Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is gaming on 24" that bad?

R

raffinux

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 12, 2007
23
0
Hi,

today I spent an good hour in an :apple: store evaluating the the 20" and 24" screens and I think I will go for the latter. It is really noticeable the difference in the quality of the panel and I guess with the time I will get used to the nearly overwhelming size. Maybe a very deep desk will help :rolleyes:
(BTW I managed to freeze it by opening 12-15 windows, run dashboard and add two calculators widgets lol :) I guess was already updated to 1.1)

Anyway the point is: is the high resolution creating so many problems with gaming or you can just run a game at 1024x768 and enjoy even without the native resolution? Consider that I'm not a professional gamer just a casual one and this is my only concern before ordering it tomorrow :D

Thanks everybody
 
My gaming experience so far on my 24in 2.8 GHz is just great. I play WoW with 30+ FPS at 1900x1200 (whatever max is for 24in) and it's great. In bootcamp I play all sorts of games and they run just fine... Battlefield, Team Fortress 2, America's Army etc. All thumbs up and no complaints.

If you're a hardcore gamer who wants to play all the latest and greatest that push 3d technology and video cards to the max, this probably isn't the best machine for you in the long run. If you have games you want to play that are upper-middle of the road as far as specs go, you'll be very happy with the machine.

I personally get most of my high end gaming ya-ya's out with my Xbox 360, so the Mac does everything else and more than I need. Video editing, graphic design etc. this machine rocks.

Cheers!
 
raffinux said:
I just wanted to know some personal experiences. I've searched the forum and googled for this topic but benchmarks can not be compared to overhall experience. There are many other factors to take into account :)

Thanks
Click to expand...


Those are actual in game benchmarks done by a program that calculates the average fps over a set amount of time, while I played the game.

How the heck more factors do you want?

Macs aren't for gaming anyway, they are for doing nude iChat videos, buy a Dell.
 
JWFerne said:
... If you have games you want to play that are upper-middle of the road as far as specs go, you'll be very happy with the machine.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

I would say that part of your description really match my needs.
That's was exactly the answer I was looking for :)

Thanks
 
RevToTheRedline said:
Those are actual in game benchmarks done by a program that calculates the average fps over a set amount of time, while I played the game.

How the heck more factors do you want?

Macs aren't for gaming anyway, they are for doing nude iChat videos, buy a Dell.
Click to expand...

Pixel ghosting is for example something that you can not measure with your benchnmark which by the way are really interesting. Thanks.

Funny enough you say that Macs aren't for gaming but you spent some time to test them on a Mac ;)

Take it easy
 
raffinux said:
Pixel ghosting is for example something that you can not measure with your benchnmark which by the way are really interesting. Thanks.

Funny enough you say that Macs aren't for gaming but you spent some time to test them on a Mac ;)

Take it easy
Click to expand...

If you have to question it so much, a mid level (graphics wise) Mac is probably not right for you. I bought this system for doing photography on, but I also like to play a few games, out of all those games I benchmarked, I only play 3. And they are awesome.

But once you hit games like Enemy Territory QW, and Bioshock, the fun factor goes out the window, as the GPU has hit the end of the road. And as games progress even more the iMac will become more opposite for gaming.

I play BF2, Americas Army and UT2k4, all really old games, they run super nice all at 1920x1200, maxed out.
 
TantalizedMind said:
Every Mac sucks for gaming.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Since installing the specific winxp desktop drivers for the 2600xt as set out by Rev, I have been playing Oblivion on my 24" at 1920 x 1200 with everything maxed and the game is simply stunning. Having only played this game on my aging PC prior to this, I didn't know it could look so damn good.

So unless you can qualify this statement somehow... kthxbye
 
RevToTheRedline said:
But once you hit games like Enemy Territory QW, and Bioshock, the fun factor goes out the window, as the GPU has hit the end of the road. And as games progress even more the iMac will become more opposite for gaming.
Click to expand...

RevToTheRedline, I can say that the ET:QW demo stuttered quite a bit with the drivers provided by Apple wth Bootcamp. I installed the 2600xt drivers from your post on arsetechinica earlier and have been having an absolute blast with ET:QW demo at max settings on my 20"... No problems here!

Don't have bioshock so I can't say much about that... :D
 
RevToTheRedline said:
If you have to question it so much, a mid level (graphics wise) Mac is probably not right for you. I bought this system for doing photography on, but I also like to play a few games, out of all those games I benchmarked, I only play 3. And they are awesome.
Click to expand...

In the last 3 years or so, I have only played one PC game regularly. WoW. If the 2600 card can at least match an old Nvidia 6800 in terms of performance for Blizzard level games (Starcraft II) I should be ok. I played Half-Life 2 and it was ok. Personally, I would rather play graphic intensive games on a console with a big screen HDTV attached.

Give me another two years with WoW, a little Starcraft 2 thrown in and the ability to revisit some older FPS' and I'll be fine.

Rev, have you tried the latest drivers in Vista and have any idea how they are doing?
 
