Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Big Slick · Aug 10, 2007, 12:20 PM

Eventhough I'm still waiting for it to be shipped, how will my new 24" 2.8Ghz imac with the ati pro hd graphics handle gaming tasks. I had ordered The Movies and Rise of Nations for starters, but was wondering how it will stand up in time. Not really sure what stuff I might be playing, but maybe some pc-based fps (like Fear maybe) or some strategy stuff like Civilization.

Should I be using boot-camp, cross-over or...?

Rumor · Aug 10, 2007, 01:12 PM

Those games should run fine natively.

If you want to run PC only games, I would suggest Boot Camp.

ReardenMetal · Aug 10, 2007, 03:23 PM

It will run slower than the OLDER iMac with the 7600GT. The videocard in your new and 'improved' iMac is about 20% slower than the old 7600GT. FEAR will not run very well, at native resolution. UT2004 will get probably about 20-50fps at native res, my 7600GT iMac gets about 30-70fps. Collin McRae Rally 2005 will really chug on your system, because it runs 'okay' on mine. If you were interested in gaming, you should have purchased the older model.

Big Slick · Aug 11, 2007, 01:22 PM

Ouch! Alright then...guess I'm stuck playing...solitaire <sigh> Second opinion, anyone?

amazing · Aug 11, 2007, 01:28 PM

macworld.com has published benchmarks for unreal tournament on a 2.4 GHz

Macworld: First Look: From the Lab: iMac benchmarks

Peter · Aug 11, 2007, 01:43 PM

The new 2.4GHz machines were faster across the board than the old top of the line 24-inch 2.16 GHz iMac, with a 9-percent improvement in Speedmark score. The only test where the older machine came out on top was in our Unreal Tournament test, in which it managed to display a couple of extra frames per second. As games are largely dependent on the graphics card, it appears that the older Nvidia GeForce 7300GT held its own, despite having half the amount of video RAM as the new ATI offering. We’ll run a few more games tests and will post the results on Macworld.com as soon as we have them.

Just ignore ReardenMetal.

Grrr · Aug 12, 2007, 06:24 AM

Agreed.. Ignore ReardenMetal and his multitude of other names. He's Macnn's long standing village idiot.

Back on topic. The graphics performance on these Macs isn't half as bad as some moaners might have you believe.
I tried UT2004 on my new 2.4ghz iMac (20") the other day, and it did well.. I loaded up a map that I knew was quite demanding and on my old G5 1.8ghz 20" iMac, I would get 25fps at best with low to medium settings. On the new iMac with maxed settings, it returned 60fps minimum and often saw over 100fps.
Perhaps thats not as good as a 7600GT(?), but its plenty good enough. And I don't see why it wouldn't perform well on other games too.

Remember, the moaners see "2600" and think it not as good as "7300/7600" just because the 'number' looks less impressive. They don't generally speak from any real practical experience.
And even 'if' it isn't as good. That certainly doesn't mean its no good. Far from it in fact..

So far the performance has been more than good enough for anything I have thrown at it so far. And i've not even upgraded the standard 1gb of ram yet.

Kevlar · Aug 12, 2007, 11:21 AM

I would certainly hope that a new iMac could run UT2004 as it's over 3 yrs old.

Big Slick · Aug 12, 2007, 01:15 PM

So is it best to buy/use games tailored exclusively for the Mac to I think what they call "run natively," or carefully read pc-made games to ensure they'd run half-decently. I know the only source for mac games in my area is to order them online :-( whereas the pc games can be had from my local BestBuy or even Sprawl Mart.

rmiller · Aug 13, 2007, 01:06 PM

Barefeats.com will be posting a "shootout" between the Old and New Imac's sometime this week. Can't wait to see the results.

Dick

Chuckit · 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Grrr

Remember, the moaners see "2600" and think it not as good as "7300/7600" just because the 'number' looks less impressive.

You're quite insulting for somebody who's talking out his ass. I'd imagine it has something more to do with, say, the new card doing worse in benchmarks than the GeForce 7300 GT — as you yourself should know from having participated in that thread. In fact, the new iMac lost to the 7300 GT in the article quoted here (if not by much), and that was the low-end card for the old iMac. We no longer have a better option, and our only option in the new iMacs is a step down from the old baseline. You can't possibly argue that's a good thing even if you don't personally care.

Grrr · Aug 13, 2007, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You're quite insulting for somebody who's talking out his ass. I'd imagine it has something more to do with, say, the new card doing worse in benchmarks than the GeForce 7300 GT — as you yourself should know from having participated in that thread. In fact, the new iMac lost to the 7300 GT in the article quoted here (if not by much), and that was the low-end card for the old iMac. We no longer have a better option, and our only option in the new iMacs is a step down from the old baseline. You can't possibly argue that's a good thing even if you don't personally care.

