Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

amanmann · Aug 12, 2007, 08:01 PM

I'm an occasional gamer and i own a Macbook ( i know not the best mac to play games on). So i have decided to upgrade to either a MBP or get the new iMac (both base models). I was wondering as to which one would preform better for gaming (COD3, UT2004 etc ).
From the bench results I see the ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT in the new iMac isn't as good as the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT in the MBP but would a faster HDD in the iMac compensate for that as much or not ..

For me the portability isn't an issue.. i just need a good gaming experience from a mac ... and no i can't afford a Mac Pro.
Appreciate your views on this.

Big Mac · Aug 12, 2007, 08:09 PM

I don't think the faster hard drive would help much at all. But are you sure the MBP's GPU is that much better given that it's the mobile variant?

bballe336 · Aug 12, 2007, 08:13 PM

The MBP will get better frame rates. The ati cards are a total disapointment, the $400 ati 2600xt is slower than the $120 8600gt. The mobile card in the MBP will still be faster than the card in the imac.

amanmann · Aug 14, 2007, 12:40 AM

Thanks for your replies... I think i would get a MBP and plus no upgrades likely for some time so is pretty safe to grab one .. Just one more concern i have ... i checked them out at my local store and i still could see the grain in the screen (both matte & gloss). Was wondering was it just me or is it still very much there ?

bballe336 · Aug 14, 2007, 12:56 AM

I have no issues with grain on the screen. It looks very crisp to me. You can always set a new colorsync profile to try to correct issues you have with the screen.

Simon · 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by bballe336

The mobile card in the MBP will still be faster than the card in the imac.

In what apps? I mean have you seen benchmarks comparing the 8600M GT (the "M" is important here - the non-mobile 8600 is a different GPU!) and the HD 2600 PRO or HD 2400 XT under OS X? I'm still trying to find some. If you have a link I'd appreciate it.

Simon · Aug 15, 2007, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

I mean have you seen benchmarks comparing the 8600M GT (the "M" is important here - the non-mobile 8600 is a different GPU!) and the HD 2600 PRO or HD 2400 XT under OS X? I'm still trying to find some.

Nice coincidence. A few hours after I posted that BareFeats published these benchmarks:

This is an HD 2600 PRO running on a 2.8 GHz iMac. It can barely hold up to the old 7300GT. The 8600M (running on a 2.4 GHz MBP) beats it in 3 out of 4 tests - in two actually by quite a margin. Against the previous 7600GT it hasn't even got the slightest chance. What a shame. At the very least there should have been a BTO option for the HD 2600 XT. Putting an 8600 in the iMac would have been even better.

amanmann · Aug 15, 2007, 05:41 PM

Thanks for the benchmarks Simon.. They are really helpful.. Is that R1900 or X1900 on mac pro ? It really kicks a**. Yeah disappointing upgrade for the iMac.

Simon · Aug 16, 2007, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by amanmann

Is that R1900 or X1900 on mac pro ?

It's a Mac Pro 3GHz with Radeon X1900 XT.

It really kicks a**. Yeah disappointing upgrade for the iMac.

The X1900 XT was a very nice GPU. Anybody only slightly interested in GPU performance should have gotten it over the 7300 on the MP. It's a real shame ATI goofed up on the HD 2600 series. It appears NVIDIA has really taken the lead with the new GeForce models. I've seen benchmarks showing their card performing better than the 2600 at a third of the price.

Super Mario · 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

The X1900 XT was a very nice GPU. Anybody only slightly interested in GPU performance should have gotten it over the 7300 on the MP. It's a real shame ATI goofed up on the HD 2600 series. It appears NVIDIA has really taken the lead with the new GeForce models. I've seen benchmarks showing their card performing better than the 2600 at a third of the price.

Not so fast, Simon. The latest 3D benchmarks on Barefeats at 1920x1200 resolution are not bad at all and application performance is really up there with the top Mac Pro.

The iMac and the HD 2600 is faster under Windows (always going to have better GPU drivers) than OS X and holds up very well against the Geforce 7600 at highest resolutions (ok so faster CPU but these are GPU intensive)

Against 3Ghz Mac Pros with 1900XT and Quadro FX 5400.

Simon · 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Super Mario

Not so fast, Simon. The latest 3D benchmarks on Barefeats at 1920x1200 resolution are not bad at all and application performance is really up there with the top Mac Pro.

I've seen those benchmarks and I'm not doubting them, but I was trying to make another point.

IMHO the point is that the fairly new 2600 can barely hold up to the older 7600. An 8600 GT(S) however will destroy a 2600 PRO. Heck even the mobile 8600M in the slower MBP beat the faster iMac with its 2600.

If anything you'd have to take a 2900 to match the 8600 from NVIDIA - and let's not even talk about the 8800.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7533

And then keep in mind that the X1900 outperformed the 7600 a year ago.

The successor series has trouble doing that now. I'm not saying ATI is a lost case and the 2600 certainly isn't a horrible GPU, but it appears NVIDIA has definitely taken over the lead now.

Super Mario · 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

The successor series has trouble doing that now. I'm not saying ATI is a lost case and the 2600 certainly isn't a horrible GPU, but it appears NVIDIA has definitely taken over the lead now.

I'm not disputing that. I'm an Nvidia man all the way from back when I was building my own PCs. But the HD2600 in the iMac scales well at the highest resolution (for an all-in-one machine) and from the looks of it is beating the 1900XT in the 4 core Mac Pro in the Cinebench Fly By and Core Image test. Both are ATI cards. That's plenty good performance for the iMac. It's also Direct X 10 so it can offer a little something else the old Nvidia card doesn't.

{329}qwerty · 06:24 PM

ati is having driver issus but it will(and has) been geting better, the hd 2900 isnt even in 65 nm yet!(its in the old 90 nm like the x1900) when the hd 2950(which will be in 65nm and will run cooler and faster and smaller) the 8800 gtx will have a run for its money(its already faster then the 8800 gts) and the 2950 xtx? haha, thats goona be in 8800 ultra house and id like to see what happens then.

the ati 2000x series is ALOT better in higher resolution because its got a faster memory bus(which is why it uses the cheaper gddr2 ram)

uh, no im pretty sure the 2600 PRO costs $100, bt i could be wrong(i dought the 8600 cost $30...

Originally Posted by {329}qwerty

uh, no im pretty sure the 2600 PRO costs $100, bt i could be wrong(i dought the 8600 cost $30...

my bad, its $179

and the 8600 gt costs $129 so its not that much cheaper but you must realize that the ati drivers work, bu they work slowly wait a month or so, youl see.

OMG, OMFG! the hd 2600 x2 came out! it has 2 gpu cores!!!!!!!!!!! its as fast as the hd 2900 xt but costs $279! omg omg omg!!!!!!!!

haha 2 hd 2600 x2(4 core gpus setup! woot woot!) would smack the crap out of the 8800 ultra hands down!

mduell · Sep 9, 2007, 06:09 PM

HD2900XT, with it's higher core clock, higher memory clock, and more memory, doesn't even beat the 8800GTS. ATi has a long way to go before they're competing with the 8800GTX or Ultra, and of course nVidia is also do for a release soon.

The HD2600 X2 has been announced at $270ish, and it might catch up with a single $250 8800GTS.

Please stick to one big post instead of 7 small ones. I've reported your posts to the mods for cleanup.