Gaming on the 27" iMac with the 4850

[dh2005]

Macs have never been built for gamers and never will be. Every time a new Mac machine comes out the gamers whine and whine and whine about how bad the machine is for gaming. I also have a feeling that all those gamers had no intention whatsoever to buy a Mac in the first place. Get over it. There are a ton of pc's made built for gaming out there and most are cheaper then any Mac.

I realise this is an old post, but I've only just read it and I feel compelled to respond.

This attitude really pisses me off. For all sorts of reasons. For one, it's precisely this closed-minded view that almost stopped me from switching to Macs in the first place (I bought a Mini last month). In the weeks before I bought my Mac, I asked questions here about the gaming capability of Minis and iMacs and 70% of the responses I received were of the ilk, "Macs aren't for games... you're an idiot for asking these questions... go buy a gaming rig and leave us alone".

Frankly, if anybody in this scenario needs to "get over it", I think it's the old embittered MacHeads. Your beloved Motorola days are behind you. Macs are not only being bought by specialist users anymore, but also by everyday people whose needs will include, on occasion, playing games. Apple certainly know this, which is why they include Doom 3 and Quake 4 benchmark data on their website.

The Mini with the NVidia 9400M does a terrific job of playing older games (games released after 2005 probably won't run too well...), so I'd expect an iMac with an ATI Radeon 4670/4850 to do a very solid job of playing the modern stuff. Obviously nothing like the performance you'd get out of an Alienware desktop; but then, if you're the kind of person who wants to game at that level, you wouldn't even be looking at a Mac in the first place.


Bottom line: Macs are perfectly capable games machines.

 

[mr.thedaniel]

I realise this is an old post, but I've only just read it and I feel compelled to respond.

This attitude really pisses me off. For all sorts of reasons. For one, it's precisely this closed-minded view that almost stopped me from switching to Macs in the first place (I bought a Mini last month). In the weeks before I bought my Mac, I asked questions here about the gaming capability of Minis and iMacs and 70% of the responses I received were of the ilk, "Macs aren't for games... you're an idiot for asking these questions... go buy a gaming rig and leave us alone".

Frankly, if anybody in this scenario needs to "get over it", I think it's the old embittered MacHeads. Your beloved Motorola days are behind you. Macs are not only being bought by specialist users anymore, but also by everyday people whose needs will include, on occasion, playing games. Apple certainly know this, which is why they include Doom 3 and Quake 4 benchmark data on their website.

The Mini with the NVidia 9400M does a terrific job of playing older games (games released after 2005 probably won't run too well...), so I'd expect an iMac with an ATI Radeon 4670/4850 to do a very solid job of playing the modern stuff. Obviously nothing like the performance you'd get out of an Alienware desktop; but then, if you're the kind of person who wants to game at that level, you wouldn't even be looking at a Mac in the first place.


Bottom line: Macs are perfectly capable games machines.

It's good to hear comments like this I completely agree, my MBP has run games just fine, Crysis, GTAIV, HL2, etc. Obviously I'm not maxing out settings, but if I was expecting to do that, I obviously would've bought a $2k+ desktop. My mac has been great for games

 

[Sambo110]

I realise this is an old post, but I've only just read it and I feel compelled to respond.

This attitude really pisses me off. For all sorts of reasons. For one, it's precisely this closed-minded view that almost stopped me from switching to Macs in the first place (I bought a Mini last month). In the weeks before I bought my Mac, I asked questions here about the gaming capability of Minis and iMacs and 70% of the responses I received were of the ilk, "Macs aren't for games... you're an idiot for asking these questions... go buy a gaming rig and leave us alone".

Frankly, if anybody in this scenario needs to "get over it", I think it's the old embittered MacHeads. Your beloved Motorola days are behind you. Macs are not only being bought by specialist users anymore, but also by everyday people whose needs will include, on occasion, playing games. Apple certainly know this, which is why they include Doom 3 and Quake 4 benchmark data on their website.

The Mini with the NVidia 9400M does a terrific job of playing older games (games released after 2005 probably won't run too well...), so I'd expect an iMac with an ATI Radeon 4670/4850 to do a very solid job of playing the modern stuff. Obviously nothing like the performance you'd get out of an Alienware desktop; but then, if you're the kind of person who wants to game at that level, you wouldn't even be looking at a Mac in the first place.


Bottom line: Macs are perfectly capable games machines.

I've always thought this for a while, still doesn't stop me wanting a better GPU though

 

[jjahshik32]

I realise this is an old post, but I've only just read it and I feel compelled to respond.

