Is the video card in the new Imac ok if you aren't gaming?

[eddiel]

Hi all

There seems to be a few discussions about the video card but I'm hoping to get a more succinct answer.

I won't be using my Imac for gaming at all.

I will be using it for watching tv/dvds, editing photos, playing around with some video editing/dvd authoring(only a little), audio editing and other general usage stuff like office work, surfing, etc.

Are there any issues that I need to consider with the new Imac?

A lot of people aren't happy with the new card it seems.

Opinion?

Eddie

 

[reflex]

The videocard will be more than adequate for those.

For (recent and future) games you could argue though.

 

[Gymnut]

For your uses the iMac will be more than adequate. Those that are unhappy about the video card would've liked Apple to put in a card that could push more pixels and framerates for games.

 

[siurpeeman]

a lot of people complain about the video card b/c people like to complain. the imac is perfect for your needs, and the video card will suit you just fine.

 

[7084]

How about if you throw a bit of WoW into the mix, how would it handle that?

 

[Durmortec]

How about if you throw a bit of WoW into the mix, how would it handle that?

Games like WoW and Battlefield 2 should be able to run at native resolutions with almost no problem, as long as we're talking about the 2600 pro.

 

[Gymnut]

Well Blizzard has been fantastic about their support of the Macintosh platform and if owners of Macbooks with its integrated graphics can play WoW, I don't see why the new iMacs couldn't.

 

[7084]

Have Blizzard given any indication of what sorta rig Starcraft 2 would require? It looks fantastic and probably out of the iMacs league.

 

[Gymnut]

Not entirely as the iMac's video card with 128mb VRAM should meet the minimum system requirements. Bear in mind SC2 has been in development for 3-4 years by the time it's offically released. Of course this is all open to speculation since the game has not been released and Blizzard has not officially released the game's system requirements.

 

[Durmortec]

Have Blizzard given any indication of what sorta rig Starcraft 2 would require? It looks fantastic and probably out of the iMacs league.

I read an IGN article where Blizzard said Starcraft 2 would not be as intensive graphically as other RTSs on the market right now, and Blizzard is generally very good about optimizing games to run on a wide range of systems, Starcraft 2 should fine fine at medium-ish settings I think.

 

[toru173]

No, the video card is not enough to even play the most simple of games. I suggest that you upgrade to an 8 core with quad sli 8800 Ultras. This will allow you to type that letter at an acceptable framerate.

Oh wait, that's my PC. Seriously, it'll be fine.

 

[mavherzog]

Have Blizzard given any indication of what sorta rig Starcraft 2 would require? It looks fantastic and probably out of the iMacs league.

I read on the WoW forum (Apple support) that SC2 should be fine on the new iMac's. (specifically, a Blizzard support person posted that iMac owners "need not worry" about whether their systems will play SC2)

That made my day...and will likely earn Apple another iMac sale when I get back home from Iraq.

 

[Scannall]

It's a perfectly good card for just about everything. Where it is weak is on the most demanding games via Bootcamp. Even then it is fine for most of those.

 

[Umbongo]

Have Blizzard given any indication of what sorta rig Starcraft 2 would require? It looks fantastic and probably out of the iMacs league.

Starcraft was successful not only for it's balance and support, but also because it worked on nearly any machine, while SC2 will be more modern, Blizzard will definatly have it working on older technology. Don't forget it's also been in development since 2003, meaning it's been designed on older tech.

 

[7084]

So in summary then, would this be correct?

WoW - Very playable. Playing at native resolution a possibility, and high levels of detail or near max.

SC2 - Playable, decent frame rate on medium-ish settings?

If so, that is excellent news and almost assures my purchase of a new iMac!

Wahey!

 

[urbanskywalker]

Does anyone have info on what the real world difference would be between the 2400 and 2600 graphic cards that Apple is using? Also, if you are not playing games, is the card really a non issue?

 

[Sean Dempsey]

World of Warcraft is how many years old? It ran GREAT on my frickin' Dell Inspiron with a gig of ram and a frickin' Geforce Go 4 (utter ****). And also on my home built PC which had like a GeforceFX 5200 or some other bogus 80 dollar walmart card. WoW was fine, it was more than fine.

These iMac complaints are out of ***** control. It's an all-in-one home system, and it will run most mac games, not at the highest resolution with 16x AA, but it will be FINE FOR MOST PEOPLE.

I am almost ready to make a youtube video of my Rogue ganking some noobs in Ashenvale on my iMac.

 

[jesteraver]

One thing I am curious too know, would I be able too replace the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 Pro with the XT, or thats impossible?!

 

[RedDragon870503]

I've always said that if you have to ask it will likely be just fine.

 

[QCassidy352]

World of Warcraft is how many years old? It ran GREAT on my frickin' Dell Inspiron with a gig of ram and a frickin' Geforce Go 4 (utter ****). And also on my home built PC which had like a GeforceFX 5200 or some other bogus 80 dollar walmart card. WoW was fine, it was more than fine.

These iMac complaints are out of ***** control. It's an all-in-one home system, and it will run most mac games, not at the highest resolution with 16x AA, but it will be FINE FOR MOST PEOPLE.

/clap clap clap. WoW ran great on my single 1.8 G5 tower with a radeon 9600 (64 MB) and ran well enough on a single 1.25 G4 tower with a radeon 9000 for my gf to get a character to 60 and go raiding.

People have completely and totally lost perspective about the graphics in these new imacs. Are they a bit of a disappointment? Yes. Could apple have done better? Probably. Are they still more than adequate for everyone but really serious gamers? Absolutely.

 

[SimonTheSoundMa]

The only decent game on a Mac is Photoshop. Should be ok.

 

[I'mAMac]

No, the video card is not enough to even play the most simple of games. I suggest that you upgrade to an 8 core with quad sli 8800 Ultras. This will allow you to type that letter at an acceptable framerate.

Oh wait, that's my PC. Seriously, it'll be fine.

Ok to everyone who is tired about the complaining. We wouldn't complain as much if apple hadn't mislead everyone saying that all these games are coming to mac and then keep the same exact, mediocre graphics card. People were just expecting more.

 

[aliasfox]

First person shooter: look elsewhere if you want to play at native or near native resolutions.

Third person games (WoW, etc): You should generally be fine, not have any major issues unless in environments with lots of objects.

If exposé, dashboard, and fast user switching are the most 3-D you ever expect to use on your system: You'll love your new iMac

 

[flopticalcube]

One thing I am curious too know, would I be able too replace the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 Pro with the XT, or thats impossible?!

Its beginning to look like they might be using XT's after all: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/339616/

 

[skubish]

/clap clap clap. WoW ran great on my single 1.8 G5 tower with a radeon 9600 (64 MB) and ran well enough on a single 1.25 G4 tower with a radeon 9000 for my gf to get a character to 60 and go raiding.

People have completely and totally lost perspective about the graphics in these new imacs. Are they a bit of a disappointment? Yes. Could apple have done better? Probably. Are they still more than adequate for everyone but really serious gamers? Absolutely.

Amen.

I levelled two Wow characters to 70 on an iBook and it was fine. I could even raid on the iBook.