Mac for general purpose and gaming

MagicThief83 · Dec 9, 2012

Deathwish86 said:
I just love how at the very slight mentioneaning of gaming everyone just goes: " Uooo dude, get the 680MX. Futureproof that mofo, it's only like 2500$. Small price to pay to play Starcraft2 or Angry Birds, right?" Well no, if you want to be ignorant about it and pay that amount of money in order to have some sort of future proofing(i just love this term) to be able to play "casual games" in 2 years....you better buy the High End 21.5" and change it annually and you'd still come cheaper and have the latest and greatest. The GT650M is a capable card, it will run the games u mentioned and some just fine. Don't listen to those who automatically push you to the 680MX as soon as they detect "gaming" in your post. But hey, it's your hard earned money!

I have been pondering this issue for quite some time since I ordered the 27" with the 680MX, and i7 processor. It seems to me like I would've been better off ordering the high-end 21.5" because I too will be using the iMac for general purposes, with gaming being an added benefit. I really have no real uses for the real estate of the 27" or an i7 processor; my purchase was made purely on the premise of "future-proofing," where in retrospect, is quite silly because technology evolves at such a rapid pace, it's almost futile to try and keep up with. I'm still not fully convinced about my purchase, and may just end up going for the high-end 21.5" with a 1TB Fusion drive (I can see how that will be of practical use and benefit to my workflow and enhance my experience), an i5 (plenty powerful and don't need hyper threading), and 16GB of RAM. In addition, the 27" just dwarfs my workstation, and will end up detracting from my experience because it will take up a lot of space and I will have to end up sitting too close to it. I think the GT 650M is a capable card and will suit my needs just fine (Youtube videos of "GT 650M" demonstrate it is quite capable of handling a lot of modern games i.e., Assassin's Creed 3, Hitman Absolution, Far Cry 3, at high settings with respectable performance). As someone switching over from console gaming, I'm sure it will be a definite improvement over what I'm used to. I do however believe that if you're a gaming enthusiast and need to game at native resolution with a 100 FPS, then by all means, get the 680MX. I really wish the 27" was in stores in order to make an accurate comparison.

----------

emgoodman said:
I find in these threads the terms ultra, high, med, and low are used in describing game settings. My only experience has been gaming on the 360 and PS3. What I want to know is what PC game settings would be roughly the equivalent graphically and performance of a console. I am looking at a refurb 21.5 and trying to decide between the baseline 6570 GPU or having to go over budget to the 6770.

I believe most console titles are programmed at low-medium settings and capped at 30 FPS with a 720P resolution. PC gaming most undoubtedly trumps console gaming. I would dare to say even the GT 640M can display better graphics than it's console counterparts.

forty2j · Dec 9, 2012

Deathwish86 said:
Small price to pay to play Starcraft2 or Angry Birds, right?" Well no, if you want to be ignorant about it

Speaking of being ignorant, if you consider these to be the same type of game and putting the same stress on the computer you're in the wrong thread.

If someone said their gaming needs are Farmville, Angry Birds, and Pogo, the 640M would be just fine. StarCraft 2 and Borderlands 2 are different animals. They also suggest to me that the person enjoys playing recent 3D games and would continue to enjoy playing new 3D games that come out in the next few years and would probably not like them to look like crap.

----------

MagicThief83 said:
I have been pondering this issue for quite some time since I ordered the 27" with the 680MX, and i7 processor. It seems to me like I would've been better off ordering the high-end 21.5" because I too will be using the iMac for general purposes, with gaming being an added benefit. I really have no real uses for the real estate of the 27" or an i7 processor; my purchase was made purely on the premise of "future-proofing,"

Unfortunately the only way the i7 "future proofs" you is if you plan on being a meteorologist in the future. Or doing something else that's complex and mathy. In terms of real power it isn't helping much, and others have indicated it actually hinders some games.

The main problem I see with the iMacs is that if you want to play modern 3D games, Apple has painted you into a corner with their VRAM selection. The 650M and 660M would be perfectly capable of putting up a respectable performance at 1080p/1440p with 2GB VRAM. With 512MB VRAM, not so much.

