Will the new iMac be any good for gaming?

[Haoshiro]

Haoshiro Eidorian is right, the HD 2600 Pro is not a mobile GPU. You have been misleading people with your thread.

It's true the iMac was never a hardcore gaming machine but i think a lot of people were hyped up because of WWDC and the appearance of EA and John Carmack and thought that soemthing special was going to happen.

Even though iMac aern't really for gaming it certainly doesn't deserve a sub $100 GPU. You are paying top dollar and getting a sub $100 card? Does it make sense to you?

I've seen the frame rates of the HD2600 Pro they are horrible. What's the point of having a DX10 card, if you can't run any of them with the eye candy?

Yes, they have Mobile versions of the HD 2600 Pro.

The last generation iMacs used Mobility X1600 cards, why would anyone assume that isn't the case with these new macs? I have the older machine, and I have Boot Camp installed on it, it's definitely a Mobility X1600.

Now if you have some proof that isn't the case then by all means share it.

My new iMac with an HD 2600 Pro will be arriving tomorrow, I'll be doing comparison benchmarks and analysis of them both at that time.

 

[Mac.Jnr]

Yes, they have Mobile versions of the HD 2600 Pro.

The last generation iMacs used Mobility X1600 cards, why would anyone assume that isn't the case with these new macs? I have the older machine, and I have Boot Camp installed on it, it's definitely a Mobility X1600.

Now if you have some proof that isn't the case then by all means share it.

My new iMac with an HD 2600 Pro will be arriving tomorrow, I'll be doing comparison benchmarks and analysis of them both at that time.

Yes they used all Mobility X1600 for the 20 Inch but they used the DESKTOP version of the 7600GT for the 24 Inch. I guess the real way to settle this is to do some real world analysis, one of us has to be wrong, so goodluck on the bencmarks.

 

[DrD]

I think the new imacs are nice overall, in case anyone thought my previous comments meant otherwise. I am still considering buying one around October when leopard arrives. If I do, I will attempt to do a down-to-earth, hands-on review for whatever games I can throw at it.

Pros:
1. New keyboard couldn't be better imho
2. Aluminium and glass is at least as good as the older all-white design.
3. I don't normally pay much attention to the CPU, but going up to 2.4 (or BTO 2.8) is a noteworthy jump.
4. Prices for models across the board have dropped a few hundred dollars.

Despite the inclusion of the 2400 and 2600 pro, I'm not entirely convinced that the gaming capability of the new imacs will be... all-excruciating... Here is a list of the games I want to play with one:

Halo
UT 2004
Prey
Vendetta Online
Starcraft II (when it arrives)

Fortunately the only game I wager that is new enough to have serious problems is Prey, and perhaps starcraft II. Prey is like doom3 on steroids. I had little doubt that the older 24" w/7600 could handle it, but I really don't know about these 2600 models. Might have to bear playing it in windowed mode to keep the framerates at an acceptable level (even then, dunno). Here's to hoping that starcraft II, my most anticipated game in a while, isn't a graphics hog. Nice thing about the screenshots so far, is that they look incredible while at the same time don't look like they would eat away graphics power like crazy either. Hopefully it will run well on even really old systems.

Someone else brought up the wii. That's an interesting topic. I have said for a long time that I wish developers would stop focusing nearly all their time on graphical horsepower, and spend a great deal more time on innovative gameplay, story etc. Some of my favorite games (Deus Ex for instance) weren't cutting edge, but made up for this with an unparalleled experience that was full of depth, style, and innovation. The graphics were ok too - just not bleeding edge at the time. The wii is a similar success story. IF developers could take a similar approach to graphics on the mac, ie let them plateau for a while and start making games that utilize the hardware to the fullest extent possible, not to mention putting some real focus on the areas I listed above, then I wouldn't have any real issues with the cards they included.

Computer graphics and PC games tend to always keep jumping, so I honestly don't see this happening. Maybe trends will change... who knows. My big concern is a potential handful of rather unplayable games in the not-so-distant future, possibly even a handful of games like prey that can hardly be played right now. I want to see the benchmarks.

