What is better for WoW: iMac or Mac Pro?

[sinser]

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.

Just want to praise you for the way you described WOW graphics, it's exactly what I think and why I love the game. I have looked at games like Aion, Tera, and even if the graphics are more advanced and high tech, they completely lack, at least to my eyes, personality, depth and even fun.

 

[aiqw9182]

You realize that you're just showing your immaturity by your petty insults to mask your insecurity from the possibility that you will be wrong. I've seen the zealotry of your kind. You barely understand technology from it's core and the industry in general but yet for years and years you keep thinking that something revolutionary is down the road for YOUR OWN point of idealistic view.

Sad, to say...as with years past and ppl with your mentality, if things don't go your way, you will blame so and so and maybe corruption of the industry, misalignments of the planets, whatever, that your rainbow scenario didn't crop up.

And by the way, Valve is not an Operating System company. Graphics is part of the OS. And in this case it's OSX...a product of Apple. It's not as seamless and easy as you think competativeness wise...especailly with an industry that is highly established and with long time partners working together for years. And I admit that I can't predict the future, but I don't know why you are so sure you can when the odds have always been against it. Maybe you should redefine your standards of "massive improvement" as well...

LMAO, calling me immature when you called EVERYONE who buys from an OEM an idiot. Get over yourself, you hypocritical moron. Again, you have proven jack **** in this thread. All you have proven is that you can't comprehend what I'm talking about and chose to not respond because you got spanked.

Sad to say that your monologue speech about rainbows is pointless since you don't know me, *******. I'd love to know where you got "you will blame so and so and maybe corruption of the industry, misalignments of the planets, whatever, that your rainbow scenario didn't crop up." from. I actually laughed at that statement. How pathetic.

And by the way, I know Valve doesn't make an operating system you moron. I've been over this and it looks like I'll have to repeat myself again because you are too idiotic to read. When Valve's developers make such bold statements, I'll believe them over some pissy moron on a forum defending his PC shitbox at any cost. Valve, Apple, Nvidia and ATI have all been noted as working on improving things you ****ing moron. You have provided no information, all you are is a waste of time.

Oh and what's massive improvements? How about double FPS in Portal? Is that not massive enough for you, moron? Go back to twiddling your thumbs in your homemade bomb. As I've said x86 gaming on the Mac is still immature and Steam only released a very short time ago. If you don't see how ****ing retarded your argument is that things will never get any better when you have provided no evidence then you are the biggest dolt I have ever dealt with on this site.

 

[Fender2112]

I also have a similar question as the OP however i am positive that im going to buy an imac. I am debating on getting:

the core i5 21" with 8 gigs of ram and the better video card
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC509LL/A?mco=MTg1ODA4MDE

vs:

The core i5 27" with 8 gigs of ram and one of the ATI Radeons...

Besides the screen, will there be that much of a difference between video cards to justify the 27" models over the 21" models??? I love wow, but i havent played for about 2 years due to time/old computers etc.... Im looking to get back into it. Again the computers are not going to be for wow primarily, im just looking for one that will be able to handle wow the best for the foreseeable future...

Any thoughts? thx.

I was was contemplating the same issue. However, the i5 on the 21" iMac is only dual core. If you want Quad core, you have to go with the 27".

 

[Fender2112]

@ the OP ...

@ the OP. I was also holding out for the new updates and here was my thought process. I have never been a fan of the "All-In-One" models because of their lack of upgradeability. This time around, however, my budget is tighter. But I don't mind paying more for something that will last longer. So, I looked at this way. I can spend 2k now for the iMac and be good for at least 3 years. Then spend another 2k for 3 years. Totaling 4k over 6 years. Or spend 3.5k for a pimped out Mac Pro and upgrade components as needed over the next 6 years at a cost of 500-800 dollars. I went with the iMac 27" w/ i7. It's cheaper upfront cost was the biggest factor. I did not really want the 27". But the i7 quad was a must, which only comes on the 27"

 

[rasmasyean]

If you want to put it in a generalized perspective…
The Quad iMac is Radeon HD 5750 is 128-bit GDDR5 and it doesn’t give you the option to change. That spec often runs sub-$100 with all the clearance and stuff too. Now today, “mid-rage” can be considered *barely* 256-bit GDDR5. Which depending on deals, you can also find those sub-$100. This makes these classes (especially the first) “budget video cards”…if not now, then really soon.

