Should I have got the i7

[A Macbook Pro]

I'm thinking, I ordered online the maxed out iMac 27'' (except for RAM I'll upgrade from somewhere else) but decided against the 3.4ghz quad-core i7 and opted with the 3.1ghz quad-core i5. Should I have gone the i7? I'm going to be doing heavy gaming on games such as Battlefield 3, FIFA 11, NFS: Hot Pursuit and Assassins Creed games. Should I have upgraded. Will the better CPU give me increased framerate?

 

[Malcolm.]

The difference in framerates is going to be very negligible. If you want high FPS in games, focus on the graphics. A faster GPU will make more of a difference, trust me.

Also, running your games at 2560x1440 on that weak mobile iMac GPU will lower your FPS further, so I'd recommend no higher than 1920x1080.

 

[A Macbook Pro]

The difference in framerates is going to be very negligible. If you want high FPS in games, focus on the graphics. A faster GPU will make more of a difference, trust me.

Also, running your games at 2560x1440 on that weak mobile iMac GPU will lower your FPS further, so I'd recommend no higher than 1920x1080.

Maybe in a year or two, but from what I've heard iMac handles 2560x1440 quite well, especially with 2GB VRAM.

 

[A Macbook Pro]

Any other opinions on this?

 

[50548]

The difference in framerates is going to be very negligible. If you want high FPS in games, focus on the graphics. A faster GPU will make more of a difference, trust me.

Also, running your games at 2560x1440 on that weak mobile iMac GPU will lower your FPS further, so I'd recommend no higher than 1920x1080.

I always love to hear BS like this from Windows hobbyists, even when all evidence points to the opposite direction.

Just a fact: TODAY, the iMac's top GPU (6970M) is the world's best mobile GPU (along with the NVIDIA GTX 485M). In other words, Apple went for the maximum possible in terms of mobile GPUs, especially considering that they will never include desktop GPU furnaces with those thin enclosures.

Obviously, playing at slightly lower resolutions helps if you want to play at ultra settings (not a big deal for full-screen games anyway) - but even at the iMac's native resolution, the 6970M with 2Gb should allow for very good performance all around.

In this regard, the i7 has little influence performance-wise...the Turbo Boost/HT feature is useful for heavy encoding tasks and the like, not gaming. Check this to have an idea: http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html

 

[A Macbook Pro]

I always love to hear BS like this from Windows hobbyists, even when all evidence points to the opposite direction.

Just a fact: TODAY, the iMac's top GPU (6970M) is the world's best mobile GPU (along with the NVIDIA GTX 485M). In other words, Apple went for the maximum possible in terms of mobile GPUs, especially considering that they will never include desktop GPU furnaces with those thin enclosures.

Obviously, playing at slightly lower resolutions helps if you want to play at ultra settings (not a big deal for full-screen games anyway) - but even at the iMac's native resolution, the 6970M with 2Gb should allow for very good performance all around.

In this regard, the i7 has little influence performance-wise...the Turbo Boost/HT feature is useful for heavy encoding tasks and the like, not gaming. Check this to have an idea: http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html

Thank you! The link has put my mind at ease

 

[Lord Appleseed]

Any other opinions on this?

There are several thread in this section of the forum that talk about Gamin and the new iMacs. I myself wrote a lot about what you can expect from the current iMacs compared to the old ones.
Also to answer your Question: i5 is enough for gaming.

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.

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)."

Crysis 2 (2011) low: 178.9 fps Compare med.: 126.3 fps Compare high: 96.8 fps Compare ultra: 30.2 fps

 

[Malcolm.]

I always love to hear BS like this from Windows hobbyists, even when all evidence points to the opposite direction.

I always love to hear BS like this from Apple fanboys, even when all evidence points in the opposite direction.

Just a fact: TODAY, the iMac's top GPU (6970M) is the world's best mobile GPU (along with the NVIDIA GTX 485M).

