2009 vs 2008 iMac 24" -- 3D Games

Discussion in 'iMac' started by barefeats, Mar 22, 2009.

  1. barefeats macrumors 65816

    barefeats

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    #1
    I started yesterday testing the 2009 iMac 24" 3.06 with GeForce 130 GT. I've also got the 2008 iMac 24" 3.06 with GeForce 8800 GS in the lab.
    Here are some results at 1920 x 1200 "High Quality":

    CoD4
    2008 = 34 fps
    2009 = 38 fps

    ET:QW
    2008 = 60 fps
    2009 = 82 fps

    Halo UB 2.03
    2008 = 127 fps
    2009 = 137 fps

    Prey
    2008 = 78 fps
    2009 = 88 fps

    Both beat the mac pro Nehalem with GeForce 120 GT but lose to a 2008 Mac Pro with a GeForce 8800 GT.
    The 2009 with Radeon HD 4850 should be in the lab in a few weeks. I'll report back with those numbers when I have them.
     
  2. NRose8989 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
  3. jmpage2 macrumors 68030

    jmpage2

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #3
    Very much looking forward to what the benchmarks look like with the Radeon card.

    Was the testing done under XP Boot Camp?
     
  4. brenden macrumors regular

    brenden

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    #4
    my 2009 in WoW averages over 80FPS and i have the GT130.
     
  5. barefeats thread starter macrumors 65816

    barefeats

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    #5
    No. All under OS X.
     
  6. ucla95 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    #6
    Well I for one am eceptionally disappointed with my GT130. I'm on High settings on WoW with 24bit color and just 1x multisampling and am getting only 43fps. Waste of money if you ask me, buy the 8800GS refurb or the GT120 I think, too late to return mine without a 15% restock fee (Amazon) so it doesn't make sense for me to switch.

    EDIT: So I've had to take the settings down to Med to get 60fps!! On a slow server in a barren area (tirisfal). This video card STINKS! I might even suffer the restock fee to get my money back and buy a PC instead. This is nuts.
     
  7. nusynergy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Location:
    Kent - UK
    #7
    Does anyone know how WoW performs on the 24" with the 9400m?

    Its about the only game ill play on the Mac as i have all three games consoles?
     
  8. nusynergy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Location:
    Kent - UK
    #8
    Sorry but forgive me if im wrong but isnt anything over 24Fps just a bouns?
     
  9. kcrossley macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    #9
    Hey Rob,

    Did you happen to test WOW?
     
  10. jmpage2 macrumors 68030

    jmpage2

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #10
    No, actually for many players in any kind of first person game, anything under about 60fps is painful, since there is lots of motion jerk, tearing, etc, that occurs on-screen.
     
  11. nusynergy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Location:
    Kent - UK
    #11
    Ah righto, Sorry, i only play FPS on the consoles so dont notice any issues.

    That and the human eye only see's at 24fps
     
  12. Feld Spar macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    #12
    The human eye sees at closer to 10fps. But, it's not all at once like the computer screen, it's more of a continuous thing: The eye can notice isolated blips as fast as 1/500 s, so that's probably the "ultimate" target rate.

    The computer screen, however, does not know which part of it your eye is focusing on, so it can't cheat and update those parts quickly at the expense of the rest. It has to update the whole thing every time, even though only a small part is ever being looked at at a time.

    Your console fps is (if in the US), either 60 or 30 fps depending on the console, and somewhat of a pain to control...
     
  13. ucla95 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    #13
    I have the 9400M in my current gen Macbook and I play WoW at medium-high settings (some med some high) and get about 60fps. Now of course that's a 13" screen not a 24", so I'd bet that would translate to 20-30fps on the big screen. So I think you could play fine on medium settings.

    If I had to do it over again I'd get the 3.06 refurb for $1599 and a $60 memory upgrade from newegg or whoever. But can't live in the past, at least I was helping the economy I guess.
     
