27" iMac for gaming?

[theinstructor]

Hehe iMacFarlane rocks. I've enjoyed reading this thread. It's had some decent ideas tossed around. I have my iMac for Mac stuff and my PC for gaming these days but mostly because my iMac is a 2008 and only does Mac stuff well in its old age. I'd prefer not to have a PC whatsoever but the lack of a 2012 model plus the cost to get two is prohibitive. (Wife n I both have one).

Wow. At least I can go to sleep tonight with the comfort of knowing you don't think I'm the only idiot out there. Lighten up, we're here to have fun, right?

And, as far as binary thinking? 01000110 01010101

 

[G51989]

The 2011 iMac can run all PC games, ideally in Windows for best peformance.

You're just an idiot who believes that gaming doesn't happen under 60 FPS.

The 2011 iMac can run 2011 PC games on medium-high settings at not a amazing frame rate. I would know, I have one. Its a great computer, but when it comes to games, I hand it over my GamePC, it blows the iMac out of the water in every single category. Including the screen its hooked up to Which oddly enough, is an Apple screen.

What do you do when the next generation of games comes out? Upgrade your Ram....you can't go above 16gb....But its ok...upgrade your video card....wait....you can't.

I'm the idiot for wanting the software I buy to look like its supposed to? Sorry, I want my software to look how its supposed to, I don't like playing games on reduced settings/FPS. Sorry I have standards.

Here's to the idiots whio believe that you need to build a PC for gaming:

Yes, many people, even mac users will recommend a PC to someone looking to do a lot of gaming. Because even when you install Windows on your Mac, there is a VERY good chance you could have gotten a PC at a lower cost, that will do the job of " gaming " much better.

I LOVE My Macs, I love my old PMG5, and my G5iMac, and I love my Pismo, I love my Macbook, and I love my 2011 iMac. ( yes, its decked out ), I've used Macs as long as I've used PC's. And I will say this, Macs are great, but gaming is something they have never been very good at, simply because almost everything out there is optimized for windows, and a lack of hardware power on the Apple side.

If you're going to build a PC then you can just as well install the bloody Windows 7 on your iMac in Bootcamp, enjoy higher performance, install the best drivers you can find, and overclock the GPU to get the most of the hardware.

If your going to install 7 on your Mac, and almost never use OSX, and just use it for gaming, your ****ed. Because iMac and " high performance " don't go together. And that's ok, its not a high performance gaming machine, because that's what its not built to be.

But no, idiots do what idots do: perpetuate stupid binary thinking all over the internet.

011100111110110001. I know, if someone wants to game, they are better off with a iMac than a high end PC right?

----------

There is the one solitary benefit of building a beige box, and that's access to a desktop GPU.

When was the last time you saw a beige PC? The early 2000s?

My Gaming Box is a VERY nice all aluminum full tower case, its pretty sexy. Has some nice green LED's lighting up the " GamePC " logo, and more sexy LEDs on the intake fans. Pretty sure its not plastic, or beige.

Hell, some of the cheapo Dell and HP Slimlines look pretty damn good.

----------

The current iMac will absolutely kill Fallout:New Vegas. I mean, it runs Skyrim (which is newer game with higher performance demands) maxed out at native 1440p resolution with 45+ fps. Your XBox won't even come close to the performance or quality levels of the iMac. It has a equivalent of Radeon 6850 which was one of the best bang for buck gaming cards of 2010, while the XBox is still stuck with the ancient GPU...

And if you are trying to run the game in the emulator... well, it can't be helped. You know that iMac can natively run windows, do you?

To put it into perspective of how far the iMac is behind a true " gaming PC "

For about the same money....

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=893909&CatId=114

Yeah...if your gaming. That's a weeeee bit better.


Now, don't take this as dissing my iMac, I love my little 27 incher. But, its just not a capable gaming machine in my eyes. Now if you REALLY want a Mac for gaming, then yes, the iMac is the best choice.


Now I got a couple of PMs asking me why I think the iMac is not a capable gaming machine, and thats because I use one of these.

http://www.gamepc.com/shop/systemfamily.asp?family=ds3

Middle model, only I have dual 7970s

Yes, it actually is portable with a handle, I take my gaming seriously, its nice for big LAN meets.

