Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
720p,1080p,1440p and Gaming (27'' imac)
- Thread starter bo-waleed
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's been a few days now, and not one gaming benchmark has been released for these systems!?
Seriously!?!??!
I've only seen a Portal benchmark so far, and it's not the most robust game graphically speaking. I'd also like to see something like Starcraft II on the iMac. World of Warcraft, Crysis, ANYTHING really.
I'm surprised it's taking this long.
Seriously!?!??!
I've only seen a Portal benchmark so far, and it's not the most robust game graphically speaking. I'd also like to see something like Starcraft II on the iMac. World of Warcraft, Crysis, ANYTHING really.
I'm surprised it's taking this long.
"Anti-isotopic Filtering" -> Texture Sharpening and "Anti Aliasing" -> Edge Sharpening
Anisotropic filtering: it helps render the texture at extreme angles compared to the character. You ever notice how on consoles the texture on the ground becomes blurry at a little distance? AF helps fix that.
Anti-aliasing: it helps smooth out jagged edged created by 3d models that aren't already rasterized themselves.
I'd personally be interested to see benchmarks of the 1gb and 2gb 6970m. I don't think it has the necessary memory bandwidth to really take advantage of that 2gb. It might help a tad bit for ultra resolution textures at such a resolution like 2560x1440, but that'd probably be it. Things like anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering take a toll on memory bandwidth moreso than just hogging up memory.
Anti-aliasing: it helps smooth out jagged edged created by 3d models that aren't already rasterized themselves.
I'd personally be interested to see benchmarks of the 1gb and 2gb 6970m. I don't think it has the necessary memory bandwidth to really take advantage of that 2gb. It might help a tad bit for ultra resolution textures at such a resolution like 2560x1440, but that'd probably be it. Things like anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering take a toll on memory bandwidth moreso than just hogging up memory.
A poster on these forums talked about his experience with WoW. He said native resolution on ultra settings and it ran smooth as silk.
Mine will be here tomorrow then I can give you some numbers. At least with the games I have.
I have Starcraft 2, not sure how to benchmark stuff except 3Dmarks and stuff. I've already played it through so I doubt I'll install it until the expansions come out.
I know Starcraft 2 just isn't going to run too well, hell my GTX 480 couldn't do it running 4.2ghz Core i7... 1920x1200, 4x AA, max settings... would be too much at times.
I have Bad Company 2, Black Ops as well.
About Gaming:
I used to own the 2009 i5 Quad with the Mobility 4850.
-Crysis ran on Middle to High and 1080p fluently
-Crysis2 ran on Very High and 1080p fluently
-Starcraft2 ran on partly High and partly Ultra at 1440p fluently
-Dragon Age 2 on High and 1440p fluently
That said, with the 6970m I expect to run
-Crysis on 1080p and Very High fluently
-Crysis2 on 1440p and High to Very High fluently
-Starcraft2 on Ultra and 1440p fluently
-Dragon Age 2 on Very High 1440p fluently
(all with 16x AF and no AA)
Also: Guys TURN OFF AA, its useless at 2560x1440 and consumes a lot of power.
I used to own the 2009 i5 Quad with the Mobility 4850.
-Crysis ran on Middle to High and 1080p fluently
-Crysis2 ran on Very High and 1080p fluently
-Starcraft2 ran on partly High and partly Ultra at 1440p fluently
-Dragon Age 2 on High and 1440p fluently
That said, with the 6970m I expect to run
-Crysis on 1080p and Very High fluently
-Crysis2 on 1440p and High to Very High fluently
-Starcraft2 on Ultra and 1440p fluently
-Dragon Age 2 on Very High 1440p fluently
(all with 16x AF and no AA)
Also: Guys TURN OFF AA, its useless at 2560x1440 and consumes a lot of power.
Last edited:
I know sc2 doesn't have its own aa settings. On the radeon side of things, anti aliasing support from the catalyst control is very poor, and brings the fps down to the single digits. I'm not sure about the nvidia side of things: it might be better, but certainly not very well implemented as well.
Try running sc2 without aa and you'll probably get great results. SC2 doesn't really need aa to begin with.
Try running sc2 without aa and you'll probably get great results. SC2 doesn't really need aa to begin with.
That couldn't be further from the truth.. SC2 is one of the few games I've ever played where AA was critical, or it would look horrendous without it.
I know its your opinion, but your optimal gaming rez is at 1080p? Even on the 27"? Just curios on your thoughts. I am debating between the 21.5" or 27" for gaming right now. I like the power of the 27" upgrades, but worry the screen will be to large.
Dude, if you can afford it, get the 27". No doubt. It'll be 'too large' for about 24 hours, then you'll thank me.
1080p is optimal on my current setup. In games where I have the choice between '1080p + AA' and '1440p without AA', I prefer the look of the former. I know certain members around here consider that a sign of mental deficiency, but honestly, it's how I feel.
1440p is razor-sharp, for definite. But it's also slightly jagged-looking. 1080p isn't quite as sharp, but AA smooths the edges and creates (again... in my opinion) a better aesthetic, overall.
The new top-end iMac, with its 6970m, should be able to run most of the games I'm talking about at '1440p + AA'. Which is, of course, ideal.
1080p is optimal on my current setup. In games where I have the choice between '1080p + AA' and '1440p without AA', I prefer the look of the former. I know certain members around here consider that a sign of mental deficiency, but honestly, it's how I feel.
