The Gaming Benchmarks Thread

[Dyne]

Good morning everyone. :)

Since so many people are curious how the new iMac 27 performs in the gaming arena, I thought I would do my best to provide you with a few gaming benchmarks throughout the afternoon. It's going to take me a bit to download everything, but I'll at least note what I'm going to test below, and fill them in as I go. All tests will be conducted at maximum settings in max resolution, no AA on since it's pointless at such a high resolution. Also, these are all done under the default, non-overclocked video drivers, though I intend to overclock the hell out of this thing, since I'm fairly confident I can easily OC this to 5870m speeds without generating much more heat at all. :)

The system is an i5 27' with the ATI Radeon Mobility 5850 (or the ATI Radeon 5750, herpa derp) and eight gigs of RAM.

OSX:

World of Warcraft - Don't know yet. Going to take me a while to redownload this.

Torchlight - 60 FPS at all times unless there's a lot of effects going on, then it drops two or three.

Windows 7:

3dMark Vantage - This seems to be one of the most asked for benchmarks. :) With everything on default settings (the low test basically), I scored a 7307 which is roughly 2100 more points than my 2009 iMac i7. Definitely an improvement over my quad core PC with a 9800 GTX! Later I'll run it on max settings if there's enough interest.

StarCraft II - Another one that's mentioned a lot. :) I cannot believe how well it runs on the 27' maxed out across the board, always hovering in the 30-40 FPS range and never dipping low. I believe this game could use some updated drivers for Boot Camp, however, as there is very, very slight input delay at the high resolution that newer drivers may be able to resolve.

Left 4 Dead 2 - Will find out later.

Torchlight - Never dips below 60 FPS.

Crysis - Such a boring game, but I'll get some benchmark results hopefully later on. :)



If you have any requests at all, please let me know, and I'll do my best to benchmark them for you, provided I own a copy of the game.

[henrikrox]

when u say starcraft 2 maxed out, does that mean ultra or high.

and 30-40 fps is that idle or massive combat

would be great if you uploaded some pictures with the fps

[barefeats]

World of Warcraft at 2560x1440 Ultra 4X Multisampling
Narache Village -- Warrior runs from totem to big tree on hill and back
Used Titan Performance Addon to measure min/max/avg FPS

iMac Core i7 2009 = 43 fps avg
iMac Core i7 2010 = 52 fps avg
Mac Pro Nehalem w/ R4870 = 62 fps avg

[henrikrox]

Would also be great for people who give benchmarks to write what OS they are in, and settings, and pictures is always welcome.

[Zelnaga]

Rather know how the 21.5 fares than 27. If anyone can benchmark them on the new 21.5 high end iMac thatd be appreciated.

[aliensporebomb]

Please download geekbench here:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/

And let us know what it benches if you would please.

[aliensporebomb]

World of Warcraft at 2560x1440 Ultra 4X Multisampling
Narache Village -- Warrior runs from totem to big tree on hill and back
Used Titan Performance Addon to measure min/max/avg FPS

iMac Core i7 2009 = 43 fps avg
iMac Core i7 2010 = 52 fps avg
Mac Pro Nehalem w/ R4870 = 62 fps avg

Very nice. Thanks for the rundown on the 3 machines!

[Dyne]

henri - Ultra. It's around 42 fps idle, goes down to around 31-33 during large combat. I'd have to test a 4v4 to get an idea of HUGE combat, but so far, still impressive.

barefeats, thank you so much for the WoW benchmarks! :)

Sure, I'll run Geekbench if you'd really like to, but there are threads around here showing the new score, and I don't think I'll be able to get around to it today. We shall see!

[Dyne]

Would also be great for people who give benchmarks to write what OS they are in, and settings, and pictures is always welcome.

I'm far too lazy for pictures, but I already noted in the OP that everything will be in max settings, and I have everything differentiated between OSX and Windows 7. :)

[henrikrox]

Wow impressed if the new 5750 can pull of 30-40 fps on ultra in starcraft 2. Damn. Considering this is stock speed its just great. Its got even more potential.

Glad you share your benchmarks with us

Seems the difference between the old 2009 imac and the new one is bigger then i thought

[thehalokid]

Dyne!

it looks pretty good so far, i cant wait to get mine their so slow to arrive:(
anyways itll be interesting to compare the fps after youve overclocked, I
reckon itll be very respectfull. Please keep us updated! thanks

[palebluedot]

Can you do Team Fortress 2?

[palebluedot]

Wow impressed if the new 5750 can pull of 30-40 fps on ultra in starcraft 2. Damn. Considering this is stock speed its just great. Its got even more potential.

Glad you share your benchmarks with us

Seems the difference between the old 2009 imac and the new one is bigger then i thought

What do you mean stock speed? It's not like you can get a better GPU in the i7?

[thehalokid]

He means the default gpu speed (he has'nt overclocked it).

[henrikrox]

Ye, seems the 5750 can easily got 700mhz over the default 625mhz for even better results.

[Dyne]

henri, I'll test out StarCraft II some more for you later tonight, but so far, yes, REALLY impressed with the FPS with such a high resolution with everything maxed out. :)

As far as Team Fortress 2 goes... I'm sorry, I don't own it, or I'd be more than happy to test it out for you.

World of Warcraft on OSX is... very interesting. When a lot of effects are going on, it seems to chug on frames, sometimes dipping into the teens, but the problem is not replicated when running it in Windows 7. On the opposite side of the coin though, you can hang on in Dalaran with hundreds of other people around, and you'll be sailing at 57-63 frames per second.

[jpjandrade]

Thank you very much for this topic, really informative and useful (btw, thanks to barefeats for its site, also extremely useful).

My personal request would be more demanding games: Dragon Age: Origins, Napoleon: Total War (or Empire: Total War, almost same thing) and Batman: Arkham Asylum, run at native resolution. If any of you have one of these games would be great! Also waiting on the L4D one!

Again, thanks!

[Dwhite78]

World of Warcraft on OSX is... very interesting. When a lot of effects are going on, it seems to chug on frames, sometimes dipping into the teens, but the problem is not replicated when running it in Windows 7. On the opposite side of the coin though, you can hang on in Dalaran with hundreds of other people around, and you'll be sailing at 57-63 frames per second.

Dyne, a blue poster told me to drop shader quality down to midway. I did this and can now run full max settings w/no slowdown.

I've not done a 25m raid with it yet as I just got them today. Should no more after sunday night. But we remain hopeful!

[barefeats]

Here's what I have so far....

3D SHOOTOUT: 'mid 2010' iMac Core i7 versus 'late 2009' iMac Core i7 versus Mac Pro Nehalem with Radeon HD 4870:

http://barefeats.com/imac10g.html

Includes ETQW, WoW, Bioshock, X-Plane, and Portal.

[Dwhite78]

Here's what I have so far....

3D SHOOTOUT: 'mid 2010' iMac Core i7 versus 'late 2009' iMac Core i7 versus Mac Pro Nehalem with Radeon HD 4870:

http://barefeats.com/imac10g.html

Includes ETQW, WoW, Bioshock, X-Plane, and Portal.

Great, thanks for the benchmarks!

I was heretofore unaware of titan performance addon!

[thehalokid]

:Barefeats & Dyne!

thanks for the numbers!:)

looks like it wasnt a bad gpu update afterall, also with good potential for overclocking.