Yes, I am a giant nerd.

 

[iSayuSay]

.....

To put it into perspective of how far the iMac is behind a true " gaming PC "

For about the same money....

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=893909&CatId=114

Yeah...if your gaming. That's a weeeee bit better.


Now, don't take this as dissing my iMac, I love my little 27 incher. But, its just not a capable gaming machine in my eyes. Now if you REALLY want a Mac for gaming, then yes, the iMac is the best choice.


Now I got a couple of PMs asking me why I think the iMac is not a capable gaming machine, and thats because I use one of these.

http://www.gamepc.com/shop/systemfamily.asp?family=ds3

Middle model, only I have dual 7970s

Yes, it actually is portable with a handle, I take my gaming seriously, its nice for big LAN meets.

Yes, I am a giant nerd.

I dont know man, you can always go crazy on PC side too. Like you mentioned you can always spend up to $7000 on the tower alone. Making one who bought a MacPro looks like dwarf.

But if you really compare apple to apples, I do think the high end 27" iMac is on par with custom built PCs out there.

Old argument, but if you include the same 27" 1440p display (Dell, Apple or NEC is up to you), for total $2000 you get around $1000 for the tower, and another $1000 for the display alone. Oh yes, you can cheap out on monitor if you're going with custom PC route, but you don't think anyone who were willing to buy a $1000 tower would go with sub $200 crappy display, do you?

And for a $1000 tower, you get approximately the same guts with what inside the iMac already. So, yes .. while iMac is never going to be a beasty gaming machine with dual GPUs and all fancy liquid cooling, it's still quite good for what it has, and surprisingly competitive against PC world.

Like I said earlier, the high end iMac is a sufficient gaming machine, not great nonetheless, but enough.

 

[DeF46]

There is the one solitary benefit of building a beige box, and that's access to a desktop GPU.

Yes, but all things being relative broad statements like "PC is for gaming" are completely worthless considering that the average consumer, and that includes the majority of gamers you can see on Steam statistics, do not even run top of the line GPUs, if even a GPU from last year.

But according to binary thinking, Grandma's PC bought on eBay will run Skyrim 10000 times better than your 2011 iMac.


My little rant wasn't about specific configurations but about the general line of thinking which is absurd. Consider this:

That iMac in front of me is a PC.:it's got a motherboard, a GPU, a CPU, whatever.. it's all third party components pretty much and there's barely anything in there that classifies as a new kind of computer is it?

Therefore if you install Windows through Bootcamp, the conversation suddenly boils down to: is this PC with ATI xxxxM mobility GPU good enough for gaming? It's a question that has little to do with Macs, but somehow we have to read the same inane "pc for gaming, mac for watching movies" posts every day on forums like this. >_>

What do you do when the next generation of games comes out? Upgrade your Ram....you can't go above 16gb....But its ok...upgrade your video card....wait....you can't.

I have a late 2009 iMac and it's still runs some recent games at acceptable performance (around 30 FPS), some very good performance (Path of Exile new Diablo 2 like). Diablo 3 with correct drivers runs at stable 30FPS... Colin Mc Rae DIRT 2 which looks gorgeous still runs at 35 ish FPS with aliasing at native. All of these run even better if you scale down, which is ok for games like DIRT 2.

Now granted it probably *won't* run some demanding games like Crysis 2, Battlefield 3 and DX11 games that have come out recently, but that's the price you pay for upgrading every 2-3 year.

The point is do you upgrade your computer every year? No, of course not, most people don't.

When I upgraded my PC, I had to replace all the innards because of the faster RAM, new SATA cables, new PCIe interface. Every 2-3 years you have to replace the motherboard, RAM and CPU alongside the GPU if you want a good "gaming PC".

Now, is it such a big deal to resell an iMac and buy a new one every 2-3 years?

011100111110110001. I know, if someone wants to game, they are better off with a iMac than a high end PC right?

No if someone comes to a MAC forum and asks if model XYZ will be good enough for gaming, we'll assume they're not an elitist idiot who buys blue coloured PSU's with "BattleRage 3000" stickers on it, and they just want some specific, relevant information on whether they can run good games on that exact model they're eye-ing. They don't need to hear you gloating about how cool your PC box or PC setup is.

