The iMac Graphics Firmware Update will update the graphics firmware on your iMac.
More info and download link (683 KB) here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
36 Comments
Leave a Reply
UK to force Apple, Google to block nude images on kids’ devices
The UK government will require technology companies such as Apple Inc. and Google to stop children from taking, sharing or viewing nude…
Apple’s foldable iPhone took a decade to arrive — and may start above $2,000
Apple’s first foldable iPhone is expected to headline Wednesday’s “Surprise and Shine” event, but the product itself is not a last-minute…
Apple’s ‘Surprise and Shine’ event arrives tomorrow: Foldable iPhone, 18 Pro lineup, and a new CEO era
Apple holds its biggest product event of the year on Wednesday, September 9, at 10am PDT / 1pm EDT at Apple Park in Cupertino…
Apple’s foldable iPhone set to grab 25% share in 2026, 40% in 2027 as foldables pass 100 million cumulative shipments
Global foldable smartphone shipments are on track to pass a major milestone by the end of 2026, with lifetime volumes expected to exceed…
Apple Certified Refurbished still looks like new; Amazon and Walmart refurbs cost less, but come with trade-offs
Patience is the cheapest upgrade in Apple’s lineup. Skip launch day, wait a few months, and you can buy a Certified Refurbished…
Hope it works!
Some of the 21.5″s have the ATI Radeon HD 4670, too. No update for them yet, apparently.
Hopefully this means they will start shipping the iMacs again! Mine is still on back order!
this update would be nice if I had my 27″ iMac.
I could be wrong, but I think the back order is due to popularity. When I ordered mine, it was 3-5 days, then I saw the store was saying 5-7 days, then it went up again.
Mine shipped three days after ordering and arrived a couple days later. This thing is awesome. I can say this is probably the greatest computer ever made in terms of price/performance.
I have always bought PowerMacs/MacPros, but not this time…..and I am NOT unhappy about the switch!
I’ve had my 27″ iMac from the very beginning (purchased from the local Apple Store). No problems whatsoever . . . but little is ever heard from those with perfect hardware, huh?
Applied the update this afternoon anyway. Still perfect.
One would have to pry this machine from my cold, dead fingers to take it away. It is a dream come true.
I have the problem on my 21.5″ and know that the problem is not as widespread. Hope they do an update soon.
Would you guys shut up?!
I’m dyin over here.
Order Status:
Not yet shipped
Product: IMAC 27″ Qty. 1
Ships: Jan 5
Delivers: Jan 8
(sigh)
Is there a difference between a firmware, and a software update?
Does this mean that the problem is not really the graphics card?
Cause if it was you’d have to replace all of them I guess.
@cw
Firmware is located in non-volatile, programmable memory. In the old days this was called EEPROM. Software is loaded into volatile memory (RAM requires periodic refresh to retain contents).
Wikipedia probably has a better explanation.
“Is there a difference between a firmware, and a software update?”
Yes- a firmware update has to do with modifying the embedded program on the components of a hardware device directly.
A software upgrade is at the operating system level- how the OS or a “driver” within the OS ‘talks’ to the hardware device.
What are all of you complaining about? Back in 2005 when apple intruduced the mac mini at macworld jan 2005, I immediately placed my orderwhen they opened the ordering page for it. Wasn’t until April 15th when they invoiced it. I recieved it on April 23rd almost 2 1/2 months. this was the time where They shipped out 10.4 tiger. Since it was invoiced on April 15th, I qualified for the $14.95 update for tiger since my mini came with 10.3.9 Panther it.
would suk if apple intro something out of this world by the time some of you finally get ur iMacs in 2010.
So, it does have a problem with flicker. Not good.
With this kind of issue, it takes all the steam out of the claim that what we have is better than the other guys.
What’s next? Price cuts to compete with Windows machines since this Mac model acts like one of theirs?
Dont get your panties in a ruffle…
Its a simple problem that was easily fixed.
