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 imac good for gaming
- Thread starter manmeetpaul
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The iMac is a great machine but even a 5870 is greater than the 6970M in the iMac. From what I know the 6970M is a 6850 desktop card with a 95MHz lower core clock speed. So, performance should be a little less than the 6850.
I'd say grab the Dell. You'll be happier in terms of gaming. You could even, at a later date, replace that graphics card with a 6970 (desktop) and you'll be really happy.
I'd say grab the Dell. You'll be happier in terms of gaming. You could even, at a later date, replace that graphics card with a 6970 (desktop) and you'll be really happy.
Call of Duty 4 and even Black Ops will run like a dream on the 6970.
Also, there is nothing wrong with playing games on the 27" iMac at 1080p resolution if need be.
Last edited:
I feel the same way, dude, but experience has taught me to always include the phrase "in my opinion", when so stating! Otherwise, other members will rain crap on your head about how you're 'blind' and/or 'stupid'.
It's a preference issue. You can know how you feel about it, but anybody else really has to see for themselves.
I prefer games at native resolution myself. I was just doing some benchmarks on my 09 27" i7 iMac in Metro 2033. 720p on highest settings looks like rubbish vs 1440p on lowest settings. The only game I've ever found which looks acceptable at a less than native resolution, is Crysis 2.
the 6970m should be able to run most games on native res with good graphic settings. Exceptions are Crysis(1) and Metro2033. Crysis2 should be playable on Native res and "Gamer" or "Advanced" settings.
And again: WITHOUT AA
And again: WITHOUT AA
6850 desktop scores 39.1 FPS in Crysis 2 at 1080p on Gamer/High settings (the lowest available). It doesn't look like you'd get 30+ FPS at 1440p, which is the bare minimum for smooth gameplay. Not to mention the 6970M isn't as good as the 6850.
Hopefully it performs better than this.
-
Even a 6750m from a Macbook Pro 15inch can play Crysis 2 at Advanced settings with an average of 38 FPS according to notebookcheck.
The 6770m from the iMac should run it a bit faster, but don't expect it to run on the highest highest highest setting.
Even a 6750m from a Macbook Pro 15inch can play Crysis 2 at Advanced settings with an average of 38 FPS according to notebookcheck.
The 6770m from the iMac should run it a bit faster, but don't expect it to run on the highest highest highest setting.
That sounds wrong to me. I used to play Crysis 2 on 1920x1080 and Advanced with my Late 2009 iMac and the Mobility 4850 at about 30 FPS
Edit: According to this http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html
Crysis 2 is playable at 30 FPS on Ultra and 1080p with the 6970m (the note that these FPS are belong to 1080p resolution is found on the GPU page itself)
Edit2: "For gamers this means that the Radeon HD 6970M is able to fluently display all modern games in high detail settings. Only Crysis and Metro 2033 stuttered in the highes detail settings at 1920x1080 (see below)."
Last edited:
I've the same model and I get about 30 FPS on high with dips at 1080p.
Keep in mind though, the high settings you quoted were at 1600x900. To run the game with 30+ FPS on 'High' (lowest) at 1440p will be quite hard. I've no doubt it'll be able to do max settings (ultra) on 1080p with 30 FPS.
I bought the i7 3.4GHz 27" iMac last week. Unfortunately I didn't realise until recently that there was a BTO option to get the 2GB 6970M card.
I use my Mac for photoshop/Illustrator/FCE and for fun I'm a Warcraft player and raid 3 times a week in 25 mans.
The problem I have with Warcraft is that if I set the video settings to 'recommended' then everything is set at minimum with projected textures off etc.
On my previous iMac which was a 2010 i7 with 5750 card it would recommend everything on high. The 6970 is clearly a better card, so why this difference?
I've also installed Win7 64 bit and if I try to install updated mobility drivers (11.4's) the install aborts with the error that ' there is no graphic adaptor installed'
Again on my 2010 i7 Win7 installed and ran perfectly allowing video card updates etc.
