# Dell vs. iMac



## Cyntec

Okay guys, I've put off this decision but I need a new computer ASAP. It's either the top of the line fully loaded Dell XPS 9000 or the top of the line iMac 27". I'm going to be using Word and Excel, heavy video editing and gaming. My attraction to the iMac is that it's all built into the screen and the fact that macs don't slow down the more programs you put on it. The downside is that I've never had one before and don't know the OS, and I know my way around a PC in my sleep. Also, for gaming on an iMac I'll have to reboot the computer in bootcamp all the time (sounds like a pain). I don't want a custom-made computer though. Thoughts?


----------



## diduknowthat

What kind of gaming are we speaking of here? I don't think iMacs are too good at gaming but I could be wrong. I would go with a Dell or some other branded PC.


----------



## Cyntec

Pretty hardcore gaming. Oblivion, Fallout, etc. Two people at the Apple store who claim to be gamers say the top of the line iMac is a decent gaming computer.


----------



## Boomer

The only thing that would excite me about the Mac is the 27 inch 2560 x 1440 resolution screen. I had a 27 inch 1920 x 1080 resolution screen for a few days and thought it was too big for the 1080 resolution. 2560 x 1440 would be sweet at 27 inches 

I'm not really a Mac fan, but the 27 inch Quad iMac is the only Mac i would consider at this time since almost everything else they have seems pretty out of date. Its the only quad core offered that wouldn't require you to refinance your house to buy lol


----------



## justinmmm690

The best iMac has a 4850 graphics card.  That'll set you back a long ways and it's not that good of a card.  It'll cost $2099.  

This build has the exact same components as the iMac that costs $2099.

http://secure.newegg.ca/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=11125594

My build comes out to $1333.88.  Unless Mac OS X is worth $765.12, they are really ripping you off.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

You could also dual boot with Windows on it. And don't worry much about the interface, Micro$oft has copied most of it into Windows, just for you. In fact, you may like it better. Apple has almost always managed to stay in the lead of things, so you're getting a great computer. I envy you, I have 10 yr old Macs.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

justinmmm690 said:


> The best iMac has a 4850 graphics card.  That'll set you back a long ways and it's not that good of a card.  It'll cost $2099.
> 
> This build has the exact same components as the iMac that costs $2099.
> 
> http://secure.newegg.ca/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=11125594
> 
> My build comes out to $1333.88.  Unless Mac OS X is worth $765.12, they are really ripping you off.



They've got to make some profit, dude.


----------



## fastdude

The Dell will give you far more choice of games, and just 'cos it ain't as shiny doesn't mean it can't out-spec the Mac


----------



## iGeekOFComedy

The iMac is pretty cheap for the Price CONSIDERING People forget theres a big 21.5 / 27 inch display on it thats beautiful


----------



## fastdude

That's the only nice thing though; it's all-in-one


----------



## mkeyfoo34

All in all strikes me a lot of you dudes are scared of using a Mac ! !
is it incompetance or embarrassment ?


----------



## diduknowthat

Cyntec said:


> Pretty hardcore gaming. Oblivion, Fallout, etc. Two people at the Apple store who claim to be gamers say the top of the line iMac is a decent gaming computer.



Decent but far worse than the Dell probably. This is one area where Macs just don't stack up against PCs. What graphics card does the Dell have anyways?


----------



## FuryRosewood

id be afraid of overheating the damn thing during gaming... all in ones = you have to take it to them to repair...id get the dell due to more options in configuration and better possible airflow


----------



## fastdude

mkeyfoo34 said:


> All in all strikes me a lot of you dudes are scared of using a Mac ! !
> is it incompetance or embarrassment ?



neither. Just annoyance. Apple make a brilliant machine then ruin it with half-decent graphics


----------



## justinmmm690

I love how this thread has attracted so many new members and they're all macfags.  The dell would be better for games.  You can update it, they come with better graphics cards.  And in my price comparison, I included the monitor and everything.  Also, my brother had a mac for 2 years.  It started crashing recently very abruptly.  It has a motherboard problem.  I can't salvage anything from it, it's done.  In fact, my brother only used his Windows partition on it.  He decided he didn't want another Mac so I built him a way better PC.


----------



## mkeyfoo34

you tell me what was better than Quark and Design for doing Graphics
I was Graphic Designer before retirement ask.....Pentogram....what the use ?


