VERY disappointed with my 3.06 GT130

[ucla95]

So I'm playing World of Warcraft and I loaded it up both on OSX and Windows and updated all the drivers in Windows (it sees a GT130 card) and on high settings in desolate not popular areas I'm getting 43 fps!! wtf? I expected 80 or so. This graphics card and/or machine is terrible. Apple should be embarassed. Wish I could send it back. I might just do that even with the 15% restocking fee hit from Amazon.

[Eidorian]

I would have looked at benchmarks first before making a purchase solely on gaming performance. Apple hasn't been known for its video card power in a long time.

[J the Ninja]

The GT130 is a rebadged 9600 GT, IIRC. Decent, but not a top of the line gaming best by any means. If you were looking for gaming performance, why didn't you get the 4850 upgrade?


Also, you know going over 60fps on an LCD is pointless, right? CRTs can change the scan rate and make things smoother, LCDs cannot. They will just tear, so turn on Vsync. It will prevent the tearing and save resources for more useful variants of eye candy.

[ucla95]

I wasn't looking for top end gaming, but if I'm reading prior posts correctly I'm getting WORSE fps than a last-gen 8800GS! So what I'm complaining about is it was no upgrade at all, and frankly this computer is worse than a last-gen computer besides the bigger HD and more memory.

[MattZani]

You Realise the GT130 is a lesser card than the 8800 GS? (Which was Actually an 8800 GTS). You Should of done your homework before you went out and bought an obviously slower system, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

Should of got the 4850 Upgrade.

[ucla95]

You Realise the GT130 is a lesser card than the 8800 GS? (Which was Actually an 8800 GTS). You Should of done your homework before you went out and bought an obviously slower system, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

Should of got the 4850 Upgrade.

That I did not realize, so yes that's my bad. I assumed that Apple when improving systems would improve the video cards and other components as well, not downgrade them. And the reason I didn't get the 4850 was I needed something now, my computer had just crashed.

[Eidorian]

That I did not realize, so yes that's my bad. I assumed that Apple when improving systems would improve the video cards and other components as well, not downgrade them. And the reason I didn't get the 4850 was I needed something now, my computer had just crashed.These new iMacs are barely different from the previous ones. :confused:

[soldierblue]

The problem is the native res on the display is 1920x1200, so even if you did get the 4850 it's STILL not going to be sufficient for gaming at that res. Yes, 4850 is better than the GT130 (which is a rebadged 9600GSO which is, in turn, a rebadged 8800GS, which was an option for the 2008 iMacs) by maybe 15% or so. But, they're still utterly useless at 1920x1200.

[Zmmin3]

These new iMacs are barely different from the previous ones. :confused:

Thats why I went with the refurb 24" 2.8. It has a dedicated video card compared to the new ones that have an integrated video card.

[eelpout]

Actually, according to barefeats (see this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=672889)), the GT130 is around 10% faster than the 8800GS on games played under OS X. Not a huge improvement, but it doesn't look like they're going backwards like some feared. Of course some of the speed improvement could be due to the faster RAM.

[Lexlee]

Wow runs great on my new 2.96 w\ GT130. No stuttering or lag, the graphics run smooth as silk. But I don't know what frames per second I get and I don't care. I game very little which was the whole reason I got the iMac.


If you wanted to play games you should have bought a gaming rig with dual crossfire cards. Return the iMac, pay the restocking fee and get a PC. I love my Mac and so has everyone who has been over and seen it. Everyone who has been over to my house and played with it has left wanting one. My friends and family are blown away by the incredible software that came with the Mac plus the lack of junk software that comes standard with bloated window installs. But if I didn't enjoy my Mac I would have already returned it.

[soldierblue]

Odd. There's still some confusion over what the GT 120/130 actually is.

[dylanbrown]

I have the 2.93GHz 2009 iMac with the GT120 Graphics and honestly, I am also kinda disappointed. I'm getting quite a lot of screen tearing when watching iTunes HD Video Podcasts/TV Shows, YouTube videos and when using Spaces and Expose.

Hopefully this will be fixed with a driver update. (Hopefully!)

[adamlbiscuit]

Tomb Raider Anniversary runs great at full resolution, AA and settings. I don't have numbers though, i'm just going by visuals and noticeable fps slowdown which, to me, is all that matters.

[adamlbiscuit]

Tomb Raider Anniversary runs great at full resolution, AA and settings. I don't have numbers though, i'm just going by visuals and noticeable fps slowdown which, to me, is all that matters.

Sims 2 however, is a different story, lagging on most houses which are quite small (i made them when i played it on my MacBook) I don't think thats the computer, i think thats crappy porting on Aspyrs side.

Sorry about double post, i must have hit the button twice by accident.

[eelpout]

I have the 2.93GHz 2009 iMac with the GT120 Graphics and honestly, I am also kinda disappointed. I'm getting quite a lot of screen tearing when watching iTunes HD Video Podcasts/TV Shows, YouTube videos and when using Spaces and Expose.

