POST here - links to any Game Benchmarks on the new iMac

[ChancyJohn]

Theres a lot of confusion over the the graphics card issue....Is it just marginally better, or is it even worse than the old iteration 7600GT ...there are forum posts of people asking if this is better than the 1600 XT Scary :( ... Even confusion over if it's a PRO or an XT

I'd like to find some rough FPS counts has anyone done em yet?? I see one post on Doom 3 looks reasonable enough .. anything else???

[ChancyJohn]

This one doesn't sound too good...:(

http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/firstlooks/imacbenchmarks/index.php

"The only test where the older machine came out on top was in our Unreal Tournament test, in which it managed to display a couple of extra frames per second. As games are largely dependent on the graphics card, it appears that the older Nvidia GeForce 7300GT held its own, despite having half the amount of video RAM as the new ATI offering."

[ChancyJohn]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135777-c,macs/article.html

"On our Doom 3 tests, the iMac pumped out 92 frames per second at 1280 by 1024 resolution, and 47 fps second at the same resolution with antialiasing enabled. On our Far Cry tests, the iMac churned out 86 fps at 1280 by 1024 resolution, and 41 fps with antialiasing enabled. Those results are average."

[iLionel]

There is a driver issue for the 2000 series cards regarding Anti Aliasing... Also these cards havn't even been out that long, give it a few months and some better driver's and the 2600's will be outperforming the 7600GT by quite a bit.

[SBeardsl]

Theres a lot of confusion over the the graphics card issue....Is it just marginally better, or is it even worse than the old iteration 7600GT ...there are forum posts of people asking if this is better than the 1600 XT Scary :( ... Even confusion over if it's a PRO or an XT

I'd like to find some rough FPS counts has anyone done em yet?? I see one post on Doom 3 looks reasonable enough .. anything else???Most of the action on this is in the 2600XT? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=339616) thread.

The benchmarks we have are mostly for a year or more old games and some windows benchmarks show ATI's 2600 family not showing much improvement with older games but significant improvement over older cards on newer games. So, 'average but playable' results on older games is not a guaranteed kiss of death for newer ones. We just have to keep waiting for better benchmarks.

Keep and eye onhttp://barefeats.com/ around the middle of next week. They know what they are doing and have a 24" on order.

[ChancyJohn]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=341251

[ChancyJohn]

http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-imac-20-inch/4505-3118_7-32564364.html

"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. "

[shipdestroyer]

Do you think CNet benchmarked Quake 4 in OS X vs. the Windows version? I wouldn't put it past them.

[audison]

I don't know a lot about how to read these results, but I found this review that compares the 2600 pro/xt with cards used previously with earlier iMacs...

http://www.trustedreviews.com/graphics/review/2007/07/16/ATI-Radeon-HD-2600-XT-2600-Pro-and-2400-XT/p1

[AlexisV]

"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.

And what frame rate would you get in Windows? Substantially more I suspect...

[cah87]

I just installed Windows XP with Counter-Strike Source i ran the Video Stress Test on Widescreen 16:10 res 1680x1050 on all other recommended settings and got a score of 100.27 FPS. That is pretty freaking good considering my 7800gtxoc only gets around 137 on a good day.

Specs
20"
2.4ghz core 2 duo
ATI 2600 HD 256mb
2GB Ram
320GB Hard Drive

[ChancyJohn]

I just installed Windows XP with Counter-Strike Source i ran the Video Stress Test on Widescreen 16:10 res 1680x1050 on all other recommended settings and got a score of 100.27 FPS. That is pretty freaking good considering my 7800gtxoc only gets around 137 on a good day.

Specs
20"
2.4ghz core 2 duo
ATI 2600 HD 256mb
2GB Ram
320GB Hard Drive

Good to hear that...reassuring...
Thanx..

[ChancyJohn]

This is not though :(

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

[ChancyJohn]

looks really bad gaming under OS X ... not much of a great welcome for game dev to start creating games for the MAC platform.

http://barefeats.com/imacal.html


Hoping for better news under Windows ... Hope it's a Driver issue and it runs @least close to the 7600GT in windows...

[JimmyDreams]

Ok..bear with me on this for just a sec....

I'm not a tech-specs guy, but is it just POSSIBLE that all the flack over GPU's etc. is partially driven by A) advertisers/companies and B) todays 'I WANT SOMETHING NEW RIGHT NOW' attitudes?

