iMac and Mac mini Benchmarks

[Gilfanon]

Am I missing something here? I just got done playing Halo on my new mid-2007 iMac 20" with the Radeon 2400, and the game played plenty smooth and fun.

That's good to hear- all those of us who are thinking about getting the new iMac have to go on are the numbers, hence the concern, but if the real-world experience is as you suggest, then maybe all is not lost. My plan was to sink some cash into a 2.8 24" iMac with a 23" Cinema display attached. That way I can run Parallels in the 23" for playing Windows games and running Windows apps, while spending most of my time in OSX on the iMac screen. As far as I'm concerned, if this is possible without massively degraded performance in Parallels I'll be over the moon and Apple will have a sale, but there's a significant amount of doom and gloom on these forums, and the general response seems to be "Macs aren't for games, get an XBox 360" and other less-than-useful comments. I look forward to seeing a few more positive reviews of the iMac's performance!

 

[rs76]

Let's give it a while and see if driver and system updates improve the situation at all. The current MacBook Pro's had problems before they were updated.

All these comparisons are going with first release 2600's compared to mature 1600's and 7600's. All their system and driver improvements were already in place.

Of course these are not great graphics cards. Let's see if they are good enough for the casual gamer.

 

[splidge]

I mean all of us waiting for a hardware refresh on the iMac, HOPING that we could get a new graphics card in the thing that might last a couple of years before being hopelessly outdated for gaming got what? A new case and a WORSE graphics card than the one they were selling a year ago?!?!? WTF is up with that? They make me wish I'd gone ahead and got one with the superior NVidia card while I had the chance!

Apple clearly doesn't regard having a cutting-edge graphics card as being as important as you do. Apples are all about marketing - look how much better than Windows our OS is, look how much nicer our hardware looks, and when the mood takes them it's "look at this graph that shows how good the performance is". They know they can never win a graphics arms race with the PC (what with new gaming hardware coming out every 5 minutes) and there wouldn't be much benefit even if they could. It's worth noting that the 2600 does have top-notch video acceleration - something which is closer to Apple's heart than gaming.

Whether you like it or not, gamers just aren't Apple's priority. Whatever lip service they pay to making the platform more gamer friendly, it's just not. And to be honest I can't say I blame them; with consoles and PCs out there to compete with it's tough.

I don't really see how they could introduce a gamer friendly machine without breaking the simplicity of their product lineup. Right now they have the mini, the iMac and the Mac Pro, arranged on a more or less continuous price scale. Nice and simple, decide how much you want to spend on a computer and there's really only one option. Adding BTOs to the iMac makes it more complicated and ultimately can only go so far due to the heat and packaging constraints. Even the 7600GT BTO option is pretty weak compared to its contemporaries.

I like the MacOS, but I do NOT like how we are virtual slaves to Apple hardware. They decide FOR us what we can have and therefore what we can ultimately do. If they were fair about it and offered something for everyone and didn't milk us for all we're worth with underpowered machines (graphics wise) that are obsolete brand new (so much for the theory that Macs have a LONG shelf life...well unless you don't care AT ALL about gaming... and believe me I'm not hard core gamer, but I do like to play games sometimes and I don't want 20-30 fps averages when a higher graphics card would get me over 100 and therefore a nice safety margin for a couple of years).

Many of us have this vision of a dream desktop "Mac" product - mini tower case, configurable CPUs across the desktop core Duo line, graphics options from the most basic (even onboard) up to the latest and greatest thing that goes in a 16x PCI-E slot, enough space to provide sensible storage options (2x HD slots allowing RAID 0 or 1, 2x CD-drive slots). But how would it fit in with the marketing story? The price range on such a thing would range from below the Mac Mini (a Mac with equivalent specs should be cheaper than the Mini due to use of desktop components) right up into Mac Pro territory. Where does this leave the iMac and Mac Mini? Right now the apologists are quick to jump to the defence of these machines by pointing out how pretty and unique they are - but I'm sure quite a few would rather have a more powerful machine in a bigger box for the same money.

More worryingly I think for Apple, such a machine ends up looking remarkably like those Dells Apple likes to trash so much with the trailing wires connecting everything together. And it would invite direct comparisons, the likes of which it can currently avoid because the current Mac products aren't quite the same - witness the comparisons between the mac mini and low-end Dells around here which are met with "but the mini uses laptop components!". Sure, the Mac box would be prettier, but the difference is nowhere near as much as it is at the moment. Apple's strategy is based on being different (in ways they believe are better), so it's hard to see them coming up with something so conformist.

