PDA

View Full Version : iMac 17" ATI X1600 gaming performance




Soulstorm
Apr 21, 2007, 05:23 AM
I will have to purchase an intel iMac 2GHz Core 2 Duo with ATI X1600 inside it because I will need the intel processor for stuff I won't be able to do with a PPC Mac. I'm in a hurry, so I can't wait until a new model is released.

I know it's a fast machine, but as far as games are concerned, how fast is it?

I have 2 specific questions:
1)Is it faster than my G5 in my signature? If it is, how much faster?
2)Will it play games like Half life 2 in high quality (with windows XP or Vista)?



Haoshiro
Apr 21, 2007, 07:23 AM
The answer to both are "Yes"

I'm not sure if it helps, but the X1600 is roughly in the same class as the nVidia 6600 GT.

I've had great luck with any game I've tried, including HL2. I haven't tried some of the newer games recently, however.

Little Endian
Apr 21, 2007, 08:08 AM
Overall a Core 2 Duo 2Ghz imac won't be much faster overall than a Dual 2.5GHz G5 machine. Processor wise it's somewhat of a tie, the Core 2 Duo will beat the G5 in some cases but the G5 will beat it in others.

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd3.html

Soulstorm
Apr 21, 2007, 12:16 PM
I'm not sure if it helps, but the X1600 is roughly in the same class as the nVidia 6600 GT.

If that's true, then my X800XT is faster than the X1600? Are you sure about that?

Here are the games I am about to play using Boot Camp:
Half Life 2
Far Cry
F.E.A.R.

Also, in order to play these games, what system do you recommend? Windows XP or Windows Vista? Which one is faster?

sikkinixx
Apr 21, 2007, 12:27 PM
This isn't 100% the same since they are AGP rather than PCI-E (that is what the iMac uses no?)

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=369&card2=52

the X800XL seems to have better stats, and a quick x1600 vs x800xt in google brought up a lot of forums with some debates about it. But some people on such forums say the x800 doesn't support the latest shader stuff or HDR lighting...

But either way, I play all those games on my AMD 2500+, 1Gb Ram and 9800Pro with no problems, a bit of graphical compromise but still runs just gravy. I think HL2 will run on a Commodore 64 :D

QCassidy352
Apr 21, 2007, 12:37 PM
I don't think the x1600 beats the x800xt... I doubt you'd see any improvement in games.

Sam*
Apr 21, 2007, 01:31 PM
i havent played any of the games you are

but i have played

Gta san andreas
and
mx vs atv unleashed

and they both play great on my 17"imac

FullCollapse
Apr 21, 2007, 03:56 PM
yeah i can't really answer your questions either, but here's a few games my mac can handle:

Warcraft 3
World of Warcraft
Starcraft
Call of Duty 2

obviously same video card, but i also have an extra three inches to power.

jamesi
Apr 21, 2007, 05:33 PM
If that's true, then my X800XT is faster than the X1600? Are you sure about that?

Here are the games I am about to play using Boot Camp:
Half Life 2
Far Cry
F.E.A.R.

Also, in order to play these games, what system do you recommend? Windows XP or Windows Vista? Which one is faster?

the X800XT trumps the X1600, but hell, at least youll be able to play games

QCassidy352
Apr 21, 2007, 06:02 PM
FWIW, warcraft 3 and civilization 4 both play very well on my gf's 17" 1.83 Ghz core duo imac. Civ IV isn't totally flawless, but it's still very good, and your imac would be faster.

applekid
Apr 21, 2007, 10:04 PM
As other have mentioned, the X800XT is faster than the X1600.

ATI's video cards with an 8 in them are the high end versions (although that now goes to the ones with a 9). The 6's are mid range. Anything lower is laughable. But there's a generation difference between these two cards so the X1600 might have support for some newer shaders and other things.

GPU-wise, your PowerMac is still superior. Processor-wise, might be a toss up but those benchmarks people have posted appear to mean they're similar.

Soulstorm
Apr 22, 2007, 04:29 AM
As other have mentioned, the X800XT is faster than the X1600.

ATI's video cards with an 8 in them are the high end versions (although that now goes to the ones with a 9). The 6's are mid range. Anything lower is laughable. But there's a generation difference between these two cards so the X1600 might have support for some newer shaders and other things.

