WoW on 21" iMac
Noon
settings (except for shadow, which I turn right down), giving me a fps
of about 31 in Outland ( a lot faster, obviously, on levels up to 60 in
Azeroth). I used to use an old iMac (the first LCD one, the 'iLamp') but
it's now far far too slow, even at the min settings for everything.
I'm considering buying a 21" iMac but have doubts that it'll run WoW at
the 1920 x 1280 standard settings at anything like a reasonable rate. I
appreciate the processor is 3GHz rather than the 2GHz of my Dell XPS
M1530, but the graphics card would have to be a lot better than the
NVIDIA 8600M used by the laptop. The iMac I'm considering has a
lowish-end 'ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics with 256MB', according to the
Apple web site.
I've asked in the local Apple store and, exactly as you'd expect,
they're non-commital about it.
So does anyone actually have experience of using a 20" (or even better a
new 21") iMac and can tell me what sort of fps they're getting?
Thanks
Peter Ceresole
> I'm considering buying a 21" iMac but have doubts that it'll run WoW at
> the 1920 x 1280 standard settings at anything like a reasonable rate.
As you will have seen, the 21" iMacs come in two flavours, with one of
them having a larger HD and a bubbleicious graphics card, with extra
cost to match. That one *might* do your job.
--
Peter
Noon
Thanks. That's the model I quoted, the higher end one with the 4670,
which is a pretty low end graphics card these days, perhaps chosen for
its low heat output.
Roger Merriman
gaming is one of the mac's weaknesses while it's market is better than
before, macs tend not to have powerful cards as the market for that use
is low.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
David Kennedy
The market is low because the cards are crap. The cards are crap because
the market is low...
It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it.
--
David Kennedy
David Kennedy
The market is low because the cards are crap. The cards are crap because
Peter Ceresole
> It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it.
They don't. As far as I'm concerned, it's no loss; since 3-D Monster
maze on the ZX-81, I've never found a computer game that I liked.
But I'm sure they lose a lot of sales because Macs are bad at games.
--
Peter
Roger Merriman
> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Noon<no...@noon.non> wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Ceresole wrote:
> >>> Noon<no...@noon.non> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm considering buying a 21" iMac but have doubts that it'll run WoW at
> >>>> the 1920 x 1280 standard settings at anything like a reasonable rate.
> >>>
> >>> As you will have seen, the 21" iMacs come in two flavours, with one of
> >>> them having a larger HD and a bubbleicious graphics card, with extra
> >>> cost to match. That one *might* do your job.
> >>
> >> Thanks. That's the model I quoted, the higher end one with the 4670,
> >> which is a pretty low end graphics card these days, perhaps chosen for
> >> its low heat output.
> >
> > gaming is one of the mac's weaknesses while it's market is better than
> > before, macs tend not to have powerful cards as the market for that use
> > is low.
>
> The market is low because the cards are crap. The cards are crap because
> the market is low...
yes it's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it.
becuase they can I guess?
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Roger Merriman
> David Kennedy <davidk...@nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it.
>
> They don't. As far as I'm concerned, it's no loss; since 3-D Monster
> maze on the ZX-81, I've never found a computer game that I liked.
>
i have a old though not that old game that I play for time to time but
then it's a good ten years old so laptop is quite happy playing it.
> But I'm sure they lose a lot of sales because Macs are bad at games.
I'm not sure they do, in that "gamers" rather than folk who play some
games I suspect are not that common and to apeal to them would require
some very differnet thinking by Apple.
my mate back in wales as a long time Gamer thinks that sadly (for him)
the future is consoles.
I'm not sure that the gaming PC will die out but may become less and
less.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
David Kennedy
Not only that, they're supposedly used for high end graphics, how can
that be?
Is this more Jobs stupidity? what's wrong with offering a choice?
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> David Kennedy <davidk...@nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it.
>>
>> They don't. As far as I'm concerned, it's no loss; since 3-D Monster
>> maze on the ZX-81, I've never found a computer game that I liked.
>>
>i have a old though not that old game that I play for time to time but
>then it's a good ten years old so laptop is quite happy playing it.
The current low-end nVidia 9400 Macs will play the latest Half-Life
installment at 1920x1200 and one-off-highest settings.
World of Warcraft is a curious one, it's *really* hard on graphics
cards for what it does. No idea why. But still, the 4650 at 1920x1200
should be perfectly playable on pretty high gfx settings if not full.
Turning the shadows down is the biggest frame-rate win.
>> But I'm sure they lose a lot of sales because Macs are bad at games.
>
>I'm not sure they do, in that "gamers" rather than folk who play some
>games I suspect are not that common and to apeal to them would require
>some very differnet thinking by Apple.