I ask because if a particular game isn't jerky, can display a full-screen image and allows most of the details to be turned to a reasonable level.....well....can you tell me that you KNOW you can see the difference between 50fps and 75fps??? I know it's a 50% increase...but can you SEE the difference?

I guess what I'm getting at is are we getting into a lather over details that really aren't worth it? It just seems to me that maybe some of us have lost the bigger picture.

I dunno....

Sorry for the rant!:o

JimmyD
:apple::apple::apple::apple:

[ChancyJohn]

Ok..bear with me on this for just a sec....

I'm not a tech-specs guy, but is it just POSSIBLE that all the flack over GPU's etc. is partially driven by A) advertisers/companies and B) todays 'I WANT SOMETHING NEW RIGHT NOW' attitudes?

I ask because if a particular game isn't jerky, can display a full-screen image and allows most of the details to be turned to a reasonable level.....well....can you tell me that you KNOW you can see the difference between 50fps and 75fps???

I guess what I'm getting at is are we getting into a lather over details that really aren't worth it? It just seems to me that maybe some of us have lost the bigger picture.

I dunno....

Sorry for the rant!:o

JimmyD
:apple::apple::apple::apple:

I would be more than happy with 50 FPS :) even on medium settings...Just want to make sure things aren't unplayable for games to be released in the next 2 odd years even @ medium-low settings...

[Eric Lewis]

what about sims2?

[ChancyJohn]

a 75 FPS on Todays games could be 50 FPS on a Game a year odd down the line
a 50 FPS now could be a laggy 20-25 Frames then

The iMac is not exactly dirt cheap it's reasonable for users to expect some reasonable amount of future proofing

[shakastange]

Ok..bear with me on this for just a sec....

I'm not a tech-specs guy, but is it just POSSIBLE that all the flack over GPU's etc. is partially driven by A) advertisers/companies and B) todays 'I WANT SOMETHING NEW RIGHT NOW' attitudes?

I ask because if a particular game isn't jerky, can display a full-screen image and allows most of the details to be turned to a reasonable level.....well....can you tell me that you KNOW you can see the difference between 50fps and 75fps??? I know it's a 50% increase...but can you SEE the difference?

I guess what I'm getting at is are we getting into a lather over details that really aren't worth it? It just seems to me that maybe some of us have lost the bigger picture.

I dunno....

Sorry for the rant!:o

JimmyD
:apple::apple::apple::apple:

Its driven by gamers who want performance greater than an older product. The human race tends to advance and not regress.

Most people who complain are not expecting (myself included) aren't expecting X2950 type gaming on the iMac. But Bootcamp opened up a whole new world for gamers and Mac users. We only want to play current games at acceptable framerates. Futhermore, looking to future releases and the despair grows even greater. Games one year from now may run just barely. Considering the iMac's gfx card cannot be upgraded, and $1199 is a fair chunk for a PC, one expect the machine to be able to run games from 3 years down the line at least.

I do agree with you, a game running at 60FPS is super. But that isn't the case with the iMac with any decent set of effects turned on. Games look relatively bad without AA and other fancy stuff.

[AlexisV]

DOOM 3 BENCHMARKS

Under Windows XP Pro SP2 on a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo 20" iMac. Windows reports the card as a 2600XT.

All on high quality.

1024 x 768 92.8FPS
1280 x 1024 64.7FPS
1600 x 1280 50.7FPS

All just using Bootcamp 1.4 drivers.

As a comparison, my old Pentium4 HT 3.0Ghz with 512Mb GeForce 6800 card managed 87FPS at 1024 x 768 in Doom3.


Note that the new drivers for the '2600 series' released yesterday do not work in Windows. It says there is no supported hardware on board and will not install the drivers.

[BlackMax]

Note that the new drivers for the '2600 series' released yesterday do not work in Windows. It says there is no supported hardware on board and will not install the drivers.

Hmmm... So the iMac 2600 Pro (or 2600 XT) uses special proprietary drivers? If this is the case then you'll only be able to update iMac video drivers through Apple.

[Eric Lewis]

test sims 2?

[AlexisV]

Hmmm... So the iMac 2600 Pro (or 2600 XT) uses special proprietary drivers? If this is the case then you'll only be able to update iMac video drivers through Apple.

There is a Boot Camp > WinXP section in the driver downloads, but it only lists 'late/early 2006 iMac'

[ChancyJohn]

LoganT posts in another thread...

