Will the new iMac be any good for gaming?

[ksolano]

i dont really know much about graphic cards, so i'm gonna keep this simple.

Will this new mac run Quake wars, Rage, URT4, Gears of war, Starcraft2, C&C, all in High rez with everything turned up to the max?

[Eidorian]

Mac Pro once the video cards are upgraded. Unless you can live with the X1900XT.

[epmatsw]

I was wondering about the new iMac's gaming also. Do you guys think it could play Oblivion with decent graphics? Maybe some of the newer games also? I don't really know about graphics cards, so I don't really know how they'll do for these types of games.

[Eidorian]

It strongly suggest not to get the iMac for gaming purposes.

[grundgedanke]

Short and simple: NO!

If you want to play actual games (i count even oblivion some sort of actual) simply forget it. The ATI gfx boards sucks. I am so p****** I really wanted to buy one of these new babys but with such a crappy gfx board. No thx. I will by a new pc then and use my macbook if i need some mac feelings.

[Gymnut]

Here's to waiting for the benchmarks from barefeats. If the reviews and comparisons of the ATI cards now in the iMacs are of any merit, it's likely an upgrade over the X1600 but still disappointing in comparison to similar Nvidia cards.

[harveypooka]

No. Don't get one.

I'm massively disappointed with Apple's offering. What good is it having a 2.8GHZ Extreme processor when you have a mid-range card that struggles with year old games?! The thread on the new iMac seems more concerned with what it looks like versus actual specifications.

I am seriously considering buying a PC after this. I can't afford a Mac Pro and don't want to buy another iMac because of the limited life of them. Very disappointing.

[irishgrizzly]

The new cards will make great gaming cards! (for about 2 months:()

[Eidorian]

The new cards will make great gaming cards! (for about 2 months:()More like 2 years ago.

[overcast]

The new cards will make great gaming cards! (for about 2 months:()
You must be joking, those iMac cards won't run anything from 3 years ago properly.

[harveypooka]

I was wondering about the new iMac's gaming also. Do you guys think it could play Oblivion with decent graphics? Maybe some of the newer games also? I don't really know about graphics cards, so I don't really know how they'll do for these types of games.

For Oblivion:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/radeon_hd_2600_performance_preview/page7.asp

[harveypooka]

More like 2 years ago.

Anyone feel like buying a PC? I bloody do. At least you get more choice. Overpriced iMac or expensive Mac Pro?

[gloss]

For Oblivion:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/radeon_hd_2600_performance_preview/page7.asp

So, it's a bit better than the x1600, but not hugely.

I hear it has magnificent video quality, though, in terms of playback. That may have factored into its choice.

[Eidorian]

Anyone feel like buying a PC? I bloody do. At least you get more choice. Overpriced iMac or expensive Mac Pro?I'm really close to building a HD2600XT or X1950 based machine for just under $700. I can get a quad for $150 more.

I really, really love OS X but the hardware is a major issue for me.

[Chone]

i dont really know much about graphic cards, so i'm gonna keep this simple.

Will this new mac run Quake wars, Rage, URT4, Gears of war, Starcraft2, C&C, all in High rez with everything turned up to the max?

If you are talking about the new iMac then no. Forget about it, the HD 2400 card in the 20" is pathetic, I doubt its much better than the X1600 it replaces. The HD 2600 in the 24" is a lot better and will be okay for upcoming games but at medium settings and lower resolutions, forget about playing at 1920x1200 at max settings, more like 1280x800 but that will look horrible scaled... or 1920x1200 but on low settings or such. You will still be able to play the games but definitely not at high settings, expect low-medium at moderate resolutions.

The HD 2600 is not too bad but the HD 2400 is downright pathetic. Gaming on macs will never be viable and Apple is doing nothing but backtracking on the hardware front.

So yeah, apart from graphics, those new iMacs are looking incredibly nice, I love the new design and that keyboard is drool worthy, hopefully they'll release it separately.

I'm really close to building a HD2600XT or X1950 based machine for just under $700. I can get a quad for $150 more.

I really, really love OS X but the hardware is a major issue for me.

Yeah building your own computer is really a much better choice for gaming, the only machine worth your salt in Apple's repertoire is the Mac Pro and the portables, they are the only computers decently priced (the Mac Pro is quite a bargain even). The iMacs are really good looking and all but I'd never buy them. I did when the very first ones came out but I just returned it for a G3 tower. Recently I picked up a 20" iMac, I returned it for a Mac Pro the day after :p:

You can get a Mac Pro-quality case (in terms of acoustics and cooling, maybe not looks), a Q6600, a 8800GTS 320 for a little over a thousand if you build it yourself.

[codyhoffman]

with a replacement of the card would the new imac be a viable gaming platform? or is there potentially other reasons holding it back

Also if so, what card would be the best recommendation for this platform

[Eidorian]

Yeah building your own computer is really a much better choice for gaming, the only machine worth your salt in Apple's repertoire is the Mac Pro and the portables, they are the only computers decently priced (the Mac Pro is quite a bargain even). The iMacs are really good looking and all but I'd never buy them. I did when the very first ones came out but I just returned it for a G3 tower. Recently I picked up a 20" iMac, I returned it for a Mac Pro the day after :p:

You can get a Mac Pro-quality case (in terms of acoustics and cooling, maybe not looks), a Q6600, a 8800GTS 320 for a little over a thousand if you build it yourself.I'm not necessarily a hardcore gamer but I do need more video card power then what the iMac provides.

I'll hold out for Mac Pro update and maybe pick up a refurbished model but Apple has greatly disappointed me at WWDC and now this. I think it's silly that Apple pushed OS X as a gaming platform back at WWDC when the only real option is to spend more then $2,000 on a Mac Pro.

[Haoshiro]

My 2.0GHz Core Duo, w/X1600 256MB does just fine in games, I see no reason why these won't do any better.

Don't forget those low-end macs used to be GMA950, the 2400HD will be far better then that.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks they are going to get a $200+ video card in an iMac, that's not going to happen so stop expecting it! :rolleyes:

These will be fine, and even support DX10 in Vista, IIRC.

Considering I can already run a game like UT2K4 at 100+ fps, and run Quake4, FEAR, etc just fine... why would this be worse?

Maxing out the settings and resolution isn't necessary to enjoy a game, something a PC junkie can have a hard time wrapping their head around.

I used to be that way too, but the time where sinking hundreds of dollars a year (or less) to "keep up" with PC gaming is over for me, and there is no reason for Apple and it's iMac products to do that either.

[Eidorian]

My 2.0GHz Core Duo, w/X1600 256MB does just fine in games, I see no reason why these won't do any better.

Don't forget those low-end macs used to be GMA950, the 2400HD will be far better then that.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks they are going to get a $200+ video card in an iMac, that's not going to happen so stop expecting it! :rolleyes:

These will be fine, and even support DX10 in Vista, IIRC.

Considering I can already run a game like UT2K4 at 100+ fps, and run Quake4, FEAR, etc just fine... why would this be worse?

Maxing out the settings and resolution isn't necessary to enjoy a game, something a PC junkie can have a hard time wrapping their head around.

I used to be that way too, but the time where sinking hundreds of dollars a year (or less) to "keep up" with PC gaming is over for me, and there is no reason for Apple and it's iMac products to do that either.Apple didn't even include $100 video cards this time around. Was the 8600GT or the HD2600XT so hard to put in?

[Haoshiro]

Apple didn't even include $100 video cards this time around. Was the 8600GT or the HD2600XT so hard to put in?

You forget these are Mobile gpus (higher cost, lower performance)

[Eidorian]

You forget these are Mobile gpus (higher cost, lower performance)Proof that they're using the ATi Mobility chipsets please.

[Wild-Bill]

Unbelievably crappy video card options. What were they thinking???