To top that off… take the recent example on everyone’s mind and flooded in this sub topic, Starcraft 2: and read how many ppl are bootcamping it to run on higher settings… Even the official requirements say that you need notably more juice under OSX.

Of course Blizzard is nice and lets you tune their games to a really wide range (they want everyone’s money), but they are also catering to the ppl who wish operate higher-end video cards for eye candy. And if you haven’t noticed, they are one of the most diligent when it comes to coding and try to optimize a lot…and there’s STILL and OSX overhead.

So even if you want only one computer, if by some chance you decide to bootcamp it, you STILL will have a nerfed video card by today’s standard, especially when Cataclysm comes out. I’m willing to bet it’s not going to be as friendly on ultra-high settings as in the past. Heck, they already announced they are going DX11 so it’s obvious they are working on satisfying the more demanding enthusiast. And if you’re NOT bootcamping, you’re much safer with a somewhat decent overhead.

Pay more to get you the full experience of your subscription…or be economical and settle. Can you stand some area’s <20 fps? Depends on what it means to you. Just some things to consider.




EDIT: Also, let me give you my little annecdote. About 2 years ago I got a $200 video card and played WoW BC (under Windows) with a Quad core. and 4 GB RAM. At max settings that blood elf place did work, but sometimes it got uncomfortable because it was laggy and I had to turn it down to be able to stand it. If you want a $100 video card to work maxed in Cata and on OSX...I think you'll be disapointed.

 

[JordanNZ]

If you want to put it in a generalized perspective…
The Quad iMac is Radeon HD 5750 is 128-bit GDDR5 and it doesn’t give you the option to change. That spec often runs sub-$100 with all the clearance and stuff too. Now today, “mid-rage” can be considered *barely* 256-bit GDDR5. Which depending on deals, you can also find those sub-$100. This makes these classes (especially the first) “budget video cards”…if not now, then really soon.
.

What on earth are you talking about?

The 5750 (mobility 5850 with GDDR5) is not a 'barely mid-range' card.
Most versions of this card have GDDR3.

 

[cluthz]

If you want to put it in a generalized perspective…
The Quad iMac is Radeon HD 5750 is 128-bit GDDR5 and it doesn’t give you the option to change. That spec often runs sub-$100 with all the clearance and stuff too. Now today, “mid-rage” can be considered *barely* 256-bit GDDR5. Which depending on deals, you can also find those sub-$100. This makes these classes (especially the first) “budget video cards”…if not now, then really soon.
........

Ehm, the only ati cards with 256-bit GDDR5 is 58XX and 59XX, the 5830 starts at about $220, the 5850 at $300 and so on...

The 5850M (which is in the iMac) is the fastest 128-bit GDDR5 card on the market (M cards) and is a down clocked version of the 5770, which is the fastest desktop 128-bit desktop card available (as far as i know)

Nvidia on the other hand has 320 bit and 384 bit busses on 470/480, still the 5870 is on par with the 480.

As much as you like 256-bit GDDR5 to be sub-$100 budget on ATI cards, it didn't happen this year, so don't just don't make up your own facts...

 

[sdugoten]

Ehm, the only ati cards with 256-bit GDDR5 is 58XX and 59XX, the 5830 starts at about $220, the 5850 at $300 and so on...

The 5850M (which is in the iMac) is the fastest 128-bit GDDR5 card on the market (M cards) and is a down clocked version of the 5770, which is the fastest desktop 128-bit desktop card available (as far as i know)

Nvidia on the other hand has 320 bit and 384 bit busses on 470/480, still the 5870 is on par with the 480.

As much as you like 256-bit GDDR5 to be sub-$100 budget on ATI cards, it didn't happen this year, so don't just don't make up your own facts...

He might be a bit exaggerated on the price, but he is about right performance-wise. From a gamer point of view, the new iMac 27 5750 IS a mid to low end video card. Just look at this, https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/10237986/

The performance on a 2009 27" 4850 get score below 1500 on Final Fantasy XIV, that is low performance according to the benchmark chart. 5750 is around 10% faster, that still make it in the low performance category. If you buy a computer right now can't even get at least "ok" performance for 2010 games, we consider the video card performance is on a low end side.

