Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Gaming, Rumors, Odds and ends, Apple, Mac mini
Gamers and the faster iMacs
Peter Cohen over at Macworld continues his sideline analysis of Apple's gaming chances with a post about how the brand new faster iMacs are indeed faster, but still not fast enough for gamers. And to a certain extent, he's right -- gaming on the Mac is like that old beat-up, "someday I'll fix it up" convertible your father's had in the garage covered with a tarp since you were a kid. Getting it out and putting a new engine in it might help it run better, but it's still not going to turn it into a car that anyone wants to drive around.But (and we talked about this extensively on the Talkcast a few weeks ago with Brian Akaka from Freeverse) it's a step. A faster video card, even if it isn't blazing, will run games better than before, and it'll do a little to bring not only gaming customers but developers back to the Mac. Cohen is right -- that old convertible needs an actual mechanic to take a look at it, and it needs the seats to be reupholstered, and sooner or later it's going to need a new can of paint (not that, like your Dad's actual convertible, these things aren't ever going to happen -- we continue to hear rumblings that Apple is aiming for gamers).
But something is something -- the very fact that Apple is offering faster video cards is a sign that they're interested. And, other than simple profiles of games on their website and cameos by game execs at keynotes, that's more than we've had in a while.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
André said 8:09AM on 5-09-2008
They seem to miss the point that the Apple branded Geforce 8800 GS is actially a Geforce 8800M GTS.
Reply
Oliver said 8:33AM on 5-09-2008
wow, I didn't know that, andré! Could you give me a source?
André said 8:44AM on 5-09-2008
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/43pxg/
GPU-Z validation of the Geforce 8800 GS in the new iMac.
Peter said 8:51AM on 5-09-2008
Now that makes sense. I know that the 8800GS has a 192-bit memory bandwidth, so the 512MB memory had seemed impossible. This, though makes much more sense, and they probably have identical performance, hence the labeling.
xenolon said 8:38AM on 5-09-2008
I honestly don't understand where they're coming from on this. I have a MacBook Pro and a MacPro, and I run games on both of them swimmingly. Both in OS X and in Boot Camp. My framrates are good, I'm usually running at 1280x800 up to 1680x1050, with most of the eye candy on.
Sure neither is a *gaming rig* but for a pair of machines that allow me to get all my work done with the side benefit of being entirely capable machines for gaming, I'm quite happy.
And I should note that these latest iMacs are much more powerful than my MBP.
Reply
Tom said 10:31AM on 5-09-2008
I was wondering what were wrong with the iMacs for gaming until I read your post - They're obviously comparing them to full hardcore gaming rigs.
In my books, that's what game consoles are for. A game on my Mac is just a bit of novelty, but I'll always rather play on a console.
Anyway, I'm happy with my new iMac. Does the job!
Carl said 8:54AM on 5-09-2008
The old beat up convertable analogy is poor. I'd say this type of setup is more like an agressively built luxury car, like an audi RS4 or merc AMG. It's blazing fast, got tons of technology, comfortable to use, expensive, and looks good. You can take it to the track too, but you're not going to set any record lap times. But you wouldn't want to; thats not what it's built for. It will run games-- I've got a new fully loaded penryn mbp, for experiance-- and it will do it well, but its not dedicated.
This arguement will perpetuate in the mac community for years, or untill they decide to build a dedicated gaming machine (sort of how Audi built the R8)... but untill then, its old news.
Reply
Amidee said 9:14AM on 5-09-2008
The day people will stop thinking computers as gaming platforms, it will be a great day.
You know -- I still don't get it why people still buy computer for playing GAMES on them. Damn it, they're hell expensive gaming platforms! With the price of a top-of-the-line video card you can get a ps3 or a 360 (or two wiis, lol) and still have money for games AND you have a gaiming system that ALWAYS runs smoothly. And let's not talk about RAM, cpu and MoBos, because it would get simply ridicolous. And let's not talk about upgrading.
I just can't understand why people still sticks with PC gaming other than *some* casual gaming. Expensive, not performing, bugged and most of the times NOT worth the extreme PITA of installing and drivers and blah blah.
That's why Apple is NOT committed to gaming. Actually Apple couldn't care LESS about gaming. They just don't give a crap. That's pretty obvious and I don't think that a faster video card is a "sign that they're interested". It's a sign of NOTHING.
There are gaming booths at Apple events? EA codes for Mac? Come on, that's BS. They're just not ruling out the words "gaming for Mac", but that's just a marketing choice. Nothing more.
Apple wants to get rid of the computer's problems and old bad habits. Gaming on pc is one of those things that were introduced back in the day when it was unclear what a PC was supposed to do. So they wanted it to do just everything, even coffee if it was needed. No matter how bad tasks were accomplished, they just wanted features.
That's why Windows is a patchwork of shit, and that's why Windows computers are pretty much unusable.
Apple is taking all those problems down one by one. This is just one of the many. One day it won't even come in your mind to play on your PC or Mac. It WILL just seem ridicolous. You'll start up your ps6 or x1080 and you will laugh thinking about how a waste of resources it was gaming on PCs or Macs (:
Reply
JiN said 10:07AM on 5-09-2008
I agree 100% with Amidee. The stability offered by the Mac platform was my reason to switch. I still have 2 P4 Dells lying around. I kept one for games and the other for work. I got a taste of Mac at work with a G4 iBook and I now have the MacBook and my work desktop is a 2007 iMac.
I still play games but I leave that to the PS3, Wii and X360. The cost of these 3 consoles is cheaper than maintaining a gaming rig. Sure the graphics get dated quick but it doesn't seem to matter that much any more. I received a copy of UT2004 for my MacBook and it looks good enough that I don't have to pull the P4 out of the closet.
