[hldan]

I started this thread because there is so much negative talk in regards to the ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro card in the new iMac. I just ordered the Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz model, hasn't shipped yet. As soon as I get it I am reporting Quake 4 results.
I am asking for any gamers out here who have the new iMac please report real world results from YOUR use and not Bare Feats or other performance testing websites. I read from Ars Technica that Apple's drivers for this card are really good and gaming performance should be good.
Report some results gamers.

[mduell]

The performance should be acceptable for yesterday's games (Quake 4 is two years old) as long as you're playing at lower resolutions, but it's still slower than the last generation which is the reason for most of the disappointment.

Originally Posted by hldan 

I read from Ars Technica that Apple's drivers for this card are really good and gaming performance should be good.

Do you have a link for that? I'm surprised that any staffer at Ars would make such a comment, given the current benchmarks and historical Mac driver performance.

[Grrr]

UT2004 (3 years old, granted, but still quite demanding none the less)
Instant bot games are generally well over 100fps. Often 300fps and occasionally nudging 400fps.
Online games, im yet to see less than 50fps, and its generally maxed at the capped limit of 88fps most of the time. And thats with maxed graphics settings.
More than acceptable I think.

Also tried some other demos and flight sims etc, and those too performed well. But not had the mac long enough for more exhaustive testing.

Graphics performance is good enough I find. More of a concern to me is the graphics system crying enough after a few minutes hard use, and locking up the Mac. But for now i'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and assume/hope that this will soon be fixed in a software update.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The performance should be acceptable for yesterday's games (Quake 4 is two years old) as long as you're playing at lower resolutions, but it's still slower than the last generation which is the reason for most of the disappointment.



Do you have a link for that? I'm surprised that any staffer at Ars would make such a comment, given the current benchmarks and historical Mac driver performance.

Here's the Ars article. They did a full review of the iMac 20" 2.4 and did bench tests against the Mac Pro, the SR MBP and the older 17" iMac. The 20" 2.4 came out ahead in nearly every test except certain areas where the Mac Pro had the speed advantage due to being a quad core.
Aluminum and glass: A review of the new iMac: Page 1

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Grrr 

UT2004 (3 years old, granted, but still quite demanding none the less)
Instant bot games are generally well over 100fps. Often 300fps and occasionally nudging 400fps.
Online games, im yet to see less than 50fps, and its generally maxed at the capped limit of 88fps most of the time. And thats with maxed graphics settings.
More than acceptable I think.

What resolution/texture level?

Originally Posted by hldan 

Here's the Ars article. They did a full review of the iMac 20" 2.4 and did bench tests against the Mac Pro, the SR MBP and the older 17" iMac. The 20" 2.4 came out ahead in nearly every test except certain areas where the Mac Pro had the speed advantage due to being a quad core.
Aluminum and glass: A review of the new iMac: Page 1

I don't see any gaming benchmarking or even non-synthetic GPU benchmarking in that article.

[Grrr]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What resolution/texture level?

1680 X 1050, 32 bit, full screen. All textures and details at max plus all the other graphics hoopla enabled. Holy Sh!t settings in other words.