Gaming question

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Malone1878, Jan 2, 2013.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    #1
    Looking to purchase the 2.9 Ghz 21.5 inch version of the new iMac next week. Not looking for a gaming machine but i'm wondering how Battlefield 3 performs on the new system (FPS). I've seen a few demo's of it running on single player however I would like to know if anyone has tried it on multi-player, thanks.

    Also if anyone has tried Arma 2 (FPS and what settings it performs best with)...
     
  2. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    #2
    annnybody ?
     
  3. macrumors 603

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #3
    It is bad form to bump your own thread, particularly <20 min after you started it.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    #4
    Bump it or it gets lost...
     
  5. Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Location:
    Currently in Switzerland
    #5
    Well...no reply it seems.
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    #6
    Arma 2/Day Z laggs on full fledge 680's. The 21.5" iMacs most likely will only run at the absolute worst settings, and even then its performance might be more than questionable.

    The game is just horrible written, and lacks any optimization at all. If you wish to play the game on a mac you'll have to rely on 680MX or Mac Pro with 680's or higher. Would be interesting to know though, more so for the 680MX though honestly.

    This however, is entirely speculative, given there have been no benchmarks on those games thus far, not even with the 680MX. But given that games history, it doesn't look good.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    #7
  8. Blkant, Jan 2, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2013

    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    #8
    I'm not sure if I would call that ok, though I'm sure the screen recording took a toll. Frames are dropping and the screen is tearing at every turn.

    In any case, I went through and selected the model you saw in the video (at the bottom due to it being the weakest), and the models currently available with the new iMac's.

    [​IMG]

    To put it simply, yes they are all more powerful, however the starting GPU is only a little more powerful than that ATI (though given the 640 is nvidia, the drivers are probably a lot better...).

    Then lastly, the 680MX is more or less the standard for mobile GPU's.

    For you however, with the 2.9 model you'll be using the 660M, which according to that same site will get you ~37FPS at high settings for BF3. So it looks to be pretty great for it there. Ultra however, is out of the question.

    Lastly, there were no Arma 2 benchmarks...
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    elithrar

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #9
    A 680MX will provide (approximately) a 20-30% jump from the 6970M (equiv. to a desktop 6850) in the 2011 iMac.

    There's some details around (although slim) if you do some searching:

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680MX.83519.0.html
    http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5212432
    http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/693683-nvidia-gtx-680mx.html

    The 2012 iMac seems to get a score of 6333 in 3DMark11; the old 2011 model with the 6970M around 3139 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3132266?start=0&tstart=0).

    In short: the 2012 27" iMac will run BF3 fine at native resolution & medium settings, especially if you spec up to a 680MX.

    The 21" iMac could probably cope at native resolution and low settings, but if you're regular gamer I wouldn't recommend the 21" as it'll become obsolete more quickly.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    #10
    The 680MX is a more than a 20-30% jump from the 6970M...

    [​IMG]
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    elithrar

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #11
    I'm being intentionally (perhaps a little too?) conservative, as a 100% increase in performance in 3DMark doesn't often translate to the same increase in the real-world.
     
  12. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    #12
    Ah, understandable. Probably is a bit too conservative, but yea, those numbers are most likely misleadingly high to assume a direct relation to performance.
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    forty2j

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #13
    From real framerate tests conducted by Apple and available on their Performance page for the iMac, the 680MX does 50-60% better than the 6970m, and the 650M does 20-40% better than the 6770m.

    ----------

    BF3 isn't a good choice here. "Not wanting a gaming machine" and "want to play Battlefield 3" don't go well together; BF3 is a very demanding game. Your 650M model will run it passably with many settings turned down.
     

Share This Page