I just installed the firmware update on my 27″ i7… but never had the display problems to begin with…
The estimated ship time on my 27″ iMac had been December 24th. But I was surprised to get a shipment notice last week an it arrived last Friday, a week early. No problems with flicker or anything else (so far, knock on wood). I went with the i7 processor and 8GB of RAM and the performance (over my 2007 iMac) is remarkable. Adobe CS apps are particularly improved. But my favorite thing is the new magic mouse. HUGE improvement over the previous iteration.
@ Not Good
Mac users don’t have it better than the other guys. You just have better software.
Your hardware is the same, at best, as the other guys. Your 27″ iMac has last year’s ATI GPU. So out of the gate you’re behind and you can never upgrade. And Jobs has dictated that you never will.
Steve Jobs is a genius. And NextSTEP er OS X is the best. Too bad you’re always stuck with paying through the nose for outdated graphics.
“The iMac Graphics Firmware Update will update the graphics firmware on your iMac.”
I’m a huge fan of Captain Obvious and his poetry.
Why didn’t Apple use the 5xxx series? It’s been out for ages now.
“Why didn’t Apple use the 5xxx series? It’s been out for ages now.”
Apple hardware is always a generation behind, and the first 3 months of production units have inexplicable problems which are masked, not fixed, by firmware updates.
That’s why.
To all you “why didn’t Apple use… blah blah” types. Do you really think Apple makes these choices 2 weeks before a model is released? They probably have to shop, choose, negotiate and purchase their components a year in advance. I think they do a mighty impressive job of delivering incredibly functional products with great style at pretty good prices considering what they are.
Raskol and Good Luck and iSee,
Good luck with buying a 27 display with the same resolution as the 27″ iMac. It should be easy since that is “last year’s technology”
I have had several first generation Macs that were from the first 3 months of production and had no problems, or have any of my acquaintances.
No Apple hardware isn’t the same “at best” as other guys. Dell and HP actually use a lot of cheaper components.
By the way if it is truly a hardware problem a firmware change will rarely fix it or cover it up.
Your hardware is the same, at best, as the other guys
Yeah, that’s why Apple should have a custom graphics chipset.
Or build the graphics right into the CPU, so it works at the SAME speed. A custom CPU/GPU.
Then get the memory to work at the same speed as the CPU/GPU combo.
And call it the Amiga 5000. Of course it would have to have a card edge, so it could use expansion slots later, if you wanted.
Each add-on card would have 4 (4 core) CPUs PER card, for a total of 16 CPUs. Then you should be able to use up to FOUR cards, for a total of 80 CPUs, counting the four core CPU that comes with the computer. Impossible? Who’s heard of the transputer computers Atari, and Amiga where working on.
@ cw,
Good to know that some people visiting this site have been around long enough to remember the early days and what could have been.
@ digital mercenary,
Nobody needs a 27″ display on their desktop. HD desktop monitor? Why? So you can watch a Blu-Ray that you don’t have a drive to play it on? LOL So Mac user’s have some kind of bragging rights that they can pay through the nose for an overinduldgent display that can only play last years games.
Dell and HP do use some cheaper components. I don’t consider HP and Dell to be competing with the iMac. Apple actually doesn’t even have any real competition. I compare Apple’s computers to what an enthusiast can build. I know that is unfair. However, if Apple would build a headless, upgradable Mac, enthusiasts would have a real option. As long as PowerMacs use Xeon CPUs with no lower cost option, “enthusiast” computer users are forced to use Windows or Linux or a Hackintosh. Any computer user with average knowledge can buy the parts to put any Mac to shame and put it together themselves. And they do. They don’t buy them from Dell. Nobody buys XPSs and nobody buys PowerMacs! You know what I mean.
For xxxx sake all they have to do is use Core2Duos / i7’s in a tower! And nobody needs a machined aluminum case! Can’t somebody start a petition?
I love Next er uh Apple, unfortunately I cannot justify buying their computers.
@doc e,
If Apple can get Intel to build them custom CPUs why can’t Apple work a deal with ATI? They’ve been partners since when? And they can’t get a decent price on a 5xxx GPU? Come on, no, it’s because Apple needs their margins. Fine, at least give people the option of a 5xxx and let them wait for it to ship or something.
