[VCool]

Hi, was seriously considering the new $1199 Imac. After seeing the poor performance results of the call of duty test, caused me to wonder a bit. I'm not a major gamer, but I don't like the idea of paying that kind of money for something and then end up being disappointed later if I need the better graphics performance for something. So, my question then is if I were to be disappointed later, would expanding the Ram in the Imac fix that problem?

Thanks much

[macnuke]

VCool, on 04 November 2009 - 03:12 PM, said:

Hi, was seriously considering the new $1199 Imac. After seeing the poor performance results of the call of duty test, caused me to wonder a bit. I'm not a major gamer, but I don't like the idea of paying that kind of money for something and then end up being disappointed later if I need the better graphics performance for something. So, my question then is if I were to be disappointed later, would expanding the Ram in the Imac fix that problem?

Thanks much

normally, Real Ram Rules.
unfortunately, most of the games now a days uses more GPU than CPU.
you will get a little benefit as you will have more stored in RAM instead of being virtualized.

my opine....
either buy a unit with the highest performing graphics you can get and be happy, or buy something you can upgrade the video card.
unfortunately for most, it's the Mac Pro only at this point for a removable vid card.

if you really want to game srsly, get a PC you can mac ghe vid card in.
of you are casual as you say, then it shouldn't hold you back with a Mac.

[Typhoon14]

VCool, on 04 November 2009 - 02:12 PM, said:

Hi, was seriously considering the new $1199 Imac. After seeing the poor performance results of the call of duty test, caused me to wonder a bit. I'm not a major gamer, but I don't like the idea of paying that kind of money for something and then end up being disappointed later if I need the better graphics performance for something. So, my question then is if I were to be disappointed later, would expanding the Ram in the Imac fix that problem?

Thanks much

Are you talking about the benchmarks here?. A framerate in the mid-70s for a fairly demanding game is hardly what I would call poor performance.

Here is something else to keep in mind: Game performance tends to be a lot worse on the Mac OS compared to Windows. Not sure why exactly. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that most games are developed for Microsoft's DirectX and later ported to OpenGL for the mac versions. In any case, if you're worried about gaming performance, I would just install and run Windows on another partition for when you get the gaming urge. The games are cheaper (much cheaper. games going new for $10-$20 often cost $50-$60 for the Mac version), more plentiful, and generally run a lot better.

[VCool]

Are you talking about the benchmarks here?. A framerate in the mid-70s for a fairly demanding game is hardly what I would call poor performance.

Actually, I was talking about the new benchmarks here:

http://www.macworld....html?lsrc=top_1

The base 21.5 inch Imac got a framerate of 21.9.

But, I'm still curious about whether adding more Ram would make the speed more like one that has dedicated graphics memory.

Thanks

[Typhoon14]

VCool, on 05 November 2009 - 05:59 PM, said:

Are you talking about the benchmarks here?. A framerate in the mid-70s for a fairly demanding game is hardly what I would call poor performance.

Actually, I was talking about the new benchmarks here:

http://www.macworld....html?lsrc=top_1

The base 21.5 inch Imac got a framerate of 21.9.

But, I'm still curious about whether adding more Ram would make the speed more like one that has dedicated graphics memory.

Thanks

Oh, well that's because, as you've noticed, the base model has an integrated graphics processor. Integrated processors these days are getting pretty good, but they are still pretty useless for gaming. Notice how the model with dedicated graphics gets a framerate about 3 1/2 times as high as the one with the integrated Nvidia chip. More RAM isn't going to do much except possibly decrease loading times. standard RAM is not as fast for video functions as dedicated VRAM, and the integrated GPU just isn't very powerful when it comes to 3D. Integrated cards tend to be much better optimized for 2D performance (so one can, for example, watch a hi-definition video without stuttering).

Really, if gaming is important to you, you can't skimp on the GPU. There's no way around that.

[VCool]

So, 4GB of Ram doesn't equal 256MB of Video ram then.... Bummer.

[Typhoon14]

VCool, on 09 November 2009 - 09:54 PM, said:

So, 4GB of Ram doesn't equal 256MB of Video ram then.... Bummer.

It's not really about the amount. It's about the extra overhead that comes with transferring data between the card and main memory. You just don't get the same performance, regardless of the amount.

[macnuke]

Typhoon14, on 10 November 2009 - 01:55 AM, said:

VCool, on 09 November 2009 - 09:54 PM, said:

So, 4GB of Ram doesn't equal 256MB of Video ram then.... Bummer.

It's not really about the amount. It's about the extra overhead that comes with transferring data between the card and main memory. You just don't get the same performance, regardless of the amount.

plus the fact that the integrated GPU has nowhere near the processor that the removable cards have.

[VCool]

I see. Thanks for the info all.