Insulting? And "talking out his ass" is not? Nice own goal right there..
We're talking about Macnn's most banned user. Hes not wanted. And for good reason. If you are taking his side then it doesn't exactly put you in the best light either.

So once again, back on topic. If you indeed read that other thread you noticed I participated in, then you should have noticed I did not say the current iMacs were better, only that they are not as bad as bad as many claim them to be. And by quoting me out of context you don't help matters either.
I did already make the important point of saying in this thread (and I repeat) that although the graphics hardware in the latest iMacs may not be as good as the previous generation of iMacs, that does not mean the current generation is no good.
Yes, its a bummer that there is no graphics choice now. But does it honestly matter when the latest iMacs perform quite admirably as they are? Certainly not the "Sucky disaster" many are claiming. Not by a long shot. And this is the point I was trying to make.

Maybe if you owned or at least spent some quality time using a latest generation iMac, then you too could speak from actual experience.

imacman · Aug 13, 2007, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Grrr

Insulting? And "talking out his ass" is not?

But you were talking out of your ass. Nobody has said anything about the 'numbers' of the videocards meaning a damn thing. You are making things up, and claiming that the moaners (myself, Cash, Chuckit, and others) are simply confused since the new videocard is a lower number. You are basically calling us complete idiots, when we have NEVER EVER said anything remotely like what you've accused us of saying. You were completely talking out of your ass, Chuckit called you on it, and now you are backpedaling and trying to deflect blame onto someone else.

We're talking about Macnn's most banned user. Hes not wanted. And for good reason. If you are taking his side then it doesn't exactly put you in the best light either.

So what? What makes you think you are wanted? I'm pretty sure he's more popular than you. Lots of people take his side. Lots of people don't. Are you inferring that just because Cash says something that it's automatically wrong? He DOES have a point. The new videocard is significantly slower than the old one. The only thing that's faster in the new iMacs is the CPU, which one can easily upgrade on the older iMacs, since it's a normal PC part. Also, the benchmarks that have been posted compared the 2.13ghz iMac, not the 2.33ghz iMac, with the new 2.4 ghz iMacs. That right there is somewhat unfair.

So once again, back on topic.

Which, I might point out, shouldn't be you making things up about people's arguments in an attempt to erode their credibility. Because that's what you were doing.

Maybe if you owned or at least spent some quality time using a latest generation iMac, then you too could speak from actual experience.

Maybe if you spent some quality time actually comprehending what people were bitching about, you wouldn't be such a brainless apple defender zealot.

Chuckit · Aug 13, 2007, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Grrr

Insulting? And "talking out his ass" is not?

No, that was insulting too. The difference is that you were insulting people about stuff that wasn't even true, whereas I was accurately calling you out on this. In that entire thread, how many people did you see complaining because the card's name included a lower number? I don't see anyone complaining about that. All of the "main" people complaining about the Radeon are talking specifically about the fact that Apple took a freakin' year to come out with an update and when they finally did, it was a downgrade in the graphics department.

Originally Posted by Grrr

I did already make the important point of saying in this thread (and I repeat) that although the graphics hardware in the latest iMacs may not be as good as the previous generation of iMacs, that does not mean the current generation is no good.
Yes, its a bummer that there is no graphics choice now. But does it honestly matter when the latest iMacs perform quite admirably as they are?

I guess they perform admirably if you're playing Starcraft. The card in the old iMac wasn't all that great when it was introduced last year, and this one is worse. I guess if you think the average graphics card from two years ago is admirable, then yes, the iMac is quite admirable.

Originally Posted by Grrr

Maybe if you owned or at least spent some quality time using a latest generation iMac, then you too could speak from actual experience.

Do these iMacs include some special enchantment that causes them to perform better in practice than when they're being tested? Because if not, I hardly see how that matters.

Grrr · 05:56 PM

Christ guys, whats your problem?? Got nothing better to do? I basically said its not that bad, and you throw all your toys out of the pram and kick up a fuss.
Theres no need for all that. You guys make out like I was attacking you both directly. Which I was not (Unless the fresh faced recruit is someone we know

)
Thanks anyway..

Chuckit · Aug 13, 2007, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Grrr

Christ guys, whats your problem?? Got nothing better to do? I basically said its not that bad, and you throw all your toys out of the pram and kick up a fuss.

Is this another example of you not attacking me?

Originally Posted by Grrr

Theres no need for all that. You guys make out like I was attacking you both directly. Which I was not

Really? Has your account been hacked? Did you not write "Remember, the moaners see '2600' and think it not as good as '7300/7600' just because the 'number' looks less impressive"?

Eh, whatever. I'll stop bothering the forum with this **** nobody cares about. Sorry, y'all.