So, as a direct consequence of Apple's emphasis on a streamlined product line with unique products, some people's needs simply aren't met by the current Mac product line. Some of those people are so completely sold on Mac OS that they buy a Mac anyway (and optionally try and convince themselves that it's everything they wanted anyway). Others like Mac OS but reluctantly buy a PC anyway because they don't like it enough to buy completely the wrong machine for them. And others (like myself) just don't see what the big deal is with Mac OS - I own a Mac and some PCs running a mixture of Windows and Linux, and I just don't really understand any of the OS zealotry any more. They all do the job, sure OS X is a bit prettier but mostly it is just eye candy.

Either way there are plenty of people whose needs are served perfectly adequately by the existing Apple product line - and Apple (quite rightly I think) chooses to focus on attracting and retaining that user base rather than going after niche users like gamers.

What good does it do to bring back new release gaming for the Mac if NONE of the machines save the MacPro are capable of playing them smoothly at native resolutions and even there, it's half what a PC using SLI can do?

Marketing. "We play games too". They know they will never get the true hardcores who care about smooth gameplay at native resolutions in modern games so it's not worth the effort. If they can get a few more people who like the idea of a shiny Mac but are scared of not being able to play games on board then it's enough. And as you can see on this thread plenty of people are satisfied with the gaming performance of their Macs, even if you or I wouldn't be.

From what I've read, the MacPro can't do SLI period even with drivers as only one slot has the proper specs. So how is the MacPro a "Pro" machine, then? Or does that mean 'pro' as in professional Mac users are USED to having machines that can't run games? All this despite the fact Apple touts the MacPro as their top gaming hardware....

A MacPro is a "Pro" machine in that it munches through pro-level graphics, audio and video processing very nicely - activities which don't require a ninja graphics card. And it is also their top gaming hardware - the best processors and the only product they have to use a desktop video card. OK, so it's not particularly good in terms of value for money for gaming - but then frankly neither is any PC or Mac when compared to the Xbox 360...

splidge

 

[splidge]

Am I missing something here? I just got done playing Halo on my new mid-2007 iMac 20" with the Radeon 2400, and the game played plenty smooth and fun.

Call me biased, but in my eyes being able to play a 6-year old game on a brand new computer is hardly groundbreaking. Even the mac port is nearly 4 years old now!

splidge

 

[BenRoethig]

I really thought that with Games companies appearing at WWDC and announcing their return to the Mac, Apple would put some decent video cards in their computers. Missed opportunity I think.

And it looks like Steve's announced he really doesn't give a damn. There better be some really crappy drivers in play here. Either way, someone needs to be held to account.

 

[BenRoethig]

Am I missing something here? I just got done playing Halo on my new mid-2007 iMac 20" with the Radeon 2400, and the game played plenty smooth and fun.

I was one of those who complained about the poor gaming performance of the new iMac graphics cards, but then I bought an iMac and I realize I have nothing to complain about.

I admit I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I'm trying to figure out how playing Halo on my new iMac could have been any better.

If Halo runs on my iMac, and runs smooth, and the graphics looked fine to me, what is everyone going crazy about?

The way I figure it is this: given the amount of time I have to play games on my iMac (about a half-hour most days) there are way more Mac games available today than I could possibly play in the next few years. And that's not even counting PC games I could play on Bootcamp!

Here I have a computer that will play more games than I could possibly have time to get through, so why would I complain that my iMac won't play games that will be available next year.

I think everyone should quit obsessing on numbers and just start playing games on their iMac and I really believe all the complaining would fizzle out pretty quickly.

I don't know about you, but I'm having trouble with almost the 3 year old Q3 based Jedi Academy...in 800x600 resolution

 

[AidenShaw]

Something like this:

The Mac Fun™:

Conroe CPU
Radeon HD 2900 XT / GeForce 8800 GTX
2 internal HD
2 GB RAM
BlueRay drive
PCI sound card Dolby 5.1

How about:

minitower

• 2.4 GHz Kentsfield quad core, 1066 MHz bus
• 3 GiB RAM (up to 8GiB supported)
• 400GB SATA drive
• 16x DL lightscribe superdrive
• 7.1 audio with digital audio in/out
• GMA3100 integrated graphics with open x16 PCIe slot for upgraded graphics
• two open x1 PCIe slots
• 32-bit PCI slot
• open 3.5" disk bay
• open 5.25" DVD/disk bay
• 6 SATA ports (4 open)
• 2yr warranty
• 16.3 x 6.9 x 15.2 inches (Mac Pro is almost twice the volume at 20.1x8.1x18.7)

Fry's has been selling this system for $879-929. (HP a6152n)

Surely Apple could come up with a nice, small, modestly expandable tower like this....

