How would the 4850 fare in these games? (I might have to wait for graphics revision)

[The Final Cut]

Can the 4850 Run the following games flawlessly at native res? Figure medium settings at least. Is the 5670 imac way better?

mass effect
mass effect 2
fallout 3
fallout 4
mafia 2
tropico 3
aoe 3
starcraft 2
dragon age
bioshock 1
bioshock 2
world at war

 

[Hellhammer]

4850 is much faster than 5670. If you want better graphics, you must jump for the 5750 model

 

[chris650]

If I need to do heavy large file photoshop--either i7 with 4850, or i5 with 5750, which would you go?

What's the real life difference between core2duo and quad core??? Under what kind of circumstances or task will it make a difference?

Given the same price, would you go for Quad Core i5 with 1GB vram or Quad Core i7 with 0.5 GB vram?

 

[Hellhammer]

If I need to do heavy large file photoshop--either i7 with 4850, or i5 with 5750, which would you go?

What's the real life difference between core2duo and quad core??? Under what kind of circumstances or task will it make a difference?

Given the same price, would you go for Quad Core i5 with 1GB vram or Quad Core i7 with 0.5 GB vram?

Photoshop is still mainly single-threaded, some of its features are quad-threaded but both of those CPUs have four threads or more.

Quad core (i.e. iX) is faster in tasks like Photoshop for example.

That's because some features are multithreaded and even if they aren't, the quads support Turbo Boost which can temporarily overclock the cores so it will be faster. The most noticeable difference would be when doing video encoding or rendering something but it may make a difference in PS.

I would go for the i7 unless you do gaming. The difference between those two in PS is quite negligible but i7's Hyper-Threading makes it a bit more future-proof

 

[chris650]

Photoshop is still mainly single-threaded, some of its features are quad-threaded but both of those CPUs have four threads or more.

Quad core (i.e. iX) is faster in tasks like Photoshop for example.

That's because some features are multithreaded and even if they aren't, the quads support Turbo Boost which can temporarily overclock the cores so it will be faster. The most noticeable difference would be when doing video encoding or rendering something but it may make a difference in PS.

I would go for the i7 unless you do gaming. The difference between those two in PS is quite negligible but i7's Hyper-Threading makes it a bit more future-proof

But the option available to me, the i7 has only 4850 graphic with 0.5 gB vram? How much a role does a graphic card play?

 

[Hellhammer]

But the i7 has only 4850 graphic with 0.5 gB vram? How much a role does a graphic card play?

Are you going to do gaming? In Photoshop, the GPU ain't that relevant so 4850 will be more than fine.

 

[dh2005]

Can the 4850 Run the following games flawlessly at native res? Figure medium settings at least. Is the 5670 imac way better?

mass effect
mass effect 2
fallout 3
fallout 4
mafia 2
tropico 3
aoe 3
starcraft 2
dragon age
bioshock 1
bioshock 2
world at war

Don't sweat the "native res" issue. It was a worry of mine before I bought my iMac but, now that I'm using it, running games at 1440p really isn't necessary. In fact, it's not always the 'best' way to do it.

By way of illustration; Portal runs on my iMac at 1440p, with most of the detail settings at maximum (no anti-aliasing), at a fairly decent framerate. It's not silky, but it's fine, and I found that it only really showed slowdown when I opened and closed a number of portals in rapid succession in the same field of vision - which I was only doing to make it slow down! I could have played through the game like that, very easily... However, I found that by dropping the res to 1080p, maxing the detail settings and putting the AA up to x4, it achieved a 'better' aesthetic effect. It looked nicer, in my opinion, and it definitely ran faster.


As a general yardstick; I play Crysis and Crysis Warhead at 1080p with all graphical settings on Medium, and they run fine. You get a bit of slowdown when you zoom in and out with the binoculars, but in moment-to-moment combat and exploration, whether in open or confined spaces, the framerate's solid. 1440p? Forget about it.


With regard to the specific games you've listed, I only own one of them. BioShock 2 runs very nicely (more nicely than I'd expected...) at 1080p with all the settings maxed. I imagine that putting it up to 1440p would make it creak - but, in my honest opinion, there's no need.

 

[TMRaven]

I can vouch for Fallout: New Vegas and starcraft2. Both games I've played at native resolution with highest graphics settings and no anti-aliasing on my mobility 4850 27 inch iMac, and have gotten 30-40fps on average. There will be times where it dips to around 20, but you'll never notice any choppiness when actually playing the games.

Unlike previous poster, I feel that running games at non-native resolution and having AA isn't the best aesthetic effect. To each his own tho.

Starcraft2 can get quite complex when doing 4-8 man fights, so if you're planning on doing those, keep shaders down to high instead of ultra.