Barefeats- I know its early days but at a later date will you be running any numbers while overclocking?

[barefeats]

Great, thanks for the benchmarks!

I was heretofore unaware of titan performance addon!

Do you mean under bootcamp?

BTW, I was running SmallLuxGPU OpenCL benchmarks. It is reporting a core speed of 628MHz for the HD 5750.

[BulletToothTony]

Here's what I have so far....

3D SHOOTOUT: 'mid 2010' iMac Core i7 versus 'late 2009' iMac Core i7 versus Mac Pro Nehalem with Radeon HD 4870:

http://barefeats.com/imac10g.html

Includes ETQW, WoW, Bioshock, X-Plane, and Portal.

hey barefeats..

i appreciate what you did.. it's great help.. i sold my 27" imac C2D and bought the 27" refurb i7 2.8... when i played COD4 on it (C2D 3.02ghz), it would lag when i went native and all high but ran smooth when i brought down to 1080p, i know that it's a personal preference but do you think that bringing the resolution lower would bring the quality of the image too low?

I didn't see a big difference but i don't have a trained eye.. because i think that if i ran most of those games with a 1080p resolution i "may" get closer to the 5750 fps.. sorry if it's a silly question.. i just want to make sure that i'll be able to play some games without regretting not buying the newest i7.

i would LOVE to see a comparison of at least a couple of games on how the 2.8ghz does against the 2.93 when the 2.8 is running games on 1080p i would greatly appreciate it.. :D:apple:

[barefeats]

Do you mean under bootcamp?

BTW, I was running SmallLuxGPU OpenCL benchmarks. It is reporting a core speed of 628MHz for the HD 5750.

Sorry -- i responded to the wrong post -- above is resp to overclock request.

[barefeats]

hey barefeats..

i would LOVE to see a comparison of at least a couple of games on how the 2.8ghz does against the 2.93 when the 2.8 is running games on 1080p i would greatly appreciate it.. :D:apple:

I was going to do 19x12 but I will do 1080p instead.

[byron_hinson]

Are you using the default drivers that bootcamp installed? Just tried to install the latest ATI ones and it didn't install a newer drivers or allow access to the CCC

[thehalokid]

Hi Barefeats,
yes i mean under bootcamp, basically the same 3d tests with perhaps the gpu juiced up, It would be intereting to know what the potential of this card is, depending on the outcome (fps) to see if its worth carrying out the process at all, I know alot of people are thinking the same thing?

[thehalokid]

sorry i forgot to add im reffering the the ''27'' imac more so!

[colinthejanitor]

Interesting results from the op and the shootout!

I, for one would love to see some maxxed out benchmarks of fallout 3 and gta iv please :)

[BulletToothTony]

I was going to do 19x12 but I will do 1080p instead.

wow awesome dude.. thanx so much :D

[byron_hinson]

Got the latest mobility 10.7 drivers here: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33963890

installed them myself

[barefeats]

After installing the OS X update on the the 2010 iMac Core i7, I cloned its HDD to an external HDD. Then I booted the 2009 iMac Core i7 with that drive.

Portal at 2560x1400 "High" with 4X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 19 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 42 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 59 fps

ETQW 2560x1400 "High" with 4X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 29 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 44 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 48 fps

And X-Plane 2560x1400 "High" with 2X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 80 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 114 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 128 fps

WoW went from 42 fps to 49 fps on the 2009 (vs 52 fps on 2010)
Team Fortress went from 29 fps to 44 fps on the 2009 (vs 44 fps on 2010)

These numbers confirm to me that the newer drivers account for part of the gains. The 2010 iMac Core i7 is still faster, though not as dramatically.

[mogens]

Very interesting, thanks!
Big question,-when will apple release new drivers for the 2009 i7 Imac hd 4850? Is it possible to extract the drivers from the installer, and install them manually on my 2009 i7 Imac?




After installing the OS X update on the the 2010 iMac Core i7, I cloned its HDD to an external HDD. Then I booted the 2009 iMac Core i7 with that drive.

Portal at 2560x1400 "High" with 4X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 19 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 42 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 59 fps

ETQW 2560x1400 "High" with 4X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 29 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 44 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 48 fps

And X-Plane 2560x1400 "High" with 2X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 80 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 114 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 128 fps

WoW went from 42 fps to 49 fps on the 2009 (vs 52 fps on 2010)
Team Fortress went from 29 fps to 44 fps on the 2009 (vs 44 fps on 2010)

These numbers confirm to me that the newer drivers account for part of the gains. The 2010 iMac Core i7 is still faster, though not as dramatically.

[Will : Hi !]

Very interesting, thanks!
Big question,-when will apple release new drivers for the 2009 i7 Imac hd 4850? Is it possible to extract the drivers from the installer, and install them manually on my 2009 i7 Imac?

Should be, using Pacifist.

I advise you to backup your entire /System/Library/Extensions folder beforehand, and to have a second Mac available in case you should have trouble booting the iMac after the procedure.

I never tried any such thing, but I believe selecting all the ATI files in System > Library > Extensions (in Pacifist) and choosing Install might be all that's required.

If you're already running 10.6.4, you might also try installing the whole update with Pacifist (in that case, make a full system backup first).

[mogens]

Just checked with pacifist.
There's a new version of the ATI4800controller extension in the 2010 Imac update, dated 17/7 2010 vers. 1.6.18.13 (8408).
(The "old" was vers. 1.6.16.11 (8209))
I don't have the courage to experiment with extensions, because my knowledge in that field is limited.
Cheers

Should be, using Pacifist.

I advise you to backup your entire /System/Library/Extensions folder beforehand, and to have a second Mac available in case you should have trouble booting the iMac after the procedure.

I never tried any such thing, but I believe selecting all the ATI files in System > Library > Extensions (in Pacifist) and choosing Install might be all that's required.

If you're already running 10.6.4, you might also try installing the whole update with Pacifist (in that case, make a full system backup first).

[byron_hinson]

Been playing around with loads of games if anyone is interested with my 27" i5

Fallout 3: Running at full native with everything on ultra is tends to hover around 30fps, dropping lower where fog and more lighting is used. I'm coming from a big beefy gaming machine so I notice the slow down a lot but most people wouldnt and it looks great even for a dated game on the 27" screen.

Star Trek Online: Again at full native res with everything on full the game tends to run aroun 28-32 fps most of the time except in built up areas. AA makes a lot of difference in this game so I have it turned off at all times, not that you really need it with such a high resolution anyway. Changing the res down to 1080p and you get a jump to around 50-60fps average but it looks very pasty

Lord of the Rings Online: I love this game so I'm pleased to say that it plays in full native res with everything on ultra at just over 30fps most of the time, this is also with DirectX 10 enabled. It does slow down from time to time and once again dropping to 1080p shows the biggest fps jump.

Dragon Age: Origins. Works excellently in full native res with everything on even 4xaa and v-synced it always stays at 30fps

Starcraft 2, this is the one that seems stranger to me - I run it at native res with everything on ultra - the in-game engine cutscenes run slowly, around 20fps but look great and the game runs just under 30fps most of the time. The reason I say strange is that although the game looks great, it shouldn't be the most taxing on hardware yet seems to be for me at least.

