OK, so what games can I play on the new iMac?

[grundgedanke]

Some undue pessimism on this thread. My old PC with a Pentium 4 and GeForce 6800 ran games extremely well. Unless you want stupidly high frame rates you'll be disappointed, but to hear comments like 'you'll be ok with anything before 2005' is silly.

Count me in with that. I also own a P4 (3.4 GHz Single Core) with the 6800 and everything is fine at 1280x1024 if you don't expect to max everything out. I can play with good frame rates and still good looking graphics inkl. Oblivion, Stalker, NWN2 etc. pp.

Time to switch to the new IMac for me at least ... even if it is not faster in gaming than what i have. For playing new games I have my 360.

 

[frick]

The 6800 GT is/was a high-end card. The 6800 GT is about on par with the 7600 GT, and the 6800 Ultra will probably beat it by a fair margin. Keeping this in mind,

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3023&p=8

... you can see that the 7600 GT handily beats both the 2600 Pro and the 2400 XT in Prey, a game based on the 2004 Doom 3 engine. The flak Apple is receiving for putting the 2400/2600 into the iMac is well deserved; these cards are really not that much better than integrated graphics so far as 3D apps are concerned.

Not that this will matter to most of the Apple crowd, though, who seem to think that games are "fluid" when running at 15 fps...

 

[gloss]

The ONLY thing I want to know:

How does HL2 (or, more specifically, Counterstrike: Source) run at 1680x1020 (on the 20") or 1920x1200 (on the 24") inch, and at what settings?

My 3 year old PC with an Athlon 64 3500+ and GeForce 6800GT OC could run CS:S at max details at 1680x1020 at 60-80 fps, so I'm expecting at least that from the 20" iMac.

 

[Eidorian]

The ONLY thing I want to know:

How does HL2 (or, more specifically, Counterstrike: Source) run at 1680x1020 (on the 20") or 1920x1200 (on the 24") inch, and at what settings?

My 3 year old PC with an Athlon 64 3500+ and GeForce 6800GT OC could run CS:S at max details at 1680x1020 at 60-80 fps, so I'm expecting at least that from the 20" iMac.

http://www.hothardware.com/articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_2600_and_2400_Performance/?page=4

 

[gloss]

http://www.hothardware.com/articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_2600_and_2400_Performance/?page=4

That actually might be tolerable. I play with HDR off, no anisotropic filtering and no AA, which should bump that up considerably. Not to mention that Episode 1 as all sorts of graphical goodies that CS:S doesn't.

I'd like to see a genuine iMac benchmark though.

 

[Eidorian]

That actually might be tolerable. I play with HDR off, no anisotropic filtering and no AA, which should bump that up considerably. Not to mention that Episode 1 as all sorts of graphical goodies that CS:S doesn't.

I'd like to see a genuine iMac benchmark though.

Understandable, it looks like Tom's Hardware is back up now though.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=721&chart=318

 

[gloss]

Understandable, it looks like Tom's Hardware is back up now though.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=721&chart=318

Well, the 2600XT looks to be around a 30% improvement over the 6800GT, which I guess would place the 2600 Pro on about the same level, maybe a bit below.

Disappointing, to be sure. I'd have figured they'd be able to outperform a 3 year old GPU by now.

 

[Eidorian]

Well, the 2600XT looks to be around a 30% improvement over the 6800GT, which I guess would place the 2600 Pro on about the same level, maybe a bit below.

Disappointing, to be sure. I'd have figured they'd be able to outperform a 3 year old GPU by now.

The Pro is effectively a very underclocked version of the XT.

Pro
Core: 550 MHz
Memory: 700 MHz

XT
Core: 800 MHz
Memory: 1100 MHz

Same shader core otherwise. The XT is more likely to be seen with GDDR3/4 as well.

 

[mulletman13]

Im happy with how the x1600 performs. Will the 2600 pro run better than that? Also I assume that was put in there due to heat issues ( the xt has a ginormous fan). Think it would be safe to overclock the 2600 pro? Apple is typically conservative with these values, but it is a desktop card correct?

 

[Eidorian]

Im happy with how the x1600 performs. Will the 2600 pro run better than that? Also I assume that was put in there due to heat issues ( the xt has a ginormous fan). Think it would be safe to overclock the 2600 pro? Apple is typically conservative with these values, but it is a desktop card correct?

No word on if it's the desktop or mobile version of the HD2600 Pro. The 7600GT is a much hotter video card and they managed to put the desktop version in the iMac. You can overclock it but your mileage may vary. Be sure to take into account the risks and provide additional cooling.

Expect better performance then the X1600 but nothing incredible.

 

[Grenadier]

Some undue pessimism on this thread. My old PC with a Pentium 4 and GeForce 6800 ran games extremely well. Unless you want stupidly high frame rates you'll be disappointed, but to hear comments like 'you'll be ok with anything before 2005' is silly.

I will happily put down £5 that you only base this option on that fact that this card has higher numbers than the previous generation.
Look at some benchmarks.

Besides, as someone else stated, the 6800 is another card which has aged well - at its time, it was a semi-high end card.

And I'mAMac, yeah, perhaps you are right

 

[gloss]

Besides, as someone else stated, the 6800 is another card which has aged well - at its time, it was a semi-high end card.

Yeah, the 6800 GT was just below top-of-the-line when it released (only the 6800 Ultra was above it) - really great card, great pricing. Maybe I've been spoiled.

 

[Eidorian]

*raises hand*

My overclocked (480/480) X1600 had trouble running Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising and Escalation (2004) at 1280 x 1024 on my iMac. It depended mostly on if the map had a lot of trees or not.

The high end X800 and 6800GT have both aged very well in the past few years.

 

[7084]

Hmmm, this news of the graphics card is a bit of a downer for me, as i was half-planning to buy XP so I could catch up on all the old PC games i've missed. Still, that fact wouldn't matter to me if the answer to the next two questions was overly positive...

1. World of Warcraft? What kinda performance can i expect from a maxed out iMac (2.8ghz C2D Ex + ATI HD2600 Pro)? What resolution could i safely max out the graphic detail do you reckon? Would it be a compromise of detail/resolution?

2. This is farfetched as I don't think the system requirements have been released yet, but any indication as to whether the iMac would be able to handle Starcraft 2 would be good.

I know of course this is all speculation as very few people have actually got their hands on the new iMac and no benchmarks have been recorded officially, but any answers or speculations to the questions above would be appreciated.

7084

 

[zign]

Understandable, it looks like Tom's Hardware is back up now though.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=721&chart=318

The one in the mac is GDDR3 though...

 

[Eidorian]

The one in the mac is GDDR3 though...

Fine until you break 1024 x 768.

 

[RRK]

The one in the mac is GDDR3 though...

I keep saying this but no one seems to care.

 

[Eidorian]

I keep saying this but no one seems to care.

The memory is GDDR3 but the 64-bit interface is going to choke it.

 

[AlexisV]

The 6800 GT is/was a high-end card. The 6800 GT is about on par with the 7600 GT, and the 6800 Ultra will probably beat it by a fair margin. Keeping this in mind.

Just to clarify, my 6800 was the vanilla 6800, not the GT or Ultra.

Anyway, the only way to test is to do some benchmarks on my old PC and the new Mac through bootcamp.