And yes, the firmware update is probably underclocking the the 4850 or the RAM so Apple is “masking” the problem as iSee stated. So NOW, not only do you have an 18 month old GPU, it’s underclocked! Fsck that.
“Good luck with buying a 27 display with the same resolution as the 27” iMac. It should be easy since that is “last year’s technology””
It’s sure hard to find one that’s cracked out of the box and flickers all the time if that’s what you mean.
“By the way if it is truly a hardware problem a firmware change will rarely fix it or cover it up.”
Not so, in many cases it’s possible, like for example as raskol states, running graphics chips at lower than originally designed clock rates to mask the fact that they can’t run full speed. Most fanboys will never notice, or if they do, they will come up with some ridiculous explanation as to why slower graphics are better.
Any you’re right. The $2000 iMac has a slightly better resolution screen than the 27″ PC monitor you buy for $350. Go Figure.
“If Apple can get Intel to build them custom CPUs “
When did that happen. On odd occasion Apple may have been the first (by say 36-48 hrs) to announce a product which uses a new CPU, More commonly Dell, HP etc. announce the products and Apple users wait hopefully for 6-12 months to see the same CPU or graphics chipset come through in a Mac.
“Dell and HP actually use a lot of cheaper components.”
Time after time that’s proved to be BS. Dell, HP, Apple all use the same parts and are built in the same factories by the same people. What sets Macs apart are the prettier cases. There’s no doubt that a Mac case is a more expensive and attractive repository for those same components.
cw: Your hardware is the same, at best, as the other guys
I’m reading this on the 27″ 2560*1440 LED-backlighted screen of my near-silent new i7 iMac and can only smile.
True – there is no hardware component in this machine which the other major manufacturers couldn’t theoretically use as well.
The question just is: Why don’t they bother actually doing it?
The 27″ iMac is actually quite a good value for its price, given the massive high-quality screen it comes with. If you are content with mediocre cobbled-together PCs, that is absolutely your right. But you are sorely mistaken if you believe that a machine like this iMac was a ripoff – it isn’t.
And I can tell – I’ve paid the price and I’ve got the actual machine right here and can judge its quality level and its performance.
cw: Yeah, that’s why Apple should have a custom graphics chipset.
Or build the graphics right into the CPU, so it works at the SAME speed. A custom CPU/GPU.
Then get the memory to work at the same speed as the CPU/GPU combo.
And call it the Amiga 5000. Of course it would have to have a card edge, so it could use expansion slots later, if you wanted.
Each add-on card would have 4 (4 core) CPUs PER card, for a total of 16 CPUs. Then you should be able to use up to FOUR cards, for a total of 80 CPUs, counting the four core CPU that comes with the computer. Impossible? Who’s heard of the transputer computers Atari, and Amiga where working on.
Sorry, but you’re missing any number of snags and problems you’d invite that way.
For one, already the Amiga suffered quite a bit from memory bandwidth limitations exactly because of its tightly integrated video circuitry, and the “shared memory” chipsets we see today usually have the same problem. The Nvidia 9400 is actually a positive exception with its comparatively high efficiency under these circumstances.
But the current-generation multi-core Nehalem CPUs only are as fast as they are because they’ve got all their memory to themselves – they have little bandwidth to spare already when they run full tilt with all their cores.
And faster graphics cards actually have higher memory bandwidth again than CPUs – they would actually be crippled by forcing them to use the CPU bus, even if the CPU itself didn’t interfere at all.
My iMac 27″ can simultaneously drive its own 2560*1440 screen and an external 2560*1600 screen in true colour at the same time, which requires quite a bit of bandwidth to begin with, and that’s just for the static picture – any 3D acceleration comes on top of that again!
Your idea that Apple should make their own graphics hardware doesn’t make much sense either – among other problems that would make it much more difficult to support Windows gaming on their machines, with the users completely dependent on Apple for the GPU drivers. And Apple may not really have their highest priority on providing top performance under Direct X 11 with their custom graphics chips.
Besides: It is much, much harder than you think to produce graphics processors which would actually surpass ATI’s and Nvidia’s offerings. I doubt that Apple could really gain any advantage there, but it is a certainty that it would cost them billions of $ to even try. And for what?
raskol: Nobody needs a 27″ display on their desktop.
