Are you using the default drivers that bootcamp installed? Just tried to install the latest ATI ones and it didn't install a newer drivers or allow access to the CCC
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.
The Gaming Benchmarks Thread
- Thread starter Dyne
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hi Barefeats,
yes i mean under bootcamp, basically the same 3d tests with perhaps the gpu juiced up, It would be intereting to know what the potential of this card is, depending on the outcome (fps) to see if its worth carrying out the process at all, I know alot of people are thinking the same thing?
yes i mean under bootcamp, basically the same 3d tests with perhaps the gpu juiced up, It would be intereting to know what the potential of this card is, depending on the outcome (fps) to see if its worth carrying out the process at all, I know alot of people are thinking the same thing?
Interesting results from the op and the shootout!
I, for one would love to see some maxxed out benchmarks of fallout 3 and gta iv please
I, for one would love to see some maxxed out benchmarks of fallout 3 and gta iv please
Got the latest mobility 10.7 drivers here: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33963890
installed them myself
installed them myself
Mad Science
After installing the OS X update on the the 2010 iMac Core i7, I cloned its HDD to an external HDD. Then I booted the 2009 iMac Core i7 with that drive.
Portal at 2560x1400 "High" with 4X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 19 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 42 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 59 fps
ETQW 2560x1400 "High" with 4X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 29 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 44 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 48 fps
And X-Plane 2560x1400 "High" with 2X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 80 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 114 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 128 fps
WoW went from 42 fps to 49 fps on the 2009 (vs 52 fps on 2010)
Team Fortress went from 29 fps to 44 fps on the 2009 (vs 44 fps on 2010)
These numbers confirm to me that the newer drivers account for part of the gains. The 2010 iMac Core i7 is still faster, though not as dramatically.
After installing the OS X update on the the 2010 iMac Core i7, I cloned its HDD to an external HDD. Then I booted the 2009 iMac Core i7 with that drive.
Portal at 2560x1400 "High" with 4X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 19 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 42 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 59 fps
ETQW 2560x1400 "High" with 4X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 29 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 44 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 48 fps
And X-Plane 2560x1400 "High" with 2X MSAA
2009 iMac Core i7 Before = 80 fps
2009 iMac Core i7 with Cloned Drive = 114 fps
2010 iMac Core i7 = 128 fps
WoW went from 42 fps to 49 fps on the 2009 (vs 52 fps on 2010)
Team Fortress went from 29 fps to 44 fps on the 2009 (vs 44 fps on 2010)
These numbers confirm to me that the newer drivers account for part of the gains. The 2010 iMac Core i7 is still faster, though not as dramatically.
Very interesting, thanks!
Big question,-when will apple release new drivers for the 2009 i7 Imac hd 4850? Is it possible to extract the drivers from the installer, and install them manually on my 2009 i7 Imac?
Big question,-when will apple release new drivers for the 2009 i7 Imac hd 4850? Is it possible to extract the drivers from the installer, and install them manually on my 2009 i7 Imac?
Should be, using Pacifist.
I advise you to backup your entire /System/Library/Extensions folder beforehand, and to have a second Mac available in case you should have trouble booting the iMac after the procedure.
I never tried any such thing, but I believe selecting all the ATI files in System > Library > Extensions (in Pacifist) and choosing Install might be all that's required.
If you're already running 10.6.4, you might also try installing the whole update with Pacifist (in that case, make a full system backup first).
Just checked with pacifist.
There's a new version of the ATI4800controller extension in the 2010 Imac update, dated 17/7 2010 vers. 1.6.18.13 (8408).
(The "old" was vers. 1.6.16.11 (8209))
I don't have the courage to experiment with extensions, because my knowledge in that field is limited.
Cheers
There's a new version of the ATI4800controller extension in the 2010 Imac update, dated 17/7 2010 vers. 1.6.18.13 (8408).
(The "old" was vers. 1.6.16.11 (8209))
I don't have the courage to experiment with extensions, because my knowledge in that field is limited.
