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.
somebody's head has swelled!
- Thread starter Trout74
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The HD2600XT can't compete with the 8600GTS. How do you hope that the Pro will?
Besides, the Pro model is actually inferior to the XT.
Ach, im just clutching at straws to avoid the depressing truth.
Repeat after me:
The iMac is not a gamer's machine.
It doesn't matter what video card Apple puts in, there will always be somebody whinging that there isn't a $700 video card in their $1200 machine.
3D video acceleration means diddly squat for photos and 2D (and even most 3D) graphics and most video production.
Y'all love your benchmarks way more than reality.
The iMac is not a gamer's machine.
It doesn't matter what video card Apple puts in, there will always be somebody whinging that there isn't a $700 video card in their $1200 machine.
Now repeat:
3D video acceleration means diddly squat for photos and 2D (and even most 3D) graphics and most video production.
Y'all love your benchmarks way more than reality.
Obviously, with this graphics card, the iMac is not a gamer's machine. But what Mac is then? At WWDC Apple made a massive deal about how games were going to be a big thing now on the Mac. Are they really expecting gamers to buy Mac Pros!?
So there seems to be a lot of whining in this thread.
I'm curious, what do the complainers think they will accomplish by wasting their valuable time posting how much they hate things on the internet?
I'm sorry, but Steve is not going to read your post and make decisions based on it.
I'm curious, what do the complainers think they will accomplish by wasting their valuable time posting how much they hate things on the internet?
I'm sorry, but Steve is not going to read your post and make decisions based on it.
Well what do all the people talking about how they love the new iMac accomplish? It's a forum and on a Mac forum then any discussion topic about anything related to Macs (good or bad) is, in my view, perfectly suitable.
What did your post accomplish?
This is what perplexes me the most. You get EA and Carmack at WWDC but you don't make any computers that can run these games on their displays reasonably besides the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro?
I just wanted to point out that I have a previous model of the iMac, 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo with the X1600, 128 mb ram, and it plays BF2 fine. Sure, I turn down a few settings to around the middle, but the point is, I can still game. Same with Guild Wars.
I don't get 120 FPS running all settings at max at 1680 x 1050, but who needs that? If you want a hardcore gaming rig, don't buy a mac. If you just want to play the game, the iMac is great.
I don't get 120 FPS running all settings at max at 1680 x 1050, but who needs that? If you want a hardcore gaming rig, don't buy a mac. If you just want to play the game, the iMac is great.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that a mac game will not be the same as a Windows game, the coding and the use of the graphics card is going to be different. Macs don't use direct x for starters.
Another thing is that while everyone wants 100+ fps it is not needed, the eye can only take in about 30fps, displays normally only hit about 60fps, so as long as you get 50+fps in games most people will not be able to tell the difference between 50+ and 100+ fps.
I also have to say that I'm not exactly sure why people buy a mac for games especially when a decent windows pc (which will get all good the games a mac gets anyway) can be had for a lot less money than the higher end (more gaming orientated) macs.
Macs are generally bought due to the way that they help the user be more productive in their work etc
Another thing is that while everyone wants 100+ fps it is not needed, the eye can only take in about 30fps, displays normally only hit about 60fps, so as long as you get 50+fps in games most people will not be able to tell the difference between 50+ and 100+ fps.
I also have to say that I'm not exactly sure why people buy a mac for games especially when a decent windows pc (which will get all good the games a mac gets anyway) can be had for a lot less money than the higher end (more gaming orientated) macs.
Macs are generally bought due to the way that they help the user be more productive in their work etc
Very strange comment to place on a Mac Forum.
Apple produces products to meet their customer's needs and in doing so make money for their shareholders. Not the other way around. There needs to be a place where Apple customers can discuss their thoughts on Apple products. Good and bad. This is that place!
There is another thread directing iMac feedback directly to Apple, so someone at Apple (perhaps not Steve, but who knows) will hear/read the feedback from this forum.
Eh, I'll wait and see what Mossberg, Pogue and some of the others say... I didn't think the design changed enough initially, but after sleeping on it I've decided not to buy in to all the speculative space age, science fiction, photoshop versions of what people were dreaming about and accept the reality that it is a beautiful machine, and much more powerful with all the upgrades than the last model.
I for one, can't wait to own one!! Well done Apple!
I for one, can't wait to own one!! Well done Apple!
I did provide feedback on the apple web site...........FYI. And I am not complaining as much as I am utterly dumbfounded/perplexed if you will.
1.The eyes actual limit for FPS visibility is about 70-75FPS.
2.Why do we not want to get a Windoze PC ? Because Windows is a terrible operating system - atleast in my opinion.
3.You see - we dont need 100,000,000fps @ 300,000,000x250,000,000, however, what we do want is to do some decent gaming on iMacs.
You know, run Doom 3 perhaps at full quality with 40fps.
Besides, as I have stated before, in the iMac, the GPU IS NOT upgradable, so this means, if the 2400 or 2600 perform terribly now, who knows how bad the situation will be in 2-3 years ?
The cards are almost literally, crippling the system.
Oh, and slffl, what are we doing ?
Well, there is another thread for complains, which is being passed around various forums now thanks to me.
Dont you worry, I will damn well make sure someone at Apple HQ hears me whether itll take me a day, or a damn month.