This attitude really pisses me off. For all sorts of reasons. For one, it's precisely this closed-minded view that almost stopped me from switching to Macs in the first place (I bought a Mini last month). In the weeks before I bought my Mac, I asked questions here about the gaming capability of Minis and iMacs and 70% of the responses I received were of the ilk, "Macs aren't for games... you're an idiot for asking these questions... go buy a gaming rig and leave us alone".

Frankly, if anybody in this scenario needs to "get over it", I think it's the old embittered MacHeads. Your beloved Motorola days are behind you. Macs are not only being bought by specialist users anymore, but also by everyday people whose needs will include, on occasion, playing games. Apple certainly know this, which is why they include Doom 3 and Quake 4 benchmark data on their website.

The Mini with the NVidia 9400M does a terrific job of playing older games (games released after 2005 probably won't run too well...), so I'd expect an iMac with an ATI Radeon 4670/4850 to do a very solid job of playing the modern stuff. Obviously nothing like the performance you'd get out of an Alienware desktop; but then, if you're the kind of person who wants to game at that level, you wouldn't even be looking at a Mac in the first place.


Bottom line: Macs are perfectly capable games machines.

Well said. As for the guy you quoted, I could say the same thing about a PC, that their only good for gaming and since PC's have crappy software, PC's are over priced hardware that only looks good on paper.

 

[dh2005]

I've always thought this for a while, still doesn't stop me wanting a better GPU though

Aww, me too, man! I'd love the GPU to be better... but I'm so, so pleasantly surprised by how much my Mini can do on the gaming front. I'm playing Doom 3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein on maximum detail at breakneck pace; I never thought they would run that well.

The 9400M is much, much better than I gave it credit for.

 

[aphxtwinin]

for what its worth I play Age of Empires 3 on my i7 and its quick and looks great. as soon as steam comes im sure there will be proper reviews of the current iMacs gaming awesomeness!

 

[Sambo110]

for what its worth I play Age of Empires 3 on my i7 and its quick and looks great. as soon as steam comes im sure there will be proper reviews of the current iMacs gaming awesomeness!

I can max the OS X version on my 20" iMac with a 2400 HD , surprised me it ran so well actually, one of the only games I can play at 1680x1050 flawlessly.

 

[mr.thedaniel]

One thing that Apple doesn't seem to get enough credit for, especially among more critical users, is their ability to coax impressible power and function out of hardware that is often less than "cutting edge". That's really the beauty of apple after all, hardware and software being designed to complement each other and really get the most out of a machine.

For using many "aging parts" (GPUs and CPUs that are a little behind), they really do impress. Performance on Apples machines are more than just the numbers on paper, which continually impresses me, and I feel like that's understated among geekier and choosier users. I think Apples engineers deserve a hand

 

[dh2005]

Yeah, I think that's true. I think their approach of balancing the components, rather than simply throwing together the fastest bits available, has a lot to be said for it... mind you, I'd still like a faster GPU!

 

[NATO]

Apple are apparently allergic to putting up to date GPUs in their systems (And I say this as long-time Mac user) so most just accept that Macs aren't really any good for gaming. Personally I would prefer if Apple at least offered a BTO option of a faster GPU in the likes of the iMac but I'm not holding my breath.

Saying that, the Mobility 4850 in the 27" iMac isn't that bad really. Considering the huge resolution of the display, it handles quite a number of games very well indeed. I've been playing games like Battlefield 2, Bioshock without any issues whatsoever. I've also had very good performance with Empire Total War and even Battlefield Bad Company 2 (I did have to turn a lot of things down to low, but the resolution makes up for it since everything is rendered so finely. The responsiveness when playing online was absolutely fine).

Ultimately it's capable but I think anyone who likes to game would prefer a stronger GPU, especially when gaming at the native resolution of the 27" display.

 

[dh2005]

What you say about the native res of the iMac27 is very true, of course - that's one big-ass screen, with a fairly ludicrous number of pixels...!

All I ever said, before being shouted-down by several people in my first ever thread, was that I'd like Apple to add a BTO option for a top-end graphics card. I never asked for them to become standard issue, or for Apple to redesign the entire iMac range (although, admittedly, faster cards generate more heat, so design is a potential factor...).

I think there's a category of semi-serious gamer who'd be very compelled by the iMac if the video performance was a little better; I genuinely do believe there'd be a market for it.

 

[awdougherty]

If there was a BTO option to throw a 5830 in the top end i7 iMac, I would jump on that machine in a heartbeat. What frustrates me about Apple is that none of their systems offer me exactly what I'm hoping for in a new computer in 2010.