 

[dh2005]

... whereas I differ on the framerate point. A drop to 20 would definitely jar, for me.


Can I ask what you make of New Vegas? There's lots of talk about serious bugs wrecking the experience, but I've been looking for a new RPG for a while now.

 

[TMRaven]

Havn't seen much. There's a couple of hilarious glitches here and there, but I feel that's what makes those games so great.

I saw one instance where texture failed to load for a couple minutes, but that's all I can think of.

Oh, and it seems to have problem with anti-aliasing when in vats, your framerate will drop down to 1 every 10 seconds. Dropping resolution down to 1080p or keeping anti-aliasing off will fix that, but it's something I hope obsidian patches later on. No other bugs or framerate issues/freezing to report.

I think most of the bugs people are complaining about are on ps3/xbox360 versions.

 

[dh2005]

Thanks for that.

Hmm. I think I'm gonna keep my powder dry and wait for them to patch it. I don't mind the occasional Oblivion-esque clipping crisis, but if the game bombs on me and I lose three hours of progress, I'll throw my iMac out of the window.

 

[chris650]

Are you going to do gaming? In Photoshop, the GPU ain't that relevant so 4850 will be more than fine.

I never play games...

So, quad core i5 does NOT have hyper-threading?

 

[TMRaven]

I never play games...

So, quad core i5 does NOT have hyper-threading?

Nope.

 

[chris650]

What does hyper-threading do? in the future?

 

[beerglass007]

whats does the i5 not do that the i7 does ?

I just ordered a i5, should I get the i7

 

[TMRaven]

The i7 lynnfield has hyperthreading while the i5 lynnfield does not.

Basically hyperthreading is the cpu tricking the operating system into thinking it has 8 cores. The operating system and programs recognize the cpu to have 8threads, when it actually has 4. So programs that scale above 4threads can make use of hyperthreading. You get faster performance when the extra threads are used, but they're not as good as actual physical cores.

 

[Trinite]

4850 is much faster than 5670. If you want better graphics, you must jump for the 5750 model

Hi everyone,

I'm new at posting here (though I've been reading for a while - thanks for all the information!), so please forgive me if this is a stupid question.

I'm planning to get an iMac, probably the 21.5" because the 27" just seems too big. But I'm a bit confused about the different GPUs in various iMac configurations. I had thought that the 5670, being newer and *blush* a higher number than the 4670, would be an upgrade from that, and from the previous generation's 4850 as well (I do know that it's really the Mobility 5730).

But now, from what Hellhammer says above, and what notebookcheck says, it seems that the "5670" is only a step up (and not a very big one) from the 4670, and actually not as good a GPU as the 4850 - is that right? And that if I want a better GPU than the 4850, I have to go up to the 27" and the 5750?

As far as I know, the 4850 is only available in the prev generation 27" - but if it's a much better card, maybe it's worth saving some money (over the new 27" with the 5750), and trying to find a refurb? I'm mostly concerned about the GPU differences in terms of gaming (NOT very hardcore, but I'd like to have a few year's grace...).

I'd really appreciate any suggestions!! (oh, and I know that if I'm really thinking about gaming, I should drop all of this and build a PC system. But I want to stick with Macs, and be able to use the same machine for work and play)

Thanks!!

 

[TMRaven]

Having a few years' grace will nearly be impossible with iMacs, as far as maxing out games is concerned. The 5750 (mobility 5850) is currently the strongest gpu the iMacs offer, and I'd consider that.

The mobility 4850 is more powerful than mobility 5730 because you're looking at the numbers wrong.

the number at the beginning just means newer architecture/features. The numbers after that indicate their performance. So the higher up the number after the generation indicator, the better the performance. Newer generations of course bring performance increases across the board most of the time, but only when the performance indicating numbers are close to each other.

Historically for ati cards, 800 series has been their high-end, while 600-700 series was mainstream. 900 or x2 series are catered to enthusiasts, while 500 and below can be considered geared toward energy efficiency for machines that don't need the gaming power.

 

[beerglass007]

Hi everyone,

I'm new at posting here (though I've been reading for a while - thanks for all the information!), so please forgive me if this is a stupid question.

I'm planning to get an iMac, probably the 21.5" because the 27" just seems too big. But I'm a bit confused about the different GPUs in various iMac configurations. I had thought that the 5670, being newer and *blush* a higher number than the 4670, would be an upgrade from that, and from the previous generation's 4850 as well (I do know that it's really the Mobility 5730).

But now, from what Hellhammer says above, and what notebookcheck says, it seems that the "5670" is only a step up (and not a very big one) from the 4670, and actually not as good a GPU as the 4850 - is that right? And that if I want a better GPU than the 4850, I have to go up to the 27" and the 5750?

