How's gaming on iMac 24" 2.4 ?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Rolmix, Sep 11, 2007.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    #1
    I'm about to sell my XPS M170 laptop and buy iMac 24" 2.4 Ghz , but before I do that I'd like to know how's gaming on iMac 24" 2.4 with 2 GB?
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    #2
    There's lots of threads on the subject. Do some searching in the forum.

    That said. The iMac isn't a gamers rig, but it will run most games just fine. You will have to lower the quality settings with the newer most demanding games though.

    So if your primary focus is gaming, then you should probably look elsewhere, but it is enough for the casual gamer and then some.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    #3
    I play WoW while on skype, and itunes and safari open on mine everyday pretty much at the highest settings except the aniosopric filtering and it runs at 30-50 fps.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #4
    Gaming is more than adequate. However, you'd get more performance out of the 20" because the machine needs to throw less pixels around.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    SaSaSushi

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Location:
    Takamatsu, Japan
    #5
    Not true at all. The 24" aluminum iMac has both a superior GPU and a faster CPU.

    I have the 24" aluminum iMac and am a casual gamer. It plays the games I like with smooth framerates at the native 1920x1200 resolution and high settings (Counter Strike: Source, Half Life 2, etc).

    Here are some benchmarks comparing iMac performance: http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html
     
  6. macrumors member

    Siemova

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    Um... the mid-range 20" has the same CPU and GPU as the 24". Unless you BTO the 2.8GHz Extreme, of course. But that doesn't make any difference where the LCD is concerned. AlexisV was right that the same GPU will have a lighter load, and therefore slightly better performance, displaying on a smaller screen. That said, I'm not sure the difference would be all that noticeable.
     
  7. macrumors 68040

    SaSaSushi

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Location:
    Takamatsu, Japan
    #7
    Thanks for the correction. I could have sworn when I bought my 24" on August 8th it was just the low end 20", the 24" and the 24" with the 2.8GHz. I guess I was just so focused on the 24" that I missed it completely.

    They didn't include benchmarks for that machine at Barefeats but I agree with you that if there is any difference at all it would be minimal.
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Location:
    Island Heights, NJ
    #8
    My new 20" 2.4 does a wonderful job with some games, a bit to be desired with others.

    For reference:
    Jedi Academy runs very well at higher graphic settings.
    Empire at Wars fantastic on medium settings.
    Zoo Tycoon runs well on medium settings.
    Roller Coaster runs terrible like it does on ever other consumer level machine... I'm convinced you need a Cray to make this game run smoothly.
     
  9. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #9
    24 -17=7in less

    yeah I dont have a 24 in....But if my 17" iMac is any indication of gaming ...Your Covered!! Command & Conquer 3 (newest Game I've purchased, Half-life 2, WOW.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #10
    The M170 came with the 7800gtx I think. Comparing that to the HD2600 pro and you'll probably be disappointed. They are about as fast as each other.

    From a graphics perspective, you're not upgrading at all. Gaming performance will be more or less identical, unless your heavily CPU limited (unlikely).

    So basically if your looking to do quite a bit of gaming, look elsewhere. The HD2600 is a disappointing choice from apple to say the least.
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    SaSaSushi

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Location:
    Takamatsu, Japan
    #11
    I thought it was established in this thread that the GPU in the new iMac is actually an underclocked HD2600 XT which leads one to believe that once ATItool is capable of adjusting the clock speeds for it we will see far better performance (it if doesn't cause overheating lockups, etc).
     
  12. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #12
    It's a Mobility HD 2600XT.

    If you want to make comparisons check out laptops benchmarks. Expect to crank up your fans as well. A high CPU load pushes the GPU diode temperature as well since they share the same cooling hardware.
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    SaSaSushi

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Location:
    Takamatsu, Japan
    #13
    Well I assumed there was a reason that they clocked it as it is. Personally I won't be overclocking it anyway since I am not a hardcore gamer and it serves adequately at native resolution for the few games I do enjoy like Counterstrike: Source and BioShock.

    I don't think the iMac will ever be a recommended machine for the hardcore gamer. Build a nice PC gaming rig for that purpose.
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    #14
    I know nothing about pc/mac gaming, and i have just got a 24" iMac. I run windows xp with bootcamp also. I take it i can play windows games on the xp boot just fine? Or is it best to buy the mac version of the game and run it through os x???
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    RichardI

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Location:
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    #15
    If you are a casual gamer it is just fine. Finding native OSX games is the only real issue. The other issue is resolution. The 24" screen is so huge, that games which have pre-set video resolution don't look so good. Games that can be run in a window are too small on the screen (personal opinion).
    I have X-Plane and it looks very good at 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200, and it runs very smooth. I'm not into frame rates (I think they're over rated :rolleyes:) so I can't talk to that. If you wanted to run FSX under either Bootcamp or Parallels, you will disappointed. A PC or a gaming box are much better at high-end games. Bottom line, the Mac is good for casual gaming.

    Rich :cool:
     
  16. macrumors regular

    halfprep455

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    #16
    I play the Windows Vista version of Halo, San Andreas, Counter Strike, Doom 3, and many others just fine on my 20in iMac. Just install Vista home premium using boot camp and upgrade your RAM to at least 2GB. You should be able to play most games just fine.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #17
    Windows XP is the best gaming OS at the moment. OS X isn't really built for games, and games in Vista lose a few frames per second over XP.

    Best off with Bootcamp and XP / Vista at the moment.
     
  18. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    #18
    how many fps are you getting in CS? is there any way you can take a video of you playing? The only thing holding me back from getting the new iMac is how well will it play CS.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    ilikeiBook

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    #19
    I get 30-50 fps on WoW with res. and all settings maxed out.
     
  20. macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #20
    Sorry, that didn't make any sense to me. The low end 20", the 24" and the 24" with a 2.8ghz? It's 20"/2.0ghz/2400xt, 20"/2.4ghx/2600pro, 24"/2.4ghz/2600pro, 24"/2.8ghz/2600pro for all the stock configurations.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    #21
    my 20 inch runs the new command and conquer very good!! :) but rct 3 and simcity4 run awful and they are older games lol I don't get it
     
  22. macrumors regular

    bluefiberoptics

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    #22
    Are you playing the Windows versions? Or the PPC Mac versions?
     

Share This Page