"I have the new 24" 2.4 GHZ iMac and was running BF2 in Boot Camp. I was running at 1920x1200 resolution with everything on low and getting 70 to 100 FPS. But that's just me, you could theoretically run it at 1024x768 with everything on medium and high and get the same results. I like running it in the native resolution though."

[ChancyJohn]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2170378,00.asp

"And the iMac's ATI Radeon HS 2600 Pro graphics helped it gain a very good score of 3,784 on 3DMark06. It's not a blazing 3D performer, but it holds it own against gaming-oriented midprice systems such as the Velocity Micro Campus Edition 2007 (5,112) and CyberPower Gamer Ultra 8500SE (4,428). You can play casual games easily and 3D games with some of the eye candy turned off. "

[milibug]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135777-c,macs/article.html

"On our Doom 3 tests, the iMac pumped out 92 frames per second at 1280 by 1024 resolution, and 47 fps second at the same resolution with antialiasing enabled. On our Far Cry tests, the iMac churned out 86 fps at 1280 by 1024 resolution, and 41 fps with antialiasing enabled. Those results are average."

This is not though :(

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


So in PCWorld test imac does 92fps at 1280x1024, but Barefeats reports 58fps at lower (1280x800) resolution for DOOM3. What am I missing?

[Fl0r!an]

So in PCWorld test imac does 92fps at 1280x1024, but Barefeats reports 58fps at lower (1280x800) resolution for DOOM3. What am I missing?

PC World has tested the iMac in Vista, Barefeats used OS X...
And PC World did not specify whether they have used low/medium/high graphic settings...

[ChancyJohn]

Hmmm... So the iMac 2600 Pro (or 2600 XT) uses special proprietary drivers? If this is the case then you'll only be able to update iMac video drivers through Apple.

Thats very Bad News :( ...This clearly wont be on their Top Things to do list unless hopefully they feel pressurized by customers and game dev...

[Fl0r!an]

Hmmm... So the iMac 2600 Pro (or 2600 XT) uses special proprietary drivers? If this is the case then you'll only be able to update iMac video drivers through Apple.

The drivers from the ATI homepage are only for desktop cards...

[AlexisV]

The PC World benchmarks must be on low quality. There is little difference between medium and high, but low is much faster I think.

[shakastange]

Well I've given up on this iMac. All benchmarks I have seen are sorely disappointing. Even the 2600XT is not as good as hoped on the Windows side, which is my primary concern. The card is lacking even with very good Windows drivers. Its back to my Vaio and Powerbook until things get better. Anandtec sums it best:

Final Words

We had no problems expressing our disappointment with NVIDIA over the lackluster performance of their 8600 series. After AMD's introduction of the 2900 XT, we held some hope that perhaps they would capitalize on the huge gap NVIDIA left between their sub $200 parts and the higher end hardware. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

In fact, AMD went the other way and released hardware that performs consistently worse than NVIDIA's competing offerings. The only game that shows AMD hardware leading NVIDIA is Rainbow Six: Vegas. Beyond that, our 4xAA tests show the mainstream Radeon HD lineup, which already lags in performance, scales even worse than NVIDIA. Not that we really expect most people with this level of hardware to enable 4xAA, but it's still a disappointment.

Usually it's easier to review hardware that is clearly better or worse than it's competitor under the tests we ran, but this case is difficult. We want to paint an accurate picture here, but it has become nearly impossible to speak negatively enough about the AMD Radeon HD 2000 Series without sounding comically absurd.

Even with day-before-launch price adjustments, there is just no question that, in the applications the majority of people will be running, AMD has created a series of products that are even more unimpressive than the already less than stellar 8600 lineup.

While we will certainly concede that video decode capability may be a saving grace in some applications, the majority of end users are not saving their money for a DX10 class video card in order to play movies on their PC. For those who really are interested in this, stay tuned for an article comparing UVD and PureVideo coming next week.

We also won't have data on the performance of these cards under DX10 until next week. Maybe DX10 could make a difference, but we still won't have the full picture. These first DX10 games are more like DX9 titles running on a different API. Of course, this is a valid way to use DX10, but we will probably see more intense and demanding uses of DX10 when developers start targeting the new features as a baseline.

All we can do at this point is lament the sad state of affordable next generation graphics cards and wait until someone at NVIDIA and AMD gets the memo that their customers would actually like to see better performance that at least consistently matches previous generation hardware. For now, midrange DX10 remains MIA.