Hopefully this will be fixed with a driver update. (Hopefully!)
Tearing on youtube videos?? Ouch.

[adamlbiscuit]

I have the 2.93GHz 2009 iMac with the GT120 Graphics and honestly, I am also kinda disappointed. I'm getting quite a lot of screen tearing when watching iTunes HD Video Podcasts/TV Shows, YouTube videos and when using Spaces and Expose.

Hopefully this will be fixed with a driver update. (Hopefully!)

grrr i get a flickering effect on a lot of menus too with my GT130. Think font menu's and bookmarks etc. Anything which you have to scroll down to see the full set of options.

[ucla95]

I will update that I just ran WoW on OS X with High settings and got a slightly more respectable 50fps (although again in an empty area). So Vista 64 doesn't run the card as well clearly. But still a disappointment, was expecting 80 fps or so. Remember WoW is a four year old game!

I'm seriously considering taking the restocking fee hit on this one and getting a dreaded PC, and for me that means there's a big problem.

[brop52]

Thats why I went with the refurb 24" 2.8. It has a dedicated video card compared to the new ones that have an integrated video card.

Only the low end iMacs have the 9400M G integrated GPU. Just FYI, the 9400M G is an improvement vs. the 128MB ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT in the old low end iMac.

[RemarkabLee]

was expecting 80 fps or so.
Where did you get 80fps from? Was it a complete guess or based on something objective?

[RemarkabLee]

grrr i get a flickering effect on a lot of menus too with my GT130. Think font menu's and bookmarks etc. Anything which you have to scroll down to see the full set of options.

That doesn't sound right to me.... I should expect this will be fixed soon with an update.

[L0s7man]

The problem is the native res on the display is 1920x1200, so even if you did get the 4850 it's STILL not going to be sufficient for gaming at that res. Yes, 4850 is better than the GT130 (which is a rebadged 9600GSO which is, in turn, a rebadged 8800GS, which was an option for the 2008 iMacs) by maybe 15% or so. But, they're still utterly useless at 1920x1200.

Do you REALLY have to use native res? What's the point? The graphics looks as good on say 1280x800. I don't care as long as I can maintain the aspect ration. Sure, non native res implies slight, well let's call it scaling issues. It might not look as perfectly smooth as native res with 16xAA or whatever, but who cares?

I'd rather play on 1280x800 with high detail ;-) And I can't really see the difference.

[ucla95]

Do you REALLY have to use native res? What's the point? The graphics looks as good on say 1280x800. I don't care as long as I can maintain the aspect ration. Sure, non native res implies slight, well let's call it scaling issues. It might not look as perfectly smooth as native res with 16xAA or whatever, but who cares?

I'd rather play on 1280x800 with high detail ;-) And I can't really see the difference.

Well after you shell out $2200 for a computer I think as a customer you have a right to believe it will play well in native res.

[L0s7man]

Well after you shell out $2200 for a computer I think as a customer you have a right to believe it will play well in native res.

*sigh*

Then you don't buy iMac, but Dell XPS (or something similiar) instead.

I'm waiting for HD4850 iMac as a gaming machine. My expectation is rather simple -> more powerful than MBP (which is an alternative on my shopping list).

Seriously, if I can play FEAR2/Mirrors Edge/Crysis Warhead/TF2/Dawn of War II/Dead Space/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and many more on MBP and iMac with GT130 is more powerful than MBP (according to posts on this forum, much more powerful), then I don't see any problem.

[CrysisFX]

I will update that I just ran WoW on OS X with High settings and got a slightly more respectable 50fps (although again in an empty area). So Vista 64 doesn't run the card as well clearly. But still a disappointment, was expecting 80 fps or so. Remember WoW is a four year old game!

I'm seriously considering taking the restocking fee hit on this one and getting a dreaded PC, and for me that means there's a big problem.


first of all think. wow is not a four year old game as wrath of the lich king was recently released. if you go back into pre BC areas you will get much higher fps. at max on my imac 3.06 with 8800 GS i get 30 fps every were in wrath areas but i hit 60-70 in org or close to 80 in empty pre bc areas such as silithus.

personally i like the max settings but i feel safer with a lot of fps so instead of max settings i use default. the only thing i do is enable vsync so i don't get tearing and i max the resolution. at those settings i have a constant 60 no matter what

[ucla95]

first of all think. wow is not a four year old game as wrath of the lich king was recently released. if you go back into pre BC areas you will get much higher fps. at max on my imac 3.06 with 8800 GS i get 30 fps every were in wrath areas but i hit 60-70 in org or close to 80 in empty pre bc areas such as silithus.

personally i like the max settings but i feel safer with a lot of fps so instead of max settings i use default. the only thing i do is enable vsync so i don't get tearing and i max the resolution. at those settings i have a constant 60 no matter what

I am talking 50fps in pre-BC areas, Tirisfal Glades. On an empty server no less.

[trip1ex]

Don't be stubborn. Just turn down the resolution a bit and it will run like butter. The 130 has plenty of power to run WoW.

