[g.x]

Wow. With lots of people ringing in about the video card on the new iMac, I wanted to post my question for the video-knowledgeable out there in a separate thread. Here goes:
1. I have no interest in playing games on my Mac. Will the video card in the new iMac be sufficient for fast scrolling through web pages & pdfs and fast screen redraws such as quickly surfing through thumbnailed iPhoto libraries?
2. Is it true that the video card is generally a screen redraw issue and won't really affect me doing video editing because the latter is more CPU-intensive and not very dependent on the video card?
Again, I don't really have an interest in playing games on my Mac. If the answers to the above are yes, I will likely nurture my budding video-editing interest with a new iMac G5 17" or 20" with a gig of RAM and FCE. Additional thoughts on my selection are welcome, also.
Thanks in advance for the help.

[MacGizmo]

Get the iMac... the video card won't affect your work in the least bit. People tend to think they NEED a better video card simply because there are better ones available, but they really don't NEED it. High-end games will of course make use of the better card, but not much else will - until you get into high definition professional video work (in which case you wouldn't be buying an iMac anyway).

[g.x]

That was very helpful, thanks. Now a quick follow-up question...for the following tasks, I will assume that dual processors will be much quicker, but only because the applications are dual-processor aware. Here are the tasks plus the apps to be used:
Rip CDs - iTunes
Encode MP3s - iTunes
Consumer Photo Editing (mostly JPEG, next year some RAW) - Photoshop
Video Rendering - FCE
Video Transcoding - Quicktime; various open source tools /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
All except photo editing are "set it and leave it" tasks or, for the audio stuff, ones that I will do in the background while surfing, etc.
Video tasks are definitely "set it and leave it."
My point is, I'm not a professional video guy...I don't have deadlines or make more money because I can render in 30 minutes vs. 45 minutes. Frankly, I'd rather take the money saved on the iMac (vs. dual proc PowerMac) and get a host of fun Mac-friendly gadgets (Airtunes, maybe the Roku video hub, iPod, etc.). But only if the computer will serve my needs for 2-3 years.
Given my needs, everyone still recommends that I'll be ok w/ the iMac? Just asking for thoughts, I know no one has actually used it yet.
Once again, thanks in advance.
By the way, great forum. Glad to be a part since I first switched in 2002.

[MacGizmo]

All of those apps will certainly be faster on a dual processor G5 tower... but as you already said, you don't NEED it. They won't be that much faster.
It sounds like you've already convinced yourself that the iMac is the right decision, and I think you're right. Airport Express, perhaps an iPod, nice set of speakers, a decent scanner for photos, a nice photo printer... all much better use of your $$$ than the little bit of speed gain you'll get with the tower.

[g.x]

Yeah, I was definitely leaning that way. Just wanted some objective opinions to make sure I wasn't operating w/ a bunch of incorrect assumptions.
Thanks much.
- g.

[Praxis]

In reply to:

---

Wow. With lots of people ringing in about the video card on the new iMac, I wanted to post my question for the video-knowledgeable out there in a separate thread. Here goes:
1. I have no interest in playing games on my Mac. Will the video card in the new iMac be sufficient for fast scrolling through web pages & pdfs and fast screen redraws such as quickly surfing through thumbnailed iPhoto libraries?
2. Is it true that the video card is generally a screen redraw issue and won't really affect me doing video editing because the latter is more CPU-intensive and not very dependent on the video card?
Again, I don't really have an interest in playing games on my Mac. If the answers to the above are yes, I will likely nurture my budding video-editing interest with a new iMac G5 17" or 20" with a gig of RAM and FCE. Additional thoughts on my selection are welcome, also.
Thanks in advance for the help.
Now, I don't know what any of that means, but it sounds pretty bad. -- Lt. Caffey, A Few Good Men.

---

The people complaining about the Geforce FX 5200 Ultra are the mega gamers. The FX 5200 is fine for games- I have a normal FX 5200 in my PC, and play Jedi Knight 2, Jedi Academy, Starfleet Command 3, Bridge Commander, and a load of other 3d games regularly. The 5200 ULTRA in the iMac is a good 30% faster than the FX 5200.
The card in the iMac is just FINE. You can even play Halo on it, and even at a minimum level Doom 3 (the most graphically advanced game in the market). It's just that for the hard core gamers, the ones who want 100 fps in Unreal 2004, that complain about the FX 5200 Ultra. The only real complaint is that apple doesn't give you the option of upgrading.
For the work you want to do, you could do with a Geforce 4 or even Geforce 2. The FX 5200 Ultra is fine, even a bit overkill, since you can play most 3d games with it.

[MacGizmo]

It just occurred to me that this is the first time I tried to talk someone OUT of getting a Tower in favor of an all-in-one (which I NEVER recommend for anyone). I must be going soft at the ancient age of 35 /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[g.x]

Perhaps. I know that for me, at the tender age of only 30, it's nice to get advice from the "older folks." /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Thanks.