  14. kurosov macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    #14
    Well the only game i play is guild wars. Always ran it on a pc with an x1650 pro till i got my 20" 09 imac. I have to say the 9400m is an improvement.

    I am getting up to 50fps on max settings running fullscreen at native res. The fps rate jumps significantly as i lower the settings. This is also running through crossover as there is no mac version of gw and i have not set up bootcamp.

    So i would say the 9400m would have no problems with wow at all.
     
  15. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
  16. Lancer X macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    #16
    Seconded, Rob! I know WoW doesn't push the system as hard as something like CoD4, but *lots* of people playing that would benefit.

    Thanks much for the data you posted - really helped me decide which unit to buy! (Ordered a 3Ghz 8800GS refurb and saved a bundle.)
     
  17. jmpage2 macrumors 68030

    jmpage2

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #17
    Blizzard has provided a new performance benchmark thread for WoW with all of the early 2009 iMac models, including those equipped with the Radeon 4850 video card option which will be out in a month.
     
  18. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #18
    and I can BS unless they can lay claim to having actual hardware.
     
  19. jmpage2 macrumors 68030

    jmpage2

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #19
    They provided very specific settings and FPS performance. It would not surprise me if they were able to get the new hardware a month before the general public.

    It's pretty typical in the PC world for game developers to have easy access to beta hardware and drivers to tune their game performance.
     
  20. Lancer X macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    #20
    IIRC, the thread I think you're referring to (a sticky in the Mac Support forum) is authored by a community member. His name is Stone something-or-other. Sorry I can't link to the post - that forum blocked at work. :p

    The 4850 frame rate numbers he's citing are projected. If you read further down in the thread, he hasn't gotten his hands on a 4850 iMac yet.

    The thread is definitely useful, but it's not the same as a true benchmark. The frame rates he posts are kind of open-ended and aren't based on apples-and-apples (pun intended) testing in a specific location and path, such as what Bare Feats is doing. (The WoW equivalent of a timedemo).

    The fps numbers also weren't very specific. For instance, they listed a range for the 8800GS of like 60-90 fps. I understand what the guy is trying to do - old world Azeroth areas will test at ~90 and the more-demanding Northrend areas will be ~60.

    I'd still love to see true benchmarks with the settings maxed-out at native monitor res.
     
  21. itommyboy macrumors 6502a

    itommyboy

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Location:
    Titletown USA
    #21
    Hmmm lemon of a card / RAM / iMac? The main game I play is WoW and this 2009 3.06 GHz iMac laughs at it - vertical sync, max res and max settings except AA which I always keep at 2x in WoW. I cap my FPS at 60 and it is always right around 40 - 60 FPS anywhere and everywhere (ok not in Dalaran no rig can handle all that bottleneck lag).

    In short WoW looks like I've never seen it before and that is comparing it from my "last years" 3.06 GHz iMac with the 8800 GS as well as vs. a custom self built PC with 6 GBs of DDR2, Intel Quad Core, and the XFX 8800 GTO Alpha Dog Edition GPU.

    Barefeats thanks for the hard #'s. It's clear that this new 3.06 GHz iMac is indeed a step up from the earlier model from the DDR3 to the GT130.
     
  22. kcrossley macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    #22
    itommyboy,

    How did your old 3.06 w/ 8800GS do with WoW. Is there really a big difference in the look and playability of WoW on your new iMac?

    Thanks!
     
  23. nusynergy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Location:
    Kent - UK
    #23
    Woop! Thats what i wanted to hear... Iv just ordered my 2009 3.06Ghz with the GT130 Cant wait to get it too.:D
     
  24. seanmcgpa macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    #24
    I'd be really curious about WOW benchmarks from last year's 3.06 + nvidia 8800 to this year's 3.06 + ATI 4850... anyone?
     
  25. paultrfc macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne.
    #25
    hi

    i take it they both had 4gb of RAM?

    some results are close maybe the new ddr3 ram is a factor as well..

    cheers Paul....:)
     

Share This Page