But that doesn't mean the drivers might need some tuning too as is often the case with new vid cards.

Otherwise yeah the 4850 was the way to go. A 4850 is the best vid card option I can recall the iMac having in a long time.

[BlizzardBomb]

Only the low end iMacs have the 9400M G integrated GPU. Just FYI, the 9400M G is an improvement vs. the 128MB ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT in the old low end iMac.

Only just though. In the benchmarks I've seen, the only thing propelling the new low-end above the old low-end in gaming is the enhanced clock speed of the processor because the difference seems to be only around 10%.

[trip1ex]

Only just though. In the benchmarks I've seen, the only thing propelling the new low-end above the old low-end in gaming is the enhanced clock speed of the processor because the difference seems to be only around 10%.

From what I saw of the Macworld benchmarks the 9400M is 15%-20% faster than the 2400xt 128mb card.

[CrysisFX]

I am talking 50fps in pre-BC areas, Tirisfal Glades!! On an empty server no less.

first of all i don't believe you because i can hit 50 or 60 in an empty pre bc area with the 8800m GTS in my vista 64 laptop and it only has a 1.6ghz processor.

i also back this up with the fact that the game runs twice as fast in opengl rather than directx. if i run in opengl mode in windows or linux i can get much more fps around 70.

the gt130 is an upgrade. a driver update may be coming for you but considering that its most likely a slowed desktop version of the 9600 i don't think the 8800 gs could really be faster as it is as well a slowed desktop version.

go to the video settings and click the default button and then click all settings. once you load back into wow change the res to max and flip on vsync and see what you get.

[L0s7man]

Don't be stubborn. Just turn down the resolution a bit and it will run like butter. The 130 has plenty of power to run WoW.

But that doesn't mean the drivers might need some tuning too as is often the case with new vid cards.

Otherwise yeah the 4850 was the way to go. A 4850 is the best vid card option I can recall the iMac having in a long time.

Rumor is that it's going to be desktop version. Only time will tell; but if it is, that's fine enough for me for a looong while.

[Bad Paper]

OP is a fool. Neglecting to upgrade graphics forfeits your right to complain about graphics.

There's a new "shadowing" graphics doohickey in WoW now which will drag down all graphics performance everywhere. You can manipulate that setting alone, and I'm sure your performance will spring up to whatever imaginary stellar performance you were expecting:
http://www.wowwiki.com/ExtShadowQuality

[CrysisFX]

Rumor is that it's going to be desktop version. Only time will tell; but if it is, that's fine enough for me for a looong while.

if its a desktop version i will be glad i waited. the desktop version is supposed to be faster than a GTX 260 but that is only if apple doesn't slow it down.

[L0s7man]

if its a desktop version i will be glad i waited. the desktop version is supposed to be faster than a GTX 260 but that is only if apple doesn't slow it down.

I've remember reading one post where someone was speculating that it'll be an overclocked mobility version; but I find it hard to imagine ;-)

Another question that interests me - will it have 9400M too? I don't see a reason why not -> it's the same design as any other iMac.

[barkmonster]

I completely understand why no one wants to view something on an LCD at any resolution other than native for obvious reasons but 50% native can't be so bad once you get to 1920 x 1200.

Bearing in mind consoles are generally through large screen TVs that you sit metres away from and monitors are generally 60 - 100cm away from where you're sat, I don't know why it would be so disappointing to run at a lower than native resolution but with anti-aliasing?

Pixel doubling would be enough to look good at half the native resolution with everything on full at 24 - 30fps no matter what game your playing.

I've never understood why people stress so much about not getting frame rates of over 30fps.

You spend your whole life watching films in the cinema (24fps) and TV (25fps UK and 30fps in the US) without issue and even with anamorphic wide screen your stretching a 720 x 576 or 720 x 480 picture to 16:9 ratio.

[kabunaru]

I've never understood why people stress so much about not getting frame rates of over 30fps.

You spend your whole life watching films in the cinema (24fps) and TV (25fps UK and 30fps in the US) without issue and even with anamorphic wide screen your stretching a 720 x 576 or 720 x 480 picture to 16:9 ratio.

People have "the faster, the better" mentality when it comes to games.

[CrysisFX]

I completely understand why no one wants to view something on an LCD at any resolution other than native for obvious reasons but 50% native can't be so bad once you get to 1920 x 1200.

Bearing in mind consoles are generally through large screen TVs that you sit metres away from and monitors are generally 60 - 100cm away from where you're sat, I don't know why it would be so disappointing to run at a lower than native resolution but with anti-aliasing?

Pixel doubling would be enough to look good at half the native resolution with everything on full at 24 - 30fps no matter what game your playing.

I've never understood why people stress so much about not getting frame rates of over 30fps.

You spend your whole life watching films in the cinema (24fps) and TV (25fps UK and 30fps in the US) without issue and even with anamorphic wide screen your stretching a 720 x 576 or 720 x 480 picture to 16:9 ratio.

i agree with the 30 fps statement as too much fps is a bad thing. but i disagree with the resolution. to me native resolution is very important. at lower resolutions things tend to pixelate

[Shivetya]

Do you have the shadow slider set to minimum?