MagicThief83 · Dec 9, 2012

This is what the GT 650M is capable of

Here's the link to a YouTube video of the GT 650M running Starcraft II. Of worthy note, the specs list the card utilizes 2GB of DDR3 VRAM, whereas the GPU of the iMac utilizes 512MB of GDDR5 VRAM. Although less, the iMac's GPU is faster and should equate to roughly the same performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq3K92sg6cM

In everyone's opinion, what's a respectable resolution for gaming and decent FPS?

Deathwish86 · Dec 9, 2012

You heard it here first folks: in order to play SC2 and Borderlands 2 you need top of the line iMac. Can I ask you something, do you own Apple stock?

Guess what I am trying to say is that futureproofing is idiocracy. Buy what you need now and sell it next year. Usually after one year the price really begins to drop, so if you decide to sell your top of the line future proofed iMac in 2-3 years you'll take a big hit. It's bettef to buy best value now and sell it yearly at a minimum loss. Anyway...not my money.

@magicThief83, if you want my advice: buy the high end 21.5", stick with 8GB of RAM (you will not get ur investment back at resell, no one will pay u Apple price for the RAM). Depending on your budget you may decide to get the Fusion drive. Personaly I would get the RAM and an SSD installed after purchase. You can do this yourself or pay someone to do it for you. Hope it helps!

MagicThief83 said:
I have been pondering this issue for quite some time since I ordered the 27" with the 680MX, and i7 processor. It seems to me like I would've been better off ordering the high-end 21.5" because I too will be using the iMac for general purposes, with gaming being an added benefit. I really have no real uses for the real estate of the 27" or an i7 processor; my purchase was made purely on the premise of "future-proofing," where in retrospect, is quite silly because technology evolves at such a rapid pace, it's almost futile to try and keep up with. I'm still not fully convinced about my purchase, and may just end up going for the high-end 21.5" with a 1TB Fusion drive (I can see how that will be of practical use and benefit to my workflow and enhance my experience), an i5 (plenty powerful and don't need hyper threading), and 16GB of RAM. In addition, the 27" just dwarfs my workstation, and will end up detracting from my experience because it will take up a lot of space and I will have to end up sitting too close to it. I think the GT 650M is a capable card and will suit my needs just fine (Youtube videos of "GT 650M" demonstrate it is quite capable of handling a lot of modern games i.e., Assassin's Creed 3, Hitman Absolution, Far Cry 3, at high settings with respectable performance). As someone switching over from console gaming, I'm sure it will be a definite improvement over what I'm used to. I do however believe that if you're a gaming enthusiast and need to game at native resolution with a 100 FPS, then by all means, get the 680MX. I really wish the 27" was in stores in order to make an accurate comparison.

----------

I believe most console titles are programmed at low-medium settings and capped at 30 FPS with a 720P resolution. PC gaming most undoubtedly trumps console gaming. I would dare to say even the GT 640M can display better graphics than it's console counterparts.

MagicThief83 · Dec 9, 2012

forty2j said:
Unfortunately the only way the i7 "future proofs" you is if you plan on being a meteorologist in the future. Or doing something else that's complex and mathy. In terms of real power it isn't helping much, and others have indicated it actually hinders some games.

The main problem I see with the iMacs is that if you want to play modern 3D games, Apple has painted you into a corner with their VRAM selection. The 650M and 660M would be perfectly capable of putting up a respectable performance at 1080p/1440p with 2GB VRAM. With 512MB VRAM, not so much.

Lol, I'm currently pursuing my PhD in meteorology (yeah right!

). What do you think about 768p/900p? Certainly should look and perform better than consoles, and still provide an above-average gaming experience?

CoreyLahey · Dec 9, 2012

MagicThief83 said:
I believe most console titles are programmed at low-medium settings and capped at 30 FPS with a 720P resolution. PC gaming most undoubtedly trumps console gaming. I would dare to say even the GT 640M can display better graphics than it's console counterparts.

I was wondering about that, but to be honest I have been playing exclusively on PS3 and Xbox 360 the last couple of years and games never really seemed choppy to me and graphics of many games have been very impressive, even though they run with fewer FPS. I guess it's something PC gamers would notice more in comparison?

From what I've seen on youtube people are playing games on 2010 iMacs and the games look good to my eyes. Personally I still went for the 680MX, but I wouldn't recommend it to everybody.