 

[MacinDoc]

How about:

minitower

• 2.4 GHz Kentsfield quad core, 1066 MHz bus
• 3 GiB RAM (up to 8GiB supported)
• 400GB SATA drive
• 16x DL lightscribe superdrive
• 7.1 audio with digital audio in/out
• GMA3100 integrated graphics with open x16 PCIe slot for upgraded graphics
• two open x1 PCIe slots
• 32-bit PCI slot
• open 3.5" disk bay
• open 5.25" DVD/disk bay
• 6 SATA ports (4 open)
• 2yr warranty
• 16.3 x 6.9 x 15.2 inches (Mac Pro is almost twice the volume at 20.1x8.1x18.7)

Fry's has been selling this system for $879-929. (HP a6152n)

Surely Apple could come up with a nice, small, modestly expandable tower like this....

Sure, Apple could, but has it ever shown any interest in doing so? The latest iMac certainly has me questioning Apple's new-found commitment to gaming.

I think this video card choice is more about making the iMac into Apple's new HD multimedia hub. Of course, that begs the question of why there is no TV tuner...

 

[Mysrt]

pathetic

 

[splidge]

How about:

minitower

• 2.4 GHz Kentsfield quad core, 1066 MHz bus
• 3 GiB RAM (up to 8GiB supported)
• 400GB SATA drive
• 16x DL lightscribe superdrive
• 7.1 audio with digital audio in/out
• GMA3100 integrated graphics with open x16 PCIe slot for upgraded graphics
• two open x1 PCIe slots
• 32-bit PCI slot
• open 3.5" disk bay
• open 5.25" DVD/disk bay
• 6 SATA ports (4 open)
• 2yr warranty
• 16.3 x 6.9 x 15.2 inches (Mac Pro is almost twice the volume at 20.1x8.1x18.7)

Fry's has been selling this system for $879-929. (HP a6152n)

Surely Apple could come up with a nice, small, modestly expandable tower like this....

And if they did, everyone would say "Apple has really gone off the boil, the latest machine is just a HP a6152n in a prettier case for $200 more". People like you (or I) may well say "OS X is worth $200" and snap it up, but the mass market (who can't tell a Kentsfield from a Klamath) would take it as reinforcing the "Apple is expensive" association they are so keen to get away from.

Not saying I agree with that or that I'm happy with the situation (I would probably buy that machine, but would not consider any of the current Apple "desktops"), but I think that's what you're up against. Apple/Mac is all about "think different". That works brilliantly a lot of the time, but loses on the odd occasion that the mass market is on to something.

splidge

 

[prisoner54]

Am I missing something here? I just got done playing Halo on my new mid-2007 iMac 20" with the Radeon 2400, and the game played plenty smooth and fun.

i was also pretty disappointed with the cards when the spec announcements happened last week. i had toyed with the idea of getting a quad-core Winbox for about the same price, but couldn't face the idea of i) windows for day-to-day tasks and long documents, and ii) a HUGE, heavy-breathing, environmentally-unfriendly machine occupying the desk if i only want to play a few PC games.

the geekbench tests are not necessarily in 'real-world' scenarios - it's fine to play games without 4x anti-aliasing, and decent framerates will be achievable by turning some of the settings down. this is the price to pay for a consumer-oriented all-in-one that plays PC games from time to time.

three things to note:

- firstly, all the high-res eye candy is a good test for a gaming rig, but if the game is good you tend to focus more on the task at hand

- a HUGE backlog of games suddenly opens up. i've been wanting to play Half-Life 2 since it came out, and Far Cry, and HL2 on the iMac with HD2600 has all settings maxed out and looks and plays like a dream

- time will tell. driver issues + the fact that it is technically a DirectX 10 card.

i wanted to play HL2 so badly that i borrowed a friend's Xbox. a different game - same with Far Cry. playing through the PC versions is now particularly satisfying. try it. and i've ordered GRAW 1 too, which came out last year. we'll see. again, far superior game to the console version.

ironically, it seems, my 'work' iMac (with GeForce 7600) is better specified than my week-old 'home' machine... dang. and don't even mention 'Crysis' - technically it should play, but won't look as stunning as it should.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple/Mac is all about "think different". That works brilliantly a lot of the time, but loses on the odd occasion that the mass market is on to something.

