Will Apple ever support more games?

[edddeduck]

I have an imac but am i doubt whether to buy a new one next year.
Very happy with it, except for the rather limited graphics power (but I can live with that to a certain extent) and the glossy screen (which I'm really starting to hate).

But I can't do without OS X. So unless I can find the money for a Mac Pro, or I can build a hackintosh that REALLY works (which means updates and everything work problem free), I guess I'm stuck with the iMac (the macmini is laughable as a far as graphics go)...

The newest high end Mini has an AMD 6000 series card which is much better than recent machines. It also comes with a quad core CPU and a maximum of 16GB of RAM (user installed).

Might not be the perfect gaming machine but it is no longer completely laughable.

Edwin

 

[omegaphil6]

Get an XBOX or PS3 and shut up

 

[LeandrodaFL]

I think gaming graphic cards dont fit the Mac profile wich is a small form factor no noise and light computer.

Besides, people get macs to use the OS X or Macs exclusive applications, not some gaming. And if you want to game, simply go ahead and install windows...

 

[Dr. McKay]

Get an XBOX or PS3 and shut up

260 euro on top of the price of the mac + PS3 games are generally more expensive than their PC/Mac counterparts AND fps and strategy games suck on a console. Some would argue and say that nothing beats a controller. Joypad's are great for racing, fighting and platform games, but for anything else, I (your mileage may vary) need a keyboard and mouse.

 

[JordanNZ]

OpenGL does not "belong" to nVidia nor Apple nor AMD. How do you propose they not "let it stay behind"? If you're talking about picking up the job of turning OpenGL into nVidGL or AMDGL (for OSX) why exactly would they spend millions of dollars per year on such a project for an OS that doesn't even belong to them when Microsoft does it for free on Windows? Which leaves the job to turning it into iGL. Which would be Apple's responsibility if they want to be competitive.

And if OpenGL is "more than capable" as it is...why exactly does everyone use Direct X? OpenGL works on Windows too you know...

It's just an API. How exactly is it 'behind'? There's nothing in Direct3d that can't be done with OpenGL. Both Nvidia and AMD contribute to the standard, it's been evolving rather rapidly over the last couple of years.

People use Direct3d on Windows because it's built in, it's heavily promoted... And it makes porting to the xbox very easy.

If OpenGL wasn't capable, then why does John Carmack continue to use it for ID's game engines?

 

[rasmasyean]

It's just an API. How exactly is it 'behind'? There's nothing in Direct3d that can't be done with OpenGL. Both Nvidia and AMD contribute to the standard, it's been evolving rather rapidly over the last couple of years.

People use Direct3d on Windows because it's built in, it's heavily promoted... And it makes porting to the xbox very easy.

If OpenGL wasn't capable, then why does John Carmack continue to use it for ID's game engines?

It's not just heavily "promoted". It's heavily "upgraded" as well. Theoretically, you can do any graphics you want on any video card, any CPU, any motherboard, and even without either OpenGL or Direct 3D. It's been done that way for decades. The problem is it will take longer to develop your applications without an API (Applications Programming Interface...much like how a touch interface makes it easy to use computers), and it will take longer for your real-time processing of graphics to occur for the same exact picture! Without these API's it would cost you much more money to make the same game, as well as if you push the edge, you would not be able to make your game smooth without the API/GPU accelerated content.

Therefore, when Direct X / nVidia includes the latest "interfaces" for "real-time smokey reflections" and whatnot, developers will actually make a game than shows off their art in competition with one another. Even if games like WoW, EVE Online, etc. will never make an XBox version.

And once again, using a "graphics API" is not the hard part of developing the game. XBox/PC portability has more to do with the fact that Microsoft makes both OS's than whatever graphics API they use. As a point in case...OpenGL is usable in many OS's theoretically seamlessly. I'm sure in real-applications there are small querks, but that's about it. It's just an easy to use "plugin" to any of the supported OS's.

I mean if you ever seen how they make games and stuff like on discovery channel etc, it's basically a bunch of calculations flying around, right? So. OK, you don't really need the graphics at all really...if your brain can interpret all the numbers that you see. But since you're not a cyborg...they move on to stick-figures and wireframes made by animators. And then other artists/designers overlay that with a shell made in part by Direct X / OpenGL. Even though is most of what you see, it's really a minute part of the game itself. I mean, nowadays nVidia has the PhysX engine for physics calculations, but that's another story and a different API.

 

[SlickShoes]

I have an imac but am i doubt whether to buy a new one next year.
Very happy with it, except for the rather limited graphics power (but I can live with that to a certain extent) and the glossy screen (which I'm really starting to hate).

But I can't do without OS X. So unless I can find the money for a Mac Pro, or I can build a hackintosh that REALLY works (which means updates and everything work problem free), I guess I'm stuck with the iMac (the macmini is laughable as a far as graphics go)...

The graphics power is limited because it is bordering on 4 years old.

EDITED a line out here because it was a bit moany and not relevant. Sorry Dr Mckay!

The machine is showing its age now, no matter what machine I bought 4 years ago it would not be cutting edge now, the only thing you can buy that will play current gen games is a console, but give that you dont want to be playing at sub HD res then a console is not going to cut it either.

I bought a macbook pro this year, I expect high settings for all current games, next year high/medium, year 3 medium, year 4 med/low at best.

An iMac gaming wise is going well do even get 4 years out of it. If you are that worried about gaming build a PC and when the graphics start to lag behind upgrade your graphics card.

 

[Dr. McKay]

The graphics power is limited because it is bordering on 4 years old.

I know, you're probably right.