GPU-wise, your PowerMac is still superior. Processor-wise, might be a toss up but those benchmarks people have posted appear to mean they're similar.

I thought so, so the next question in my mind would be "How much superior is my card over the X1600?".

I am asking this because the iMac will totally replace my G5. The G5 foes to my dad for his work, while the iMac goes to me.

ninewhereman
Apr 22, 2007, 05:26 AM
From what I have read the dual processor doesn't really help in gaming; as much as I'd like it too. The vid card you have definitely beats the one in my Imac. Hell I can't even play AOE3 on most things full, without a major hit when I am attacking the heck out of the other team. :(

dmw007
Apr 22, 2007, 06:26 AM
I have a 2.5GHz Power Mac G5 with a 256MB GeForce 6800 ULTRA DDL and a 2GHz MacBook Pro with a 128MB Radeon X1600 and the G5 is definitely the better performer for gaming. That said, the MacBook Pro does a fine job, it just is not quite as fast as the Power Mac G5 is. :)

Soulstorm
Apr 22, 2007, 10:12 AM
From what I have read the dual processor doesn't really help in gaming; as much as I'd like it too. The vid card you have definitely beats the one in my Imac. Hell I can't even play AOE3 on most things full, without a major hit when I am attacking the heck out of the other team

Me neither, so don't expect many differences between the two cards from what you are mentioning. Also, the X800XT does not support the highest shader detail in Age Of Empires III, so you must also take this into account. AOE is a very demanding game.

Also, dual processors do help in games, if the game is designed to take advantage of them. In quake 4 I saw massive performance gain when using the latest patch which added multiple processors support.

I have a 2.5GHz Power Mac G5 with a 256MB GeForce 6800 ULTRA DDL and a 2GHz MacBook Pro with a 128MB Radeon X1600 and the G5 is definitely the better performer for gaming. That said, the MacBook Pro does a fine job, it just is not quite as fast as the Power Mac G5 is. :)

Indeed, I expected that. However, note that the macbook pro does not have a normal ATI X1600, it has the 'mobility' model instead. All mobility models are slower than their normal counterparts. Thanks for the info, though.

socamx
Apr 22, 2007, 12:56 PM
I have a Dual 1.8 G5 with a Radeon X800XT and also have access to a iMac 2.16 Core 2 with a X1600 128MB, and as far as UT2004 performance goes, the iMac wins without graphical goodies on. Running the full iMac resolution on the 20 inch is smoother than a comparable resolution on my G5.

However, once I start turning on extra options with the ATI Panel (God I wish nvidia had one on the mac, then they wouldn't be so useless to me.), FSAA, AF and the like, the G5 comes out handedly performance and FPS wise. The G5 can handle 1600x1200 with 2x MSAA and 16x AF where as the iMac can't even handle any MSAA or FSAA. The AF doesn't really seem to impact the G5 as much as it does the iMac as well.

So if you want to have better graphical override performance the X800 XT does a better job for me at least in my experience between the two computers.

dmw007
Apr 22, 2007, 02:02 PM
Indeed, I expected that. However, note that the macbook pro does not have a normal ATI X1600, it has the 'mobility' model instead. All mobility models are slower than their normal counterparts. Thanks for the info, though.

True, the video card in the MacBook Pro is the mobility version, so the X1600 in the iMac will give you slightly better performance. :)

crazzyeddie
Apr 22, 2007, 02:09 PM
No one has really thrown this out yet, but why don't you look at the 24" iMac with the 7600GT. It should be a little bit faster than your x800, and quite a bit faster than the X1600.

applekid
Apr 22, 2007, 05:16 PM
http://www.barefeats.com/kak4c.html

According to that, the X1600 in the MacBook Pro is as fast as the iMac's. I think Apple used the same X1600 chip (mobility or not) in MacBook Pros and iMacs despite what their specs say or the X1600 and its mobility counterpart are very good at matching each others speeds :)

Soulstorm
Apr 23, 2007, 12:11 AM
No one has really thrown this out yet, but why don't you look at the 24" iMac with the 7600GT. It should be a little bit faster than your x800, and quite a bit faster than the X1600.