In the end, the main games I'm going to play are Lord of the Rings Online and Star Trek Online with a little ArmA 2 here and there. I'm sure the 4850 could handle it, especially if I played at lower than native resolutions, but it would still be disappointing moving from my PC's current 5850. The 5830 would have been the perfect compromise for me.

 

[TMRaven]

As to why you would want a mobility gpu that is barely any more powerful than the mobility 4850 if for only the sake of a higher number is completely beyond me.

 

[NintendoFan]

As to why you would want a mobility gpu that is barely any more powerful than the mobility 4850 if for only the sake of a higher number is completely beyond me.

I suppose if he boots into Windows he gets DX11.

 

[GreatDanton]

Unfortunately that's exactly not what the Mac Pro is for. A 4870 512MB card is hardly the most "intensive and extreme" graphics card on the market. Its now a generation old and even then its got half the memory and is clocked slower than most of its PC equivalents.

Damn, thats not good to hear, is it possible to upgrade a Mac Pro with a better graphics card? Whats the best GPU you can get in a mac pro?

 

[dh2005]

What frustrates me about Apple is that none of their systems offer me exactly what I'm hoping for in a new computer in 2010.

That's how I felt a couple of months ago. But my hand was forced when my netbook died, so I had to buy something - I went for the Mini, to see whether I could make friends with Macs, rather than going all-out for an iMac27.

I'll probably buy an i7 iMac next February. Whether or not a more appealing machine is released in the meantime, I can only use my academic discount once in a calendar year...!

 

[Demon Hunter]

What you say about the native res of the iMac27 is very true, of course - that's one big-ass screen, with a fairly ludicrous number of pixels...!

All I ever said, before being shouted-down by several people in my first ever thread, was that I'd like Apple to add a BTO option for a top-end graphics card. I never asked for them to become standard issue, or for Apple to redesign the entire iMac range (although, admittedly, faster cards generate more heat, so design is a potential factor...).

I think there's a category of semi-serious gamer who'd be very compelled by the iMac if the video performance was a little better; I genuinely do believe there'd be a market for it.

You make some interesting arguments, but if we define "semi-serious" a little more, I think we would find that no "semi-serious" gamer would ever consider a Mac.

There are so many reasons. Lack of peripherals, lack of proper driver support, lack of support from game publishers. This is certainly changing, albeit slowly, with the recent announcement of Steam for Mac.

I can speak to this as a Mac gamer of 10+ years, who waited weeks, months or sometimes years to see a Mac release of a game I really wanted to play.

However, it will always be the case that Apple's design philosophy does not align well with gamer's needs.

Certainly, I would call a Mac a very capable machine for casual gaming. But there is nothing serious about it.

Oh: and Boot Camp doesn't change this at all. Try talking to someone who downloaded some generic PC graphics drivers, and their Mac overheats constantly because Apple underclocks their GPUs. Windows runs better on a Mac, yeah, right.

 

[SuX0rz]

I've been playing Dragon Age at native res with very high settings. No AA, but it runs smooth and is more than fine for my gaming needs.

It's not a powerhouse but I never bought it to be one. I want to play the occasional game and it does that quite nicely.

 

[NATO]

You make some interesting arguments, but if we define "semi-serious" a little more, I think we would find that no "semi-serious" gamer would ever consider a Mac.

There are so many reasons. Lack of peripherals, lack of proper driver support, lack of support from game publishers. This is certainly changing, albeit slowly, with the recent announcement of Steam for Mac.

I can speak to this as a Mac gamer of 10+ years, who waited weeks, months or sometimes years to see a Mac release of a game I really wanted to play.

However, it will always be the case that Apple's design philosophy does not align well with gamer's needs.

Certainly, I would call a Mac a very capable machine for casual gaming. But there is nothing serious about it.

Oh: and Boot Camp doesn't change this at all. Try talking to someone who downloaded some generic PC graphics drivers, and their Mac overheats constantly because Apple underclocks their GPUs. Windows runs better on a Mac, yeah, right.

I consider myself a 'semi-serious' gamer and here I am with a 27" Core i7 iMac. Windows 7 runs very well on it and the only thing that holds it back in terms of games performance is the GPU. The CPU, Memory, SSD are all top notch components worthy of any gaming PC and the display is to die for, but it's the lack of a high-end GPU that holds it back. Put a half-decent GPU in there and you have quite an enviable gaming computer.

All this assumes that you're running Windows 7 natively to play games. Mac ports are okay for casual gaming but for proper performance you have to run the native Windows games. Any semi-serious or serious gamer wouldn't even consider Mac OS X to be a gaming platform since there are so few developers who are actively developing for it. Any ports we do get tend to run slower since they're normally using Cider with the exception of Steam's arrival on OS X since the games will be running natively.

