Torn...
To add the the countless of similar posts around the internet about buying advice...
As I posted in another thread, I am dead set on buying the new Imac, however, I have come to terms with myself and started doubting the descision.
As it is, I have an Ibook G4 12' to take care of my mobile life, but it is not up to par with what I do, and part of me would like to have more juice to play with really.
I have a p4 windows gaming platform, which is an "ailing" monster really, 3.2 ghz, 2gb ram, geforce 7800 GS AGP that I put through its paces, playing WoW, Dawn of War and Company of Heroes.
I have a 30 inch monitor running at 1280x768 @60 hz, where both are hooked up when home, and wireless keyboard and mouse.
My aim with the Imac was to combine everything in one box really, and be able to enjoy HD (1080) content without having to purchace a new monitor in the future, and still be able to play the games I enjoy, and shed the Ibook really.
But then... the dreaded GPU dilemma and the benchmarking...
So I started considering the MacBook Pro 15' 2,4 ghz as an alternative, simply to get better gaming performance, maintain my mobile life, and just get the wireless keyboard and mighty mouse, and hook the MacBook Pro up to the monitor, when at home... Cost would be the same pretty much.
I love the new Imac, in pretty much every aspect, but I had hoped for better gaming performance to give me the ability to combine everything in one machine. So am torn...
If anyone has any input that would be greatly appriciated.
As I posted in another thread, I am dead set on buying the new Imac, however, I have come to terms with myself and started doubting the descision.
As it is, I have an Ibook G4 12' to take care of my mobile life, but it is not up to par with what I do, and part of me would like to have more juice to play with really.
I have a p4 windows gaming platform, which is an "ailing" monster really, 3.2 ghz, 2gb ram, geforce 7800 GS AGP that I put through its paces, playing WoW, Dawn of War and Company of Heroes.
I have a 30 inch monitor running at 1280x768 @60 hz, where both are hooked up when home, and wireless keyboard and mouse.
My aim with the Imac was to combine everything in one box really, and be able to enjoy HD (1080) content without having to purchace a new monitor in the future, and still be able to play the games I enjoy, and shed the Ibook really.
But then... the dreaded GPU dilemma and the benchmarking...
So I started considering the MacBook Pro 15' 2,4 ghz as an alternative, simply to get better gaming performance, maintain my mobile life, and just get the wireless keyboard and mighty mouse, and hook the MacBook Pro up to the monitor, when at home... Cost would be the same pretty much.
I love the new Imac, in pretty much every aspect, but I had hoped for better gaming performance to give me the ability to combine everything in one machine. So am torn...
If anyone has any input that would be greatly appriciated.
Comments
I can't propose a solution to you, but personally, I'll be waiting. I won't go through the pain of switching until I can be sure that the new OS/machine will meet all my needs. When I switch, it'll be for good, whereas with this machine I can see myself cluttering my desk with a mac and my Windows laptop so that I can switch back to play games. I'll be waiting until Leopard comes out, to see if there's better driver support for these cards. If there isn't, I'll wait until a BTO version is released with an upgradeable GPU. If that doesn't happen, I'll be waiting for the next iMac rev. I know people will cite a hundred reasons why this GPU is in there, but I don't care- Apple have always been innovators, I can't for the life of me see why a solution couldn't have been found to heat or space constraints- an extra half inch on the back of the thing would not have turned me off as much as the performance. As it is, this machine's GPU insides look tired from day 1, and whatever anyone says, spending £1500 on tired kit, however pretty it looks in the living room, cannot be justified by the superiority of Apple's OS and software.
Just my opinion anyway, the opinion of a disappointed wannabe switcher.
The new iMacs use ATI Radeon HD series graphics processors. The graphical performance of both the Radeon HD 2400 XT and the Radeon HD 2600 leaves the new iMac in the mainstream performance category when it comes to games and 3-D applications, but it also paves the way for future capabilities. The Unified Shader Architecture touted by Apple and ATI/AMD will make it easier for game developers and others to show off fancy new special effects in their software. The new chips can also perform 128-bit High Dynamic Range (HDR) rendering, which will give games more intense, realistic lighting and shadows. As with the low-end model, the only place where the faster iMacs really fell behind was in the Unreal Tournament test (albeit only slightly), illustrating that the new graphics have a lot of future potential that’s not showing up in our tests—which will make your iMac last longer before becoming outdated (a very big concern in the tech world). But in playing 1080p HD movie trailers from Apple’s Web site, I found no deficiencies when it came to the onboard graphics—and for the record, playing a solo match in Unreal was smooth and enjoyable, so unless you’re a hardcore gamer, you probably won’t miss those extra 2.4 frames per second.
Just my opinion anyway, the opinion of a disappointed wannabe switcher.
Not to be flippant but you are only disappointed by unrealistic expectations. Apple does not really cater to gaming. So why be disappointed that they did not do something they really don't do. You may hope they will but when they don't its really no surprise.
Not to be flippant but you are only disappointed by unrealistic expectations. Apple does not really cater to gaming. So why be disappointed that they did not do something they really don't do. You may hope they will but when they don't its really no surprise.
http://www.apple.com/uk/imac/technology/graphics.html
Who created these "unrealistic expectations"? I quote:
"A powerful graphics processor with dedicated memory makes your entire computing experience better."