 

[luffytubby]

The problem with a 128-Bus the way I understand it, is that even if the 5750m in the Imac is a really nice and powerful card, the 128 Bus wont allow the card to access all the power fast enough.

It's basically like a overcrowded highway. you have a lot of really nice cars with a lot of power, but the highway is very narrow, and that creates slow traffic even if you have many fast power cars. The 128 Bus is like a tunnel for the power to access into the system.

Aint that so? sorry if thats a messed up analogy.

 

[Shivetya]

Without sounding too much of a troll a gaming PC is pretty damn cheap.

You get a lot more for your money, and it will last longer - but this is a debate that has raged for years.

I wish I could find cheap, what is cheap?

I would not mind a slim desktop (no towers please) Windows7 PC that would accept a good vid card for under $500, lower the better.

 

[Shivetya]

I like a good, lively discussion about any topic, but let's get this back to what the original question was.

As I mentioned before, we are an Apple household and I really just have room for one desktop computer to do all my daily tasks, including playing WoW.

I am not interested into getting a separate, dedicated gaming PC just to run WoW. Hence, it is pointless to keep praising the virtues of Windows, Direct X, graphics drivers, and PC technologies.

What I would like to know is which of the recent Mac configurations is "best" to run WoW after the incoming Cataclysm expansion comes out.

Get a 27 inch iMac. If you want, save a bit and get a refurb with the previous generations 4850; I have an i5 from that generation and its not WOW taxes it even at max resolution.

Only way I would own a tower/etc is if I had a PC. It the Mac world they are an overly expensive option

 

[davelanger]

I wish I could find cheap, what is cheap?

I would not mind a slim desktop (no towers please) Windows7 PC that would accept a good vid card for under $500, lower the better.

You can build one from newegg for about $600-800 that will be a great gaming machine.

 

[luffytubby]

You can build one from newegg for about $600-800 that will be a great gaming machine.

But if he wants a comparable IPS, which costs around 1000 USD, we're back up towards 2 grand, and then really, is the price for Imac so insane? He will have more graphics though!

 

[rasmasyean]

He might be a bit exaggerated on the price, but he is about right performance-wise. From a gamer point of view, the new iMac 27 5750 IS a mid to low end video card. Just look at this, https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/10237986/

The performance on a 2009 27" 4850 get score below 1500 on Final Fantasy XIV, that is low performance according to the benchmark chart. 5750 is around 10% faster, that still make it in the low performance category. If you buy a computer right now can't even get at least "ok" performance for 2010 games, we consider the video card performance is on a low end side.

I'm not really "exaggerating" when you take this into the context. If you're talking about "retail price" of DX11 cards, it adds more $ and maybe you can't get them for $100 just yet. But if we're talking about Mac gaming, that doesn't mean much does it. When you look at the previous generation cards (without the "marketability factor" of DX11) that maybe are slightly slower and run a bit hotter or whatever, you're talking about pretty much a budget card that's in the same class.

 

[JordanNZ]

The problem with a 128-Bus the way I understand it, is that even if the 5750m in the Imac is a really nice and powerful card, the 128 Bus wont allow the card to access all the power fast enough.

It's basically like a overcrowded highway. you have a lot of really nice cars with a lot of power, but the highway is very narrow, and that creates slow traffic even if you have many fast power cars. The 128 Bus is like a tunnel for the power to access into the system.

Aint that so? sorry if thats a messed up analogy.

With GDDR5 this isn't an issue. Sure the memory bus is half the width, but everything moving through it is going twice as fast.

 

[JordanNZ]

I'm not really "exaggerating" when you take this into the context. If you're talking about "retail price" of DX11 cards, it adds more $ and maybe you can't get them for $100 just yet. But if we're talking about Mac gaming, that doesn't mean much does it. When you look at the previous generation cards (without the "marketability factor" of DX11) that maybe are slightly slower and run a bit hotter or whatever, you're talking about pretty much a budget card that's in the same class.

But the 5850M is not a budget card.
Show me a better card apple could have used in its place.

