iMac and Mac mini Benchmarks

[Haoshiro]

Not sure if you are saying you wish the iMacs were faster, or you don't care about gaming?

Crysis will be playable on lower cards...
Graphics: Nvidia 7800 or ATI X1800 (SM 3.0)
http://www.crysis-online.com/Information/System%20Requirements/

Hey thanks, last time I checked the specs weren't released or talked about.

I think the big thing for me there is that it seems to be developed for multiple processors (unlike Quake 4 which had it tacked on later).

What you inadvertently did was prove that these new iMacs (indeed even the older iMacs), will be able to play Crysis. Possible quite well, thanks to the multiple cores on the Core Duo/Core 2 Duo chips.

That's just a lot better then I would have expected, let's hope in actual use this works out better then it did with Far Cry.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Hey thanks, last time I checked the specs weren't released or talked about.

I think the big thing for me there is that it seems to be developed for multiple processors (unlike Quake 4 which had it tacked on later).

What you inadvertently did was prove that these new iMacs (indeed even the older iMacs), will be able to play Crysis. Possible quite well, thanks to the multiple cores on the Core Duo/Core 2 Duo chips.

That's just a lot better then I would have expected, let's hope in actual use this works out better then it did with Far Cry.

Well given reports on how they already are terrible on OLD games like Halo etc, I would assume this is playing the games at a really low resolution and lower detail settings.

Gaming on iMacs will suck -- whether or not it is now or in 6 months. Apple stinks for not putting decent GPUs into their precious and expensive computers. End of story.

 

[tom5304]

So, why would Apple use such a lousy graphics chip in the iMac?

1. Compact size.
2. Low heat signature inside a case with very limited heat exchanging ability.
3. Less cooling = less fan noise.
4. HD Video encoding to offload this from the CPU.
5. Maybe Apple knows something about the future of DX10 that it's not yet sharing with us.

I know this sounds a little crazy, but I'm almost willing to give up the ability to play games on my new iMac in exchange for how incredibly quiet this thing is.

My G4 mini was plenty quiet, but I ran an old Compaq Celeron PC also and that thing was loud, even louder than an Xbox 360, which is saying something.

Apple sucks for screwing us out of any meaningful gaming on the new iMacs. But take gaming out of the picture (which is neither necessary or acceptable) and the iMac is a great computer with an even greater OS. You never know how clunky Windows is until you spend more time on a Mac.

 

[flopticalcube]

Well given reports on how they already are terrible on OLD games like Halo etc, I would assume this is playing the games at a really low resolution and lower detail settings.

Gaming on iMacs will suck -- whether or not it is now or in 6 months. Apple stinks for not putting decent GPUs into their precious and expensive computers. End of story.

What card do you think should Apple have put in the new iMacs?

 

[WannaGoMac]

What card do you think should Apple have put in the new iMacs?

GPU that would play current games at the monitor native resolution at medium-high settings.

 

[Eidorian]

GPU that would play current games at the monitor native resolution at medium-high settings.

At 1680 x 1050 the desktop HD 2600XT is passable. If you're going for 1920 x 1200 then you're going to want an 8800 or HD 2900XT.

 

[MacinDoc]

GPU that would play current games at the monitor native resolution at medium-high settings.

Have you considered that Apple may have intended for the iMac to be able to run DX10 games at native resolution on medium-high settings, and decided to sacrifice the ability to play older games for this?

 

[WannaGoMac]

Have you considered that Apple may have intended for the iMac to be able to run DX10 games at native resolution on medium-high settings, and decided to sacrifice the ability to play older games for this?

Uh, then they should have used a different GPU. Tests are lousy on this GPU. I don't like AIO units anyway so I am not their target customer. Maybe one day Apple will make a form-factor that suits my needs other than the too expensive Mac Pro.

 

[MacinDoc]

Uh, then they should have used a different GPU. Tests are lousy on this GPU. I don't like AIO units anyway so I am not their target customer. Maybe one day Apple will make a form-factor that suits my needs other than the too expensive Mac Pro.

Specifically, DX9 tests are lousy on this GPU. Are there any DX10 benchmarks on it?

I agree, though, an AIO will never be a good form factor for gamers.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Specifically, DX9 tests are lousy on this GPU. Are there any DX10 benchmarks on it?

I agree, though, an AIO will never be a good form factor for gamers.

Oy, I am not a gamer! Why does every mac person think that if you like to play a new ("current") game from time to time you are a gamer?

 

[MacinDoc]

Oy, I am not a gamer! Why does every mac person think that if you like to play a new ("current") game from time to time you are a gamer?

I didn't mean for my post to imply that you were a gamer, it's just that the complaints about the graphics cards in the iMacs specifically are about gaming. Its performance in other areas does not seem to be a concern.

 

[flopticalcube]

GPU that would play current games at the monitor native resolution at medium-high settings.