I'm sure the guys over at id and EA probably slapped their foreheads when they learned about this. Yeah, gaming coming to the Mac...... right.....:rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

This looks like it was done by some committee of Apple bean counters. This killed the deal for me when I read how the old 7600GT beats the Heck out of the new 2600pro. Guess Ill go for a videocard upgrade for my Dell(with built in TV tuner);) Apple never ceases to amazes. Let me see cripple mini for imac, cripple iMac for ProMac. Not having a option for gpu upgrade path so they can brag its 1/4" thinner is lunacy.

[Chone]

My 2.0GHz Core Duo, w/X1600 256MB does just fine in games, I see no reason why these won't do any better.

Don't forget those low-end macs used to be GMA950, the 2400HD will be far better then that.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks they are going to get a $200+ video card in an iMac, that's not going to happen so stop expecting it! :rolleyes:

These will be fine, and even support DX10 in Vista, IIRC.

Considering I can already run a game like UT2K4 at 100+ fps, and run Quake4, FEAR, etc just fine... why would this be worse?

Maxing out the settings and resolution isn't necessary to enjoy a game, something a PC junkie can have a hard time wrapping their head around.

I used to be that way too, but the time where sinking hundreds of dollars a year (or less) to "keep up" with PC gaming is over for me, and there is no reason for Apple and it's iMac products to do that either.

Only the $999 iMac used the GMA950 but that was a crippled product altogether.

We are not expecting $200 cards, we are just expecting what you would out of a $2200 desktop.

These are not fine, even for a midrange card, the HD 2400 and 2600 are pretty miserable.

Running UT2004 is no big deal... and sure you can run Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. but those are 2005 games and you can't even run them at full settings, imagine what will happen when Bioshock, UT2007, Crysis, Alan Wake and others hit later THIS year (Bioshock coming out in a few weeks).

What bothers me is that the HD 2400 is not even better than the X1600 it replaces... they should have went all HD 2600 for all iMacs. Apple is taking their hardware one step backwards :confused:

There is no reason why Apple should stick mobile components in their DESKTOPS, its absolutely pointless and oxymoronic. Now if you are to do that... at least give users a good value, they put crummy cards that are even worse than the cards they are replacing. And it is not even a HD 2600XT on the iMac, its a HD 2600 Pro and a severely underclocked one at that.

They could have went with the 8600GT for the 20" and the 8600GTS for the 24" and that could have been really nice and nowadays there is no friggin reason a card should have less than 256MB of VRAM, especially if its on a $1200 desktop.

iMacs are nice (and are beautiful as well) but they are horrendously overpriced and underpowered.

[GFLPraxis]

Why are people so snobbish when it comes to GPUs (not anyone here specifically, but in general, I see it all the time on many boards)? The one in the iMac can run every existing game with medium-to-high settings. That's plenty for casually playing games, only the hardcore folks who buy $500 graphics cards should be complaining. You shouldn't have trouble till Crysis comes out, which should make even a Geforce 8800 cry uncle.

I've always purchased $99 graphics cards every few years and I could always run everything out there at low-to-medium settings at worst.

If all you care about is playing the games without any disadvantage, who cares if you can't put on AA 8x and have to settle for 2x?

Also, please consider that a $1200 PC in CompUSA still comes with an INTEGRATED graphics chip, AND no monitor. The iMac is a screaming deal for a consumer product, the only way to get better is order custom-built PCs.

I used to sell PCs at CompUSA before I went in to IT (we're talking five months ago). To game on a $1000 PC you still need to replace the power supply and buy a graphics card and a monitor.

i dont really know much about graphic cards, so i'm gonna keep this simple.

Will this new mac run Quake wars, Rage, URT4, Gears of war, Starcraft2, C&C, all in High rez with everything turned up to the max?

Max? Probably not. Medium-to-high? Probably.

[Eidorian]

Why are people so snobbish when it comes to GPUs? The one in the iMac can run every existing game with medium-to-high settings. That's plenty for casually playing games, only the hardcore folks who buy $500 graphics cards should be complaining. You shouldn't have trouble till Crysis comes out, which should make even a Geforce 8800 cry uncle.



Max? Probably not. Medium-to-high? Probably.Would you please link me to the benchmarks that prove what you have to see about the iMac's video card(s)? You don't need to spend $500 on a video card either. The 8600GT or HD2600XT would have been a good midrange card for a midrange Mac.

[irishgrizzly]

Only the $999 iMac used the GMA950 but that was a crippled product altogether.

We are not expecting $200 cards, we are just expecting what you would out of a $2200 desktop.

These are not fine, even for a midrange card, the HD 2400 and 2600 are pretty miserable.

Running UT2004 is no big deal... and sure you can run Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. but those are 2005 games and you can't even run them at full settings, imagine what will happen when Bioshock, UT2007, Crysis, Alan Wake and others hit later THIS year (Bioshock coming out in a few weeks).

What bothers me is that the HD 2400 is not even better than the X1600 it replaces... they should have went all HD 2600 for all iMacs. Apple is taking their hardware one step backwards :confused:

There is no reason why Apple should stick mobile components in their DESKTOPS, its absolutely pointless and oxymoronic. Now if you are to do that... at least give users a good value, they put crummy cards that are even worse than the cards they are replacing. And it is not even a HD 2600XT on the iMac, its a HD 2600 Pro and a severely underclocked one at that.

They could have went with the 8600GT for the 20" and the 8600GTS for the 24" and that could have been really nice and nowadays there is no friggin reason a card should have less than 256MB of VRAM, especially if its on a $1200 desktop.

iMacs are nice (and are beautiful as well) but they are horrendously overpriced and underpowered.

Good post and quite an eye opener :eek:

[fblack]

Wow, they are backslidding again. The 2400 as someone previously posted is pathetic indeed. At this time there's not even an option for upgrading the top of the line iMac. I don't expect my grandmother to benefit from a top of the line card, but even casual gamers have to feel a little let down. A 2600XT seems more like a midrange offering we could expect in an iMac or at least the option for one. How they expect to attract and keep game publishers is beyond me. Same old apple. I guess I wont be buying an iMac either.:(

[Haoshiro]

Please, people.

You are getting a nice mac with an extremely small footprint. Smaller size - Higher cost, that's almost always been universally true in the tech industry.

I had a brand new $250 video card when Far Cry came out and could only run it on Low/Med settings.

Point is, you can't judge these iMacs as hardcore gaming systems - and that means you shouldn't be comparing them to upcoming monster games like RAGE, Crysis, CoD4, etc.

If you want to run those, you will need a beast of a PC, and you'll be paying more then $1500-2200 for it too when you include a Keyboard, Mouse, 20-24" LCD monitor, and Windows Vista. I've built plenty of gaming machines, and those that run the top-tier games at high settings are extremely expensive!

With an iMac you are getting a LOT of value, in a SMALL package. Don't forget the Zero dead-pixel policy of Apple either.

You'll be able to play Quake Wars, and you'll be able to play Starcraft 2, so stop complaining! :rolleyes:

I think the real issue here is that you are all treating an iMac like something it has never been and will never be - a mid-sized tower PC. This isn't for you, evidently.

If you want to complain, complain that they don't have a consumer-level Mac Pro, don't whine about the iMacs!

And on a side note, before I bought my first Mac (Jan 2006), I was a PC Gamer who always custom built my own machines... I'm not just some jaded Mac fanboy with endless pockets.... ;)

[GFLPraxis]

Would you please link me to the benchmarks that prove what you have to see about the iMac's video card(s)? You don't need to spend $500 on a video card either. The 8600GT or HD2600XT would have been a good midrange card for a midrange Mac.

The X1600 could already run Oblivion. I'm assuming the iMac's card is only slightly faster.

[Eidorian]

The X1600 could already run Oblivion. I'm assuming the iMac's card is only slightly faster.You among others seem to push that the HD2600 Pro would be capable of running games at high settings and resolution. Sadly it can't.