Cheers
Been playing around with loads of games if anyone is interested with my 27" i5
Fallout 3: Running at full native with everything on ultra is tends to hover around 30fps, dropping lower where fog and more lighting is used. I'm coming from a big beefy gaming machine so I notice the slow down a lot but most people wouldnt and it looks great even for a dated game on the 27" screen.
Star Trek Online: Again at full native res with everything on full the game tends to run aroun 28-32 fps most of the time except in built up areas. AA makes a lot of difference in this game so I have it turned off at all times, not that you really need it with such a high resolution anyway. Changing the res down to 1080p and you get a jump to around 50-60fps average but it looks very pasty
Lord of the Rings Online: I love this game so I'm pleased to say that it plays in full native res with everything on ultra at just over 30fps most of the time, this is also with DirectX 10 enabled. It does slow down from time to time and once again dropping to 1080p shows the biggest fps jump.
Dragon Age: Origins. Works excellently in full native res with everything on even 4xaa and v-synced it always stays at 30fps
Starcraft 2, this is the one that seems stranger to me - I run it at native res with everything on ultra - the in-game engine cutscenes run slowly, around 20fps but look great and the game runs just under 30fps most of the time. The reason I say strange is that although the game looks great, it shouldn't be the most taxing on hardware yet seems to be for me at least.
Tales of Monkey Island - perfect, 60fps+ in native
Torchlight seems to run over 40fps most of the time on windows, just under 40 on OS X, yet it seemed to look more colourful on the OS X version, no idea why and was probably a coincidence!
Anyway hope this helps people a bit. If they had put the 5750 card in the 21" you would have a perfect gaming machine to me - but this is pretty close. How much newer future titles will fair will be interesting.
Also for anyone wondering, I have been able to update my ATI drivers in bootcamp by downloading the mobility specific ones direct from ATI - this updated it to 5850 name and added the control panel settings.
Fallout 3: Running at full native with everything on ultra is tends to hover around 30fps, dropping lower where fog and more lighting is used. I'm coming from a big beefy gaming machine so I notice the slow down a lot but most people wouldnt and it looks great even for a dated game on the 27" screen.
Star Trek Online: Again at full native res with everything on full the game tends to run aroun 28-32 fps most of the time except in built up areas. AA makes a lot of difference in this game so I have it turned off at all times, not that you really need it with such a high resolution anyway. Changing the res down to 1080p and you get a jump to around 50-60fps average but it looks very pasty
Lord of the Rings Online: I love this game so I'm pleased to say that it plays in full native res with everything on ultra at just over 30fps most of the time, this is also with DirectX 10 enabled. It does slow down from time to time and once again dropping to 1080p shows the biggest fps jump.
Dragon Age: Origins. Works excellently in full native res with everything on even 4xaa and v-synced it always stays at 30fps
Starcraft 2, this is the one that seems stranger to me - I run it at native res with everything on ultra - the in-game engine cutscenes run slowly, around 20fps but look great and the game runs just under 30fps most of the time. The reason I say strange is that although the game looks great, it shouldn't be the most taxing on hardware yet seems to be for me at least.
Tales of Monkey Island - perfect, 60fps+ in native
Torchlight seems to run over 40fps most of the time on windows, just under 40 on OS X, yet it seemed to look more colourful on the OS X version, no idea why and was probably a coincidence!
Anyway hope this helps people a bit. If they had put the 5750 card in the 21" you would have a perfect gaming machine to me - but this is pretty close. How much newer future titles will fair will be interesting.
Also for anyone wondering, I have been able to update my ATI drivers in bootcamp by downloading the mobility specific ones direct from ATI - this updated it to 5850 name and added the control panel settings.
this is a VERY interesting and important topic, please if someone finds out how to get this drivers squared away share it with us please..
I'm getting a refurb iMac 27 i7 2.8 and would love to bump its performance if it is possible for better gaming performance..
I'm getting a refurb iMac 27 i7 2.8 and would love to bump its performance if it is possible for better gaming performance..
Thank you so much for contributing to the thread!
