I know, I know... but will Fallout 3 run decently on my iMac?

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by mattcube64, Nov 2, 2008.

  1. mattcube64 macrumors 65816

    mattcube64

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Location:
    Missouri
    #1
    Specs in the sig.

    Basically, can I do medium-high settings in 1920x1200 with AA off?

    Anybody try so far?
     
  2. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #2
    I can't give you a sure answer, but it runs great at 1400x900 on my 2.4gHz Macbook Pro (9600gt)

    I really don't know how the 9600gt compares to the 2600. That would be the killer if there is one.
     
  3. cptrios macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    #3
    What are your settings like (other than res.), akm?
     
  4. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #4
    Sure,

    It set everything to 'High', with 960x?? resolution, I upped the resolution to 1440x900, turned down AA to zero, and kept the ansitropic at 4. It plays plenty good for me!
     
  5. cptrios macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    #5
    Awesome! I really think that I need to stop basing my expectations of graphics performance on how well a computer runs Crysis...it looks like pretty much everything else is less demanding.
     
  6. Cantello macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Location:
    Lüneburg
    #6
    FO3 runs fair enough here as well. MBP with 2.2GHz at its native resolution and filtering and AA off.

    Only the game doesn't cut it for me so far...
     
  7. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #7
    Yea, the 'Crysis test' is really useless for determining if a game will run or not. Most games are created to work on much less demanding hardware.
     
  8. gjones macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #8
    I'm running Fallout on my 2.4Ghz imac with the ATI 2600-thing (HD? Mobility? so many extra bits...) and it's ok with 'high' (I played with that for a while) but noticeably smoother/more responsive (especially in combat with more than 1 or 2 people) with medium, this is at 1920x1200 or whatever the max is. I'm guessing that as it was fine most of the time on High that I could play with a few of the individual settings and end up somewhere in between, but I'm happy enough :)
     
  9. larryj macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #9
    Has anyone tried on a 3ghz iMac with the 8800GS card? I think it should be fine, but I'm trying to decide between the 360 and Windows versions.
     
  10. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #10
    It will scream on that iMac. (Didn't you just catch the part where it works great on a 2.4 Macbook Pro with a 9600gt?)
     
  11. tackchevy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #11
    Too Soon

    I popped in GOW I into my ps3 for the first time yesterday. FO3 will just have to wait until the back catalog gets cleared.... :(
     
  12. larryj macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #12
    Thanks.

    I wasn't sure how the 9600GT compared to my 8800GS. My assumption is that that 9600GT is quite a bit better.
     
  13. marclapierre13 macrumors 6502a

    marclapierre13

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
  14. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #14
    The 8800GS is much better than the 9600GT.

    And ignore the above poster, Fallout is awesome =D
     
  15. asphyxiafeeling macrumors regular

    asphyxiafeeling

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Location:
    Cali baby!
    #15

    it's easy to get confused. here's a way to help (for me anyway)

    XXXX <---- Nvidia graphics scheme

    9XXX, 8XXX, etc = the series of card. for example, the 9 series just came out recently. the 8 series is from last year. it's just how new the card is (newer is generally better, after leading up to the next point)

    X600, X800, etc = BASIC WAY TO SUM IT UP = how good the card is. IE, a X400 is worse then a X600.

    using that, you can infer that although a 9600M is NEWER then a 8800, the 8800 still outperforms it. that being said, something like, say, a 9800 would probably be slightly better then a 8800. even though they are from the same high end product line, the 9800 may win over because it's got some newer technology.

    i'm not very much of a technical guy, so i may have it wrong. but that's my easy-mode way to deal with computer specs without getting into too much detail.
     
  16. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #16
    Yea, the naming is completely screwy.

    Then you get names from ATI overlapping, there was an ATI Radeon 9700 for example.

    So Nvidia 9600,
    Radeon 9700
    Nvidia 9800
    Radeon x850

    It is very very confusing, so I forgive anyone who is confused.

    But the 8800gs in the 3.06 iMac is the second best video card available for any Mac. It can murder Fallout 3 for a very acceptable gaming experience.

    -Allen
     

Share This Page