[Wild-Bill]

Why are people so snobbish when it comes to GPUs


The GPUs Apple chose for the new iMac are pieces of JUNK. Google ATI HD 2400 or 2600 reviews. Then come back and decide whether people are snobish or not. Those cards are a joke. And that's not me talking. It's the reviews.

[TheSilencer]

Sure, the iMac isn´t a game machine. The point here is, they got john Carmack on stage to present a new engine and EA games too. Why? What is Apple thinking about gamer? They all buy a $3000 workstation - Mac Pro with extra memory, bigger hdd, better graphics card - and thats it? They placed the iMac as a consumer product for "the rest of us" which doesn´t buy a workstation because no need for XEON CPUs, just need good C2D or C2Q as cpu and a good GPU solution.
AND! They put a GF8600M in the MBP, WHY(?) they don´t put it in the iMac too? Even this card is maybe better as the HD2600 Pro.

Well, maybe gamer see something from Apple at MWSF 08. However, I don´t think Apple cares much about games, they don´t realized that game performance is not only depending on the operating system and the look of a computer.

[irishgrizzly]

Excuse my ignorance, but which cards will be available to swap with the current ones? Say, if in '08 I would like a better one.

[Eidorian]

Sure, the iMac isn´t a game machine. The point here is, they got john Carmack on stage to present a new engine and EA games too. Why? What is Apple thinking about gamer? They all buy a $3000 workstation - Mac Pro with extra memory, bigger hdd, better graphics card - and thats it? They placed the iMac as a consumer product for "the rest of us" which doesn´t buy a workstation because no need for XEON CPUs, just need good C2D or C2Q as cpu and a good GPU solution.
AND! They put a GF8600M in the MBP, WHY(?) they don´t put it in the iMac too? Even this card is maybe better as the HD2600 Pro.

Well, maybe gamer see something from Apple at MWSF 08. However, I don´t think Apple cares much about games, they don´t realized that game performance is not only depending on the operating system and the look of a computer.Having Carmack on stage at WWDC and this poor video update confuses me as well. Once again Apple splurged on processors for their hardware while leaving us crippled when it came to the video card.

Excuse my ignorance, but which cards will be available to swap with the current ones? Say, if in '08 I would like a better one.That depends on if the video chip is on a MXM card and you want to open the iMac up.

At 1280 x 1024 or less resolution and with no AA or AF the HD2600 Pro is passable. You're going to be severely crippled on the HD2400XT's 64-bit interface. I'll wait to see the results of HD2600 Pro overclocking though. The XT is just a higher clocked version with usually better memory options.

[applekid]

Gotta love the fancy name ATI gave that card. It sounded good, but apparently not much of a step up from the X1600. Another sad day in Mac Gaming... We have all of these hit titles announced, but uh, we don't have a Mac to play them on!

Brilliant!

:mad:

[Eidorian]

ATi's suffixes for video cards for future reference.

GT -> Pro -> XT -> XTX

[bluebomberman]

Why is anybody surprised? Anybody remember how much whining there was when the iMac G5 came out with the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM?

Same deal here. New iMac design, huge price slashes ($1199 now gets you 20" instead of 17"; 24" drops in price by $200), and a video card that only serious gamers will hate. Everybody else doesn't care one bit.

These machines are going to sell well despite the lame graphics card.

Pretty much all the games people are talking about playing on this thread, I imagine you're better off buying a console or getting a dedicated gaming PC rig. The iMac's not going to fulfill your needs, but I reckon that it never has to begin with.

[TheSilencer]

Yeah. All gamer are forced to buy a PC. Imagine how great games on Mac could be, especally after EA deal and id software releasing Rage on Mac...on what Mac? Of course not for the iMac, but only for the "pro folks" with mac pro? OK, Rage is far away. But Quake Wars is not and it won´t run on high settings on the iMac, the same goes for Command and Conquer 3 and NFS Carbon.

[GFLPraxis]

You among others seem to push that the HD2600 Pro would be capable of running games at high settings and resolution. Sadly it can't.

Which games?

Look, I'm just against the description that a good graphics card can run next year's games at max res. As a gamer, I have never cared; in fact, I have NEVER had a GPU that could run everything maxed out on a game that was just released.

If a GPU can run upcoming games well at medium settings, meaning, good framerate, everything playable, nothing missing in the game experience at all, I don't see why it can be called junk. Reviewers review from the perspective of everything having to be run at max settings, and I've never cared about that.

The iMac can run every game on the market in a manner that none of the gameplay is sacrificed and the game looks visually good. Why is this not considered acceptable? Why is it junk because it can't do MAX settings? I've always felt max settings were for people who want to plop down serious money- I just want to casually sit down and play the games without being frustrated at my slow machine. I remember taking 1024x768 over 1280x1024 because I got better framerates and could play the game better, and had no problem with it.

Lag is totally unacceptable to me. Turning off HDR is not unacceptable.

[FreedomFighter]

Hey guys,

I am looking at buying on of these new imacs. now I am not into gaming and don't know much about graphics cards. However my favourite type of games are RTS. I understand that RTS games don't need as much GPU power but more CPU power. So would these new Imacs be able to run C&C 3 I don't what it on hi rez just on medium level. I am looking at buying the mid range 20" with the 2600 HD pro 256Mb. could you help me out:confused:

[joeconvert]

However, I don´t think Apple cares much about games, they don´t realized that game performance is not only depending on the operating system and the look of a computer.

Give me a break. Are you trying to tell me that there is not an engineer at Apple that understands what is required in a computer for good to great gaming performance? Please get over yourself.

Which games?


The iMac can run every game on the market in a manner that none of the gameplay is sacrificed and the game looks visually good. Why is this not considered acceptable? Why is it junk because it can't do MAX settings? I've always felt max settings were for people who want to plop down serious money- I just want to casually sit down and play the games without being frustrated at my slow machine. I remember taking 1024x768 over 1280x1024 because I got better framerates and could play the game better, and had no problem with it.

Lag is totally unacceptable to me. Turning off HDR is not unacceptable.


B/c they can't brag to their friends!!!

[Maclarny]

When the new iMacs came out I was basically a click away from ordering one; Now I am teetering back and forth. I'm not the biggest computer gamer, anymore, but I think it's reasonable, when buying a new computer, to ask for one that will at least be able to handle current gen games, well, and be able to run passably the next one. After digging around, however, I can only conclude that Apple's latest iMac offering is a solid step in the wrong direction.

The article, below, showing the older 7600gt (offered in the last revision of iMacs) versus the Radeon 2600 Pro, didn't offer me much hope.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/465/1

[TheSilencer]

No i didn´t say that. They sure have good engineers. I don´t think the problem is mistaken by engineers but at a other stage.

[GFLPraxis]

but I think it's reasonable, when buying a new computer, to ask for one that will at least be able to handle current gen games, well, and be able to run passably the next one.

But what you say is correct; the iMac CAN handle every current generation game, and passably run next gen ones.

People are complaining that it can not run the next gen of games at max settings like a Geforce 8800 would. I just want next gen games to run passably (60 FPS, low-to-medium settings, lag-free), and every game currently on the market to run medium-to-high.


Don't be afraid to buy the new iMac. It's cheaper and has better hardware than the old one in every way, except that the GPU is arguable. But it can play anything out there, and it's DX10 capable and OpenGL 2.0 capable.

[Chone]

Which games?

Look, I'm just against the description that a good graphics card can run next year's games at max res. As a gamer, I have never cared; in fact, I have NEVER had a GPU that could run everything maxed out on a game that was just released.

If a GPU can run upcoming games well at medium settings, meaning, good framerate, everything playable, nothing missing in the game experience at all, I don't see why it can be called junk. Reviewers review from the perspective of everything having to be run at max settings, and I've never cared about that.

The iMac can run every game on the market in a manner that none of the gameplay is sacrificed and the game looks visually good. Why is this not considered acceptable? Why is it junk because it can't do MAX settings? I've always felt max settings were for people who want to plop down serious money- I just want to casually sit down and play the games without being frustrated at my slow machine. I remember taking 1024x768 over 1280x1024 because I got better framerates and could play the game better, and had no problem with it.

