I have the 27in iMac hooked up to my Mac Pro as a monitor and I can run Starcraft 2 via bootcamp with the settings maxed at 2560 x 1440. My Mac Pro has a 4870 in it, although when I set the resolution to 1920 x 1080 while playing SC2 on the 27 iMac monitor via my Mac Pro I really don't tell a difference so that may be a better resolution to run it at.
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.
Starcraft 2 running on i7 iMAc
- Thread starter dkd0nuts
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
so what do you guys think should i pull the trigger, buy the imac tomorrow and start playing some starcraft!?!!?!? if what you guys said about the mobility 5xxx not being too much of an improvement over the current 4850...i really dont see a point in waiting until the next refresh.. the gpu was what was holding me back.
@TMRaven
looks cleannn. you said you can get 40-45 fps thats very smooth right? meaning my eyeballs won't start getting dry from playing too much? lol
@TMRaven
looks cleannn. you said you can get 40-45 fps thats very smooth right? meaning my eyeballs won't start getting dry from playing too much? lol
if sc2 is the deciding factor, i would go with a pc tower because you're able to choose your video card. considering the cost difference between building a pc tower and an i7 imac, you can probably get a high end video card and still come out cheaper than the mac and play sc2 at max settings. i'm using a core 2 quad 4gb pc desktop with a 5770 and am playing sc2 at full details and 1920 resolution with no lag.
i was thinking about doing that but I still want use a mac for everything other than sc2 lol and I can't justify having a pc just for sc2.. an imac to me would be a pc and a mac (bootcamp) that's why im so torn
My reasoning as well. I can understand taking the whole "All-in-one" idea to heart.
I think getting a separate PC rig for gaming exclusively should be reserved to the hardcore PC enthusiasts only. If frame rate is life, then go this route
if not, then I don't think the iMac will dissapoint.
I personally think starcraft2 looks beautiful with the iMac's 2560x1440 resolution. The current i7 iMacs can run starcraft2 with no problems at all, and same thing can be said for other prolific games. You also gotta keep in mind that RTS games depend majorly on the cpu compared to other games, (with reflections and battle effects) Don't be looking to run crysis at max or pad your gaming ego with fps numbers and how many times you can multisample though. Other than that, there might be some issues with later games down the road, but I'd say definitely get the iMac 27. At max resolution and max graphical settings, it can handle starcraft2 with the bare minimum fps to be smooth. If you ever find yourself getting below 24fps from time to time, then look to bring shaders down a notch for a dramatic increase in framerate with hardly any noticeable graphics loss.
Also do note it's only the beta, and blizzard might make the shaders more efficient in the actual released game or optimize it even more for os x.
Also do note it's only the beta, and blizzard might make the shaders more efficient in the actual released game or optimize it even more for os x.
I still dont understand how playing a single game effects a $2000 buying decision.
What about 6 months from now? Will you still be playing it?
What about 6 months from now? Will you still be playing it?
It should be fine on medium and high. Ultra, nope. Im running a Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz with GTS 250 at 1920x1200. 4850 is a little better then a GTS 250.
Ultra runs okay in the beginning until the light show comes out: battlecrusers, carriers, motherships and etc start fighting.
Ultra runs okay in the beginning until the light show comes out: battlecrusers, carriers, motherships and etc start fighting.
Something tells me you've never played any game ending with "craft"
Yeah, but you can look at it the other way too, and ask yourself why you care about an i5 vs i7 when it'll probably be able to run on a toaster.
I bet that light show is quite orgasmic.
It sure is. Seige tanks and thors also make a great light show.
I still play Warcraft 3 which I got 3 or so years ago, and used to play it all day, every day on the holidays. Seriously, 5-16 hours a day for 6 weeks. And I still play it and am not bored of it.
You don't lose much FPS in starcraft2 from battle scenes with lots of units and effects, all of those battle effects are rendered with the cpu. You'll average higher fps watching a battle scene than watching over your main base.
If you're going to play zerg, then you might have a tiny problem about framerate when playing highest resolution and graphic settings.
If you're going to play zerg, then you might have a tiny problem about framerate when playing highest resolution and graphic settings.
that hasn't been true for years. except for maybe Civilization and Age of Empires, almost every RTS game needs a nice GPU. Even Warcraft 3 required a GPU.
traditionally it was the GPU that did the effects while the CPU did the geometry set up. Then Nvidia came out with transform and lighting and a few years later MS incorporated it into DirectX so now the GPU does almost everything and the CPU does things like AI.
That's true for the most part, but SC2 is far from cutting edge, that game has been in development for so damn long that its graphics are already outdated.
What is "far from cutting edge" exactly? Starcraft2 without anti-aliasing and all highest settings pushes the iMac's gpu down to the same framrate which modern warfare 2 with max settings and 4x anti-aliasing pushes the gpu.
I was also surprised to see that Starcraft 2 includes SSAO under its extreme shader settings.
I was also surprised to see that Starcraft 2 includes SSAO under its extreme shader settings.