Btw, does anybody see a problem with the amount of video RAM Apple uses on the 675MX and 680MX? 2GB first seemed a lot to me, but then I noticed on notebookcheck that the 675MX GPUs tested use around 4GB? Same for the 680M and other cards. Am I misreading Notebookcheck or why does Apple supply the fastest mobile GPU to date with only half the VRAM? Does it matter a lot?

MagicThief83 · Dec 9, 2012

What are the trade-offs of lowering the resolution? Shouldn't a bump in graphics settings compensate for gaming at a lower resolution?

CoreyLahey · Dec 9, 2012

MagicThief83 said:
Here's the link to a YouTube video of the GT 650M running Starcraft II. Of worthy note, the specs list the card utilizes 2GB of DDR3 VRAM, whereas the GPU of the iMac utilizes 512MB of GDDR5 VRAM. Although less, the iMac's GPU is faster and should equate to roughly the same performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq3K92sg6cM

In everyone's opinion, what's a respectable resolution for gaming and decent FPS?

Here is gameplay of Star Craft 2 on a 21.5 iMac from 2 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Arr5tIDqG8

Edit: Borderlands 2 on the new 21.5 base model http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QM7I6II7zc

Deathwish86 · Dec 9, 2012

MagicThief83 said:
What are the trade-offs of lowering the resolution? Shouldn't a bump in graphics settings compensate for gaming at a lower resolution?

The general approach is to keep the native resolution and reduce the details like AA/shadow/details etc. if you lower the resolution you may encounter some blurriness, but this is not 100% the case. You may tweak with the settings, I am sure you will find something satisfactory. And if you game in Windows, there's always the possibility of overclocking.
To get a better overview, you can also check these benchmarks http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html.
The GT650M is roughly 20% faster than last generation GPU, so you might want to check some videos with gameplaying from last gen iMac.
Don't throw away the money without proper investigation, it's a lot of money man. Heck, if you are keen on blowing away 2500$ on Macs you can get the 21.5" high end iMac AND a Macbook Air. That's a superior combination to the 27" iMac in my opinion

MagicThief83 · Dec 9, 2012

Deathwish86 said:
The general approach is to keep the native resolution and reduce the details like AA/shadow/details etc. if you lower the resolution you may encounter some blurriness, but this is not 100% the case. You may tweak with the settings, I am sure you will find something satisfactory. And if you game in Windows, there's always the possibility of overclocking.
To get a better overview, you can also check these benchmarks http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html.
The GT650M is roughly 20% faster than last generation GPU, so you might want to check some videos with gameplaying from last gen iMac.
Don't throw away the money without proper investigation, it's a lot of money man. Heck, if you are keen on blowing away 2500$ on Macs you can get the 21.5" high end iMac AND a Macbook Air. That's a superior combination to the 27" iMac in my opinion

I've seen gameplay videos of the 2011 21.5" iMac with the Radeon 6750M and the gameplay looked great, so I'm positive the GT 650M will definitely be a few notches above that. In addition, most games I would like to play on Steam date back to 2010-2011, so I'm sure the 650M can handle them with ease. Hell, the 21.5" iMac and the iPad are a superior combination (I already own an iPad so I won't be wasting money there lol). I'm actually selling my MBA to fund the new iMac, so I'll be saving money as well. Like I said, I can't see how a 27" will be conducive to my uses because I don't photo/video edit. I don't consider gaming a real world use and justification.

----------

CoreyLahey said:
Here is gameplay of Star Craft 2 on a 21.5 iMac from 2 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Arr5tIDqG8

Edit: Borderlands 2 on the new 21.5 base model http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QM7I6II7zc

Great video of Starcraft! And that was with a 2010 GPU correct? Mind you, that's the GT 640M which is decently driving Borderlands 2. No doubt GT 650M will be miles ahead of that!

Trinite · Dec 9, 2012

Of course, there's also this to consider, at least in my case:

If I'm going to get the 21.5", it seems smart to get the 16GB RAM. And since the HD is only 5400rpm, better get the Fusion Drive. All together (not counting Applecare, etc.), where I am in Europe, that comes to 1879 EUR (with Edu discount).

The high end 27", on the other hand, doesn't need extra RAM now (and may not ever, there's much debate, but no need to spring for it now, at Apple's prices, just in case), and since the HD is 7200rpm, I could probably skip the Fusion drive. With the bump up to 680MX, total 2067 EUR.