[Jimmdean]

Well I've given up on this iMac. All benchmarks I have seen are sorely disappointing. Even the 2600XT is not as good as hoped on the Windows side, which is my primary concern. The card is lacking even with very good Windows drivers. Its back to my Vaio and Powerbook until things get better. Anandtec sums it best:

"very good drivers"? These drivers suck, not to mention the existence of absolutely zero retail games actually built for this technology. And since they don't appear to be covered in the std ATI driver package who knows how the update process is going to go... But if you're a heavy gamer you should have known better in the first place - these are mid-range cards after all...

[Red-red]

So in PCWorld test imac does 92fps at 1280x1024, but Barefeats reports 58fps at lower (1280x800) resolution for DOOM3. What am I missing?

It could be a number of things. My biggest problem is when they review these they don't say what version of the game they are running. As we all know how a patch can make a game go from super slow, to performance king. Specially the doom 3 engine. In quake4 it ran pretty poorly on most systems it was only until they released a patch that let you take advantage of dual core processors took performance from 40fps to 65-75fps.

[milibug]

http://www.barefeats.com/imacal2.html

This ones looking good:)

[SiliconDioxide]

http://www.barefeats.com/imacal2.html

This ones looking good:)

They look slightly better, but the fact of the matter is the card is still very disappointing. Looks like I am going to sit this revision out. I just hope I don't have to wait a year for the next one.

[shakastange]

They look slightly better, but the fact of the matter is the card is still very disappointing. Looks like I am going to sit this revision out. I just hope I don't have to wait a year for the next one.

Amen to that!

[MezicanGangxtah]

so the card isnt so bad afterall http://www.barefeats.com/imacal2.html its just that the card is optomized for newer games not older games like doom 3 and quake 4 and such plus its suckier in OS X because of driver issues and adding to that the card itself needs some improvement in drivers in general MAC/PC so lets just give the card a few months for it to mature and games to adapt to it

[Red-red]

I can't see the page, Can somebody post them on here please.

[SiliconDioxide]

so the card isnt so bad afterall http://www.barefeats.com/imacal2.html its just that the card is optomized for newer games not older games like doom 3 and quake 4 and such plus its suckier in OS X because of driver issues and adding to that the card itself needs some improvement in drivers in general MAC/PC so lets just give the card a few months for it to mature and games to adapt to it

Lets hope in a few months, we will see a new GPU in the imac, one that doesn't suck and we wont have to have these threads. Also I can't imagine that mature drivers will add more than a 10% performance increase.

[overcast]

There is a driver issue for the 2000 series cards regarding Anti Aliasing... Also these cards havn't even been out that long, give it a few months and some better driver's and the 2600's will be outperforming the 7600GT by quite a bit.
Drivers are not going to make magic happen. You need to realize the video cards in the iMacs are poor at best.

[paetrick]

Lets hope in a few months, we will see a new GPU in the imac, one that doesn't suck and we wont have to have these threads. Also I can't imagine that mature drivers will add more than a 10% performance increase.

Haha lol, you can never expect or compare an laptop / imac graphics to a FULL DESKTOP computer, the imac will never have a "VERY GOOD" graphic chip. (and cheaper version will not have graphics that a 3000 dollar laptop got either)

iMac isn't for people that ONLY game in front of the computer, it is for those who likes to play but doesn't need full resolution and high settings on newly released games. (Many will be happy running games like pray in 1900x1080 with 42 fps) - WoW - which is the world's biggest online game runs smooth with highest settings on the imac.


18 year old gaming g33k's will never be apple's focus !, and i can't see why you are aiming for the imac if your primary needs is to GAME

:P Just don't make sense to me, it's like you want to have sex with a girl even tho you are gay... just forget it :P you wont like it^^

[SiliconDioxide]

Haha lol, you can never expect or compare an laptop / imac graphics to a FULL DESKTOP computer, the imac will never have a "VERY GOOD" graphic chip. (and cheaper version will not have graphics that a 3000 dollar laptop got either)

iMac isn't for people that ONLY game in front of the computer, it is for those who likes to play but doesn't need full resolution and high settings on newly released games. (Many will be happy running games like pray in 1900x1080 with 42 fps) - WoW - which is the world's biggest online game runs smooth with highest settings on the imac.