Chris said 11:23AM on 5-09-2008
I just wanted to respond to Amidee on this one. I am a loyal gamer, I have access to all of the current-gen consoles (I bought a Wii, one room mate bought the PS3 and the other the X-Box) but I can never do on a console what I can on a PC when it comes to games.
Games on the PC have the opportunity for a much longer shelf life though fan-created content, faster updates, and (in my opinion) the best gaming interface for FPS, RTS, and First-person RPG games in the mouse & keyboard. PC gaming is THE BEST form of gaming to many people. It's too bad that few people can afford access to PC gaming because of the expense. I hate seeing a game come out on the consoles that I feel would be 100 times better on the PC (read: any first person shooter, except maybe Metroid Prime 3 on the Wii).
I just wanted to explain a little why someone might consider playing games on PC (besides the fact that they are THE best gaming system). Games like the Elder Scrolls series, Half Life, and many other games have enjoyed huge shelf-life beyond what was given to the original game because of the ability for the PC-gaming community to mod those games and make new, original content. I personally will always prefer a game to come out on the PC rather than a console, and I know there are a ton of people out there who feel the same way.
Now I just wish I had the money for a new computer. Ha.
tevetorbes said 12:52PM on 5-09-2008
Gaming on a PC used to be far superior to a console, true. And gaming on a PC today is (arguably) no better than a console. Agree 100%.
As far as user-created content, longer shelf-life, etc., we will likely see these sorts of things incorporated into next-gen consoles. The fact remains that I can buy a Doohickey5000, take it out of the box, plug it into my TV and play games. Whereas, for a gaming PC, I (likely) have to build it myself (or pay through the nose), install drivers, configure options, etc. It's the "It Just Works(TM)" argument for games.
I'm inclined to agree that new video cards to not signal Apple's foray into the video game world. Recall that many digital media editors (I myself am not one) use their macs to ply their trade: one would think that a better video card = better for digital media editing and not necessarily better gaming.
Would I be excited about playing popular games NATIVELY on my Mac? Hell yes. But I'm not getting my hopes up, especially since gaming rigs tend to cost significantly more than their 'vanilla' counterparts.
smoke_tetsu said 3:04PM on 5-09-2008
There's one problem when I see someone talk about mods coming out for consoles so everyone should get a console because since mods are coming out for them that's one less reason to get games for the PC\Mac. Who do you think is going to make those mods? What do you think is used to make games in the first place? Where do you think all the level, graphics, sound editors and programming environments are? At the very least if they are to support mod communities they need to have PC\Mac versions of those games to be able to rapidly test those mods\total conversions before they make the transition over to a console.
Simon Arch said 6:53PM on 5-09-2008
"You know -- I still don't get it why people still buy computer for playing GAMES on them."
I didn't buy my computer just to play games, but I DO play games. And why shouldn't I? Games are fun. Your argument would work better if that was the only reason anyone ever bought or built a computer, but it's obviously not.
Use your computer how you like, but don't presume tell me how I should use mine.
Hank said 9:54AM on 5-09-2008
Most heavy gamers I know want to be able to tinker underhood anyway, so if they were considering a Mac the iMac would be last on the list, of course, as would any all-in-one.
(by the way, I like the Audi analogy above, much better)
Reply
icerabbit said 10:01AM on 5-09-2008
The other thing that needs working on, but is in that same some day never land, is the mythical midi mac to fill the gap between the mini & pro. For all the obvious & objective reasons where a mini is too small, the pro is too much and the iMac is an all-in-one.
Reply
Sabon said 10:01AM on 5-09-2008
{quote}But something is something -- the very fact that Apple is offering faster video cards is a sign that they're interested. {quote}
NO, it does NOT mean that in any way. It only means there is a slightly faster video card.
Keep on wishing all you want but pigs are not yet flying. There is a Spider Pig (Simpson's movie" but no flying pigs yet.
Reply
Chris said 10:28AM on 5-09-2008
Very true. The simple fact is that the iMac will never be suitable for more than casual gaming as long as the internals remain based on laptop components. The 8800M GTS (8800 GS as Apple calls it) is about as good as it gets for laptop hardware (the GTX is a bit faster).
Only with a discrete PCI Express-based graphics card can you achieve cutting edge gaming performance - Midi Mac anyone? The iMac just ain't gonna cut it.
About 8
Rich F said 10:20AM on 5-09-2008
I would generally agree with this statement, until I tried to play CNC3 and CNC3 Kanes Wrath last night in Vmware Fusion. It played very well on the new iMac, even at 1600x1200. If it can play games this well in Vmware, I dont see a hardware problem...
Reply
Quix said 10:24AM on 5-09-2008
Two things about Apple I just can't figure out:
1) why they don't offer a consumer-priced tower with swappable components. They would open the door to a whole new group of buyers with a sub $1,500 Mac tower.
2) why you can't throw any off-the-shelf PC video card into a Mac Pro. I thought the Intel transition was supposed to give us hardware parity with the Windows world - yet we STILL have to buy a Mac-specific video card at 3X the price of the PC equivalent???
Lame, Apple. Really lame.
Reply
Twist said 10:53AM on 5-09-2008
I am wanting to get a new Mac soon but sadly Apple doesn't make a machine I would buy right now. I want something with specs similar to the iMac but without the monitor and with upgradeable graphics. The only machine Apple sells that is even close to that is the Mac Pro which is way out of my price range. The new high end iMac looks okay but for that price you might as well just get the stripped down Mac Pro.
I am tempted to just build a PC and put OS X on it even though keeping OS X up-to-date on those things looks like a major pain. I could easily build something with more power than the iMac for half the cost of the high end 20 inch model.
Reply