Hello, I have been following the discussion here. If it is worth anything, I am currently in the Beta program for WoW Cataclysm, and would like to give my thoughts on all of this:
"I would like to run WoW at high settings" is a remark that can mean many things. If we're talking about the latest and greatest, then the game can run in 2560x1440 resolution, which is really nice for such a heavy UI intensive game like WoW.
Here is a video of the game running a core i5 2009 Imac(last years model) with Ultra Settings, with the in-game recording, at 2560x1440 in a 25 Man Raid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-eeOH1o20A
It runs fairly smooth. It's last years model, meaning that should the original poster buy the latest Imac with the even better graphics card, and the Quad-Core i7, for around the 2800 USD, WoW should be running at it's maximum.
HOWEVER, in the current Beta for World of Warcraft, Cataclysm there is a number of things that Blizzard is doing to try and keep the system requirements low, yet add more visual fidelity.
WoW has long been known as a game that could run on a 800 MHz processor with a 64 MB Graphics card. But that was in 2004. Later visual features like increased draw distance, the shadow technology, better multi sampling, more demanding addons, and the sheer increase in visual fidelity that has popped up doing the years in Armor, Creatures and Areas, have made it a lot more demanding. You can see that it's harder for the FPS counter to stay above, in Outland or Northrend, because they have much more layers of details.
In Cataclysm, they have added a new sun lighting effect call Sunshaft. What it does, is that it gives nice lighting when flying, or panning across the sun. Considering how many ways the lighting is used, it gives a nice visual touch, but it hits quite hard in performance. We can not say for certain if it will be less demanding later on as optimization gets better, or if it's just a costly effect that the powerful users can enable. Example of Sunshaft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YubAg6Nm6qc
Another they are adding, is a new look to Water. It's still possible to use the old water, by disabling the Water Slider, or putting it to low, but the new Water also takes a hit, but it's currently bugged right now. There is so many things in the beta that is bugged currently. Here is a video of the new, very nice water effects:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3qIwdXj2pw
They look particularly nice when there is rain in them.
Furthermore, and also a big performance hit, the draw distance has been increased somewhat, meaning that the computer has to render even bigger areas, as you can see further back in the distance than ever before. Blizzard Developers have confirmed, that it's now twice as long(draw distance) as it was when WoW came out 6 years ago.
It's still not as long as I would personally have liked, but it's a nice detail though, that comes with performance cost. Here is an example of a guy flying around Orgrimmar on his Drake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J23QbcQvE3Q
Another thing they have added, is higher quality models. People like Hellscream and Malfurion have a very high quality about them, and all these things come with a performance cost. They have re-done the Elementals that are scattered throughout the game, among many more things.
The new Goblin and Worgen look amazing, and it seems that a Worgens hair has more polygons and details in its face, than the other races have in their entire models.
So original poster is in a bit in a dilemma. Will he get his money worth in an Imac? My feelings is that he will, because if a 2009 Imac with a i5 can run it at the highest, I think his investment in a new Quad-Core i7 Imac will pay off.
WoW prides itself on still being so scaled back that it will run on even a Netbook(though at poor visual quality, of course) but that it can look really nice. Blizzards art department, lead by Chris Metzen, created a art style that was long lasting. I find it unfair to call it Cartoony.
I would more say that WoWs art is simply more interesting to look at, and that is why it was Everquest 2 that waved the white flag, by announching that their dropping their monthly fee this week. In 2004 when these games where released head to head, WoW was shunned and laughed at for it's graphics, but as things have turned out, Everquest 2 was a boring mishmash of grey, black and brown generic fantasy with little personality. It's a great game actually, and it deserves to be played, but WoWs graphics have lasted so long because I believe it's simply more interesting to look at colorful areas, fight exaggerated but unrealistic monsters, and play as characters that might not look realistic or like in Lord of the Rings, but have tons of personality, warmth and breathe to them.
I also want to state that I am currently lvl 38 in the Beta, with my Human Paladin, and I am currently in the Hinterlands. I think this expansion is terrific, and that many of their revamped zones are the best I have ever seen in WoW, or any other MMO. Redridge Mountains and Westfall takes the cake so far. I also love the new Paladin. He is amazing, and turned from the most boring yet-powerful class, to the most fun class ever. He is now like a combination of a Warrior and a Rogue that can heal. He is amazing.
To sum up my opinion for the OP; I too think that the Mac Pro is overkill. But as he has found out, I am sure - There is no middle Mac computer between Mac pro and the Imac, meaning that either he would have to buy a powerful entry Imac, to then upgrade later, or he would have to go with a non upgradeable Imac that could not be updated later outside of Ram and Hard Drive.
To my knowledge, no computer game I know off, uses more than 4 GB of Ram, though I know games like Grand Theft Auto 4, really likes Vram, - The sort of ram that is on the graphics card. 6 and 8 GB of Ram should be great for multitasking - Running lots of addons, using Itunes in the background, recording videos while playing the game and such.
I might be biased for I am attracted to the latest 27'' as I like to have it all in a small form factor, and also get a IPS when I buy it. The IPS Display in the Imac is very nice even though it's glossy, over saturated with colors and has issues with yellow tint and such. I do think it would be a better investment than, and try to make it last as long as possible. 6 years? I am not sure that any computer would, in terms of being relevant in high performance and popular applications.
I have had my own Imac for two years, and hope to pass it along, as I would like the extra kick, and going from 1080p to 1440p, but that is just me, as I am a power junkie, and use my computer seriously a lot.
I think there is a long term use for an Imac. It won't be the most powerful thing ever, and it comes at a premium price as your paying a lot for the asthetics of a computer inside a computer screen, which should not be forgotten when comparing value and price.
With all things considered, I think Imac is the only true desktop Mac Computer for everyone but the most hardcore editors, who handles many Terabyte of RED footage and such. I think Imac and Macbook Pro 15'' are the bread and butter of the Imac line, with Macbook Pro 13 and Mac Mini coming down for lighter users, and Mac Pro and Macbook Pro 17, being the incredible machines for unrealistic harsh tasks, which WoW is not part off.
In my experience it, is now worth paying 5000, 10000, or 15000 bucks for the latest technology, as in my opinion you never get your money worth, and most of all - Not the future proofness you wanted. It's a noble ideal to have something that remains problem free, and powerful for many years. Buying a piece of mind, not having to worry and spend time on upgrades.
But I think it's the same as eating cake and being on a diet. You can't have it all.
In the case of this, most of this ultra expenssive technology will never be useful as other things often come in between and becomes the standard. Many early adopters of Quad-Core wasted their money as they bought the first Quad-Cores that didn't have support from games, but by the time Quad-Core was useful, their over expenssive over priced quad-core, was not the quad-core to get anymore. I think it's a fine example of the dangers of being an early adopter.
I think the right mindset is just to see how it goes.
I know it from myself, as I have changed my Phone every year for the last 4-5 years, with the last one costing the same as a Iphone, and I have been dissapointed with all of them. It has made me learn that what I want is really not the best and greatest - But just something that lasts me a long time and something that I am happy with.
I don't know if anyone else feel the same, but I have certan electronics that have gotten sentimental about, and that's nice. That's when I feel that the product has been worth it's money.
Because at the end of the day, you can't plan years ahead. You just can't. It does not work that way. Buy what you now, and see what happens down the road. That's my suggestion. Trying to predict your needs 5-6 years out in the future is not feesable. Not with the rate technology moves.