Spankey said:
In the last 3 years or so, I have only played one PC game regularly. WoW. If the 2600 card can at least match an old Nvidia 6800 in terms of performance for Blizzard level games (Starcraft II) I should be ok. I played Half-Life 2 and it was ok. Personally, I would rather play graphic intensive games on a console with a big screen HDTV attached.

Give me another two years with WoW, a little Starcraft 2 thrown in and the ability to revisit some older FPS' and I'll be fine.

Rev, have you tried the latest drivers in Vista and have any idea how they are doing?
Click to expand...

Haven't tried Vista yet, I've had my fair share of fixing friends Vista machines to not want to install it on my own.
 
TantalizedMind said:
Every Mac sucks for gaming.
__________________
Apple PowerMac G5
Apple PowerMac G4 Cube
Apple Studio Display (17")
Apple iPod (Third Generation)
Apple iPod Shuffle (Second Generation - Orange)
Click to expand...

Obvious flamebait. However, if those are the only Macs you own I'm not surprised you feel that way. Get a new Intel-based model and install XP in Boot Camp and perhaps you might change your outlook on the whole situation. ;)
 
raffinux said:
Hi,

today I spent an good hour in an :apple: store evaluating the the 20" and 24" screens and I think I will go for the latter. It is really noticeable the difference in the quality of the panel and I guess with the time I will get used to the nearly overwhelming size. Maybe a very deep desk will help :rolleyes:
(BTW I managed to freeze it by opening 12-15 windows, run dashboard and add two calculators widgets lol :) I guess was already updated to 1.1)

Anyway the point is: is the high resolution creating so many problems with gaming or you can just run a game at 1024x768 and enjoy even without the native resolution? Consider that I'm not a professional gamer just a casual one and this is my only concern before ordering it tomorrow :D

Thanks everybody
Click to expand...

altogether, you might want to wait for their new operating system later this month ;)
 
TheJGene said:
I disagree.

Since installing the specific winxp desktop drivers for the 2600xt as set out by Rev, I have been playing Oblivion on my 24" at 1920 x 1200 with everything maxed and the game is simply stunning. Having only played this game on my aging PC prior to this, I didn't know it could look so damn good.

So unless you can qualify this statement somehow... kthxbye
Click to expand...

Oblivion maxed out on a mac at 1920x1200...
Big lol at you :D

Being the current best gfx a x1900xt for the mac, not even two in crossfire would do the trick. I don´t know what is "maxed ou" for you, but everything at "max" plus 4xAA + 16AF + HDR at 19x12 would run at ~10FPS, and that's not by any means GAMING.
Two HD2900XT in CF or two 8800GTS 620 in SLI would do it at +30FPS outdoors.

At the op: Native resolutions on an iMac depend on the games you'll run. The HD2600Pro (underclocked XT) is pretty lame even if it had original clocks and ddr4 at 2200Mhz to play at 1680x1050 the latest games in bootcamp. OGL mac games will run pretty good, but DX9 or 10 FPS in bootcamp will kill you. Unless you play 2/3 year old games or the newest titles at 1024. Forget Crysis though.

RTS games will run better, just because you won't need 30FPS+ to get it smooth.

For the guys running games on iMacs: remember that just after update 1.1 the drivers in bootcamp recognize AF, so when you think it's maxed out, it isn't.

I'm not bashing Apple by any means, I love the hardware, the looks and above all OSX. Remember that these machines are not made for heavy and eye candy gaming.
Cheers.
 
When its not freezing up, I reckon its pretty good for gaming. I only really play UT2004 though. But I did try some other games as demo's, like Prey, and that ran just great too.
 
I'll fly X-plane at my 20" iMac when I get it, and I hope it will be fine.. Right now I'm using a laptop with 128mb VRAM, and it doesn't always turn out well with the gfx.

Mostly it looks like this. As you can see, X-plane decreases the visibility to prevent low frame rate..
 
PMR said:
Oblivion maxed out on a mac at 1920x1200...
Big lol at you :D
Click to expand...

My bad so lol'ing at me is justified... :eek:

When I say maxed (which I should know by now from reading these forums is a broad generalisation which deserves such a response) I didn't mean AA and all that turned right up. Discussions have already indicated that AA stomps on the performance with this GPU. I meant to indicate that all graphics options sliders (ie shadows reflections etc etc , hdr/bloom all on) were all turned to highest settings, which used to kill the games performance on my PC. So yes, no AA but with all the trimmings turned right up at 1920 x 1200 res, the game is gorgeous and when outdoors running around I can see no obvious framerate issues, all is smooth as silk. I'll shut up now... :eek:
 
At the op: Native resolutions on an iMac depend on the games you'll run. The HD2600Pro (underclocked XT) is pretty lame even if it had original clocks and ddr4 at 2200Mhz to play at 1680x1050 the latest games in bootcamp. OGL mac games will run pretty good, but DX9 or 10 FPS in bootcamp will kill you. Unless you play 2/3 year old games or the newest titles at 1024. Forget Crysis though.
Click to expand...

I'd say that was a pretty inaccurate summary personally.

Have a look at a 2600 review from the other week: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/the-radeon-2600xt-remixed,review-29624-11.html

It's pretty much on a par with the GeForce 8600GT.
 
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