Would you please link me to the benchmarks that prove what you have to see about the iMac's video card(s)? You don't need to spend $500 on a video card either. The 8600GT or HD2600XT would have been a good midrange card for a midrange Mac.
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.
Will the new iMac be any good for gaming?
- Thread starter ksolano
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Only the $999 iMac used the GMA950 but that was a crippled product altogether.
We are not expecting $200 cards, we are just expecting what you would out of a $2200 desktop.
These are not fine, even for a midrange card, the HD 2400 and 2600 are pretty miserable.
Running UT2004 is no big deal... and sure you can run Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. but those are 2005 games and you can't even run them at full settings, imagine what will happen when Bioshock, UT2007, Crysis, Alan Wake and others hit later THIS year (Bioshock coming out in a few weeks).
What bothers me is that the HD 2400 is not even better than the X1600 it replaces... they should have went all HD 2600 for all iMacs. Apple is taking their hardware one step backwards
There is no reason why Apple should stick mobile components in their DESKTOPS, its absolutely pointless and oxymoronic. Now if you are to do that... at least give users a good value, they put crummy cards that are even worse than the cards they are replacing. And it is not even a HD 2600XT on the iMac, its a HD 2600 Pro and a severely underclocked one at that.
They could have went with the 8600GT for the 20" and the 8600GTS for the 24" and that could have been really nice and nowadays there is no friggin reason a card should have less than 256MB of VRAM, especially if its on a $1200 desktop.
iMacs are nice (and are beautiful as well) but they are horrendously overpriced and underpowered.
Good post and quite an eye opener
Wow, they are backslidding again. The 2400 as someone previously posted is pathetic indeed. At this time there's not even an option for upgrading the top of the line iMac. I don't expect my grandmother to benefit from a top of the line card, but even casual gamers have to feel a little let down. A 2600XT seems more like a midrange offering we could expect in an iMac or at least the option for one. How they expect to attract and keep game publishers is beyond me. Same old apple. I guess I wont be buying an iMac either.
Please, people.
You are getting a nice mac with an extremely small footprint. Smaller size - Higher cost, that's almost always been universally true in the tech industry.
I had a brand new $250 video card when Far Cry came out and could only run it on Low/Med settings.
Point is, you can't judge these iMacs as hardcore gaming systems - and that means you shouldn't be comparing them to upcoming monster games like RAGE, Crysis, CoD4, etc.
If you want to run those, you will need a beast of a PC, and you'll be paying more then $1500-2200 for it too when you include a Keyboard, Mouse, 20-24" LCD monitor, and Windows Vista. I've built plenty of gaming machines, and those that run the top-tier games at high settings are extremely expensive!
With an iMac you are getting a LOT of value, in a SMALL package. Don't forget the Zero dead-pixel policy of Apple either.
You'll be able to play Quake Wars, and you'll be able to play Starcraft 2, so stop complaining!
I think the real issue here is that you are all treating an iMac like something it has never been and will never be - a mid-sized tower PC. This isn't for you, evidently.
If you want to complain, complain that they don't have a consumer-level Mac Pro, don't whine about the iMacs!
And on a side note, before I bought my first Mac (Jan 2006), I was a PC Gamer who always custom built my own machines... I'm not just some jaded Mac fanboy with endless pockets....
You are getting a nice mac with an extremely small footprint. Smaller size - Higher cost, that's almost always been universally true in the tech industry.
I had a brand new $250 video card when Far Cry came out and could only run it on Low/Med settings.
Point is, you can't judge these iMacs as hardcore gaming systems - and that means you shouldn't be comparing them to upcoming monster games like RAGE, Crysis, CoD4, etc.
If you want to run those, you will need a beast of a PC, and you'll be paying more then $1500-2200 for it too when you include a Keyboard, Mouse, 20-24" LCD monitor, and Windows Vista. I've built plenty of gaming machines, and those that run the top-tier games at high settings are extremely expensive!
