How well would the *new* iMacs run?

Discussion in 'Games' started by job, Sep 9, 2003.

  1. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #1
    Actually, I'm more worried about these games:
    * Neverwinter Nights
    * Warcraft 3
    * Return to Castle Wolfenstein
    * MoH:AA

    Mind you, I'm on an iMac DV (400Mhz) and I can barely get these games to run, let alone play.

    These are the specs I'm thinking about:
    The 15" iMac with a 512MB RAM stick for a total of 768.

    Also, would the FX5200 in the 17" be a major improvement over the GF4MX? I'm torn between the two models and it's mainly due to cost.
     
  2. erik19 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    #2
    Whoa, I have the exact same computer as you and have a similar dilemma about which computer I should get next.

    As far as gaming goes, I 'm leaning towards the 17 in model. The mx card in the 15 inch is welfare(so I'm told) and the 64mb fx card will suit one's gaming needs for a longer time than a 32mb.

    (Plus, having a 17 inch screen for watching dvds comes in real handy, even though I dubt I'll use the dvd burner that much.)
     
  3. job thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #3
    Yeah, I hear that whole DVD on 17" widescreen thing. :) That's kewl.

    I wish they would let you downgrade the optical drive. I do far more CD burning than DVD burning and the combo drive writes CDs faster than the Superdrive. Imagine, downgrading would take off $200 from the 17". Argggg....
     
  4. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #4
    All I can say is if you go with an iMac you'd regret not getting a 17''. I realize its more money and that might be hard for you to afford, but the faster processor and faster video card make a difference. Not to mention it has 64mb video RAM instead of 32mb. AND the screen is so much nicer...
     
  5. erik19 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    #5
    Yep, it's sometihng like 300 bucks Canadian if you downgrade the drive on a powermac, but alas, it can't be done on the iMac. Too bad.

    At any rate, at least on DVDs one can backup huge amounts of stuff onto one disk, so it's not a total loss.
     
  6. erik19 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    #6
    Exactly right.

    I can see myself regretting it if I go cheap on this one by buying the 15 incher, when the already outdated mx card becomes MORE outdated...ect ect.

    17 inch here I come!
     
  7. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #7
    The 17 imac with 512mb comes in at 1900. A 1.25 Powermac with 512, 17in Studio Display and the Radeon Pro 9000 with Dual Monitor cabibility comes in at 2123. It is $223 more and not quite as sleek as the imac, but it does have a better video card and far more upgrade options. Just my 2 cents.

    Paul
     
  8. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #8
    Keep your Mac, get an XBox. Seriously, the iMac will stink for games.

    I posted these in a different thread earlier. Keep in mind newer games will run at 1/4 of Quake 3's fps if you are lucky.

    Here are some Quake 3 numbers:

    Demo "four" with Normal Detail quality, and no sound.


    100.9 - G4 800x2/100fsb
    107.8 - G4 800x2/100fsb (G4 optimized Q3 executable)
    155.3 - P4M 1.6GHz/100fsb (updated)
    236.3 - P4 3.36GHz/250fsb (the GF FX 5200 is in the box right now, inferior to the 8500 and definitely the 9800P)

    My P4 desktop score is incredibly low due to the 5200 I think. Its just a backup card so I will update this when the 9800P is back in.

    The P4s have quad pumped fsbs so they rate 400fsb and 1000fsb if you factor in the 4x data rate.

    scores I saw on the Net today:
    284.7 - Pentium 4 2.53GHz/133fsb
    285.5 - Athlon 2100+(1733MHz)/133fsb
    289.7 - Athlon 2200+(1800MHz)/133fsb
    303.8 - Athlon 2400+(2000MHz)/133fsb
    311.6 - Athlon 2600+(2133MHz)/133fsb
    347.5 - Athlon 2600+(2083MHz)/166fsb
    355.5 - Athlon 2700+(2167MHz)/166fsb
    360.1 - Athlon 2800+(2250MHz)/166fsb

    The PC scores from the machines that do not belong to me were derived with this hardware:
    Geforce3 Ti500 (240/500)
    Nforce2 chipset for Athlon tests w/ 512mb DDR
    i850 chipset for Pentium 4 tests w/ 512mb RDRAM
     
  9. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #9
    Paul is right. His suggested system would allow you to play UT2k3 at decent resolution with high settings.

    Then when Doom III comes out you could get a RADEON 9800-class card for a couple hundred bucks (probably less as the 9800non pro cards are already in the $250 ball park).

    Get the tower of Power.
     
  10. tomf87 macrumors 65816

    tomf87

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #10
    The XBox may give better graphics, but I've had several friends that had the DVD drive go bad. Not really sure what is up with that, but I'm thankful mine has been okay.

    The iMac, though, isn't a bad game player. I have the original 17" 800Mhz and it was terrible at first. After upgrading the RAM to 768MB it was a lot better. Although, I will admit I haven't tried any of the games mentioned. Allied Assault: Medal of Honor ran great with no problems. The 64MB card should really help out as well.
     