Tales of Monkey Island - perfect, 60fps+ in native

Torchlight seems to run over 40fps most of the time on windows, just under 40 on OS X, yet it seemed to look more colourful on the OS X version, no idea why and was probably a coincidence!

Anyway hope this helps people a bit. If they had put the 5750 card in the 21" you would have a perfect gaming machine to me - but this is pretty close. How much newer future titles will fair will be interesting.

Also for anyone wondering, I have been able to update my ATI drivers in bootcamp by downloading the mobility specific ones direct from ATI - this updated it to 5850 name and added the control panel settings.

[diegobgr]

What about 5670 results?

[BulletToothTony]

this is a VERY interesting and important topic, please if someone finds out how to get this drivers squared away share it with us please..

I'm getting a refurb iMac 27 i7 2.8 and would love to bump its performance if it is possible for better gaming performance..

[Dyne]

Been playing around with loads of games if anyone is interested with my 27" i5

Fallout 3: Running at full native with everything on ultra is tends to hover around 30fps, dropping lower where fog and more lighting is used. I'm coming from a big beefy gaming machine so I notice the slow down a lot but most people wouldnt and it looks great even for a dated game on the 27" screen.

Star Trek Online: Again at full native res with everything on full the game tends to run aroun 28-32 fps most of the time except in built up areas. AA makes a lot of difference in this game so I have it turned off at all times, not that you really need it with such a high resolution anyway. Changing the res down to 1080p and you get a jump to around 50-60fps average but it looks very pasty

Lord of the Rings Online: I love this game so I'm pleased to say that it plays in full native res with everything on ultra at just over 30fps most of the time, this is also with DirectX 10 enabled. It does slow down from time to time and once again dropping to 1080p shows the biggest fps jump.

Dragon Age: Origins. Works excellently in full native res with everything on even 4xaa and v-synced it always stays at 30fps

Starcraft 2, this is the one that seems stranger to me - I run it at native res with everything on ultra - the in-game engine cutscenes run slowly, around 20fps but look great and the game runs just under 30fps most of the time. The reason I say strange is that although the game looks great, it shouldn't be the most taxing on hardware yet seems to be for me at least.

Tales of Monkey Island - perfect, 60fps+ in native

Torchlight seems to run over 40fps most of the time on windows, just under 40 on OS X, yet it seemed to look more colourful on the OS X version, no idea why and was probably a coincidence!

Anyway hope this helps people a bit. If they had put the 5750 card in the 21" you would have a perfect gaming machine to me - but this is pretty close. How much newer future titles will fair will be interesting.

Also for anyone wondering, I have been able to update my ATI drivers in bootcamp by downloading the mobility specific ones direct from ATI - this updated it to 5850 name and added the control panel settings.

Thank you so much for contributing to the thread! :)

I can't wait to build my gaming rig next year and use the iMac 27 as the monitor. It'll also be nice not having to switch back and forth between OSX and Boot Camped Windows 7. Until then, this is perfect for a gaming setup, especially if you're coming from an older video card, like a 9800GTX.

[saschke]

I'll be coming from a Geforce 320M - muahahahhaha :D

edit: to a brand new iMac quad i5 27 inch that is :)

[Dyne]

A few more results for StarCraft II, this time in both Windows 7 and OSX:

StarCraft II Windows 7

As I reported earlier, the game is playable at native res with everything set to max settings. However, there is a bit of input delay whenever you're doing anything in the game, which can be very annoying, not to mention hazardous to one's performance. :) However, bumping the resolution down one notch to 1920x1200 eliminates this input delay, and the game remains a steady 40+ FPS the entire game, even in heavy battles. In a 3v3 match with me and my allies vs the three enemies in one HELL of a heavy-pitched battle, the FPS never dropped lower than 37 fps. This is, once again, at maximum settings with a resolution of 1920x1200.

Now this is in a normal match in multiplayer. Single player is... odd, to say the least. Sometimes your FPS will drop for no discernible reason, and other times, the game works perfectly fine. Sometimes during a cutscene, you'll be at 60 FPS, but then, out of nowhere, with no changes to the scenery or anything whatsoever, it'll drop in the 20s. The FPS drops DO NOT HAPPEN during a normal multiplayer match at all.

For StarCraft II, you're going to be pleasantly surprised how well it runs for normal multiplayer games by knocking the resolution down one notch to eliminate the input delay, and you'll be scratching your head at the inconsistency of your FPS during the single-player campaign. This is not an iMac specific thing; testing on my old 8800GTX gaming rig gave the same results in the campaign.


StarCraft II OSX

To put it simply, if you care about having a higher frames per second, run this game under Boot Camp instead of OSX. It doesn't run terribly in OSX, but you can tell that the lack of DirectX and proper OpenGL support under OSX is hampering the performance. One thing to note, however, is that you can run StarCraft II under OSX in full native resolution with everything set to the High preset, and you'll run between 30 and 40 FPS, very rarely dipping lower than 30, without the input delay that you get running under Boot Camp. Using the native resolution and having all graphics set to Ultra will give you the input delay again however, so it's best to keep the settings at the High preset.

Even at lower resolutions on OSX, if you set the game to Ultra, it's going to crawl. Setting the game to 1680x1050 with all graphical options set to Ultra gave me input delay AND I was hovering around 22-29 FPS.

------------------

Choosing which version of the game to play is really up to you. If you want to play at the highest resolution possible, but you don't particularly care about having all the bells and whistles turned on, you can't go wrong with OSX. Meanwhile, if you want to show off the beauty of the game, and you don't mind thing not being as 100% crisp as they should be by not playing in native resolution, play it under Boot Camp. As for me, I'll play both versions, as sometimes I am just far too lazy to reboot under Boot Camp. :)

[Dyne]

this is a VERY interesting and important topic, please if someone finds out how to get this drivers squared away share it with us please..

I'm getting a refurb iMac 27 i7 2.8 and would love to bump its performance if it is possible for better gaming performance..

Honestly, if you were given the choice between a refurb or the newer iMacs with the 5850m, it's no contest: get the refreshed iMacs. Not only does it contain more power right out of the box, but overclocking is definitely viable with these cards by increasing the core clocks a measly percentage.

Fun thing to note: overclocking the card yields no performance improvements whatsoever in StarCraft II. Hell, on most benchmarks, the desktop 5750s and 5770s perform almost exactly the same.

[thehalokid]

dyne! why did u overclock it yet? what makes u say it the gpu performs nearly the same as the 5770m?:confused:

[Will : Hi !]

what makes u say it the gpu performs nearly the same as the 5770m?:confused:

Take a deep breath and re-read more carefully. That's not what Dyne wrote.

[Dyne]

Take a deep breath and re-read more carefully. That's not what Dyne wrote.

Haha. :)

He's correct, I have not overclocked the card yet, though I will in the future. I just don't see the point yet for only a few additional frame yield when all of the games I've played run perfectly so far.

Left 4 Dead 2 is still downloading, but that's next on the benchmark list.

[thehalokid]

Will : Hi !

my breathing and reading is fine! maybe u should check ur breathing?
Im sure dyne can speak for himself, anyway thanks for the update dyne.:)

[Dyne]

Solitaire runs at around 741 frames per second. INCREDIBLE performance!