All software and firmware is current on both OS's as of 10th May so I don't understand why I'm getting these errors, does it sound like my GPU is borked?
Ok so the bottom line is, if I can return my Mac and go for the BTO option with the 2GB card will I notice a difference at native (2500x1440) resolutions.
Currently I'm averaging about 40 fps with AA at x4 and most settings to good in most games.
I use my Mac for photoshop/Illustrator/FCE and for fun I'm a Warcraft player and raid 3 times a week in 25 mans.
The problem I have with Warcraft is that if I set the video settings to 'recommended' then everything is set at minimum with projected textures off etc.
On my previous iMac which was a 2010 i7 with 5750 card it would recommend everything on high. The 6970 is clearly a better card, so why this difference?
I've also installed Win7 64 bit and if I try to install updated mobility drivers (11.4's) the install aborts with the error that ' there is no graphic adaptor installed'
Again on my 2010 i7 Win7 installed and ran perfectly allowing video card updates etc.
All software and firmware is current on both OS's as of 10th May so I don't understand why I'm getting these errors, does it sound like my GPU is borked?
Ok so the bottom line is, if I can return my Mac and go for the BTO option with the 2GB card will I notice a difference at native (2500x1440) resolutions.
Currently I'm averaging about 40 fps with AA at x4 and most settings to good in most games.
You might notice a difference if the game is being bottlenecked by VRAM, if it isn't then you won't. I'd get the 2GB option, since it can't hurt and it's not too much more expensive. Not sure about your other issues, I'm afraid.
Cheers for the reply. It's been niggling me about the 2GB ever since I found out about the upgrade option.
To be honest I don't know why Apple just didn't go with a standard 2GB in the top of the range iMac instead of giving the choice of 1GB/2GB, it's £80 difference in the UK which is laughable on a £2k machine.
As a last resort I'm going to try reformatting/reinstalling from the supplied disks and apply all updates. Maybe some rogue code got in somewhere.
I still want to go with the 2GB card though; I guess I have 14 days to return the machine.
To be honest I don't know why Apple just didn't go with a standard 2GB in the top of the range iMac instead of giving the choice of 1GB/2GB, it's £80 difference in the UK which is laughable on a £2k machine.
As a last resort I'm going to try reformatting/reinstalling from the supplied disks and apply all updates. Maybe some rogue code got in somewhere.
I still want to go with the 2GB card though; I guess I have 14 days to return the machine.
Aah, finally I have the reply
I searched up game-dabate.com, they collect data on g.cards and compare different cards, I found that 6970M is the better one.
Not to mention but, you can always change the card on dell, but the answer to my question is, the imac is better at gaming...
I searched up game-dabate.com, they collect data on g.cards and compare different cards, I found that 6970M is the better one.
Not to mention but, you can always change the card on dell, but the answer to my question is, the imac is better at gaming...
No worries, I think it's a good idea if not for future proofing alone. I'd do a few benchmarks of your machine and compare them to others to make sure you're running as you should be. Cheers
I played some Crysis 2 today at native rez on the 27" imac, 3.4ghz i7 and 6970m 2gb.
I don't know how to bring up the FPS counter but I set the graphics to hardcore and could play pretty well. I'm guess the FPS was in the 27-33 range.
I then set it to advanced and didn't notice much quality difference at all but the FPS was smoother. I'd guess 30-38 or so. It seemed pretty stable and fluid.
But the imac got hot! Hottest i've felt it yet. But no issues with the game.
I don't know how to bring up the FPS counter but I set the graphics to hardcore and could play pretty well. I'm guess the FPS was in the 27-33 range.
I then set it to advanced and didn't notice much quality difference at all but the FPS was smoother. I'd guess 30-38 or so. It seemed pretty stable and fluid.
But the imac got hot! Hottest i've felt it yet. But no issues with the game.