Imac 20" vs 24" for games (Bootcamp)

Discussion in 'iMac' started by M-X, Sep 6, 2006.

  1. M-X macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    #1
    Hi All

    First post, already fumbled it...here's the edit:

    I was wondering, because of hi res 1920x1200 of the iMac 24, to run to games at native res surely even the 7600gt is gonna choke? Meaning you'll be forced to run at 1680x1050 (ie 20" imac resolution) or lower resolution which kinda defeats the purpose?

    Do you think this means the 20" or even the 17" might be a better bet, because the lowly x1600 might fare better with these smaller screens?

    Dunno - gonna pull the trigger on one of these babies, or even a MP. Games definitely a priority for me...

    Cheers
     
  2. vv-tim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    #2
    Ok... see, if game clarity and detail is a priority for you... more can sometimes be less.

    What makes higher resolution settings on games look better is because they can fit more detail into the screen so that it looks less grainy and more refined.

    The larger the screen size, the higher the resolution you'll need to have it look nice. That's why World of Warcraft looks absolutely fabulous at 1920x1200 on my 15.4" laptop screen.

    The 17" iMac w/ 256MB VRAM would probably be your best bet for gaming. Honestly, the higher you go you do get more screen real estate which is useful for working, but not really for gaming. You get more pixels, but you also get more space for those pixels to cover, so you're not losing much grain.
     
  3. I'mAMac macrumors 6502a

    I'mAMac

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    In a Mac box
    #3
    So would the 20" iMac with the 256 mb x1600 be good for gaming? or should i get the 24" with the 7600?
     
  4. vv-tim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    #4
    At their native resolutions, the 17" is probably going to perform the best.

    It depends on how big of a screen you want, really.
     
  5. AvSRoCkCO1067 macrumors 65816

    AvSRoCkCO1067

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #5
  6. miniConvert macrumors 68040

    miniConvert

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Location:
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
    #6
    Just visited the link... The 7300GT outperforms the X1600?! That's news to me o_O
     
  7. I'mAMac macrumors 6502a

    I'mAMac

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    In a Mac box
    #7
    Yeah, I ordered the 20" like a week ago. I'll keep that one for a while, then buy the 24". Give the 20" to my dad :p
    At least now they won't be coming out with a new iMac for a while so I won't have to worry about that.
     
  8. M-X thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    #8
    Yeah i looked at that - trouble there is no info of the resolutions they've test at. For all we know it could be 1400x900 (or less) across the board. Clearly at medium resolutions the 7600gt will kick butt, but i think 1920x1200 is hardcore even for a 7800 class card if you max out some of the latest games.

    I'm just worried I'll go 24" for the sweet screen, then be forced to run at non-native resolution to get decent fps. :confused: well at least hd video will look sweet (tho no blue ray yet)

    Really the dream would be a 20" imac with 7600gt or a 24" with 1900xt or the like, as others have mentioned.

    I guess a related question is - anyone out there playing latest titles on a 7300gt mp on a 23" ACD and loving it?
     
  9. I'mAMac macrumors 6502a

    I'mAMac

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    In a Mac box
    #9
    Yeah it only showed what cards they used. But i definitley never use 1400x900. The most id ever use would be 1200xw/e. Its good enough for me. I dont need extreme resolution. Just good resolution, good detail, and smooth running :)
     
  10. thebeephaha macrumors 6502

    thebeephaha

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle WA
    #10
    Yea, Apple benchmarks are usually full of crap. The 7300 GT doesn't out perform a X1600 Pro, at least in the PC world.
     
  11. gloss macrumors 601

    gloss

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Location:
    around/about
    #11
    Pretty sure the benchmarks were with the 7600GT.
     
  12. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #12
    I may be wrong but I believe the X1600 on the Macbook Pro and iMac is a X1600 "mobility" non-pro which is a pretty big step down (moreso than you think) from the desktop X1600Pro.
     