Overclocked 4850 in 27" iMac: YouTube Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC0PWp_IDW0
edit: This link have a video with fraps running to monitor FPS, and more games shown: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbspcl_imac-27-i7-gaming-2560x1440-ultra-h_videogames
Here is the link I referred to earlier about overclocking the 4850 in the 27" imac. I don't know about overclocking within OSX, but under windows, catalyst has easy to use options for overclocking your GPU. Looks great from this video
sorry it took so long to post this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC0PWp_IDW0
edit: This link have a video with fraps running to monitor FPS, and more games shown: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbspcl_imac-27-i7-gaming-2560x1440-ultra-h_videogames
Here is the link I referred to earlier about overclocking the 4850 in the 27" imac. I don't know about overclocking within OSX, but under windows, catalyst has easy to use options for overclocking your GPU. Looks great from this video
sorry it took so long to post this link
doesn't overclocking/overheating your computer like that shorten its lifespan significantly?
I have a late 07 Core2 Duo Macbook Pro which i used to play wow and warcraft 3 on all the time (it used to get really hot and i had a fan too). Now when I play warcraft 3 it'll just freeze sometimes and I'll have to restart it manually by holding down the power button. Not really sure why its doing that
I have a late 07 Core2 Duo Macbook Pro which i used to play wow and warcraft 3 on all the time (it used to get really hot and i had a fan too). Now when I play warcraft 3 it'll just freeze sometimes and I'll have to restart it manually by holding down the power button. Not really sure why its doing that
Overclocking can potentially overheat and damage your computer. The native clock speed on GPUs is the speed that the manufacturer has decided is optimal performance with minimal risk of overheating, but most GPUs (with decent cooling) can be overclocked a bit and still be just fine.
That specific era of Macbook Pro always tended to have heating issues. I had one of those before my current UMBP, and it always got scorchingly hot when playing games. I'm not sure if there was ever an issue of the heat causing permanent damage, but that is a warm little laptop
Actually, it's both. When you have an intense battle scene, the graphics are still rendered with the gpu as they are always but you also have much higher cpu utilization because of the increased number of calculations and objects the software is manipulating.
So the correct answer is, you will not lose many FPS as long as your processor and memory are sufficient.
Windows 7 (BootCamp) vs Mac OS 10.6.3 Performance
Sad to say it, but I play the SC2 beta with all options maxed out on Windows 7 via BootCamp on my iMac i7, 8GB Ram, Resolution: 2560x1440; and it runs flawlessly. Playing the Mac Beta was a different story....it has problems running at 1920x1080 resolution and graphics on high, not Ultra. I am given an in game prompt that states my computer is slowing down the game and I need to lower the Graphics settings for it to run properly. I was really hoping that they could get the same type of performance on the Mac beta as well.
I blame this on OpenGL. The performance on Windows under bootcamp is so great because Direct X is fully implemented, while OpenGL 3.0 isn't even fully implemented into Mac OS 10.6.3 yet. Sadly there is a new OpenGL Standard that is 4.0, which has been out since March of this year.
Don't get me wrong, OpenGL is amazing, but it's support in Mac OS 10.6 is abysmal. I bet they haven't even thought about implementing OpenGL 4.0 into Snow Leopard yet. I'm also not forgetting that it's only a beta of SC2, so performance can surely improve as they move toward a retail version.
I've also been able to play Dragon Age: Origins and DA: OA (expansion) with no problem all settings maxed under BootCamp, but have had serious performance and/or quality issues under Snow Leopard. All the most current games I've played like Mass Effect 2 have also run under BooCamp with all settings maxed out, without problems at high frame rates.
Sad to say it, but I play the SC2 beta with all options maxed out on Windows 7 via BootCamp on my iMac i7, 8GB Ram, Resolution: 2560x1440; and it runs flawlessly. Playing the Mac Beta was a different story....it has problems running at 1920x1080 resolution and graphics on high, not Ultra. I am given an in game prompt that states my computer is slowing down the game and I need to lower the Graphics settings for it to run properly. I was really hoping that they could get the same type of performance on the Mac beta as well.
I blame this on OpenGL. The performance on Windows under bootcamp is so great because Direct X is fully implemented, while OpenGL 3.0 isn't even fully implemented into Mac OS 10.6.3 yet. Sadly there is a new OpenGL Standard that is 4.0, which has been out since March of this year.
Don't get me wrong, OpenGL is amazing, but it's support in Mac OS 10.6 is abysmal. I bet they haven't even thought about implementing OpenGL 4.0 into Snow Leopard yet. I'm also not forgetting that it's only a beta of SC2, so performance can surely improve as they move toward a retail version.
I've also been able to play Dragon Age: Origins and DA: OA (expansion) with no problem all settings maxed under BootCamp, but have had serious performance and/or quality issues under Snow Leopard. All the most current games I've played like Mass Effect 2 have also run under BooCamp with all settings maxed out, without problems at high frame rates.