[henrikrox]

Thank you so much for contributing to the thread! :)

I can't wait to build my gaming rig next year and use the iMac 27 as the monitor. It'll also be nice not having to switch back and forth between OSX and Boot Camped Windows 7. Until then, this is perfect for a gaming setup, especially if you're coming from an older video card, like a 9800GTX.

You are going to love it, im having a 5970 waiting for the new imac in my gaming pc, but i have orderd the gtx 460, and a new cabinet in brushed aluminum to match the imac.

And later run sli gtx 460.

Cant wait!

[Dyne]

You are going to love it, im having a 5970 waiting for the new imac in my gaming pc, but i have orderd the gtx 460, and a new cabinet in brushed aluminum to match the imac.

And later run sli gtx 460.

Cant wait!

Awesome. :)

Not a huge fan of Fermi... not comfortable with a video card that burns like a thousand suns in my PC, and the gains over the 5870 are incremental, but I can't argue that the minimum FPS are greater on Fermi than the Radeon equivalents. Also, nVidia has much better driver support than ATI.

[henrikrox]

Awesome. :)

Not a huge fan of Fermi... not comfortable with a video card that burns like a thousand suns in my PC, and the gains over the 5870 are incremental, but I can't argue that the minimum FPS are greater on Fermi than the Radeon equivalents. Also, nVidia has much better driver support than ATI.

I agree, but its temporary solution. Casue none of the 58xx cards work out of the box with the imac, just the 5970 and the gtx with dp port.

If 5850 worked or 5870 i would order those, they are awesome, and run so cool.

Actually i think ATI has the better drivers, at least they update more often. Anyways i hope that ati 6 series will work out of the box with the imac.

[hedgehogmac]

You are going to love it, im having a 5970 waiting for the new imac in my gaming pc, but i have orderd the gtx 460, and a new cabinet in brushed aluminum to match the imac.

And later run sli gtx 460.

Cant wait!

I’m planning to build a gaming pc for use with my imac 27 inch as a monitor. I’m no expert - is the 5970 the very best one to get for the best possible performance at native res on the imac screen via WIN7? Any advice on best GPUs for PC/imac monitor combo much appreciated, thanks

[henrikrox]

I’m planning to build a gaming pc for use with my imac 27 inch as a monitor. I’m no expert - is the 5970 the very best one to get for the best possible performance at native res on the imac screen via WIN7? Any advice on best GPUs for PC/imac monitor combo much appreciated, thanks

the 5970 is the best card out there right now yes. Its very expensive though. The 5970 is actually two cards in one. And its LOOONG, dont expect a standard tower to fit it. After using it for 6 months i think its a little overkill, and its also been plagued with driver problems.

Hopefully with the 6 series all the cards work with the imac, not just the high end.

Also please remember, that with such a powerful card, your CPU will likely bottleneck your system

http://media.bestofmicro.com/5970,Q-G-230344-3.jpg

5970 on the top
5870
5850

[hedgehogmac]

Hopefully with the 6 series all the cards work with the imac, not just the high end.

Also please remember, that with such a powerful card, your CPU will likely bottleneck your system


I’m looking at the GTX460 for use with the imac display, but wonder if (even with very good CPU, RAM, etc in the PC) the performance would be very much better than with using the iMac in bootcamp with WIN7. I have a nagging thought that there might be some (complex and hard to define) issue with using the imac display with the PC that somehow affects the performance that would not be the case with the imac AIO. Basically, I’m wondering if I go to the expense and effort of building a PC for gaming using the imac display (say spending $800 on PC), would I REALLY see a “wow -that’s amazing” difference compared to an overclocked 4850 or 5750 in bootcamp. Any thoughts very much appreciated. Would it depend on the game?

[barefeats]

Even at lower resolutions on OSX, if you set the game to Ultra, it's going to crawl. Setting the game to 1680x1050 with all graphical options set to Ultra gave me input delay AND I was hovering around 22-29 FPS. )

Does Starcraft have a "timedemo" you can run and collect average frame rates? Or does it just display frame rates? Or is there an addon like Titan Performance Addon for WoW that you can use?

[Dyne]

Does Starcraft have a "timedemo" you can run and collect average frame rates? Or does it just display frame rates? Or is there an addon like Titan Performance Addon for WoW that you can use?

I used FRAPS for Windows 7. For OSX, it's guesswork, but I know my frames. :)

There is no time demo that I know of, but it would be nice!

[Dyne]

New benchmark: Left 4 Dead 2 using Boot Camp.

Everything turned up to max except for AA, which was off, and set to native resolution.

I played the entire campaign of... whatever the hell the one with the clowns is called. Anyhow, it ran flawless, and the lowest it dipped was 54 frames during a boomer explosion, a crap ton of zombies, and a spitter spitting acid on the ground. Once again, very impressive, especially since the game ran flawlessly at a much higher resolution that I used to run on my 8800GTX.

[CountlovE]

New benchmark: Left 4 Dead 2 using Boot Camp.

Everything turned up to max except for AA, which was off, and set to native resolution.

I played the entire campaign of... whatever the hell the one with the clowns is called..

Dark Carnival!! You should be slapped around with a wet trout.

:)

[hazerjohn]

Can we get some pictures and videos going? Especially for SC2 pleaseeee!

[Dyne]

Can we get some pictures and videos going? Especially for SC2 pleaseeee!

StarCraft II running in OSX or Boot Camp?

[TMRaven]

If you're wanting to know how maxed out sc2 looks like at 27 inch iMac's native resolution, I did take this xfire vid a while back during beta:

http://www.xfire.com/video/2a9f3c/

The actual fps in that vid is only around 15 I think, because the capture software really hurts the framerate. The actual thing was around 30fps, so if you can imagine it, it'd be like that, but twice as smooth.

If you want anything else, like using an external camera to record, or another xfire vid, but with different race, part of the story, etc, I can do that.

[frega]

If you're wanting to know how maxed out sc2 looks like at 27 inch iMac's native resolution, I did take this xfire vid a while back during beta:

http://www.xfire.com/video/2a9f3c/

The actual fps in that vid is only around 15 I think, because the capture software really hurts the framerate. The actual thing was around 30fps, so if you can imagine it, it'd be like that, but twice as smooth.

If you want anything else, like using an external camera to record, or another xfire vid, but with different race, part of the story, etc, I can do that.
that fps was painful to watch.

[hazerjohn]

StarCraft II running in OSX or Boot Camp?

I will be happy with either of them. Maybe OSX, so that we can see the "worst" part of both.

[d Fusion b]

I will be happy with either of them. Maybe OSX, so that we can see the "worst" part of both.

I'd like to see SC2 running on Ultra in boot camp, with a HUGE battle going on. I do a lot of 4v4 and it kills my fps.

[Dyne]

I'd like to see SC2 running on Ultra in boot camp, with a HUGE battle going on. I do a lot of 4v4 and it kills my fps.

Hmm... I'll see what I can do. :)

The problem is that when I record video, it makes the game slow down, so what I'm thinking of doing is possibly setting it to 4v4 cpu, watching them go at it, and recording it with a digital cam video. It won't look great, but it should at least show you how the game runs with everything at Ultra at 1900x1200.