----------



## danthrax

mkeyfoo34 said:


> you tell me what was better than Quark and Design for doing Graphics
> I was Graphic Designer before retirement ask.....Pentogram....what the use ?



Try to use better english so we can understand what the F you're trying to say.

If the guy wants a computer for gaming/video editing, he will be very disappointed with the 4850 GPU that is in the Mac and that is not something he can upgrade.  I can't imagine that card running ANY new game on the full resolution of that 27" screen.  At least with the Dell he has the option to upgrade at a later date.

Like someone else before me said, Mac made a great machine and ruined it with a mid-low-end GPU.  Well, if one of your main focuses is gaming then you will probably be disappointed with a Mac.

The alleged "gamers" at the Mac store would call it a decent machine because that's all that it is, decent.  But barely decent, the 4850 is growing old and out of date.  The guys at the Mac store are probably paid on commission as well, so why not call it a "decent" machine and make a sale?

The OP'er also stated that he knows the Windows OS like the back of his hand, so unless he really really wants to learn Mac OS X might as well stick with what he knows and get a Dell with Windows.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

The only downside to Macs, in my opinion, is that you can't go out and get parts at a store and build them. 
And can't the iMac's GPU be replaced? Or is it a built-in thing?


----------



## mkeyfoo34

D..anthrax are you thick or what the guy was talking about graphics
And don't insult me you B !......the words you don't understand is
Quote: "What they use"


----------



## Drenlin

I can understand defending macs, but defending an iMac by saying that it's a good buy for gaming is ridiculous.


----------



## mkeyfoo34

next time read the post before you make a typical southern criticism !
Smart arse.


----------



## iGeekOFComedy

Benchmarks are the only way to do it.

Modern warfare 2 on imac 27" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKMfBIxHbI0

I know the twit cottage uses the iMacs as rendering farms. The older 24" with the 8800GS

They are not going to overheat. There are plenty of fans inside of it


----------



## mkeyfoo34

I never mentioned games in my post only Graphics !!
Sorry forgot you are both American....you wouldn't know about our use of Macs
for what it's worth I live in the Black Country England


----------



## Drenlin

Are you serious, dude? Is it that hard to accept that iMacs aren't made for gaming? Their forte is image editing.


----------



## justinmmm690

mkeyfoo34 said:


> I never mentioned games in my post only Graphics !!
> Sorry forgot you are both American....you wouldn't know about our use of Macs
> for what it's worth I live in the Black Country England



What the hell does being american have to do with ANY of this?  Seriously, get out.  

Also, sure you can game on a mac but they are not ideal for it.  They limit the graphics card options, the best one is extremely expensive and not upgradeable!  My price comparison which had the same specs as the i5 27" iMac, including monitor, keyboard, wireless and everything else had a $750 difference.  Personally, I don't think that Mac OS X is worth $750.  For the same price as that iMac, you could get a 5970 an i7 processor, solid state drives and tons of great stuff!


----------



## iGeekOFComedy

mkeyfoo34 said:


> I never mentioned games in my post only Graphics !!
> Sorry forgot you are both American....you wouldn't know about our use of Macs
> for what it's worth I live in the Black Country England



I'm actually not i'm american and I'm irish. I didn't direct it at you i'm just saying it has good graphics plus a mac was made to do video editing and photo editing because of software compatibility inside the open gl frameworks with open cl. BTW I'm giving mac the + not the pc haha and have dude your touchy.


----------



## tlarkin

justinmmm690 said:


> The best iMac has a 4850 graphics card.  That'll set you back a long ways and it's not that good of a card.  It'll cost $2099.
> 
> This build has the exact same components as the iMac that costs $2099.
> 
> http://secure.newegg.ca/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=11125594
> 
> My build comes out to $1333.88.  Unless Mac OS X is worth $765.12, they are really ripping you off.



Your build is not comparable, that monitor does not have the glass cover nor does it support IPS.  Add a IPS display to your build that is 27" and it will significantly increase your build price.

Here goes one from dell for $1,000

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=224-8284&dgc=SS&cid=27530&lid=627063&s=dhs

So yeah, the iMac is a good buy


----------



## justinmmm690

tlarkin said:


> Your build is not comparable, that monitor does not have the glass cover nor does it support IPS.  Add a IPS display to your build that is 27" and it will significantly increase your build price.
> 
> Here goes one from dell for $1,000
> 
> http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=224-8284&dgc=SS&cid=27530&lid=627063&s=dhs
> 
> So yeah, the iMac is a good buy



Alright, subtract the monitor in my build, add the Dell 27" with IPS and it comes out to about $2080.  Still about the same as the iMac  Plus, you get future expandability.