  13. stapler macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    #13
    Chone speaks the truth, the thing is downclocked to 300-something MHz versus 425MHz or so. Pretty significant.
     
  14. I'mAMac macrumors 6502a

    I'mAMac

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    In a Mac box
    #14
    Even though it is a mobility it still has the same amount of pixel shader processors just the clock speeds are turned down. It is pretty good for gaming. But no it is not a Pro. They should be able to fit the mid-range X1K cards in there they aren't that big. Why don't they?
     
  15. cgratti macrumors 6502a

    cgratti

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    #15
    you wont play most games at the high of a resolution, the screen would be to hard to keep track of, especially first person shooters....


    I would still go with the 24", it looks like it rocks...
     
  16. ipoddin macrumors 6502a

    ipoddin

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Los Angeles
  17. greenmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Location:
    Adelaide
    #17
    The X1600 tested was the 128MB version, and the 7300 is 128MB and the 7600 is 256MB.
    The X1600 is available in 256MB for the imac as well.
    Oh and if you believe apple's specs, the 7300 outperfoms the 7300 in the MacPro and is on par with the X1900!
     
  18. Brad Raple macrumors newbie

    Brad Raple

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Giant Bucket, USA
    #18
    Don't forget that the X1600's were downclocked in the MBP's from their "stock" speeds. I don't know if Apple did the same thing on these guys considering the lack of battery life concerns, but I wouldn't doubt it.

    I'll let you know tomorrow evening when mine arrives.

    BTW, when I ordered mine yesterday, the Apple rep told me that the 7300 is a "monster" video card, and "easily worth $350 alone."

    *ahem*

    Not quite.
     
  19. Josias macrumors 68000

    Josias

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    #19
    The X1600 were not undeclocked by Apple. In neitehr iMac's or MacBook Pro's. They run just as fast as any other X1600 Pro card.;)
     
  20. M-X thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    #20
    7600gt benchmarks

    So I've done a little more research on the x1600 vs the 7600t (the card i would get if i go 24").

    Seems like the nvidia card slams the ati pretty hard (http://sg.vr-zone.com/?i=3338), although on the test pc, the big games choked a little at hi resolutions (they tested upto 1600x1200 and mostly got fps in the 20s).

    Which kinda takes me back to my original query.

    However one though is maybe to run at a lower res on the 24" but disable stretching (i assume you can do that in os x as well?) so say you play at 1650x1050 on the 24" but don't stretch the image, it would still look good and give you roughly 20" of viewable area. Making in my book the 24" the better by, as it will outperform the 20" with the x1600.

    So i'm pulling the trigger tonight, following spec:

    2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
    2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
    NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
    250GB Serial ATA drive
    Wireless keyboard & wireless Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X
    24-inch TFT display
    8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±RW, CD-RW)
    AirPort Extreme
    Bluetooth 2.0

    Plus the free nano and printer deal in the UK.

    Sweet...

    Now I wonder do i keep my 20" Dell screen and run a dual setup :D

    Thanks for all the replies

    M-X
     
  21. Konradx macrumors 6502

    Konradx

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
  22. Konradx macrumors 6502

    Konradx

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #22
    According to Tom's hardware the 7300 and the 1600 are almost identical. The 7600 doubles if not triples in FPS

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html

    What i want to know is because it is a widescreen monitor, will you have the choice of not stretching the screen if the game doesnt support widescreen resolutions?
     
  23. thebeephaha macrumors 6502

    thebeephaha

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle WA
    #23
    You can overclock it up a lot within safe zones, the mobility stock from ati is the same speed as the desktop version, apple just underclocks severely to ease up heat and power use.
     
  24. thebeephaha macrumors 6502

    thebeephaha

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle WA
    #24
    Not quite... Mine stock [apple] runs at 310/290, stock [ati] is 470/470... I run it at 400/400.
     
  25. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #25
    PROTIP: If you have already have a monitor and you're going to buy the 24" iMac buy a Mac Pro instead.
     

Share This Page