With an iMac you are getting a LOT of value, in a SMALL package. Don't forget the Zero dead-pixel policy of Apple either.
You'll be able to play Quake Wars, and you'll be able to play Starcraft 2, so stop complaining!
I think the real issue here is that you are all treating an iMac like something it has never been and will never be - a mid-sized tower PC. This isn't for you, evidently.
If you want to complain, complain that they don't have a consumer-level Mac Pro, don't whine about the iMacs!
And on a side note, before I bought my first Mac (Jan 2006), I was a PC Gamer who always custom built my own machines... I'm not just some jaded Mac fanboy with endless pockets....
The X1600 could already run Oblivion. I'm assuming the iMac's card is only slightly faster.
You among others seem to push that the HD2600 Pro would be capable of running games at high settings and resolution. Sadly it can't.
The GPUs Apple chose for the new iMac are pieces of JUNK. Google ATI HD 2400 or 2600 reviews. Then come back and decide whether people are snobish or not. Those cards are a joke. And that's not me talking. It's the reviews.
Sure, the iMac isn´t a game machine. The point here is, they got john Carmack on stage to present a new engine and EA games too. Why? What is Apple thinking about gamer? They all buy a $3000 workstation - Mac Pro with extra memory, bigger hdd, better graphics card - and thats it? They placed the iMac as a consumer product for "the rest of us" which doesn´t buy a workstation because no need for XEON CPUs, just need good C2D or C2Q as cpu and a good GPU solution.
AND! They put a GF8600M in the MBP, WHY(?) they don´t put it in the iMac too? Even this card is maybe better as the HD2600 Pro.
Well, maybe gamer see something from Apple at MWSF 08. However, I don´t think Apple cares much about games, they don´t realized that game performance is not only depending on the operating system and the look of a computer.
AND! They put a GF8600M in the MBP, WHY(?) they don´t put it in the iMac too? Even this card is maybe better as the HD2600 Pro.
Well, maybe gamer see something from Apple at MWSF 08. However, I don´t think Apple cares much about games, they don´t realized that game performance is not only depending on the operating system and the look of a computer.
Excuse my ignorance, but which cards will be available to swap with the current ones? Say, if in '08 I would like a better one.
Having Carmack on stage at WWDC and this poor video update confuses me as well. Once again Apple splurged on processors for their hardware while leaving us crippled when it came to the video card.
That depends on if the video chip is on a MXM card and you want to open the iMac up.
At 1280 x 1024 or less resolution and with no AA or AF the HD2600 Pro is passable. You're going to be severely crippled on the HD2400XT's 64-bit interface. I'll wait to see the results of HD2600 Pro overclocking though. The XT is just a higher clocked version with usually better memory options.
Why is anybody surprised? Anybody remember how much whining there was when the iMac G5 came out with the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM?
Same deal here. New iMac design, huge price slashes ($1199 now gets you 20" instead of 17"; 24" drops in price by $200), and a video card that only serious gamers will hate. Everybody else doesn't care one bit.
These machines are going to sell well despite the lame graphics card.
Pretty much all the games people are talking about playing on this thread, I imagine you're better off buying a console or getting a dedicated gaming PC rig. The iMac's not going to fulfill your needs, but I reckon that it never has to begin with.
Same deal here. New iMac design, huge price slashes ($1199 now gets you 20" instead of 17"; 24" drops in price by $200), and a video card that only serious gamers will hate. Everybody else doesn't care one bit.
These machines are going to sell well despite the lame graphics card.
Pretty much all the games people are talking about playing on this thread, I imagine you're better off buying a console or getting a dedicated gaming PC rig. The iMac's not going to fulfill your needs, but I reckon that it never has to begin with.
Yeah. All gamer are forced to buy a PC. Imagine how great games on Mac could be, especally after EA deal and id software releasing Rage on Mac...on what Mac? Of course not for the iMac, but only for the "pro folks" with mac pro? OK, Rage is far away. But Quake Wars is not and it won´t run on high settings on the iMac, the same goes for Command and Conquer 3 and NFS Carbon.