Because unfortunately, I don't have the money to do so.

killr_b
Apr 23, 2007, 06:27 AM
Also, the X800XT does not support the highest shader detail in Age Of Empires III, so you must also take this into account. AOE is a very demanding game.ůsnipů

True, but turning on the "bloom" effect under very high shaders will wreak havoc on you frame rate. I don't actually like the effect myself, and choose not to use it. So in that particular instance the new shader support is useless to me.

That goes for many currently popular games at the moment. Running a lower shader pref can increase performance (duh) at which point the X1600 becomes a "usable" card for currently popular games. (this post has a shelf life)

Haoshiro
Apr 23, 2007, 08:50 AM
For GPU comparisons I'd recommend:

TomsHardware.com - Video Card Hierarchy
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/06/the_best_gaming_video_cards_for_the_money/page7.html

TomsHardware.com - Interactive VGA Charts
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html

Lord Blackadder
Apr 23, 2007, 10:17 AM
I thought so, so the next question in my mind would be "How much superior is my card over the X1600?".

I am asking this because the iMac will totally replace my G5. The G5 foes to my dad for his work, while the iMac goes to me.

The short answer is that you are taking a noticable step down in performancce by moving to the X1600 from the X800XT.

From what I've experienced, the X800XT will clobber the the X1600 (in framerate) in pretty much any game at the same resolution - especially since the X1600 in the 17" iMac has only 128MB RAM. This (http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html?modelx=33&model1=591&model2=566&chart=198) is only an approximate comparison in Tom's VGA charts, but notice that the X800XT produces nearly double the FPS against a 256MB X1600 PRO. Apple underclocked the X1600 in the iMac somewhat as well.

The X1600 is a newer midrange card, so it supports a few features the X800XT does not (such as Shader Model 3.0) - however, the X800XT was a cost-no-object flagship card when it was released, so it's quite fast for most games, and faster than the X1600.

Cheesecake
Apr 24, 2007, 04:35 PM
I myself have the MacBook Pro 15" with the 256MB graphics Card option (2 gigs of RAM as well) and I will say that i'm quite confused with the consistancy of gaming performance on the Macbook Pro via BootCamp. Though I assume that it's just because it's in beta right now.

Half Life 2 runs fine, with every setting turned up to full, except for The Anti-Aliasing which is turned off. Counter Strike: Source, however, hiccups randomly during gameplay. It gets distracting, and quite annoying during the middle of gunfights.

Halo runs smoothly, but for some reason looks a little goofy. Doesn't look quite as solid as I expected it would, especially with maxed out settings.

Doom 3 runs pretty well in High Quality resolutions, without any third party optimizers enabled. Only every once and a while do I notice a 'click' pause, but it's over pretty quickly so it doesn't get in the way too much.

Defcon runs without a hitch, as does Darwinia.

Another World Collectors Editon runs smoothly and beautifully, benifiting a native support of 1440x900.

Phantasy Star Universe has some severe slowdown problems in certain maps, which I experienced even on my main PC.

Silent Hill 2 has a recurring sound error that the patch did NOT fix.

Silent Hill 3 has horrible slowdown issues (that were not present on my PC) and has a refresh rate problem which gets very distracting during combat situations.

That about sums up everything i've tried on it. Strangely, most of the problems that arise are telling me that the X1600 in my MBP is WORSE than my old GeForceFX 5200. Which was considered mid-range back in 2002.

Mr. MacBook
Apr 26, 2007, 07:22 AM
Uhh dude? You can upgrade a G5 to X1900XT now...

And i think dual 2.5 is faster than the iMac, so just upgrade RAM and GPU and whatever else you think is a downfall. It's cheaper.

maconservative
Apr 26, 2007, 08:07 AM
I play Battlefield 2 using Boot Camp with the 17" iMac Core Duo 1.83 GHz, 1 GB RAM, ATI X1600. It works great.

Soulstorm
Apr 28, 2007, 03:54 AM
Uhh dude? You can upgrade a G5 to X1900XT now...

And i think dual 2.5 is faster than the iMac, so just upgrade RAM and GPU and whatever else you think is a downfall. It's cheaper.

The x1900xt will not fit into my model. I don't have a PCI express. Also, I need an Intel Mac, as I have stated before, a PPC upgrade is not an option for me.