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

milibug

macrumors newbie
Jun 26, 2007
11
0
Inconsistent results?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135777-c,macs/article.html

"On our Doom 3 tests, the iMac pumped out 92 frames per second at 1280 by 1024 resolution, and 47 fps second at the same resolution with antialiasing enabled. On our Far Cry tests, the iMac churned out 86 fps at 1280 by 1024 resolution, and 41 fps with antialiasing enabled. Those results are average."



So in PCWorld test imac does 92fps at 1280x1024, but Barefeats reports 58fps at lower (1280x800) resolution for DOOM3. What am I missing?
 

Fl0r!an

macrumors 6502a
Aug 14, 2007
909
530
So in PCWorld test imac does 92fps at 1280x1024, but Barefeats reports 58fps at lower (1280x800) resolution for DOOM3. What am I missing?

PC World has tested the iMac in Vista, Barefeats used OS X...
And PC World did not specify whether they have used low/medium/high graphic settings...
 

ChancyJohn

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 5, 2007
73
0
Hmmm... So the iMac 2600 Pro (or 2600 XT) uses special proprietary drivers? If this is the case then you'll only be able to update iMac video drivers through Apple.

Thats very Bad News :( ...This clearly wont be on their Top Things to do list unless hopefully they feel pressurized by customers and game dev...
 

Fl0r!an

macrumors 6502a
Aug 14, 2007
909
530
Hmmm... So the iMac 2600 Pro (or 2600 XT) uses special proprietary drivers? If this is the case then you'll only be able to update iMac video drivers through Apple.

The drivers from the ATI homepage are only for desktop cards...
 

AlexisV

macrumors 68000
Mar 12, 2007
1,720
274
Manchester, UK
The PC World benchmarks must be on low quality. There is little difference between medium and high, but low is much faster I think.
 

shakastange

macrumors member
Jan 24, 2007
55
0
Well I've given up on this iMac. All benchmarks I have seen are sorely disappointing. Even the 2600XT is not as good as hoped on the Windows side, which is my primary concern. The card is lacking even with very good Windows drivers. Its back to my Vaio and Powerbook until things get better. Anandtec sums it best:

Final Words

We had no problems expressing our disappointment with NVIDIA over the lackluster performance of their 8600 series. After AMD's introduction of the 2900 XT, we held some hope that perhaps they would capitalize on the huge gap NVIDIA left between their sub $200 parts and the higher end hardware. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

In fact, AMD went the other way and released hardware that performs consistently worse than NVIDIA's competing offerings. The only game that shows AMD hardware leading NVIDIA is Rainbow Six: Vegas. Beyond that, our 4xAA tests show the mainstream Radeon HD lineup, which already lags in performance, scales even worse than NVIDIA. Not that we really expect most people with this level of hardware to enable 4xAA, but it's still a disappointment.

Usually it's easier to review hardware that is clearly better or worse than it's competitor under the tests we ran, but this case is difficult. We want to paint an accurate picture here, but it has become nearly impossible to speak negatively enough about the AMD Radeon HD 2000 Series without sounding comically absurd.

Even with day-before-launch price adjustments, there is just no question that, in the applications the majority of people will be running, AMD has created a series of products that are even more unimpressive than the already less than stellar 8600 lineup.

While we will certainly concede that video decode capability may be a saving grace in some applications, the majority of end users are not saving their money for a DX10 class video card in order to play movies on their PC. For those who really are interested in this, stay tuned for an article comparing UVD and PureVideo coming next week.

We also won't have data on the performance of these cards under DX10 until next week. Maybe DX10 could make a difference, but we still won't have the full picture. These first DX10 games are more like DX9 titles running on a different API. Of course, this is a valid way to use DX10, but we will probably see more intense and demanding uses of DX10 when developers start targeting the new features as a baseline.

All we can do at this point is lament the sad state of affordable next generation graphics cards and wait until someone at NVIDIA and AMD gets the memo that their customers would actually like to see better performance that at least consistently matches previous generation hardware. For now, midrange DX10 remains MIA.
 

Jimmdean

macrumors 6502a
Mar 21, 2007
648
647
Well I've given up on this iMac. All benchmarks I have seen are sorely disappointing. Even the 2600XT is not as good as hoped on the Windows side, which is my primary concern. The card is lacking even with very good Windows drivers. Its back to my Vaio and Powerbook until things get better. Anandtec sums it best:

"very good drivers"? These drivers suck, not to mention the existence of absolutely zero retail games actually built for this technology. And since they don't appear to be covered in the std ATI driver package who knows how the update process is going to go... But if you're a heavy gamer you should have known better in the first place - these are mid-range cards after all...
 