If the only thing you know to use a computer for is to browse the web in the Windows-typical fullscreen mode and to play ego shooters for the rest of the time, that may indeed be your conclusion.
But you know, some of us actually do more than that with their machines. For me as a developer it is absolutely critical to have as much information directly visible as possible, which is why I’ve got the 2560*1440 of the internal screen plus an external 1600*1200 one at this time and it still doesn’t feel like “plenty”. I’m pondering the upgrade of my secondary screen to a 30″ one to gain even more space which I could easily put to use as well.
Having three full-size and rather high windows next to each other is perfect for working on source code, having a reference PDF and a lookup browser window open at the same time with a lot less need of scrolling than before. If I need additional library include files for reference, command line windows or logs, I still need the secondary monitor for that, and with its smaller size it’s getting tight.
I’m not a gamer, but even 3D games can run in full resolution, if at adjusted detail settings. I’ve checked.
It is also much more fun to look at Google Earth on that huge screen and having a large but still highly detailed view at the same time. And it goes on and on…
raskol: I compare Apple’s computers to what an enthusiast can build. I know that is unfair. However, if Apple would build a headless, upgradable Mac, enthusiasts would have a real option.
There are “enthusiasts” of all kinds, and cash-strapped PC gamers are just one rather small faction among them. And given their volatile and generally cheapskate priorities, why in the world would Apple target them specifically?
Occasional gamers are a much, much larger audience (not least because they use their computer primarily for other things) and Apple already serves them well.
raskol: Any computer user with average knowledge can buy the parts to put any Mac to shame and put it together themselves. And they do. They don’t buy them from Dell. Nobody buys XPSs and nobody buys PowerMacs! You know what I mean.
I know what you mean and I’m eagerly waiting for you to provide a machine which is actually comparable to the iMac 27″, notably including an LED-backlighted IPS screen with a resolution of at least the same 2560*1440, a comparable quality level, a comparable software package and an actually comparable feature set.
I’ve seen many, many such claims, but the people who make them so easily just can’t actually deliver in the end. It always comes out to the fact that Macs are actually not “overpriced”, but just decently priced high-quality machines. You can usually get comparable machines elsewhere as well, but these PCs will cost you as well – and in many cases the Mac will actually be the cheaper one in such a direct comparison.
raskol: I love Next er uh Apple, unfortunately I cannot justify buying their computers.
Then don’t. But you are massively overestimating the universal applicability of your own personal priorities.
raskol: If Apple can get Intel to build them custom CPUs why can’t Apple work a deal with ATI? They’ve been partners since when? And they can’t get a decent price on a 5xxx GPU? Come on, no, it’s because Apple needs their margins. Fine, at least give people the option of a 5xxx and let them wait for it to ship or something.
Especially when ramping up production of new chips on newly shrunk production processes, the yields are often not very high. It is quite possible that the suppliers simply can’t guarantee the delivery of the numbers of new-generation chips Apple would have needed. Apple is one of the largest computer manufacturers after all, and especially the new iMacs are apparently selling really well. This factor can very well have played a role. Margins matter to Apple, obviously, but they are not the absolutely only thing that matters.
raskol: And yes, the firmware update is probably underclocking the the 4850 or the RAM so Apple is “masking” the problem as iSee stated. So NOW, not only do you have an 18 month old GPU, it’s underclocked! Fsck that.
If the only thing you’re interested in is to confirm your own preconceived notions to yourself, unfounded conjecture is definitely the way to go.
Why no ATI 5XXXX Cards
Well this will be a CTO option soon ATI had problem supplying enough of these chips to meet demand but will be added once this has been resolved.
I dont get why you would sit in front of a Desktop computer to play games!!!!!
I am Happy with my PS3 with my 55inch LED Samsung TV, huge viewing area and ability to play games with other people instead of huddling round such a small desktop computer screen
“The question just is: Why don’t they bother actually doing it?”
They Do, on their older, cheaper models. True, they don’t have the nice machined Apple case.