[TMRaven]

To be honest the game doesn't slow down that much with huge battles. The biggest slowdown the game gets is when you're looking at a bunch of zerg structures. Most of the battles are handled by the cpu-- which is very strong.


I'll see if I can get a video of 2560x1440 resolution with everything maxed during a large battle as well.

Just recorded a 4v4 with all AI, and it's a very good replay. Will record with camera and upload later on.

[Bonham]

Just recieved my new 27" 2.93 i7 last night and gave SC2 a try. Had all of the settings on ultra apart from shadows and reflections which I turned down to medium. At 2560 x 1440 the game ran completely smoothly....even while loading 5000 + photos into aperture and while iTunes organised my library

[byron_hinson]

I'd like to see SC2 running on Ultra in boot camp, with a HUGE battle going on. I do a lot of 4v4 and it kills my fps.

For me on the i5 2010 27" iMac it is usually 20fps or lower when playing SC 2 in full native res in ultra. I find the best way to play it is in windowed mode as you can adjust the screen size and keep the frame rate above 30 even in ultra mode.

[iMac i5 5750]

My quad i5 has just shipped and arrives Thursday. I just returned a 1 week old refurb i7 and had to pay a little bit more for the difference as a result. As I will only be using this machine for gaming the 5750 was a must. Will be installing Win7 home and will hopefully OC to 5870 mobile levels. I'm not a FPS nut, I play a range of games.

A couple of questions:

1) In summary am I right in assuming that the quad i5 and i7 perform exactely the same in games?

2) Does the SSD drive make any difference apart from in loading times?

3) Any difference between 4gb and 8gb ram?

Thanks

[axma]

My quad i5 has just shipped and arrives Thursday. I just returned a 1 week old refurb i7 and had to pay a little bit more for the difference as a result. As I will only be using this machine for gaming the 5750 was a must. Will be installing Win7 home and will hopefully OC to 5870 mobile levels. I'm not a FPS nut, I play a range of games.

A couple of questions:

1) In summary am I right in assuming that the quad i5 and i7 perform exactely the same in games?

2) Does the SSD drive make any difference apart from in loading times?

3) Any difference between 4gb and 8gb ram?

Thanks

Good questions, I m not sure but i would say:

1) Currently yes but no in 1 or 2 years
=> I would take it (future proof)

2) No
=> I would not take it for gaming

3) Currently no but yes in 1 or 2 years
=> I would not take it for gaming (easy to upgrade later if needed)

[Dyne]

Well, as far as question one goes, most games do not even have quad core support yet, so I do not see hyper-threading being used in most games for some time to come. Even two years down the road, I'm not so sure they'll even bother with it.

Does Crysis 2 even support HT?

[henrikrox]

the i7 quad does peform better then then i5 quad right now, even though its just a couple of frames. Its wrong to say the i5 and i7 is just as good.

YOu got to remember that the i7 turbo boosts higher then the i5.

[TMRaven]

Some teaser images. This is with sc2 under bootcamp with native resolution and everything to ultra on an overclocked mobility 4850 that's clocked like a desktop 4850. Mobility 5850 should perform a tiny bit better than dektop 4850.

It is a 4v4 on toxic waste, and shows a couple base shots and battle shots. The lowest the fps dipped was around 22, when there was a really, really large amount of units on screen. Second lowest was around 23-24 for viewing zerg main base. Note that the fps is actually higher (26) when there's a bunch of units destroying a zerg base. Fps when viewing other parts of the map and terran/protoss mains are around 28-40. I did a frap benchmark test for the whole match, and the average fps was around 30.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-15-39-57.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-19-13-81.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-23-38-86.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-18-23-20.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-17-31-62.jpg

[Spurk]

Some teaser images. This is with sc2 under bootcamp with native resolution and everything to ultra on an overclocked mobility 4850 that's clocked like a desktop 4850. Mobility 5850 should perform a tiny bit better than dektop 4850.

It is a 4v4 on toxic waste, and shows a couple base shots and battle shots. The lowest the fps dipped was around 22, when there was a really, really large amount of units on screen. Second lowest was around 23-24 for viewing zerg main base. Note that the fps is actually higher (26) when there's a bunch of units destroying a zerg base. Fps when viewing other parts of the map and terran/protoss mains are around 28-40. I did a frap benchmark test for the whole match, and the average fps was around 30.

Please attach the hawt screenshot <3 :)

[TMRaven]

Please attach the hawt screenshot <3 :)

Macrumors seemed to have deleted my attachments :(

Anyways, I have edited the post with photobucket pics.

I'll try to get a vid of it possibly, some time down the line. As well as another choppy xfire recording.

[Spurk]

Macrumors seemed to have deleted my attachments :(

Anyways, I have edited the post with photobucket pics.

I'll try to get a vid of it possibly, some time down the line. As well as another choppy xfire recording.

So i reckon 1080p with ultra settings is the way to go?

[henrikrox]

Damn nice quality, TMraven, could you do me a favour, and post a picture of the following.

Native res, everything on high (not ultra) - With fraps showing fps. You can just take a picture of workers mining and maybe som structers

Now go to options and set ultra

and take the same picture of the base, i wont to see how big of a difference ultra is to high, and what it does to the fps.

If you could do that i would be super glad

[TMRaven]

So i reckon 1080p with ultra settings is the way to go?
No, it is not. You sacrifice too much visual quality for a minimal fps gain. LCDs should usually be set at native resolution when sitting close to the screen itself. The thing you'd most likely want to do would be to set everything at ultra at native resolution, but keep shaders down to high-- which would in turn set post-processing down to medium. Here are come comparisons:

All ultra and native resolution (26fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-17-31-62.jpg
All ultra and 1920x1080p resolution (34fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-27-51-60.jpg
All ultra and native resolution, spare shaders to high (31fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-32-29-47.jpg

All ultra and native resolution (26fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-18-23-20.jpg
All ultra and 1920x1080p resolution (34fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-29-12-96.jpg
All ultra and native resolution, spare shaders to high (30fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-31-02-34.jpg

For getting a good sense of how resolution affects visual quality, you'd probably wanna set each picture as a desktop wallpaper, and alternate between the two, to see how blurry it is.

Damn nice quality, TMraven, could you do me a favour, and post a picture of the following.

Native res, everything on high (not ultra) - With fraps showing fps. You can just take a picture of workers mining and maybe som structers

Now go to options and set ultra

and take the same picture of the base, i wont to see how big of a difference ultra is to high, and what it does to the fps.

If you could do that i would be super glad

I can try. Setting everything to high probably won't hurt that much at all, altho I do recommend keeping texture on ultra, as texture is what really makes a game look crisp.

[henrikrox]

No, it is not. You sacrifice too much visual quality for a minimal fps gain. LCDs should usually be set at native resolution when sitting close to the screen itself. The thing you'd most likely want to do would be to set everything at ultra at native resolution, but keep shaders down to high-- which would in turn set post-processing down to medium. Here are come comparisons:

All ultra and native resolution (26fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-17-31-62.jpg
All ultra and 1920x1080p resolution (34fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-27-51-60.jpg
All ultra and native resolution, spare shaders to high (31fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-27-51-60.jpg

All ultra and native resolution (26fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-18-23-20.jpg
All ultra and 1920x1080p resolution (34fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-29-12-96.jpg
All ultra and native resolution, spare shaders to high (30fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-31-02-34.jpg

For getting a good sense of how resolution affects visual quality, you'd probably wanna set each picture as a desktop wallpaper, and alternate between the two, to see how blurry it is.