Red-red

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2007
313
0
So in PCWorld test imac does 92fps at 1280x1024, but Barefeats reports 58fps at lower (1280x800) resolution for DOOM3. What am I missing?

It could be a number of things. My biggest problem is when they review these they don't say what version of the game they are running. As we all know how a patch can make a game go from super slow, to performance king. Specially the doom 3 engine. In quake4 it ran pretty poorly on most systems it was only until they released a patch that let you take advantage of dual core processors took performance from 40fps to 65-75fps.
 

MezicanGangxtah

macrumors regular
Jul 21, 2007
114
0
Denver,CO
so the card isnt so bad afterall http://www.barefeats.com/imacal2.html its just that the card is optomized for newer games not older games like doom 3 and quake 4 and such plus its suckier in OS X because of driver issues and adding to that the card itself needs some improvement in drivers in general MAC/PC so lets just give the card a few months for it to mature and games to adapt to it
 

SiliconDioxide

macrumors member
May 15, 2007
48
0
so the card isnt so bad afterall http://www.barefeats.com/imacal2.html its just that the card is optomized for newer games not older games like doom 3 and quake 4 and such plus its suckier in OS X because of driver issues and adding to that the card itself needs some improvement in drivers in general MAC/PC so lets just give the card a few months for it to mature and games to adapt to it

Lets hope in a few months, we will see a new GPU in the imac, one that doesn't suck and we wont have to have these threads. Also I can't imagine that mature drivers will add more than a 10% performance increase.
 

overcast

macrumors 6502a
Jun 27, 2007
997
6
Rochester, NY
There is a driver issue for the 2000 series cards regarding Anti Aliasing... Also these cards havn't even been out that long, give it a few months and some better driver's and the 2600's will be outperforming the 7600GT by quite a bit.
Drivers are not going to make magic happen. You need to realize the video cards in the iMacs are poor at best.
 

paetrick

macrumors regular
Jul 11, 2007
193
0
Lets hope in a few months, we will see a new GPU in the imac, one that doesn't suck and we wont have to have these threads. Also I can't imagine that mature drivers will add more than a 10% performance increase.

Haha lol, you can never expect or compare an laptop / imac graphics to a FULL DESKTOP computer, the imac will never have a "VERY GOOD" graphic chip. (and cheaper version will not have graphics that a 3000 dollar laptop got either)

iMac isn't for people that ONLY game in front of the computer, it is for those who likes to play but doesn't need full resolution and high settings on newly released games. (Many will be happy running games like pray in 1900x1080 with 42 fps) - WoW - which is the world's biggest online game runs smooth with highest settings on the imac.


18 year old gaming g33k's will never be apple's focus !, and i can't see why you are aiming for the imac if your primary needs is to GAME

:p Just don't make sense to me, it's like you want to have sex with a girl even tho you are gay... just forget it :p you wont like it^^
 

SiliconDioxide

macrumors member
May 15, 2007
48
0
Haha lol, you can never expect or compare an laptop / imac graphics to a FULL DESKTOP computer, the imac will never have a "VERY GOOD" graphic chip. (and cheaper version will not have graphics that a 3000 dollar laptop got either)

iMac isn't for people that ONLY game in front of the computer, it is for those who likes to play but doesn't need full resolution and high settings on newly released games. (Many will be happy running games like pray in 1900x1080 with 42 fps) - WoW - which is the world's biggest online game runs smooth with highest settings on the imac.

Never was trying to compare a laptop GPU to a desktop one. I just don't want a GPU in my computer that I plan to keep for 3 years to be DOA.
 

fblack

macrumors 6502a
May 16, 2006
528
1
USA
Lets hope in a few months, we will see a new GPU in the imac, one that doesn't suck and we wont have to have these threads. Also I can't imagine that mature drivers will add more than a 10% performance increase.

Only problem is that we don't often see Apple update their GPUs. They will update the cpu, but leave you hanging with the gpu. The G4 powerbooks had a radeon 9700 gpu for 2 years! If you look at these scores from barefeats the 7600 is faster in Windows than OSX. Same hardware, its been out almost a year, so why 20fps less in the 1200x800 scores? The lack of driver support, so 10% may be optimistic. I hope Apple proves me wrong.