 

[DanB91]

if the new imacs cant play the upcoming games (which i think it can, just in low quality), then this means apple must be working on some sort of computer that can, hopefully a pc-esque computer. i highly anticipate it announced at macworld, or anytime in 2008 (hopefully 2007 though).

i would def build my own computer, its just the ******ness of windows just repulses me.
i really wish apple would let people install mac os x on any computer. but i understand why they wont do it .

i wanna do osx86, but i'd rather not have an illegal OS as my main OS

 

[fblack]

My new iMac with an HD 2600 Pro will be arriving tomorrow, I'll be doing comparison benchmarks and analysis of them both at that time.

Excellent. Barefeats said they would be testing too, and putting their results up next week. The good thing is that they usually do comparisons with other macs including the macbooks and macbookpros, which should give us a good idea how the 2600 does against the nvidia chips on OSX.

 

[Haoshiro]

Yes they used all Mobility X1600 for the 20 Inch but they used the DESKTOP version of the 7600GT for the 24 Inch. I guess the real way to settle this is to do some real world analysis, one of us has to be wrong, so goodluck on the bencmarks.

Now why would they rearchitect the iMac hardware to put in a desktop class GPU that was only a BTO option in the first place? Do you realize what that would involved?

Swapping MXM modules is one thing, reworking the entire internal design of an iMac to put in an actual PCIe card would be ridiculous. If they actually do that, I'll be shocked.

Excellent. Barefeats said they would be testing too, and putting their results up next week. The good thing is that they usually do comparisons with other macs including the macbooks and macbookpros, which should give us a good idea how the 2600 does against the nvidia chips on OSX.

Yep, looking forward to it. Though I've always found their gaming benchmarks to be lacking. It'll be nice to see the comparisons with MBP though.

I'll be testing in both XP and OSX, with plenty of XP game benchmarks.

 

[DrD]

For those of you who have/are missing the crazy discussion going on in the hardware/imac section, here is some pretty interesting news:

Looks like the card in the new imacs is not a desktop class HD 2600 pro after all - it's a mobility HD 2600 XT - just underclocked a bit. The part number that appears under both OSX and windows verifies this: 9583 (OSX and windows give differing card names, but both give the same part number identifying it as a mobility 2600 XT).



Standard specs for both cards: (thanks Eidorian)

Desktop HD2600 Pro
Core: 550 MHz
Memory: 1400 MHz (700 MHz x 2)

Mobility HD2600 XT
Core: 700 MHz
Memory: 1500 MHz (750 MHz x 2)

User Adom (thanks Adom) posted a test (#165) with the ATI diagnostic tool on his 20" imac, and verified that the speeds of the new model are clocked as follows:

Core: 600 MHz
Memory: 1370 MHz (685 MHz x 2)

He also reported speeds of 115 fps in Half Life 2 at full res; no AA, but otherwise high settings. This is thought to be quite a bit better then the 2600 pro but not quite up to the mobility 2600 XT's standard levels, which would seem to line up with the clock speeds listed above.

Overall this is good news. The mobility 2600 XT is a better card then the desktop 2600 Pro that it would appear to be marketed as. It also makes sense that a mobility version of the card was included rather then the desktop, due to heat/power consumption issues. It would seem that Apple, for whatever reason, choose to include the mobility 2600 XT (a good choice) and then underclocked it a bit. Still better then what a lot of us initially thought was in there, and there's fair chance that the ATI tool can be used to bring the card back up to standard levels... we'll just have to wait and see what that does to the overall heat levels of the system (hopefully negligible).

More info on the mobility 2600 XT (ox9583) here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-2600-XT.3770.0.html



Note: Although this appears to be for real, it's still an open issue, things could change. Hopefully Bare Feats will step in soon enough and lay the matter to rest once and for all.

 

[fblack]

For those of you who have/are missing the crazy discussion going on in the hardware/imac section, here is some pretty interesting news:

Looks like the card in the new imacs is not a desktop class HD 2600 pro after all - it's a mobility HD 2600 XT - just underclocked a bit. The part number that appears under both OSX and windows verifies this: 9583 (OSX and windows give differing card names, but both give the same part number identifying it as a mobility 2600 XT).



