Game on lower resolution on a 27" iMac

[johanssonand]

Hi!

My old 24" iMac had an ATI radeon 4850 card, and playing some of my favorite game titles (fallout 3, and Dawn of War) worked fine - atleast in comparison to my old White iMac 24".

Now I'm going to purchase a 27" i5 iMac with the Radeon 4850 card. My question is; since it´s the same GPU and playing in native resolution will be a tough job. Will the quality of playing games in 1080p be much lower?

I just want to know if this will be a significante downgrade. Or if playing games in 1920x1080 will be a good quality choice.

Sorry for the bad english!

 

[Hellhammer]

Of course it won't be as nice as it would be when running at native res but I think it's still pretty good-looking. It'll run games at native res but you have to sacrifice some settings though. Here is MW2 @1920x1080 on 27" iMac

 

[Chuushajou]

Obviously it depends on resolution, and the type of game you'll be playing.If your playing at 1600x900 on your 24" iMac then going to 1920x1080 27" iMac, you will be lose some frame-rates, it does depend on the game in general, and when it was released.

 

[johanssonand]

While Fallout 3 may be a more demanding game, titles as Dawn of War (and the expansionspacks) is a more basic strategy based game. I think there will be a problem FPS whise if I choose to run the games in full resolution.

What to do? Buy an Mac Pro? :O

It would be awesome if they could had put the 4850 in the 21.5!

EDIT: My last iMac 24" i ran all games in full resolution. But my concern is that all the games I've mentioned will be unplayable or atleast lack alot of performance from my last computer.

 

[Hellhammer]

While Fallout 3 may be a more demanding game, titles as Dawn of War (and the expansionspacks) is a more basic strategy based game. I think there will be a problem FPS whise if I choose to run the games in full resolution.

What to do? Buy an Mac Pro? :O

It would be awesome if they could had put the 4850 in the 21.5!

EDIT: My last iMac 24" i ran all games in full resolution. But my concern is that all the games I've mentioned will be unplayable or atleast lack alot of performance from my last computer.

Is a custom PC out of question? You already have an iMac for OS X needs so you could build a pretty decent PC for ~700$ and it would run FallOut 3 flawlessly.

I'm sure Fallout 3 will run at native res but you have to use low graphics. If @1080p, then you can use medium-high settings.

Little off-topick but MW2 is 600p on consoles and it's absolutely gorgeous even when played on 100" 1080p projector.

 

[johanssonand]

Is a custom PC out of question? You already have an iMac for OS X needs so you could build a pretty decent PC for ~700$ and it would run FallOut 3 flawlessly.

I'm sure Fallout 3 will run at native res but you have to use low graphics. If @1080p, then you can use medium-high settings.

Little off-topick but MW2 is 600p on consoles and it's absolutely gorgeous even when played on 100" 1080p projector.

Well, I could build my own PC but I would rather have an all-in-one only. I going to buy the 27" iMac anyways.

So, your comparison with the console will be just like the iMac?

Thanks for all inputs!

 

[Hellhammer]

So, your comparison with the console will be just like the iMac?

COULD be, but that proves that even when not running at native res, it looks nice. Look at the video I linked you before, there is some 1080p gaming on 27" iMac and it doesn't look bad

 

[Sambo110]

Yes, a lower resolution looks kinda blurry, but you honestly can't really see it unless you turn the resolution up then back down. If I was you I would wait until Apple upgrade the GPU, as then you would get better performance instead of the same.

 

[Hellhammer]

Yes, a lower resolution looks kinda blurry, but you honestly can't really see it unless you turn the resolution up then back down. If I was you I would wait until Apple upgrade the GPU, as then you would get better performance instead of the same.

ATI Mobile Radeon 5850 is actually slower than the 4850 used in iMacs. Only nVidia GTX 280M or ATI Mobile Radeon 5870 are faster than 4850 if X2s and SLIs are not included ( won't use them so...). I doubt we'll see 5870 in iMac even though it would be amazing, it may be too hot and expensive, although nobody knows for sure

 

[greg400]

I'm sitting here scratching my head as to why you are about to blow money out the door when you can play everything you want max res on your current iMac... but do as you please I suppose.

 

[johanssonand]

I'm sitting here scratching my head as to why you are about to blow money out the door when you can play everything you want max res on your current iMac... but do as you please I suppose.

I had the iMac 24, after I sold it in favor for the rumors on the new ones! Tough luck, it seems like it was a big disappointment.

 

[TMRaven]

I personally would not buy the 27 inch iMac if you're not planning to run games on it at native resolution, because of what others have said.