Originally Posted by Grrr

(Unless the fresh faced recruit is someone we know

)

It's Rob.

Grrr · Aug 13, 2007, 10:35 PM

You have been on Macnn virtually as long as I have. Im sure you've seen some attacks in your time, just as I have. You cant seriously claim that is one?? Besides, you are kicking up a fuss and being entirely unreasonable. You say im insulting, yet you don't set the best example yourself, do you?
You do yourself an injustice by making the biggest mountains out of the smallest molehills. IE blowing small points I made out of proportion while entirely ingoring the main points I made, and basically dragging the thread off topic.

There is no need for it. Chill.

imacman · Aug 13, 2007, 11:37 PM

Don't tell people to chill after you've been caught red handed making things up about them. None of us have remotely claimed the graphics are inferior just because of the numbers on the card. You said that. Nobody else. You won't admit what you were trying to do either. It's sad.

Chuckit · Aug 14, 2007, 04:21 PM

I suppose I'm mainly mad at myself for waiting. It didn't occur to me that Apple would change their lineup so that there is now no Mac that's right for me. I don't want to spend the extra $1000 on the Mac Pro just to play games, especially not since it rewards Apple for this crap.

D.O.G.S. CEO · Aug 14, 2007, 04:31 PM

Just get a used iMac with a 7600GT. Heck, if you can find one with a broken screen for sale, let me know, I'll buy it, and you can buy mine. I'd love to get dell flat panel with some video inputs.

Chuckit · Aug 14, 2007, 04:50 PM

Don't know where to find a used one like that. I don't trust eBay for purchases over $200. Too many ****ing scammers.

D.O.G.S. CEO · Aug 14, 2007, 05:06 PM

Um, then I guess you're just being ignorant, IMHO. I've purchased tons of things off ebay, and as long as I check the guy's feedback record and nothing looks fishy, I've never had a problem. Also, Paypal has buyer protection. So does ebay. I trust ebay MORE than box stores, apple, or craigslist, because of the power of FEEDBACK. The only way to get scammed on ebay is to do something stupid.

Chuckit · Aug 14, 2007, 06:02 PM

OK, so I checked eBay for the old model iMac with a 7600 out of curiosity. As far as I can see, nobody selling it has more than 12 feedback (as usual). Does that inspire confidence in you? It doesn't strike me as somebody who is desperately concerned about their eBay rep.

D.O.G.S. CEO · Aug 14, 2007, 08:00 PM

Meh, wait for somebody with a higher feedback rating, then strike. I've spent thousands of dollars on ebay without incident.

Big Slick · Aug 17, 2007, 05:47 PM

I'll try to get my thread back on topic...
I'm having problems with running Rise of Nations on my brand new machine. The game graphics are coming out blocky with little squares missing all over. Help please!

Im brand new to mac so my knowledge is pretty much nil but here's what I know:
1) Its a brand new machine so the graphics can't be this bad!
2) I've tried messing with the graphics tab in the game and tried the different resolutions and the low detail but it doesn't seem to help.
3) I modified the game's ini. file to let me select from the broader range of resolutions but same result.

Any help is appreciated.

GuiltlessMan · Aug 17, 2007, 05:54 PM

Post a screenshot.

PS: You should have bought an older one.

Big Slick · Aug 17, 2007, 06:44 PM

Okay, okay, I get it. I should have bought an older mac. How do I post/capture a screenshot?

kermit4161 · Aug 20, 2007, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Okay, okay, I get it. I should have bought an older mac. How do I post/capture a screenshot?

To capture a screen shot, go to the "GO" menu (top of screen... pulldown menu in Finder)... click on Utilities, then open the 'Grab' application. If you click on the 'Capture' pulldown menu, you'll get a choice of screen, selection, window and timed capture types (I think)...

Use one of them to capture your screen and save it out.

I haven't posted anything here on this forum, so I'll leave that part to someone more experienced with this board.

Good luck.

Chuckit · Aug 20, 2007, 08:52 PM

You can also just hit command-shift-3 to take a screenshot.

To post it, use a free image host like TinyPic to upload it and then copy and paste the BBCode to here.

Big Slick · Aug 21, 2007, 06:16 PM

Okay, try this link to see if this works...

I sent the tech support dudes at macsoftgames my spx file with my current config.

richwig83 · Aug 21, 2007, 06:30 PM

Might be the GFX card ram thats in some way faulty.

Big Slick · Aug 21, 2007, 07:04 PM

So...it works ok for some things, but not for others? Is there a way to check for faulty gfx ram?

