how's the iMac for gaming?

[Dlatu1983]

I don't really know a THING about Mac gaming. I'm getting rid of my current LCD iMac, and getting the 800mhz/superdrive model. The graphics card is the 32mb model, vs the more expensive 64mb in the 17". Is this machine sufficient for gaming, and moreover, will it keep me going for 2 or 3 years, assuming I max out the RAM? My old 500 mhz icebook used to run THPS2 fine with 128 mb of RAM (granted, it was in OS 9), but my 700 mhz G4 iMac can't run the Return To Castle Wolfenstein demo at more than 10 fps. I don't wanna get stuck with a piece of crap. Suggestions? Opinions? Thanks:)

[Arden]

BTW, what is THPS2?

If you really want a gaming machine, buy a G4 tower (they start at 1 Ghz, lots of power) and customize it with a GeForce 4 Ti and lots of RAM. The 700 Mhz iMac isn't crap by any means, but it is not the ideal game machine. I really don't know how much better off you will be with the 800 Mhz model (does it have 64 MB VRAM? What about the 700 Mhz model? Be specific).

[mkwan]

well, don't get rid of the SoundSticks...they rock!

[Dlatu1983]

THPS2 = Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2. And yes, I LOVE my soundsticks. I like the iMac, and I rarely game on it, but I just want it to mess around with. For that matter, I have an eyeTV, and it has audio & video in ports on the back, to hook up an external DVD player or a VCR. Can I simply hook a console up to that, and play the games on my iMac LCD? I'm by no means a serious gamer, but I really take this "digital hub" thing seriously, and try to use my iMac for EVERTHING;) By the way, it has 32 VRAM, the 17" has 64..

[hulkaros]

Originally posted by Dlatu1983
I don't really know a THING about Mac gaming. I'm getting rid of my current LCD iMac, and getting the 800mhz/superdrive model. The graphics card is the 32mb model, vs the more expensive 64mb in the 17". Is this machine sufficient for gaming, and moreover, will it keep me going for 2 or 3 years, assuming I max out the RAM? My old 500 mhz icebook used to run THPS2 fine with 128 mb of RAM (granted, it was in OS 9), but my 700 mhz G4 iMac can't run the Return To Castle Wolfenstein demo at more than 10 fps. I don't wanna get stuck with a piece of crap. Suggestions? Opinions? Thanks:)

For games you should better buy at least a Mac running at 1GHz be it iMac, PowerBook or PowerMac AND with 64 MB of VRAM of course...

The safest bet of all is to buy a PowerMac which will be easily upgrade to almost anything you may need in the years ahead...

Still, for games, I would buy a console or two :rolleyes: or even a Wintel :p

But if you want a Mac anyways, PowerMac is the way to go without ANY doubts because Doom 3 is uppon us :D

;)

:)

[Racer D]

my 700mhz iMac handles RTCW very well (settings somewhere medium-high, runs smooth)
I dunno if it's the demo or something you might be missing?

I also play medal of honor, tony hawk's pro skater 3, max payne & unreal tournament 2003 (all but UT2k3 run very smooth, ut2k3 at about 15-20fps)

[Arden]

It really is unreasonable to release games that require new hardware to run. Either people will try to make do with what they currently own, or they will give up the game. You really shouldn't have too many problems running RTCW on a 700 Mhz iMac with 32 MB VRAM because this computer is only a year or so old, right? Therefore you may have some optimization to do.

[dlloyd]

I ran it on my 800 MHz iBook for a while, it seemed fine to me! :)
On the other hand, I don't see the reason for 200+ FPS or whatever. I think anything better than about 15-20 is great! (this carries over from my years of Flight Simulator on my Dad's old PC. We have a new one now, WOW, it is so much smoother! :D)

[Dlatu1983]

Well, I'd like to go with a powermac, but I'm deadset on another LCD, and being 20 (and considering that I'm selling my iMac for $1250), there's no way that I can pony up the price of admission. I can't afford it. Even if I buy a sawtooth, like a G4/450, I still need at least a 60gb HD, I need a new graphics card, more RAM, a processor upgrade, an an optical drive upgrade (superdrive), not to mention that cinema display....there's no WAY. Wish there were though, that'd be sweet. Should I just save up for a few weeks, and get a 1ghz iMac with 64 VRAM, and then slap a gigabyte or RAM into it?

[Arden]

dlloyd: Imagine, if you could get 250 fps at 640x480. Increase the resolution to 800x600, and you get perhaps 200 fps. At 1024x768, you have 150 fps, and so on. Basically, more frames means you can turn on additional graphic features with less impact on playability.

[Racer D]

arden: I think he was talking a bout people that gop bragging around "whoa my computer can do 200fps in rtcw" and stuff. and their crt's refresh rates are usually ~60 :D

[dlloyd]

Thanks Racer! :)
I mean 15-20 FPS with everything maxed out.

[a2daj]

Also, the faster your computer can process the graphics, then the faster it can process other aspects of the game such as physics, ai, sound, and especially input. The higher the framerate, the more accurate you can be with input. Try aiming with a game that averates 15-20 fps and a similar game (or the same game on a faster machine) that averages more than 60 fps. Input tracking is usually much improved.

[dlloyd]

Ok, I'll have to take your word on it :) I don't have a game like that to test it on anymore.

[Arden]

Well, if you still have it, try RTCW on your computer (at 15-20 fps) and try it on someone else's PC (perhaps at much higher). Believe me, higher fps is practically necessary for some games.

[dlloyd]

I don't have it :(
I was 'borrowing' it and when my computer crashed, I lost it all.
I don't know any PC gamers. :(

[wyvern]

The iMac is pretty bad for gaming. You'd be much better off buying a Power Mac G4. For one thing, the graphics card is easily upgreadeable in those things, though it doesn't really matter: the CPU and bus are so underpowered that they're not maxing out the card anyway. Nonetheless, a PowerMac will give you significantly better performance. Try and get a dual proc as well. Several high-profile games actively take advantage of it, and all games will show a passive benefit.

[ex2bot]

I think the 17" 1gHz iMac would be a pretty decent game machine, at least for a couple years. 64 megs gfx memory is pretty good, along with the 1gHz G4 with 133 mHz bus.

I have the older 800 mHz model (17"), and I'm a BIG fan of the 17" widescreen monitor. It is _amazing_.

I'm playing Medal Of Honor, which is fluid at medium-high graphic detail and full resolution. Ghost Recon is not as great, but still fluid at medium detail/res.

I have also played the demos of Jedi Knight, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Warcraft III using custom settings to take advantage of the full resolution and wide aspect of the display. AMAZING!

That extra horizantal screen real estate adds to the fun of first person shooters, especially.

Doug

P.S. I'd love to have a Power Mac, but I still think the new 17" iMac is a decent game machine.

[Arden]

So do you get extra viewing space on either side than you do on a normal 4:3 monitor?