Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Which iMac for gaming?

cheetahmen said:
Hi everyone. I've been reading these forums for quite some time, and this is my first time replying to a thread.

I've been using an eMac for the past five or six years, and like many of you, I waited for the current iMac update before deciding on which new computer to buy.
Thought it would be good to ask in this thread: Any opinions on which graphics card would be best for playing Starcraft 2? I know there are already lots of threads on this, but it seems no one really knows...

Being a student, I'm considering buying the 27" iMac (not quad-core, a bit too expensive). Would it be worth paying extra to upgrade from ATI Radeon 5670 to 5750?
Click to expand...

It's kinda difficult to answer, since we don't know the clocks on the cards.

But i can at least say this. If you are going for the 27" and going to play in native resolution, the 5670 is not going to cut it, nor will the 5750 but thats another matter. If the 5670 is a bit better then previous 4670 (which did medium in sc2) i guess you can expect medium high settings in sc2 with the 5670 aswell.

With 5750 high/ultra (this is just estimates and may require some tweaking)

This is under windows, not osx
 
cheetahmen said:
Thought it would be good to ask in this thread: Any opinions on which graphics card would be best for playing Starcraft 2? I know there are already lots of threads on this, but it seems no one really knows...

Being a student, I'm considering buying the 27" iMac (not quad-core, a bit too expensive). Would it be worth paying extra to upgrade from ATI Radeon 5670 to 5750?
Click to expand...

given that the older 4850 can play @~30FPS SC2 maxed out on high settings (no AA as its not needed) - i think you would see similar performance from the 5670. i guess its your call if you want that extra detail/FPS.
 
DoFoT9 said:
given that the older 4850 can play @~30FPS SC2 maxed out on high settings (no AA as its not needed) - i think you would see similar performance from the 5670. i guess its your call if you want that extra detail/FPS.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The 5670 is worse then the 4850.
 
DoFoT9 said:
heh. you would expect the 5670 to perform a bit better then the 4670 - so SC2 would be ~medium settings + maybe a tad more.?
Click to expand...

Yes the 5670 is probably better then the 4670, allthough as mentionde before, we cant really know before we get clocks.

But you said the 5670 is better then the 4850. Thats not true. Dont know if it was a typo.

THis is what i think, playing sc2 on previous gen (4670 and then 4850)

The 4670 manged medium settings well, therefor i think the 5670 would handle medium + some high settings.

The 4850 manged high settings well, therefor i think the 5750 will handle high + some ultra settings. (if u have quad core).

Two tips for people who are playing starcraft 2, turn down AA and shadows, they give a big fps boost.
 
henrikrox said:
Yes the 5670 is probably better then the 4670, allthough as mentionde before, we cant really know before we get clocks.

But you said the 5670 is better then the 4850. Thats not true. Dont know if it was a typo.
Click to expand...
nah just my n00bism. ignore me ;)

Two tips for people who are playing starcraft 2, turn down AA and shadows, they give a big fps boost.
Click to expand...
AA isnt really needed at such a high res - so its a waste of FPS basically! :)
 
It's kinda difficult to answer, since we don't know the clocks on the cards.

But i can at least say this. If you are going for the 27" and going to play in native resolution, the 5670 is not going to cut it, nor will the 5750 but thats another matter. If the 5670 is a bit better then previous 4670 (which did medium in sc2) i guess you can expect medium high settings in sc2 with the 5670 aswell.

With 5750 high/ultra (this is just estimates and may require some tweaking)

This is under windows, not osx
Click to expand...

So...if I've understood correctly, I'll have to play the game under windows - and probably not full screen? The game is not going to run efficiently in OS X at all? Sorry for asking n00b questions, but my current Mac is a PowerPC G4, which is why I'm not familiar with the Intel processors...
 
cheetahmen said:
So...if I've understood correctly, I'll have to play the game under windows - and probably not full screen? The game is not going to run efficiently in OS X at all? Sorry for asking n00b questions, but my current Mac is a PowerPC G4, which is why I'm not familiar with the Intel processors...
Click to expand...