Which games?
Look, I'm just against the description that a good graphics card can run next year's games at max res. As a gamer, I have never cared; in fact, I have NEVER had a GPU that could run everything maxed out on a game that was just released.
If a GPU can run upcoming games well at medium settings, meaning, good framerate, everything playable, nothing missing in the game experience at all, I don't see why it can be called junk. Reviewers review from the perspective of everything having to be run at max settings, and I've never cared about that.
The iMac can run every game on the market in a manner that none of the gameplay is sacrificed and the game looks visually good. Why is this not considered acceptable? Why is it junk because it can't do MAX settings? I've always felt max settings were for people who want to plop down serious money- I just want to casually sit down and play the games without being frustrated at my slow machine. I remember taking 1024x768 over 1280x1024 because I got better framerates and could play the game better, and had no problem with it.
Lag is totally unacceptable to me. Turning off HDR is not unacceptable.
Hey guys,
I am looking at buying on of these new imacs. now I am not into gaming and don't know much about graphics cards. However my favourite type of games are RTS. I understand that RTS games don't need as much GPU power but more CPU power. So would these new Imacs be able to run C&C 3 I don't what it on hi rez just on medium level. I am looking at buying the mid range 20" with the 2600 HD pro 256Mb. could you help me out
I am looking at buying on of these new imacs. now I am not into gaming and don't know much about graphics cards. However my favourite type of games are RTS. I understand that RTS games don't need as much GPU power but more CPU power. So would these new Imacs be able to run C&C 3 I don't what it on hi rez just on medium level. I am looking at buying the mid range 20" with the 2600 HD pro 256Mb. could you help me out
Give me a break. Are you trying to tell me that there is not an engineer at Apple that understands what is required in a computer for good to great gaming performance? Please get over yourself.
B/c they can't brag to their friends!!!
Very Saddened
When the new iMacs came out I was basically a click away from ordering one; Now I am teetering back and forth. I'm not the biggest computer gamer, anymore, but I think it's reasonable, when buying a new computer, to ask for one that will at least be able to handle current gen games, well, and be able to run passably the next one. After digging around, however, I can only conclude that Apple's latest iMac offering is a solid step in the wrong direction.
The article, below, showing the older 7600gt (offered in the last revision of iMacs) versus the Radeon 2600 Pro, didn't offer me much hope.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/465/1
When the new iMacs came out I was basically a click away from ordering one; Now I am teetering back and forth. I'm not the biggest computer gamer, anymore, but I think it's reasonable, when buying a new computer, to ask for one that will at least be able to handle current gen games, well, and be able to run passably the next one. After digging around, however, I can only conclude that Apple's latest iMac offering is a solid step in the wrong direction.
The article, below, showing the older 7600gt (offered in the last revision of iMacs) versus the Radeon 2600 Pro, didn't offer me much hope.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/465/1
No i didn´t say that. They sure have good engineers. I don´t think the problem is mistaken by engineers but at a other stage.
But what you say is correct; the iMac CAN handle every current generation game, and passably run next gen ones.
People are complaining that it can not run the next gen of games at max settings like a Geforce 8800 would. I just want next gen games to run passably (60 FPS, low-to-medium settings, lag-free), and every game currently on the market to run medium-to-high.
Don't be afraid to buy the new iMac. It's cheaper and has better hardware than the old one in every way, except that the GPU is arguable. But it can play anything out there, and it's DX10 capable and OpenGL 2.0 capable.
Still the problem lies in longevity... sure the 2600 can play games of today like you say at medium settings at a moderate res, etc, and they look good but what happens 2 weeks from now? Bioshock gets released and suddenly the 2600 struggles at 1024x768 and can barely run at 800x600 with DX10 on... lets not even mention Crysis, UT3, etc, all games coming out in a FEW months. Imagine what will happen with games coming out the next year. And the situation only gets worse considering the iMac has a 24" monitor and 1024x768 will look absolutely dreadful on it... unless you use centered scaling which beats the point of having a 24 incher anyway. It only gets worse for the 20" with the CONSIDERABLY worse HD 2400.