Never was trying to compare a laptop GPU to a desktop one. I just don't want a GPU in my computer that I plan to keep for 3 years to be DOA.

[Red-red]

It will be able to run teamfortress 2 so thats all I care about.

[fblack]

Lets hope in a few months, we will see a new GPU in the imac, one that doesn't suck and we wont have to have these threads. Also I can't imagine that mature drivers will add more than a 10% performance increase.

Only problem is that we don't often see Apple update their GPUs. They will update the cpu, but leave you hanging with the gpu. The G4 powerbooks had a radeon 9700 gpu for 2 years! If you look at these scores from barefeats the 7600 is faster in Windows than OSX. Same hardware, its been out almost a year, so why 20fps less in the 1200x800 scores? The lack of driver support, so 10% may be optimistic. I hope Apple proves me wrong.

There aren't any really new good midrange cards out there, so maybe in a few months we might see a BTO option with a newer faster gpu on an iMac. But with Apple's track record I'm not holding my breath.

iMac isn't for people that ONLY game in front of the computer, it is for those who likes to play but doesn't need full resolution and high settings on newly released games. (Many will be happy running games like pray in 1900x1080 with 42 fps) - WoW - which is the world's biggest online game runs smooth with highest settings on the imac.

Agreed.

18 year old gaming g33k's will never be apple's focus !, and i can't see why you are aiming for the imac if your primary needs is to GAME

:P Just don't make sense to me, it's like you want to have sex with a girl even tho you are gay... just forget it :P you wont like it^^

So, what you are saying is girl=iMac and gay=gamers. Okeydokey, then...:(

[ChancyJohn]

Any one got any numbers on F.E.A.R. / Oblivion / GRAW ???

[cmvsm]

What difference do other games make? The 2600 will perform equal to or less than the old 7600GT no matter what drivers you are using, Mac or Windows. Apple better come out with a BTO option for a better card. This one is certainly a step backwards.

In light of these new Barefeats results, I'll definitely be sitting this revision out. Sorry iMac.

[ChancyJohn]

I cant sit out unfortunately ... lost my motherboard on my comp (using an old one with onboard video :( ) ... + Waited toooo long to get a Mac ... If the iMac can churn out reasonable gaming performance for 2 years then i am in...

Reasonable as in playable frame rates with textures not looking like blocky squares ... dont mind having to tone down AA etc

[SiliconDioxide]

Only problem is that we don't often see Apple update their GPUs. They will update the cpu, but leave you hanging with the gpu. The G4 powerbooks had a radeon 9700 gpu for 2 years! If you look at these scores from barefeats the 7600 is faster in Windows than OSX. Same hardware, its been out almost a year, so why 20fps less in the 1200x800 scores? The lack of driver support, so 10% may be optimistic. I hope Apple proves me wrong.


I know, which is why I bounce back and forth between Macs and PCs. I had a Mirror Drive machine for a number of years (Dual 867, Geforce4MX, not that bad of a mid-level card). I gave that to my parents 2.5 years ago and picked up a Dell (I know but it was cheap). Right now it is started to show its age a little (P4 3.8ghz and a 6800). So I am stuck in a bind. Thats why I was very disappointed with the new imac. I really want to go back to the mac, but I don't want to have a GPU that can't handle current games and I cannot believe that it will magically run DX10 games well at all. Let alone 3 years from now.

[Fl0r!an]

The barefeats-benchmark has been updated, now with Quake 4 under XP:
http://barefeats.com/imacal2.html

in windows they are getting up to 3x more FPS than in OS X!

[fblack]

I know, which is why I bounce back and forth between Macs and PCs. I had a Mirror Drive machine for a number of years (Dual 867, Geforce4MX, not that bad of a mid-level card). I gave that to my parents 2.5 years ago and picked up a Dell (I know but it was cheap). Right now it is started to show its age a little (P4 3.8ghz and a 6800). So I am stuck in a bind. Thats why I was very disappointed with the new imac. I really want to go back to the mac, but I don't want to have a GPU that can't handle current games and I cannot believe that it will magically run DX10 games well at all. Let alone 3 years from now.

I'm in the same boat. I use an old QS 933 for my photoshop and a P4 OC to 3.2 w/a X1650XT that I cobbled together to game. Your 3.8 is not bad tho and should be able to handle games like Bioshock. Personally, I don't think there are enough DX10 capable cards and certainly not enough DX10 games to warrant an iMac purchase for myself. I think I will hold off until Leopard is at least out and maybe even until January rolls around. My setup is not perfect and I'd rather just have 1 machine, but I think I will just save my money a little longer. Heck I could squeeze 3.4 maybe 3.6 out of my northwood, if need be.