Really the iMac comes out to $2099 + $100 for Windows.  He'd still need a copy of Windows for his games.  $2199

My build with windows included and the dell monitor is about $2099.  Plus with the PC you get: future upgrades, you get to know exactly what quality of parts are going into your PC.

Plus, this guy isn't even looking at IPS monitors or even 27" monitors.  This guy needs a PC.


----------



## tlarkin

justinmmm690 said:


> Alright, subtract the monitor in my build, add the Dell 27" with IPS and it comes out to about $2080.  Still about the same as the iMac  Plus, you get future expandability.
> 
> Really the iMac comes out to $2099 + $100 for Windows.  He'd still need a copy of Windows for his games.  $2199
> 
> My build with windows included and the dell monitor is about $2099.  Plus with the PC you get: future upgrades, you get to know exactly what quality of parts are going into your PC.
> 
> Plus, this guy isn't even looking at IPS monitors or even 27" monitors.  This guy needs a PC.



A mac and a PC are just tools.  Tools to get whatever you want to get done.  You can game just fine on a Mac.  In fact most games run fine on medium settings on any last generation video card.  The developers design them to always run on older computers, because most people do not upgrade every other month to stay up to date hardware wise.


Also, if you feature compare the OSes, you would have to get Windows 7 Ultimate to actually compare everything spec to spec.

It really just comes down to preference, and since I have used both for so many years I am used to both and can work on either just as efficient.  However, the bottom line is personal preference.


----------



## bomberboysk

justinmmm690 said:


> Alright, subtract the monitor in my build, add the Dell 27" with IPS and it comes out to about $2080.  Still about the same as the iMac  Plus, you get future expandability.
> 
> Really the iMac comes out to $2099 + $100 for Windows.  He'd still need a copy of Windows for his games.  $2199
> 
> My build with windows included and the dell monitor is about $2099.  Plus with the PC you get: future upgrades, you get to know exactly what quality of parts are going into your PC.
> 
> Plus, this guy isn't even looking at IPS monitors or even 27" monitors.  This guy needs a PC.



Steam for mac has quite a few games...

Nobody said the OP was looking for an IPS display, however when comparing a mac to a pc, don't say "its the same thing" when clearly, it isnt.


----------



## speedyink

Drenlin said:


> Are you serious, dude? Is it that hard to accept that iMacs aren't made for gaming? Their forte is image editing.



Actually he was talking about image editing from the beginning



mkeyfoo34 said:


> I never mentioned games in my post only Graphics !!
> Sorry forgot you are both American....you wouldn't know about our use of Macs
> for what it's worth I live in the Black Country England



Calm the Eff down man.  From a member of neither countries you definitely win the annoying contest.  Sure Macs are good at graphics, but so are PC's.  Give it a rest.  

As for the OP, In my opinion you should go with the Dell.  
A) Better at games than the Mac by far
B) You'd also be covered by video editing with numerous amounts of programs to choose from (though Adobe is really the only way to go)
C) Ability to fix the hardware yourself.  Yay no dealing with warrantees!


----------



## Drenlin

speedyink said:


> Actually he was talking about image editing from the beginning



He was talking about video, not images. He also said he'd be gaming.

Regardless, My argument was against that dude defending an iMac as a gaming machine.


----------



## bomberboysk

iMac's definately arent gaming machines...they are all in one computers, excellent for those working in the graphics industry or looking for an all rounder computer...not the best for those who want to game, which i'm sure many apple fans would even admit.


----------



## mkeyfoo34

Thanks for all the slagging.....good luck to you all from England.


----------



## diduknowthat

Cyntec said:


> Okay guys, I've put off this decision but I need a new computer ASAP. It's either the top of the line fully loaded Dell XPS 9000 or the top of the line iMac 27". I'm going to be using Word and Excel, heavy video editing and gaming. My attraction to the iMac is that it's all built into the screen and the fact that macs don't slow down the more programs you put on it. The downside is that I've never had one before and don't know the OS, and I know my way around a PC in my sleep. Also, for gaming on an iMac I'll have to reboot the computer in bootcamp all the time (sounds like a pain). I don't want a custom-made computer though. Thoughts?