There's not that many of them. The hardcore gamer market is better
served by Xbox/PS3 and their very functional online multiplayer
matching, and console titles are far more lucrative because people by
and large have to buy them rather than steal them.
>my mate back in wales as a long time Gamer thinks that sadly (for him)
>the future is consoles.
Yup. I switched (currently Wii, PS2 and Xbox360) three years ago. I do
still use Windows for gaming (and VMware Fusion 3's 3D Windows support
is fantastic) for stuff I can't play anywhere else. Tales of Monkey
Island currently; if I waited I could play that on the Wii too.
>I'm not sure that the gaming PC will die out but may become less and
>less.
The main thing for me was that every time you wanted to play a game it
took an hour of faffing about downloading updates to the game that
required updates to the video card drivers. Three reboots later and
you're out of game-playing time.
Consoles, you put a game in and you play. Well, that's the Wii. The
PS3 can spend up to an hour installing a new game to the internal hard
drive. The Xbox, amazingly, only takes a few minutes to do the same
process for the same game.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Beer has food value, but food has no beer value.
Pd
> Consoles, you put a game in and you play. Well, that's the Wii. The
> PS3 can spend up to an hour installing a new game to the internal hard
> drive. The Xbox, amazingly, only takes a few minutes to do the same
> process for the same game.
Xbox seems to exist in a strange little eddy of competence and coolness
at Microsoft. Their games are cool, their ads are cool, and generally
they seem to have avoided the klunky mediocrity that is the rest of MS.
--
Pd
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<davidk...@nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote:
>Peter Ceresole wrote:
>> David Kennedy<davidk...@nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> It's bollocks anyway. I've never understood how they can get away with it.
>>
>> They don't. As far as I'm concerned, it's no loss; since 3-D Monster
>> maze on the ZX-81, I've never found a computer game that I liked.
>>
>> But I'm sure they lose a lot of sales because Macs are bad at games.
>
>Not only that, they're supposedly used for high end graphics, how can
>that be?
1) Games are far, far, far more demanding of the graphics hardware
than photo/video manipulation.
This may change over the next few years as openCL and CPU/gpGPU
convergence continues, but not yet.
>Is this more Jobs stupidity? what's wrong with offering a choice?
2) The 4670, while not a top-end video card, is quite sufficient for
98% of games out there.
3) The 9400, while not even a mid-range video card, is quite
sufficient for 95% of games out there. Really. Even the GMAX3100 will
handle 93% of them. Most people play Peggle or The Sims, not Call of
Duty - Modern Warfare 2.
4) Top-end video cards are expensive (not a major problem) and bloody
hot (problem). We're talking up to 350 watts dissipation here, for
maybe a 50% faster frame rate than an 80W part.
5) Most games are for Windows anyway, further cutting into the
cost-benefit analysis that all the necessary design, parts, driver
testing and warehousing says make it not worthwhile. Mac releases of
cross-platform games tend to be either much later, somewhat crappy
"cider" ports using WINE technology and all its limitations,
particularly graphical (dx9) and audio (stereo). Or both.
When Macs get up to 20% market penetration, I suspect there'll be more
higher-gfx SKU/BTOs on offer. And more interest from the game
industry, too - the ROI is lousy for Mac ports of flagship games
currently.
Yes, I do pay attention to the industry and its economics...
Cheers - Jaimie
--
The physics and scientific approach of Armageddon was criticized for its
poor adherence to the laws of physics. This has led NASA to show the
film as part of its management training program. Prospective managers
are asked to find as many inaccuracies in the movie as they can.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
It is very odd, but in a good way.
They do get some taint - a GUI makeover this time last year has made
the not-in-a-game-yet UI much harder to navigate. Xbox's Vista, I
suppose. But generally, they Just Work (until you get the red ring of
death, of course!).
The major source of pus is the 26 year old (going on 12yo) Halo3
fanboys calling everyone gay. And that's a lot easier to avoid than
all the pus built into Windows.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Whilst holidaying with the sprogs and watching Favourite Teddy Bear
trundling through the x-ray, I speculated on the fun that could be had
with a teddy bear containing a radio-opaque teddy-bear skeleton.
- K, asr
Ben Shimmin
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems>
b. --[happy PS3 owner; never had to wait an hour to install a game, but
I only own three; also like being able to watch Blu-Ray films...]
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Property, marriage, the law; as the bed to the river, so rule
and convention to the instinct; and woe to him who tampers with
the banks while the flood is flowing.' -- Samuel Butler, _Erewhon_
zoara
RROD?