Standard specs for both cards: (thanks Eidorian)

Desktop HD2600 Pro
Core: 550 MHz
Memory: 1400 MHz (700 MHz x 2)

Mobility HD2600 XT
Core: 700 MHz
Memory: 1500 MHz (750 MHz x 2)

User Adom (thanks Adom) posted a test (#165) with the ATI diagnostic tool on his 20" imac, and verified that the speeds of the new model are clocked as follows:

Core: 600 MHz
Memory: 1370 MHz (685 MHz x 2)

He also reported speeds of 115 fps in Half Life 2 at full res; no AA, but otherwise high settings. This is thought to be quite a bit better then the 2600 pro but not quite up to the mobility 2600 XT's standard levels, which would seem to line up with the clock speeds listed above.

Overall this is good news. The mobility 2600 XT is a better card then the desktop 2600 Pro that it would appear to be marketed as. It also makes sense that a mobility version of the card was included rather then the desktop, due to heat/power consumption issues. It would seem that Apple, for whatever reason, choose to include the mobility 2600 XT (a good choice) and then underclocked it a bit. Still better then what a lot of us initially thought was in there, and there's fair chance that the ATI tool can be used to bring the card back up to standard levels... we'll just have to wait and see what that does to the overall heat levels of the system (hopefully negligible).

More info on the mobility 2600 XT (ox9583) here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-2600-XT.3770.0.html



Note: Although this appears to be for real, it's still an open issue, things could change. Hopefully Bare Feats will step in soon enough and lay the matter to rest once and for all.

Wow, thanks for the heads up. I had read the thread when it first started and didn't realize how far it continued. If it does turn out to be a slightly underclocked 2600XT that's much better news. It should run old games adequately and newer games like oblivion better than the 7600GT.

Apple had underclocked the X1600 on the first Intel Macbook pros so it doesn't surprise that they might take a 2600xt and underclock it too, but call it something else. I wonder why not call it an xt if its only underclocked?

 

[Haoshiro]

And people were ragging on me for saying they were mobility gpus.

I'll have to see if mine shows as an XT as well.

Odd that the 2400 XT is worse then the 2400 Pro. Is there no consistency???

 

[Eidorian]

Odd that the 2400 XT is worse then the 2400 Pro. Is there no consistency???

That is very strange.

 

[l'homme]

not at all, only if apple offer updated drivers

 

[Perfectionist]

Is it possible to open up the new iMac's and replace the crappy Graphics card with a much better one ??

 

[MDP]

I did a 3dMark06 on my current video card (Nvidia 7800GT), and it scored approx. 3000.

How the hell did the iMac score 3600?? Maybe the video card isn't that bad after all, and I can finally switch over!

Also, the BioShock demo was released - I am eager to see how the iMac can handle this game

 

[Foxer]

OK, I'm sure that I am not a "serious gamer" by the standards of this thread, but I do have a new iMac (base 24-inch model) and have played games on it. I have noticed no problems with games like Civ 4, C&C Zero Hour, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Empire at War, Star Wars KOTOR and Rise of Nations. Game play is smooth and graphics look grat on the big, glossy screen.

 

[harveypooka]

OK, I'm sure that I am not a "serious gamer" by the standards of this thread, but I do have a new iMac (base 24-inch model) and have played games on it. I have noticed no problems with games like Civ 4, C&C Zero Hour, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Empire at War, Star Wars KOTOR and Rise of Nations. Game play is smooth and graphics look grat on the big, glossy screen.

You are truly shagged for new and next gen games though.

 

[Foxer]

You are truly shagged for new and next gen games though.

We'll see. That's what consoles are for, anyway. And my Xbox 360 and PS3 suck at surfing the net, syncing my iPod and editing video - that's what the iMac is for.

 

[Haoshiro]

Alright, I ran the BioShock PC Demo on the new iMac (20") with HD 2600. I only have 1GB RAM atm.

All in all it felt very playable at the default settings of:

Resolution: 1024x768

Graphics Quality - High
Actor Detail - High
Texture Detail - High

Windowed Mode - OFF
Vertical Sync - ON
Shadow Maps - ON
High Detail Post Processing - ON
High Detail Shaders - ON
Real Time Reflection - ON
Distortion - ON
Force Global Lighting - OFF
DirectX 10 Detail Surfaces - OFF (Disabled)

Min: 15
Max: 52
Average: 26

I then took the settings down to Medium which seemed much more stable but still looked great.

