New iMac and gaming

Discussion in 'Games' started by Foxer, Oct 2, 2004.

  1. Foxer macrumors 65816

    Foxer

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    Anyone out there have experience with one of these? I'm working on the current eMac currently (1.25 G4) and am seriously thinking of trading up to the 20-inch iMac. Playing mostly BF1942, Railroad Tycoon 3, C&C Generals. There playable on the eMac, but I hope that bumping up to an G5 iMac would make a appreciable difference. I know nothing about video cards, so I don't know if there is an edge there between the two.
     
  2. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #2
    Benchmarks aren't looking GREAT.

    They're very iMac-like, in my opinion. Not exceedingly great, but you can do decently with a few settings lowered. I would recommend to wait for more info from BareFeats. They were using in-store demo machines, so who knows.

    I still need to contact my mate about his experiences at the Paris Expo. Oddly enough, he's disappeared. We even had a thread at IMG and I asked for his comments, but he hasn't replied... :confused:
     
  3. ijimk macrumors 6502a

    ijimk

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    Here
    #3
    Well I can say from expierence my first mac was one of the new emac (1.25 ghz superdrive) and i thought it was decent for games I sold it and got a dual 1.8 ghz G5 and the video card jump from 32mb to 128 mb made all the difference in the world in terms of gaming. You see your graphics card can agruably be the most important thing in your cpu for gaming.

    My friend had a crap cpu with a great video card in it and was able to still play games that his cpu was not supposed to be able to play.

    My opinion if you game you need graphics card first and foremost, then processor, then ram.
     
  4. invaLPsion macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #4
    Well of course. A good GPU takes a lot of load off the CPU.
     
  5. hcuar macrumors 65816

    hcuar

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Dallas
    #5
    Wanna game? Buy a PeeCee... If you refuse to buy a PeeCee buy a PM. I believe in buying a system for what it typically supports. I think the iMac is a good "family" machine for browsing the net, playing iTunes, doing Word, paying bills, etc. PM for all of the iMac stuff plus heavy graphical / processor intensive work. PB for mobile computing, and a PeeCee for games.
     
  6. jaguar451 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    #6
    As has been mentioned, iMac isn't a top end gaming machine, but does have twice the video RAM of the current eMac:

    ATI Radeon 9200; 32MB dedicated DDR SDRAM video memory

    vs

    NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM with AGP 8X support

    The BareFeats comparison is of machines (previous vs current iMac) that have the same Graphics card, so I would imagine that the graphics card in the iMac is better than an eMac (beyond just double the RAM.)

    If someone has more info on this....

    I'm personally stuck with a GForce 2MX (Original iMac G4.)
     
  7. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #7
    VRAM isn't that important. Seems like a misconception by some people. But, VRAM is used for speeding up the processes involving textures, especially at higher qualities and resolution. It has a little effect on overall performance for games. You'll see it help out when you reach higher resolutions and qualities.

    Anyways, a new benchmark by BareFeats.com

    At certain settings, you'll get games playable. However, it's not great quality. Not that I'm surprised. And still no reply by the guy in the IMG Forum.

    However, I did ask the guy that runs BareFeats.com if he could test the machines with settings at native resolutions and play around, but it seems like he's ignoring me. :(
     
  8. jaguar451 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    #8
    FWIW, I found the following, which showed the G4 iMac significantly faster than the eMac for gaming. And as the G5 iMac is faster than the G4 iMac, even more improvement....

    http://www.barefeats.com/piei.html

    Guess the bottom line:
    * iMac G5 looks to be significantly faster than the eMac
    * If you have the funds, PowerMac or PowerBook (current & one or two revs old) are better for 3D gaming than the G5 iMac
    * For pure game playing, WinTel has the most games / equal or better performance.

    But buy a Mac if it meets your needs....

    -------------------
    "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
    -Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002.
    www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html.
     
  9. Converted2Truth macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #9
    gosh, this is lame. so what if the emac runs a game 640x480 slightly slower than on an imacG4 runs a game at 640x480 which runs slightly slower than an imacg5 runs a game at 640x480! The key here, is that all computers are running the game in a crappy res with crappy settings.

    emac <= imacG4 <= imacG5 where, resolution is 640x480

    up the resolution, and these computers choke. up the game to say... doom3 when it comes out... and these computers will have seen their last day of operation.
     