-z-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
Pd
> > Xbox seems to exist in a strange little eddy of competence and
> > coolness at Microsoft. Their games are cool, their ads are cool, and
> > generally they seem to have avoided the klunky mediocrity that is the
> > rest of MS.
>
> RROD?
Hey, I didn't say anything about reliability.
--
Pd
zoara
Cool but broken?
(actually, I agree, but am amazed they have remained the "cool choice"
despite some terrible reliability issues)
-zoara-
Ben Shimmin
Terrible reliability and also this:
<URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8356621.stm>
Really, the PS3 seems like the thinking man's choice.
b.
Woody
> zoara <me...@privacy.net>:
> > Pd <peter...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> > > Xbox seems to exist in a strange little eddy of competence and
> >> > > coolness at Microsoft. Their games are cool, their ads are cool,
> >> > > and generally they seem to have avoided the klunky mediocrity that
> >> > > is the rest of MS.
> >> >
> >> > RROD?
> >>
> >> Hey, I didn't say anything about reliability.
> >
> > Cool but broken?
> >
> > (actually, I agree, but am amazed they have remained the "cool choice"
> > despite some terrible reliability issues)
>
> Terrible reliability and also this:
>
> <URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8356621.stm>
>
> Really, the PS3 seems like the thinking man's choice.
Speaking as someone with neither, or that much of an interest in
consoles in general, why?
If I look I see a large number of PS3s failing too, the thing you quote
above probably wont affect most people unless they hack their console
and the console seems to be generally twice the price.
Why is it the 'thinking mans' choice (of the console world)?
--
Woody
Ben Shimmin
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Really, the PS3 seems like the thinking man's choice.
>
> Speaking as someone with neither, or that much of an interest in
> consoles in general, why?
>
> If I look I see a large number of PS3s failing too, the thing you quote
> above probably wont affect most people unless they hack their console
> and the console seems to be generally twice the price.
>
> Why is it the 'thinking mans' choice (of the console world)?
I think I was being at least a little facetious (I don't really equate
games consoles with `thinking'), but, for me at least, there are some
very obvious advantages to the PS3 over the Xbox 360, the most important
of which is that the PS3 has a Blu-Ray drive and works very well as a
Blu-Ray player; that was, in fact, my main reason for buying one.
Another advantage of the PS3 is gigabit ethernet, which is fairly handy
for streaming media over a network -- my secondary reason for buying
a PS3. (You can also do this with the Xbox 360, of course.)
The PS3 also has a built-in web browser, which gives you access to
iPlayer in a fairly convenient way.
Lastly, in terms of games, there are at least a few titles available
exclusively for the PS3 (Infamous and Metal Gear Solid 4 spring to mind).
The converse is probably true as well, though. (Not really an important
factor for me.)
I would also say that the PS3 is hardly `twice the price' -- the PS3 Slim
seems to be about 50GBP more expensive (though it's a bit hard to tell
since most shops bundle games with them).
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk>:
> > Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Really, the PS3 seems like the thinking man's choice.
> >
> > Speaking as someone with neither, or that much of an interest in
> > consoles in general, why?
> >
> > If I look I see a large number of PS3s failing too, the thing you quote
> > above probably wont affect most people unless they hack their console
> > and the console seems to be generally twice the price.
> >
> > Why is it the 'thinking mans' choice (of the console world)?
>
> I think I was being at least a little facetious (I don't really equate
> games consoles with `thinking')
That is why I added (of the console world)!
> but, for me at least, there are some
> very obvious advantages to the PS3 over the Xbox 360, the most important
> of which is that the PS3 has a Blu-Ray drive and works very well as a
> Blu-Ray player; that was, in fact, my main reason for buying one.
ok
> Another advantage of the PS3 is gigabit ethernet, which is fairly handy
> for streaming media over a network -- my secondary reason for buying
> a PS3. (You can also do this with the Xbox 360, of course.)
I guess it is an advantage if your computer is near the game, or you
have a home gigabit network switch.
Having said that, with streaming media is there an advantage to gigabit
ethernet over 100baseT? I can stream media to my blueray player at full
resolution, so I can't see what the gigabit would give me extra.
> The PS3 also has a built-in web browser, which gives you access to
> iPlayer in a fairly convenient way.
ok, I guess if you are laptopless that is an advantage, or want to see
it on the telly.
Doesn't the XBox do this? I know the Wii now does.
> Lastly, in terms of games, there are at least a few titles available
> exclusively for the PS3 (Infamous and Metal Gear Solid 4 spring to mind).
> The converse is probably true as well, though. (Not really an important
> factor for me.)