For a few months at least, until the next new GPU comes out and your obsolete mobile GPU is imprisoned for eternity in the cramped, non-upgradable chassis that is the iMac.

In other words, Apple went for the maximum possible in terms of mobile GPUs, especially considering that they will never include desktop GPU furnaces with those thin enclosures.

Desktop GPUs aren't furnaces when used inside a proper tower with adequate ventilation (i.e. not the iMac). My desktop has the MSI GTX 560 Twin Frozr card, a non-reference design that has two large but very very quiet fans + an all-copper heatsink. Even with an overclock applied, it reaches only 41 °C under load and idles around 26 °C.

I'm sure you mean, "Apple will never include desktop GPUs in the iMac due to its prohibitively narrow design and poor ventilation."

 

[Lord Appleseed]

For a few months at least, until the next new GPU comes out and your obsolete mobile GPU is imprisoned for eternity in the cramped, non-upgradable chassis that is the iMac.

Since it's in the top 3 Mobility GPUs it wont be bad all of the sudden when a new Mobile GPU comes out.

Fact is that it will provide very good gaming experience for a longer time...no one says that it wont be outdated some day or that Desktop GPUs aren't far superior.

Desktop GPUs aren't furnaces when used inside a proper tower with adequate ventilation (i.e. not the iMac).

But in the iMac they would be, as you already know.

 

[Malcolm.]

Since it's in the top 3 Mobility GPUs it wont be bad all of the sudden when a new Mobile GPU comes out.

I never said it would be suddenly bad, I just said obsolete. In BRLawyer's own words, the current top GPU in the iMac is "TEH WORLD'S BEST MOBILE GPU!!11!!!!!", which will only be true for a very limited amount of time.

Fact is that it will provide very good gaming experience for a longer time...no one says that it wont be outdated some day or that Desktop GPUs aren't far superior.

Everyone except BRLawyer, that is.

But in the iMac they would be, as you already know.

Which is part of what makes the iMac a very poor choice for gaming. I don't understand why Mac users don't just buy a MacBook Pro for OS X and a PC desktop for use as a dedicated gaming box.

 

[Lord Appleseed]

Which is part of what makes the iMac a very poor choice for gaming. I don't understand why Mac users don't just buy a MacBook Pro for OS X and a PC desktop for use as a dedicated gaming box.

Because: A MB pro is 1.5 to 2.5K, a Gaming PC is 1.5K so it would be like: 3K minimum. On the other hand: the iMac for about 2K and fairly good gaming performance.

 

[TheUndertow]

Because: A MB pro is 1.5 to 2.5K, a Gaming PC is 1.5K so it would be like: 3K minimum. On the other hand: the iMac for about 2K and fairly good gaming performance.

And a lot of us have 360's and Wii's collecting dust (PS3 on dishonorable mention) and want a Mac based hardware avenue and still tap into our PC games.

Being able to game AND use Logic on a 27" super high def screen...priceless (or rather $2k-$3k depending on how you wanna go).

I probably will also get a MBP if the next is a significant departure from the Aluminum.

 

[Malcolm.]

Because: A MB pro is 1.5 to 2.5K, a Gaming PC is 1.5K so it would be like: 3K minimum. On the other hand: the iMac for about 2K and fairly good gaming performance.

Nah bro, a decent gaming PC can be had for as little as $800 (if you order the parts from NewEgg and build it yourself, that is. Prebuilt gaming PCs are too expensive for what you get, believe it or not.) You don't need ridiculous specs like three-way SLI and an i7-990X to max out games.

Also, I configured the 27" iMac the way I assume OP ordered his (everything maxed out except the RAM and CPU) and the total came to US$3,049 before tax. My ideal setup would be a 13" MBP + Cinema Display + custom built desktop for gaming, which would total about the same.

Being able to game AND use Logic on a 27" super high def screen...priceless (or rather $2k-$3k depending on how you wanna go).

See above...getting a lower-end MBP + Cinema Display (same res as the iMac's) would be far more practical in my opinion.