1440p is razor-sharp, for definite. But it's also slightly jagged-looking. 1080p isn't quite as sharp, but AA smooths the edges and creates (again... in my opinion) a better aesthetic, overall.
The new top-end iMac, with its 6970m, should be able to run most of the games I'm talking about at '1440p + AA'. Which is, of course, ideal.
thanks for the opinion. I feel like I am on the same page. I would rather a little lower rez as well. Some things almost look 'too sharp' to me. But that is just an opinion. I just worried the 27" screen with 2560x1440 native res might not look very good running games at 1080p. Thought it my look a bit odd. But like I said, I have never seen it. I would still think it would look great, but then I started reading what a lot of differing opinions. But I think I am on track with you. Thanks
I am itching to make the order of my first iMac They're lovely machines, dude. I have my differences with Apple, but I can't knock them on this one.
If you're coming from console gaming (as I was, seven months ago), I'm confident that you'll really like the look of gaming at 1080p on an iMac. And bear in mind that, if you get the 6970m, you'll be able to run lots of games at 1440p with AA, anyway. The newest games, and those released in future, you'll need to either peel back to 1080p or remove some of the detail and/or post-processing. But it'll still look a shedload better than any Xbox 360 or PS3.
If you're coming from console gaming (as I was, seven months ago), I'm confident that you'll really like the look of gaming at 1080p on an iMac. And bear in mind that, if you get the 6970m, you'll be able to run lots of games at 1440p with AA, anyway. The newest games, and those released in future, you'll need to either peel back to 1080p or remove some of the detail and/or post-processing. But it'll still look a shedload better than any Xbox 360 or PS3.
You've got to be joking. I know I have a high tolerance for jagged edges, but SC2 has very refined models, and on a high density/high resolution screen like the 27 inch iMac's, at native resolution it doesn't need AA at all. Other games like Fallout and call of duty would do nice with some AA, but not sc2 at 2560x1440. I've seen starcraft at lower resolutions like 1680x1050, and yes it is quite bad, but not at 2560x1440.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC2-2010-08-03-08-32-29-47.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC22010-08-0300-15-39-57.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/SC22010-07-3019-29-53-03.jpg
What's so horrendous about that? The jaggedness of the edges are no where as bad as other games.
Can someone please to me the real world advantages of above 60 FPS.
I have extensive background in video and film but never understood the whole gaming fps obsession outside of benchmarking.
From my understanding, you won't ever see more than 60 fps on the iMac screen which is also true if you hook up 99% of HDTVs to your iMac since most only accept a 60 hz or fps input and i don't think the Mac OSX can output 120hz?
I have extensive background in video and film but never understood the whole gaming fps obsession outside of benchmarking.
From my understanding, you won't ever see more than 60 fps on the iMac screen which is also true if you hook up 99% of HDTVs to your iMac since most only accept a 60 hz or fps input and i don't think the Mac OSX can output 120hz?
Well there is the advantage of having a buffer, just in case if your FPS dips during the most complex of scenes, your FPS will still be around 60 or above it.
As for sc2 running better on windows than osx, there's no surprise really. DirectX and gpu drivers are usually more up-to-date on windows side.
As for sc2 running better on windows than osx, there's no surprise really. DirectX and gpu drivers are usually more up-to-date on windows side.
The 27" 6770m video card will run the games well too?
I like que 27" display but i don't have money to pay 27" 6970m, here in Brazil is 1000 reais ($550) more expensive.
I run games like sc2, black ops, dragon age 2 and pes 2011.
Actually i run sc2 on ultra with gtx260 PC with 1440x900 resolution.
With 27" 6770m at native resolution i will run in med, high, very high? To run with 45 fpd min. I don't wanna see message "you pc is lagging the game thiagoaos".
I like que 27" display but i don't have money to pay 27" 6970m, here in Brazil is 1000 reais ($550) more expensive.
I run games like sc2, black ops, dragon age 2 and pes 2011.
Actually i run sc2 on ultra with gtx260 PC with 1440x900 resolution.
With 27" 6770m at native resolution i will run in med, high, very high? To run with 45 fpd min. I don't wanna see message "you pc is lagging the game thiagoaos".
That is a good point. I never really thought of that. It would be nice if the screen was at lest 120hz instead of 60hz. Probably be on the next gen iMac.
Is the screen refresh rate and Frames Per Second the same? I mean, I know its not the same thing but you could see more than 60 fps if you you had a display that only display 60hz, right?That's absolutely horrendous... Look at at any of the models, the Protoss ones are obvious. Jags everywhere.
It's not about resolution, it's about pixel density. On a 27" screen, 2560x1440 is high resolution but it's about the same pixel density as smaller screens running 1920x1080. The jaggies are no different, in fact, they're just.. BIGGER, on our iMacs.
If you haven't played Starcraft 2 with at least 2x AA or better yet 4x AA, it's night and day.
Reduce your pictures down to fit down to a 20" screen and you'll see that yes, in a high pixel density screen, 2560x1440 would eliminate the need for AA, but not in our 27" screens.
You seem to like it all smooth huh?
Well I guess that is personal preference. I for my part dont mind slight edges at all (especially not on 2560x1440)
Hence I will be able to play at higher resolutions and/or settings.
I'm sorry, but, I'm gonna have to restore some sanity, here: there is nothing "absolutely horrendous" about that. If you're saying they could look better, fine. But demonstrate some sense of proportion, please. That's just a silly thing to say, mate...