As a gamer...

Discussion in 'iMac' started by crowsNest, Jul 27, 2010.

  1. crowsNest macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #1
    As a gamer who uses the computer 50/50 for games & design, I am a bit confused as to the best option in the new iMac range.

    I hate playing games at non-native resolutions so I am really wondering if the mid range 5670 @ 1920x1080 would outperform the 5750 @ 2560x1440. It seems quite possible as I did the math and there are 1.777 times more pixels to render on the bigger screen than the smaller...

    Forget the price factor for a moment. Hmmmm decisions decisions...
     
  2. /V\acpower macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    #2
    How about 5750 running 1920x1080 in a window ?
     
  3. prne10 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #3
    or just 1920x1080 full screen! ;)
     
  4. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #4
    there is little chance that the 5750 is 1.7 times faster then the 5670 ;) but actual performance differences at native res would be ~10FPS in most "normal" games, are you fussy about FPS? what games do you play?

    that makes black bars on the 16:9 screen, get your dimensions right :rolleyes: :D
     
  5. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #5
    I've noticed that so many people at mac rumors take the 2560x1440 jump way too seriously. From my experiences, it doesn't effect fps as much as most people would imagine.

    5750 with higher resolution screen is definitely the way to go.
     
  6. crowsNest thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #6
    Definitely dont want FPS < 30. The most graphically intensive would be Bad Company 2 (i sold my gaming PC to my brother in anticipation for a new imac & was hoping to bootcamp it).
    Also Starcraft 2 which i have installed on my 2007 Imac - runs average at lowest settings lol.


    @TMRaven: Yea im starting to think that way. Big screens make the experience better too I guess. Its just so HUGE though & will make my 32" TV in the same room look less impressive :(
     
  7. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #7
    given the performance of the 4850@1440p, at medium(ish) settings - you would expect the 5750 performance to be pretty darn awsome!
     
  8. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #8
    Think about it this way. Higher dpi screen means less noticeable rough edges, which means less of a reason to use anti-aliasing. Anti-aliasing really eats away at a gpu's memory bandwidth, and can cause huge fps bottlenecks. Starcraft2 looks so crisp and clean on 27" at native resolution without any anti-aliasing.
     
  9. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #9
    this is interesting to know. do you know what sort of FPS you get?
     
  10. crowsNest thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #10
    Yea i hardly use AA on higher res. Its not worth the cost (fps) vs benefit.

    I heard Battlefield Bad Company 2 runs ok on last gen 27" Imac. Im also waiting for when you geekazoids figure out which GPU is better for games: 4850 or 5750...
     
  11. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #11
    have a search and yee shall find.
     
  12. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #12
    While in windows, I ran starcraft2 beta at full resolution, with all settings to highest possible, except portraits to 2d, and no anti-aliasing, and I got 30fps.
     
  13. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #13
    PHOARR! seriously? 30FPS is very respectable i feel. did it "jitter" at all?
     
  14. crowsNest thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #14
  15. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #16
    thats what i mean. we dont know yet. if that IS indeed its actual name, then its a desktop care and will no doubt be underclocked to fit inside of that machine.

    good to know. thanks man :D
     
  16. ceshimm macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    #17
    considering both cards might be mobile card, have no idea how much difference will be there.

    do not expect to play new games max out at native res on 27" imac.
     
  17. /V\acpower macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    #18
    At least in a window you get the exact pixel ratio (1:1). I mean, the reason why it suck to play in non-native res its because its all blurry.

    But in a window you get the same crisp image.

    I mean, its exactly the same image as a 21.5'. If he is considering a smaller screen to play native, he will get the exact same thing on the 27' playing from a window, and with the 5750 he will have better framerate.
     
  18. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #19
    did you not read the first part of the thread? its likely that the 5750 is the desktop version (assuming correct naming scheme) - and without the need of AA (given high res) you can run StarCraft on high settings. its not maxxed out but close enough.

    with windowed games you get pretty big performance loss because other windows still have to be drawn, that means GPU cycles lost and memory sacrificed.
     

Share This Page