[L0s7man]

People have "the faster, the better" mentality when it comes to games.

I'm not trying to say that it's useless. Sometimes it is useful, I think. I think that when you're playing say FPS game then if you have some capability for ~60fps it gives you advantage. Like when you make a sharp, rapid turn, it gives you more precision, since your computer has to render a lot to get from one point to the other.

[trose]

I completely understand why no one wants to view something on an LCD at any resolution other than native for obvious reasons but 50% native can't be so bad once you get to 1920 x 1200.

Bearing in mind consoles are generally through large screen TVs that you sit metres away from and monitors are generally 60 - 100cm away from where you're sat, I don't know why it would be so disappointing to run at a lower than native resolution but with anti-aliasing?

Pixel doubling would be enough to look good at half the native resolution with everything on full at 24 - 30fps no matter what game your playing.

I've never understood why people stress so much about not getting frame rates of over 30fps.

You spend your whole life watching films in the cinema (24fps) and TV (25fps UK and 30fps in the US) without issue and even with anamorphic wide screen your stretching a 720 x 576 or 720 x 480 picture to 16:9 ratio.

While I agree that people obsess too much over FPS... I have to point out that comparing 24fps on TV is in no way similar to comparing 24fps on a video game.

Movies and television utilize motion blur. Video games do not.

Anyone who has gamed at 30fps vs 60fps can testify to the huge difference.

Then there is also this camp of folks who claim the human eye can only perceive 24fps max. I don't know where that rumor originated, but it's complete bollocks.

I know I personally can tell the difference up to about 85fps, and some people claim to be able to go higher.


Also, your FPS seem too low... are you sure you've got proper drivers loaded? What are you getting on 3dMark06?

I read all this junk about the 2600 Pro (which is actually an XT Mobility...) in the last iMacs being such a horrid card, but I'm scoring over 5000 in 3DMark06. I'm quite happy with the little beast, seeing as I think I got an awesome price for this refurb.

[zorahk]

It's probably at this point a driver issue. The card is relatively new and OS X drivers are never good. Have you tried using bootcamp?

[trip1ex]

24 fps in movies is totally different from 30 fps in games.

Movies have inherent motion blur which gives a more smoother transition between frames.

computers graphics don't have that and there is a sharp transition between frames.

3o fps average also means slowdowns when more sht comes on the screen. Different from 30 fps locked.

And 60 fps locked in games is noticeably smoother than 30 fps locked. I love me a nice smooth 60 fps game.

[babsvii]

i use to have an old imac the white ones like 2 times back... and it played better games then most pc's!!! i played wow, cod4, fear, and many more games on it and it ran everything perfect it even loaded faster then my exboyfriends pc which was built just for gaming!!! i have now ordered the 3.06 with the ATI card.... im sure its gonna be even better then i expect it to be!!!

[Malacoda]

So I'm playing World of Warcraft and I loaded it up both on OSX and Windows and updated all the drivers in Windows (it sees a GT130 card) and on high settings in desolate not popular areas I'm getting 43 fps!! wtf? I expected 80 or so. This graphics card and/or machine is terrible. Apple should be embarassed. Wish I could send it back. I might just do that even with the 15% restocking fee hit from Amazon.

I agree with everyone else that you should have got the 4850 upgrade. I did.

That said, my advice is this: turn all those graphics down.

Personally, I find that WoW really doesn't lose much by turning everything to the minimum levels, excluding view distance. Until a few weeks ago, I was playing WoW on a quad-core Windows machine with an nVidia GT285, which allowed me to play with most sliders maximized, at 1080i res with great FPS. I have since sat that machine aside, getting ready to sell it to my brother to help pay for the 24" iMac w/4850 I ordered.

So, currently, I am playing on my new MacBook Pro hooked up to a 24" LED Cinema Display. I made a custom resolution of 1950 x 1000 (or so, going by memory) and play in a window. All sliders are minimized except for view distance, which is at half, and I added a line to the config.wtf to shut off shadows completely. It plays great. Sure, it doesn't get as many FPS, nor is it as pretty, but during actual play, I find I don't even notice the difference. I just plug along and play as I have always played. I am sure the iMac will do even better.

[ucla95]

first of all i don't believe you because i can hit 50 or 60 in an empty pre bc area with the 8800m GTS in my vista 64 laptop and it only has a 1.6ghz processor.


Why would I lie about this? I'll adjust the shadow settings and try that, I did go down to 1600x1000 and I get to 60fps at High settings, but of course the monitor is meant to be at 1920... And again, I'm talking about pre-BC desolate areas like Tirisfal.

I'm praying this is a driver issue as well, wouldn't be the first time Nvidia had bad drivers.

And again for all those who said I should've waited for the 4850, my old computer just crashed and I needed a new one asap.