The thing is, what's most important for me now is to be able to run three OS's : OS X SL, Win7 and Ubuntu. And with a 320Gb hard drive, that's a bit difficult.

I don't really NEED a new mac : the games I play run well, but I'm in dire need of a much bigger hard drive. I could replace mine with a 1Tb version (cheap nowadays) but I'm not to keen of performing surgery on my iMac. One mistake and that's it.
On the other hand, it would be a bit stupid to buy a new computer, just for the sake of a bigger hard drive.
And I can't really afford a new Mac, that's why I nearly always buy used Mac's.

 

[SlickShoes]

I know, you're probably right.

The thing is, what's most important for me now is to be able to run three OS's : OS X SL, Win7 and Ubuntu. And with a 320Gb hard drive, that's a bit difficult.

I don't really NEED a new mac : the games I play run well, but I'm in dire need of a much bigger hard drive. I could replace mine with a 1Tb version (cheap nowadays) but I'm not to keen of performing surgery on my iMac. One mistake and that's it.
On the other hand, it would be a bit stupid to buy a new computer, just for the sake of a bigger hard drive.
And I can't really afford a new Mac, that's why I nearly always buy used Mac's.

Yeah I can see your point, I think it would be nice to have a mac pro option that is not as pro like you mentioned before i think.

The thing with iMac is that even changing out the HDD is an ordeal, swapping a HDD in anything else is simple.

I think the best thing you can do if you love iMac so much is try and pick up a second hand or refurb one that is top of line for its year, then it should fit your needs, maybe with the smaller screen size as gaming at native res on a 2010 imac is not too great no matter what GFX option you have.

Personally I wish they still done a 24" imac as that was the sweet spot for me, it wasnt too massive screen wise and it wasn't too small. For sitting close it hits that sweet spot, but i guess they stopped making them for a reason.

 

[Dr. McKay]

I would be happy with a 21.5 inch. It has the same resolution as my 24" now and it has a much faster graphics card, so gaming should definitely on the up.

I still don't like the glossy screen, but on the other hand, my options are limited. The pro is out, too expensive, even used, and the mini, well... I don't know.
So I guess I'm looking for a used 21.5 inch mid 2010 iMac (the last ones that came with Snow leopard - I still need Rosetta), preferably the high end model with a 1Tb HD. I'd better start looking.

 

[HarryPot]

I was under the impression that gaming for Mac is **** because of the graphic cards Apple puts into its notebook and desktops.

I mean, maybe in the laptops there are technical reasons (space, heat, etc.), but why can't they offer the option of including a good gaming GPU for the iMac?


Also, I was checking the GPU in the iMac. Are those better than the MBP 15? They seem to be the same ones.

 

[SlickShoes]

I was under the impression that gaming for Mac is **** because of the graphic cards Apple puts into its notebook and desktops.

I mean, maybe in the laptops there are technical reasons (space, heat, etc.), but why can't they offer the option of including a good gaming GPU for the iMac?


Also, I was checking the GPU in the iMac. Are those better than the MBP 15? They seem to be the same ones.

It depends what GPU you get, the 6750 512mb is worse than the 6750 1GB or 6770 1GB that was in this years MBP. If it says 6750 512 then its the same card.

The better iMacs have even better cards.

The space and heat thing matters in the imac, it is essentially a big unportable laptop, parts wise. Fitting a proper graphics card would increase heat, size and power consuption.

What you make of a certain grahpics card depends on you, I have the 6750 1GB in my macbook pro and for me its great, I can play all the latest games on high settings at 1440x900, it looks way better than a console and it will probably remain this good for at least a couple of years.

Some people want bleeding edge performance, and to get that buying a laptop are an all in one computer is not a great idea, if you want the best of everything get a tower.

 

[rasmasyean]

I would be happy with a 21.5 inch. It has the same resolution as my 24" now and it has a much faster graphics card, so gaming should definitely on the up.

I still don't like the glossy screen, but on the other hand, my options are limited. The pro is out, too expensive, even used, and the mini, well... I don't know.
So I guess I'm looking for a used 21.5 inch mid 2010 iMac (the last ones that came with Snow leopard - I still need Rosetta), preferably the high end model with a 1Tb HD. I'd better start looking.

I presume you can also get a cheap (non-Apple) external HD. Though it won't be as fast access, it might work for some applications. I mean, the bottleneck might even be your computer.

 

[rasmasyean]

It depends what GPU you get, the 6750 512mb is worse than the 6750 1GB or 6770 1GB that was in this years MBP. If it says 6750 512 then its the same card.

The better iMacs have even better cards.

The space and heat thing matters in the imac, it is essentially a big unportable laptop, parts wise. Fitting a proper graphics card would increase heat, size and power consuption.

What you make of a certain grahpics card depends on you, I have the 6750 1GB in my macbook pro and for me its great, I can play all the latest games on high settings at 1440x900, it looks way better than a console and it will probably remain this good for at least a couple of years.

Some people want bleeding edge performance, and to get that buying a laptop are an all in one computer is not a great idea, if you want the best of everything get a tower.

Well...RELATIVE to the market these days the 6770 is still a 128-bit graphics card. At this level, the addition of 500MB means a lot less to performance than the addition of 128-bits...where even in the realm of 256-bit GPU's there are many "budget" models today. That card may be decent 4 years ago, but if you put something like that in a "gaming desktop", you'd be building a budget concious gaming rig. Of course there's GDDR5 vs. GDDR3 to consider, and add to the fact that you're not that close to "1080p rendering", I guess it's acceptable for some gaming mindsets. But keep in mind that LCD's look best in their "native resolution". So if you have the big MBP, you ARE sacrificing some picture quality in order to get FPS.