Lag is totally unacceptable to me. Turning off HDR is not unacceptable.

Still the problem lies in longevity... sure the 2600 can play games of today like you say at medium settings at a moderate res, etc, and they look good but what happens 2 weeks from now? Bioshock gets released and suddenly the 2600 struggles at 1024x768 and can barely run at 800x600 with DX10 on... lets not even mention Crysis, UT3, etc, all games coming out in a FEW months. Imagine what will happen with games coming out the next year. And the situation only gets worse considering the iMac has a 24" monitor and 1024x768 will look absolutely dreadful on it... unless you use centered scaling which beats the point of having a 24 incher anyway. It only gets worse for the 20" with the CONSIDERABLY worse HD 2400.

But you are not getting the point, Apple is actually DOWNGRADING the cards, the X1600 beats the HD 2400 and the HD 2600 is not much better... Apple could be giving you a much better card for the money but they don't, one would at least expect the new cards to beat the previous but they don't, it is really a shame that Apple backtracks this much in the graphics hardware department.

[contoursvt]

Problem is that a computer's longevity for many people is how it runs time sensitive material like games which are based on framerates. I mean nobody cares of word or excel or photoshop take an extra second or 5 to complete a task but it sure does matter when a computer cannot maintain framerates in a game at playable rates or play back video properly (I'm sure next gen blueray and stuff will require some horsepower).

So while the existing HD2600 may be able to play doom3 and prey at medium / high settings with no AA which may be just fine, the games just around the corner (and remember this is a brand new computer released around the same time as the games) will really hurt the imac to the point that people will have to play at medium/low settings and thats no longer fun. All the visuals will be gone.

The sad thing is that it may have not taken much more money for apple to put in X2900's in the larger imacs. I mean they buy stuff in huge volumes. Might have been fine to push the imac price by $100 but bump up the card. That card might give the imac an extra year or two of life easily over one with a lower card.


But what you say is correct; the iMac CAN handle every current generation game, and passably run next gen ones.

People are complaining that it can not run the next gen of games at max settings like a Geforce 8800 would. I just want next gen games to run passably (60 FPS, low-to-medium settings, lag-free), and every game currently on the market to run medium-to-high.


Don't be afraid to buy the new iMac. It's cheaper and has better hardware than the old one in every way, except that the GPU is arguable. But it can play anything out there, and it's DX10 capable and OpenGL 2.0 capable.

[iTim]

I've been reading these forums for a few months waiting to see the new iMacs. I like the look of them though I'm kind of disappointed the graphics card isn't a little bit better. The only games I will be buying in the future will be WAR,SC2 and WoW:WotLK. WoW should run fine, I'm more worried about WAR and SC2 so I'm kind of sitting on the fence on what I should do. :( I don't play much PC games other than WoW and WC3, I buy console ports of PC games I want. Should I pick the new iMac up or just build a PC? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

[Mac.Jnr]

iTim You could do with a iMac for those games...

I guess i need to start getting ready for a PC build and buy a macbook for daily usage. The thing that ticks me off is that they put a 2.8ghz C2E processor and pair it up with a HD 2600. It doesn't matter if you have 2.8ghz, games are mainly GPU dependent and will the same or slighty better at 2.8ghz.

[Wild-Bill]

At least iMac fans have new video cards, even if they suck.

The Mac Pro's video cards are a year and a half old. Heck, the x1900xt is made by Foxconn because ATI doesn't make them anymore. They EOL'd them long ago.

Now that Macs are using the Intel architecture there really is no reason for such lame graphics in Macs. The only difference between PC cards and Mac cards is the firmware. That's it. (oh, and Apple likes to underclock the cards too... :rolleyes:)

[stuff99]

how is the iMac going to run gears of war?

[fblack]

Which games?

Look, I'm just against the description that a good graphics card can run next year's games at max res. As a gamer, I have never cared; in fact, I have NEVER had a GPU that could run everything maxed out on a game that was just released.

If a GPU can run upcoming games well at medium settings, meaning, good framerate, everything playable, nothing missing in the game experience at all, I don't see why it can be called junk. Reviewers review from the perspective of everything having to be run at max settings, and I've never cared about that.

The iMac can run every game on the market in a manner that none of the gameplay is sacrificed and the game looks visually good. Why is this not considered acceptable? Why is it junk because it can't do MAX settings? I've always felt max settings were for people who want to plop down serious money- I just want to casually sit down and play the games without being frustrated at my slow machine. I remember taking 1024x768 over 1280x1024 because I got better framerates and could play the game better, and had no problem with it.

Lag is totally unacceptable to me. Turning off HDR is not unacceptable.

I agree with you up to a point. I hardly play games at max settings, and I don't need the best GPU. However, the 2400 is a very weak offering, even for people who are not hardcore gamers. 1024x768 is not an outrageous rez these days and the 2400 scores behind the previous X1600 consistently. Not only in Prey that was released last Jan. for the mac, but in the upcoming Battlefield 2142. You can look here:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=737&chart=275

The previous 7600GT BTO wuups the 2400 and only the 2600XT which Apple does not offer is close to equivelant. This is why people feel its a step back. These are value cards, not midrange cards for a midrange system.

To be fair to Apple, TomsHardware has an article that suggests there are no good middle of the road cards, especially from ATI.
From:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/24/hd_2600_and_geforce_8600/page10.html

The long delay from ATI allowed Nvidia to dictate what it wanted to sell, and capitalize on where the bar would be set. ATI was playing catch up and was in no position to fight back in this offering. It needed parts on the market and followed competitive trends instead of forging new ground. In essence, there isn't a real middle ground, only enthusiast high end, value and entry level product.

That being said, are these cards terrible? No, and anyone who says they are is looking at them from a specific perspective. Are the HD 2400, 8500 and 8400 series cards good for gaming? No, but for an HTPC they would be good. Looking at the video playback CPU utilization as well as the fact they all have DX10 hardware means that they would be good for the home or office situation where an inexpensive dual monitor Vista experience is desired.

When looking at the gaming results and the video playback figures, the HD 2600 and 8600 series are indeed a value proposition. Both the ATI and Nvidia offerings deliver what they say, including H.264 hardware acceleration, and ATI offers additional VC-1 acceleration. They can play some existing games and will be able to play simple DX10 games in the future. We thought there would be more DX10 content available at this point of the year but this is not so. All games going forward next year will most likely be DX10, so these should be able to play games like the next The Sims or children's educational programs, but in no way will they be able to handle graphically intense titles.

So are you a big Sims player?:D

An iMac is a consumer machine, gaming is (mostly) a consumer activity. I should not need pro hardware to run games well, not fantastic but well. I should not have to buy an iMac every 2 years in order to upgrade the video card.

[DrD]

I signed onto the forums specifically to post this reply.
CNet has, from what I can tell, the first hands-on review of the new imac's graphics capabilities. From TFA:

"Despite its new ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics chip, the iMac still isn't very well suited to playing 3D games. On our Quake 4 test, at a forgiving 1,024x768 resolution, the iMac turned in an only marginally acceptable 39 frames per second. We were surprised by that, since Quake 4 sits on the tail end of what we consider current 3D games. Comparable Windows PCs from Dell and Velocity Micro perform much better. You should be able to play less-advanced 3D games on the iMac, but we're still disappointed that Apple doesn't want to take gaming seriously."

My take on the matter? I'm not easily disappointed, and I consider all other noticable changes to the lineup to be improvements. The 2400 and 2600 graphics cards, however, are bad additions. The imacs deserve better.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/24/hd_2600_and_geforce_8600/

What I can't stand is misleading arguments. No sane person is arguing for the inclusion of $500 video cards or even a $300 card - in an imac. What I am arguing is that an imac most certainly should include a decent midrange card - which neither of these two options qualify as. They instead qualify as bottom of the barrel solutions - the only modern generation graphics solution which performs worse is the intel GMA.