[ucla95]

It is interesting to me that I get better fps in OS X than Vista 64 via Boot Camp. Lends credence to the driver idea. (I hope)

[Jouhne]

From Blizzard :
You can turn off shadows completely as well, this will help take out extra graphics as well.

Turn off shadows:
Go into the World of Warcraft => WTF ƒolder and open the Config.wtf file using TextEdit, then add the following line:
SET shadowlod "0"
In the game go to your Video settings and change the following sections:
Resolutions: have the Multisampling set to the lowest setting and you might want to
turn ON Reduce Input Lag
Now test the game.
Side Note: The human eye won't see a difference between 72 FPS and 100 FPS and over. To read a great article about this check out the following 3 part article: http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

Also : With the game closed please go to Mac HD => Applications => World of Warcraft ƒolder and:
1. delete the CACHE ƒolder
2. move WTF and INTERFACE ƒolders to the desktop
Moving them to the desktop makes it easy to replace them if necessary.

Oh and here (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=4028094861&sid=1) is the Thread on Blizz forums which give you informations about performance for every Mac, included 2009.

For The Lazy :
Early 2009 iMac with 512MB ATI 4850 Graphics Card : 70-90 fps
Early 2009 iMac with 256MB or 512MB nVidia GT120 or GT130 Graphics Cards : 40-55 fps
Early 2009 iMac with nVidia 9400m Integrated Graphics : 20-30 fps
iMac with 256MB or 512MB nVidia 8800 GS Graphics Card : 60-70 fps

[Eidorian]

Gaming at 1920 x 1200 on the desktop 4850 can be tough for current games. You're already looking at a GTX 260 at the minimum.

[BlizzardBomb]

From what I saw of the Macworld benchmarks the 9400M is 15%-20% faster than the 2400xt 128mb card.

On MacWorld I see:
2008 (2.4 GHz) - 33.4 FPS
2009 (2.66 GHz) - 37.3 FPS
A difference of just over 10%. Now you're getting an extra dual .26 GHz too and faster RAM so that is probably worth about 5% of the 9400M advantage.

The Quake 4 result is closer to 20%, but I'm thinking that's because Quake 4 is an old game and at a mere 1024x768, it's more processor intensive than GPU intensive.

[JordanNZ]

You Realise the GT130 is a lesser card than the 8800 GS? (Which was Actually an 8800 GTS). You Should of done your homework before you went out and bought an obviously slower system, and you have no one to blame but yourself.


Benchmarks would say otherwise...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=672889&highlight=Gt130

[Plutonius]

It is interesting to me that I get better fps in OS X than Vista 64 via Boot Camp. Lends credence to the driver idea. (I hope)

The next OS X update will be fixing the drivers. No idea if it will help though.

[ucla95]

You know what, I think this all must be a driver issue, so I'm going to reserve judgement to maybe 2-3 months from now when we hopefully get some drivers here.

I love the Apple otherwise, and just can't imagine going back to a PC, so I'm going to stick with it. Life on WoW at 1600 isn't terrible although I'm a little apprehensive what it will be like in a busier zone.

[m1stake]

The iMac is utter garbage for playing games. If you really want to run OSX, just make sure all of your PC components are OSX86 compatible and dual boot. You'll spend less money and get a better computer.

Also, Nvidia's OSX drivers are garbage as well. Don't expect to get a performance upgrade with new drivers or firmware. The 8800GT didn't on the Pro, and those computers are actually advertised as being fast.

[Shivetya]

From Blizzard :
Early 2009 iMac with 512MB ATI 4850 Graphics Card : 70-90 fps
Early 2009 iMac with 256MB or 512MB nVidia GT120 or GT130 Graphics Cards : 40-55 fps
Early 2009 iMac with nVidia 9400m Integrated Graphics : 20-30 fps
iMac with 256MB or 512MB nVidia 8800 GS Graphics Card : 60-70 fps

I would have to say they pulled those numbers from the same place they pulled class balance from....

[crazzyeddie]

Did you at least turn off the vsync? Thats what really kills your FPS.

[panzer06]

The problem is the native res on the display is 1920x1200, so even if you did get the 4850 it's STILL not going to be sufficient for gaming at that res. Yes, 4850 is better than the GT130 (which is a rebadged 9600GSO which is, in turn, a rebadged 8800GS, which was an option for the 2008 iMacs) by maybe 15% or so. But, they're still utterly useless at 1920x1200.

Not so, I have a Sony Vaio FW290 with a 512MB ATI HD3650. It is nowhere near as powerful as the 4850 and I get good performance at 1920x1080.

I just can't turn on all the AA and use Ultra setting. High will have to do most of the time. I tend to play RPG & RTS which do not have the same high-end requirements as FPS games buy WOW should be very good with an ATI 4850.

Cheers,

[CrysisFX]

The iMac is utter garbage for playing games. If you really want to run OSX, just make sure all of your PC components are OSX86 compatible and dual boot. You'll spend less money and get a better computer.

Also, Nvidia's OSX drivers are garbage as well. Don't expect to get a performance upgrade with new drivers or firmware. The 8800GT didn't on the Pro, and those computers are actually advertised as being fast.