My Gaming Box is a VERY nice all aluminum full tower case, its pretty sexy. Has some nice green LED's lighting up the " GamePC " logo, and more sexy LEDs on the intake fans. Pretty sure its not plastic, or beige.

R.O.F.L.

 

[turtlez]

If he primary goal is gaming, he shouldn't buy an imac? Performance is just lacking.

because PCs have the 780m 10GB GPU, i7 6.0ghz right?

You are just saying the word PC is better performance than the word mac. The next iMac will get the latest specs on the market so you can kiss your apple hate goodbye.

 

[forty2j]

When was the last time you saw a beige PC? The early 2000s?

Beige cases are still on sale on Newegg. You can buy one any time you want. And, people must, because otherwise they wouldn't sell them.

 

[leman]

To put it into perspective of how far the iMac is behind a true " gaming PC "

For about the same money....

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=893909&CatId=114

Yeah...if your gaming. That's a weeeee bit better.

Wow, thats completely overpriced... and its not the same money as you forget to include an 1440p IPS monitor, wireless keyboard and mouse combo as well as wireless and bluetooth. You can build a faster gaming machine for much less.

That said, of course, a dedicated gaming machine with high-end GPU will run games better. The iMac is not one of those. But it is fast enough to run any existing game at decent settings with acceptable performance. Most people out there won't be able to tell 100fps from 40fps (provided the game is decently coded). So why are we even having this conversation?

P.S. You are like that person I see a lot at biker forums. When somebody asks which 125cc scooter/bike they should buy for daily urban commute, there will be always that guy that says 'real men don't drive any two wheeler under 1200cc, and it must have tons of chrome on it, otherwise its for girls and waste of money'.

----------

[/COLOR]

No if someone comes to a MAC forum and asks if model XYZ will be good enough for gaming, we'll assume they're not an elitist idiot who buys blue coloured PSU's with "BattleRage 3000" stickers on it, and they just want some specific, relevant information on whether they can run good games on that exact model they're eye-ing. They don't need to hear you gloating about how cool your PC box or PC setup is.

This about sums it up, indeed.

 

[alias99]

Anyone here play sim racing games on an iMac or Mac mini? e.g iRacing, Rfactor?? If you do, hows the experience? They are not very demanding,

 

[Maxcorpious]

Well... I didn't mean to get many people worked up about this - very good discussion, though. I'm still leaning toward buying the "new" 27" iMac. I just love the 27" 1440p screen and now I'm also thinking about buying a second 27" display so I can have them side-by-side... that would be awesome. But... they are $1,000.00, so I think I'm just dreaming at this point. Thanks again for all the comments... this is a great forum... and i'm glad I joined.

----------

Not to mention iMac has the best AppleCare value of all. For $130 you get 3 years coverage on a $2500 machine (assuming you buy the highest end BTO). Yeah, compare to what you have to pay for cramped 15" or 17" MBP's AppleCare.

What does "BTO" stand for?

 

[DustinW]

Thanks For the Info

Thanks for the information. I was also looking at purchasing a 27" iMAC, but I think I will wait for the next Gen. Even though the OP is a troll, he triggered some nice discussion.

To those who supplied information, thank you.
To those who supplied gloating, gfy.
To the fanboys who defend their product to the end, go down with the ship already.

 

[mojothemonkey]

The next iMac will get the latest specs on the market so you can kiss your apple hate goodbye.

Sorry, not even close. We're still going to be getting the M variant.

The big boy cards (non mobile) consume many times the wattage and push much higher numbers. The 680M is 67% slower than the desktop version of the 680. You also pay about the same price, model per model, so aside from trying to limit heat output to squeeze into an imac, there is nothing but downside to getting the M chip.

It's only a recent development that the M chips, even being slower as they are, are still good enough to do some legitimate gaming.

 

[cybert]

I'm thinking about getting a 27" iMac, 3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 4GB (I will upgrade to 16GB myself because it's much cheaper), 2GB ATI Radeon 6970M video. Would this be good for gaming if I did Boot Camp and installed Win7-64bit? I play WoW and other FPS games like Call of Duty MW3, ect. I read that a refresh of the iMac might happen by the end of the year or next year. I might wait, since I need to save money for one anyways.

Kamil

Well, I bought myself this year also an iMac for gaming, and I must say I am pleasantly surprised of the power of an iMac!

