i think it's just price the 2600 HD is about 120$ as the HDCP version of the 7600 GT is about 200$ (the cheap version dosen't have HDCP)
just a note the 2600's have hdcp
just a note the 2600's have hdcp
Apple's Puzzling Graphics Card Choice for New iMacs
I just don't get it. Apple was so progressive when they finally chose to offer a graphics card upgrade for those who were willing to pay for it, with the last iteration of the white plastic iMacs. This time around, no go? And now it's pretty clear, the 24" iMac 2.16 or 2.33 with the BTO nVidia 7600 is still the king, even compared to the new 2.8 gHz machine. By a little in some games and by _a lot_ in others (Quake 4, Halo).
Maybe they just didn't like seeing benchmarks with the old 24" machine + 7600 smoking the stock Mac Pros in gaming benchmarks. But why let the new iMacs get smoked by the old ones?
A real head scratcher ...
Maybe they just didn't like seeing benchmarks with the old 24" machine + 7600 smoking the stock Mac Pros in gaming benchmarks. But why let the new iMacs get smoked by the old ones?
A real head scratcher ...
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This makes sense (and I agree with you about the OEM price for Apple being a huge deciding factor) -- but why not have the 7600 GT as even an OPTION?i think it's just price the 2600 HD is about 120$ as the HDCP version of the 7600 GT is about 200$ (the cheap version dosen't have HDCP)
just a note the 2600's have hdcp
Even a non-HDCP version would be a benefit -- as there's still no official blu-ray or HD-DVD option for Mac Users, so there's no real reason to have an underpowered videocard, just to that it supports HDCP.
Now, the ATI cards also have hardware decoding for stuff like h264 -- which is another reason I think Apple chose those cards for the new iMacs.
Hopefully, they'll improve the drivers with Leopard?
That's really the point. Apple allowed people to pay for a faster card (what a concept?) and it cost about $80 or 100 extra when I ordered mine I think for what really amounted to a huge improvement in performance within the limited sphere of 3D gaming/rendering.This makes sense (and I agree with you about the OEM price for Apple being a huge deciding factor) -- but why not have the 7600 GT as even an OPTION?
Even a non-HDCP version would be a benefit -- as there's still no official blu-ray or HD-DVD option for Mac Users, so there's no real reason to have an underpowered videocard, just to that it supports HDCP.
Now the option to change the card has been removed. I hope this is temporary b/c it was such a sensible decision for them to (finally) make. Not every Mac user who wants solid gaming performace wants to buy a big, hot, high end tower.
The drivers are not the issue. When you've got a card that is 2+ fold faster, tweaking the drivers will not make a big difference. As they note though, BF will test running Windows to see how much difference the drivers might make.Hopefully, they'll improve the drivers with Leopard?
The new ATI 2x00 HD cards are a mixed bag. Should be much faster when ATI gets drivers sorted. Better for decode HD content but bad for games.
I expected the 8600 (or better) in the new iMac. Kind of disappointed.
I expected the 8600 (or better) in the new iMac. Kind of disappointed.
the HD 2600 series ( I'm not even going to include the 2400 in this) is a newer card, the nVidea is running on an older standard (for those familiar with it, DirectX9). These cards are DirectX10 compliant, it means it performs better than a DX9 card (which is the 7600). Macs don't use DX10, but that doesn't mean the technological inprovements because of the standard are ignored cause it's a mac.
And ATi has more experience in the Unified Shader Architecture. nVidea only embraced it due to DX10 standard being that way. (again note that the 7600 is not using unified shader, whereas the 2000 is)
And ATi has more experience in the Unified Shader Architecture. nVidea only embraced it due to DX10 standard being that way. (again note that the 7600 is not using unified shader, whereas the 2000 is)
Don't just read the marketing hype. The 8600 and 2600 series cards are seriously crippled because of low-speed RAM, so the few hardware additions that they have over the good DX9 cards are mitigated.These cards are DirectX10 compliant, it means it performs better than a DX9 card (which is the 7600).
Gamers know that the 8600 and 2600 are complete duds that will never give the equivalent performance of what the 7600 GeForce series offered last year.
DX10 has proven to be a joke. The 8600 and 2600 cards are not powerful enough to run DX10 games well and are slower in DX9 than DX9 cards. The only real choice for gamers looking for DX10 cards are the 8800 and 2900.
Basically, the 7600GT is a better video card for gaming, but the DX10 cards are more versatile, HDCP, and have far better HD decoding.
I learned long ago that the only way to obtain good gaming performance on a budget is with a PC.
DX10 was launched a little over 6 months ago. Do you expect games to support DX9 to be dropped that fast, that's bad business, very bad. Your expectation are above and beyond what is expected of this. Most technologies like this take time to catch on, look at the first Centrino standard, after six months, I would have definetly considered a dud, but it wasn't, and has improved life for all of us. Or how about SATA, that was dude when I bought an 80GB drive, now it's a standard, and a much welcome imporvement over the past. These things take time.DX10 has proven to be a joke.
You have no backing proof on this, I've read alot, and no not marketing hype.Don't just read the marketing hype. [...]
