[genevish]

I have heard that there may be a small delay in the monitor when playing FPS games like Q3A, making it a less than ideal gaming machine. Can anyone who has one and has played an FPS game on it give me some info on this?

Thanks,

-Scott

[seanyepez]

There's noticible lag when you're playing FPS games. However, for casual gaming, it isn't terrible. The graphics chipset is actually decent; with high-quality graphics settings, you can get about 50-60 frames per second. With a very basic, utilitarian configuration, you can get a sustained 125 frames per seconnd framerate, the ideal framerate for movement.

Granted, it will not compete with PC gaming rigs at LAN parties. I prefer gaming on my Athlon setup with a 19-inch flat CRT monitor. However, for casual LAN's where everyone is playing for fun, the iMac is perfect. In fact, I once walked a mile and a half with my iMac quite literally on my head to my friend's house for a small LAN party.

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: seanyepez ]

[seanyepez]

The "lag" you speak of is better described as "ghosting". There isn't a second or two before shots fire, but there is "ghosting" when the image changes. In fact, I find playing games on the iMac a pleasure with a three-button mouse. The scroll wheel and second mouse button work perfectly without any additional drivers. Quake automatically disables Mac OS X's mouse accelleration, too!

[seanyepez]

The "lag" you speak of is better described as "ghosting". There isn't a second or two before shots fire, but there is "ghosting" when the image changes. In fact, I find playing games on the iMac a pleasure with a three-button mouse. The scroll wheel and second mouse button work perfectly without any additional drivers. Quake automatically disables Mac OS X's mouse accelleration, too!

[genevish]

Thanks. I found some other threads about this as well. Opinion seems mixed, but generally follows your feeling. "It's good, but not the absolute best". It will definatley be better than the 15fps I get with my G3-350 now...



-Scott

[Mac Zealot]

I've done basic tests with the imac's speed and such in quake 3, and the movement seems to be rather good. Though in most cases it all depends who's behind the computer, the imac did very well.

If you want to use the computer for STRICT gaming, the imac is not for you, nor is it if you sit and play quake 3 more than 5 hours a day. (This is where you need one of those h4x0r rigs.)

I use my dp800 for gaming, and actually decided to test how the cinema display lagged vs my trinitron.... amazingly, there was barely any difference!!! (the cinema felt a little sharper at times when in high speed movement)... the trinitron seemed to lag more on really (and I mean) really fast movement where as the cinema display kept up better (believe me this is just weird)

Note: I didn't use a cheap trinitron either, more or less the one that cost us $800 a few years back

still, LCD lag isn't so bad, as I've found, it just feels different than on a CRT, both lag however.

One reason I prefer LCD in this argument is for PRO setups, you can have a nice big set of speakers on either side, you can put a sub behind it ,etc, and it still provides lots of room, no humming, no refresh problems (much easier on the eyes), etc, but this mainly depends on the user.

For good gaming, casual gaming, as sean calls it, the imac is a great machine, it's just lowly regarded by POWER users who must have 200+ fps to maintain their ego.

[seanyepez]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
<STRONG>For good gaming, casual gaming, as sean calls it, the imac is a great machine, it's just lowly regarded by POWER users who must have 200+ fps to maintain their ego.</STRONG>

To maintain my ego?

It's to have an unfair advantage over lower-performing teams in matches. And by the way, it's 667 frames per second. Quake III maxes out there; I've tried with faster hardware than my 1-gigahertz AMD Athlon Thunderbird with its GeForce3, and all machines max out at 667 frames per second. Even my Athlon XP's with GeForce4's don't go any higher.

[Mac Zealot]

Originally posted by seanyepez:
<STRONG>

To maintain my ego?

It's to have an unfair advantage over lower-performing teams in matches. And by the way, it's 667 frames per second. Quake III maxes out there; I've tried with faster hardware than my 1-gigahertz AMD Athlon Thunderbird with its GeForce3, and all machines max out at 667 frames per second. Even my Athlon XP's with GeForce4's don't go any higher. </STRONG>

Well, if a super-powerful athlon came out with double the RC5 power of the dp1ghz g4, and a super geforce 5 came out, and I got them and made you look silly with your three digit fps rates (while i'd have 4), your ego would go right down the drain right? You'd feel all sad and then go and get the next more powerful rig than that