  10. Converted2Truth macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #10
    Sorry guys... I'm just pissed about the new imac. THAT THIS EFFFFING POLL IS NOT HELPING ANY!!! I just don't understand why the masses like the new imac. I guess they can check their email in style now.
     
  11. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #11

    If apple had put a 128 VRAM option and a SD TV tuner/fm tuner, the iMac would absolutely rock as a home machine...
     
  12. jaguar451 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    #12
    Because I think most folks realize that it isn't primarily a game machine. Good / ok for certain games, definitely not the way to go for a high-end gaming machine (although even WinTel gets expensive when one wants a gaming machine.)

    Learning / Kids game / some 3D games should all run fine.

    And to get technical, BareFeats compares Halo, UT2003, Doom3 at 1024 x 768 at Medium quality.... 35 - 137 FPS.

    http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5c.html

    As your sig says, WinTel if you want highest quality, framerate, and game availability.

    Would have been nice.... Although maybe Mobility 9600 (same as PowerBook), 64MB up to 256MB isn't it? Maybe in Rev II. Hopefully I'll have the $$$ when Tiger comes out that I can get a new computer / OS at one time with a better / expandable 3d card.
     
  13. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #13
    Majority of computer buyers are still not gamers, or at least the kind that worries about the CPU and graphics card enough.
     
  14. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #14
    Buy an EyeTV and radioShark by Griffin. Done.

    If I was buying an iMac G5 right now, those are the two accessories I'd buy.
     
  15. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #15
    This is the truth.
     
  16. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #16
    In the Land of Oz, such a solution would be at least $700, probably more.

    A built in solution should be less than half that from the PCI card prices I see around, and wouldn't require two boxes sitting on the desk cabled to limited iMac ports...
     
  17. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #17
    Machine performs poorly with games.
    Even with games like Warcraft3 online. On top settings 17" imac lags doesn't make it very enjoyable. If set to medium, it works. UT2004 is something you don't even want to try. ;)
     
  18. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #18
    USB eyetv simply sux. It looks simply horrible.

    Either go for EyeTV200 (for analog cable TV/RCA-inputs) recording.
    or Formac Studio (even though it's little cheaper than eyetv200, software really sux, so u have to use VIDI program that is a freeware but have to depend on a guy who is making it to keep up with updates.)

    If going for HDTV antenna recording, go for eyetv500.

    Thing is, those things cost over $300, so it's not for everyone.
     
  19. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #19
    '

    Oh, I was saying EyeTV in a general time, not as in the low-end original. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
     
  20. spencecb macrumors 6502a

    spencecb

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    #20
    I posted this in a thread I started, but it must have been overlooked, so here is my two cents......


    Hey guys.... I just wanted to say that I picked up my 20" iMac G5 yesterday from the Aple Store, and so far it has just been great. I know a lot of people were concerned about the graphics card that came with it. So far, I have been more than please with the way it performs. I haven't tried it on games such as UT, but I have played it on Elite Force II, which is a 1st person shooter based off of the Quake III Arena engine. Before this computer, I had a PowerBook running at 1 GHz with the same graphics card, and I must say the G5 architecture is far superior to that of the G4. I have also been playing Warcraft III, and I have never seen the game play so smoothly as it does on my G5...I stopped playing the game because it was so jerky on my G4. So, hope that helps out anyone that is reluctant to purchase the iMac G5 because of the graphics card.

    P.S....I had the stock 256 MB Ram when I was playing Warcraft III and Elite Force II...but I received my extra 512 MB Ram today from Crucial, and I really didn't see much of a difference in game play...a little smoother, but nothing drastic.
     
  21. spencecb macrumors 6502a

    spencecb

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    #21
    I just got done reading this forum, and I don't really know what iMac G5 these people are all talking about. As I said in my post above, the iMac did not lag at ALL in any of the games I have tested it in, and I will stand by that
     
  22. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #22
    You haven't been playing the latest and greatest games, so I'm not surprised by your results. In all honesty, the GeForce FX 5200 isn't a terrible card if you don't have high expectations or expecting to play the games that only high-end PowerMacs and PC gaming rigs can handle. It'll get by for a few things. I would consider an upgrade to an iMac G5 (from my GeForce4MX iMac 800 Mhz), but the graphics card jump isn't much nor is my machine showing its age for other tasks.

    I'd like to see how 10.3.6 would affect the iMacs (heck, all of the Macs. Our graphics card drivers went south since 10.3.3. 10.3 was a jump, and then we fell back!)
     

Share This Page