Apple is shipping the iMacs with either an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT and HD 2600 Pro. While they offer more than enough oomph for general work, watching videos, working in iLife, etc., they're merely middling performers when it comes to gaming. And some folks were hoping that Apple would offer an iMac that was more attractive to serious gamers.

[url=http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=858&chart=318]Tom's Hardware[/url], for example, puts the new iMac's graphics cards way down the list on game frame-rate benchmarks. Both rate in the bottom half of the list.

Additionally, in a review, the [url=http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/440/19/]Guru of 3D[/url] says, "I was really hoping to see AMD be the first to go for a 256-bit wide memory bus but unfortunately just like the competition they are sticking to 128-bit," and "his is where the cards will hurt from the most."

"Both the 2400 and 2600 series are refreshing," he adds. "Unfortunately they are not the mid-range top performers we all have been hoping for, their 3D rendering capabilities are sufficient; sufficient for the money you have to pay for it."

Don't get me wrong. The graphics cards in the new Macs are nothing to sneeze at, they're just not up to the level I'd hoped they'd be. They seem to be the weak spot in a consumer system that even Apple admits has some pro-level features.

Certainly the ultra-svelte form factor of the iMac limits what Apple can pack inside. But certainly there are better alternatives to the ATI RadeonHD 2400 XT and HD 2600 Pro -- even if it mean a more expensive, "deluxe" iMac model.