And the main reason they don’t use the same stuff as Apple? In the PC world, if you sell an expensive PC you do need to use the latest and fastest stuff. They can’t get away with selling last year’s spec as new the way Apple can.
iSee: They Do, on their older, cheaper models.
Damn! I must have missed that i7 PC with a 2560*1440 LED-backlighted IPS screen again…!
But I’m sure you can give us a link to it, right?
iSee: And the main reason they don’t use the same stuff as Apple? In the PC world, if you sell an expensive PC you do need to use the latest and fastest stuff. They can’t get away with selling last year’s spec as new the way Apple can.
Well, that is the usual lame comeback. The only one that counts would be a link to an actually comparable machine for substantially less money – and you’ll need one that actually compares.
So where is it?
You can add the 27″ monitor to any PC you own for $350. No need to throw away the whole system just to get a bigger monitor.
And as to specs, Where is your i7 Extreme iMac? Your dual processor 8 core iMac? your iMac with two of the latest SLI graphics cards? Your iMac with more then 2TB of storage? Your iMac that can take more than 16GB of memory, the Blu-Ray disk?
Sorry, not available.
But all those features are all available in state of the art PCs. So therefore by definition the iMac is not a state of the art PC.
So the Mac gets bested in CPU, Memory, disk storage, and removable media.
But ya know what, it does have a high res LCD panel, even if it is cracked and flickering and only playing DVD quality movies.
iMac is a nice package cosmetically. It’s pretty. But it’s sure not a state of the art PC or even close.
@ So where is it?
And as to specs, Where is your i7 Extreme iMac? Your dual processor 8 core iMac? your iMac with two of the latest SLI graphics cards? Your iMac with more then 2TB of storage? Your iMac that can take more than 16GB of memory, the Blu-Ray disk?
——————————————————————————————
Intel don’t do a I7 Extreme processor, well if you wanted dual 8 core Imac you would buy a Mac Pro there is not enough space inside an Imac for 2 I7 Processors, Also the I7 CTO processor is actually 8 core 4 physical and 4 logical, again not enough space for dual SLI Graphics cards also heat issues.
Also no space inside the case for more than 16 GB of RAM which retails for about $1200 at the moment!!!!
For the design the spec meet the requirements
If you want the higher spec you buy a Pro Model Mac Pro
The Imac is designed for home users and yes 90% of buyers do not need the highest spec machines as they only use their computers for web surfing, Word processing, Photo editing maybe simple movie editing using IDVD and IMovie.
Do your research mate!!!! maybe you need to go back to school as your education is a bit lacking
So where is it?: You can add the 27″ monitor to any PC you own for $350.
Simply show me the configuration, including the price tag, comparable to any given 27″ iMac model.
Any 27″ (or larger) display with 2560*1440 pixels (or more), with an LED backlight and with an IPS panel (or better) will do for the display, and any PC with the same level of features as the iMac (or better), including the same level of included software (or better).
I’m not even saying it’s impossible (although I know of no other 2560-pixel-class LED-backlighted display on the market at this point,), but you simply have to prove your point, not just make empty claims.
We’re on the internet – nothing easier than providing the link(s) and to tally the total price of the package (including, of course, assembly, software, support and warranty).
So far, you are just stalling and evading, still empty-handed.
So where is it?: No need to throw away the whole system just to get a bigger monitor.
It’s got 2560*1440 pixels. And it supports an additional external display of up to 2560*1600 simultaneously. I think I can get by with that for a while. Which higher-resolution display were you pining for, exactly?
So where is it?: And as to specs, Where is your i7 Extreme iMac? Your dual processor 8 core iMac? your iMac with two of the latest SLI graphics cards? Your iMac with more then 2TB of storage? Your iMac that can take more than 16GB of memory, the Blu-Ray disk?
Sorry, not available.
But all those features are all available in state of the art PCs. So therefore by definition the iMac is not a state of the art PC.
Apple has not the slightest interest to satisfy what you believe to be a “state of the art PC”. And I have very little interest in getting a gaming rig with little use for much else.
So where is it?: So the Mac gets bested in CPU, Memory, disk storage, and removable media.