The really silly thing? Not only do the new models lack any substantial improvements over the aging x1600 - the really silly thing is that the 24" model that came around this time last year seems to have superior capabilities in every respect in the graphics arena - the model with the 7600 in particular would appear to be better equipped to have a better experience playing games then any 24" model available since tuesday.

The other silly thing, is that Apple just barely released a nvidia 8600M GT chipset - in their macbook pro. A better performer and well within the budget video card bracket (merely ~$50 more then a cheap 2600 pro). I thought for sure I would see the same graphics chip in the revised imac line. It would have made all kinds of sense.

Apple, I still love you... but what were you thinking?

[Maclarny]

I signed onto the forums specifically to post this reply.
CNet has, from what I can tell, the first hands-on review of the new imac's graphics capabilities. From TFA:

"Despite its new ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics chip, the iMac still isn't very well suited to playing 3D games. On our Quake 4 test, at a forgiving 1,024x768 resolution, the iMac turned in an only marginally acceptable 39 frames per second. We were surprised by that, since Quake 4 sits on the tail end of what we consider current 3D games. Comparable Windows PCs from Dell and Velocity Micro perform much better. You should be able to play less-advanced 3D games on the iMac, but we're still disappointed that Apple doesn't want to take gaming seriously."

It's fair to note that 4x AA and 8x AF were used in the test, two settings which are bound to drop FPS considerably and that most casual gamers aren't going to turn on. That being said, it's fair to estimate that the new iMac will probably pump out 50-60 fps at a resolution of, say, 1280 x 1024, which would put its performance ahead of the 8600gt MacBook Pros but just below the performance of the 7600GT iMac. Not terrible. Still thankful I have an Xbox 360 :-D.

[buffjar]

lets all remember that fps numbers dont need to be terribly high. film (movies) are still filmed at 29fps. why? because the human brain doesnt discern much of a difference at anything higher than 29fps. bottom line... we all can agree that a game is totally playable at 30 fps, but the problem is we cant go to work and brag about getting 100fps in quake 4 or UT. just my 2 cents

[Maclarny]

lets all remember that fps numbers dont need to be terribly high. film (movies) are still filmed at 29fps. why? because the human brain doesnt discern much of a difference at anything higher than 29fps. bottom line... we all can agree that a game is totally playable at 30 fps, but the problem is we cant go to work and brag about getting 100fps in quake 4 or UT. just my 2 cents

Agreed; As long as a game stays at 30 FPS, I'm more than satisfied. The number that CNet gave is only disappointing if read as a barometer of the staying power of the new iMac's GPU. That is, if it plays yesterday's games at 40 FPS what can we expect from tomorrow's?

[Mac.Jnr]

Haoshiro Eidorian is right, the HD 2600 Pro is not a mobile GPU. You have been misleading people with your thread.

It's true the iMac was never a hardcore gaming machine but i think a lot of people were hyped up because of WWDC and the appearance of EA and John Carmack and thought that soemthing special was going to happen.

Even though iMac aern't really for gaming it certainly doesn't deserve a sub $100 GPU. You are paying top dollar and getting a sub $100 card? Does it make sense to you?

I've seen the frame rates of the HD2600 Pro they are horrible. What's the point of having a DX10 card, if you can't run any of them with the eye candy?

[risc]

Don't forget the Zero dead-pixel policy of Apple either.



Apples what? Do you have a link to this? I've never been able to replace Apple machines with out them having HEAPs of stuck or dead pixels.

[TheSilencer]

The point with 30FPS is correct, but remember Quake 2/3? You could only do special "trick jumps" at high FPS AFAIK and these jumps may saved you from getting fragged. The same thing was in CS 1.x, which usally is locked to 75FPS but some trick jumps only work at 90FPS. Also these 30FPS averge are a problem if you get more things going in the game as in the test, like test was with 10 players, but you play online with 16 and boom, you get a performance drop, so in worst case scenario you may get only half the FPS.

AA is maybe not so important IF (!) you can run games at high res (over 1280x1024) but AF is important, as adaptive AA/transparent AA is VERY important for graphic quality and experience, especially because most new games have lots of transparent textures and they look ugly without AAA/TAA and both options drain a lot of FPS, but the graphics are much better.

[mix123]

So I understand that these cards are terrible...blah..blah..blah. Don't you think apple would have consulted EA who have promised mac games regarding this video card? Would EA not take this video card into account when releasing mac games and atleast attempt to make them run half decently on the imac's hardware? There's no way EA would exclude all of the Imac Macbook Pro users from their new releases. If mac games are going to be only released for the mac pro then I personally can't see many ported games coming out basically ever.....

[GFLPraxis]

So I understand that these cards are terrible...blah..blah..blah. Don't you think apple would have consulted EA who have promised mac games regarding this video card? Would EA not take this video card into account when releasing mac games and atleast attempt to make them run half decently on the imac's hardware? There's no way EA would exclude all of the Imac Macbook Pro users from their new releases. If mac games are going to be only released for the mac pro then I personally can't see many ported games coming out basically ever.....

There's a lot of scare talk going around. Don't worry; any game EA might release WILL run on these iMacs. You simply might not be able to max out the settings.

[TheSilencer]

Sure, low settings at native resolution. :p
Medium at 1280 or 1024 res (4:3 ratio) on a widescreen! OMG.

[fblack]

So I understand that these cards are terrible...blah..blah..blah. Don't you think apple would have consulted EA who have promised mac games regarding this video card? Would EA not take this video card into account when releasing mac games and atleast attempt to make them run half decently on the imac's hardware? There's no way EA would exclude all of the Imac Macbook Pro users from their new releases. If mac games are going to be only released for the mac pro then I personally can't see many ported games coming out basically ever.....

Apple consult EA? Maybe the other way around.:)

This from Tuncer's Blog at IMG about asking EA about their titles...

I did, however, get one phone call back from EA's distribution department. When we inquired about carrying EA's new products on Macgamestore.com, the person on the other end pretty much flat out said that we wouldn't be able to order any games through EA. Not only that, but EA had decided it would give Apple a 90-day exclusive on their first four Mac titles. When I asked why EA would do that, the person responded, "it's a way to say thanks to Steve for putting us in the keynote". Huh? After some more small talk, the lady promised to get back to me but never did.

I don't know sounds like EA was kissing steve's chimichanga!:D

[reflex]

You must be joking, those iMac cards won't run anything from 3 years ago properly.

Yeah right. It all depends if you want full resolution, full options, everything on. The thing is I know plenty of people who play recent games on 2 to 3 year old graphics boards, and do really well at them.

The HD 2600 should be decent enough, though I agree it won't last as long as the most expensive cards. But that's kind of a given.

In the end, if you really want the best of the best for gaming, you either get a Mac Pro or a pc with a really expensive card. As for me, I'll enjoy gaming with a $150 videocard more than with one that costs > $400.

EDIT: checking the prices of the Radeon HD 2600 Pro, I do agree it's most likely not a very good card and they should have probably included an XT version instead. Although a lot of people complained about the X1600 XT in the MBP and earlier iMac too, and I got very good gaming results out of those.

[fblack]

This is what Wired Magazine had to say about gaming on the new iMacs...:D

[iProd]

Just stick one of these (http://www.excaliberpc.com/Asus_NVIDIA_8600M_GT_512MB_Video/90-C1CIZ5-JXBN00Z/partinfo-id-579488.html) puppies in there, hopefully the drivers for it are already in OS X :) If not just dig it out of a Macbook Pro. The iMacs use the MXM interface for the graphics cards (for sure on the 24" at least, haven't seen the 20", hopefully most likely though.

