Will new iMac cut it now?

Discussion in 'Games' started by jacg, Oct 30, 2005.

  1. jacg macrumors 6502a

    jacg

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    Much as I like the design of the G5 iMac I've always been out off by the reportedly lacklustre graphics performance.

    Can anyone confirm that the new 20" G5 iMac (with built in iSight) is good enough for the occasional game of BF 1942, Rainbow 6, etc? As a reference point I have a 15" PB (1.25 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 64 MB Radeon Mobility 9600). Will the Radeon X600 be much faster, despite driving a higher resolution screen or will I have to run it at a (non-native) lower resolution to see an increase in frame rates? Will I still have to tone down effects, etc?

    (The reason I am so suspicious is that a tomshardware.com test of various graphics cards put the X600 fairly low on the list of current cards. Other cards were 4-5 times faster)

    I'm guessing the G5 processor will make a difference too - BF 1942 seems to slow down depending on how many people are playing at once.

    Mostly the machine will be used for FCP, iLife and DTP. Dual cores would be nice but I like the portability of the iMac.

    Hoping for some feedback. Thanks!
     
  2. generik macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #2
    I suspect the 9700 on the PBs might be a tad faster than the x600.. even though tha later support more features.
     
  3. carpe diem macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    #3
    I would go for the PM seriously it has alot more than the iMac. And it is more expandable
     
  4. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #4
    They are actually the same graphics cards. The main difference is that the R9700 is AGP and the X600 is PCI-EX. Although I suspect the X600 will be a bit faster because it will probably be clocked a bit higher.
     
  5. jacg thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jacg

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    I agree that the PM would be a whole lot better, but I love the portability of the iMac.

    Remember my PB has the mobility 9600, not the 9700. So does that mean that the X600 will be a whole lot faster?
     
  6. dubbz macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #6
    The X600 is more like the AGP Radeon 9600, actually.
     
  7. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #7
    Why do you need portability, when you have a PBook?

    Do you need something lighter to move around the house?
     
  8. jacg thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jacg

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Sound question. I really want a powerbook with the power of a G5 (maybe next year...). Until then I'd like a powerful computer that can be used in two or three different locations, moving every so often. Meanwhile, the Powerbook will continue to do all the day to day stuff in many different locations, in transit, etc. I hope that answers your question!

    Is the Radeon 9600 faster than the Radeon Mobility 9600 or are they the same card?
     
  9. biohazard6969 macrumors 6502a

    biohazard6969

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Location:
    toronto canada
    #9
    my 20" runs all my games like a dream, BF 1942 at absolutely maxed out settings.
    halo: everything maxed but with no anti aliasing
    close combat first to fight: everthing but anti aliasing
    CoD, MoH, warcraft TFT, all maxed

    SOMETIMES it will lag a bit in halo or CCFTF and without anti aliasing i don't even notice a difference
     
  10. jacg thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jacg

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    That's encouraging feedback. Thanks!

    Any thoughts on RAM? Should one hunt around for 2 GB sticks or is that just a waste of money at this time?
     
  11. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #11
    Waste of money. Hugely. Just go with 1.5GB for now. If you really need 2.5GB, you should definitely be looking to get a Powermac.
     
  12. spencecb macrumors 6502a

    spencecb

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    #12
    Umm...I love my iMac to death, but I hate to dissapoint...its not the most portable computer I've ever met. I mean, if you are taking it from room to room, sure...but if you are taking it to another location, might want to be a bit careful with it.

    EDIT: And I say this because I originally had the Rev. A iMac, but its being replaced by the Rev.C iMac by Apple...long story.
     
  13. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #13
    Yeah I think so. The Mobility 9700 is about 30% faster, like a 9600 XT desktop card. Awesome chipset.
     
  14. biohazard6969 macrumors 6502a

    biohazard6969

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Location:
    toronto canada
    #14
    definitely go with the 1.5 gig crucial style, it will really make it fly. no regrets here
     
  15. JDOG_ macrumors 6502a

    JDOG_

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Location:
    Oakland
    #15
    Why don't you wait a few months and get an MacIntel? You'll be happier I think.
     
  16. jacg thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jacg

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Spanner -> Works

    Well there's a thought... But then this is a sort of second computer as well.

    If the Powerbook gets the FSB bus and CPU upgrade that seems to have been postponed, I'd be tempted to upgrade my PB as well. If they go straight to MacIntel (let's be realistic, in 8 months?) then it would depend on how my legacy software runs.

    Thanks for all the input everyone.
     
  17. jacg thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jacg

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Update

    I haven't had time to do much in the way of testing but people may like to hear that I was pleasantly surprised by the graphics performance.

    A quick spin of BF1942 and I was able to set performance to high and even at full resolution it was playable.
     
  18. satans_banjo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Location:
    SE London
    #18
    the man's right. the fact that the screen is built-in makes it not very portable. i know about portability - i broke my old PC laptop screen on a plane (i was in a posh reclining seat and i didn't know that it would actually crush my laptop when i reclined fully). now there's a massive black area with no pixels in the middle of the screen, making it very hard to do anything

    my recommendation would be to get a PM if you want it for gaming. ive got an iMac and it works fine for gaming, but the fan noise really tells you that you're pushing it to the max. that said, i only have 512Mb RAM, but after reading this convo i ordered another 512 from Crucial
     
  19. pknz macrumors 68020

    pknz

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    NZ
    #19
    The Rev B iMac cut it. So this ones cuts its more so. I'm not to sure what its cutting but its fine to play. I mean Battlefield 1942 is pretty old for a game now. I'm guessing you could play it on the Rev A iMac. Rainbow 6 Raven Shield + Athena Sword runs flawlessly.

    Where did you get all this feeling that the graphics card cannot handle these games?
     
  20. biohazard6969 macrumors 6502a

    biohazard6969

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Location:
    toronto canada

Share This Page