24" - 7300gt vs 7600gt - any benchmarks?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by br0adband, Sep 28, 2006.

  1. br0adband macrumors 6502a


    Aug 29, 2006
    I know the chances of finding one person that owns both configurations at the same time is a bit iffy (but I'm sure it's possible), I was curious to know if anyone had done some 7300gt (128MB) vs 7600gt (256MB) comparisons.

    I'm getting a 24" next week, most likely stock with the 7300gt because I don't want to order online and wait however long it takes to ship it. They don't do hard drive or video upgrades in the Apple Store where I'm getting it, so only the RAM will be upgraded since it's pretty cheap ($200 was the quote I got, online they charge $175 so it's worth it just to get it done in one step).

    I'm going to be getting into racing sims (rFactor ownz) and maybe Flight Simulator 2004 with a nice setup for each: Logitech MOMO wheel for rFactor and some decent flying stuff for FS2004. Can't wait to see what widescreen gaming is finally like.

    I'll also be getting the TrackIR stuff which allows for real-time head tracking in games. If you haven't seen what this thing can do, head over to:


    And give a look to some of the demos. Your gaming experience may never be the same again. :)

    So, if anyone has done comparisons or can point me to some online, I'd greatly appreciate it. I did a pretty thorough Google search and others but never found any benches worth writing home about.

  2. ipoddin macrumors 6502a


    Jan 6, 2004
    Los Angeles
    Don't have any direct comparisons, but just based on what I know about the two cards and what you want to play, go with the 256mb version if you want to play full screen at decent frame rates. Otherwise you'll still be waiting to see what widescreen gaming is all about.
  3. br0adband thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Aug 29, 2006
    Well, I know the 7300gt can do all the games I play (Quake 1 2 and 3, that's it) but I plan to play more like rFactor and FS2004. I'm not concerned about maxing out the detail sliders and all the possible effects, that's not the point. Just having the 24" LCD alone will make the games look better and be more fun, and the performance should be just fine.

    But I know I'm gonna kick myself if I don't get the 7600gt and just buy the machine I really want. The problem is: I'm not ordering online, and I can't get the 7600gt in the Apple Store since they only do RAM upgrades, so... I'm stuck on that point.

    Oh well... guess I'll just make the RAM 2GB and go from there.

  4. MacProGuy macrumors regular

    Aug 16, 2006
    Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.

    The larger the display, the worse a given game/picture/movie/anything will look at a given resolution.

    The larger the display, the higher the resolution must be to keep the game looking AS GOOD, let alone better...

    Don't believe me... take this test.

    Take a jpeg that is 300x200 pixels... open it up and look at it at it's default size. It will be a small square on your monitor, but it will be sharp and clear.

    Now, zoom in until this image fills the screen. All of a sudden, it looks HORRIBLE.

    This is what you will run into if you don't run your games at a higher resolution on the 24" iMac.

    The bottom line... the larger the display, the higher you need the resolution to look as good as it does on a smaller display... hence the better video card you need.
  5. nagromme macrumors G5


    May 2, 2002
    This page compares a 7600 iMac to a 7300 Mac Pro:


    Now, a Mac Pro is a QUAD core machine running at higher GHz, with faster RAM etc.... but the iMac STILL beats it by about double!

    So that should tell you something about 7600 vs. 7300 :)
  6. wchong macrumors 6502

    Sep 18, 2006
    Miami, Fl

    so you're saying that a 17" imac with x1600 128 runs at a better framerate than a 20" imac with x1600 and 256mb?
  7. macphisto macrumors regular

    Jun 29, 2002
    At home
    If you think that you are going to regret it, then your decision has already been made, go for the higher end card and wait a little longer for your computer. It will be worth it.
  8. The General macrumors 601

    Jul 7, 2006
    No, that's not at all what he said. He wasn't at all refering to performace, just image quality. But to answer your question, yes. If you have a 17" iMac with 128mb X1600, it will run games at 1440x900 faster than the 20" iMac with 256mb X1600 will at 1680x1050. The only time the video RAM would make a big difference is if you are playing games like Quake 4, Doom 3, FEAR, etc with all the graphics on max, and even then, the two would probably perform the same due to the resolution differences.

    Some people just don't understand the size/resolution thing. For instance, I have a 1080P 32" HDTV, and my friend has a 50" 1080i HDTV. He thinks his is better quality, and I've tried explaining it to him over and over that mine is better, his is just bigger, but he doesn't seem to understand. :(
  9. MacProGuy macrumors regular

    Aug 16, 2006

    Right.... thats exactly why you have sizing guides for different sized TVs.

    The larger the T.V., the further away you have to sit for "optimum" viewing... which really means to avoid seeing pixelation/distortion/blocking/screen door effects, etc.

    :) Some people don't seem to grasp this concept... and will insist on installing a 73" TV in a 6x6 room :D
  10. nagromme macrumors G5


    May 2, 2002
    Then again, for some things, depending on personal preference, bigger IS better, enough so that bigger matters more than detail, sharpness or artifacts.

    For instance, bigger trumps the other issues for me with movies, and sometimes with games. Never for computing. Someone with different preferences would feel differently, and even for movies would not want such a big screen. Neither is wrong, it's just personal preference.
  11. speakerwizard macrumors 68000


    Aug 8, 2006
    i have the 256 24incher, you can see my benchmarks on one of my threads

Share This Page