[rob_ART]

I started yesterday testing the 2009 iMac 24" 3.06 with GeForce 130 GT. I've also got the 2008 iMac 24" 3.06 with GeForce 8800 GS.
Here a few results at 1920 x 1200 "High Quality":

CoD4
2008 = 34 fps
2009 = 38 fps

ET:QW
2008 = 60 fps
2009 = 82 fps

Halo UB 2.03
2008 = 127 fps
2009 = 137 fps

Prey
2008 = 78 fps
2009 = 88 fps

Both beat the Mac Pro Nehalem with GeForce 120 GT but lose to a 2008 Mac Pro with a GeForce 8800 GT.
The 2009 with Radeon HD 4850 should be in the lab in a few weeks. I'll report back with those numbers when I have them.

[ltcommander.data]

When you have time could you run GPU-Z in Windows and see what the GPU actually is in the 2009 iMac? It'd be nice to know the stream processor count and clocks. The 8800GS in the 2008 iMac was actually a mobile 8800M GTS, which Apple renamed to an equivalent desktop brand. The GT130 is supposed to be a rebranded desktop 8800GS. I was thinking that the GT130 might just be the same 8800GS/8800M GTS as in the 2008 iMac renamed, but your results show enough difference, particularly in Quake Wars that it might actually be a new desktop part. Or were the drivers the same since the difference could just be newer nVidia drivers as well.

[yo-mike]

rob_ART, on March 22nd 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

Both beat the Mac Pro Nehalem with GeForce 120 GT but lose to a 2008 Mac Pro with a GeForce 8800 GT.
The 2009 with Radeon HD 4850 should be in the lab in a few weeks. I'll report back with those numbers when I have them.

You mean the 2009 24" iMacs with either 2.93 or 3.06 GHz. Which are the only iMacs Apple offers with
ATI GPUs.

I about passed out again when I read this. I thought Apple had all but dropped ATI GPUs from their all-in-ones. I'm fascinated. The shoot-out will be over once you bench test the 4850's against the nvidias. ATI will win.

-Mike

[The Liberator]

Curious and curioser.

That is very interesting, thanks. Liberator.

[rob_ART]

Here's how bad the iMac 3.06 with GeForce 130 GT beat the 8-core Mac Pro 2.93 with the GeForce 120 GT:

ET:QW at 1920x1200 "High"
iMac = 82 fps
Mac Pro = 45 fps

CoD4 at 1920x1200 "High"
iMac = 38 fps
Mac Pro = 23 fps

Halo UB at 1920x1200 "High"
iMac = 137 fps
Mac Pro = 89 fps

Prey at 1920x1200 "High"
iMac = 88 fps
Mac Pro = 52 fps

I would have compared the "top" iMac to the "bottom" Mac Pro 2.66 4-core Nehalem but didn't have one to test.
BTW, the 2.26 8-core Mac Pro Nehalem was within 1 or 2 fps of the 2.93.
Maybe Apple should have equipped the Mac Pro with 130 GT.

[Cobra]

I really like the looks of this years iMac. It looks like the longer I put off getting a new iMac the happier I'll be. I'm really glad Apple managed to finally put decent GPUs in their newer iMacs.

[bobbob]

rob_ART, on March 22nd 2009, 04:06 PM, said:

Maybe Apple should have equipped the Mac Pro with 130 GT

Apple should just give up and ship the pros with integrated graphics by default. Saves us some money by not paying for crap, or paying for that crap plus a replacement card at Apple's additional extortionate markup.

[ltcommander.data]

rob_ART, on March 22nd 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

Maybe Apple should have equipped the Mac Pro with 130 GT.

That was my first thought when I originally read the launch specs for the new desktop lineup. The GT120 is a relabeled 9500GT which is a $60 GPU. I find it difficult to justify putting a $60 GPU in a $2500 computer especially when you are promoting GPU power as a major selling point for your next operating system. ATI's MSRP for the 512MB HD4870 is $149, which means the Mac Pro lacks a high-end GPU.

Maybe ATI will be nice enough to release a Mac retail version of the upcoming 1GB HD4890 or nVidia with a Mac GTX285 at reasonable prices? Can ATI or nVidia release Mac GPUs whenever they want or can Apple veto it if they think it'll cut into sales of their stock configurations?

Getting back to the iMac, I'm excited to see results from the HD4850 iMac. The low-end 4-core Mac Pro just isn't impressive CPU-wise for the price compared to the previous low-end 8-core Harpertown Mac Pro, and isn't impressive GPU-wise compared to the new HD4850 iMac. With quad-threaded games still in their infancy, I think a 3.06GHz dual core iMac HD4850 will be a great gaming system for the next 2 years at least. With the HD4850 only a $50 upgrade from the GT130, it's a high-value upgrade that should probably be taken by anyone already getting a GT130 iMac.

[rob_ART]

" With quad-threaded games still in their infancy..."

Huh?

What games are quad-threaded? Did I miss something?

[ltcommander.data]

rob_ART, on March 23rd 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

" With quad-threaded games still in their infancy..."

Huh?

What games are quad-threaded? Did I miss something?

I don't think there are any OS X games that can really benefit from 4 cores over 2. Bioshock which is coming to Mac is well threaded and can load balance across 4 cores, but I believe utilization is under 50% so a dual core shouldn't be disadvantaged.