A huge disadvantage LCDs have is if they're not displaying in native resolution, they become extremely blurry and lose a massive amount of sharpness.

I would personally much rather run at the native 2560x1440 resolution and sacrifice one aspect of graphics a slight amount, rather than run it at a lower 1920x1080 resolution with all graphic options set to the max.

 

[Sambo110]

ATI Mobile Radeon 5850 is actually slower than the 4850 used in iMacs. Only nVidia GTX 280M or ATI Mobile Radeon 5870 are faster than 4850 if X2s and SLIs are not included ( won't use them so...). I doubt we'll see 5870 in iMac even though it would be amazing, it may be too hot and expensive, although nobody knows for sure

I'm almost certain the 5850 can play games better. I know someone who recently bought one and can play Bad Company 2 at 1920x1080, 16xAA 8xAF all very high with DirectX11 and get 60-70 FPS with it. I don't think the 4850 could do that.

 

[Badger^2]

http://www.barefeats.com/imi7g2.html

 

[coolmacguy]

A huge disadvantage LCDs have is if they're not displaying in native resolution, they become extremely blurry and lose a massive amount of sharpness.

In games, if you turn FSAA off having the slight blurring effect of lower resolution doesn't look all that worse.

I would personally much rather run at the native 2560x1440 resolution and sacrifice one aspect of graphics a slight amount, rather than run it at a lower 1920x1080 resolution with all graphic options set to the max.

Then you've obviously never played modern games on the 27" imac.

Most modern games are simply too slow to play at the native res, even if you turn down the graphics options. Playing at 1920x1080 with better graphics provides a MUCH better gameplay experience.

That being said...

I personally would not buy the 27 inch iMac if you're not planning to run games on it at native resolution, because of what others have said.

I wouldn't buy one if you are buying it to do that. If that's your goal, you're going to be disappointed.

 

[greg400]

I had the iMac 24, after I sold it in favor for the rumors on the new ones! Tough luck, it seems like it was a big disappointment.

The best iMac for gaming at the moment is the 24 with the 4850. The 27's obscene resolution just pushes the card too hard. I suggest looking for a refurb 24.

 

[TMRaven]

Then you've obviously never played modern games on the 27" imac.

You're right, I havn't-- or at least not much anyways. Most of the games I have were for my old iMac, one of the few modern games I've played on the new 27 incher has been starcraft2 (which stresses the computer just as much as modern warfare2 or bad company2) In that game, pushing the resolution down to 1920x1080 only nets you 10fps, while adjusting one or two of the graphic options down to medium nets you 20 fps. Also, since you're running at native resolution, you get a crisp picture with no distortion artifacts, so not much AA, if any, would be needed. I also know plenty of other friends who prefer to game at their native resolutions with barely any AA.

I wouldn't buy one if you are buying it to do that. If that's your goal, you're going to be disappointed.

To each his own I guess, but we should be thinking about the topic creator here, who already has an iMac of lower resolution with same graphics card. Would he honestly profit from buying a new iMac with bigger screen and same graphics card to just game on it with basically the same resolution he already has, only more blurry? I think not.

EDIT: Nevermind I guess, it seems as though the topic creator sold his iMac in favor of buying a new one. :S

 

[Hellhammer]

I'm almost certain the 5850 can play games better. I know someone who recently bought one and can play Bad Company 2 at 1920x1080, 16xAA 8xAF all very high with DirectX11 and get 60-70 FPS with it. I don't think the 4850 could do that.

iMacs use MOBILE GPUs, not desktop. Desktop 5850 is a lot faster than 4850 is but it doesn't apply to mobile GPUs

My post from https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/875286/

Benchmarks shows that 5850 is actually slower than 4850 though we don't know what drivers etc the 5850 had.

While Mobile 4850 is just underclocked desktop 4850 with about the same performance as desktop 4830, Mobile 5850 is underclocked desktop 5770 but it's slower than desktop 5750.

In summary, mobile 5850 won't be much faster (if any) than mobile 4850 because 4850 is based on high-end desktop chip while 5850 is based on mid-level desktop chip. Real world differences we don't know before 5xxx iMac is released (if it ever will) because it depends on what GPU  uses and how much memory and what are the clock speeds.

 

[alendito]

about gaming w/ windows os games on imac.

Of course it won't be as nice as it would be when running at native res but I think it's still pretty good-looking. It'll run games at native res but you have to sacrifice some settings though. Here is MW2 @1920x1080 on 27" iMac

I am new to iMac and just got a new 27" iMac and I am a huge fan of the DOW games. I was curious how do you get them to upload to the iMac and play them?