"Thinking differently" certainly is saying "Next up, got some great news about games: EA, number one publisher of games, is coming back to Mac in a BIG way." and then introducing a new consumer desktop with a graphics card that's often less than half as fast as the last version.

I wonder if EA and id are feeling "used" right now...up on stage at WWDC to show off the work that's happening on Mac games, then slapped in the face in August with a desktop that will be unable to play them.

Bringing games back to Mac in a BIG way will require a low cost machine with good graphics. Neither the MiniMac nor the iMac can cool (or fit) a good graphics card, so the mini-tower is the logical option.

the latest machine is just a HP a6152n in a prettier case

Surely you don't think that Apple couldn't do something better than that?

How about a small-form-factor tower - essentially a MiniMac with a desktop socket (Conroe dual/Kentsfield quad) and a 3.5" disk and an x16 PCIe slot?

How about taking that same basic motherboard, and putting it in a DVD-player sized case with a TV tuner and cablecard slot and take on the Windows Media Center?

 

[Thomas2006]

I believe Core Duo and Core 2 Duo use the same socket and everything?

So all Apple had to do was simply change what chip they plug into the board. No motherboard changes/upgrades or anything.

It makes me wonder why they took so damn long to do this. Were they waiting until Core 2 Duo prices dropped enough to keep their profit margin on the Mini? It's annoying.

I know the Mac mini is a desktop and the MacBook is a portable, but if you go to the Buyer's Guide section of this site and look at the specs for the high-end Mac mini and 14" iBook, 07/2005 for both, you will see the only real difference is the iBook has a keyboard and a monitor, but came with a $600 premium. I believe Apple was not neglecting the Mac mini, but simply had to wait until they could put a clear separation between the Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Pro which they weren't able to do with the PPC processors.

Tell me whether or not the following updates seem logical, keeping in mind the MacBook Pro needs to be "Pro", and the Mac mini needs to be "entry-level"

Current:
MacBook Pro: 802.11n, Santa Rosa, 65nm Core 2 Duo
MacBook: 802.11n, no Santa Rosa, 65nm Core 2 Duo
Mac mini: 802.11g, no Santa Rosa, 65nm Core 2 Duo

Update 1:
MacBook Pro: 802.11n, Santa Rosa, 45nm Penryn
MacBook: 802.11n, Santa Rosa, 65nm Core 2 Duo
Mac mini: 802.11n, no Santa Rosa, 65nm Core 2 Duo

Update 2:
MacBook Pro: 802.11n, Montevina, 45nm Penryn dual-core, quad-core CTO
MacBook: 802.11n, Santa Rosa, 45nm Penryn
Mac mini: 802.11n, Santa Rosa, 65nm Core 2 Duo

Update 3:
MacBook Pro: 802.11n, Montevina, 45nm Nahalem (new micro-architecture) all quad-core
MacBook: 802.11n, Montevina, 45nm Penryn dual-core, maybe quad-core CTO
Mac mini: 802.11n, Santa Rosa, 45nm Penryn

 

[gamac]

Why does Mac = Steve Job's way or the highway?

Maybe because Steve Job's is the CEO of Apple.

or

Maybe because, without Steve Job, Apple would have already been bankrupt and out of business by now.

 

[macintel4me]

This graphics thing really surprises me, like everyone else here, especially given the recent game push. Since when has Apple started creating products that are not insanely great?!? Something just doesn't add up here. I won't be surprised if Apple comes out with an updated driver and their own benchmarks to show that this video card is really a decent, if not a great card. Wishful thinking?? Time will tell, but I bet Apple will come out with some update on this issue within the next week.

 

[PNW]

And if they did, everyone would say "Apple has really gone off the boil, the latest machine is just a HP a6152n in a prettier case for $200 more". People like you (or I) may well say "OS X is worth $200" and snap it up, but the mass market (who can't tell a Kentsfield from a Klamath) would take it as reinforcing the "Apple is expensive" association they are so keen to get away from.

Interesting I look at the ~$1200 box I'd build and the > $2000 iMac or Pro I'd have to buy to meet or beat the CPU,GPU,HD, and RAM and say as much as I love OS X it's not worth $800.

On a somewhat off topic note (related in how Apple's hardware limitations cost them sales):
I had my in laws convinced to buy a Mac Book until it turned out that a having 15"-17" screen was a deal breaker. The MBP was way more money for too much computer for them so they bought a Dell.