This entire post contradicts yourself. first of all the nvidia apple drivers are not junk. on my OSX86 computer i get better fps in OSX than vista or xp. OpenGL runs wow faster thats a fact. Secondly the drivers for OSX86 ARE the apple drivers. the 3rd party software you use to get video output on OSX86 arent drivers, they just inject information about your card into the current apple drivers.

to the OP. disable shadows would be a good idea. they have a major effect on how the game runs. Honestly you wont see a big difference with them on.

Did you at least turn off the vsync? Thats what really kills your FPS.

This is true but false at the same time. vsync limits your fps to your monitor refresh rate. if you use an lcd (which the imac does) you should never go higher fps than your refresh rate or you will get horizontal tearing on your screen. vsync limits you to that refresh rate so this does not happen.

typically that refresh rate is 60 or 75 so fps in his case would not even be affected.

[CrysisFX]

heres some screenshots in different areas of wow on my osx86 machine

this is with 8800m GTS, 1.6ghz C2D, 3gb of ram

done with all settings of wow at default except for

Res 1440x900 (max for me)
Vsync ON
Tripple Buffering ON

http://img6.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot032309210311.jpg
http://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot032309211432.jpg
http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot032309211547.jpg
http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot032309211623.jpg

if your getting those fps rates at all max settings try doing my settings which are all focused for max fps without sacrificing resolution or playability.

[m1stake]

This entire post contradicts yourself. first of all the nvidia apple drivers are not junk. on my OSX86 computer i get better fps in OSX than vista or xp. OpenGL runs wow faster thats a fact. Secondly the drivers for OSX86 ARE the apple drivers. the 3rd party software you use to get video output on OSX86 arent drivers, they just inject information about your card into the current apple drivers.

Uh, the osx86 partition is just to use osx. Nobody seriously plays games with osx, all games would be played in Windows. I'm sorry you get better gps in osx, but when a 3870 is more powerful than an 8800gt, something is wrong. Thanks for your osx86 explanation, I'm new to computers.:rolleyes:

[Eidorian]

Uh, the osx86 partition is just to use osx. Nobody seriously plays games with osx, all games would be played in Windows. I'm sorry you get better gps in osx, but when a 3870 is more powerful than an 8800gt, something is wrong. Thanks for your osx86 explanation, I'm new to computers.:rolleyes:Wait, what? In Core Image sure but gaming no.

[JordanNZ]

Uh, the osx86 partition is just to use osx. Nobody seriously plays games with osx, all games would be played in Windows. I'm sorry you get better gps in osx, but when a 3870 is more powerful than an 8800gt, something is wrong. Thanks for your osx86 explanation, I'm new to computers.:rolleyes:

Ah.... We're talking about WoW here... Which is played by a lot of people in OSX. Myself included.

[trose]

Also, I'm curious- Have you tried playing in XP Pro?
Vista is not a great gaming OS, and in almost all situations, XP beats it.

For my gaming partition, I run a very stripped down version of XP pro and install nothing on it aside from games.

I'm not sure how performance of WoW compares from OSX to XP, though... some games it's quite dramatic, and some it's not so large.

[Redbeastmage]

Ah.... We're talking about WoW here... Which is played by a lot of people in OSX. Myself included.

Agreed. I've been playing WoW on my various macs since it's release. The one big thing to realize is that not every setting changes performance the same way. Cranking multisampling will hurt, full screen glow is brutal, shadowing(from what i heard) is shooting yourself in the foot.

If you want to get optimal performance, cripple every setting and reload the game. Seriously, minimize everything, and turn on/off anything that you can that will improve performance. Log in to a busy area (Dalaran would be optimal), and change things little by little, starting with the minor things, and moving to the more major things. Eventually, you will reach a point where you aren't willing to sacrifice more FPS to get more effects. Thats where you end up happy.

WoW is a very very different beast the any other games because its so dynamic. Performance in the middle of no where classic area vs performance in overcrowded dalaran vs performance during a heroic raid encounter might as well all have their own benchmarks.

For anyone with performance issues, start with full screen glow off and 1x multisampling, and shadowing low/off. Check the mac tech support section of the WoW forums for a lot of good information.

[MacAlpha]

Oh and here (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=4028094861&sid=1) is the Thread on Blizz forums which give you informations about performance for every Mac, included 2009.

Very helpful. Thanks! :)

[jmpage2]

Very helpful. Thanks! :)

Apple must have hooked them up with a pre-release 4850 equipped iMac for testing purposes.

I wonder how accurate the performance numbers are, because from what Blizzard is reporting in that thread, the 4850 is going to perform around 30% better than the GT120 or GT130.

[Lancer X]

Oh and here (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=4028094861&sid=1) is the Thread on Blizz forums which give you informations about performance for every Mac, included 2009.

