best imac for gaming at native resolution ?

[christof72]

Hi,
what would be the best iMac for playing games at native resolution ?
By games I just mean Blizzard's games, so WOW, SC2 and the upcoming Diablo 3. Would a high end 21.5" be better or worse than a highend 27" ?
Also, what's the impact of the I5 versus I7 on gaming ? I understand that hyperthreading would be useless for gaming, but would it impact negatively ?
Right now I play on an somehow old late 2008 MacBook Pro, so am I right that whatever iMac would be a very huge step up in terms of performance ?

Thanks.

 

[archer75]

I'm playing wow just fine on the 27". I don't own SC2 but from what I hear it should run great as well.

Playing WoW in windows in bootcamp and the GPU peaked at 89% usage. That is with all settings maxed on ultra, 16x AF and 4x AA. So it's still not using the full GPU and can maintain those settings.

 

[Badger^2]

The native resolution of the monitor (which is irrelevant)?

Did you search before posting?

 

[Kendo]

The high-end 27" iMac has the 2nd best mobile GPU in the market. The 6970M blows away the 6770M, even with the increased resolution.

 

[christof72]

The native resolution of the monitor (which is irrelevant)?

The native resolutions of the iMacs ofc.

Did you search before posting?

Sure, I did. But have found some data only about playing on the 27" at the same resolution of the 21.5" . Did I miss something ?

 

[archer75]

Sure, I did. But have found some data only about playing on the 27" at the same resolution of the 21.5" . Did I miss something ?

You did. There are several discussions in the last week about playing WoW on the 27" at native resolution. Even some videos too.

There is one video showing Crysis 2 playing at native resolution as well and getting good FPS.

 

[christof72]

You did. There are several discussions in the last week about playing WoW on the 27" at native resolution. Even some videos too.

There is one video showing Crysis 2 playing at native resolution as well and getting good FPS.

Yes, i saw them, but I have yet to see a comparison with the 21.5 vs 27. Both at native resolution. Thanks anyways.

 

[archer75]

Yes, i saw them, but I have yet to see a comparison with the 21.5 vs 27. Both at native resolution. Thanks anyways.

Well the 27" runs great at native. In OSX I have to use AF 8x and AA 1x to get playable FPS. But the quality slider is set to ultra. In windows I can set to ultra and AF 16x and AA 4x and get the same results. So plenty of eyecandy and it plays smooth.

 

[Icaras]

The top 27" with 6970 with 2GB VRAM will probably play best at native.

The top 21.5" with 6770 will have no competition for being second.

Basically, without even looking at benchmarks, its down to these two machines.

Well the 27" runs great at native.

It would really help if you stated which 27" you went with. Because the 21.5" with 6770 will play better than the base 27" with 6770.

 

[archer75]

It would really help if you stated which 27" you went with. Because the 21.5" with 6770 will play better than the base 27" with 6770.

6970m 2gb

 

[Badger^2]

Yes, i saw them, but I have yet to see a comparison with the 21.5 vs 27. Both at native resolution. Thanks anyways.

I dont understand why this is relevant.

many games dont even support 2560 x 1440 resolution.

Are you planning on gaming 10 hours a day? Is this the only factor in determining which mac you purchase?

I mean you are talking $1500 vs $2200. Whats you budget? And have you factored in more money for ram? Or the games themselves? Portal 2 is $50. (portal is a complete a total yawn fest, not sure why I would need a version 2)

 

[Icy1007]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Yes, i saw them, but I have yet to see a comparison with the 21.5 vs 27. Both at native resolution. Thanks anyways.

I dont understand why this is relevant.

many games dont even support 2560 x 1440 resolution.

Are you planning on gaming 10 hours a day? Is this the only factor in determining which mac you purchase?

I mean you are talking $1500 vs $2200. Whats you budget? And have you factored in more money for ram? Or the games themselves? Portal 2 is $50. (portal is a complete a total yawn fest, not sure why I would need a version 2)

Any game made in the last 8 years will support 2560x1440.

 

[Icaras]

I dont understand why this is relevant.

many games dont even support 2560 x 1440 resolution.

Are you planning on gaming 10 hours a day? Is this the only factor in determining which mac you purchase?

I mean you are talking $1500 vs $2200. Whats you budget? And have you factored in more money for ram? Or the games themselves? Portal 2 is $50. (portal is a complete a total yawn fest, not sure why I would need a version 2)

What are you talking about? Why in the world would you say native resolution is not relevant in gaming? Its one of the reaons that has factored in my purchase decision to go with the 21.5" over 27".

 

[christof72]

I dont understand why this is relevant.

many games dont even support 2560 x 1440 resolution.

As I wrote I only care about Blizzard games, especially WOW, and all those games play also at 2560 x 1440. I don't really like to play at non native resolutions.