Cyntec said:


> Pretty hardcore gaming. Oblivion, Fallout, etc. Two people at the Apple store who claim to be gamers say the top of the line iMac is a decent gaming computer.



Notice he never said ANYTHING about graphics. Video editing and heavy gaming.



mkeyfoo34 said:


> you tell me what was better than Quark and Design for doing Graphics
> I was Graphic Designer before retirement ask.....Pentogram....what the use ?


So I have no idea why you brought up these programs..



mkeyfoo34 said:


> D..anthrax are you thick or what the guy was talking about graphics
> And don't insult me you B !......the words you don't understand is
> Quote: "What they use"


or started bashing other members.



mkeyfoo34 said:


> next time read the post before you make a typical southern criticism !
> Smart arse.


or being racist and an ass.




mkeyfoo34 said:


> I never mentioned games in my post only Graphics !!
> Sorry forgot you are both American....you wouldn't know about our use of Macs
> for what it's worth I live in the Black Country England


or hating on Americans.




mkeyfoo34 said:


> Thanks for all the slagging.....good luck to you all from England.


or making your country look bad.


----------



## mkeyfoo34

Nothing wrong about our country I'm proud to be English although most of my family did Emigrate to Fall River Canada, Arroyo Grande America and Broken Hill Australia. 
as Pioneers...... Mate.


----------



## fastdude

Peace, brothers. Make love, not war


----------



## mkeyfoo34

Fastdude I think Il'l leave this forum to you young uns'.
I'm obviously to old to tackle our friends across the water
I was born to early 1934.....a good year for Hitler !


----------



## tlarkin

I cannot believe some of you still think in the monolithic paradigm that Macs are only good at video editing and graphic design.  Macintosh computers are no different than PCs, and vice versa.  They are tools.  

They have their pros and cons, and at the end of the day they are still tools.  Macs can play games just fine, macs and run all windows apps and windows just fine.

I have steam on my Macs and I run all sorts of games on my Macs now.  They all play fine.  Now, if I wanted to max out every setting on a game, then I would obviously build a PC specific to that nature.  However, gaming rigs don't always equal high end computing.  As most higher level professional apps are very processor and memory intensive and don't really utilize the GPU.   Even with the added tools of CUDA from Nvidia it makes nil difference.

Most people on this forum do not even know what they are talking about when it comes to PCs, let alone Macs or Linux.  A mac and a PC are just technology and tools used to get tasks and jobs done.  It all comes down to preference and business model.

My personal preferences is that Vista and Win7 were both crappy OSes, and that MS is losing sight of their customers.  They are moving in the wrong direction if you ask me, which is why Macintosh now have 23% of the consumer market in the USA.


----------



## Drenlin

^ Not arguing with that, but a 4850 is never going to be able to game at such a high resolution, and lower ones will look crappy on such a large screen...


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> ^ Not arguing with that, but a 4850 is never going to be able to game at such a high resolution, and lower ones will look crappy on such a large screen...



A 4850 can run games on medium settings just fine.  I have an x1900 in one of my laptops and it runs COD4 just fine, and it even runs MW2 just fine.  On medium settings with some shadows turned off it gets over 35FPS, which is easily playable.

I am not saying the iMac is the best computer to buy for gaming, but to say it cannot game is just outright incorrect.


----------



## JTM

If the OP is using the PC for video/photo editing, I would go with the iMac. The LED screen will make things more enjoyable. And the 4850 can play most games out there nicely.


----------



## Drenlin

tlarkin said:


> A 4850 can run games on medium settings just fine.  I have an x1900 in one of my laptops and it runs COD4 just fine, and it even runs MW2 just fine.  On medium settings with some shadows turned off it gets over 35FPS, which is easily playable.
> 
> I am not saying the iMac is the best computer to buy for gaming, but to say it cannot game is just outright incorrect.



It can play them for sure, but at what resolution? That monitor's native res is huge.


----------



## diduknowthat

tlarkin said:


> A 4850 can run games on medium settings just fine.  I have an x1900 in one of my laptops and it runs COD4 just fine, and it even runs MW2 just fine.  On medium settings with some shadows turned off it gets over 35FPS, which is easily playable.
> 
> I am not saying the iMac is the best computer to buy for gaming, but to say it cannot game is just outright incorrect.



It can, but it's not that good at it. The 4850 is going to have a hard time driving a monitor of such high resolution, especially if he's going to run demanding games.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> It can play them for sure, but at what resolution? That monitor's native res is huge.