I can try. Setting everything to high probably won't hurt that much at all, altho I do recommend keeping texture on ultra, as texture is what really makes a game look crisp.

Would be sweet if you did, just finding out how big difference high is to ultra, and what it does to the fps.

[diegobgr]

Anyone has the 5670 model?

It looks a good one to play at 1080p in the 21,5", but I will like to see some benchs.

I like games like Fallout 3, Dragon Age, Mass Effect...

[spiffy05]

Anyone has the 5670 model?

It looks a good one to play at 1080p in the 21,5", but I will like to see some benchs.


That's the model I ordered, so I'm looking forward to benchmarks if you have them!

[diegobgr]

I think that 5670 at 1920x1080 will perform more or less the same than a 5750 at 2560x1440.

More or less.

[henrikrox]

I think that 5670 at 1920x1080 will perform more or less the same than a 5750 at 2560x1440.

More or less.

Then i think you are sadly mistaken, the step from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 isnt huge. And you wont be pulling ultra on 1920x1080 on the 5670. Its just marginal better then previous generation 4670, which did medium at okay frame rates.

You will not see ultra on a 5670, due to inferior gpu and inferior cpu compared to the quad cores / 5750

[blinkin182]

Well, as far as question one goes, most games do not even have quad core support yet, so I do not see hyper-threading being used in most games for some time to come. Even two years down the road, I'm not so sure they'll even bother with it.

Does Crysis 2 even support HT?

Good question.

I was looking for a list of applications that take advantage of Multiple-Cores (and thus Hyper-threading) but couldn't find any.

It would be pretty cool to see in which applications we can see a multi-core/hyper-threading advantage.

Anyone know?

[axma]

Dragon Age, GTA 4, Ghostbusters, RE5 and Red Faction Guerrilla are a few examples of games that do effectively use more than 2 cores.
The list will continue growing in the next years.

Dragon Age benchmarks:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,698761/Dragon-Age-Origins-CPU-benchmarks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/


[EDIT] May be these lists will interest you:
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=windows_quad_core_applications
http://www.grandtheftpc.com/2010/03/list-of-quad-core-optimized-games.html

[EDIT 2] Sorry u were talking about hexacore (HyperThreading), not about quadcore. In this case only GTA 4 currently use it.

[byron_hinson]

Dragon Age, GTA 4, Ghostbusters, RE5 and Red Faction Guerrilla are a few examples of games that do effectively use more than 2 cores.
The list will continue growing in the next years.

Dragon Age benchmarks:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,698761/Dragon-Age-Origins-CPU-benchmarks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/


[EDIT] May be these lists will interest you:
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=windows_quad_core_applications
http://www.grandtheftpc.com/2010/03/list-of-quad-core-optimized-games.html

[EDIT 2] Sorry u were talking about hexacore (HyperThreading), not about quadcore. In this case only GTA 4 currently use it.

Might be one reason why Dragon Age works perfectly even in native res with everything on full on the 27" i5 iMac 2010 Edition!

[byron_hinson]

No, it is not. You sacrifice too much visual quality for a minimal fps gain. LCDs should usually be set at native resolution when sitting close to the screen itself. The thing you'd most likely want to do would be to set everything at ultra at native resolution, but keep shaders down to high-- which would in turn set post-processing down to medium. Here are come comparisons:

All ultra and native resolution (26fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-17-31-62.jpg
All ultra and 1920x1080p resolution (34fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-27-51-60.jpg
All ultra and native resolution, spare shaders to high (31fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-32-29-47.jpg

All ultra and native resolution (26fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-00-18-23-20.jpg
All ultra and 1920x1080p resolution (34fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-29-12-96.jpg
All ultra and native resolution, spare shaders to high (30fps):http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-31-02-34.jpg

For getting a good sense of how resolution affects visual quality, you'd probably wanna set each picture as a desktop wallpaper, and alternate between the two, to see how blurry it is.



I can try. Setting everything to high probably won't hurt that much at all, altho I do recommend keeping texture on ultra, as texture is what really makes a game look crisp.

How are you finding Starcraft 2 in Windowed mode - I'm running it this way on the new 27" i5 and find it the best way to play it, I can play it in ultra settings above 30fps in a window around the side of 1920x1080. Means you get it to look much better than in 1080p full screen mode that makes it look like vaseline has been smothered over the screen!

[TMRaven]

For a 3-5fps performance difference over all ultra at native resolution with shaders down to high, I'm personally not going to run it in windowed mode.

It may sound silly to users who have the 21.5 inch screens, but I find 1920x1080p in windowed mode to be rather small on the 27 inch screen!

[byron_hinson]

For a 3-5fps performance difference over all ultra at native resolution with shaders down to high, I'm personally not going to run it in windowed mode.

It may sound silly to users who have the 21.5 inch screens, but I find 1920x1080p in windowed mode to be rather small on the 27 inch screen!

Guess its just me - but anything below 30fps jerking along makes me feel sick if playing. I agree though it does always look small on a 27" even when it isn't really

[TMRaven]

Damn nice quality, TMraven, could you do me a favour, and post a picture of the following.

Native res, everything on high (not ultra) - With fraps showing fps. You can just take a picture of workers mining and maybe som structers

Now go to options and set ultra

and take the same picture of the base, i wont to see how big of a difference ultra is to high, and what it does to the fps.

If you could do that i would be super glad

I ran a very specific fraps benchmarking test over one of my 1v1 replays against an AI using my player cam, so each benchmark will utilize the exact same frames. My results:

native resolution with all settings to ultra, except shaders to high: 46fps average
native resolution with all settings set to ultra, except shaders, lighting, shadows and terrain set to hig: 47fps average

Not really worth it.

All settings to ultra except for shaders to high seems to be the sweet spot.

[aliensporebomb]

this is a VERY interesting and important topic, please if someone finds out how to get this drivers squared away share it with us please..

I'm getting a refurb iMac 27 i7 2.8 and would love to bump its performance if it is possible for better gaming performance..

I also want to see this as well and would be curious if the improved drivers provide improved results using GlView which is a OpenGL benchmarker I use to determine performance on a number of platforms.

Anyone get this going? I'm seriously wanting that update.

[thehalokid]

TM raven!

you mentioned you overclocked ur 4850m, in your personal opinion do you thinks it worth overclocking the gpu at all?
ive read some posts where folks seem to disagree that that the gains are marginal at least, if at all!

[TMRaven]

20% fps boost for 20% clock increase.

[Dyne]

20% fps boost for 20% clock increase.

What did you increase your clocks to so far, and how has that affected your core temps?

[aliensporebomb]

I wonder if the framerate increase from overclocking would equal the framerate increase you would get with these new drivers?

I'm surprised this new driver update isn't front page news here - there are a lot of people with ATI driven iMac computers who could benefit from this.

[dexthageek]

I ran a very specific fraps benchmarking test over one of my 1v1 replays against an AI using my player cam, so each benchmark will utilize the exact same frames. My results:

native resolution with all settings to ultra, except shaders to high: 46fps average
native resolution with all settings set to ultra, except shaders, lighting, shadows and terrain set to hig: 47fps average

Not really worth it.

