit does not stop nvidia from making graphics cards. They only got out of the motherboard chipset business.
In your opinion. We're going to need benchmarks to prove or disprove the adequacy of the 4850 for WoW and CoD4. Personally, I don't see how the 4850 would have any trouble running WoW even at 2560x1600: WoW isn't exactly a bleeding edge game. CoD4 I can see having a little more trouble. But once again, Apple doesn't come up with spec lists with gaming in mind.
The Intel lawsuit prevents nvidia from designing Core i series chipsets. This prevents Apple from coupling a Core i7 with an nvidia GPU, because they can't get the relevant nvidia parts to drive the platform. Ergo, they went with ATi. The best ATi has to offer for Apple's purposes is the 4000 series. When ATi comes up with a daughterboard reference design for the 5000 series, Apple can update the iMac to take advantage of that.
Again, I fail to see how your expectations could have realistically been delivered.
All I can say is I have a similar card and it's barely adequate at 1920x1200. I can easily drop my FPS in the teens in parts of wow. And wow is more demanding on that card than CoD4. But yes, we do need to see the benchmarks. I just can't believe there aren't any yet.
If they want macs to be a more mainstream platform you have to support gaming.
You forget the mac pro. Which is basically a custom x58 board with i7 processors. "xeon" but same difference. They are all Nehalems. And it has nvidia cards available.
The ATI card in the new imac is a stand alone daughter card. It's not soldered on the board. You may very well be able to unplug it and plug in another card of the same form factor. To me it looks like a typical MXM card found in many laptops.
Nvidia just can't make Nehalem chipsets. But they don't need to, to make thier cards available. Nvidia cards work just fine in Intel chipsets.
What specifically does Apple need to do to "support gaming" in your eyes?
I haven't forgotten the Mac Pro. It's simply not relevant to the discussion of the iMac line, for one primary reason: the iMac's internals are designed like a notebook, not a desktop tower like the Mac Pro. Apple has to worry about the same things in the iMac that they do with the notebook, namely heat and power efficiency. That's why they usually resort to putting notebook components in the iMac. Would you complain about the MacBook's graphics by saying "The Mac Pro has X GPU chipset?" Of course not.
So we again come full circle to the problem: no nvidia chipset available for the Core i series, thanks to Intel's lawsuit.
I'm still waiting to hear specifically which chipsets you thought should have been made available in the iMac refresh.