The barefeats-benchmark has been updated, now with Quake 4 under XP:
http://barefeats.com/imacal2.html

in windows they are getting up to 3x more FPS than in OS X!

Yep saw that. Its just plain ugly how bad the OSX drivers are.

INSIGHT: The "mature" Windows drivers indeed produced faster frame rates on both Macs, though the older Mac with the GeForce 7600 remained faster. Hopefully we will see the Mac OS X Radeon X2000 drivers optimized in the near future to match the Windows XP Pro performance, even if the Radeon 2600 Pro can't "catch" the CTO GeForce 7600 GT.

They haven't optimized the 7600 in OSX so I don't see why they think they will optimize the 2600.

http://barefeats.com/image07/imal2_k12.gif
http://barefeats.com/image07/imal2_kak.gif

[Fl0r!an]

Now they have added WoW:

http://barefeats.com/image07/imal_wof.gif

At least one benchmark were the HD 2600 is faster than the 7600 in OS X :)

[SiliconDioxide]

Now they have added WoW:

http://barefeats.com/image07/imal_wof.gif

At least one benchmark were the HD 2600 is faster than the 7600 in OS X :)

Looks good, but what were the settings?

Also need to know where they were when they got those results.

[efstuck]

Here's my benchmark for CoH.

iMac 2.4, 4gb ram 24"
WinXP with SP2 and all updates.
2600 driver v. 8.390.0.0
CoH 1.71

1920x1200 (Widescreen)

Shader Quality : High
Model Quality : High
AA: None
Texture Detail: High
Shadows: High
Reflections: High
Post Processing: On
Building Detail: High
Physics: High
Tree Quality: High
Terrain Detail : High
Effects Fidelity: High
Effects Density: High
Object Scarring: On
Model Detail: Max

Average FPS : 24.1
Max FPS : 49.0
Min FPS : 8.0


Automatic Settings benchmark - differences from above settings in bold.

1920x1200 widescreen

Shader Quality : High
Model Quality : High
AA: None
Texture Detail: High
Shadows: Low
Reflections: High
Post Processing: On
Building Detail: High
Physics: Medium
Tree Quality: Medium
Terrain Detail : Medium
Effects Fidelity: High
Effects Density: High
Object Scarring: On
Model Detail: Middle/Halfway point of the bar

Average FPS : 30.5
Max FPS : 56.1
Min FPS : 10.2


efstuck

[paetrick]

Here's my benchmark for CoH.

iMac 2.4, 4gb ram 24"
WinXP with SP2 and all updates.
2600 driver v. 8.390.0.0
CoH 1.71

1920x1200 (Widescreen)

Shader Quality : High
Model Quality : High
AA: None
Texture Detail: High
Shadows: High
Reflections: High
Post Processing: On
Building Detail: High
Physics: High
Tree Quality: High
Terrain Detail : High
Effects Fidelity: High
Effects Density: High
Object Scarring: On
Model Detail: Max

Average FPS : 24.1
Max FPS : 49.0
Min FPS : 8.0


Automatic Settings benchmark - differences from above settings in bold.

1920x1200 widescreen

Shader Quality : High
Model Quality : High
AA: None
Texture Detail: High
Shadows: Low
Reflections: High
Post Processing: On
Building Detail: High
Physics: Medium
Tree Quality: Medium
Terrain Detail : Medium
Effects Fidelity: High
Effects Density: High
Object Scarring: On
Model Detail: Middle/Halfway point of the bar

Average FPS : 30.5
Max FPS : 56.1
Min FPS : 10.2


efstuck

Wow got better graphics than CoH, why does CoH got so much less fps than wow?, i guess blizzard know what they are doing !!!

[efstuck]

The requirements for CoH is quite a bit higher than WoW.

Recommended specs for CoH - P4 3.0Gh - 1GB ram - 256MB Nvidia 6800+

Recommended specs for WoW - P4 1.5Ghz - 512 ram - 64MB geforece FX 5700+

[pcorajr]

Do you mean

The requirements for CoH is quite a bit higher than WoW.

