Sidebar Sidebar
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)

Lord Appleseed said:
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 on 2560x1440.
Hence I will be able to play at better resolutions and/or settings.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm going to install SC2 again today and force 2XAA through Catalyst and see how it runs. I do remember being very displeased at being limited to 45FPS on my GTX 480 (forced 4XAA, vsync, triple buffering and all options maxed in game), 4.2ghz Core i7 a year ago though. ;)

I'm not sure but I think the Core i7 2600 is about equal a Core i7 920 @ 4.2ghz performance.
 
Zen0Jin said:
Honestly, I'm going to install SC2 again today and force 2XAA through Catalyst and see how it runs. I do remember being very displeased at being limited to 45FPS on my GTX 480 (forced 4XAA, vsync, triple buffering and all options maxed in game), 4.2ghz Core i7 a year ago though. ;)

I'm not sure but I think the Core i7 2600 is about equal a Core i7 920 @ 4.2ghz performance.
Click to expand...

Everything above 30FPS is fine to me to be honest. It looks fluent and thats what matters.
 
Lord Appleseed said:
Everything above 30FPS is fine to me to be honest. It looks fluent and thats what matters.
Click to expand...

The reason you want higher FPS is because FPS tends to bounce around as you are playing a game. And you want to avoid the minimum FPS dropping below something like 30fps so people shoot for as high as they can.
 
archer75 said:
The reason you want higher FPS is because FPS tends to bounce around as you are playing a game. And you want to avoid the minimum FPS dropping below something like 30fps so people shoot for as high as they can.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, 40FPS should provide enough tolerance to stay above 30 when the FPS fall.
 
Lord Appleseed said:
Yeah I know, 40FPS should provide enough tolerance to stay above 30 when the FPS fall.
Click to expand...

Depends on the game. In my experience, no. I have seen 80fps drop to 20fps in games at times depending on the scene and the amount of action. All depends.

I don't own SC2 so I can't tell you about that.
 
archer75 said:
Depends on the game. In my experience, no. I have seen 80fps drop to 20fps in games at times depending on the scene and the amount of action. All depends.

I don't own SC2 so I can't tell you about that.
Click to expand...
I havnt experienced a drop of more than 20FPS.

Starcraft runs pretty stable until You summon a Protoss mothership or it starts raining.
 
I've had sc2 drop from 50fps to 20fps, but that was only during a large battle with around 200 or so units on screen fighting on a zerg base full of creep. SC2 is pretty stable.
 
Zen0Jin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you need to put some more distance between you and the screen...
 
Anyone have actual benchmarks yet?

So far it's a couple games, with almost no hard numbers. I still think that it's weird that a new machine like this hasn't seen a flood of tests from all sorts of websites yet. Kind of disappointing.
 
Btw resolution does play a big role in the importance of AA. The lower the resolution, the less amount of pixels used for any particular model on the screen, meaning the jagged edges would only distort its shape more than if it had more pixels to define its shape to begin with.

Fallout at 1280x720 and no AA? Absolutely horrible looking. Fallout at 2560x1440 and no AA? Passable.
 
I thought OSX only allowed for 720p, not 1080p or 1440p...

Or is this only the case for PS3 games played on the iMac screen?
 
Only for ps3 games I guess. Computer games have multiple native resolutions.
 
dh2005 said:
The number of times a screen can be 'drawn' per second will determine the number of frames that can be seen per second.
Click to expand...

so if you have a display that refreshes at 60hz then you can't see more than 60 frames per second anyway, right?
 
Zen0Jin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is there a way to reduce the display size down to 21" on the 27" iMacs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back