Is the video card in the new Imac ok if you aren't gaming?

eddiel

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jan 16, 2007
18
4
Toronto
Hi all

There seems to be a few discussions about the video card but I'm hoping to get a more succinct answer.

I won't be using my Imac for gaming at all.

I will be using it for watching tv/dvds, editing photos, playing around with some video editing/dvd authoring(only a little), audio editing and other general usage stuff like office work, surfing, etc.

Are there any issues that I need to consider with the new Imac?

A lot of people aren't happy with the new card it seems.

Opinion?

Eddie
 

reflex

macrumors 6502a
May 19, 2002
721
0
The videocard will be more than adequate for those.

For (recent and future) games you could argue though.
 

Gymnut

macrumors 68000
Apr 18, 2003
1,848
3
For your uses the iMac will be more than adequate. Those that are unhappy about the video card would've liked Apple to put in a card that could push more pixels and framerates for games.
 

siurpeeman

macrumors 603
Dec 2, 2006
6,313
18
the OC
a lot of people complain about the video card b/c people like to complain. the imac is perfect for your needs, and the video card will suit you just fine.
 

7084

macrumors member
Sep 7, 2006
46
0
How about if you throw a bit of WoW into the mix, how would it handle that?
 

Gymnut

macrumors 68000
Apr 18, 2003
1,848
3
Well Blizzard has been fantastic about their support of the Macintosh platform and if owners of Macbooks with its integrated graphics can play WoW, I don't see why the new iMacs couldn't.
 

7084

macrumors member
Sep 7, 2006
46
0
Have Blizzard given any indication of what sorta rig Starcraft 2 would require? It looks fantastic and probably out of the iMacs league.
 

Gymnut

macrumors 68000
Apr 18, 2003
1,848
3
Not entirely as the iMac's video card with 128mb VRAM should meet the minimum system requirements. Bear in mind SC2 has been in development for 3-4 years by the time it's offically released. Of course this is all open to speculation since the game has not been released and Blizzard has not officially released the game's system requirements.
 

Durmortec

macrumors newbie
Aug 8, 2007
29
0
Cupertino, CA
Have Blizzard given any indication of what sorta rig Starcraft 2 would require? It looks fantastic and probably out of the iMacs league.
I read an IGN article where Blizzard said Starcraft 2 would not be as intensive graphically as other RTSs on the market right now, and Blizzard is generally very good about optimizing games to run on a wide range of systems, Starcraft 2 should fine fine at medium-ish settings I think.
 

toru173

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2007
292
97
No, the video card is not enough to even play the most simple of games. I suggest that you upgrade to an 8 core with quad sli 8800 Ultras. This will allow you to type that letter at an acceptable framerate.

Oh wait, that's my PC. Seriously, it'll be fine.
 

mavherzog

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2005
304
0
Columbus, WI
Have Blizzard given any indication of what sorta rig Starcraft 2 would require? It looks fantastic and probably out of the iMacs league.
I read on the WoW forum (Apple support) that SC2 should be fine on the new iMac's. (specifically, a Blizzard support person posted that iMac owners "need not worry" about whether their systems will play SC2)

That made my day...and will likely earn Apple another iMac sale when I get back home from Iraq.
 

Scannall

macrumors member
May 31, 2007
57
0
It's a perfectly good card for just about everything. Where it is weak is on the most demanding games via Bootcamp. Even then it is fine for most of those.
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,929
54
England
Have Blizzard given any indication of what sorta rig Starcraft 2 would require? It looks fantastic and probably out of the iMacs league.
Starcraft was successful not only for it's balance and support, but also because it worked on nearly any machine, while SC2 will be more modern, Blizzard will definatly have it working on older technology. Don't forget it's also been in development since 2003, meaning it's been designed on older tech.
 

7084

macrumors member
Sep 7, 2006
46
0
So in summary then, would this be correct?

WoW - Very playable. Playing at native resolution a possibility, and high levels of detail or near max.

SC2 - Playable, decent frame rate on medium-ish settings?

If so, that is excellent news and almost assures my purchase of a new iMac!

Wahey!
 

urbanskywalker

macrumors 6502
Apr 30, 2007
255
0
Does anyone have info on what the real world difference would be between the 2400 and 2600 graphic cards that Apple is using? Also, if you are not playing games, is the card really a non issue?
 

Sean Dempsey

macrumors 68000
Aug 7, 2006
1,617
3
World of Warcraft is how many years old? It ran GREAT on my frickin' Dell Inspiron with a gig of ram and a frickin' Geforce Go 4 (utter ****). And also on my home built PC which had like a GeforceFX 5200 or some other bogus 80 dollar walmart card. WoW was fine, it was more than fine.

These iMac complaints are out of ***** control. It's an all-in-one home system, and it will run most mac games, not at the highest resolution with 16x AA, but it will be FINE FOR MOST PEOPLE.

I am almost ready to make a youtube video of my Rogue ganking some noobs in Ashenvale on my iMac.
 

QCassidy352

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2003
10,599
2,721
Bay Area
World of Warcraft is how many years old? It ran GREAT on my frickin' Dell Inspiron with a gig of ram and a frickin' Geforce Go 4 (utter ****). And also on my home built PC which had like a GeforceFX 5200 or some other bogus 80 dollar walmart card. WoW was fine, it was more than fine.

These iMac complaints are out of ***** control. It's an all-in-one home system, and it will run most mac games, not at the highest resolution with 16x AA, but it will be FINE FOR MOST PEOPLE.
/clap clap clap. WoW ran great on my single 1.8 G5 tower with a radeon 9600 (64 MB) and ran well enough on a single 1.25 G4 tower with a radeon 9000 for my gf to get a character to 60 and go raiding.

People have completely and totally lost perspective about the graphics in these new imacs. Are they a bit of a disappointment? Yes. Could apple have done better? Probably. Are they still more than adequate for everyone but really serious gamers? Absolutely.
 

I'mAMac

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2006
786
0
In a Mac box
No, the video card is not enough to even play the most simple of games. I suggest that you upgrade to an 8 core with quad sli 8800 Ultras. This will allow you to type that letter at an acceptable framerate.

Oh wait, that's my PC. Seriously, it'll be fine.
:eek:

Ok to everyone who is tired about the complaining. We wouldn't complain as much if apple hadn't mislead everyone saying that all these games are coming to mac and then keep the same exact, mediocre graphics card. People were just expecting more.
 

aliasfox

macrumors member
Jun 16, 2004
80
0
First person shooter: look elsewhere if you want to play at native or near native resolutions.

Third person games (WoW, etc): You should generally be fine, not have any major issues unless in environments with lots of objects.

If exposé, dashboard, and fast user switching are the most 3-D you ever expect to use on your system: You'll love your new iMac
 

skubish

macrumors 68030
Feb 2, 2005
2,669
0
Ann Arbor, Michigan
/clap clap clap. WoW ran great on my single 1.8 G5 tower with a radeon 9600 (64 MB) and ran well enough on a single 1.25 G4 tower with a radeon 9000 for my gf to get a character to 60 and go raiding.

People have completely and totally lost perspective about the graphics in these new imacs. Are they a bit of a disappointment? Yes. Could apple have done better? Probably. Are they still more than adequate for everyone but really serious gamers? Absolutely.
Amen.

I levelled two Wow characters to 70 on an iBook and it was fine. I could even raid on the iBook.