[TheSilencer]

This is what Wired Magazine had to say about gaming on the new iMacs...:D

Good one! :D
"Say hello to games for Mac"
"Oh well, good bye"

[harveypooka]

lets all remember that fps numbers dont need to be terribly high. film (movies) are still filmed at 29fps. why? because the human brain doesnt discern much of a difference at anything higher than 29fps. bottom line... we all can agree that a game is totally playable at 30 fps, but the problem is we cant go to work and brag about getting 100fps in quake 4 or UT. just my 2 cents

I totally agree, you don't need 150FPS for a game to be playable. However Quake 4 is not a new game. How is the iMac going to fair against games like BioShock? Gears of War? Crysis?

Apple should have included a decent midrange graphics card in their lineup as the iMac is the middle of their lineup. I am not buying this iteration of iMac which is saying something as I've bought the last four models.

[caffeeneaddict]

i really don't understand why these graphics cards are so terrible. I don't know anything about video cards in the first place but isn't 128MB and 256 MB exactly that? 128 MB and 256MB? or am i not living in reality at this point?

[harveypooka]

i really don't understand why these graphics cards are so terrible. I don't know anything about video cards in the first place but isn't 128MB and 256 MB exactly that? 128 MB and 256MB? or am i not living in reality at this point?

There are a lot of other factors involved in weighing up a graphics card. What sort of onboard support they have for different graphics technologies (OpenGL, DirectX), types of connections, the memory bandwidth, pixel pipelines - and so on.

Weighing cards up just by memory is like looking at a 10MP camera and assuming it's better than a 8MP one. You're leaving out the lens, the processor, the buffer, and so on.

I'm sure someone else can list all the extra things you have to look out for - it confuses the hell out of me too! :p

[DrD]

...it's fair to estimate that the new iMac will probably pump out 50-60 fps at a resolution of, say, 1280 x 1024, which would put its performance ahead of the 8600gt MacBook Pros but just below the performance of the 7600GT iMac. Not terrible. Still thankful I have an Xbox 360 :-D.

If that were true, I would be mighty pleased. Really. I don't want to argue this point to win... I guess I'm just realistic. I see a funky move on apple's part. They can mess up after all, can't they?

I'm guessing your numbers are hopeful prospects. Nothing wrong with that... I just find them a tad unrealistic. A performance boost of that magnitude - all by turning off AA and AF, all while bumping the res up a notch?

Now think about the fact that this is an aging game. And think about the fact that the benchmark used is a resolution that is not just smaller then the native resolution by a wide margin - but is also not the default aspect ratio either. 1280 x 1024 isn't better in that regard (5:4) You can play in windowed mode at that res... do you find this acceptable? I'm being serious, not sarcastic. Do you want to play at the default, widescreen resolution - 1680 x 1050? What would that do to the performance?

I am getting tired of reading "You can play everything perfectly fine unless the settings are maxed all the way out" - this is false and ignorant. I realize that bastards come out of the woodwork every single time some new piece of technology comes around - and I also realize that it is hard for some for other people to be negative about something you want to care so much about, especially something you have looked forward to for a long time (and I certainly have looked forward to these new models - and still hope the benchmarks will turn my conclusions around).

But you shouldn't let this subvert you from the fact that comparatively, these cards are bottom of the barrel - not somewhere in a decent midrange as you might expect them to be. Just look at the graphs and stop reading all these posts. Might not feel good... that's the reality of the situation though.

Wait for barefeats or some other site to lay the matter to rest in a side by side comparison. I'm eager to see how it stacks up. If in some amazing way, the new models can hold their own, it'll be one heck of a pleasant surprise for us all.

IF anyone gets ANYTHING from this post, let it be this:
This is not about playing at max settings, it's about potentially many games being barely playable

[bokdol]

Just stick one of these (http://www.excaliberpc.com/Asus_NVIDIA_8600M_GT_512MB_Video/90-C1CIZ5-JXBN00Z/partinfo-id-579488.html) puppies in there, hopefully the drivers for it are already in OS X :) If not just dig it out of a Macbook Pro. The iMacs use the MXM interface for the graphics cards (for sure on the 24" at least, haven't seen the 20", hopefully most likely though.

so the graphics card and processor can both be upgraded then. sweet. but for some reason i dont think it will be that easy

[TheSilencer]

I am getting tired of reading "You can play everything perfectly fine unless the settings are maxed all the way out" - this is false and ignorant.

Agreed, it is really funny. People want HD Movies, HD television, HD Audio but it is ok to play new games - and even old games - on low/medium settings? Games are entertainment too, as movies, series or music. Well, yeah the Nintendo Wii has low graphics but it has a nice special input concept, computers doesn´t. OK, you can pair the WiiMote with your Mac or PC and play games too, but the games do not really support that.

[Chone]

lets all remember that fps numbers dont need to be terribly high. film (movies) are still filmed at 29fps. why? because the human brain doesnt discern much of a difference at anything higher than 29fps. bottom line... we all can agree that a game is totally playable at 30 fps, but the problem is we cant go to work and brag about getting 100fps in quake 4 or UT. just my 2 cents

As if we didn't need any more senseless discussions in this thread :rolleyes:

Please don't get FPS and the human brain/eye into this, it is a very complex matter and doesn't break down to what you say. Just to give you an example, military combat pilots are run through tests that ask them to identify an object displayed for 1/300th of a second and guess what? They can. In videogames, constant 60 is as smooth as it gets, 30 is good too if its CONSTANT which basically can only be guaranteed on consoles (not even there though) or powerful cards with a 30fps limiter.

The truth is a game is enjoyable when the FPS are constant, its no fun playing a game at 30 but have it dip to 15 and 10 constantly but if the game was runnning at 10 frames 15 frames LOCKED then it would probably be a much more enjoyable experience, take Shadow of the Colossus for example. The truth is its not about how high you can go, its about how low it gets and how often.

But please, don't get the FPS/Human eye subject into this discussion, you only risk confusing people even further and spreading FUD and misinformation about a subject probably no one in this forum knows enough to discuss it properly.

[contoursvt]

I can definitly feel a difference if I play a FPS on a computer that gets say 100fps+ or one thats getting 40-50. Even on the same graphics settings... The difference is the 'minimum' framerate as it was pointed out earlier by Chone. Also I can tell that the mouse is a little less responsive on a lesser capable machine.

[Haoshiro]

Haoshiro Eidorian is right, the HD 2600 Pro is not a mobile GPU. You have been misleading people with your thread.

It's true the iMac was never a hardcore gaming machine but i think a lot of people were hyped up because of WWDC and the appearance of EA and John Carmack and thought that soemthing special was going to happen.

Even though iMac aern't really for gaming it certainly doesn't deserve a sub $100 GPU. You are paying top dollar and getting a sub $100 card? Does it make sense to you?

I've seen the frame rates of the HD2600 Pro they are horrible. What's the point of having a DX10 card, if you can't run any of them with the eye candy?

Yes, they have Mobile versions of the HD 2600 Pro.

The last generation iMacs used Mobility X1600 cards, why would anyone assume that isn't the case with these new macs? I have the older machine, and I have Boot Camp installed on it, it's definitely a Mobility X1600.

Now if you have some proof that isn't the case then by all means share it.

My new iMac with an HD 2600 Pro will be arriving tomorrow, I'll be doing comparison benchmarks and analysis of them both at that time.

[Mac.Jnr]

Yes, they have Mobile versions of the HD 2600 Pro.

The last generation iMacs used Mobility X1600 cards, why would anyone assume that isn't the case with these new macs? I have the older machine, and I have Boot Camp installed on it, it's definitely a Mobility X1600.

Now if you have some proof that isn't the case then by all means share it.

My new iMac with an HD 2600 Pro will be arriving tomorrow, I'll be doing comparison benchmarks and analysis of them both at that time.

Yes they used all Mobility X1600 for the 20 Inch but they used the DESKTOP version of the 7600GT for the 24 Inch. I guess the real way to settle this is to do some real world analysis, one of us has to be wrong, so goodluck on the bencmarks.