So it's really a mere 188 EUR to get a MUCH better GPU, and that damn big screen - which I DON'T NEED!!!

It's such a slippery slope.....

d0nK · Dec 9, 2012

Any laptop graphics card is crap (Apple only use laptop GFX cards in their desktops

).
Either pay megabucks for the best iMac with the 680MX or stick to PC.

emgoodman · Dec 9, 2012

d0nK said:
Any laptop graphics card is crap (Apple only use laptop GFX cards in their desktops ).
Either pay megabucks for the best iMac with the 680MX or stick to PC.

What do you mean by "crap?"

Perhaps if someone's primary intest in getting a computer is for competitive online gaming and wants to be able to run ultra settings at the highest frame rate per sec possible then only the 680MX or going the non-Apple route is best.

I think the majority of people that want to use their computers for gaming want to have an experience at least equal of not a little better than the consoles. It seems to me by scanning on-line videos that not only will this year's baseline graphics cards acheive this but even last years (and maybe 2010 models as well) will get the job done.

So, my (and I assume many others) definition of crap would be games with less detail and lower FPS than what can get with a $250 XBOX.

majkom · Dec 9, 2012

forty2j said:
If someone said their gaming needs are Farmville, Angry Birds, and Pogo, the 640M would be just fine. StarCraft 2 and Borderlands 2 are different animals. They also suggest to me that the person enjoys playing recent 3D games and would continue to enjoy playing new 3D games that come out in the next few years and would probably not like them to look like crap.

What the hell are u talking about? I DO play starcraft 2 full hd, high details on my 2011 base imac without any problems, stable FPS during bigest 2v2 battles... so why would ANYONE pay for the most expensive GPUin imac for STARCRAFT??? are u sane?

Zackmd1 · Dec 9, 2012

d0nK said:
Any laptop graphics card is crap (Apple only use laptop GFX cards in their desktops ).
Either pay megabucks for the best iMac with the 680MX or stick to PC.

I would like to point your attention to this video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EybkM6w6rw8

Sure its not full resolution but I think its pretty damn good for a laptop GPU. To the OP the 650m should be more then enough.

Deathwish86 · Dec 9, 2012

Trinite said:
Of course, there's also this to consider, at least in my case:

If I'm going to get the 21.5", it seems smart to get the 16GB RAM. And since the HD is only 5400rpm, better get the Fusion Drive. All together (not counting Applecare, etc.), where I am in Europe, that comes to 1879 EUR (with Edu discount).

The high end 27", on the other hand, doesn't need extra RAM now (and may not ever, there's much debate, but no need to spring for it now, at Apple's prices, just in case), and since the HD is 7200rpm, I could probably skip the Fusion drive. With the bump up to 680MX, total 2067 EUR.

So it's really a mere 188 EUR to get a MUCH better GPU, and that damn big screen - which I DON'T NEED!!!

It's such a slippery slope.....

That is the beauty of the Apple upgrqde scheme my friend. You originally start with the low end machine, and then you start adding some upgrades and soon...wait...i am so close to the next model, why not fork some extra money and get something better. Of course the 27" is better than the 21", but the questio is do you need it?
1. You don't need the 16GB for the forseeable future, unless you do a lot of VM or you are a proffesional (sound/movie creation). The rMBP comes with just 8GB of RAM and has the PRO name in it!!!. The iMac 21.5" is not a PRO machine, think about it...
2. The 7200RPM drive is not that much quicker then the 5400. Either of those drives well feel pretty much the same unless you get an SSD.

throAU · Dec 9, 2012

schulzjt said:
For as described above, what Mac would best fit?

Thanks!

I use a 2011 15" MBP (early model with the 1gb 6750).

I play Diablo3, Borderlands 2 (both native) and bootcamp it to play Dragon Age Origins and Falcon 4 BMS.

It runs all that just fine, other than the fan noise

For casual gaming, you don't need the ultra high end video card.

I'm yet to see anything my machine won't run "fast enough" on "high enough" detail levels, and even the current MBP 15" video is roughly 2x as fast as what I have in this machine.

Being a 2011 machine, my machine is currently in the position of where you're likely to be in 12-18 months time if you were to buy today's equivalent. It is still fine.