Exactly! All these benchmarks are for Windows games not Mac plus this card will be able to handle all the games currently on Mac and if EA release Battlefield 2142 for Mac it will also be able to run fine with this video card. Who cares what runs in Windows considering this is a Mac OS X computer? Just buy an Alienware or a build a Windows computer if you want to game or even better/cheaper buy a Xbox360/PS3
I don't think we should ignore these benchmarks. The majority of ported games to OS X run slower then their Windows counterparts. I don't know if Cider takes advantage of multithreaded OpenGL as well. So expect EA's releases on OS X to run slower then their Windows based ones.Exactly! All these benchmarks are for Windows games not Mac plus this card will be able to handle all the games currently on Mac and if EA release Battlefield 2142 for Mac it will also be able to run fine with this video card. Who cares what runs in Windows considering this is a Mac OS X computer? Just buy an Alienware or a build a Windows computer if you want to game or even better/cheaper buy a Xbox360/PS3
We're Mac users and you suggest to us to buy a Windows machine? We love OS X. We just can't stand what Apple offers in terms of hardware. The sub par iMac only leaves us with the Mac Pro or the MacBook Pro.
This is rather sad when you can't upgrade the iMac's video card and comparable even ridiculously cheap Windows only machines can have better.
Exactly! All these benchmarks are for Windows games not Mac plus this card will be able to handle all the games currently on Mac and if EA release Battlefield 2142 for Mac it will also be able to run fine with this video card. Who cares what runs in Windows considering this is a Mac OS X computer? Just buy an Alienware or a build a Windows computer if you want to game or even better/cheaper buy a Xbox360/PS3
I care. I don't play games often, 2 hours a week max. When I do I normally use Boot Camp to boot XP natively. As I don't game much I don't want to spend money on a console system and I certainly don't want to spend money on a Windows PC which would also mean having another system and monitor lying around just for 2 hours use a week.
At least for me, buying an Alienware or a console is not a good solution. The perfect solution for me would be an iMac with a half-decent GPU.
Boot Camp, Parallels and VMware Fusion make this a moot point.
True, but the 2600 PRO will not drive modern games at a resolution of 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200 at anywhere near 50 fps. More like 30 fps at 1680 x 1050 if you are lucky.
Why would you want two computers in the house when you could get away with having one?
In the past this has been true, but then why (as someone else has already pointed out) have EA and Carmack at WWDC if Apple is not trying to portray a gaming image for future Macs? Surely Apple doesn't expect all Mac gamers to purchase Mac Pros?
Is it really that ridiculous to expect a reasonable gaming GPU option for the iMac? The iMac which is supposed to be the core home desktop Mac? I just think Apple is forgetting about a large segment of the Mac community with the GPU choice they made for the new iMac.
There is nothing wrong with card. You can play all the games you want with it maybe not Max detail for Supreme Commanders and similar games like that in Windows but all the current Mac games you should be able to play in full detail with this card and with no problems. Also when was the iMac supposed to be gaming machine? Even though games are coming to Mac wouldn't the Mac Pro make more sense? It has the better graphics card. You can probably upgrade it if Mac has any cards you can upgrade with in the future. Mac Pro makes more sense if you want to game not an iMac.
Just buy an Alienware or a build a Windows computer if you want to game or even better/cheaper buy a Xbox360/PS3
I don't want a bloody helldell or Alienware.
The situation is, what you don't seem to be grasping, is that almost any user will want the Apple simplicity. One computer. One Mac. One OS. And it to function as smoothly as we all know Apple is capable of doing!
The Mac Pro's are workstation grade machines, awesome and too pricey for the mainstream user. And said user isn't going to want two monitors, two computers, two OS's, two keyboards, two mice all cloggin up that one desk. Not very simple is it really?
All this in the iMac. The design of which I do like btw, just not impressed with the innards. I do love a lot of Apple's stuff, but this iMac revision is just another example in my eyes where Apple just misses the mark with a few recent product releases, not reaching the blindingly obvious potential. Being able to play present and past games without all the eye-candy on a machine you drop a few grand on, isn't a strong argument at all. You think in a few years when it comes time to upgrade you'll be happy playing games that are a couple years old, and not even on full-settings?
And for the above poster a few posts back complaining about the iMac 'whiners'. We are on a
forum. We all love . We all want the best, and we wouldn't be here 'complaining' in the first place, if it wasn't for a common company and products we all are fiercly loyal to. Wake up.
I guess that means I'll have to buy a $2,000+ Mac workstation to compete with a $400 Windows computer when it comes to video cards.
Expect 30 fps at 1280 x 1024 but not higher. The 64-bit memory interface is the major limiting factor. It can't push that data needed for high resolutions over its internal bus.
Well you know in games there are graphic options
Go there and turn the graphics down a little you don't need graphics max out in detail. I play Counter-Strike: Source with a laptop with 2.0ghz(no dual core) 512mb of Ram 64mb(shared)Nvidia Geforce 6100 and of course I have all my settings set at minimum but it is all playable and still fun so you can always just lower the graphics in the games also lower the resolution you play them at.
So your advice to someone wanting to buy a $1200 desktop machine is to buy a $2000 laptop?
You can only go so far setting graphics to very low settings. It'll look even worse on the high resolution LCDs.Well you know in games there are graphic options
The HD2600 Pro has very poor longevity. Do you suggest buying a new iMac next year?