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.
Is gaming on 24" that bad?
- Thread starter raffinux
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No problems on the English, buddy. It's all good!
I'm not sure exactly what the mobo is but they tell me that it is SLI capable which is a bonus. Wow...I really wasn't aware that the 2600 PRO was comparable to the 8600 GT! That surprises me. The advantage with the PC is that I could slap in a new GPU and notice significant increases which I can't do with the iMac. I am the first to admit that I don't know half of what you know but I'm pretty sure the processor, RAM and other major components would probably carry me through the next couple years. Worst scenario is that I have to upgrade the power supply for the new GPU. Does that sound reasonable?
I'm not sure exactly what the mobo is but they tell me that it is SLI capable which is a bonus. Wow...I really wasn't aware that the 2600 PRO was comparable to the 8600 GT! That surprises me. The advantage with the PC is that I could slap in a new GPU and notice significant increases which I can't do with the iMac. I am the first to admit that I don't know half of what you know but I'm pretty sure the processor, RAM and other major components would probably carry me through the next couple years. Worst scenario is that I have to upgrade the power supply for the new GPU. Does that sound reasonable?
If you know the watts and the volts, you know the amps.
Sure, Watts/12=Amps
(combined power)
You could have better for +- the same $, but you had to build it yourself...
Specs seem good enough unless some game demands quad core! (jk), and will last for a few years.
Yeah, worst case scenario +1 or 2Gb of ram (stranglehold game or too many crap open in Vista
), and a new psu when slapping a powerhouse gfx card. Oh, and a new case or removing the hdd bays to fit the card
God forbid games start requiring Quad Core. LOL I 'kinda peeked in the guts of the thing (it has one of those acrylic sides) and it seemed like there was a lot of room. I wish I had gotten the full specs. on it but I was 'kinda in a hurry.You could have better for +- the same $, but you had to build it yourself...
Specs seem good enough unless some game demands quad core! (jk), and will last for a few years.
Yeah, worst case scenario +1 or 2Gb of ram (stranglehold game or too many crap open in Vista
I wish I was confident in my computer building skills. I'm always afraid that I'm 'gonna really screw something up. Maybe I should just bite the bullet and do it. The reality is that for $1,000, I could probably build a *better* systems that would include a better graphics card eh?
So....do you think I could build a *better* system (including the OS) for a grand? We have *tons* of computer supply places here in San Diego which I could buy parts from.
When I say better, I don't mean a whole lot better. I mean, a bit better and most important, a machine chosen by you and that can handle the latest hardware without changing the case. I would do it (as always did), but you have to think if it will worth for you. Because you have to build it with a lot of caution, and if something goes wrong...there won't be a best buy employee to call names and ask for a refund
If you have time to spend and patience with it, choose your hardware and go for it.
If you aren't sure about it, buy the pre built one. Maybe if a gfx won't fit, you can take off the hdd bay and put the disk in the floppy bay. I had a thermaltake eclipse that I had to mod to fit a GTX. The card is pretty long, almost 12 inches.
If you have time to spend and patience with it, choose your hardware and go for it.
If you aren't sure about it, buy the pre built one. Maybe if a gfx won't fit, you can take off the hdd bay and put the disk in the floppy bay. I had a thermaltake eclipse that I had to mod to fit a GTX. The card is pretty long, almost 12 inches.
Take a look at this thread:
http://images.google.pt/imgres?imgu.../images?q=gtx+bay&svnum=10&um=1&hl=pt-PT&sa=G
The guy has a full tower case, and the one that you may buy it's a mid tower
http://images.google.pt/imgres?imgu.../images?q=gtx+bay&svnum=10&um=1&hl=pt-PT&sa=G
The guy has a full tower case, and the one that you may buy it's a mid tower
So, a noob question from a soon-to-be 20 inch 2.4Ghz, 2 (maybe) 4GB RAM, iMac owner. Is it too much to ask to expect Crysis to run on my machine?
I can answer this without even having recieved my Mac yet, or any knowledge about its performance:
NO
U might get a slideshow, but im sure it will be unplayable or anything else than state of the art gfx boards and SLI systems.
U prolly wont get better performance from 4gb of ram, since the bottleneck is the gfx card.
There might be a demo of the game anytime soon, ill suggest u try that first, personally, i dont bother. I dont expect to be able to play it with all eye candy on my PC system (7950 (dx9), P43,2G dualcore, 2gb ram 1tera disk).
*Recommended specs:
OS - Windows XP / Vista
Processor - Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Memory - 2.0 GB RAM
GPU - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar
An early test seen by YouGamers, had a quad core (they didn't know the speed) and a GTX. The game was running in DX9 with some stutters from time to time...
"Okay then, deep breath. It wasn't a flawless performance. A bit buggy and quite stuttery at times. Our test sample still has another round of testing and optimising to go before the final code is stamped on a DVD-ROM, but it was notable that certain things really hit the frame rate: moving into new areas or regions that release a lot of enemy NPCs. Crytek were keen to stress that one should run the game with as much memory as possible so these issues might not be so obvious (or even present) on PCs with more than 2GB of system RAM.