One tip: use parallels to play games! Parallels desktop can take your bootcamp and run it in osx. Even Max Payne 3, Diablo 3, Spec Ops the line, Ghost recon future soldier work perfectly! The run really smooth! The wineskin etc are not that performant. And if your game doesn't run well in OSX then boot to windows in bootcamp and play!

Note: Even the GPU card is "only" an ATI 6970m with 2GB RAM, you can compare the performance almost to a GTX575. (sometimes even better!)

What my plan is, as I am a gamer, on a pc I spend each year 400 Euro on upgrades, and each 2 years 1000 Euro for a new main board, ram, cpu and graphic card, with an iMac, I bought it initially for 1600 Euro new, and now after a year or so, I can sell it for around 1200 Euro, this makes my yearly "upgrades" and for 400 Euro's I have each year the latest new hardware!

 

[NMF]

The 27" iMac is fine for gaming. Obviously you will get better performance from a dedicated gaming PC, but for the occasional PC game the 6970m is more than enough. If you care about framerate (and if you don't, you should) you'll want to drop the resolution down to 1080p. Thankfully it's not terribly blurry -- just make sure you start running games at 1080p so your eyes don't get accustomed to native. You will only make things worse for yourself.

I played Diablo III, Battlefield 3, StarCraft II, The Witcher 2 etc. at 1080p and nearly all High settings with 45+ fps (most games at 60, but hogs like Witcher 2 and BF3 need more juice). Unless you're super hardcore into PC games you'll be fully content with this performance.

...and if you were super hardcore into PC games, you wouldn't need to ask this question.

But yeah, wait for now. New iMacs are right around the corner.

 

[mojothemonkey]

Well, I bought myself this year also an iMac for gaming, and I must say I am pleasantly surprised of the power of an iMac!

One tip: use parallels to play games! Parallels desktop can take your bootcamp and run it in osx. Even Max Payne 3, Diablo 3, Spec Ops the line, Ghost recon future soldier work perfectly! The run really smooth! The wineskin etc are not that performant. And if your game doesn't run well in OSX then boot to windows in bootcamp and play!

Note: Even the GPU card is "only" an ATI 6970m with 2GB RAM, you can compare the performance almost to a GTX575. (sometimes even better!)

What my plan is, as I am a gamer, on a pc I spend each year 400 Euro on upgrades, and each 2 years 1000 Euro for a new main board, ram, cpu and graphic card, with an iMac, I bought it initially for 1600 Euro new, and now after a year or so, I can sell it for around 1200 Euro, this makes my yearly "upgrades" and for 400 Euro's I have each year the latest new hardware!

You must be joking. All of the benchmarks show the 570 (havent seen the 575, but for arguments sake, it should be faster) crushing the 6970M. The engine benchmarks are significantly higher on the 570 with higher resolutions (with the 570 being tested at 1650 and 1920 res, 6790 tested at 1280 res). Care to give a link to these claims?

You forget that you're pushing all the pixels on that 27" screen. If you're going to look for relevant benchmarks, look for the high res numbers.

It's not that the 6970M is a bad card. Its fantastic FOR A MOBILE CARD and good enough to game. But let's not fool ourselves into calling this (or even the coming 680M/7970M) a cutting edge card.

You're paying the premium for the looks. I accept this fact. My wife is putting the food down on the franken-puter and this is my option. I won't dilude myself into thinking any kind of buying/reselling scheme for any amount of money is more efficient in terms of $ per performance than simple desktop GPU swapping every couple of years... even adding a $20 PCIE card to add new features like USB3, TB, etc.

----------

The 27" iMac is fine for gaming. Obviously you will get better performance from a dedicated gaming PC, but for the occasional PC game the 6970m is more than enough. If you care about framerate (and if you don't, you should) you'll want to drop the resolution down to 1080p. Thankfully it's not terribly blurry -- just make sure you start running games at 1080p so your eyes don't get accustomed to native. You will only make things worse for yourself.

I played Diablo III, Battlefield 3, StarCraft II, The Witcher 2 etc. at 1080p and nearly all High settings with 45+ fps (most games at 60, but hogs like Witcher 2 and BF3 need more juice). Unless you're super hardcore into PC games you'll be fully content with this performance.