[DrD]

I think the new imacs are nice overall, in case anyone thought my previous comments meant otherwise. I am still considering buying one around October when leopard arrives. If I do, I will attempt to do a down-to-earth, hands-on review for whatever games I can throw at it.

Pros:
1. New keyboard couldn't be better imho
2. Aluminium and glass is at least as good as the older all-white design.
3. I don't normally pay much attention to the CPU, but going up to 2.4 (or BTO 2.8) is a noteworthy jump.
4. Prices for models across the board have dropped a few hundred dollars.

Despite the inclusion of the 2400 and 2600 pro, I'm not entirely convinced that the gaming capability of the new imacs will be... all-excruciating... Here is a list of the games I want to play with one:

Halo
UT 2004
Prey
Vendetta Online
Starcraft II (when it arrives)

Fortunately the only game I wager that is new enough to have serious problems is Prey, and perhaps starcraft II. Prey is like doom3 on steroids. I had little doubt that the older 24" w/7600 could handle it, but I really don't know about these 2600 models. Might have to bear playing it in windowed mode to keep the framerates at an acceptable level (even then, dunno). Here's to hoping that starcraft II, my most anticipated game in a while, isn't a graphics hog. Nice thing about the screenshots so far, is that they look incredible while at the same time don't look like they would eat away graphics power like crazy either. Hopefully it will run well on even really old systems.

Someone else brought up the wii. That's an interesting topic. I have said for a long time that I wish developers would stop focusing nearly all their time on graphical horsepower, and spend a great deal more time on innovative gameplay, story etc. Some of my favorite games (Deus Ex for instance) weren't cutting edge, but made up for this with an unparalleled experience that was full of depth, style, and innovation. The graphics were ok too - just not bleeding edge at the time. The wii is a similar success story. IF developers could take a similar approach to graphics on the mac, ie let them plateau for a while and start making games that utilize the hardware to the fullest extent possible, not to mention putting some real focus on the areas I listed above, then I wouldn't have any real issues with the cards they included.

Computer graphics and PC games tend to always keep jumping, so I honestly don't see this happening. Maybe trends will change... who knows. My big concern is a potential handful of rather unplayable games in the not-so-distant future, possibly even a handful of games like prey that can hardly be played right now. I want to see the benchmarks.

[DanB91]

if the new imacs cant play the upcoming games (which i think it can, just in low quality), then this means apple must be working on some sort of computer that can, hopefully a pc-esque computer. i highly anticipate it announced at macworld, or anytime in 2008 (hopefully 2007 though).

i would def build my own computer, its just the shittyness of windows just repulses me.
i really wish apple would let people install mac os x on any computer. but i understand why they wont do it :(.

i wanna do osx86, but i'd rather not have an illegal OS as my main OS

[fblack]

My new iMac with an HD 2600 Pro will be arriving tomorrow, I'll be doing comparison benchmarks and analysis of them both at that time.

Excellent. Barefeats said they would be testing too, and putting their results up next week. The good thing is that they usually do comparisons with other macs including the macbooks and macbookpros, which should give us a good idea how the 2600 does against the nvidia chips on OSX. :)

[Haoshiro]

Yes they used all Mobility X1600 for the 20 Inch but they used the DESKTOP version of the 7600GT for the 24 Inch. I guess the real way to settle this is to do some real world analysis, one of us has to be wrong, so goodluck on the bencmarks.

Now why would they rearchitect the iMac hardware to put in a desktop class GPU that was only a BTO option in the first place? Do you realize what that would involved?

Swapping MXM modules is one thing, reworking the entire internal design of an iMac to put in an actual PCIe card would be ridiculous. :D If they actually do that, I'll be shocked.

Excellent. Barefeats said they would be testing too, and putting their results up next week. The good thing is that they usually do comparisons with other macs including the macbooks and macbookpros, which should give us a good idea how the 2600 does against the nvidia chips on OSX. :)

Yep, looking forward to it. Though I've always found their gaming benchmarks to be lacking. It'll be nice to see the comparisons with MBP though.

I'll be testing in both XP and OSX, with plenty of XP game benchmarks.

[DrD]

For those of you who have/are missing the crazy discussion (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=339616) going on in the hardware/imac section, here is some pretty interesting news:

Looks like the card in the new imacs is not a desktop class HD 2600 pro after all - it's a mobility HD 2600 XT - just underclocked a bit. The part number that appears under both OSX and windows verifies this: 9583 (OSX and windows give differing card names, but both give the same part number identifying it as a mobility 2600 XT).

:eek:

Standard specs for both cards: (thanks Eidorian)

Desktop HD2600 Pro
Core: 550 MHz
Memory: 1400 MHz (700 MHz x 2)

Mobility HD2600 XT
Core: 700 MHz
Memory: 1500 MHz (750 MHz x 2)

User Adom (thanks Adom) posted a test (#165) with the ATI diagnostic tool on his 20" imac, and verified that the speeds of the new model are clocked as follows:

Core: 600 MHz
Memory: 1370 MHz (685 MHz x 2)

He also reported speeds of 115 fps in Half Life 2 at full res; no AA, but otherwise high settings. This is thought to be quite a bit better then the 2600 pro but not quite up to the mobility 2600 XT's standard levels, which would seem to line up with the clock speeds listed above.

Overall this is good news. The mobility 2600 XT is a better card then the desktop 2600 Pro that it would appear to be marketed as. It also makes sense that a mobility version of the card was included rather then the desktop, due to heat/power consumption issues. It would seem that Apple, for whatever reason, choose to include the mobility 2600 XT (a good choice) and then underclocked it a bit. Still better then what a lot of us initially thought was in there, and there's fair chance that the ATI tool can be used to bring the card back up to standard levels... we'll just have to wait and see what that does to the overall heat levels of the system (hopefully negligible).

More info on the mobility 2600 XT (ox9583) here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-2600-XT.3770.0.html



Note: Although this appears to be for real, it's still an open issue, things could change. Hopefully Bare Feats will step in soon enough and lay the matter to rest once and for all.

[fblack]

For those of you who have/are missing the crazy discussion (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=339616) going on in the hardware/imac section, here is some pretty interesting news:

Looks like the card in the new imacs is not a desktop class HD 2600 pro after all - it's a mobility HD 2600 XT - just underclocked a bit. The part number that appears under both OSX and windows verifies this: 9583 (OSX and windows give differing card names, but both give the same part number identifying it as a mobility 2600 XT).

:eek:

Standard specs for both cards: (thanks Eidorian)

Desktop HD2600 Pro
Core: 550 MHz
Memory: 1400 MHz (700 MHz x 2)

Mobility HD2600 XT
Core: 700 MHz
Memory: 1500 MHz (750 MHz x 2)

User Adom (thanks Adom) posted a test (#165) with the ATI diagnostic tool on his 20" imac, and verified that the speeds of the new model are clocked as follows:

Core: 600 MHz
Memory: 1370 MHz (685 MHz x 2)

He also reported speeds of 115 fps in Half Life 2 at full res; no AA, but otherwise high settings. This is thought to be quite a bit better then the 2600 pro but not quite up to the mobility 2600 XT's standard levels, which would seem to line up with the clock speeds listed above.

Overall this is good news. The mobility 2600 XT is a better card then the desktop 2600 Pro that it would appear to be marketed as. It also makes sense that a mobility version of the card was included rather then the desktop, due to heat/power consumption issues. It would seem that Apple, for whatever reason, choose to include the mobility 2600 XT (a good choice) and then underclocked it a bit. Still better then what a lot of us initially thought was in there, and there's fair chance that the ATI tool can be used to bring the card back up to standard levels... we'll just have to wait and see what that does to the overall heat levels of the system (hopefully negligible).

More info on the mobility 2600 XT (ox9583) here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-2600-XT.3770.0.html



Note: Although this appears to be for real, it's still an open issue, things could change. Hopefully Bare Feats will step in soon enough and lay the matter to rest once and for all.