For The Lazy :
Early 2009 iMac with 512MB ATI 4850 Graphics Card : 70-90 fps
Early 2009 iMac with 256MB or 512MB nVidia GT120 or GT130 Graphics Cards : 40-55 fps
Early 2009 iMac with nVidia 9400m Integrated Graphics : 20-30 fps
iMac with 256MB or 512MB nVidia 8800 GS Graphics Card : 60-70 fps

I apologize that I can't verify (the WoW forums are blocked at work), but read a little further down in the thread. I think the OP mentions that the 4850 fps numbers are only projections and he hasn't done actual testing.

I also seem to remember that the OP is not a Blizz employee, but rather a very involved community member.

Sorry if I'm mistaken w/ anything I've said. Will verify later when I get access. Just didn't want anyone making purchase decisions until they confirmed these things.

[Bad Paper]

Apple must have hooked them up with a pre-release 4850 equipped iMac for testing purposes.LOL funny!

[Redbeastmage]

I apologize that I can't verify (the WoW forums are blocked at work), but read a little further down in the thread. I think the OP mentions that the 4850 fps numbers are only projections and he hasn't done actual testing.

I also seem to remember that the OP is not a Blizz employee, but rather a very involved community member.

Sorry if I'm mistaken w/ anything I've said. Will verify later when I get access. Just didn't want anyone making purchase decisions until they confirmed these things.

I can confirm everything you just said. The 4850 numbers are guesstimates, so I wouldn't count them for much, since we don't know what the OP was using to get his numbers. And its only a sticky thread, not a blizzard official post.

Most of the experienced mac guys on that forum seem to believe the 4850 will crush the 130, but again, just guesses.

[jmpage2]

LOL funny!

My bad, as I thought the results were actually from Blizzard. While Apple might not hook up major developers like Blizzard with pre-release hardware and software, that's pretty much the norm for the rest of the computer hardware world.

[ucla95]

I apologize that I can't verify (the WoW forums are blocked at work), but read a little further down in the thread. I think the OP mentions that the 4850 fps numbers are only projections and he hasn't done actual testing.

I also seem to remember that the OP is not a Blizz employee, but rather a very involved community member.

Sorry if I'm mistaken w/ anything I've said. Will verify later when I get access. Just didn't want anyone making purchase decisions until they confirmed these things.

Note from that link that they have the 8800GS as pumping out 60-70fps at the same settings they have the GT130 at 40-55fps!! :(

[JordanNZ]

Note from that link that they have the 8800GS as pumping out 60-70fps at the same settings they have the GT130 at 40-55fps!! :(

But there are no benchmarks in that list, they've listed the GT120&GT130 in the same table, the 8800GS has it's own. Wait for barefeats to test WoW... They've tested some other games and have found the GT130 to be better than the 8800GS in every case so far.

[bchreng]

The GT130 is a rebadged 9600 GT, IIRC. Decent, but not a top of the line gaming best by any means. If you were looking for gaming performance, why didn't you get the 4850 upgrade?


Also, you know going over 60fps on an LCD is pointless, right? CRTs can change the scan rate and make things smoother, LCDs cannot. They will just tear, so turn on Vsync. It will prevent the tearing and save resources for more useful variants of eye candy.

You don't want to cap it at 60 either. There'll always be some areas were you'll get some slowdown so it's nice to overkill a little when it comes to video performance. That way you can ensure a nice smooth average framerate of 60 or more.

[bchreng]

This entire post contradicts yourself. first of all the nvidia apple drivers are not junk. on my OSX86 computer i get better fps in OSX than vista or xp. OpenGL runs wow faster thats a fact. Secondly the drivers for OSX86 ARE the apple drivers. the 3rd party software you use to get video output on OSX86 arent drivers, they just inject information about your card into the current apple drivers.

to the OP. disable shadows would be a good idea. they have a major effect on how the game runs. Honestly you wont see a big difference with them on.



This is true but false at the same time. vsync limits your fps to your monitor refresh rate. if you use an lcd (which the imac does) you should never go higher fps than your refresh rate or you will get horizontal tearing on your screen. vsync limits you to that refresh rate so this does not happen.

typically that refresh rate is 60 or 75 so fps in his case would not even be affected.

Doesn't vsync attempt to keep your fps to a set amount in increments of 15 or something like that? So if the system can't render the game at 60 fps, it'll automatically drop it down to 45 fps even though it can do 55? Or worse yet, 30 fps when it can do 40?

[ucla95]

Doesn't vsync attempt to keep your fps to a set amount in increments of 15 or something like that? So if the system can't render the game at 60 fps, it'll automatically drop it down to 45 fps even though it can do 55? Or worse yet, 30 fps when it can do 40?

Vsync works in increments on 30fps on my computer.

[QCassidy352]

Tearing on youtube videos?? Ouch.

Wait a second. My macbook 2.2 with x3100 graphics doesn't tear on youtube videos. Something is wrong here.

I am talking 50fps in pre-BC areas, Tirisfal Glades. On an empty server no less.

Again I'll say, something is wrong. Core duo imacs with x1600 from 2006 could hit those numbers.

