Just got my 27" iMac (graphics performance)

[ReVolver]

For the love of computer users everywhere.

ADMIT MACS ARNT GOOD FOR GAMING

Even die-hard macheads say that Macs are better for business type stuff.

Macs are PC not Workstations

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

He said it's mostly for work.

So my question to OP: What is your job, and how much did that Mac set you back?

I know I actually like large screens for programming, but for gaming I prefer 17'' max so it's easy to see everything and I don't have to move my head or really my center fo vision.

 

[UndeadDragon]

I know I actually like large screens for programming, but for gaming I prefer 17'' max so it's easy to see everything and I don't have to move my head or really my center fo vision.

Same. I just love programming on a huge screen

 

[ReVolver]

Same. I just love programming on a huge screen

There's a reason I got a 18.4' laptop :thup:

 

[sqrage]

There's a reason I got a 18.4' laptop :thup:

You got a laptop 3 times the size of a person? Strange.

 

[Icyculyr]

For the love of computer users everywhere.

ADMIT MACS ARNT GOOD FOR GAMING

Even die-hard macheads say that Macs are better for business type stuff, not games.
It confounds me to no end that Apple might be the only company with their own group of enthusiasts, that are so enthusiastic, they have a nickname.

Haha, Macs are getting better and better for gaming. And I, who loves games just because they look beautiful maxed out, have settled for the settings with this GPU, they over exceeded my expectations for a mobile GPU.

Macs are PC not Workstations

Except for the Mac Pro and XServe

He said it's mostly for work.

So my question to OP: What is your job, and how much did that Mac set you back?

I know I actually like large screens for programming, but for gaming I prefer 17'' max so it's easy to see everything and I don't have to move my head or really my center fo vision.

Primarily I'm a Windows programmer, but learning to write iPhone & iPad apps, and eventually Mac apps. I also do a little bit of graphic design here and there when I need to, and also web design.

The iMac cost me $3500 AU. The US equiv. price of that machine is $2350, specs:
4GB 1066MHz RAM, 2.8GHz Core i7 860, 4850m 512MB, 2 TB HD, 27" IPS display @ 2560x1440 + AppleCare.

Technically I downgraded from my previous rig but this should be more than enough for me (upgraded in regard to the screen), I just need to bump the RAM up to 16GB, and maybe install the 320GB Intel X25-M SSD when it's released.

That does make sense having a smaller screen for gaming, and I wasn't sure at first that I liked it, but I love it now

You got a laptop 3 times the size of a person? Strange.

Haha lol.

 

[codemonkey]

You got a laptop 3 times the size of a person? Strange.

That's how the pros do it.

 

[ReVolver]

That's how the pros do it.

It definitely feels like it weighs 3x my size

 

[Slapshot136]

4850m

m means mobile, I think your exaggerating if your claiming a laptop can play crysis on "Playable at 1920x1080 on Very High"

I guess if you really need to burn your money on something, it's better then paying interest...

 

[Icyculyr]

m means mobile, I think your exaggerating if your claiming a laptop can play crysis on "Playable at 1920x1080 on Very High"

Nope, maybe what I consider playable and what you consider playable are different. But I could finish the game with those settings, the FPS could have been higher for a smoother experience, but it was playable.

It's a laptop graphics card, but remember I've also got a powerful CPU that you won't really find in a laptop (2.8GHz i7 that Turbo's to 3.46GHz).

I guess if you really need to burn your money on something, it's better then paying interest...

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. I wanted this iMac, I downgraded from my previous rig which had an Intel X25-M G2 SSD and a GTX 285 1GB.
And I'm not regretting it either, however after using a hard drive again I'm planning on buying a SSD and putting it in, I hate hard drives lol.

I did a benchmark with Crysis: Warhead, it got a low of 16 FPS, avg 24 FPS, and high of 30 FPS with mainstream settings at native resolution. I consider that playable.

I've noticed with LoL even in large battles my FPS drops down to 30 with settings maxed except for shadows on high, I'm playing with character quality on high, environment medium, effects and shadows very low / low and find the game looks good and I don't really go too low.

EDIT: Ok, I've done some more tests. On the same settings as Warhead I get better FPS with Crysis (based on my experience, not benchmarks).
Crysis Warhead @ 2560x1440 on Mainstream, no AA (17/25/31 min/avg/max)
Crysis Warhead @ 2560x1440 on Performance, no AA (33/45/57)

I also tried playing Crysis Warhead & Crysis on Max settings at 1920x1080 and it is playable (~20 FPS), if you drop it down a setting to High it's a bit smoother. You might not call anything under 30 FPS playable if you're used to that, but even with my GTX 285 1GB I'd play at around 25 FPS with everything maxed (no AA).

 

[Orgasm]

Crysis
Playable at nat res (native resolution, 2560x1440) on High, but Medium was more fluid (IE High could have been 4-5 FPS higher)
Playable at 1920x1080 on Very High, but High was more fluid
League of Legends
At nat res with all settings maxed except for Shadows which was on High I get ~60 FPS.

Whats the point of listing Crysis and League of Legends? Crysis requires a lot more than LoL requires. I would assume you can play max on LoL if you can on Crysis.

 

[Icyculyr]

Just for extra info, and I've actually found with LoL you can't play max without dropping to ~30 FPS in intense battles, I've found a sweet spot though.

Plus Crysis at native resolution can only be played well on Medium, you can play it on High but Medium is more fluid.