As far as I know, the 4850 is only available in the prev generation 27" - but if it's a much better card, maybe it's worth saving some money (over the new 27" with the 5750), and trying to find a refurb? I'm mostly concerned about the GPU differences in terms of gaming (NOT very hardcore, but I'd like to have a few year's grace...).

I'd really appreciate any suggestions!! (oh, and I know that if I'm really thinking about gaming, I should drop all of this and build a PC system. But I want to stick with Macs, and be able to use the same machine for work and play)

Thanks!!

You have or had the same problem as me. I wanted a Mac for work/play and didn't want a PC. I have a 21" with a 4670 but it not amazing for gaming just ok. So I brought a 27" i5 with a 5750 this week. So far the speed is much better in gaming. Application wise I don't see much difference between the 21" and 27"

Also I'm finding the 27" almost to big. I keep returning my desk and having another go, sometimes I sit there and love it, then 30 mins later have a banging head, hurts feel dry and wanna return it.

Just wish they had a i5 5750 in the 21" or made a 24"

 

[Trinite]

Having a few years' grace will nearly be impossible with iMacs, as far as maxing out games is concerned. The 5750 (mobility 5850) is currently the strongest gpu the iMacs offer, and I'd consider that.

The mobility 4850 is more powerful than mobility 5730 because you're looking at the numbers wrong.

the number at the beginning just means newer architecture/features. The numbers after that indicate their performance. So the higher up the number after the generation indicator, the better the performance. Newer generations of course bring performance increases across the board most of the time, but only when the performance indicating numbers are close to each other.

Historically for ati cards, 800 series has been their high-end, while 600-700 series was mainstream. 900 or x2 series are catered to enthusiasts, while 500 and below can be considered geared toward energy efficiency for machines that don't need the gaming power.

Thanks - that helps a lot! And yes, the 5750/5850 is clearly the best choice, but just not an option if I want to stay at 21.5". Compromises, compromises....

It doesn't help that I'm living in Europe, where Macs are so much more expensive than in the US. But I guess since I'm really only a casual gamer, my emphasis should be on the iMac's quality as a whole. And the upgraded 3.6 i5 sounds great - and it's not like the 5670/5730 sounds like a BAD gpu....

Thanks again for the help!

 

[Hellhammer]

and it's not like the 5670/5730 sounds like a BAD gpu....

It's definitively not a bad GPU, especially if you consider its overclocking potential. ATI 4670 is 35W part while 5730 is only 26W so OCing 5730 is pretty safe as iMac is designed to house a hotter GPU (4670).

That can only be done under Windows thouhg

 

[Trinite]

It's definitively not a bad GPU, especially if you consider its overclocking potential. ATI 4670 is 35W part while 5730 is only 26W so OCing 5730 is pretty safe as iMac is designed to house a hotter GPU (4670).

That can only be done under Windows thouhg

Hmmm.... Great idea, thanks! I'm pretty new at this sort of thing: do you by any chance have a link to where I could learn how to do this?

 

[Hellhammer]

Hmmm.... Great idea, thanks! I'm pretty new at this sort of thing: do you by any chance have a link to where I could learn how to do this?

Here is a thread about OCing 5850M.

I think MSI AfterBurner and MacFan are the most important apps you need.

 

[Trinite]

Here is a thread about OCing 5850M.

I think MSI AfterBurner and MacFan are the most important apps you need.

Thanks! New computer, new project...

 

[rugonnagraduate]

Don't sweat the "native res" issue. It was a worry of mine before I bought my iMac but, now that I'm using it, running games at 1440p really isn't necessary. In fact, it's not always the 'best' way to do it.

By way of illustration; Portal runs on my iMac at 1440p, with most of the detail settings at maximum (no anti-aliasing), at a fairly decent framerate. It's not silky, but it's fine, and I found that it only really showed slowdown when I opened and closed a number of portals in rapid succession in the same field of vision - which I was only doing to make it slow down! I could have played through the game like that, very easily... However, I found that by dropping the res to 1080p, maxing the detail settings and putting the AA up to x4, it achieved a 'better' aesthetic effect. It looked nicer, in my opinion, and it definitely ran faster.


As a general yardstick; I play Crysis and Crysis Warhead at 1080p with all graphical settings on Medium, and they run fine. You get a bit of slowdown when you zoom in and out with the binoculars, but in moment-to-moment combat and exploration, whether in open or confined spaces, the framerate's solid. 1440p? Forget about it.


With regard to the specific games you've listed, I only own one of them. BioShock 2 runs very nicely (more nicely than I'd expected...) at 1080p with all the settings maxed. I imagine that putting it up to 1440p would make it creak - but, in my honest opinion, there's no need.

Are you running these on parallels? Or do they have Crysis for Mac?