The iMac is not the top-of-the-line machine from Apple. That would be the dual-Xeon 8-core server-class-chipset Mac Pro.
So where is it?: But ya know what, it does have a high res LCD panel, even if it is cracked and flickering and only playing DVD quality movies.
And you know what? Contrary to your ignorant rantings, mine is completely flawless – not a single defective pixel, no cracks, no flickering and if I actually had a desire to inflict the BluRay DRM disaster on myself, I could boot into Windows and use an external drive with no more difficulty than on any PC (but no less difficulty either, unfortunately). But you’ll stay limited to Windows – I don’t.
So where is it?: iMac is a nice package cosmetically. It’s pretty.
Without a doubt, that it is – and as with a really nice car, it contributes to the continued satisfaction of using it, even though I would never buy a computer just or even primarily for its appearance.
So where is it?: But it’s sure not a state of the art PC or even close.
What you mistake for “state of the art” is not even close to it, really. Look a Mac Pro to get an impression where it’s at performance-wise, or any other really solid workstation on that level.
The iMac is not intended to be the absolute maximum that could possibly be specced out, it is intended to be a computer that is fast, reliable, silent, compact, versatile and still looks good on top of all that.
I got the iMac 27″ i7 because it provides an excellent value for my money, significantly cheaper than the workstation-class Mac Pro but still already with a high-end display in the package and the level of computing power I need for my work.
I don’t have that much use for 8 full cores (16 with HyperThreading), so 4 (8 with HyperThreading) plus TurboBoost for single-thread performance are closer to my actual needs for the foreseeable future, with some room left for growth.
And the huge screen effectively makes an even bigger difference for my concrete working efficiency as I’ve expected and as I already confirmed in the short time I’ve used it in practice.
Pimply gaming kids whose main interest is on the level of “mine is bigger than yours” are served very well by specialized PC manufacturers who have tons of gaudily illuminated cases and LED-illuminated fans.
I couldn’t care less about that kind of stuff, however.
I need something that actually works reliably, efficiently, with good performance where I need it, with no or minimal maintenance overhead, with an OS which provides easy interfacing with other Unix systems, an excellent user interface on top of that and a manufacturer who stands behind his complete product, without finger-pointing between separate hardware and OS producers.
The iMac 27″ provides all that to a remarkably high degree of satisfaction, and you are still empty-handed to match its price and value!
“Apple has not the slightest interest to satisfy what you believe to be a “state of the art PC”. And I have very little interest in getting a gaming rig with little use for much else.”
So your iMac is far from the state of the art. Well thanks for the admission.
“The iMac is not the top-of-the-line machine from Apple. That would be the dual-Xeon 8-core server-class-chipset Mac Pro.”
Thanks for confirming again that an iMac is far from the state of the art.
“I could boot into Windows and use an external drive with no more difficulty”
Glad to know the best way to get state of the art features on your Mac is to boot Windows.
“The iMac is not intended to be the absolute maximum that could possibly be specced out,”
My point exactly, thanks for confirming it. I agree, the iMac is a pretty, if expensive PC with middling to average hardware spec.
You list over and over how happy you are with the compromises it entails and how you’re so happy with your purchase. Sounds a bit like you’re trying to convince yourself that buying obsolete but pretty hardware was the right move.
But don’t kid yourself that what you have is even close to state of the art.
iSee: “Apple has not the slightest interest to satisfy what you believe to be a “state of the art PC”. And I have very little interest in getting a gaming rig with little use for much else.”
So your iMac is far from the state of the art. Well thanks for the admission.
Your definition is completely arbitrary, so you can shift it to match whatever preconceived notion you happen to fancy.
Back to the point you’re so carefully avoiding: Your claim was that the new iMacs were “overpriced” and “outdated”. You still fail to substantiate your points.
So how is a 2560*1440 LED-lit IPS display, an i7 Nehalem CPU and the Magic Mouse “outdated”, just to name a few points?
Where is it “overpriced” and relative to what exactly?
It’s your empty claim – and your continued failure to actually deliver!
So it’s the same as ever: Tall tales followed by a severe lack of any evidence.
Same old, same old…