Integrated video card - photo processing

The new 24" Imac has a 'integrated' video card. Does it have any impact on photo processing with Photoshop, Aperture etc.?

Also, is the display the same IPS display as the previous 24" model?

Prior to CS4, photoshop did not use the GPU (Graphics Processor) to speed things up.

As of CS4, GPU support is supposed to be included.

Aperture has used the GPU virtually since it was introduced. LR also uses the GPU.

What does this mean? In theory it means these programs will run faster and smoother, with a more powerful GPU in.

Also, when snow Leopard is available, the OS will be able to utilise more GPU power, but it is not clear yet if all programs will get some sort of boost through this, or only those that target the new APIs that support this. Because all applications interface with the user through the OS, my guess is all applications will see some small benefits because of the OS improvements, but to really exploit the full power, the App will need to use the new APIs (or custom coding as with the current apps).

-Najinsky

I've been reading everything I can find on the web...
What I have found so far...

The new 24" imacs do have the same display, no worries there. (the old 20" were not IPS)

As for the "integrated" description I understand that means the card is simply soldered on the board and not user replaceable, likely due to the imacs compact form constraints. Don't confuse that with the conventional use of the word in the PC world. It carries it's own dedicated memory.

In the past Apple has put mobil versions of graphics cards in the imacs due to heat and concerns etc.

We simply don't know what is in the new ones yet. Some contend that the GT130 and ATI card are under clocked desktop cards. Others insist they are one or both mobil cards.

It is still apparently unclear which card will be the best choice for photo processing. It matters more now than ever as Photoshop (CS4), Aperture and Lightroom all can now use GPU. Most of the early benchmarks and reports cover gaming performance.

All that being said, MANY professional photogs happily use the imacs for their work.

Now the Mac mini is a different story.

Another item of note. The 4-6 week wait for an Imac with ATI card is not due hardware issues, but rather it requires OS support, missing in the current OS X version.

I do however stand to be corrected!

--
TD...Just another dumb a** green newbie!
FCAS charter member & Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/td2/root

T D said:

As for the "integrated" description I understand that means the card
is simply soldered on the board and not user replaceable, likely due
to the imacs compact form constraints. Don't confuse that with the
conventional use of the word in the PC world. It carries it's own
dedicated memory.

Click to expand...

Not true for the entry level iMac 24.

From the Tec. Spec section at: http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

"20-inch and 24-inch model with 2.66GHz processor

• NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory. "

The memory is "shared", but a better term is "stolen" or "Taken". If you buy the machine with 2GB RAM, the OS will get 1.75GB and 256MB will be taken by the GPU. But at least it is fast DDR3 RAM.

T D118497 said:

In the past Apple has put mobil versions of graphics cards in the
imacs due to heat and concerns etc.

Click to expand...

This processor is also a Mobile GPU, designed for laptops.

T D118497 said:

Now the Mac mini is a different story.

Click to expand...

Its the same NVIDIA GeForce 9400M

T D118497 said:

I do however stand to be corrected!

Click to expand...

Glad to help ;-)

-Najinsky

Najinsky said:

T D said:

As for the "integrated" description I understand that means the card
is simply soldered on the board and not user replaceable, likely due
to the imacs compact form constraints. Don't confuse that with the
conventional use of the word in the PC world. It carries it's own
dedicated memory.

Click to expand...

Not true for the entry level iMac 24.

From the Tec. Spec section at: http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

"20-inch and 24-inch model with 2.66GHz processor

• NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM

shared with main memory. "

The memory is "shared", but a better term is "stolen" or "Taken". If
you buy the machine with 2GB RAM, the OS will get 1.75GB and 256MB
will be taken by the GPU. But at least it is fast DDR3 RAM.

Click to expand...

MY BAD!

Thanks for the clearing that up!!! The lower end imacs and mini were below my radar and not a consideration for me so I hadn't paid enough attention...

Member said:

Member said:

In the past Apple has put mobil versions of graphics cards in the
imacs due to heat and concerns etc.

Click to expand...

This processor is also a Mobile GPU, designed for laptops.

Click to expand...

Probably! but, there is still huge debate about it, with no proof either way that I can find on some other boards....

So the GT 120 @ 256 in the Imac is the mobile version of the GT 120 @ 512 that comes in the Mac Pro?