Wow, thanks for the heads up. I had read the thread when it first started and didn't realize how far it continued. If it does turn out to be a slightly underclocked 2600XT that's much better news. It should run old games adequately and newer games like oblivion better than the 7600GT.

Apple had underclocked the X1600 on the first Intel Macbook pros so it doesn't surprise that they might take a 2600xt and underclock it too, but call it something else. I wonder why not call it an xt if its only underclocked?

[Haoshiro]

And people were ragging on me for saying they were mobility gpus. :P

I'll have to see if mine shows as an XT as well.

Odd that the 2400 XT is worse then the 2400 Pro. Is there no consistency??? :P

[Eidorian]

Odd that the 2400 XT is worse then the 2400 Pro. Is there no consistency??? :PThat is very strange.

[l'homme]

not at all, only if apple offer updated drivers

[Perfectionist]

Is it possible to open up the new iMac's and replace the crappy Graphics card with a much better one ?? :confused:

[MDP]

I did a 3dMark06 on my current video card (Nvidia 7800GT), and it scored approx. 3000.

How the hell did the iMac score 3600?? Maybe the video card isn't that bad after all, and I can finally switch over!

Also, the BioShock demo was released - I am eager to see how the iMac can handle this game

[Foxer]

OK, I'm sure that I am not a "serious gamer" by the standards of this thread, but I do have a new iMac (base 24-inch model) and have played games on it. I have noticed no problems with games like Civ 4, C&C Zero Hour, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Empire at War, Star Wars KOTOR and Rise of Nations. Game play is smooth and graphics look grat on the big, glossy screen.

[harveypooka]

OK, I'm sure that I am not a "serious gamer" by the standards of this thread, but I do have a new iMac (base 24-inch model) and have played games on it. I have noticed no problems with games like Civ 4, C&C Zero Hour, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Empire at War, Star Wars KOTOR and Rise of Nations. Game play is smooth and graphics look grat on the big, glossy screen.

You are truly shagged for new and next gen games though. :(

[Foxer]

You are truly shagged for new and next gen games though. :(

We'll see. That's what consoles are for, anyway. And my Xbox 360 and PS3 suck at surfing the net, syncing my iPod and editing video - that's what the iMac is for.;)

[Haoshiro]

Alright, I ran the BioShock PC Demo on the new iMac (20") with HD 2600. I only have 1GB RAM atm.

All in all it felt very playable at the default settings of:

Resolution: 1024x768

Graphics Quality - High
Actor Detail - High
Texture Detail - High

Windowed Mode - OFF
Vertical Sync - ON
Shadow Maps - ON
High Detail Post Processing - ON
High Detail Shaders - ON
Real Time Reflection - ON
Distortion - ON
Force Global Lighting - OFF
DirectX 10 Detail Surfaces - OFF (Disabled)

Min: 15
Max: 52
Average: 26

I then took the settings down to Medium which seemed much more stable but still looked great.

On this I was able to get:

Min: 17
Max: 59
Average: 30

[Perfectionist]

We'll see. That's what consoles are for, anyway. And my Xbox 360 and PS3 suck at surfing the net, syncing my iPod and editing video - that's what the iMac is for.;)I'd rather not spend more cash on a console with a smaller variety of games ..... besides, why doesn't Apple want a piece of that market ?? :rolleyes:

I get a funny feeling that Apple won't take the iMac to the "next level" because there are so many Apple fanboys running around saying the iMac is perfect as it is !! ;)

The iMac is good but it could be better ..... :D

[fblack]

OK, I'm sure that I am not a "serious gamer" by the standards of this thread, but I do have a new iMac (base 24-inch model) and have played games on it. I have noticed no problems with games like Civ 4, C&C Zero Hour, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Empire at War, Star Wars KOTOR and Rise of Nations. Game play is smooth and graphics look grat on the big, glossy screen.

Most of those you listed are strategy games which are not as demanding as the 3D FPSs. However, its good to know that they ran very well on your machine as not everybody plays the latest FPS games and some still like to play in OSX. Did you have the settings turned up all the way?


Alright, I ran the BioShock PC Demo on the new iMac (20") with HD 2600. I only have 1GB RAM atm.

All in all it felt very playable at the default settings of:

Resolution: 1024x768

Graphics Quality - High
Actor Detail - High
Texture Detail - High

Windowed Mode - OFF
Vertical Sync - ON
Shadow Maps - ON
High Detail Post Processing - ON
High Detail Shaders - ON
Real Time Reflection - ON
Distortion - ON
Force Global Lighting - OFF
DirectX 10 Detail Surfaces - OFF (Disabled)

Min: 15
Max: 52
Average: 26

I then took the settings down to Medium which seemed much more stable but still looked great.

On this I was able to get:

Min: 17
Max: 59
Average: 30

Thanks for the info haoshiro. Some later improved drivers should get the game up to 40fps, which will be nice. Did you notice any significant slow down in the action or cutscenes? 30fps is fine unless you are just standing around staring at a wall...;)

[Haoshiro]

Thanks for the info haoshiro. Some later improved drivers should get the game up to 40fps, which will be nice. Did you notice any significant slow down in the action or cutscenes? 30fps is fine unless you are just standing around staring at a wall...;)

The only time I really noticed a slow down was when half of a plane crashes into a catwalk and causes water to flood in.

On High the game froze for a second or two, whereas on Medium it was fine, I noticed a dip in FPS but could still run around fine.

Running around and fighting battles with several enemies on screen (even 5 or more) played fine, usually staying above 30.

I've definitely heard there is expected to be new drivers specifically to help this game, so that's good to hear.

Also, a friend of mine with a 512MB 7600GT AGP card said he was getting fps in the low 20s... regrdless of settings. He has an Athlon XP 2600+, so it may have been his CPU giving him problems, because that was after driver updates.

[fblack]

The only time I really noticed a slow down was when half of a plane crashes into a catwalk and causes water to flood in.

On High the game froze for a second or two, whereas on Medium it was fine, I noticed a dip in FPS but could still run around fine.

Running around and fighting battles with several enemies on screen (even 5 or more) played fine, usually staying above 30.

I've definitely heard there is expected to be new drivers specifically to help this game, so that's good to hear.

Also, a friend of mine with a 512MB 7600GT AGP card said he was getting fps in the low 20s... regrdless of settings. He has an Athlon XP 2600+, so it may have been his CPU giving him problems, because that was after driver updates.

That's no too bad, then. I can't remember does the game use DX10 and if so have you tried it with DX10 detail on?

[Haoshiro]

That's no too bad, then. I can't remember does the game use DX10 and if so have you tried it with DX10 detail on?

Is DX10 available for XP now? If it is... I don't have it installed. :D

[Eidorian]

Is DX10 available for XP now? If it is... I don't have it installed. :DIt's being tossed around that it can be back ported by third parties but Microsoft doesn't want a part of it.

[fblack]

Is DX10 available for XP now? If it is... I don't have it installed. :D

What no Vista SuperSupreme for you?:D

Aww, are you one of those with a dim view of Vista?;)

[Haoshiro]

What no Vista SuperSupreme for you?:D

Aww, are you one of those with a dim view of Vista?;)

I've just used Windows long enough to know better ;)

My first mac was 18 months ago....

[FreedomFighter]

Does anyone know when the new EA game releases will be shipped to other apple stores eg. England and Australia???:confused:

[Haoshiro]

While this is no real benchmark, I just finished playing WoW on the new 20" iMac w/HD 2600.

I maxed every setting and enabled every effect at 1680x1050 and the game played extremely well.

My FPS usually hovered around 55-60, although I noticed it dip to 30 during a flight path.

I'm a level 26, so I can't check high level raids, etc.

[Vidd]

While this is no real benchmark, I just finished playing WoW on the new 20" iMac w/HD 2600.

I maxes every setting and enabled every effect at 1680x1050 and the game played extremely well.


Sounds good to me. :)