Recommended specs for CoH - P4 3.0Gh - 1GB ram - 256MB Nvidia 6800+

Recommended specs for WoW - P4 1.5Ghz - 512 ram - 64MB geforece FX 5700+

[efstuck]

Yes, my bad.

[paetrick]

The requirements for CoH is quite a bit higher than WoW.

Recommended specs for CoH - P4 3.0Gh - 1GB ram - 256MB Nvidia 6800+

Recommended specs for WoW - P4 1.5Ghz - 512 ram - 64MB geforece FX 5700+

LoL :P What game are you talking about?, I thought u were talking about City Of Heroes which requiers:
Win 2000/XP • Pentium III 800MHz • 256MB RAM • nVidia Geforce 2 Series, ATI Radeon 7500 or Intel i810G Series Video Card • 4GB HD • DVD-Rom.

lol :D

[Fl0r!an]

LoL :P What game are you talking about?, I thought u were talking about City Of Heroes which requiers:
Win 2000/XP • Pentium III 800MHz • 256MB RAM • nVidia Geforce 2 Series, ATI Radeon 7500 or Intel i810G Series Video Card • 4GB HD • DVD-Rom.

lol :D

lol, he is talking about "Company of Heroes" ;)

[jhero]

Anyone have benchmarks of CSS under the 2400xt?

Thanks

[HLdan]

Considering the iMac's gfx card cannot be upgraded, and $1199 is a fair chunk for a PC, one expect the machine to be able to run games from 3 years down the line at least.


Meh,to be fair $1199 is a great price for a PC with a 20" widescreen and a full high speed computer with an 8" footprint. You can't find an AIO anywhere cheaper with similar features, fit and finish than what Apple offers. I challenge anyone.

To add to the GPU concerns, doesn't it matter at all that the HD 2600 Pro is a DX 10 card? How can it be compared to older cards that are not made for Vista's future games? Looks like in the long run the HD 2600 Pro will outshine a card such as the 7600 due to the DX 10 compatibility. I don't mind if someone challenges that, I'm looking for confirmation.

[ChancyJohn]

A vid posted in youtube...looks acceptable...mite need to tone dwn the settings during heavy firefights etc though....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbY1kTP79vc

[bobsbarricades]

To add to the GPU concerns, doesn't it matter at all that the HD 2600 Pro is a DX 10 card? How can it be compared to older cards that are not made for Vista's future games? Looks like in the long run the HD 2600 Pro will outshine a card such as the 7600 due to the DX 10 compatibility. I don't mind if someone challenges that, I'm looking for confirmation.

if you look at any of the dx10 benchmarks, the indications are that these GPU OUTSIDE of the iMac plays DX10 games in the single digit frame rate.... I don't think ANY computer can help those numbers, it's the card :P

[-brian-]

Anyone want to do me a favor and try out Modo eval. (http://www.luxology.com). Specifically try out painting performance and

[AlexisV]

Here's a good set of benchmarks for the Pro and XT:


http://xtreview.com/review209.htm

I would say the XT is not a bad card at all.

[ChancyJohn]

hmm..wonder if theres any way to run a game on a smaller size...like a 20" on a 24" leaving the extra area blacked out..is there?
that should take some load of the graphics card. and the graphics wont look scaled.

[ChancyJohn]

Has anyone tried Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior ?

[AlexisV]

Drivers are not going to make magic happen. You need to realize the video cards in the iMacs are poor at best.

Some hilariously over the top comments from people who have had a quick look at a few benchmarks and decreed the GPU is rubbish despite never having used the new iMac.

Games do not run badly at all under Windows XP, despite being stuck with out of date drivers. I'm using FEAR, Stalker, Doom3 and Quake 4 at high resolutions with platy of the eye candy turned on and they run well.

Vista and OSX are not the best operating systems for games at present. Vista haemorrhages frame rate because its only geared up for DX10 games that aren't even available yet.

People are expecting a £300 GPU in their Macs, which ain't gonna happen.

I also think thinks will improve with Leopard, especially since Boot Camp will be complete. It's still only beta at the moment and Apple are more concerned with bringing out the final article rather than providing us new with the new drivers it seems.

[Vidd]

I am very confused at this point.
I want a computer that can run recent games at decent settings and will do the same with those in the near future.
The iMac is not and will never be a gaming rig but I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation.

These conflicting reports are perplexing. At the very least I am put off buying the base model as it gets about half the fps as the other model in some tests.