Gamers know that the 8600 and 2600 are complete duds that will never give the equivalent performance of what the 7600 GeForce series offered last year
Anandtech: "While the 8600 GT improves on the performance of its spiritual predecessor the 7600 GT, we don't see significant performance improvements above hardware currently available at the target prices for the new hardware. "
And I've read up on all of these things, I'm a gamer, and the unified shader architecture is a very welcome introduction. If your expecting performance similar to 7900, then you'll have to wait for DX10 games,
[NOTE: I have not heard of a single DX10 only game]
Since not everyone wants to use the shiny new iMac for games, here's the 2nd half of their tests:
iMac Aluminum versus Others - part 2
The card does look promising if you ask me.
A7
iMac Aluminum versus Others - part 2
The card does look promising if you ask me.
A7
The updated drivers have improved 8600 performance in DX9 gaming, so it's now superior to the 7600GT but not by very much, especially considering their respective PC prices.
I don't understand how you can take that Aandtech review and spin it as a positive. The conclusion is clearly negative:
"The bottom line is that the 8600 really doesn't offer what we would expect from a next generation midrange part. While on its own the 8600 series is not bad hardware, NVIDIA needs to rely on more than its feature set to sell its product. This is especially true when DX10 games are not abundant and fairly few people are even running an operating system which supports DX10."
In fact, that review echoes exactly what I wrote about the 8600's inability to perform at the level that the 7600 series did when it was released:
" The GeForce 6600 GT outperformed the Radeon 9800 Pro in virtually every benchmark, sometimes by large margins. It managed this with prices that were at the time quite a bit lower than the previous generation's champ. GeForce 7600 GT was also typically faster than GeForce 6800 GT/GS, and it once again came with a lower price tag. The 8600 hardware on the other hand doesn't appear significantly faster or cheaper than the cards it's replacing.."
The lack of DX10 games should indicate that we don't need a DX10 card. When DX10.1 comes out, all current DX10 cards will be replaced by something better and cheaper. We're in DX10 limbo right now, but Apple has to do the smart business thing and use mediocre DX10 hardware.
I don't understand how you can take that Aandtech review and spin it as a positive. The conclusion is clearly negative:
"The bottom line is that the 8600 really doesn't offer what we would expect from a next generation midrange part. While on its own the 8600 series is not bad hardware, NVIDIA needs to rely on more than its feature set to sell its product. This is especially true when DX10 games are not abundant and fairly few people are even running an operating system which supports DX10."
In fact, that review echoes exactly what I wrote about the 8600's inability to perform at the level that the 7600 series did when it was released:
" The GeForce 6600 GT outperformed the Radeon 9800 Pro in virtually every benchmark, sometimes by large margins. It managed this with prices that were at the time quite a bit lower than the previous generation's champ. GeForce 7600 GT was also typically faster than GeForce 6800 GT/GS, and it once again came with a lower price tag. The 8600 hardware on the other hand doesn't appear significantly faster or cheaper than the cards it's replacing.."
The lack of DX10 games should indicate that we don't need a DX10 card. When DX10.1 comes out, all current DX10 cards will be replaced by something better and cheaper. We're in DX10 limbo right now, but Apple has to do the smart business thing and use mediocre DX10 hardware.
Did you miss the fact that I included an commented on the fact that it is not such a huge improvement, and as I said, if you expect a leap in performance, you need to wait. And you said it performed worst, my point was a rebutal, it in fact performs better.I don't understand how you can take that Aandtech review and spin it as a positive. The conclusion is clearly negative:
First, DirectX 10 will follow the DX9 pattern, that means there will be no version 10.1, 10a will be minor improvements.
Second, DX10 is not backward compatible, DX10 can't run DX9 games. DX9 cards can't play DX10 games.
Third, as I said before, these cards are transition cards (look at the example in my prior posting, I may not have said transition, but it was implied), unified shader archtecture and the shader model 4.0 is a huge leap, the only transition that existed was ATi Xenon GPU in the 360. DX 9 was not adopted as soon as it came out.
Fourth, DX10 card meets a standard, that means you need to meet a set of requirements, and these requirements are where the game industry has been naturally progressing. DX10 just formalize it, and enhances DX capabilities
Gamers and iMacs don't go well together, as a gamer, and like many others, I don't want to have to throw out a machine because I need a new video card. The Mac Pro is better suited.
Whether or not you want to call the next DX 10a or DX10.1: NVIDIA Forums -> DX10.1 support for the 8000 Series
What you refuted was my statement that the 8600 are duds, and that they will not offer equivalent performance of what the 7600 GeForce series offered last year. I was not referring to ultimate performance but relative. Obviously, I was wrong about the current actual performance figures between the 8600 and 7600, but my comment that the 7600 when released last year was considered a winner, and that the 8600 is considered a "dud" is confirmed by pretty much every review site.
What you refuted was my statement that the 8600 are duds, and that they will not offer equivalent performance of what the 7600 GeForce series offered last year. I was not referring to ultimate performance but relative. Obviously, I was wrong about the current actual performance figures between the 8600 and 7600, but my comment that the 7600 when released last year was considered a winner, and that the 8600 is considered a "dud" is confirmed by pretty much every review site.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac
A forum community dedicated to Canadian Mac owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, iOS, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