Are you planning on gaming 10 hours a day? Is this the only factor in determining which mac you purchase?

I have always owned Macs, from the original iMac, thru the Titanium, the PowerBook and the MacBook Pro. Nevere have been a gamer, but WOW got me addicted in the last 1 e 1/2 year so I want it to perform decently especially during 25 man raids. I'm too bored about playing it with all settings on low on my MBP. Apart from that I do the usual stuff on the mac, iTunes, IPhoto, browsing, some light programming. I already spend for work 10 hours a day in front of a PC, so the mac is mostly for fun and relax.

I mean you are talking $1500 vs $2200. Whats you budget? And have you factored in more money for ram? Or the games themselves? Portal 2 is $50. (portal is a complete a total yawn fest, not sure why I would need a version 2)

Up to 2000 euros budget is not an issue. I just feel that the 27" would be too big for me so I'm just wondering about the difference in gameplay at native resolution between highend 21.5 and highend 27".
I'm also afraid that I'll have to learn to live with the glossy displays which I don't really like, but I'm already thinking about the best way to place it in the room to avoid reflections...

 

[corvus32]

I'd expect the 6770m@1920x1080 and the 6970m@2560x1440 to have comparable framerates for a given game, with the 6970m performing maybe 10-20% better.

Would love to see some benchmarks on this.

 

[TallManNY]

I'm curious as well to see how 21.5 does gaming-wise. Any hardcore gamer will take the big boy, but since there is a $800 difference to upgrade to that 6970M (yes you get other features), it makes sense to try to see what the gaming performance difference is.

 

[MythicFrost]

It's hard to tell if the 6970M 2GB at 1440p will be better than the 6750M 512MB at 1080p, I'm thinking it will be.

 

[archer75]

It's hard to tell if the 6970M 2GB at 1440p will be better than the 6750M 512MB at 1080p, I'm thinking it will be.

I think so as well. As I test the 6970m in gaming today I am quite impressed. It performs just as well at 2560x1440 as my desktop 460GTX 768mb card does at 1920x1200. And that's not what I was expecting to see.

 

[MythicFrost]

I think so as well. As I test the 6970m in gaming today I am quite impressed. It performs just as well at 2560x1440 as my desktop 460GTX 768mb card does at 1920x1200. And that's not what I was expecting to see.

Yikes that's pretty good! Don't suppose you have Windows and Crysis 2? I'm wanting to know what the rough frame rate at 2560x1440 on 'High' (lowest) is, it's unplayable on my 4850M.

 

[archer75]

Yikes that's pretty good! Don't suppose you have Windows and Crysis 2? I'm wanting to know what the rough frame rate at 2560x1440 on 'High' (lowest) is, it's unplayable on my 4850M.

Yes, I ran crysis 2 under windows at native rez. It's playable on (high)hardcore. Not quite as fluid. FPS probably in the upper 20's.

Completely playable at advanced(medium). FPS probably in the 30's. It was pretty solid.

The lowest setting I saw was gamer but I didn't try that.

I don't know what the command is to bring up the FPS monitor is in crysis 2.

 

[MythicFrost]

Yes, I ran crysis 2 under windows at native rez. It's playable on (high)hardcore. Not quite as fluid. FPS probably in the upper 20's.

Completely playable at advanced(medium). FPS probably in the 30's. It was pretty solid.

The lowest setting I saw was gamer but I didn't try that.

I don't know what the command is to bring up the FPS monitor is in crysis 2.

Ah sweet man! Thanks!

I don't know if you can, I use FRAPS to check the frame rate. I get 7-15 FPS at 2560x1440 on Gamer settings.

By the way, it sounds like you've not updated to the patch, although I could be wrong? I'm pretty sure in the patch they renamed the settings, and a few other things, etc.

 

[archer75]

Ah sweet man! Thanks!

I don't know if you can, I use FRAPS to check the frame rate. I get 7-15 FPS at 2560x1440 on Gamer settings.

By the way, it sounds like you've not updated to the patch, although I could be wrong? I'm pretty sure in the patch they renamed the settings, and a few other things, etc.

No, this is a stock install with no patch.

I will try fraps later and get back to you.

 

[MythicFrost]

No, this is a stock install with no patch.

I will try fraps later and get back to you.

Thought so, and yeah thanks that'd be great

 

[archer75]

On advanced I get 30-40 fps. Gamer gives me about 5 more fps. Hardcore drops it to the 20's.

So basically it plays well on medium settings.

 

[MythicFrost]

On advanced I get 30-40 fps. Gamer gives me about 5 more fps. Hardcore drops it to the 20's.

So basically it plays well on medium settings.

Great, thanks man! I Appreciate it! That's what I was hoping for