  11. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #11
    It all depends on what you can tolerate in terms of minimum framerate. I am quite sensitive to sub 24fps visuals. I try to get hardware that lets me play at native resolution (in the case of TFTs) with maximum details at a fps of 60. This gives me lots of overhead for when the fps dip.

    A Tower with an 8500 or GF 4600 would enable you to run comfortably at 10*7 max settings at 40-60 fps in most new games.

    My observation with current games for Macs is that they are CPU limited. On a 1.4GHz G4 an 8500 or 4600 will perform comparably at 10*7. At some point down the road you will need a better card to maintain the 40-60fps in games, so an upgrade path is a good idea.

    I really think you are better off with the tower if gaming is your thing and you want to do it on the Mac. Or else, get an iMac and XBox and play Star Wars:KOTOR, Jedi Academy, Call of Duty, Tron 2, Halo 2, Project Gotham 2, Half Life 2.... sooner than the rest of us.

    XBox price drop is coming too BTW.
     
  12. K4NN4B15 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #12
    I have a 17 inch 1ghz g4 imac with like 768 ram.

    Warcraft 3 runs BEAUTIFULLY at max settings. With really high settings I get like 90fps in quake3. Dont have the other games your mentioning, but NWN runs pretty nicely on my 400mhz p2 as long as it had the 16mb video card(way better than war3 did). so id imagine its pretty flawless.
     
  13. bradz_id macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Location:
    Tasmania, Australia
    #13
    Get an new eMac 1GHz with SuperDrive. The new iMac's LCD will never match a CRT for gaming. The Radeon 7500 in the eMac is better than the 32MB GF4MX. The eMac has a higher resolution and certainly a higher refresh rate than a new iMac 15". And on top of all that, it's cheaper! If you have a little bit more money, you could get a 1.6GHz G5 without a SuperDrive and a combo instead and 3rd party RAM for fairly cheap. AVOID 15" IMACS!!!
     
  14. job thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #14
    I might actually go the eMac route.

    I won't be able to spend as much as I'd like on a new Mac since I have to repair my car.

    I'm thinking about the 1Ghz eMac (Combo drive) with 1GB of RAM. I'm hoping it will perform far better than my current iMac DV. Anyone care to comment?
     
  15. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #15
    i dont know, something seemed different about the new ones. i have been looking at the old 17 inch imac everyday adn got pretty used to it at work. i went up to the new one on display and it just seemed brighter. i could possibly be going crazy and probably am, but i couldnt help it, just seemed brighter. the brightness could be tuned down on the old one, but i dont think so. i have a feeling warcraft will play very nicely on it. the other games im not sure of.

    iJon
     
  16. job thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #16
    Probably a lot better than my current iMac DV (400Mhz, 8MB VRAM, 512MB system RAM) :p
     
  17. crap freakboy macrumors 6502a

    crap freakboy

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    nar in Gainsborough, me duck
    #17
    i feel your pain, Moh and Rtcw is like playing a flip book, as for Quake3- well tweaked to hell and back- but hey with my ping who gives a monkeys uncle eh?(beat this ping)
     
  18. job thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #18
    heh. judging by your Q3 screenshot, you're running it on a system close to mine. i hate turning down the detail levels and quality settings *just* to be able to play it at 24 fps. ;) :D
     
  19. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #19
    If you want a Mac and want to play games, you really need a G5. The Dual G5 is faster than any PC I have seen at UT2003, even a home built 3Ghz HT P4 with Geforce FX5900Ultra.
     
  20. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #20
    I have an iMac 400 DV and have used an eMac 1Ghz Combo, and I can tell you, THERE IS NO COMPARISON at all. The eMac will have the old iMac for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. For the price it performs very well.
     
  21. job thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #21
    Cool. Thanks for the info. I'll probably get the eMac this weekend. Heh, iMac DV users of the world unite. :p

    Weren't you waiting for an eMac as well? Or did you just want to wait until Christmas?
     
  22. job thread starter macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #22
    If I had enough money, I would. The thing is, I expect any Mac I buy to perform well at everything compared to my current iMac DV. Due to my budget of roughly $1000, the best Mac I can buy is the mid-level eMac. It fits every stipulation I had (Airport, DVD player, faster CPU and G4) and then some (Radeon, CD-RW, etc.) I'm not buying a new Mac to play games, I'm buying a new Mac because I need it to do everything but gaming. Gaming is second in my case. I was just curious as to how it would perform in relation to the iMac DV currently sitting in front of me.
     
  23. ChronoIMG macrumors regular

    ChronoIMG

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #23
    Apple is selling Power Mac G4s, refurbs for $949. Get them while they're hot.

    You'd be much better off with any Power Mac G4 than an eMac or even an iMac for that matter. Being able to upgrade video cards and processors will make your Mac last even longer.
     
  24. buseman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    #24
    Get a PS2 instead, Xbox sucks (except from Halo which now is on the Mac anyways) :rolleyes:
     
  25. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #25
    Yeah I am waiting on an eMac probably for a couple more months, I am still getting by and I have a feeling we will see a 1.25Ghz eMac soon...
     

Share This Page