Ofcourse you can play fullscreen, you can play it in OSX also, but with a 10-15% decrease in performance. But it would still perform very good.

I mean high/ultra graphics settings on a brand new game on a all in one computer is fantastic when you think about it.
 
It always depend on the game. Some games don't make a good use of the CPU and the multicore, others do.

For example the Unreal 4 Engine that a game like Mass Effect 2 use will use quad cores if you have them. I'm running the game pretty well on my 3 year Old MBP (2.2 C2D, 4GB RAM, 8600M GT 128 VRAM). By pretty well i mean not on high settings, but the game still looks great.

In comparison, i'm having a hard time running FarCry 2, who is almost 2 year old right now (ME2 is 6 months old).

It just depend of the game engine. Some are well optimized, some are not.

I personally think that game dev will make better use of the CPU in the future since every gamer have pretty powerful dual or quad core. They need to take advantage of it.
 
Honestly, build yourself a relatively cheap Windows-based computer. Yeah, the graphics card on the 27" with 1GB is decent, but it's going to have a harder time than normal at that resolution (2560x1440!!).

I have a base model iMac for general use and pretty much everything else I want to do on a computer, and I built a "cheap" gaming PC for $450. AMD 555 BE, which is a stock 3.2 dual core (might be better for most games since higher clock speed is more important than number of cores since most games don't utilize more than 2), 4GB of RAM, and an ATI 5770 (playing SC II on ULTRA at 1920x1080). Also, the AMD 555 is usually pretty easy to unlock and you can use the stock cooler, so you pretty much get a 3.2ghz tri/quad core for $99 (I got a combo at Fry's so the processor+motherboard was $99 total).

If you want an even better graphics card than the 5770 for more demanding games than something like SC II, an nVidia 460 with 1GB should be sufficient. You can go higher than that if you want, but I'm not into it gaming enough to warrant a more expensive card. Want to play more demanding games in the future? Upgrade your card. As much as I love my iMac and MBP, Macs have never been a cost-effective solution for games. Then you can get an iMac that suites your needs for everything else outside of gaming while saving a lot of money, but you'll have an extra desktop for cheap.

Check out slickdeal's forums to find good prices for parts (I saved $250+ on my build).
 
steveotron said:
Honestly, build yourself a relatively cheap Windows-based computer. Yeah, the graphics card on the 27" with 1GB is decent, but it's going to have a harder time than normal at that resolution (2560x1440!!).

I have a base model iMac for general use and pretty much everything else I want to do on a computer, and I built a "cheap" gaming PC for $450. AMD 555 BE, which is a stock 3.2 dual core (might be better for most games since higher clock speed is more important than number of cores since most games don't utilize more than 2), 4GB of RAM, and an ATI 5770 (playing SC II on ULTRA at 1920x1080). Also, the AMD 555 is usually pretty easy to unlock and you can use the stock cooler, so you pretty much get a 3.2ghz tri/quad core for $99 (I got a combo at Fry's so the processor+motherboard was $99 total).

If you want an even better graphics card than the 5770 for more demanding games than something like SC II, an nVidia 460 with 1GB should be sufficient. You can go higher than that if you want, but I'm not into it gaming enough to warrant a more expensive card. Want to play more demanding games in the future? Upgrade your card. As much as I love my iMac and MBP, Macs have never been a cost-effective solution for games. Then you can get an iMac that suites your needs for everything else outside of gaming while saving a lot of money, but you'll have an extra desktop for cheap.

Check out slickdeal's forums to find good prices for parts (I saved $250+ on my build).
Click to expand...

I disagree, macs have high resale value, so when a new imac comes you get atleast 2/3 of the value. Upgrading a custom built Pc over time isnt cheap, nor do you get much back if you try to sell old parts.

I also think people focus to much on graphics now a days. I love the story and the gameplay. But that's me. Starcraft II doenst get worse for me if im running in ultra or low.

However, getting and i mac 27" u have beautiful display aswell. So you can use that to hook up to your custom built computer to play games with. That's atleast what i have. i7 930, ati radeon 5970. going to work beauitful with the imac
 
So the consensus is: go for the 2.8Ghz quadcore over the 3.6Ghz dualcore?
I didn't think games weren't optimised for more than two cores yet.

