Will the new iMac be any good for gaming?

ksolano

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 31, 2006
185
0
i dont really know much about graphic cards, so i'm gonna keep this simple.

Will this new mac run Quake wars, Rage, URT4, Gears of war, Starcraft2, C&C, all in High rez with everything turned up to the max?
 

epmatsw

macrumors member
Jun 18, 2007
78
1
I was wondering about the new iMac's gaming also. Do you guys think it could play Oblivion with decent graphics? Maybe some of the newer games also? I don't really know about graphics cards, so I don't really know how they'll do for these types of games.
 

grundgedanke

macrumors member
Jul 17, 2007
42
1
Germany
Short and simple: NO!

If you want to play actual games (i count even oblivion some sort of actual) simply forget it. The ATI gfx boards sucks. I am so p****** I really wanted to buy one of these new babys but with such a crappy gfx board. No thx. I will by a new pc then and use my macbook if i need some mac feelings.
 

Gymnut

macrumors 68000
Apr 18, 2003
1,848
3
Here's to waiting for the benchmarks from barefeats. If the reviews and comparisons of the ATI cards now in the iMacs are of any merit, it's likely an upgrade over the X1600 but still disappointing in comparison to similar Nvidia cards.
 

harveypooka

macrumors 65816
Feb 24, 2004
1,302
0
No. Don't get one.

I'm massively disappointed with Apple's offering. What good is it having a 2.8GHZ Extreme processor when you have a mid-range card that struggles with year old games?! The thread on the new iMac seems more concerned with what it looks like versus actual specifications.

I am seriously considering buying a PC after this. I can't afford a Mac Pro and don't want to buy another iMac because of the limited life of them. Very disappointing.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
Anyone feel like buying a PC? I bloody do. At least you get more choice. Overpriced iMac or expensive Mac Pro?
I'm really close to building a HD2600XT or X1950 based machine for just under $700. I can get a quad for $150 more.

I really, really love OS X but the hardware is a major issue for me.
 

Chone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2006
1,223
0
i dont really know much about graphic cards, so i'm gonna keep this simple.

Will this new mac run Quake wars, Rage, URT4, Gears of war, Starcraft2, C&C, all in High rez with everything turned up to the max?
If you are talking about the new iMac then no. Forget about it, the HD 2400 card in the 20" is pathetic, I doubt its much better than the X1600 it replaces. The HD 2600 in the 24" is a lot better and will be okay for upcoming games but at medium settings and lower resolutions, forget about playing at 1920x1200 at max settings, more like 1280x800 but that will look horrible scaled... or 1920x1200 but on low settings or such. You will still be able to play the games but definitely not at high settings, expect low-medium at moderate resolutions.

The HD 2600 is not too bad but the HD 2400 is downright pathetic. Gaming on macs will never be viable and Apple is doing nothing but backtracking on the hardware front.

So yeah, apart from graphics, those new iMacs are looking incredibly nice, I love the new design and that keyboard is drool worthy, hopefully they'll release it separately.

I'm really close to building a HD2600XT or X1950 based machine for just under $700. I can get a quad for $150 more.

I really, really love OS X but the hardware is a major issue for me.
Yeah building your own computer is really a much better choice for gaming, the only machine worth your salt in Apple's repertoire is the Mac Pro and the portables, they are the only computers decently priced (the Mac Pro is quite a bargain even). The iMacs are really good looking and all but I'd never buy them. I did when the very first ones came out but I just returned it for a G3 tower. Recently I picked up a 20" iMac, I returned it for a Mac Pro the day after :p:

You can get a Mac Pro-quality case (in terms of acoustics and cooling, maybe not looks), a Q6600, a 8800GTS 320 for a little over a thousand if you build it yourself.
 

codyhoffman

macrumors newbie
Aug 7, 2007
3
0
with a replacement of the card would the new imac be a viable gaming platform? or is there potentially other reasons holding it back

Also if so, what card would be the best recommendation for this platform
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
Yeah building your own computer is really a much better choice for gaming, the only machine worth your salt in Apple's repertoire is the Mac Pro and the portables, they are the only computers decently priced (the Mac Pro is quite a bargain even). The iMacs are really good looking and all but I'd never buy them. I did when the very first ones came out but I just returned it for a G3 tower. Recently I picked up a 20" iMac, I returned it for a Mac Pro the day after :p:

You can get a Mac Pro-quality case (in terms of acoustics and cooling, maybe not looks), a Q6600, a 8800GTS 320 for a little over a thousand if you build it yourself.
I'm not necessarily a hardcore gamer but I do need more video card power then what the iMac provides.

I'll hold out for Mac Pro update and maybe pick up a refurbished model but Apple has greatly disappointed me at WWDC and now this. I think it's silly that Apple pushed OS X as a gaming platform back at WWDC when the only real option is to spend more then $2,000 on a Mac Pro.
 

Haoshiro

macrumors 68000
Feb 9, 2006
1,883
6
USA, OR
My 2.0GHz Core Duo, w/X1600 256MB does just fine in games, I see no reason why these won't do any better.

Don't forget those low-end macs used to be GMA950, the 2400HD will be far better then that.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks they are going to get a $200+ video card in an iMac, that's not going to happen so stop expecting it! :rolleyes:

These will be fine, and even support DX10 in Vista, IIRC.