But yeah, wait for now. New iMacs are right around the corner.

In the past, when my card couldnt keep up with my ultrasharp 24" monitor, i started running at 1080p or 1650 resolutions, like you mention, but I ran them in "centered" mode. In other words, it puts the little black bars on the edges, effectively shrinking the screen size, but not by much, and the picture doesnt get blurry.

This is a much better option in my opinion. You can find this setting in the video card driver options. When you make the change, it wont change a thing with how your computer looks until a game selects a lower res, then you see the effect.

I know I'll still be able to do this if I boot into Windows, but do the native OSX drivers support this too?

 

[NMF]

In the past, when my card couldnt keep up with my ultrasharp 24" monitor, i started running at 1080p or 1650 resolutions, like you mention, but I ran them in "centered" mode. In other words, it puts the little black bars on the edges, effectively shrinking the screen size, but not by much, and the picture doesnt get blurry.

Yeah, I gave that a go but in the end I decided I like the stretched 1080p better. After all, what's the fun of having 27 inches of screen real estate if you don't use them? Since I usually ran 2x or 4x AA at that resolution the only blurriness was with UI's, and even then most games do a great job of masking it. With Diablo III, for example, the difference is negligible. You wouldn't know it was non-native unless someone told you. Of course, if you then switch to native you will instantly see the difference, but that's why it's best to just start out at 1080p and never look back.

 

[turtlez]

Serious gamer would get a PC no doubt and any serious gamer is likely to be an Apple hater anyway. Casual gamer both are good of course. If your work depends on using a computer a mac will make your life worth living alone so use mac for both work and game.

There is only one reason to buy a PC these days and that is gaming. Windows doesn't make up for the price discount nor does the fugly designs made with plastic.

*Speaking as a graphic designer/illustrator though
if you don't care about good looking stuff then may as well get a PC

 

[plucky duck]

Depending on the type of game you're playing and when it was released, the iMac may not be too shabby in terms of performance. It's always a balance of what you want to display versus what you're computer is capable of, and what you can and cannot tolerate.

I dual boot OSX/Win 7 and mainly use Win 7 for light gaming, OSX for video/photo editing. The type of games that I play are mainly racing games the likes of NFS series, Just Cause, HL2, Civ5. Nothing too intensive. I was pleasantly surprised how capable the GPU was in handling those games at native resolution, medium high settings.

With the money I spent I surely could have custom built a high end PC, but I preferred the whole Mac experience. That and I figure if I resell it 1-2yrs down the road it will have better resale value.

If you go in not expecting much like me, you surely won't be massively disappointed. I, quite the contrary, was pleasantly surprised at its gaming capability.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

Depending on the type of game you're playing and when it was released, the iMac may not be too shabby in terms of performance. It's always a balance of what you want to display versus what you're computer is capable of, and what you can and cannot tolerate.

I dual boot OSX/Win 7 and mainly use Win 7 for light gaming, OSX for video/photo editing. The type of games that I play are mainly racing games the likes of NFS series, Just Cause, HL2, Civ5. Nothing too intensive. I was pleasantly surprised how capable the GPU was in handling those games at native resolution, medium high settings.

With the money I spent I surely could have custom built a high end PC, but I preferred the whole Mac experience. That and I figure if I resell it 1-2yrs down the road it will have better resale value.

If you go in not expecting much like me, you surely won't be massively disappointed. I, quite the contrary, was pleasantly surprised at its gaming capability.

Same here. I love the Mac experience with my new iMac 27". It is not just a gaming machine but it is certainly capable as one.

I'm fine with people who have the money and space for something like a five thousand dollar Falcon Northwest liquid cooled dual GPU gaming rig for maximal performance. Hey, if you can afford that and have the room for it, by all means have a great time. But I don't appreciate being told (incorrectly) that a 27 inch 2011 iMac sucks for gaming. It doesn't.

I never owned a top end gaming rig as a PC user either but it was good enough. I find my new iMac is more than good enough. It will run any game I want to play smoothly and looking good enough to suit me just fine. Best of all though, this computer is a Macintosh.

