WoW on iMac 2013 how's your FPS?

[youeyemind]

Originally Posted by xShane

Can't tell if trolling... Or trolling...

That's up to the person, not the game.

And I hate to break it to you, but if you play a game for the visuals alone, you're playing it for the wrong reasons. There's lots of great games that don't have the best visuals (Minecraft, for example).

----------



Goes to show the success of Blizzard's game, at least from a business point of view.

Oh yet another victim of Wows evil clutches. I will give you the benefit of the doubt since you are posting from a library computer since Wow has ruined your personal relationships and robbed you of your career. Good luck raiding tonight!

[xShane]

Originally Posted by youeyemind

Oh yet another victim of Wows evil clutches. I will give you the benefit of the doubt since you are posting from a library computer since Wow has ruined your personal relationships and robbed you of your career. Good luck raiding tonight!

I actually don't play WoW nor have any of the events listed above happened to me. Therefore, your statement is invalid and trolling.

[MacAlien]

Originally Posted by Leonavice

Technically, the RAM you upgraded will be of no benefit with regards to WOW. The key upgrade you did was the GPU upgrade to 680MX with 2G RAM. That is going to be the major impact.

Pre-MOP patch 5.0 (the patch to get everything ready just before MOP release) was the patch that broke the retina version. Before that, everything was running fine.

Yep. Only reason why I have 32GB is because a friend got it for me to go along with my bday present (iMac).

And to the proclaimers carrying on about WoW ruining lives. It's not just one game, it's all game. It comes down to moderation. It's not the game that makes you but what you make the game into.

I've been in a relationship for 15 years, a professional musician who travelled all over the place with my quartet. Quit that and became a Paramedic. Have raided in WoW since the very first raid (which was turned into a 5 man soon after). So yeah, it's all about the person and how they handle things.

[N33t]

But it is undeniably the case that WoW is incredibly engrossing for some ppl. Care to give us your total /played across all chars? I bet you are over a 365 days 24/7. I am in a similar situation to you: happy family, good job, played since vanilla, top 200 (not 50) guild...but still my total time makes me /gasp a bit!

[Malacoda]

Originally Posted by N33t

I am in a similar situation to you: happy family, good job, played since vanilla, top 200 (not 50) guild...but still my total time makes me /gasp a bit!

Too bad people who sit in front of their TV can't type in a /watched. I'll take my /played numbers over that any day.

[macguy360]

Originally Posted by Malacoda

Too bad people who sit in front of their TV can't type in a /watched. I'll take my /played numbers over that any day.

Yeah, tv is just as bad of a time waste. I think what people will realize when they are older is regret for having spent that time on something so useless rather than living their lives.

People spend thousands of dollars so that they can sit in front of a video screen (tv or computer) and do nothing. There is so much life to live and experience and if you don't watch out, you might miss it.

[N33t]

Originally Posted by Malacoda

Too bad people who sit in front of their TV can't type in a /watched. I'll take my /played numbers over that any day.

Agreed. Apart from the occasional HBO series I (and I expect most gamers) watch zee-row TV (whereas the daily average in the US would appear to be ~5h!).

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/c...V-Upfronts.pdf

[Ipadilac]

Originally Posted by macguy360

Yeah, tv is just as bad of a time waste. I think what people will realize when they are older is regret for having spent that time on something so useless rather than living their lives.

People spend thousands of dollars so that they can sit in front of a video screen (tv or computer) and do nothing. There is so much life to live and experience and if you don't watch out, you might miss it.

Maybe playing video games and having interest in techy gadgets is living life? Cause I have yet to really see anything that defines some certain way to interact with the world that would determine if you are living life or merely existing? cause for the fact of it is.. just because you may like golfing or hunting or fishing or dancing whatever it may be.. I possibly think all of that sucks and is a waste of time?

[Muscle]

bumping an old thread in case members were still interested.