There aren't any really new good midrange cards out there, so maybe in a few months we might see a BTO option with a newer faster gpu on an iMac. But with Apple's track record I'm not holding my breath.

iMac isn't for people that ONLY game in front of the computer, it is for those who likes to play but doesn't need full resolution and high settings on newly released games. (Many will be happy running games like pray in 1900x1080 with 42 fps) - WoW - which is the world's biggest online game runs smooth with highest settings on the imac.

Agreed.

18 year old gaming g33k's will never be apple's focus !, and i can't see why you are aiming for the imac if your primary needs is to GAME

:p Just don't make sense to me, it's like you want to have sex with a girl even tho you are gay... just forget it :p you wont like it^^

So, what you are saying is girl=iMac and gay=gamers. Okeydokey, then...:(
 

cmvsm

macrumors 6502a
Nov 12, 2004
784
0
What difference do other games make? The 2600 will perform equal to or less than the old 7600GT no matter what drivers you are using, Mac or Windows. Apple better come out with a BTO option for a better card. This one is certainly a step backwards.

In light of these new Barefeats results, I'll definitely be sitting this revision out. Sorry iMac.
 

ChancyJohn

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 5, 2007
73
0
I cant sit out unfortunately ... lost my motherboard on my comp (using an old one with onboard video :( ) ... + Waited toooo long to get a Mac ... If the iMac can churn out reasonable gaming performance for 2 years then i am in...

Reasonable as in playable frame rates with textures not looking like blocky squares ... dont mind having to tone down AA etc
 

SiliconDioxide

macrumors member
May 15, 2007
48
0
Only problem is that we don't often see Apple update their GPUs. They will update the cpu, but leave you hanging with the gpu. The G4 powerbooks had a radeon 9700 gpu for 2 years! If you look at these scores from barefeats the 7600 is faster in Windows than OSX. Same hardware, its been out almost a year, so why 20fps less in the 1200x800 scores? The lack of driver support, so 10% may be optimistic. I hope Apple proves me wrong.

I know, which is why I bounce back and forth between Macs and PCs. I had a Mirror Drive machine for a number of years (Dual 867, Geforce4MX, not that bad of a mid-level card). I gave that to my parents 2.5 years ago and picked up a Dell (I know but it was cheap). Right now it is started to show its age a little (P4 3.8ghz and a 6800). So I am stuck in a bind. Thats why I was very disappointed with the new imac. I really want to go back to the mac, but I don't want to have a GPU that can't handle current games and I cannot believe that it will magically run DX10 games well at all. Let alone 3 years from now.
 

fblack

macrumors 6502a
May 16, 2006
528
1
USA
I know, which is why I bounce back and forth between Macs and PCs. I had a Mirror Drive machine for a number of years (Dual 867, Geforce4MX, not that bad of a mid-level card). I gave that to my parents 2.5 years ago and picked up a Dell (I know but it was cheap). Right now it is started to show its age a little (P4 3.8ghz and a 6800). So I am stuck in a bind. Thats why I was very disappointed with the new imac. I really want to go back to the mac, but I don't want to have a GPU that can't handle current games and I cannot believe that it will magically run DX10 games well at all. Let alone 3 years from now.

I'm in the same boat. I use an old QS 933 for my photoshop and a P4 OC to 3.2 w/a X1650XT that I cobbled together to game. Your 3.8 is not bad tho and should be able to handle games like Bioshock. Personally, I don't think there are enough DX10 capable cards and certainly not enough DX10 games to warrant an iMac purchase for myself. I think I will hold off until Leopard is at least out and maybe even until January rolls around. My setup is not perfect and I'd rather just have 1 machine, but I think I will just save my money a little longer. Heck I could squeeze 3.4 maybe 3.6 out of my northwood, if need be.

The barefeats-benchmark has been updated, now with Quake 4 under XP:
http://barefeats.com/imacal2.html

in windows they are getting up to 3x more FPS than in OS X!

Yep saw that. Its just plain ugly how bad the OSX drivers are.

INSIGHT: The "mature" Windows drivers indeed produced faster frame rates on both Macs, though the older Mac with the GeForce 7600 remained faster. Hopefully we will see the Mac OS X Radeon X2000 drivers optimized in the near future to match the Windows XP Pro performance, even if the Radeon 2600 Pro can't "catch" the CTO GeForce 7600 GT.

They haven't optimized the 7600 in OSX so I don't see why they think they will optimize the 2600.

imal2_k12.gif

imal2_kak.gif
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.