I can't wait to build my gaming rig next year and use the iMac 27 as the monitor. It'll also be nice not having to switch back and forth between OSX and Boot Camped Windows 7. Until then, this is perfect for a gaming setup, especially if you're coming from an older video card, like a 9800GTX.
I'll be coming from a Geforce 320M - muahahahhaha
edit: to a brand new iMac quad i5 27 inch that is
edit: to a brand new iMac quad i5 27 inch that is
A few more results for StarCraft II, this time in both Windows 7 and OSX:
StarCraft II Windows 7
As I reported earlier, the game is playable at native res with everything set to max settings. However, there is a bit of input delay whenever you're doing anything in the game, which can be very annoying, not to mention hazardous to one's performance. However, bumping the resolution down one notch to 1920x1200 eliminates this input delay, and the game remains a steady 40+ FPS the entire game, even in heavy battles. In a 3v3 match with me and my allies vs the three enemies in one HELL of a heavy-pitched battle, the FPS never dropped lower than 37 fps. This is, once again, at maximum settings with a resolution of 1920x1200.
Now this is in a normal match in multiplayer. Single player is... odd, to say the least. Sometimes your FPS will drop for no discernible reason, and other times, the game works perfectly fine. Sometimes during a cutscene, you'll be at 60 FPS, but then, out of nowhere, with no changes to the scenery or anything whatsoever, it'll drop in the 20s. The FPS drops DO NOT HAPPEN during a normal multiplayer match at all.
For StarCraft II, you're going to be pleasantly surprised how well it runs for normal multiplayer games by knocking the resolution down one notch to eliminate the input delay, and you'll be scratching your head at the inconsistency of your FPS during the single-player campaign. This is not an iMac specific thing; testing on my old 8800GTX gaming rig gave the same results in the campaign.
StarCraft II OSX
To put it simply, if you care about having a higher frames per second, run this game under Boot Camp instead of OSX. It doesn't run terribly in OSX, but you can tell that the lack of DirectX and proper OpenGL support under OSX is hampering the performance. One thing to note, however, is that you can run StarCraft II under OSX in full native resolution with everything set to the High preset, and you'll run between 30 and 40 FPS, very rarely dipping lower than 30, without the input delay that you get running under Boot Camp. Using the native resolution and having all graphics set to Ultra will give you the input delay again however, so it's best to keep the settings at the High preset.
Even at lower resolutions on OSX, if you set the game to Ultra, it's going to crawl. Setting the game to 1680x1050 with all graphical options set to Ultra gave me input delay AND I was hovering around 22-29 FPS.
------------------
Choosing which version of the game to play is really up to you. If you want to play at the highest resolution possible, but you don't particularly care about having all the bells and whistles turned on, you can't go wrong with OSX. Meanwhile, if you want to show off the beauty of the game, and you don't mind thing not being as 100% crisp as they should be by not playing in native resolution, play it under Boot Camp. As for me, I'll play both versions, as sometimes I am just far too lazy to reboot under Boot Camp.
StarCraft II Windows 7
As I reported earlier, the game is playable at native res with everything set to max settings. However, there is a bit of input delay whenever you're doing anything in the game, which can be very annoying, not to mention hazardous to one's performance.
However, bumping the resolution down one notch to 1920x1200 eliminates this input delay, and the game remains a steady 40+ FPS the entire game, even in heavy battles. In a 3v3 match with me and my allies vs the three enemies in one HELL of a heavy-pitched battle, the FPS never dropped lower than 37 fps. This is, once again, at maximum settings with a resolution of 1920x1200. Now this is in a normal match in multiplayer. Single player is... odd, to say the least. Sometimes your FPS will drop for no discernible reason, and other times, the game works perfectly fine. Sometimes during a cutscene, you'll be at 60 FPS, but then, out of nowhere, with no changes to the scenery or anything whatsoever, it'll drop in the 20s. The FPS drops DO NOT HAPPEN during a normal multiplayer match at all.