On Windows, I believe GTA IV can benefit from having 4 cores over 2 cores and I believe is more CPU bound than GPU bound. It doesn't fully peg all 4 cores, but has something like 65% utilization, so 3 cores worth. I guess that makes sense considering it came from the XBox 360 which has 3-cores and 6 threads and a weak GPU compared to modern computer GPUs. Another way of looking at it is that it isn't a very good port.

[The Liberator]

ltcommander.data, on March 23rd 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

On Windows, I believe GTA IV can benefit from having 4 cores over 2 cores and I believe is more CPU bound than GPU bound. It doesn't fully peg all 4 cores, but has something like 65% utilization, so 3 cores worth. I guess that makes sense considering it came from the XBox 360 which has 3-cores and 6 threads and a weak GPU compared to modern computer GPUs. Another way of looking at it is that it isn't a very good port.

Hmm, how interesting.

ltcommander.data, on March 23rd 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

…Another way of looking at it is that it isn't a very good port.

That is what I said to two friends (which are more knowledgeable than me), and they said it was fine.

Liberator.

[bobbob]

ltcommander.data, on March 22nd 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

I don't think there are any OS X games that can really benefit from 4 cores over 2

Not this Spring but next we'll see UT3, which does seem to see a benefit on Windows.

[Sneaky Snake]

I believe Crysis is 4 core optimized as well.


Nice look into the GT 130 rob. Unfortunately I don't see who would get it as the 4850 is only $50 more

[ltcommander.data]

bobbob, on March 23rd 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

Not this Spring but next we'll see UT3, which does seem to see a benefit on Windows.

Yes, I believe UT3 does see a benefit from 4 cores over 2 at lower resolutions, something like 10%.

Sneaky Snake, on March 23rd 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

I believe Crysis is 4 core optimized as well.
Nice look into the GT 130 rob. Unfortunately I don't see who would get it as the 4850 is only $50 more

http://enthusiast.ha...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

Surprisingly, despite all the talk about Crysis' high requirements it doesn't seem to fully utilize 4 cores. It load balances across 4 cores, but average utilization is only 35% so a dual core shouldn't have much of a disadvantage.

http://enthusiast.ha...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

GTA IV results are above and show average 65% utilization across 4 cores. Given the type of gameplay, namely having to do AI and Physics for all the cars and peds, I can see how GTA IV would be more CPU intensive than other games.

Sadly HardOCP didn't do a CPU analysis of UT3. Other recent games that HardOCP looked at include Fallout 3 which only seems to peg 1 core, F.E.A.R. 2 that 1 core and 20% of another, and CoD 5, which will no doubt eventually come to Mac, load balances across 4 cores, but only has 17% utilization so wouldn't benefit from a quad core CPU either.

Oh, in regards to the iMac, has the chipset for the higher models been confirmed to the same 9400M chipset as the lower models? If that's the case, I wonder if anyone has figured out how to activate the IGP. It's not useful right now, but a second GPU would be useful for Snow Leopard since I believe Grand Central can distribute to multiple GPUs as OpenCL targets. Apple will probably enabled it for a fee like they did for the hidden 802.11n support in the MacBook Pro.

[maccer]

Sneaky Snake, on March 23rd 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

I believe Crysis is 4 core optimized as well.
Nice look into the GT 130 rob. Unfortunately I don't see who would get it as the 4850 is only $50 more

Uh, not everyone wants to buy the top-of-the-line Imac. For the middle 24" model that has the GT120 the upgrade costs $200; not very cheap anymore. First you pay $300 for a small processor speed increase (2,66 -> 2,93 GHz) and a GT120 graphics card that you are not going to use anyway - and then another $200 for the 4850 graphics card. That's $500 for almost nothing. If the middle model would at least have a 1 TB HD and the top 24" a 1,5 TB it would feel more OK.

On top of that, the prices in Sweden are unbelievably high - the SEK rate happened to be bad when the new Macs were launched, and the swedish Mac prices went up with $150-$250 depending on model while the US prices were unchanged. The worst part is that the prices probably won't change until the next product update - stupid Apple pricing policy!

[Sneaky Snake]

maccer, on March 24th 2009, 07:09 AM, said:

Uh, not everyone wants to buy the top-of-the-line Imac. For the middle 24" model that has the GT120 the upgrade costs $200; not very cheap anymore. First you pay $300 for a small processor speed increase (2,66 -> 2,93 GHz) and a GT120 graphics card that you are not going to use anyway - and then another $200 for the 4850 graphics card. That's $500 for almost nothing. If the middle model would at least have a 1 TB HD and the top 24" a 1,5 TB it would feel more OK.

$500 for almost nothing?!? do you realize what the performance difference is between a 2.66 with 9400M and a 2.93 with 4850? I can say without a doubt that in any game you will get more then double the performance.

[The Liberator]

I kind of agree with Maccer, I think Apple are really asking a very large amount for what they are giving the non-American countries. I think I might even not bother with them next time.

Liberator.

[Sneaky Snake]

The Liberator, on March 24th 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

I kind of agree with Maccer, I think Apple are really asking a very large amount for what they are giving the non-American countries. I think I might even not bother with them next time.

I totally agree with that as well. I was only disagreeing on the 4850 price comparison

[The Liberator]

Sorry what exactly do you mean Snake? Is it about the performance of the 4850 versus the price of it, and someone's comment on that?

Thanks, Liberator.

[dr.zeissler]

@rob

can you please confirm that.

iMac 2008
2600 PRO = 128 BIT MemoryInterface
8800 GS = 256 BIT MemoryInterface

iMac 2009
130 GT = 128BIT MemoryInterface
4850 = 256BIT MemoryInterface

Thx
Doc