I'm guessing you don't care if you can't run the latest games on ultra high details....

edit:
and yes, over-speccing on hardware this year to play next year (or further ahead into the future) is wasting money.

todays $1000 video card is typically equivalent in performance to next year's $200 video card, that has been updated to support newer openGL/DirectX features...

pukingpixels · Dec 10, 2012

MagicThief83 said:
Here's the link to a YouTube video of the GT 650M running Starcraft II. Of worthy note, the specs list the card utilizes 2GB of DDR3 VRAM, whereas the GPU of the iMac utilizes 512MB of GDDR5 VRAM. Although less, the iMac's GPU is faster and should equate to roughly the same performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq3K92sg6cM

In everyone's opinion, what's a respectable resolution for gaming and decent FPS?

Resolution isn't that much of big deal to be honest but I think you should run the game on the native resolution. That way you won't have a streched or scaled and blurry image.

The only thing I focus on when it comes to gaming is the amount of FPS my system can handle constantly. It means that I don't really care about the graphics that much and I rather have a smooth and fluid game with no frame drops anywhere.

The comment "Lowest FPS I get was 41 FPS, while maximum FPS was 60 FPS." made on that youtube video tells me that 1) he should lower the graphics and 2) turn off vsync 3) cap the FPS to 60

That way you'll get a constant FPS of 60 no matter if it's a small or big battle and you won't notice the frame drops. I mean I personally would get mad playing SC2 if the FPS goes up and down all the time.

With that said I used to play SC2 on my late 2008 24" iMac with C2D 3.06 Ghz, 4 GB ram, Geforce 8800 GS 512 MB at 60 FPS constantly by having all the graphics on low/off and that' s how I will play SC2 on my new 27" iMac when it comes. I've gotten used to the low and stripped down graphics and it really makes me focus on the actually game, the tactics, the micro and all that without too much distracting eye candy.

However, some people might enjoy playing the game casually with everything on Ultra at ~30 FPS with frame drops. So there's no way of telling you "everyone's opinion" in this case.

comatory · Dec 10, 2012

Future proofing does not exist in computer world, I am sorry but it is a myth. If you closely inspect the resale value of used macs, you'll see that those that have better GPU or more RAM, rarely sell for additional substantial money. The difference in iMac resale value is most notable if it's 21.5 or 27 inch model and any remaining Apple Care. These are the main factors to consider because even if you have the top end, in two or three years the difference between top end models and low end (used) will be almost negligible.

That is, of course, if you intend to sell the iMac to cover your next purchase (which most of the people do).

As someone else mentioned here, having 21.5 machine will be enough if you can sacrifice some high details in games. For day-to-day usage, you'll be much happier with more RAM and Fusion Drive/SSD.

From your needs I think you should be fine purchasing base 21.5 iMac. The purchase 16GB of aftermarket RAM and 256GB SSD and pay someone (the best is official repair center) to put them inside. Music and photo libraries can be stored on NAS (cheap) or external USB3 drives (cheap as well).

It really boils down to how much you want bigger screen (27 inch model). I think the games you mentioned should be playable even on low-end model when you switch details to medium or alter the resolution. You seem like a casual gamer, you don't need the best and greatest.

My friend had a similar dilemma, he wanted to have OS X as his main computer system and also have the ability to play good games. He solved this problem by purchasing mid Mac mini and Xbox 360 (the system is supercheap now, so are the games). Both of them are connected to 24" Dell Ultrasharp display, when he wants to game, he only changes the input on the display.
This is great solution because he plans on replacing Mac mini annually so the next purchase will cost him only $300 or so and when the new Xbox comes out in 2013 he can replace that too if he wants.

I can't believe so much people here have this kind of money to burn - I mean it's your money so it's cool if you can buy that - but seriously, the OP sounds like my smaller brother, he does Facebook, photo management and gaming on 4 year old PC (including StarCraft 2) and it's OK for him.

throAU · Dec 10, 2012

^^^ I'd agree with that.

The only caveat being that if you want to play PC games, the Xbox won't cut it.

But yes, if you're a casual gamer, and console games would give you the "Fix" then the mac mini is an ideal machine for most other stuff. Trade up more regularly, or just simply wear the cost of about 300 bucks a year and replace it after 2-3 years....

