17" MBP or iMac i7 for highest resolution/framerate [Archive]

Ice Dragon

Oct 27, 2009, 05:33 PM

I really want my next computer to be a Mac and I'm looking at various game requirements (WoW being a major one) and trying to figure what would work?

As the topic states, do I go 17" MBP (possibly even waiting for a better line) or do I go iMac i7?

Josh396

Oct 27, 2009, 06:31 PM

I don't have any benchmarks or data to back it up, but I would think the i7 iMac would be a hands down better gaming machine. Although I'd wait for a more definitive response than what I just gave you ;)

ayeying

Oct 27, 2009, 06:47 PM

The Core i7 would be better because of the video card. The 9600M is pretty weak compared to the 4850? that they have in the Core i7 models.

MWPULSE

Oct 27, 2009, 06:57 PM

imac i7... i think its become my new favourite machine! its just immense. HUUGE! but immense lol.. It would probably be good to go for at least 2 years or so with the set of hardware it has in there :-)

PTP

Rodus

Oct 27, 2009, 08:05 PM

iMac with the Radeon 4850 every time, but have you considered the i5 as the i7 will be overkill for a lot of stuff.

Ice Dragon

Oct 27, 2009, 11:13 PM

Would the 1920x1200 offered on the 17" MBP work if it had an i5/i7 and Radeon HD 4850?

Thanks for the responses thus far.

Sambo110

Oct 27, 2009, 11:23 PM

Would the 1920x1200 offered on the 17" MBP work if it had an i5/i7 and Radeon HD 4850?

Thanks for the responses thus far.

The 4850 in the iMac (old ones) can run games like Batman, COD etc at that resolution on max graphics, search iMac 4850 on Youtube and see for yourself. So yes, it probably could.

ayeying

Oct 27, 2009, 11:40 PM

Would the 1920x1200 offered on the 17" MBP work if it had an i5/i7 and Radeon HD 4850?

Thanks for the responses thus far.

The CPU don't matter here. The video card does. The HD4850 is more powerful than the 9600M in the 17" MBP.

nigameash

Oct 27, 2009, 11:59 PM

the 4850 is a way more powerful video card than the 9600, go for the imac ;)

Ice Dragon

Oct 28, 2009, 12:51 AM

Thing is, I also want a SSD and the matte screen. Does anyone think the 17" will get the 4850 or better soon enough?

Thanks for the input once again.

Eidorian

Oct 28, 2009, 12:55 AM

You really might want to consider building your own computer for gaming in this situation.

Ice Dragon

Oct 28, 2009, 01:12 AM

It is leaning towards that but judging Blizzard on the past they generally don't have a list of heavy requirements so I might... be okay.

tofagerl

Oct 28, 2009, 01:18 AM

Well, wow would run superbly on both the 17" and the iMac - both at full resolution.
Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, though? Who knows.

PenguinPower

Oct 28, 2009, 01:20 AM

You didn't hear this from me, but windows 7 64-bit with a radeon 5850 and a core i7 860, in the parlor.

WOW is a fairly old game engine. Extra CPU helps in crowded areas over higher GPU (Hack, cough, dalaran). However, if you crank up the draw distance and texture filter and go flying, the GPU is the one that shines.

Ice Dragon

Oct 28, 2009, 01:26 AM

Thanks again. Yeah it's tough to predict the future and to settle on something that will do what you ask of it.

eXan

Oct 28, 2009, 03:35 AM

Any Mac with a dedicated GPU that was released in the last 2 years can handle WoW at max resolution and graphics flawlessly (unless we're talking about 2560x1440, in which case I don't know, but 4850 would definitely be fine)

Sambo110

Oct 28, 2009, 03:59 AM

eXan

Oct 28, 2009, 04:05 AM

My Ati Radeon 2400 HD begs to differ.

Mine doesn't? :confused: 1680x1050 max and 30+ fps all the time

Sambo110

Oct 28, 2009, 04:19 AM

Mine doesn't? :confused: 1680x1050 max and 30+ fps all the time

I have an ATI Radeon HD 2400, you have a 2400 XT, would they be any different?

JackAxe

Oct 28, 2009, 05:06 AM

I'm with others, go with the iMac, it will have better longevity all around -- unless you need portability?

Anyways, buy a Mac because it's just that, not for how well it can play WOW.

eXan

Oct 28, 2009, 05:54 AM

I have an ATI Radeon HD 2400, you have a 2400 XT, would they be any different?

You have 2400 XT too if you have an iMac.

But I did check and it seems I only have shadows set to low and everything else to max.

Sambo110

Oct 28, 2009, 06:25 AM

You have 2400 XT too if you have an iMac.

But I did check and it seems I only have shadows set to low and everything else to max.

Just thought, do you play in Northrend? In normal WoW my frame rate is good, but not in Northrend.

eXan

Oct 28, 2009, 07:18 AM

Just thought, do you play in Northrend? In normal WoW my frame rate is good, but not in Northrend.

I was once running through half of Northrend on foot and back on windriders and it was fine, except for a few places where fps dropped to ~20.

Ice Dragon

Oct 28, 2009, 12:37 PM

What is considered an excellent framerate? 60? 100?

Sambo110

Oct 28, 2009, 08:54 PM

What is considered an excellent framerate? 60? 100?

Just about all console games run at 30 fps, if your running at that, it's fine. But if you want the best, then 60 is the best. Some games are a lot better at 60, COD4, UT3 etc, while a lot are fine at 30.

lewdvig

Oct 28, 2009, 09:53 PM

That new i7 is pretty sweet when paired with a 4850.

But I have to say, even a 4850 is going to struggle to draw all those pixels. That is an insane resolution. You won't need AA with such a small dot pitch IMO.

Ice Dragon

Oct 28, 2009, 10:21 PM

I have faith that I will be able to get something that is not only reasonable (in price/specs) but allows me to break from Windows for short time.

I assume the videos played at BlizzCon I guess it was of Diablo III were done on good desktops or laptops. I know I won't have to go overboard but I may do just that to have something that stands the test of time.