And it would invite direct comparisons, the likes of which it can currently avoid because the current Mac products aren't quite the same - witness the comparisons between the mac mini and low-end Dells around here which are met with "but the mini uses laptop components!".

IMHO the best and most frequent argument for the mini over the Dell is the mini's form factor. While that is somewhat related to the use of laptop components they could still make it wee bit larger, use some desktop components and still have the box that will fit anywhere along with a lower cost.

More worryingly I think for Apple, such a machine ends up looking remarkably like those Dells Apple likes to trash so much with the trailing wires connecting everything together.

And as soon as you add any upgrades: second HD, TV tuner, etc you wind up with a morass of wires that in the case of the iMac also have to be located on the desk as opposed to under it.

 

[AidenShaw]

IMHO the best and most frequent argument for the mini over the Dell is the mini's form factor.

Dell makes small-form-factor (SFF) systems that are 12.5" x 13.5" x 3.6" and ultra-SFF that are 10" x 10" x 3.5" - while still much larger than the mini's 6.5x6.5x2, this gives you 3.5" disks in both, and an x16 PCIe slot in the SFF.

And as soon as you add any upgrades: second HD, TV tuner, etc you wind up with a morass of wires that in the case of the iMac also have to be located on the desk as opposed to under it.

That picture of the Dell wire tangle was borderline dishonesty, and Apple should be ashamed.

In five minutes with a couple of velcro wire ties the Dell could have been made to look much better (and I'm sure Apple spent more than 5 minutes on the precise coiling of the keyboard and mouse cords on the iMac ).

And if it were my system, I'd have left off the grotesque camera and the MCE remote dongle as well - don't need or want those things.
__________________

The small system is an SFF with an x16 PCIe slot, the larger one is still only 2/3 the size of the Mac Pro.

 

[LSlugger]

Wow, how far we've come. 23FPS isn't playable? Just a few short years ago, if you could get 23FPS from a game it was VERY playable.

If you thought 23 FPS was playable a few years ago, you'll probably think it's playable now. However, it hasn't generally been considered satisfactory for an action game since the Voodoo2.

When you look at a narrow slice of benchmarks like this, keep a few things in mind:

• You can't extrapolate these numbers to other resolutions or detail levels. The rankings may change at 800 x 600 or 1920 x 1200 (assuming it is even, ahem, playable). The 2600 Pro in the new iMac is supposedly an under-clocked Mobility 2600 XT. With so few benchmarks to go on, you can't say that it is better or worse than a 7600GT. If you play a Doom 3-based game at 1280 x 800 with high quality, it is probably worse.
• The number in the chart is an average frame rate, which means that the instantaneous frame rate was sometimes lower. It could have swung between 5 and 60 FPS, for all we know.
• You can't compare frame rates in one game to another, because it depends on the content of the demo. Is it a simple flyby or an intense fire fight? When Quake 2 was the benchmark of choice, there was a demo called "crusher," which had many players and non-stop explosions. If you got over 30 FPS in crusher, you felt pretty good. A less demanding demo might have yielded 60 FPS or more on the same system.

The iMac is a solid computer that I'd recommend in a lot of circumstances. Still, I am disappointed that there isn't a better video card option (and a matte screen, but that's another thread).

 

[WannaGoMac]

If you thought 23 FPS was playable a few years ago, you'll probably think it's playable now. However, it hasn't generally been considered satisfactory for an action game since the Voodoo2.

When you look at a narrow slice of benchmarks like this, keep a few things in mind:

• You can't extrapolate these numbers to other resolutions or detail levels. The rankings may change at 800 x 600 or 1920 x 1200 (assuming it is even, ahem, playable). The 2600 Pro in the new iMac is supposedly an under-clocked Mobility 2600 XT. With so few benchmarks to go on, you can't say that it is better or worse than a 7600GT. If you play a Doom 3-based game at 1280 x 800 with high quality, it is probably worse.
• The number in the chart is an average frame rate, which means that the instantaneous frame rate was sometimes lower. It could have swung between 5 and 60 FPS, for all we know.
• You can't compare frame rates in one game to another, because it depends on the content of the demo. Is it a simple flyby or an intense fire fight? When Quake 2 was the benchmark of choice, there was a demo called "crusher," which had many players and non-stop explosions. If you got over 30 FPS in crusher, you felt pretty good. A less demanding demo might have yielded 60 FPS or more on the same system.