"Whether you use your iMac for business or pleasure, you?ll appreciate the power of the new ATI Radeon HD graphics processors"
"the 2.4GHz 20-inch model and the 24-inch models offer the ultimate in graphics power: an ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB of GDDR3 dedicated video memory."
"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance and sensational response for video and photo editing."
I also watched the WWDC video where Steve spoke at length about how the Mac was becoming a gaming platform. How unrealistic were my expectations? The quotes above would build an expectation in any viewer of a pretty advanced GPU, not a card that has been comprehensively rubbished by every review I've read. If you'd bothered to read my post you'd see I wasn't expecting a top of the line GPU, just something adequate and moderately future proof. I am not a hardcore gamer who wants SLI, water-cooled cards.
Your comment is exactly why I said the OP wouldn't get a useful response- any criticism of the GPU in the iMac on these boards is immediately met with "Macs aren't for gaming, get over it"- perhaps Apple should remove those game screenshots and marketing bumpf from their website then- at least I'd think they were reasonably honest about what they've come to market with...
That way you are mobile when you need to be and if later down the road the gaming performance of the MBP is not enough you can update your beast as you see fit.
Also, I'm sure after the 30" monitor the 24" iMac would look small (??).
I also watched the WWDC video where Steve spoke at length about how the Mac was becoming a gaming platform. How unrealistic were my expectations?
Well you can play games on any Mac. Like any other computer company you can play more advanced games on the more expensive systems. From what I've read the iMac can play most all games out there. It just won't pull high frame rates with the most advanced games.
The quotes above would build an expectation in any viewer of a pretty advanced GPU, not a card that has been comprehensively rubbished by every review I've read.
The best way to know for sure is to try it out for yourself.
If you'd bothered to read my post you'd see I wasn't expecting a top of the line GPU, just something adequate and moderately future proof.
The reviews also state that the drivers for the card can up dated in the future so it is potentially future proof.
From what I've read the iMac can play most games out there. It just won't pull high frame rates with most games at any resolution above 1024x768.
Fixed
Im sorry, but the argument that the iMac can 'still do light-to-medium gaming' is preposterous.
Benchmarks on the iMac (2.8GHz) show that it stuggles to run Quake 4 and Doom 3 at resolutions higher than 1024x768 - a resolution which leave a lot to be desired on a monitor which has a native resolution of 1680x1050, or 1920x1200.
Any real gaming with even semi-new games (2004+) at the native resolution is not a wise thing to do unless you enjoy slideshows, or ultra-low, hyper-ugly quality settings. Your choice.
The reviews also state that the drivers for the card can up dated in the future so it is potentially future proof.
I wouldnt count on it. If AMD/ATi couldve avoided the 2400/2600 series being the infamous fiasco it is, then I think they would have pushed those drivers would earlier.
Its possible, but I wouldnt hold my breath.
The fact is, Apple did a terrible decision with their choice of GPUs for these iMacs. Either they didnt do ANY research before putting those GPUs in there (very unlikely though), or they simply have some sort of agenda.
Basically, I think Apple is saying "spend thousands on a Pro machine to get half-decent frame rates, or get screwed".
Im sorry to put it so bluntly, but thats what it seems like.
...which, if you ask me, is mighty rude of them, looking at all that wind they stirred up with not only that gaming event at WWDC, but on their very site, by describing the 2600, as 'gilfanon' pointed out, a 'excellent gaming card'. They are blatently lying in our faces. What adds insult to injury is this is the only update the iMac has had after a YEAR.
And yes, I know that Apple, or well, not Apple, but iD have been gassing on about gaming coming back to the Mac, but these are not the 90's anymore - 14 year old teenagers in basements are not the majority of gamers out there anymore. Many people game these days. And having your £1500 machine almost literally die attempting to run a game that came out a few years ago is not a fun experience - more so for when about 2/3s of that price you can get a computer which will kill any game on the current market.
TenoBell - that quote from MacWorld couldnt be more insulting.
They sound like they are trying to sell the damn things.
The 2400 and 2600 series, I repeat, are well known in the PC industry to be one of the worst attempts for a video card in GPU history.
Here, something to give you an idea-
the 2600 Pro/XT (not sure what is in there anymore) is essentially a X1600 with DX10 abilities, and the X1600 is essentially a repackaged 9800 Pro, which is a five year old card. Apple has given us a 5 year old video card into the iMac.
This is not a question is having 2.4 less frames per second in Unreal Tournament 2004, but more of a question of running UT2004 at lowish-medium settings @ 1024x768 at a acceptable frame rate (something even ancient cards can probably pull off).
The 2400 and 2600 series is a farce.
the idea of better drivers etc is giving me a little more hope as it seems the ati is not as absolutely horrid as the first benchmarks suggested.
Also interesting is the Core graphics and motion comparisions, where the AluiMac trounces the old imac (ie. performance increases inline with Mhz).
http://www.barefeats.com/imacal2.html