Once "settled in", the performance was okay but don't forget that this was on top-end machines, running a code drop not too far from release. It's unlikely (but not impossible) that Crytek can wave a magic wand at this stage to double the frame rates and don't forget that the DX10 mode is a complete unknown, so it's safe to say that if you want to enjoy the best possible visuals, you will need the best possible PC configuration out there."
http://www.yougamers.com/previews/12668_crysis-page5/
Excuse my ignorance but doesn't the 2.4Ghz iMac (let's say with 4GB RAM) compare pretty favourably then? Or is it the GPU that lets the iMac down? The ATI does do DX10 though doesn't it?
No matter what hardware you have, the gfx card do almost 90% of the job from 1280x1024 and up. And the card on the imac it's, let's say half has good as a 8800GTS. (maybe even lower)
They won't sell many if you need a card which costs a fortune ie. a GeForce 8800.
It'll get terrible reviews if it's not playable on high end cards.
It'll get terrible reviews if it's not playable on high end cards.
I'm the first to insult game developers for a bad optimizing code, but I get really mad when I see reviews on the web where they say "it looks like we have to use a high end card in sli/crossfire to take advantage of this". I never saw a review where they beat the crap out of the game coders. Because this is coming too easy for them. They are always making new games and expecting the hardware development to cover their crap coding. Add more textures, effects, details, etc...
I would put it this way: New games should run on highest settings with top of the line material, not at 20-30fps with medium detail.
To note that crysis runs that way in dx9, so wait for the 10fps in dx10
True - they should review the game, not the hardware specs. But then again, they do like to dock points if it's buggy or unstable. Will slowness be treated as a bug? Will they say they should have shelved it for 6 months for people's systems to catch up?
True that! I don't have the numbers to back it but I'd venture to say that a Core 2 Duo Extreme with a gig of RAM and an 8800 GTS would fair better (in terms of gaming) then a Quad Core with 2 gigs. of RAM and an 8600 GT!
Yeah.....from what I've read the 2600 HD is a respectable video card that renders great HD. However, we're talking about gaming and that's a whole 'nuther thing. For gaming, it appears to be *marginal* at best.Well, from all the replies I've read it seems that it is *not* that bad if you are not too demanding
Here's what I'm considering going with. It seems pretty respectable. Let me know if there is something I'm missing......
700 Watt Multi-GPU Approved Power Supply
NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI Motherboard
Intel® Core 2 Duo E4500 2.2GHz 2MB Cache 800MHz FSB
250GB SATA 3Gb/s 7,200RPM 16MB Cache
2GB DDR2 Performance SDRAM at 800MHz 2
x 1024MB
20X Dual-Layer DVD±RW w/ LightScribe
768MB NVIDIA® GeForce 8800 GTX
Windows Vista Home Premium
Logitech® G15 Gaming Keyboard
Logitech® G5 Laser Gaming Mouse
700 Watt Multi-GPU Approved Power Supply
NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI Motherboard
Intel® Core 2 Duo E4500 2.2GHz 2MB Cache 800MHz FSB
250GB SATA 3Gb/s 7,200RPM 16MB Cache
2GB DDR2 Performance SDRAM at 800MHz 2
x 1024MB
20X Dual-Layer DVD±RW w/ LightScribe
768MB NVIDIA® GeForce 8800 GTX
Windows Vista Home Premium
Logitech® G15 Gaming Keyboard
Logitech® G5 Laser Gaming Mouse
Well, you can save a few bucks by using a 650i/650SLI which supports 1333fsb, and the upcoming 45nm penryn cpus, as the 680i chipset.
Save a few more just by using value corsair 667mhz ram. (don't need more unless you want to OC 1:1)
And wait for the 8800GT release (will be faster than the 8800GTS) or the new improved 8800GTS with more stream processors. They will be much cheaper than the GTX and the performance will be almost identical (in theory since there are no real benches from reliable sites to prove it). Forget ATI for now with Vista, because Catalyst is too buggy.
Nice system. That cpu is for overclockers The low fsb asks for it!
Hint: newegg has good prices
Save a few more just by using value corsair 667mhz ram. (don't need more unless you want to OC 1:1)
And wait for the 8800GT release (will be faster than the 8800GTS) or the new improved 8800GTS with more stream processors. They will be much cheaper than the GTX and the performance will be almost identical (in theory since there are no real benches from reliable sites to prove it). Forget ATI for now with Vista, because Catalyst is too buggy.
Nice system. That cpu is for overclockers
The low fsb asks for it!Hint: newegg has good prices
Mh... sounds a bit costly to me. You really shouldn't spend more then ~1700$ since hardware nowadays get's dated much too fast. Maybe this helps you:
Happy engineering!