Member said:

Glad to help ;-)

Click to expand...

Thank you!

So to answer a question for me if you can / will

Is their any way that the ATI option in the new Imac 3.06 would be a worse performer than the other options or is it surly to be equal or better for Aperture and CS4??? Forgetting video, gaming, cost and the wait.

I am going to order the fastest iMac I can... OR a Mac Pro + 24 inch display. I'm trying to convince myself I can save the $ difference and be happy!

My upgrade path was/is
604e
G3
G4 + $1400 21" CRT that just died
I Skipped the G5s
????????? 24" iMac?

--
TD...Just another dumb a** green newbie!
FCAS charter member & Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/td2/root

Najinsky said:

This processor is also a Mobile GPU, designed for laptops.

Click to expand...

snipped from another forum............

Originally Posted by xxxxxxxx

For what it is worth, I did get into a sales chat with Apple and was told that the 4850 was in fact the full desktop version:

I then asked "But can I be assured that the version in the iMac is "the real deal", or could it have been slowed due to heat concerns?" The reply was

"Oh absolutely."

After this I called 1800MYAPPLE and was told be a sales rep that it is the Desktop card in the iMac and not the Mobility.

Finally the next day I did one more sales chat and was told that it WAS the mobility, but when I asked for a bit more detail I was told to call 1800MYAPPLE.

There is some confusion................
perhaps a desktop card under-clocked?

--
TD...Just another dumb a** green newbie!
FCAS charter member & Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/td2/root

T D said:

Najinsky said:

This processor is also a Mobile GPU, designed for laptops.

Click to expand...

snipped from another forum............
told that the 4850 was in fact the full desktop version:

Click to expand...

T D118497 said:

Finally the next day I did one more sales chat and was told that it
WAS the mobility, but when I asked for a bit more detail I was told
to call 1800MYAPPLE.

There is some confusion................
perhaps a desktop card under-clocked?

Click to expand...

The comment was regarding the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M included in the entry level iMac 24". I don't think there is any confusion here, Apple quote the model number of the mobility version and refer to the shared memory. It is also not an upgradeable option so I don't believe there is any evidence or suggestion it will be anything other than the integrated version.

For the higher spec models, Apple quote the model numbers of the desktop versions. They refer to PCI express and it is an upgradeable option, so again, I would expect it to be the models they are quoting (the desktop versions). However, given the history of the intel iMacs, I agree there may well be a chance they are under-clocked to reduce heat, and every chance they will come under fire for not listing this anywhere convenient!

-Najinsky

For a novice users who may be using iMac for photoshop, what would be the better value, the graphic 256mb card that comes with with 2.93 ghz 24" version or 512 ATI or NVDIA card

T D said:

Najinsky said:

T D118497 said:

In the past Apple has put mobil versions of graphics cards in the
imacs due to heat and concerns etc.

Click to expand...

This processor is also a Mobile GPU, designed for laptops.

Click to expand...

Probably! but, there is still huge debate about it, with no proof
either way that I can find on some other boards....

So the GT 120 @ 256 in the Imac is the mobile version of the GT 120
@ 512 that comes in the Mac Pro?

Click to expand...

No. The entry level is the mobile version. You can tell from the model numbers, with the entry level it's NVIDIA GeForce 9400M. The M at the end designates the Mobile version.

For the Mid range, the GT 120 is the desktop model number, if it were the mobile version it would be GT 120M. So according to Apples spec, the GT 120, GT 130 and ATI 8450 HD options are ALL desk top versions.

Having said that, there was some evidence on the various performance web sites that last years 8800 GS option was actually delivered as GeForce 8800M GTS, which was indeed the mobile version. The desktop version has 96 processors at 550MHz whereas the mobile version has 64 processors at 500MHz. If that was true, I assume people would have returned their Macs and sought some form of compensation. I don't know the official line on it. Apple's terms usually state that they can alter the spec with an alternative component if they need to. But they would have had a hard time defending a GPU thats is 35% slower as a fair 'alternative'.

Likewise, there is now a rumour going round that the GT 130 being shipped with the iMac is actually now a GeForce 9800M GS. Again, the M designation means that would be a mobile version. However, this time it would actually be good news because the GF 9800M GS has 64 processors against 48 processors in the GT 130. GT 130M, the mobile version of the GT 130, only has 32 processors so pray they don't put that in!!