Deathwish86 · Dec 10, 2012

I was in a similar position. Contemplating whether getting the base or high end 21.5". But I wasn't really comfortable tossing that kind of money, and the upgrades cost a lot. I ended up ordering the mac mini. It's OK for what I need and I can throw and SSD inside or additional RAM whenever I need. Of course the iMac does better in gamming, but the difference it's almost 1000 here in EU. That's a high price to pay for casual gamming if u ask me...expensive entertainment

Gregintosh · Dec 10, 2012

leman said:
If you just play games like SC2 and Borderlands2, the 650M is competent enough to play them at 1080p resolution. So the higher-tier 21.5" should be sufficient. If you want a 27", you'll need at least the 675MX to be able to play games on native resolution.

I play SC2 with medium and even high settings on my MBPr with the 650m on native resolution of 2800x1800 and it runs smooth as butter. No reason why it should be anything less than that on a 2540x1440 (lower) resolution on the 27" iMac which I think may have a better processor anyway.

majkom · Dec 10, 2012

comatory said:
Future proofing does not exist in computer world, I am sorry but it is a myth. If you closely inspect the resale value of used macs, you'll see that those that have better GPU or more RAM, rarely sell for additional substantial money. The difference in iMac resale value is most notable if it's 21.5 or 27 inch model and any remaining Apple Care. These are the main factors to consider because even if you have the top end, in two or three years the difference between top end models and low end (used) will be almost negligible.

That is, of course, if you intend to sell the iMac to cover your next purchase (which most of the people do).

As someone else mentioned here, having 21.5 machine will be enough if you can sacrifice some high details in games. For day-to-day usage, you'll be much happier with more RAM and Fusion Drive/SSD.

From your needs I think you should be fine purchasing base 21.5 iMac. The purchase 16GB of aftermarket RAM and 256GB SSD and pay someone (the best is official repair center) to put them inside. Music and photo libraries can be stored on NAS (cheap) or external USB3 drives (cheap as well).

It really boils down to how much you want bigger screen (27 inch model). I think the games you mentioned should be playable even on low-end model when you switch details to medium or alter the resolution. You seem like a casual gamer, you don't need the best and greatest.

My friend had a similar dilemma, he wanted to have OS X as his main computer system and also have the ability to play good games. He solved this problem by purchasing mid Mac mini and Xbox 360 (the system is supercheap now, so are the games). Both of them are connected to 24" Dell Ultrasharp display, when he wants to game, he only changes the input on the display.
This is great solution because he plans on replacing Mac mini annually so the next purchase will cost him only $300 or so and when the new Xbox comes out in 2013 he can replace that too if he wants.

I can't believe so much people here have this kind of money to burn - I mean it's your money so it's cool if you can buy that - but seriously, the OP sounds like my smaller brother, he does Facebook, photo management and gaming on 4 year old PC (including StarCraft 2) and it's OK for him.

This is hell of the truth.. going the same way probably... i have base 2011 imac, but for better gaming, new imac would cost me too much and I own xbox... only pitty that apple cinema display dont have two graphic inputs

comatory · Dec 10, 2012

majkom said:
This is hell of the truth.. going the same way probably... i have base 2011 imac, but for better gaming, new imac would cost me too much and I own xbox... only pitty that apple cinema display dont have two graphic inputs

That's why my friend bought the Ultrasharp display. I don't know the model exactly but there's a line of Dell monitors that use the exact same panels as Apple display. It's not as pretty and doesn't use Thunderbolt but on the other hand it has multiple switchable inputs and such (it still has USB hub).

Dr FranknFurter · Dec 11, 2012

Bargle said:
I can't think of any game on the market that uses more than 4GB of ram...enjoy your 32, you could have bought 64 and you'd see the same benefit. I.e nothing.

I agree but as I said in my post the reason for maxing memory out was Photoshop CS6 for semi-pro work and because the price is relatively cheap, i'm sure it is more than I need but for the price I would rather just put it in and it's job done for the life of the computer.

As I said I don't really know a lot about gaming and maybe I don't I really need the 680 GPU but again as I said the price was £100 more (with uni discount) and in my opinion seemed a good price to be able to play the most demanding games at high settings for the next few years.

I will leave the argument of what you technically actually need for gaming to those more knowledgeable then myself.

Mac for general purpose and gaming

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68030

macrumors 6502

macrumors member

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors member

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

macrumors G3

macrumors member

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G3

macrumors member

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

Our Staff