All settings to ultra except for shaders to high seems to be the sweet spot.

I assume you are running in Windows?
In OSX, I am only getting over 40FPS (Single Player) when running 1080p and medium for a number of settings :(
I am afraid to even set it to Ultra in OSX, it might blow up.

I hope Apple releases a driver update soon. Not sure why they released it for 2010 but not 2009.

[aliensporebomb]

I assume you are running in Windows?
In OSX, I am only getting over 40FPS (Single Player) when running 1080p and medium for a number of settings :(
I am afraid to even set it to Ultra in OSX, it might blow up.

I hope Apple releases a driver update soon. Not sure why they released it for 2010 but not 2009.

Because the users of those machines paid their money THIS MONTH rather than LAST MONTH (grumble :mad:).

Pacifist eh? I might have to try this.

[Yamcha]

You gotta be kidding, Crysis is an amazing game :P

[Dyne]

You gotta be kidding, Crysis is an amazing game :P

Amazingly dull.

:)

[TMRaven]

I wonder if the framerate increase from overclocking would equal the framerate increase you would get with these new drivers?

I'm surprised this new driver update isn't front page news here - there are a lot of people with ATI driven iMac computers who could benefit from this.

Apples to oranges. Overclocking in windows gets you from point B to C. Getting up-to-date drivers in osx takes you from point A to B. (C being the best and A being the worst)

[GyroFX]

Apples to oranges. Overclocking in windows gets you from point B to C. Getting up-to-date drivers in osx takes you from point A to B. (C being the best and A being the worst)

wonder how stable it would be to OC on the windows side, considering the gpu gets kinda hot already running natively in OSX.

[iMac i5 5750]

very interesting article about Hyperthreading and how it hurts real world gaming performance

http://vr-zone.com/articles/does-core-i7-hyper-threading-helps-/6160.html?doc=6160

[TMRaven]

wonder how stable it would be to OC on the windows side, considering the gpu gets kinda hot already running natively in OSX.

If you keep the fan up, it'll stay cooler than default specs. iMac doesn't have bad cooling, Apple just chooses to keep fans low.

[aliensporebomb]

Should be, using Pacifist.

I advise you to backup your entire /System/Library/Extensions folder beforehand, and to have a second Mac available in case you should have trouble booting the iMac after the procedure.

I never tried any such thing, but I believe selecting all the ATI files in System > Library > Extensions (in Pacifist) and choosing Install might be all that's required.

If you're already running 10.6.4, you might also try installing the whole update with Pacifist (in that case, make a full system backup first).

I have tried this, I will report my results tomorrow - I am busy copying critical files over gigabit to a second system. If I don't return in 24 hours you'll know it blew up in my face and had to rebuild.

[GyroFX]

If you keep the fan up, it'll stay cooler than default specs. iMac doesn't have bad cooling, Apple just chooses to keep fans low.

good to know. Hopefully someone will try the OCing on the 5850 soon.

[aliensporebomb]

Here we go guys.

You '09 iMac users with ATI cards might get away with something cool that doesn't require cloning a drive.

Disclaimer: You mess up your Mac, it's not my fault.

Thanks: To those who suggested how this could be done in the first place. Yes, Pacifist and the download for the new Imacs does it.
Thanks also to Barefeats who found out that these drivers really are the bees knees after all.

How: Exactly as suggested.

Highlight EVERY ATI entry in System / Library / Extensions of the file MacOSXUpd10.6.4foriMacMid2010.dmg and select install from the menu on the top left of the pacifist masthead.

But you want to see the results right?

First, Before:

2560x1440 framerates with the old ATI drivers:

A pitiful example. What the heck?
http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/HD4850maxedout-Before1.jpg

The best I could manage after a few tries:
http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/HD4850maxedout-Before.jpg

Trying it at HD resolution:

1920 x 1080 framerates with the old ATI drivers:
http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/HD4850-HD-Before.JPG

You get the idea.. It's better but you have a 2560x1440 display, who wants to play a game at 1920x1080?

AFTER THE CHANGE TO THE NEW DRIVERS!

2560 x 1440 framerates with the new ATI drivers:
http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/HD4850-After-MaxedOut.jpg

Okay, that's a lot better.

1920 x 1080 HD framerates with the new ATI drivers:
http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/HD4850-After-HD.jpg

MUCH BETTER!

Better all around.

Thanks very much to whoever suggested this. It wasn't that hard and it was a bit nerve racking potentially bricking my new baby but...

Note: this applies ONLY so far as I am aware to the 2009 refresh iMac machines with ATI cards.

My machine is a Corei7 27" with 12 gigs of ram and stock 1 TB drive.

Your mileage may vary.

Your mileage might get better results than mine.

Your mileage might brick your machine.

Questions? Ask.

Disclaimer: Apple might push out an update rendering all of this scaryness unecessary very soon. Then again they may not.

One more just because:

http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/stupid.jpg
Check it out! 5000 frames per second (at stupidly low resolution).

[methdxman]

Anyone have numbers for the new base iMac model (4670)? Specifically for CS: Source in bootcamp and os x. Thanks.

[JHorstmann]

Just got the 3.6ghz i5, 8gig RAM, Radeon 5670.

Runs WoW on Ultra at a consistent 31 fps. Have had no lag problems at all- have been questing for 5 hours tonight.

[f1restarter]

Would be great to see some benchmarks between the new i7 and i5.

[mogens]

Wow...here's my result on a late 2009 Imac i7 , 8Gb ram with the drivers from the MacOSXUpd10.6.4foriMacMid2010.pkg update:

[frega]

Just got the 3.6ghz i5, 8gig RAM, Radeon 5670.

Runs WoW on Ultra at a consistent 31 fps. Have had no lag problems at all- have been questing for 5 hours tonight.

31fps is considered bad. I think 50 would be nice, which is what I set to my maxfps.

[Baltac87]

does anyone know how the 27" 2.8 GHz quad-core i5 with ATI Radeon HD 5750 with 1GB imac will do running FFXIV on Bootcamp everything on high i just want this game to be running smoothly and crisp and if its crap then i guess i would have to wait intill i buy a PS3

[Tigerman82]

Just got the 3.6ghz i5, 8gig RAM, Radeon 5670.

Runs WoW on Ultra at a consistent 31 fps. Have had no lag problems at all- have been questing for 5 hours tonight.

Check out this review: http://mattgadient.com/2010/08/01/imac-21-5-i3-3-2ghz-with-the-radeon-5670-mid-2010-in-gaming/

The guy is using 3.2GhZ i3 iMac with 8gig RAM and Radeon 5670 and he seems to get about 50 fps from WoW in Ultra. That's pretty weird considering that's almost twice as good as your result even though he has a worse cpu.

EDIT: And check this out also:
MacOS X 10.6
3.06GHz Core 2 Duo
Radeon HD 4670 256MB
4GB RAM
7200RPM 1TB drive

With video settings on Ultra, FPS in Dalaran was about 32-35 FPS. I would occasionally drop to 17-18 FPS for just a beat if I turned a corner and ran into a knot of players, but it was back to the 30s almost immediately. On my 2007 MBP I often see player shadows (circular blobs) without players above them as I load textures - that didn't happen once.