Like I said, what card? 8800? 2900? Too big, hot, power hungry, expensive. That leaves the 8600 and the 2600, both of which are more or less the same. I guess Apple could have thrown in a previous gen card as a BTO option but then people would complain about that not being current gen. We may have to wait for the 8800M before a top-line card is available for the iMac.

 

[Haoshiro]

Oy, I am not a gamer! Why does every mac person think that if you like to play a new ("current") game from time to time you are a gamer?

Because the new iMacs can play games just fine (I know, I do it and have used the older model at several lan parties just fine).

A "casual" consumer isn't going to pay for a better card (ie, more then $100) to play new "current" games (something you CAN do on an iMac).

So if you are complaining like you are, you're wanting more then a non-gamer could care about. Might as well put you in the class of a "gamer" at that point.

Eidorian is right, for what you are wanting would take a $400-600 card. We are talking about 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 native resolutions here.

 

[Eidorian]

Eidorian is right, for what you are wanting would take a $400-600 card. We are talking about 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 native resolutions here.

a.k.a. Why aren't you using a video card with at least a 256-bit memory interface again?

 

[WannaGoMac]

Like I said, what card? 8800? 2900? Too big, hot, power hungry, expensive. That leaves the 8600 and the 2600, both of which are more or less the same. I guess Apple could have thrown in a previous gen card as a BTO option but then people would complain about that not being current gen. We may have to wait for the 8800M before a top-line card is available for the iMac.

I would like a normal GPU not mobile. Make the case 2" thicker, who could tell the difference?

 

[WannaGoMac]

Because the new iMacs can play games just fine (I know, I do it and have used the older model at several lan parties just fine).

A "casual" consumer isn't going to pay for a better card (ie, more then $100) to play new "current" games (something you CAN do on an iMac).

So if you are complaining like you are, you're wanting more then a non-gamer could care about. Might as well put you in the class of a "gamer" at that point.

Eidorian is right, for what you are wanting would take a $400-600 card. We are talking about 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 native resolutions here.

My 7600GT plays BF2 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and all high settings. It goes for ~$75 nowadays...

 

[Haoshiro]

My 7600GT plays BF2 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and all high settings. It goes for ~$75 nowadays...

That isn't even a new "current" game. Battlefield 2142 is.

Battlefield 2 - Released 06/21/2005
Battlefield 2142 - Release 10/17/2006

And take a look at benchmarks for that game...

You're 7600GT is acheiving a paltry 14.2 FPS, lol

 

[WannaGoMac]

That isn't even a new "current" game. Battlefield 2142 is.

Battlefield 2 - Released 06/21/2005
Battlefield 2142 - Release 10/17/2006

And take a look at benchmarks for that game...

You're 7600GT is acheiving a paltry 14.2 FPS, lol

Just an FYI, BF 2142 is essentially a MOD of the BF2 engine. there were limited improvements to the game over BF2 and it bombed (also in-game ads/spyware hurt it). I did not talk about BF 2142, i said BF2. So, its PATHETIC your precious imac can barely play a game 2 yrs old.

Though I will admit that BF2142 might have higher requirements than BF2, I don't know the game as I tried the demo and hated it. In any case, it is pathetic my old cheap 7600GT still reported by TomsHardware as 3x faster than the 2400XT (I couldnt find the 2600 in the charts)!

 

[Haoshiro]

Just an FYI, BF 2142 is essentially a MOD of the BF2 engine. there were limited improvements to the game over BF2 and it bombed (also in-game ads/spyware hurt it). I did not talk about BF 2142, i said BF2. So, its PATHETIC your precious imac can barely play a game 2 yrs old.

Though I will admit that BF2142 might have higher requirements than BF2, I don't know the game as I tried the demo and hated it. In any case, it is pathetic my old cheap 7600GT still reported by TomsHardware as 3x faster than the 2400XT (I couldnt find the 2600 in the charts)!

Heh, just because they use the same engine doesn't make them have even close to the same requirements or performance.

What I found funny, was that not even your 7600GT can't run that game decently at the settings you spoke of. Oh, and the 2600 was the other card listed in the benchmark I linked (ATI does not make a "Pro" card, so you won't see that in benchmarks).

Nice way to avoid the obvious point being made, though. That was that your "requirements" / what you thought should be included in the iMac was TOTALLY unrealistic. I could quote you, but I'm sure you can scroll up and read what you said if you don't remember.

Games run fine on the system, but you aren't going to be running on native panel resolutions - because as has been said by others, that would require expensive 8800/2900 cards at those resolutions.

The ONLY thing people have a legitimate complaint regarding the new iMacs is their are no BTO graphics options. The stock cards are better then the previous models and do a FINE job. If I had BF2 I'd bench it myself... maybe the demo would do.

 

[Gunga Din]

Hello all, I been a PC user for years but have always liked Mac OS and software from using a friend's Mac.