[bchreng]

Wait a second. My macbook 2.2 with x3100 graphics doesn't tear on youtube videos. Something is wrong here.


I don't know, some of those youtube videos can be pretty taxing. I think they can run as high as 720p nowadays.

[nusynergy]

Agreed. I've been playing WoW on my various macs since it's release. The one big thing to realize is that not every setting changes performance the same way. Cranking multisampling will hurt, full screen glow is brutal, shadowing(from what i heard) is shooting yourself in the foot.

If you want to get optimal performance, cripple every setting and reload the game. Seriously, minimize everything, and turn on/off anything that you can that will improve performance. Log in to a busy area (Dalaran would be optimal), and change things little by little, starting with the minor things, and moving to the more major things. Eventually, you will reach a point where you aren't willing to sacrifice more FPS to get more effects. Thats where you end up happy.

WoW is a very very different beast the any other games because its so dynamic. Performance in the middle of no where classic area vs performance in overcrowded dalaran vs performance during a heroic raid encounter might as well all have their own benchmarks.

For anyone with performance issues, start with full screen glow off and 1x multisampling, and shadowing low/off. Check the mac tech support section of the WoW forums for a lot of good information.

Good Post.. This explains alot and your very right on WoW being different they most other games.

[itommyboy]

You Realise the GT130 is a lesser card than the 8800 GS? (Which was Actually an 8800 GTS). You Should of done your homework before you went out and bought an obviously slower system, and you have no one to blame but yourself.


You should do your homework before spewing about because you sir are quite simply wrong.

[CrysisFX]

Uh, the osx86 partition is just to use osx. Nobody seriously plays games with osx, all games would be played in Windows. I'm sorry you get better gps in osx, but when a 3870 is more powerful than an 8800gt, something is wrong. Thanks for your osx86 explanation, I'm new to computers.:rolleyes:

First of all a lot of people play games in osx. it may not be like crysis but they do. As i said before WoW runs better in opengl rather than directx just switch your config.wtf around and youll see. also considering its an 8800m gts which is a mobile chip its not surprising also with the fact that the processor in it is only 1.6ghz i get more cpu lag than graphics as wow does not run in dual core.

all i am doing is trying to convince this guy to not return his mac for a pc he will regret it. this has gone off topic with osx86 among other things.

the short answer is yes maybe atm the gt130 (if it even is a real gt130) may be slow but it wont be. Snow leopard is soon to be released this year and will change the preformance of OSX completely. another note is that unless you go under 30fps you wont see any difference in the playability of wow.

[bchreng]

First of all a lot of people play games in osx. it may not be like crysis but they do. As i said before WoW runs better in opengl rather than directx just switch your config.wtf around and youll see. also considering its an 8800m gts which is a mobile chip its not surprising also with the fact that the processor in it is only 1.6ghz i get more cpu lag than graphics as wow does not run in dual core.

all i am doing is trying to convince this guy to not return his mac for a pc he will regret it. this has gone off topic with osx86 among other things.

the short answer is yes maybe atm the gt130 (if it even is a real gt130) may be slow but it wont be. Snow leopard is soon to be released this year and will change the preformance of OSX completely. another note is that unless you go under 30fps you wont see any difference in the playability of wow.

Microsoft is touting the same thing for their next version of windows. They say it'll be more streamlined and perform better than Vista.

[jmpage2]

Microsoft is touting the same thing for their next version of windows. They say it'll be more streamlined and perform better than Vista.

You have to understand what is under the hood for both companies in their next OS versions to understand the differences.

In synthetic benchmarks Windows 7 will not surpass XP for raw system performance until there are at least 32 real or virtual CPU cores available to send instructions to.

Additionally Windows 7 still will not jettison the .dll/registry structure that severely affects Windows boot up times, clean up, etc.

Windows 7 will also likely be just as vulnerable to attack as previous versions which leaves users forced to run performance affecting virus/trojan/spyware checkers on top of the OS. Windows is so vulnerable, in fact, that the OS actually nags you constantly if you do NOT run a virus scanner.

A good deal of what Windows 7 is doing are UI improvements to try to leap frog OS X. You'll notice that Windows 7 adds a "dock" similar to what Tiger/Leopard have had for years. It will also add touch screen support, improved driver configuration and support, etc.

Snow Leopard is going in a different direction. Instead of adding lots of new features it is a top to bottom 64 bit re-vamp of the OS that should jettison the 32 bit pieces of the OS that are still there (32 bit apps will still run though, presumably in a virtual space with limited memory, etc).

The two key technologies that the new OS X load will have are Grand Central, which appears to be a way for programmers to lean on the OS itself to handle mult-cpu threading and Open CL which is going to enable some use of the GPU(s) by the system software.

These are much more "game changing" technologies than what Windows 7 aims to do, but naturally only time will tell on how effective they are... I would say though that hopes are very high that the bar will be set very, very high for system performance with the new Snow Leopard load.

I should point out though that Windows 7 will have native OS level support for Blu-Ray. Apple needs to pull their heads out on this one before they look like idiots.