On this I was able to get:

Min: 17
Max: 59
Average: 30

 

[Perfectionist]

We'll see. That's what consoles are for, anyway. And my Xbox 360 and PS3 suck at surfing the net, syncing my iPod and editing video - that's what the iMac is for.

I'd rather not spend more cash on a console with a smaller variety of games ..... besides, why doesn't Apple want a piece of that market ??

I get a funny feeling that Apple won't take the iMac to the "next level" because there are so many Apple fanboys running around saying the iMac is perfect as it is !!

The iMac is good but it could be better .....

 

[fblack]

OK, I'm sure that I am not a "serious gamer" by the standards of this thread, but I do have a new iMac (base 24-inch model) and have played games on it. I have noticed no problems with games like Civ 4, C&C Zero Hour, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Empire at War, Star Wars KOTOR and Rise of Nations. Game play is smooth and graphics look grat on the big, glossy screen.

Most of those you listed are strategy games which are not as demanding as the 3D FPSs. However, its good to know that they ran very well on your machine as not everybody plays the latest FPS games and some still like to play in OSX. Did you have the settings turned up all the way?

Alright, I ran the BioShock PC Demo on the new iMac (20") with HD 2600. I only have 1GB RAM atm.

All in all it felt very playable at the default settings of:

Resolution: 1024x768

Graphics Quality - High
Actor Detail - High
Texture Detail - High

Windowed Mode - OFF
Vertical Sync - ON
Shadow Maps - ON
High Detail Post Processing - ON
High Detail Shaders - ON
Real Time Reflection - ON
Distortion - ON
Force Global Lighting - OFF
DirectX 10 Detail Surfaces - OFF (Disabled)

Min: 15
Max: 52
Average: 26

I then took the settings down to Medium which seemed much more stable but still looked great.

On this I was able to get:

Min: 17
Max: 59
Average: 30

Thanks for the info haoshiro. Some later improved drivers should get the game up to 40fps, which will be nice. Did you notice any significant slow down in the action or cutscenes? 30fps is fine unless you are just standing around staring at a wall...

 

[Haoshiro]

Thanks for the info haoshiro. Some later improved drivers should get the game up to 40fps, which will be nice. Did you notice any significant slow down in the action or cutscenes? 30fps is fine unless you are just standing around staring at a wall...

The only time I really noticed a slow down was when half of a plane crashes into a catwalk and causes water to flood in.

On High the game froze for a second or two, whereas on Medium it was fine, I noticed a dip in FPS but could still run around fine.

Running around and fighting battles with several enemies on screen (even 5 or more) played fine, usually staying above 30.

I've definitely heard there is expected to be new drivers specifically to help this game, so that's good to hear.

Also, a friend of mine with a 512MB 7600GT AGP card said he was getting fps in the low 20s... regrdless of settings. He has an Athlon XP 2600+, so it may have been his CPU giving him problems, because that was after driver updates.

 

[fblack]

The only time I really noticed a slow down was when half of a plane crashes into a catwalk and causes water to flood in.

On High the game froze for a second or two, whereas on Medium it was fine, I noticed a dip in FPS but could still run around fine.

Running around and fighting battles with several enemies on screen (even 5 or more) played fine, usually staying above 30.

I've definitely heard there is expected to be new drivers specifically to help this game, so that's good to hear.

Also, a friend of mine with a 512MB 7600GT AGP card said he was getting fps in the low 20s... regrdless of settings. He has an Athlon XP 2600+, so it may have been his CPU giving him problems, because that was after driver updates.

That's no too bad, then. I can't remember does the game use DX10 and if so have you tried it with DX10 detail on?

 

[Haoshiro]

That's no too bad, then. I can't remember does the game use DX10 and if so have you tried it with DX10 detail on?

Is DX10 available for XP now? If it is... I don't have it installed.

 

[Eidorian]

Is DX10 available for XP now? If it is... I don't have it installed.

It's being tossed around that it can be back ported by third parties but Microsoft doesn't want a part of it.

 

[fblack]

Is DX10 available for XP now? If it is... I don't have it installed.

What no Vista SuperSupreme for you?

Aww, are you one of those with a dim view of Vista?

 

[Haoshiro]

What no Vista SuperSupreme for you?

Aww, are you one of those with a dim view of Vista?

I've just used Windows long enough to know better

My first mac was 18 months ago....