Big Slick · Aug 21, 2007, 09:21 PM

I just got my dissapointing response from macsoftgmes:

"Hello,

Rise of Nations was originally designed to run on PPC based Macs, since it's release there has been a huge change in the type of hardware that Macs now come with (the biggest of which is the switch from PPC to Intel processors). We've had several other customers report similar issues with the new iMacs, and we believe that the issue lies in the Radeon HD2600 graphics cards. We are aware of these issues and are investigating solutions.

Currently we do not have any work arounds or fixes for this problem. "

now what...

- - e r i k - - · Aug 21, 2007, 09:45 PM

Let's hope they release a Universal update for it soon. Rise of Nation is a great game. (It has problems with Leopard too

)

- - e r i k - - · Aug 21, 2007, 09:57 PM

iMac Aluminum versus Others -3D Games under WinXP
iMac Aluminum versus Others

Conclusion: With the exception of WoW, the old iMacs beat the new iMacs in every test - by quite a fair amount.

What is interesting to see as a sidenote is just how amazingly optimised WoW is for Mac. It even beats out running it on Windows! (every other game is faster under Windows though).

Big Slick · Aug 21, 2007, 10:06 PM

Erik, should I infer that I should actually buy pc games (versus mac ported games) and get bootcamp and find a copy of winblows? I might have free access to an unused virgin and genuine copy of xp professional...

Chuckit · Aug 21, 2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

What is interesting to see as a sidenote is just how amazingly optimised WoW is for Mac. It even beats out running it on Windows! (every other game is faster under Windows though).

Apple's been putting a lot of work into OpenGL lately and Blizzard seems to have jumped on all the improvements ahead of most other developers. Their Mac team is really something.

- - e r i k - - · Aug 21, 2007, 10:25 PM

Well, it just goes to show that the Mac is a viable gaming platform if developers are willing to spend some time optimising for it.

Chinasaur · Aug 22, 2007, 11:33 AM

So..

I have an iMac with the X1600 chip. CD 2.0. Would the new iMac's be an upgrade, even performance, or a downgrade for me?

Thanks.

amazing · Aug 22, 2007, 12:00 PM

Big Slick: You'll probably wanna install bootcamp or VM fusion in any case, not just for the games.

The sad part is that Apple really had the opportunity to make the new iMac a better and more attractive gaming platform, and just blew it.

P · Aug 23, 2007, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Chinasaur

So..

I have an iMac with the X1600 chip. CD 2.0. Would the new iMac's be an upgrade, even performance, or a downgrade for me?

Thanks.

If it really is a Core Duo model, then it's an upgrade, because the X1600 in those was underclocked. If you mean a Core 2 Duo, the newer ones, then it is still an upgrade but not a huge one. I wouldn't upgrade now though, the difference is not big enough.

Big Slick · Aug 24, 2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by amazing

Big Slick: You'll probably wanna install bootcamp or VM fusion in any case, not just for the games.

The sad part is that Apple really had the opportunity to make the new iMac a better and more attractive gaming platform, and just blew it.

VM fusion? I've only heard of Parallels, Boot Camp, and Cross Over. What's the difference between them 'cause don't you need a copy of Windows to run them all?

BTW, after speaking to Apple regarding my non-working game, they're letting me return it (even opened and "installed"!!) I'm looking into something like Battlefield 2142 or Civ III - hopefully not the same problems.

Chuckit · Aug 24, 2007, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Big Slick

VM fusion? I've only heard of Parallels, Boot Camp, and Cross Over. What's the difference between them 'cause don't you need a copy of Windows to run them all?

VMWare Fusion and Parallels are both virtual machine programs that basically pretend to be a PC inside your Mac, which you can run Windows inside — thus allowing you to run Windows programs alongside Mac programs. Boot Camp lets you install Windows on your Mac hard drive and run it natively. CrossOver doesn't require Windows — it's a set of code libraries that try to replace Windows so Windows programs can run natively like Mac applications.

Big Slick · Aug 25, 2007, 07:14 PM

I'm going to try Civilization 4. At the moment, I don't have an internet connection for my imac (getting installed on Wed.) , so I can't download a demo. A friend of mine headed south of the border, so she may pick up a copy of it for me. I've actually never tried turn-based strategy games except for Monopoly and Game of Life on PS1...okay, okay so Monopoly isn't really a strategy game ;-)

Different publisher, so maybe this one will work on my new imac. I did see however, the reviews on this game on the apple store's game section were mostly negative. Should I be worried?

P · Aug 26, 2007, 06:47 AM

I like Civ 4. It is much better than Civ III and back to the level of Civ II, while managing to keep the le ngth of a game down to something you get through in a rainy afternoon as opposed to games that take 2 weeks. The latest patch wrecked it on my PPC iMac, but the previous version ran well enough. That is at 1440x900 on a FX 5200U, so the 2600 should eat it for lunch.