Recently i visited an Apple Store and checked out all the choices. I have to say straight out, If the IMAC came with a better Vid Card, I would have purchased it that day.

My PC is 4 yrs old but has some nice components to run the games i play. So i dont need this MAC to be a gaming machine. My PC covers me for that. However, my PC is 4 yrs old. I'm worried its gonna break down sometime in the future and I'd love it if my IMAC could cover me on the few games i play. (Lord of the Rings online, Enemy Territory Quake Wars, and maybe a few new ones i'm looking at that are super graphic intensive.)

Im a bit concerned that my 4 yr old pc out performs this new IMac in many areas. One being the graphics. Now, i'm thinking of choosing a Mac for the everything else but gaming. But come on, the card they have in this machine for that price is criminal.

Example of what u can get from Dell.

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6850 (4MB L2 Cache,3.0GHz,1333 FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 2 DIMMs
160GB - WD Raptor 10000RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
22 inch UltraSharp™ 2208WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
512MB Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT
Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ XtremeGamer (D)

For $2099. So its got a Better CPU, HD and Vid card for about the same price as the top line IMAC. Thing is i can get this with out the monitor and price comes down to $1759.

U see me dilema. I prefer Leopard to Vista. Thats my whole purpose for looking into Apple, but man can't they give u some uber equipment.

I want to go MAC !!! Just give me a better vid card for security and so the machine will last a bit. Thats all i'm asking.

I think i'll just wait a few months and see what develops with the IMAC or consider just breaking the bank for the new MAC PRO notebook.

Any suggestions?

 

[BenRoethig]

Hello all, I been a PC user for years but have always liked Mac OS and software from using a friend's Mac.

Recently i visited an Apple Store and checked out all the choices. I have to say straight out, If the IMAC came with a better Vid Card, I would have purchased it that day.

My PC is 4 yrs old but has some nice components to run the games i play. So i dont need this MAC to be a gaming machine. My PC covers me for that. However, my PC is 4 yrs old. I'm worried its gonna break down sometime in the future and I'd love it if my IMAC could cover me on the few games i play. (Lord of the Rings online, Enemy Territory Quake Wars, and maybe a few new ones i'm looking at that are super graphic intensive.)

Im a bit concerned that my 4 yr old pc out performs this new IMac in many areas. One being the graphics. Now, i'm thinking of choosing a Mac for the everything else but gaming. But come on, the card they have in this machine for that price is criminal.

Example of what u can get from Dell.

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6850 (4MB L2 Cache,3.0GHz,1333 FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 2 DIMMs
160GB - WD Raptor 10000RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
22 inch UltraSharp™ 2208WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
512MB Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT
Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ XtremeGamer (D)

For $2099. So its got a Better CPU, HD and Vid card for about the same price as the top line IMAC. Thing is i can get this with out the monitor and price comes down to $1759.

U see me dilema. I prefer Leopard to Vista. Thats my whole purpose for looking into Apple, but man can't they give u some uber equipment.

I want to go MAC !!! Just give me a better vid card for security and so the machine will last a bit. Thats all i'm asking.

I think i'll just wait a few months and see what develops with the IMAC or consider just breaking the bank for the new MAC PRO notebook.

Any suggestions?

I know the feeling. It's even more frustrating for a long time Apple desktop user who Apple unilaterally decides that he needs to buy an all in one instead. The iMac at best is equivalent to a really good MATX system. Anyone who is looking for something more, but is not a content creation superpro who needs a xeon workstation is really out of luck these days. The sad thing is that neither Apple nor most of the community has any concept of this.

Look, Leopard is amazing and after using it for a while, you'll find windows almost unusable. To be honest you'd probably be best off keeping your PC and getting a Macbook. I have the newest iMac myself and while I find it an excellent machine for the people it is designed for, it is also very limited if those needs exceed the family setting. Even modest gaming performance was extremely disappointing.

 

[Gunga Din]

I know the feeling. It's even more frustrating for a long time Apple desktop user who Apple unilaterally decides that he needs to buy an all in one instead. The iMac at best is equivalent to a really good MATX system. Anyone who is looking for something more, but is not a content creation superpro who needs a xeon workstation is really out of luck these days. The sad thing is that neither Apple nor most of the community has any concept of this.

Look, Leopard is amazing and after using it for a while, you'll find windows almost unusable. To be honest you'd probably be best off keeping your PC and getting a Macbook. I have the newest iMac myself and while I find it an excellent machine for the people it is designed for, it is also very limited if those needs exceed the family setting. Even modest gaming performance was extremely disappointing.

Thanks for your honesty and reply. I'm leaning towards exactly what your saying. I'll wait for the new upgrades to the MacPro Notebook. I know its expensive but atleast i can justify its price a bit better. If the IMAC gets a tweak in the coming months then maybe i'll go that way. Guess everyone is waiting on what the forthcoming MAC expo has to bring. I know I am.