For StarCraft II, you're going to be pleasantly surprised how well it runs for normal multiplayer games by knocking the resolution down one notch to eliminate the input delay, and you'll be scratching your head at the inconsistency of your FPS during the single-player campaign. This is not an iMac specific thing; testing on my old 8800GTX gaming rig gave the same results in the campaign.
StarCraft II OSX
To put it simply, if you care about having a higher frames per second, run this game under Boot Camp instead of OSX. It doesn't run terribly in OSX, but you can tell that the lack of DirectX and proper OpenGL support under OSX is hampering the performance. One thing to note, however, is that you can run StarCraft II under OSX in full native resolution with everything set to the High preset, and you'll run between 30 and 40 FPS, very rarely dipping lower than 30, without the input delay that you get running under Boot Camp. Using the native resolution and having all graphics set to Ultra will give you the input delay again however, so it's best to keep the settings at the High preset.
Even at lower resolutions on OSX, if you set the game to Ultra, it's going to crawl. Setting the game to 1680x1050 with all graphical options set to Ultra gave me input delay AND I was hovering around 22-29 FPS.
------------------
Choosing which version of the game to play is really up to you. If you want to play at the highest resolution possible, but you don't particularly care about having all the bells and whistles turned on, you can't go wrong with OSX. Meanwhile, if you want to show off the beauty of the game, and you don't mind thing not being as 100% crisp as they should be by not playing in native resolution, play it under Boot Camp. As for me, I'll play both versions, as sometimes I am just far too lazy to reboot under Boot Camp.
Honestly, if you were given the choice between a refurb or the newer iMacs with the 5850m, it's no contest: get the refreshed iMacs. Not only does it contain more power right out of the box, but overclocking is definitely viable with these cards by increasing the core clocks a measly percentage.
Fun thing to note: overclocking the card yields no performance improvements whatsoever in StarCraft II. Hell, on most benchmarks, the desktop 5750s and 5770s perform almost exactly the same.
dyne! why did u overclock it yet? what makes u say it the gpu performs nearly the same as the 5770m?
what makes u say it the gpu performs nearly the same as the 5770m?
Take a deep breath and re-read more carefully. That's not what Dyne wrote.
Haha.
He's correct, I have not overclocked the card yet, though I will in the future. I just don't see the point yet for only a few additional frame yield when all of the games I've played run perfectly so far.
Left 4 Dead 2 is still downloading, but that's next on the benchmark list.
Will : Hi !
my breathing and reading is fine! maybe u should check ur breathing?
Im sure dyne can speak for himself, anyway thanks for the update dyne.
my breathing and reading is fine! maybe u should check ur breathing?
Im sure dyne can speak for himself, anyway thanks for the update dyne.
Thank you so much for contributing to the thread!
I can't wait to build my gaming rig next year and use the iMac 27 as the monitor. It'll also be nice not having to switch back and forth between OSX and Boot Camped Windows 7. Until then, this is perfect for a gaming setup, especially if you're coming from an older video card, like a 9800GTX.
You are going to love it, im having a 5970 waiting for the new imac in my gaming pc, but i have orderd the gtx 460, and a new cabinet in brushed aluminum to match the imac.
And later run sli gtx 460.
Cant wait!
Awesome.
Not a huge fan of Fermi... not comfortable with a video card that burns like a thousand suns in my PC, and the gains over the 5870 are incremental, but I can't argue that the minimum FPS are greater on Fermi than the Radeon equivalents. Also, nVidia has much better driver support than ATI.
Awesome.
Not a huge fan of Fermi... not comfortable with a video card that burns like a thousand suns in my PC, and the gains over the 5870 are incremental, but I can't argue that the minimum FPS are greater on Fermi than the Radeon equivalents. Also, nVidia has much better driver support than ATI.
I agree, but its temporary solution. Casue none of the 58xx cards work out of the box with the imac, just the 5970 and the gtx with dp port.
If 5850 worked or 5870 i would order those, they are awesome, and run so cool.
Actually i think ATI has the better drivers, at least they update more often. Anyways i hope that ati 6 series will work out of the box with the imac.