>
> I would also say that the PS3 is hardly `twice the price' -- the PS3 Slim
> seems to be about 50GBP more expensive (though it's a bit hard to tell
> since most shops bundle games with them).
Well, I don't know, as I don't follow consoles, but if I look at a the
first website I think of (game, as I was in there today), if I look
under consoles it says:
XBox360 bundles from �139
Sony PS3 bundles from �249
which seems quite a bit of a difference to me. As I say, I don't know
what the real price required is, but as a consumer what I see is almost
twice the price, and I doubt there is a bias there as I doubt game care
what they sell.
--
Woody
Ben Shimmin
[snip Blu-Ray]
>> Another advantage of the PS3 is gigabit ethernet, which is fairly handy
>> for streaming media over a network -- my secondary reason for buying
>> a PS3. (You can also do this with the Xbox 360, of course.)
>
> I guess it is an advantage if your computer is near the game, or you
> have a home gigabit network switch.
> Having said that, with streaming media is there an advantage to gigabit
> ethernet over 100baseT? I can stream media to my blueray player at full
> resolution, so I can't see what the gigabit would give me extra.
Perhaps you're right. I like to stick to gigabet ethernet or wireless N
where possible these days. :)
>> The PS3 also has a built-in web browser, which gives you access to
>> iPlayer in a fairly convenient way.
>
> ok, I guess if you are laptopless that is an advantage, or want to see
> it on the telly.
> Doesn't the XBox do this? I know the Wii now does.
The Xbox 360 doesn't have a web browser, so it can't do iPlayer. I think
you can probably download the files from iPlayer on your computer and
stream them, but that's hardly as convenient.
I don't use iPlayer on my computer at all now; watching TV on my TV
makes more sense.
>> Lastly, in terms of games, there are at least a few titles available
>> exclusively for the PS3 (Infamous and Metal Gear Solid 4 spring to mind).
>> The converse is probably true as well, though. (Not really an important
>> factor for me.)
>>
>> I would also say that the PS3 is hardly `twice the price' -- the PS3 Slim
>> seems to be about 50GBP more expensive (though it's a bit hard to tell
>> since most shops bundle games with them).
>
> Well, I don't know, as I don't follow consoles, but if I look at a the
> first website I think of (game, as I was in there today), if I look
> under consoles it says:
>
> XBox360 bundles from ?139
> Sony PS3 bundles from ?249
>
> which seems quite a bit of a difference to me. As I say, I don't know
> what the real price required is, but as a consumer what I see is almost
> twice the price, and I doubt there is a bias there as I doubt game care
> what they sell.
Hmm, I had a look on Game's web site, and found this page:
<URL:http://www.game.co.uk/Consoles/Xbox-360/_/N-1z13fvgZ1z13mmv/>
It seems like there are a few different models of the Xbox 360, and that
the cheapest one, Arcade, does retail for quite a bit less; however,
Wikipedia tells me this one lacks a hard disc (and it looks a bit naff).
It seems a little more fair to compare the Elite model, which is closer
in price and features to the PS3.
For me, the PlayStation 3 has been a revelation -- I get a really
decent Blu-Ray player, a games console with some great games (which I
struggle to find the time to play), and a media centre capable of
effortlessly streaming music, video, and photos from my Mac or from an
attached hard disc. There's no other single device on the market which
can do all of that, to the best of my knowledge.
Colin Robinson
> So does anyone actually have experience of using a 20" (or even better a
> new 21") iMac and can tell me what sort of fps they're getting?
Currently playing WoW on a 24" 3.06 GHz with 2 GB memory using 10.6.2
and getting 30-60fps with Video Effects settings at Ultra.
Need to get me some more memory as it can drop below that, especially
if I've got other apps open.
Regards,
Colin R.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>zoara <me...@privacy.net>:
>> Pd <peter...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> > > Xbox seems to exist in a strange little eddy of competence and
>>> > > coolness at Microsoft. Their games are cool, their ads are cool,
>>> > > and generally they seem to have avoided the klunky mediocrity that
>>> > > is the rest of MS.
>>> >
>>> > RROD?
>>>
>>> Hey, I didn't say anything about reliability.
>>
>> Cool but broken?
>>
>> (actually, I agree, but am amazed they have remained the "cool choice"
>> despite some terrible reliability issues)
>
>Terrible reliability and also this:
>
> <URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8356621.stm>
>
>Really, the PS3 seems like the thinking man's choice.
Except for people who want to play a wide range of games.
There's about two games I'd like to play on the PS3, which I can't
play on kit I already had. The other two consoles have vast lists of
interesting exclusives.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"How do you like your blue-eyed boy now, Mr Death?" - e e cummings/Tom Baker