 

[rasmasyean]

But the 5850M is not a budget card.
Show me a better card apple could have used in its place.

And where are you getting an 5850M from?

The iMac has a 5750.

And whether or not Apple "could have used in it's place", sounds like you would justify "well that's the best you can get anyway with an iMac"...if it was actually some technical limitation to begin with.

The question is...is the iMac good enough to run WoW on max settings when Cataclysm comes out. Ppl who want to get the best out of it do not say..."well that's the best they can do for the iMac, I might as well think that's awesome."

Whether of not you consider it a budget card is prolly just a perspective anyway. Budget means different things to ppl...but I'm just trying to provide a reference to compare. And if the OP (or anyone else) soon finds the iMac falls short, they would know why....and they would then realize why a Mac Pro etc. is also manufactured.

 

[davelanger]

But the 5850M is not a budget card.
Show me a better card apple could have used in its place.

GeForce GTX 460 if only they made it for the mac

 

[savvos]

And where are you getting an 5850M from?

The iMac has a 5750.

There are other threads on this topic, but if you look at the ATI Catalyst drivers in Windows, it reports the card as being a 5850M. Apple is using that card for size and thermal constraint reasons. They are calling it a 5750 because it has roughly equivalent power to that desktop chip.

 

[rasmasyean]

OK, here's something that comes out of the horse's mouth other than my very own.



ATI’s Radeon 5700 series: DirectX 11 for the masses
...
This is where the Radeon 5700 series comes in. With pricing starting as low as $109 for the Radeon 5750 512MB, it’s a very feasible option for a lot of gamers on a budget.
...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_5770_5750_performance/

Don't forget that they are assuming Windows performance even.

It's not that some of us are trying to "insult the iMac" or something on those lines. The iMac has it's place and many people will get great enjoyment out of it. Just trying to give you an idea of how the modern gaming world works.

 

[sdugoten]

But the 5850M is not a budget card.
Show me a better card apple could have used in its place.

Different people have different standard on "Budget card". Since we are talking gaming here, we use the "gamer" point of view to see what a budget card is. From a gamer point of view a budget card means you can run a game ,which is released this year, at medium detail setting with OK framerate. So, the HD-5830 or GTX 460 is a budget card in year 2010. Therefore, the 5850M or the desktop version 5750 is a mid to low end video card. You can use this video card to play year 2009 games, but you will have a tough time to play a game release this year even at low setting. (eg. Lost planet 2, Final Fantasy XIV..etc)

If it is a technical design problem which keep iMac from using a better video card, that doesn't mean the 5850M/5750 is not a mid to low end video card for the standard in year 2010.

For reals, anyone with a sane mind should get a PC to play games while using the Mac for anything else. You play a new game because you want to see all the eye candy and enjoy what the developer offer you. If it is a hardware design limitation keep you from seeing all the greatest technology, visual effect and eye candy, you should re-consider why you use this machine as a gaming machine in the first place.

Of course, if you are not very into gaming, you are all happy running Final Fantasy XIV in low setting with sub 20fps, then 5850M/5750 might be a powerful video card for you.

 

[JordanNZ]

Different people have different standard on "Budget card". Since we are talking gaming here, we use the "gamer" point of view to see what a budget card is. From a gamer point of view a budget card means you can run a game ,which is released this year, at medium detail setting with OK framerate. So, the HD-5830 or GTX 460 is a budget card in year 2010. Therefore, the 5850M or the desktop version 5750 is a mid to low end video card. You can use this video card to play year 2009 games, but you will have a tough time to play a game release this year even at low setting. (eg. Lost planet 2, Final Fantasy XIV..etc)

If it is a technical design problem which keep iMac from using a better video card, that doesn't mean the 5850M/5750 is not a mid to low end video card for the standard in year 2010.

For reals, anyone with a sane mind should get a PC to play games while using the Mac for anything else. You play a new game because you want to see all the eye candy and enjoy what the developer offer you. If it is a hardware design limitation keep you from seeing all the greatest technology, visual effect and eye candy, you should re-consider why you use this machine as a gaming machine in the first place.

Of course, if you are not very into gaming, you are all happy running Final Fantasy XIV in low setting with sub 20fps, then 5850M/5750 might be a powerful video card for you.

This thread is about WoW...