Ultimately your argument seems to hinge on someone buying a Mac with the intent of playing games in OS X, but a Mac is a very good machine (with the exception of the GPU) to run Windows on for gaming purposes.

 

[dh2005]

You make some interesting arguments, but if we define "semi-serious" a little more, I think we would find that no "semi-serious" gamer would ever consider a Mac.

There are so many reasons. Lack of peripherals, lack of proper driver support, lack of support from game publishers. This is certainly changing, albeit slowly, with the recent announcement of Steam for Mac.

I can speak to this as a Mac gamer of 10+ years, who waited weeks, months or sometimes years to see a Mac release of a game I really wanted to play.

However, it will always be the case that Apple's design philosophy does not align well with gamer's needs.

Certainly, I would call a Mac a very capable machine for casual gaming. But there is nothing serious about it.

Oh: and Boot Camp doesn't change this at all. Try talking to someone who downloaded some generic PC graphics drivers, and their Mac overheats constantly because Apple underclocks their GPUs. Windows runs better on a Mac, yeah, right.

Thanks for the considered reply.

For me, a "serious gamer" is someone who's willing to game at almost any cost; one of those nutcases who drops £2,500+ on an Alienware desktop, and another £300 a year on keeping the graphics card current.

I'll give you my own definition of "semi-serious gamer", because that's what I consider myself to be:

I really, really like a good computer game. I won't just play games for the sake of it, but when something new and exciting comes out, I like to be able to play it; which is why I have a PS3, a 360 and a Wii. I bought the Mini to relive my favourites of the past, and it's doing an excellent job for me.

Speaking personally, if an iMac 27 were released with a top-of-the-range graphics system, I would definitely buy it at the start of 2011. The big, beautiful, crisp display is begging for a workout; and it's such a handsome piece of kit that I genuinely do believe it could seduce the more affluent computer buyer with "semi-serious" gaming ambitions into choosing it ahead of a PC.

And I'll make this point again, because I want to make sure I'm being heard; I am only advocating an improved graphics system as a BTO upgrade. I am not demanding that all iMac customers see things my way.


I don't think I'm alone in this.

 

[Demon Hunter]

Ultimately your argument seems to hinge on someone buying a Mac with the intent of playing games in OS X, but a Mac is a very good machine (with the exception of the GPU) to run Windows on for gaming purposes.

I do agree with you that these new iMacs are killer machines; the i7's Hyper-Threading should prove wicked for games which utilize the extra threads, like Havok physics for example.

Besides the class of GPU, though, the problem lies with Apple's implementation of the circuitry. What good is running a game in Boot Camp, even with a high-end GPU, if it crashes or can't use the standard Catalyst or nVidia drivers? Even the nutcase who spends $4000 on Alienware can at least play his/her game without glitches or overheating (if their product works properly).

dh2005, rest assured I totally hear your point and agree 100% that Apple needs more BTO graphics options. If I still used a Mac for gaming I would also be excited at the possibility.

 

[dh2005]

Besides the class of GPU, though, the problem lies with Apple's implementation of the circuitry. What good is running a game in Boot Camp, even with a high-end GPU, if it crashes or can't use the standard Catalyst or nVidia drivers? Even the nutcase who spends $4000 on Alienware can at least play his/her game without glitches or overheating (if their product works properly).

Sure. Point taken.

 

[mash83]

gaming imac 27 HD4850

Hi, i'm playing some games on bootcamp windows 7.
Is it possible to play games with full-screan resolution (1600x1200 etc.) without any black bars along the sides of monitor? (PC video cards just can extend image). Playing 1900x.. giving low fps & playing 1280x... giving bad picture...

 

[NATO]

Besides the class of GPU, though, the problem lies with Apple's implementation of the circuitry. What good is running a game in Boot Camp, even with a high-end GPU, if it crashes or can't use the standard Catalyst or nVidia drivers? Even the nutcase who spends $4000 on Alienware can at least play his/her game without glitches or overheating (if their product works properly).)

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not having any problems playing games using the standard Catalyst drivers. I was running the latest 10.2 Catalyst drivers and now the Preview 10.3 drivers with no crashing or overheating.

 

[Gold89]

Hi, i'm playing some games on bootcamp windows 7.
Is it possible to play games with full-screan resolution (1600x1200 etc.) without any black bars along the sides of monitor? (PC video cards just can extend image). Playing 1900x.. giving low fps & playing 1280x... giving bad picture...

As long as you select a 16:9 ratio resolution it should be fine