[augiedb]

I'm looking at making the switch. It won't be as dramatic for me, since I've been using a Linux box for the past 9 months. But for various reasons, I think I'll work better on the Mac.
And I'm trying to figure out the iMac versus Tower question, too.
First, I love those oh-so pretty cinema displays, expensive though they might be. And I'm old-fashioned enough to like the idea of keeping the monitor and swapping out computers over the course of time. It seems like a waste to buy a new screen everytime you buy a new computer...
The new iMac hasn't been proven on a massive scale yet, either. I admit to being a little fearful of first generation problems. Plus, the chip is slowed down by the slower bus size, which seems wasteful, if a necessary engineering solution to overheating.
I like the extra room the tower would give me. I'm a long time tweaker of my PC boxes, always adding in this new part and that. We're at the point now where I don't think I'll need that too much anymore, but who knows what might come around the corner next?
I don't game much. Unreal Tourney 2004 is probably the most I've ever done. I wouldn't miss Doom III, really, but it would be nice to have that functionality (also) just in case.
I do plan on doing some Illustrator work. Nothing terribly intensive and nothing full time.
I don't know. The more I talk it out, the more I convince myself I don't need the Tower. Just some extra memory in an iMac.
The great thing is, all of the programs I use the most right now have Mac versions I can freely download: Audacity, Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, GIMP are the core. Illustrator is important, too, although there is no version for it in Linux, which is part of Linux's problem...
I keep talking in circles, so I'll shut up now. If anyone has any words of wisdom, let me know. I'm in no rush at this point.
Thanks,
-Augie

[MacGizmo]

The best advice I can offer is this. Think about what you NEED, then buy one step above that because you WILL grow into it.
It doesn't sound to me like you NEED a tower, but a top of the line iMac is probably good for you.
On the other hand, as you mentioned, having a tower means you don't have to pay for a new monitor every time you upgrade your computer with the iMac, you're probably spending $500-$700 for the attached LCD screen. Not to mention, with the iMac, if something goes wrong with the LCD, you lose the entire computer while it's being fixed, instead of just plugging in a cheap extra monitor.
It really just depends on what you need now, and what you think you might need in the future, how much power you want (and of course how much you're willing to spend!)

[gyroscope4]

of course, the imac g5 lcd is a user-serviceable part. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[augiedb]

Thanks, MacGizmo. You're giving voice to a few of the thoughts I had last time I bought a PC. The first one I ever bought I was on a tighter budget for, so I went fairly low. Learned my lesson from that. The next two I bought were closer to the top of the line for that time, knowing that would get me well into the next generation. So it has. My current PC (2 years old) is still a pretty good box.
I need to consider the same thing for the Mac. The Illustrator stuff will be light at first, but it might expand into more intensive work, which would make the extra power handy. Plus, I just like the high end stuff. I don't need the top of the line dual processors, but the dual 1.8 MHz should be good enough. Still ahead of the iMacs. I can't imagine ever doing anything heavy duty enough to require dual 2.5 MHz. (I know, I know. I say that NOW...)
As far as budgets go -- I can afford to be fairly open with mine. I'd prefer to spend less, obviously, but it's more important to spend the money wisely if I am going to do this. I'd rather spend the extra grand now and be happy with it, than cheap out and want to buy a whole new one in a year or so.
Thanks for your advice,
-Augie

[lkalliance]

Wow, some good feedback on this question. I was struggling with this, too. It's time to upgrade, and I was waiting on the iMac G5 to see which way I could go. The price was lower than I thought it would be (though there will be upgrades, I'm sure). I'm usually a tower guy, and what's more I'm usually a buy-the-very-best-I-can-possibly-afford guy. But though I sometimes upgrade, often I find myself happily using my computer right up until it's time to move up to the new technology (i.e. G5).
So I'm strongly leaning towards iMac on this one, pending having a chance to look at it and play a little. Now I'm down to whether I want to go cheaper and get the mid-range 17 (with beefed up hard drive option) or the high-end 20. I use a 17 now and I'm happy with it, but I might just do the extra $300 and go for the 20. Not sure yet. I'll have to look at them.

[Praxis]

If I had the money, I'd get a dual 1.8 with a cinema display. Most likely 20 inch, because the 20, 23, and 30 inchers use DVI, while the 17" uses ADC. While the ADC plug will go in the G5 (unless you get the Geforce 6800, it'll have a DVI and ADC), you'll need an ADC to DVI adapter to use it in any future computers.
If you just happen to be going to college, use education discount, or even better the Student Developer Connection discount ($400 off the 1.8 GHz G5, and $400 off a 15" PowerBook, and a good $200 off the cinema display if I recall).