185 replies to this topic

[AussieMacGamer]

Tetsuya, on 02 February 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

my question would be:

do you find yourself buying 2 iMac's in a 3 1/2 - 4 year span?  

If the answer is yes?

Dont, next time, and buy a Pro instead.

I am never going to buy a Mac Pro. I've been using the same Macbook Pro for 5 years and will continue doing so until the day it dies. I upgrade my computers when they no longer provide for my needs. As soon as the iMac can't do what i want it to i will think of upgrading. That will be in a while. If i really wanted upgradable graphics i would build a PC, i am never going to need workstation central processing power

[Tetsuya]

AussieMacGamer, on 05 February 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

I am never going to buy a Mac Pro. I've been using the same Macbook Pro for 5 years and will continue doing so until the day it dies. I upgrade my computers when they no longer provide for my needs. As soon as the iMac can't do what i want it to i will think of upgrading. That will be in a while. If i really wanted upgradable graphics i would build a PC, i am never going to need workstation central processing power

you deftly did not answer the question, though.  

If you were spending the money to buy two iMac's in the same time period.. you were spending the same money.  No reason to get an iMac.  

if you werent, then you werent, and there's no reason to get a pro.

And doing the math, the Pro is cheaper than the two iMacs.

[AussieMacGamer]

Tetsuya, on 07 February 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

you deftly did not answer the question, though.  

If you were spending the money to buy two iMac's in the same time period.. you were spending the same money.  No reason to get an iMac.  

if you werent, then you werent, and there's no reason to get a pro.

And doing the math, the Pro is cheaper than the two iMacs.

Well no i won't be replacing the iMac that quickly, if based on the amount of time i have had this macbook for. It's all well and good that in the long run the Mac Pro is more value for money, but i don't have that sort of capital to play around with in the beginning. Not to mention the biggest feature of the iMac is it's design simplicity

[AussieMacGamer]

Just enquiring, does anybody run a 5.1 setup from their iMac? If so, how does it work running 3D sound off of the motherboard? would something like Battlefield 3 run in 5.1 without a soundcard?

[Wumpus]

AussieMacGamer, on 05 May 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

Just enquiring, does anybody run a 5.1 setup from their iMac?

Smoke_Tetsu does, so ask him.

[AussieMacGamer]

#Smoke_Tetsu

[Wumpus]

Tetsuya, on 07 February 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

you deftly did not answer the question, though.  

If you were spending the money to buy two iMac's in the same time period.. you were spending the same money.  No reason to get an iMac.  

if you werent, then you werent, and there's no reason to get a pro.

And doing the math, the Pro is cheaper than the two iMacs.

I realize this is an older post, and not directed at me, but I wanted to chime in anyway.

I usually upgrade my iMac's every 3 years or so. I don't run them until I can no more, I tend to upgrade after a good period when there's a substantial increase in processor power and graphics. I think iMacs make a lot of sense. I don't want to bother with a tower. I don't want to bother with a separate monitor. I want an all in one machine. Not to mention I simply sell my current iMac before buying a new one, and put the money towards it. This covers anywhere between 50% to 75% of the upgrade cost, thus making the upgrade price overall quite low. And if you do it that way, its much cheaper than a Mac Pro machine. And isn't a Pro tower plus a 27" monitor quite expensive?

I'd say there's plenty of reasons to not get a Pro, or not get an iMac depending on your preference. As AMG pointed out, if someone really wants a machine to upgrade for gaming, Mac's are the wrong way to go. Maybe not the wrong way, but certainly a much less convenient and more expensive way than a PC. I'm happy with iMacs and upgrading the RAM, they've always served me well.

[Macster]

I have been an Apple customer for nearly 20 years now and I can tell you from experience to always buy when something first comes out. In the case of desktops I found no need to upgrade for 5 to 6 years if that. For Laptops the story is a little different, I upgrade those every 2 to 3 years. But by then, believe me I have gotten my money's worth out of all of them. In fact all the Apple Desktops I have owned still work like a charm. Laptops (it has been hit or miss, then again I am not gentle with them either I work them hard).

Since we should be nearing a release cycle I would say wait and then go with the best you can afford. I got a Sandy Bridge MBP last year (as soon as it was available)and I love it to death. In another 2 or 3 years I might upgrade =)

[AussieMacGamer]

Rumoured retina screens definitely seem worth waiting for  

[clocknova]

AussieMacGamer, on 15 May 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Rumoured retina screens definitely seem worth waiting for  

I worry about the performance hit those screens might give to AAA games, though.  Even a high-end card would have trouble pushing those pixel numbers.  The mid-range cards they put in iMacs will surely choke.  And I'm one of those people who refuses to run games at resolutions lower than my screen's native res.  So lowering the resolution into fuzzy territory is out of the question.  Do iMacs really need that many pixels, anyway?

[DaveyJJ]

clocknova, on 15 May 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

The mid-range cards they put in iMacs will surely choke.

That's very generous of you to even refer to the cards they put in iMacs as "mid-range".

[Thain Esh Kelch]

I doubt we'll see games support such high resolutions anytime soon.. Not really any point in it.

[clocknova]

Thain Esh Kelch, on 15 May 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

I doubt we'll see games support such high resolutions anytime soon.. Not really any point in it.