Also, perhaps I'm strange, but I don't like running games fullscreen anyway. :p
 
Vidd said:
So the consensus is: go for the 2.8Ghz quadcore over the 3.6Ghz dualcore?
I didn't think games weren't optimised for more than two cores yet.

Also, perhaps I'm strange, but I don't like running games fullscreen anyway. :p
Click to expand...

You're not strange. I almost always run in windowed mode because I run dual monitors. ;)
 
You know, you don't -have- to play the game at max resolution. I've found most games look just fine at 1920x1080x2AA, and the iMac i7 2.8 drives that resolution just fine in any game I've tried.

The only exception to looks-good has been WoW--there's just too much text, and the small fonts suffer from the pixel interpolation. I suspect Eve Online would be an issue as well. But Dragon Age and Civ 4 (both also texty) are fine, so really depends on the font.
 
steveotron said:
Have fun playing SC II windowed. Just kidding, it's not fun at all.
Click to expand...

I'm really looking forward to finding out what kind of performance people see playing SCII on a new i7/5750 27" iMac. Right now I'm playing on an 08' MBP outputted to a 24" screen and it's pretty brutal. To get a decent framerate, I have to put everything on low (which looks like the original SC with coolor animations).

Anyone know if I can expect better load times if I install SCII on a SSD in the new iMac?

edit: yes, playing SCII windowed is pretty much impossible, since the map moves with the mouse going towards the edge of the window.
 
glxyjones said:
I'm really looking forward to finding out what kind of performance people see playing SCII on a new i7/5750 27" iMac. Right now I'm playing on an 08' MBP outputted to a 24" screen and it's pretty brutal. To get a decent framerate, I have to put everything on low (which looks like the original SC with coolor animations).

Anyone know if I can expect better load times if I install SCII on a SSD in the new iMac?

edit: yes, playing SCII windowed is pretty much impossible, since the map moves with the mouse going towards the edge of the window.
Click to expand...

haha i know what you mean man, sc2 on low is like sc1, and the step up from low to medium is huge
 
glxyjones said:
I'm really looking forward to finding out what kind of performance people see playing SCII on a new i7/5750 27" iMac. Right now I'm playing on an 08' MBP outputted to a 24" screen and it's pretty brutal. To get a decent framerate, I have to put everything on low (which looks like the original SC with coolor animations).

Anyone know if I can expect better load times if I install SCII on a SSD in the new iMac?

edit: yes, playing SCII windowed is pretty much impossible, since the map moves with the mouse going towards the edge of the window.
Click to expand...

I've been doing it for years with War3, dota, and now HoN. It just takes getting used to.
 
Man. I seriously want to find out how SC2 runs on these new iMacs. Planning on going to Apple Store on friday and purchasing one.
 
Wow. I think I'm actually more confused now than I was before :p Right now, it seems like a better option to buy the 21.5" iMac (with the 5670) and pay extra for the i3 --> i5 processor upgrade. Most people seem to agree that I might have to run SC2 windowed on the 27" anyway, with either of the graphic cards.

But I guess I can't be sure before the clock results are in.
 
cheetahmen said:
Wow. I think I'm actually more confused now than I was before :p Right now, it seems like a better option to buy the 21.5" iMac (with the 5670) and pay extra for the i3 --> i5 processor upgrade. Most people seem to agree that I might have to run SC2 windowed on the 27" anyway, with either of the graphic cards.

But I guess I can't be sure before the clock results are in.
Click to expand...

Not that I don't think the 27" isn't awesome, I just don't think I'd want to play games on such a large screen anyways. Then again, I'm an idiot.
 
Would getting the 27" i5 quad-core with 5750 be a better option, or would SC2 run just the same? Just how important is the processor, is the graphic card still what counts?
 
If you run each monitor at it's max resolution, the 21.5" should run faster as long as it's CPU isn't bogged down. You can do more at once with the Quad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back