Considering I can already run a game like UT2K4 at 100+ fps, and run Quake4, FEAR, etc just fine... why would this be worse?

Maxing out the settings and resolution isn't necessary to enjoy a game, something a PC junkie can have a hard time wrapping their head around.

I used to be that way too, but the time where sinking hundreds of dollars a year (or less) to "keep up" with PC gaming is over for me, and there is no reason for Apple and it's iMac products to do that either.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
My 2.0GHz Core Duo, w/X1600 256MB does just fine in games, I see no reason why these won't do any better.

Don't forget those low-end macs used to be GMA950, the 2400HD will be far better then that.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks they are going to get a $200+ video card in an iMac, that's not going to happen so stop expecting it! :rolleyes:

These will be fine, and even support DX10 in Vista, IIRC.

Considering I can already run a game like UT2K4 at 100+ fps, and run Quake4, FEAR, etc just fine... why would this be worse?

Maxing out the settings and resolution isn't necessary to enjoy a game, something a PC junkie can have a hard time wrapping their head around.

I used to be that way too, but the time where sinking hundreds of dollars a year (or less) to "keep up" with PC gaming is over for me, and there is no reason for Apple and it's iMac products to do that either.
Apple didn't even include $100 video cards this time around. Was the 8600GT or the HD2600XT so hard to put in?
 

Wild-Bill

macrumors 68030
Jan 10, 2007
2,541
610
bleep
Unbelievably crappy video card options. What were they thinking???

I'm sure the guys over at id and EA probably slapped their foreheads when they learned about this. Yeah, gaming coming to the Mac...... right.....:rolleyes:
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
This looks like it was done by some committee of Apple bean counters. This killed the deal for me when I read how the old 7600GT beats the Heck out of the new 2600pro. Guess Ill go for a videocard upgrade for my Dell(with built in TV tuner);) Apple never ceases to amazes. Let me see cripple mini for imac, cripple iMac for ProMac. Not having a option for gpu upgrade path so they can brag its 1/4" thinner is lunacy.
 

Chone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2006
1,223
0
My 2.0GHz Core Duo, w/X1600 256MB does just fine in games, I see no reason why these won't do any better.

Don't forget those low-end macs used to be GMA950, the 2400HD will be far better then that.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks they are going to get a $200+ video card in an iMac, that's not going to happen so stop expecting it! :rolleyes:

These will be fine, and even support DX10 in Vista, IIRC.

Considering I can already run a game like UT2K4 at 100+ fps, and run Quake4, FEAR, etc just fine... why would this be worse?

Maxing out the settings and resolution isn't necessary to enjoy a game, something a PC junkie can have a hard time wrapping their head around.

I used to be that way too, but the time where sinking hundreds of dollars a year (or less) to "keep up" with PC gaming is over for me, and there is no reason for Apple and it's iMac products to do that either.
Only the $999 iMac used the GMA950 but that was a crippled product altogether.

We are not expecting $200 cards, we are just expecting what you would out of a $2200 desktop.

These are not fine, even for a midrange card, the HD 2400 and 2600 are pretty miserable.

Running UT2004 is no big deal... and sure you can run Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. but those are 2005 games and you can't even run them at full settings, imagine what will happen when Bioshock, UT2007, Crysis, Alan Wake and others hit later THIS year (Bioshock coming out in a few weeks).

What bothers me is that the HD 2400 is not even better than the X1600 it replaces... they should have went all HD 2600 for all iMacs. Apple is taking their hardware one step backwards :confused:

There is no reason why Apple should stick mobile components in their DESKTOPS, its absolutely pointless and oxymoronic. Now if you are to do that... at least give users a good value, they put crummy cards that are even worse than the cards they are replacing. And it is not even a HD 2600XT on the iMac, its a HD 2600 Pro and a severely underclocked one at that.

They could have went with the 8600GT for the 20" and the 8600GTS for the 24" and that could have been really nice and nowadays there is no friggin reason a card should have less than 256MB of VRAM, especially if its on a $1200 desktop.

iMacs are nice (and are beautiful as well) but they are horrendously overpriced and underpowered.
 

GFLPraxis

macrumors 604
Mar 17, 2004
7,092
404
Why are people so snobbish when it comes to GPUs (not anyone here specifically, but in general, I see it all the time on many boards)? The one in the iMac can run every existing game with medium-to-high settings. That's plenty for casually playing games, only the hardcore folks who buy $500 graphics cards should be complaining. You shouldn't have trouble till Crysis comes out, which should make even a Geforce 8800 cry uncle.

I've always purchased $99 graphics cards every few years and I could always run everything out there at low-to-medium settings at worst.

If all you care about is playing the games without any disadvantage, who cares if you can't put on AA 8x and have to settle for 2x?

Also, please consider that a $1200 PC in CompUSA still comes with an INTEGRATED graphics chip, AND no monitor. The iMac is a screaming deal for a consumer product, the only way to get better is order custom-built PCs.

I used to sell PCs at CompUSA before I went in to IT (we're talking five months ago). To game on a $1000 PC you still need to replace the power supply and buy a graphics card and a monitor.

i dont really know much about graphic cards, so i'm gonna keep this simple.

Will this new mac run Quake wars, Rage, URT4, Gears of war, Starcraft2, C&C, all in High rez with everything turned up to the max?
Max? Probably not. Medium-to-high? Probably.