Then a retina-display iMac would be worse than useless to me because it would require me to run my games at lower than native resolutions.  Perhaps I should wait until the new ones are released and buy a current-gen iMac at a discount.

[mattw]

clocknova, on 15 May 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

Then a retina-display iMac would be worse than useless to me because it would require me to run my games at lower than native resolutions.  Perhaps I should wait until the new ones are released and buy a current-gen iMac at a discount.

That's my concern as well. I've had my 20" Aluminium Cinema display nearly a decade but 1680 x 1050 just isn't an issue for anything on my Mac Pro. Back when I had a G4 and G5 there were times I had to use a scaled resolution and it never looked as nice to my eyes.

The 27" displays are beautiful and great for productively tasks. I'd certainly like to go up to something that will do at least 1080p for "full HD" trailers etc. and the lack of DHCP support is a shame now a days but I'd be concerned about trying to maintain 2560 x 1440 assuming it is even supported in game or via a ini/config file.

[AussieMacGamer]

clocknova, on 15 May 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

I worry about the performance hit those screens might give to AAA games, though.  Even a high-end card would have trouble pushing those pixel numbers.  The mid-range cards they put in iMacs will surely choke.  And I'm one of those people who refuses to run games at resolutions lower than my screen's native res.  So lowering the resolution into fuzzy territory is out of the question.  Do iMacs really need that many pixels, anyway?

You would never run your games on its native res, i really dont see that would matter

[clocknova]

AussieMacGamer, on 16 May 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

You would never run your games on its native res, i really dont see that would matter

I'm not sure I see your point.  If that were my screen, I would only run my games at that res.  But very few, if any games, would likely support that res for a long time, so an iMac with such a screen would be a hindrance to gaming, not a help.  Virtually any game I owned would be forced to run in a non-native resolution, and would thus look like garbage to me.

[Sneaky Snake]

clocknova, on 15 May 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

I worry about the performance hit those screens might give to AAA games, though.  Even a high-end card would have trouble pushing those pixel numbers.  The mid-range cards they put in iMacs will surely choke.  And I'm one of those people who refuses to run games at resolutions lower than my screen's native res.  So lowering the resolution into fuzzy territory is out of the question.  Do iMacs really need that many pixels, anyway?

I'm one of the people as well, where running on native resolution is the most important graphics setting to me. However... this will not be an issue on the Retina displays.

If they retina the 15" MBP in the same way they did the iPhone and iPad, they're going to up the resolution from 1440x900 to 2880x1800. That's clearly a ridiculous resolution for gaming. Anything other then top end desktop GPU's with the power of a GTX 670/7950 and up could run that, however you don't need to run the games at that resolution at all.

Due to the awesomeness of Retina'ing a display. Running an image at the old resolution, looks the same as it did running it natively on the old tech. Running a game on your Retina Display MBP at 1440x900 resolution, will look identical to running a game currently on 1440x900 native on the present MBP's. They can simply have 4 pixels act as one pixel. The 4 pixels take up the exact same amount of size, and as such, your eye's will not be able to distinguish a difference between the 2011 MBP 15" 1440x900 screen, and the 2012 MBP 15" screen running at 1440x900. Now if you use any resolution other then 1440x900 you'll get that horrible grainy, distorted effect that your used to when you use anything other then a native resolution.

Example:


Now I expect your eyes are going to get used to 2880x1800 detail, so you'll want to run games at that res, but running at 1440x900 will look as crisp and native as it always did. Apple is pushing the industry forward to higher PPI screens and that is a very good thing.

[clocknova]

Sneaky Snake, on 16 May 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

I'm one of the people as well, where running on native resolution is the most important graphics setting to me. However... this will not be an issue on the Retina displays.

If they retina the 15" MBP in the same way they did the iPhone and iPad, they're going to up the resolution from 1440x900 to 2880x1800. That's clearly a ridiculous resolution for gaming. Anything other then top end desktop GPU's with the power of a GTX 670/7950 and up could run that, however you don't need to run the games at that resolution at all.

Due to the awesomeness of Retina'ing a display. Running an image at the old resolution, looks the same as it did running it natively on the old tech. Running a game on your Retina Display MBP at 1440x900 resolution, will look identical to running a game currently on 1440x900 native on the present MBP's. They can simply have 4 pixels act as one pixel.

Now I expect your eyes are going to get used to 2880x1800 detail, so you'll want to run games at that res, but running at 1440x900 will look as crisp and native as it always did. Apple is pushing the industry forward to higher PPI screens and that is a very good thing.

Well, if that's the case then great.  But I'll believe it when I see it.

[Eric5h5]

If the resolution is precisely 4X the current resolution (as was the case for the retina iPhone and iPad displays), then you simply run games at 1/4 resolution, and they look exactly the same as they do now.

--Eric

[Janichsan]

Eric5h5, on 16 May 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

If the resolution is precisely 4X the current resolution (as was the case for the retina iPhone and iPad displays), then you simply run games at 1/4 resolution, and they look exactly the same as they do now.

If the Mac HiDPI displays are anything like the iPhone Retina displays, they'd look even better and crisper, despite only using a quarter of the native resolution.