T D118497 said:

So to answer a question for me if you can / will

Is their any way that the ATI option in the new Imac 3.06 would be a
worse performer than the other options or is it surly to be equal or
better for Aperture and CS4??? Forgetting video, gaming, cost and
the wait.

Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if performed worse. It's an excellent card with great all round performance scores. If the drivers and firmware are decent, it should easily out-perform the GT 130 in most areas. It has 800 stream processors!!!

But how that translates to Aperture performance is another matter. My MBP has 32 cores (GPU), and sometimes when I've been hammering Aperture for too long, I start to get corrupt renderings (pure black rectangular blocks) which I assume to be where the image has been devided for processing by individual cores, but have failed to be re-assembled.

In Tiger, I only saw evidence of quartering of images for processing. In Leopard, I've seen evidence it is splitting into 8ths and 16ths.

I'm guessing the more the image is split, the more complex the re-assembly becomes (where pixels are affected by their missing neighbour, such as sharpen or contrast), so I think the concept of deminishing returns will start to come into play a little.

I think Aperture renderings will definately run raster with the new graphics cards, but perhaps not by as much as the raw peformance of the cards might suggest. At least under Leopard.

I think things will improve further under Snow Leopard, as perfomance and multi-core processing have been big initiative under SL.

T D118497 said:

I am going to order the fastest iMac I can... OR a Mac Pro + 24 inch
display. I'm trying to convince myself I can save the $ difference
and be happy!

My upgrade path was/is
604e
G3
G4 + $1400 21" CRT that just died
I Skipped the G5s
????????? 24" iMac?

Click to expand...

Shame about the 21" CRT. That would have made a Mac Pro more tempting perhaps.

I would give careful consideration to the Mac Pro route, before you decide on iMac. iMacs and Mac Pros are different concepts. iMac is single wire, minimum fuss, no upgrade. Mac Pro is raw power and growth. Hard disks growth has started failing to keep up with media requirements (movies, HD video, processed raw files) so the extra drive bays in the MP will be useful and keep things tisy. Upgrades in GPU and additional CPUs will bring genuine speed improvements. Replaceable monitors will be useful if image quality is critical. Do these benefits appeal?

Or perhaps wait for a refurb new model iMac, so you can give it a try and still have a good chance of getting most of your money back if you decide it is a mistake.

-Najinsky

aghauri said:

For a novice users who may be using iMac for photoshop, what would be
the better value, the graphic 256mb card that comes with with 2.93
ghz 24" version or 512 ATI or NVDIA card

Click to expand...

We all begin as novices. The problem is some people like to stay there, while others begin to take it further. If you plan to stay novice, then the minimum config that gets the job done will be the best value. In this respect, the GT 120 with 256MB easily surpasses the minimum requirements for CS4.

If you plan on some growth in your usage and abilities, then the value question is a little harder. More of a "If I buy this, will I make use of it or is it money wasted" type issue.

Here's some of John Nack (from Adobe)'s comments on GPUs

"if you anticipate working with numerous large documents and/or 3D, having 512MB RAM on your card is a good idea."

from: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/09/photoshop_gpu_a.html

and in relation to pixel blender:

"It runs filters really, really fast on your graphics card (GPU) "

and

"The Pixel Bender plug-in has the same GPU requirements as Photoshop CS4. The more memory on your card, the larger the images you can process with it."

From here: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/11/pixel_bender_ar.html

So for CS4 there is a good chance the better GPU will be put to good use. Also, in Snow Leopard you should get system wide speed benefits, including utilising the extra GPU power. In other words, it is unlikely to be money wasted.

Hope that helps!

-Najinsky

Thanks so much for taking the time to help clarify for me Najinsky.
The Mac Pro is very tempting indeed.

If I go with the iMac it will be with the expectation that I will upgrade much sooner. Maybe when quad cores arrive. Now i'm considering a 2nd display for the iMac.
I didn't sweat my last car purchase this much! LOL!

Thanks Again
TD

Thanks, Najinsky and TD. I think I will give it a go with the entry level Imac 24" with a integrated video card. I don't spend a whole lot of time with Photoshop and currently cannot justify $300 more for a faster CPU and dedicated GPU.

I am also considering the newer iMacs. Contemplating between the entry level, or one step up.
--
http://flickr.com/photos/magiclight/