But you are not getting the point, Apple is actually DOWNGRADING the cards, the X1600 beats the HD 2400 and the HD 2600 is not much better... Apple could be giving you a much better card for the money but they don't, one would at least expect the new cards to beat the previous but they don't, it is really a shame that Apple backtracks this much in the graphics hardware department.
Problem is that a computer's longevity for many people is how it runs time sensitive material like games which are based on framerates. I mean nobody cares of word or excel or photoshop take an extra second or 5 to complete a task but it sure does matter when a computer cannot maintain framerates in a game at playable rates or play back video properly (I'm sure next gen blueray and stuff will require some horsepower).
So while the existing HD2600 may be able to play doom3 and prey at medium / high settings with no AA which may be just fine, the games just around the corner (and remember this is a brand new computer released around the same time as the games) will really hurt the imac to the point that people will have to play at medium/low settings and thats no longer fun. All the visuals will be gone.
The sad thing is that it may have not taken much more money for apple to put in X2900's in the larger imacs. I mean they buy stuff in huge volumes. Might have been fine to push the imac price by $100 but bump up the card. That card might give the imac an extra year or two of life easily over one with a lower card.
So while the existing HD2600 may be able to play doom3 and prey at medium / high settings with no AA which may be just fine, the games just around the corner (and remember this is a brand new computer released around the same time as the games) will really hurt the imac to the point that people will have to play at medium/low settings and thats no longer fun. All the visuals will be gone.
The sad thing is that it may have not taken much more money for apple to put in X2900's in the larger imacs. I mean they buy stuff in huge volumes. Might have been fine to push the imac price by $100 but bump up the card. That card might give the imac an extra year or two of life easily over one with a lower card.
I've been reading these forums for a few months waiting to see the new iMacs. I like the look of them though I'm kind of disappointed the graphics card isn't a little bit better. The only games I will be buying in the future will be WAR,SC2 and WoW:WotLK. WoW should run fine, I'm more worried about WAR and SC2 so I'm kind of sitting on the fence on what I should do. I don't play much PC games other than WoW and WC3, I buy console ports of PC games I want. Should I pick the new iMac up or just build a PC? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
I don't play much PC games other than WoW and WC3, I buy console ports of PC games I want. Should I pick the new iMac up or just build a PC? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!iTim You could do with a iMac for those games...
I guess i need to start getting ready for a PC build and buy a macbook for daily usage. The thing that ticks me off is that they put a 2.8ghz C2E processor and pair it up with a HD 2600. It doesn't matter if you have 2.8ghz, games are mainly GPU dependent and will the same or slighty better at 2.8ghz.
I guess i need to start getting ready for a PC build and buy a macbook for daily usage. The thing that ticks me off is that they put a 2.8ghz C2E processor and pair it up with a HD 2600. It doesn't matter if you have 2.8ghz, games are mainly GPU dependent and will the same or slighty better at 2.8ghz.
At least iMac fans have new video cards, even if they suck.
The Mac Pro's video cards are a year and a half old. Heck, the x1900xt is made by Foxconn because ATI doesn't make them anymore. They EOL'd them long ago.
Now that Macs are using the Intel architecture there really is no reason for such lame graphics in Macs. The only difference between PC cards and Mac cards is the firmware. That's it. (oh, and Apple likes to underclock the cards too...)
The Mac Pro's video cards are a year and a half old. Heck, the x1900xt is made by Foxconn because ATI doesn't make them anymore. They EOL'd them long ago.
Now that Macs are using the Intel architecture there really is no reason for such lame graphics in Macs. The only difference between PC cards and Mac cards is the firmware. That's it. (oh, and Apple likes to underclock the cards too...
)