eMac review at Macworld.com

[KeithP]

Okay, I suppose this thread will turn into a crap on Macs thread which is really not my intent. I really like OS X, I own a PowerBook G4 and I work on Macs just about everyday (I also have a Shuttle SN45G).

But this quote from a Macworld.com review of the new eMac has to be one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. From the article:

And thanks to the inclusion of the 32MB ATI Radeon 9200 graphics chip with 4x AGP support, the 1.25GHz model pushed out nearly 70 percent more frames per second in our Unreal Tournament test, going from a poor 9.7 fps to a more respectable 16.4 fps. On the new eMac, the game looked great and felt extremely fast.

16.4 fps felt extremely fast to them? I just don't know what to say about that.

-KeithP

 

[yankeesfan]

 

[blodhi74]

and my rig runs DOOM3 @ a mind blowing , jaw dropping and unthinkable 50 fps

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: KeithP
16.4 fps felt extremely fast to them? I just don't know what to say about that.

-KeithP

They're Mac gamers, anything with two digits is considered OMGWTFCOCONUTBLAZINGFAST.

- M4H

 

[XeonTux]

LOL

For the brand new iMac G5 they picked a GF 5200. I don't know why they didn't work with nvidia and put a new 6600 in there, would have been perfect for it. On the apple site they have some speed graphs comparing it to the last gfx card that was outdated the day it rolled out...looks so fast in that graph!

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: XeonTux
LOL

For the brand new iMac G5 they picked a GF 5200. I don't know why they didn't work with nvidia and put a new 6600 in there, would have been perfect for it. On the apple site they have some speed graphs comparing it to the last gfx card that was outdated the day it rolled out...looks so fast in that graph!

Probably due to a very limited thermal budget.
I imagine a 6600 is quite a bit hotter than a 5200.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: XeonTux
LOL

For the brand new iMac G5 they picked a GF 5200. I don't know why they didn't work with nvidia and put a new 6600 in there, would have been perfect for it. On the apple site they have some speed graphs comparing it to the last gfx card that was outdated the day it rolled out...looks so fast in that graph!

Probably due to a very limited thermal budget.
I imagine a 6600 is quite a bit hotter than a 5200.

why not use a custom card based on a mobility radeon 9700 or something? it'd cost money, but then again, it'd work like a charm.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: XeonTux
LOL

For the brand new iMac G5 they picked a GF 5200. I don't know why they didn't work with nvidia and put a new 6600 in there, would have been perfect for it. On the apple site they have some speed graphs comparing it to the last gfx card that was outdated the day it rolled out...looks so fast in that graph!

Probably due to a very limited thermal budget.
I imagine a 6600 is quite a bit hotter than a 5200.

why not use a custom card based on a mobility radeon 9700 or something? it'd cost money, but then again, it'd work like a charm.

Why when the 5200 works just fine for a consumer system without the extra R&D money?