So a previous-gen iMac with a worse GPU is getting more fps in Ultra. You have to be doing something wrong.

[aliensporebomb]

Wow...here's my result on a late 2009 Imac i7 , 8Gb ram with the drivers from the MacOSXUpd10.6.4foriMacMid2010.pkg update:

I updated my version of GL View and got similar results. 1200fps is far better than 500 or 700.

Update: Crimeny. Ran X-Plane a little bit a few minutes ago and unbelievable. So smooth. Highly recommended.

[Stingray454]

I just tried updating the drivers for my 2009 iMac i7 as well, with great results. Here is a post with instructions on how to do it: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=978676&page=10#234

It's quite simple, and the poster has prepared a zip with the needed files, so there is no need to extract them. On your own risk, as always..

[tbevan]

Updated using the Pacifist method, all good so far :D

[jmpage2]

I anticipate that after Apple runs through stock of refurb 2009 iMacs that magically a driver update for them will be released that puts performance on par with the 2010 iMacs.

[JHorstmann]

Check out this review: http://mattgadient.com/2010/08/01/imac-21-5-i3-3-2ghz-with-the-radeon-5670-mid-2010-in-gaming/

The guy is using 3.2GhZ i3 iMac with 8gig RAM and Radeon 5670 and he seems to get about 50 fps from WoW in Ultra. That's pretty weird considering that's almost twice as good as your result even though he has a worse cpu.

EDIT: And check this out also:

So a previous-gen iMac with a worse GPU is getting more fps in Ultra. You have to be doing something wrong.

I hope you're right.

I went in again this morning and I was running at like 42. Maybe the built in framerate counter is off?

[Dyne]

I hope you're right.

I went in again this morning and I was running at like 42. Maybe the built in framerate counter is off?

Bear in mind it also depends on where you are. The zones for The Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King are more intensive than vanilla WoW zones.

Here's a quick tip to knock your frames up a notch: turn shadows down by just one slider. Don't worry, they still look great! It's just that the shadows were implemented horribly, even on the Windows platform, which drains performance.

[Unfair]

Check out this review: http://mattgadient.com/2010/08/01/imac-21-5-i3-3-2ghz-with-the-radeon-5670-mid-2010-in-gaming/

The guy is using 3.2GhZ i3 iMac with 8gig RAM and Radeon 5670 and he seems to get about 50 fps from WoW in Ultra. That's pretty weird considering that's almost twice as good as your result even though he has a worse cpu.

EDIT: And check this out also:

So a previous-gen iMac with a worse GPU is getting more fps in Ultra. You have to be doing something wrong.



WoW benefits more from CPU than GPU. At least in its current live state, that will change in Cataclysm I'm pretty sure cause @ Max settings on my i5 2009 iMac w/ 4850 the system tries to eat itself.

This was of course running @ native res, but once I got it down to 1920x1080 windowed mode the game (Cataclysm) became playable @ max settings.

So, faster core speed of a processor currently help WoW run better, oh and said countless times, WoW doesn't benefit at all from multi-core processors. However, his lack luster video card won't be able to do much with the Cataclysm graphics update.

[saschke]

This thread was hijacked :D
I would love to see some new numbers for the new quad iMacs, puleease :)

Great job so far, guys. Tomorrow I will chime in with some own numbers for the 27 i5x4.

[nilka]

@Unfair:

I am not sure where you get this idea from at all. I have the same computer you say. And firstly, WoW does get som nice boost from multiple cores. It benefits greatly from 2 cores and can also use 2 more cores though that has not so much impact as the second core.

Secondly If what you say is true that wow is more CPU bound than GPU tell me why a Mac Pro with lower clockspeed same core count and same cpu series run in circles around the iMac I7 with the 4850.

At Max settings yes the system can feel like its eating itself, But the actual reason is you are probably starting to run out of memory. Running around in Dalaran can make WoW use as much as 3.5 GB of memory, leaving more or less nothing for the rest of the system. I got out and bought myself 8GB of memory and the difference was like night and day.

Now I do most 25 man raiding at 30+ fps and dalaran is normally at 40 FPS at peaktimes. It can dip some times but not often.

As for my CPU usage It trickles by at 60-80% meaning in total it uses LESS than 1 core. So NO wow is not needing more CPU tha GPU to run. This is a thing that was true in vanilla when WoW could get latency issues if your cpu was struggeling.

[Dyne]

WoW benefits more from CPU than GPU. At least in its current live state, that will change in Cataclysm I'm pretty sure cause @ Max settings on my i5 2009 iMac w/ 4850 the system tries to eat itself.

This was of course running @ native res, but once I got it down to 1920x1080 windowed mode the game (Cataclysm) became playable @ max settings.

So, faster core speed of a processor currently help WoW run better, oh and said countless times, WoW doesn't benefit at all from multi-core processors. However, his lack luster video card won't be able to do much with the Cataclysm graphics update.

Unoptimized beta code can play a big part in that for starters.

Also, OSX does not run WoW nearly as well as Windows, so if you're not playing the game in Boot Camp, that will also affect your performance.

I can't see the new water shaders impacting performance by that great of a degree. What other graphical improvements are coming out of Cataclysm?

[byron_hinson]

Unoptimized beta code can play a big part in that for starters.

Also, OSX does not run WoW nearly as well as Windows, so if you're not playing the game in Boot Camp, that will also affect your performance.

I can't see the new water shaders impacting performance by that great of a degree. What other graphical improvements are coming out of Cataclysm?

I'd guess Cataclysm could do - as it enabled DirectX 11 effects in the game. The mobile ATI cards are not the best at handling that

[Dyne]

I'd guess Cataclysm could do - as it enabled DirectX 11 effects in the game. The mobile ATI cards are not the best at handling that

ATI cards in general are not the best at handling DirectX11. :)

DirectX11 is currently experimental in WoW anyhow; it still defaults to DirectX9.

[Rconley04]

Just got the 3.6ghz i5, 8gig RAM, Radeon 5670.

Runs WoW on Ultra at a consistent 31 fps. Have had no lag problems at all- have been questing for 5 hours tonight.


I averaged 48 FPS with ultra settings on my 09 core 2 duo 4670. In dungeons it would hover around 80 FPS. When I switched up to the 5670 I am averaging around 55-60 FPS and 90-115 FPS in dungeons. All on ultra. You may have an issue somewhere if your running that low. The only time i dip into the low 30's is when I'm in Dalaran while it is very populated. like outside the Bank.

I am using Titan Panel for my FPS numbers and averages.

[SkyMasterson]

I averaged 48 FPS with ultra settings on my 09 core 2 duo 4670. In dungeons it would hover around 80 FPS. When I switched up to the 5670 I am averaging around 55-60 FPS and 90-115 FPS in dungeons. All on ultra. You may have an issue somewhere if your running that low. The only time i dip into the low 30's is when I'm in Dalaran while it is very populated. like outside the Bank.

I am using Titan Panel for my FPS numbers and averages.

Forgive my ignorance, but is that under the mac osx or are you playing it in bootcamp?

[Rconley04]

Forgive my ignorance, but is that under the mac osx or are you playing it in bootcamp?

I am running it on OSX. it really all depends on where your at and how populated the area is. I am on illidan server in stormwind and I am sitting at 76 fps.