 

[Rlnplehshalo]

Okay, thanks for the info. I have a 15" MBP and I really like it. But it's about 3 years old and the graphics card only has 256MB. I do play WoW on that and it's not too bad. But the fan speed is at 100% (I believe) so I know it's working hard and it gets pretty hot. I do like the OS X, I wish more games get ported for it. But for now, I will wait to see if the iMacs get upgraded. The new Ivy Bridge CPU and a new faster GPU would be sweet I also wish they include a Blue Ray Player but that's not that big a deal since I watch stuff on iTunes and Netflix.

Kamil

Ivy bridge are pretty much guaranteed to be in the refresh but Blu-ray I highly doubt.
As for gaming on it you really do need to switch your graphics card every 2 years or so so keep up with next gen games and their improved resource requirements. Apple prevents GPU swapping thus forcing many to a PC.

 

[forty2j]

Ivy bridge are pretty much guaranteed to be in the refresh but Blu-ray I highly doubt.
As for gaming on it you really do need to switch your graphics card every 2 years or so so keep up with next gen games and their improved resource requirements. Apple prevents GPU swapping thus forcing many to a PC.

All true, but someone so included could sell their iMac every two years and put the money towards the top current model and probably come out net even or ahead (particularly in years where the GPU needs a new CPU which needs a new mobo).

 

[Gaiduku]

All true, but someone so included could sell their iMac every two years and put the money towards the top current model and probably come out net even or ahead (particularly in years where the GPU needs a new CPU which needs a new mobo).

This only works if Apple stick to their roughly annual update plan with imacs which they currently seem to be ignoring. Otherwise you'll be stuck with an iMac that can't play any current games waiting for apple to get a move on.

This current predicament kinda feels like when your phone contract ends months before the phone you want is released... and you either upgrade to a phone you dont really want or just wait with the old phone. Very annoying when it happens with a gaming computer you've already had for 2 or 3 years that is now seriously out of date

 

[dmax35]

I dont know man, you can always go crazy on PC side too. Like you mentioned you can always spend up to $7000 on the tower alone. Making one who bought a MacPro looks like dwarf.

But if you really compare apple to apples, I do think the high end 27" iMac is on par with custom built PCs out there.

Old argument, but if you include the same 27" 1440p display (Dell, Apple or NEC is up to you), for total $2000 you get around $1000 for the tower, and another $1000 for the display alone. Oh yes, you can cheap out on monitor if you're going with custom PC route, but you don't think anyone who were willing to buy a $1000 tower would go with sub $200 crappy display, do you?

And for a $1000 tower, you get approximately the same guts with what inside the iMac already. So, yes .. while iMac is never going to be a beasty gaming machine with dual GPUs and all fancy liquid cooling, it's still quite good for what it has, and surprisingly competitive against PC world.

Like I said earlier, the high end iMac is a sufficient gaming machine, not great nonetheless, but enough.

Blah blah blah.

 

[Ztormie]

What do you do when the next generation of games comes out? Upgrade your Ram....you can't go above 16gb....But its ok...upgrade your video card....wait....you can't.

Please enlighten me as to which games from the next generation might need MORE than 16 GB of RAM

 

[PaulKemp]

The current iMac will absolutely kill Fallout:New Vegas. I mean, it runs Skyrim (which is newer game with higher performance demands) maxed out at native 1440p resolution with 45+ fps. Your XBox won't even come close to the performance or quality levels of the iMac. It has a equivalent of Radeon 6850 which was one of the best bang for buck gaming cards of 2010, while the XBox is still stuck with the ancient GPU...

And if you are trying to run the game in the emulator... well, it can't be helped. You know that iMac can natively run windows, do you?

Hi, just tried Skyrim in bootcamp in Windows 8 and are not near 45 fps! More like 15 fps for me. Any tips for what driver and settings?

 

[leman]

Hi, just tried Skyrim in bootcamp in Windows 8 and are not near 45 fps! More like 15 fps for me. Any tips for what driver and settings?

Well, it has been over half a year that I sold my iMac so I can't give you the precise settings... are you sure you have the high-end version (with the 6970M)? Obviously you should disable anti-aliasing. Also, you can play around with shadow settings. I am rather sure though that I left everything on max (with AA disabled). Most benchmarks show AMD 6850 (basically the same card, slightly faster) getting around 70 fps on high settings in Skyrim at 1920x1200 with 4xAA.