I went with the specs stated from OP.
3.4 GHZ i7
8gb ram
GTX 680m 2gb
1TB Fusion Drive

I am able to play WoW on Ultra Settings (everything maxed out at max resolution) with 4 x multi-sampling at:

40-80 fps in 10/25man raids
30-70 fps in 40 man bgs
30-80 in 10, 15 man bgs

However, when questing or at major cities, my fps can dip as low as 10-20 fps with a bit lag.

[Johnf1285]

On the topic of Wow performance for Mac:

A lot of Mac users are reporting a fluctuation in FPS when using V Sync (regardless of graphic settings - for the most part) where it will go from 60 FPS and dip down to 30 FPS, then back to 60 FPS.

It seems that this is actually related to how V Sync is implemented in OS X, not so much the quality of the OS X client of Wow.

For me, whatever my settings are, I can never maintain a 100% 60 FPS rate. Hopefully 10.9 brings on some increased graphical capabilities because Windows handles V Sync in a more "performance oriented manor". Additionally, some settings seem to just sap performance a lot more in OS X than they do in Windows. No one seems to know whether it's OS X to blame or the client. Regardless, we all know what we are getting into when trying to game on a Mac. I know that's a defeated attitude in some regards, but it is true to an extent. Luckily I only play Blizzard games, which is just as well since there is slim pickings to begin with

Just figured I would share

[joe-h2o]

Originally Posted by CXVI

I don't understand this. Makes me question getting my iMac.
With the specs of the retina mbp, in a area like that the rmbp is easily overkill for wow no way should you run below max fps...

The 650M in the rMBP is pretty weaksauce, especially at that resolution.

The 680MX in the iMac, on the other hand, is a beast and won't even break sweat with WoW. It is *significantly* more powerful than the 650M in the rMBP.

I run much more recent games at native resolution on Ultra settings and get fantastic FPS. Skyrim on Ultra with HD textures and Ambient Occlusion on looks outstanding and plays beautifully.

I can get 50 fps out of Planetside 2 with High settings and GPU physics on when in the warpgate (fps drop in battles mainly due to being CPU bound).

WoW's engine, even on maximum settings, will not trouble the 680MX at all.

[inhalexhale1]

Originally Posted by joe-h2o

The 650M in the rMBP is pretty weaksauce, especially at that resolution.

That's debatable. I play WoW using a Thunderbolt Display, and my rMBP. I have the settings on "Good", and I get 35-55fps at native resolution. Raiding and stuff like that obviously approaches the lower end of that. Dailies in the new zone is on the higher end. Most Bgs are around there too.

So it's definitely not 60fps on Ultra, but I really wouldn't call it weak.

[joe-h2o]

Originally Posted by inhalexhale1

That's debatable. I play WoW using a Thunderbolt Display, and my rMBP. I have the settings on "Good", and I get 35-55fps at native resolution. Raiding and stuff like that obviously approaches the lower end of that. Dailies in the new zone is on the higher end. Most Bgs are around there too.

So it's definitely not 60fps on Ultra, but I really wouldn't call it weak.

Comparatively it is - it's a compromise to fit a GPU into that slim chassis so it is slightly underpowered for the number of pixels it is routinely asked to drive with that outstanding display.

384 shader cores, driven at 700-850 MHz - it's not really a heavyweight. Apple knew this and the version they use is the higher spec one with the GDDR5 RAM and it's also clocked a little higher than stock to try and make up for it, but it's still just about the most powerful card they could fit into that case and get away with it, but it's not really enough.

The 680MX, on the other hand, is a virtual desktop card (it's clocked down from the desktop core it's based on) with 1536 cores running at 720 Mhz, and significantly faster memory clock (also with GDDR5, at 2500MHz instead of 900 in the 650M). The benefit is it is not constrained by heat or power consumption issues, and it drives a similar number of pixels - 2560x1440, albeit not on a retina screen, but for the GPU that's not really too relevant).