The iMac is a solid computer that I'd recommend in a lot of circumstances. Still, I am disappointed that there isn't a better video card option (and a matte screen, but that's another thread).

http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html

Last-gen 24" iMac with 7600 GT spanks the crap out of the new ones...

 

[tom5304]

Call me biased, but in my eyes being able to play a 6-year old game on a brand new computer is hardly groundbreaking. Even the mac port is nearly 4 years old now!

splidge

That's not biased; it's just a good observation.

I guess my point is fodder for both camps. The new iMacs are fine gaming machines, as long as you're willing to play last year's games. Most people aren't willing to make that concession, and for $1,200, they probably shouldn't have to.

I'm okay playing last year's games, because I just came off a Celeron PC where I was playing the last DECADE'S games.

With the iMac, I get the computer I want, and the games I can accept. Not a ringing endorsement of Apple's gaming strategy, but it's the best I can do at the moment. A MacPro at $2,500 just wasn't going to happen for me.

 

[splidge]

IMHO the best and most frequent argument for the mini over the Dell is the mini's form factor. While that is somewhat related to the use of laptop components they could still make it wee bit larger, use some desktop components and still have the box that will fit anywhere along with a lower cost.

I certainly agree that the Mini's strongest point is it's form factor, and viewed in that light it's excellent. Compared to mini-ITX type machines it's pretty cheap and powerful.

However, the Mini is the only desktop mac option without a built in screen until the Mac Pro which starts at $2200, which given that not everyone wants a built in screen leaves rather a lot of PC market for it to compete against. And as a general desktop machine it's doesn't do well value-for-money wise against PCs. Sure the small form factor is nifty, but if you don't need a small machine then you're getting less for your money than you would with a PC - and the sales of SFF PCs compared to "normal" PCs seems to indicate that a lot of people are quite happy with a full sized machine.

But the fact that it is a SFF machine using laptop components avoids it having to stand any direct comparison with full-size PCs - hence the oft-repeanted argument "this dell is cheaper" "but it's huuuuge!"

And yes, Apple could certainly make a box that's a bit larger using desktop components and offering better price/performance. But they won't do that since they want you to buy an iMac.

And as soon as you add any upgrades: second HD, TV tuner, etc you wind up with a morass of wires that in the case of the iMac also have to be located on the desk as opposed to under it.

Well yes, but by the time you realise that you've already bought the machine...

Most people with a PC don't actually have a huge tangle of wires visible because the PC lives under the desk and the wires behind it. That doesn't stop the notion of a computer with fewer wires seeming attractive.

splidge

 

[WannaGoMac]

Everyone keeps mentioned Apple was "returning to gaming." However, i don't recall this ever being said by Jobs. He just said EA was coming back, and not that Apple was going to start caring about gaming... at least as far as I remember.

 

[~Shard~]

Everyone keeps mentioned Apple was "returning to gaming." However, i don't recall this ever being said by Jobs. He just said EA was coming back, and not that Apple was going to start caring about gaming... at least as far as I remember.

Watch the beginning of the WWDC keynote again, then we'll talk.

 

[jeffbax]

That's not biased; it's just a good observation.

I guess my point is fodder for both camps. The new iMacs are fine gaming machines, as long as you're willing to play last year's games. Most people aren't willing to make that concession, and for $1,200, they probably shouldn't have to.

I'm okay playing last year's games, because I just came off a Celeron PC where I was playing the last DECADE'S games.

With the iMac, I get the computer I want, and the games I can accept. Not a ringing endorsement of Apple's gaming strategy, but it's the best I can do at the moment. A MacPro at $2,500 just wasn't going to happen for me.

Thats the thing, the new iMacs won't even play last years, nor the games of two years ago well.

Struggling to play Quake 4 at 1024x768 (not even widescreen) is horrendous. 23 FPS is not playable at all. 30FPS is the BARE MINIMUM and 60FPS is the sweet spot you want to be at (mostly, you want to match your screen's refresh rate so you don't get vsync tearing)

Yeah, its fine to expect it to not play Crysis at native res with all high details, that takes a much beefier card. But its NOT asking too much to say have the iMac play at 1280x800 (lower res, but still widescreen) with nice settings and 60 FPS.

A $1200 PC can crank out 200+ FPS at Quake 4 at 1024x768, it is not unreasonable to want your $2000 iMac to at least get 60.

 

[clevin]

seriously, how many gamers buy mac anyway? its really not that important for now.