The resolution is not really the issue as much as how high the textures are set to render, the shading, the lighting effects (like shadows) and so forth.  The Xbox 360 has what video card in it again?  It runs 1080P, the PS3 does as well, and it does not have a current generation video card in it either.

The truth is, most of the video game market is marketing, and hype.  Only if you want to be cutting edge do you need to latest and greatest.  I have a GTX 260 and when I bought it, it was a step down from the current high end.  It still plays all games maxed out being 2 years old on my 22" @ 1680 x 1050 so not quite 1080P but almost near.  If I had a bigger monitor it would display it no problems.

There is really no valid reason to be getting over 100 frames per a second in a video game other than bragging rights.


----------



## bomberboysk

tlarkin said:


> The resolution is not really the issue as much as how high the textures are set to render, the shading, the lighting effects (like shadows) and so forth.  The Xbox 360 has what video card in it again?  It runs 1080P, the PS3 does as well, and it does not have a current generation video card in it either.
> 
> The truth is, most of the video game market is marketing, and hype.  Only if you want to be cutting edge do you need to latest and greatest.  I have a GTX 260 and when I bought it, it was a step down from the current high end.  It still plays all games maxed out being 2 years old on my 22" @ 1680 x 1050 so not quite 1080P but almost near.  If I had a bigger monitor it would display it no problems.
> 
> *There is really no valid reason to be getting over 100 frames per a second in a video game other than bragging rights.*



False, although that really does depend upon the person playing. The higher number of frames per second, the more actions as a result of your input occur, and the entire game will feel more fluid and lifelike. However, its not something that most people will notice...would love to see a double blind type of test on framerates...

As far as Xbox 360/PS3 games being 1080p....lets remember that many "modern" games on the 360 and PS3 are not even 1080P, a good example is modern warfare 2, which is only 600P native res, anything above that is upscaled due to graphical limitations of the systems. Also, consoles, unlike PC's, are one set of hardware, with no performance deviations between consoles...so the software can be much more optimized for that specific hardware.


----------



## tlarkin

bomberboysk said:


> False, although that really does depend upon the person playing. The higher number of frames per second, the more actions as a result of your input occur, and the entire game will feel more fluid and lifelike. However, its not something that most people will notice...would love to see a double blind type of test on framerates...
> 
> As far as Xbox 360/PS3 games being 1080p....lets remember that many "modern" games on the 360 and PS3 are not even 1080P, a good example is modern warfare 2, which is only 600P native res, anything above that is upscaled due to graphical limitations of the systems. Also, consoles, unlike PC's, are one set of hardware, with no performance deviations between consoles...so the software can be much more optimized for that specific hardware.



citation needed that humans can tell the differences between 70 FPS and 100 FPS and 150 FPS

The human eyes and brain can only actually process about 25 to 30 frames per a second in actual life.  There are exceptions, like Babe Ruth.  They did a study on him and found his reflexes to be over double that of your average person.  Which probably made him such a great hitter in baseball.  However, not everyone has the reflexes of the Great Bambino.

However, your average person is not going to notice or take advantage of the difference.   I also said you don't need it, and you are saying you do need it?

I was putting it at a level of necessity, if you got back and reread what I posted.

As for your last comment about OS overhead, I could use that to argue that a Mac with lesser hardware could perform on par with a PC.  However, not going to go there.


----------



## bomberboysk

tlarkin said:


> citation needed that humans can tell the differences between 70 FPS and 100 FPS and 150 FPS
> 
> The human eyes and brain can only actually process about 25 to 30 frames per a second in actual life.  There are exceptions, like Babe Ruth.  They did a study on him and found his reflexes to be over double that of your average person.  Which probably made him such a great hitter in baseball.  However, not everyone has the reflexes of the Great Bambino.
> 
> However, your average person is not going to notice or take advantage of the difference.   I also said you don't need it, and you are saying you do need it?
> 
> I was putting it at a level of necessity, if you got back and reread what I posted.
> 
> As for your last comment about OS overhead, I could use that to argue that a Mac with lesser hardware could perform on par with a PC.  However, not going to go there.


There really is no citation needed...its easily explained by the fact that more inputs and outputs every second is going to result in a more lifelike representation of movement(aka, less input lag)... I highly doubt there have been many studies comparing video game fluidity between 30fps and 60fps and 100fps and so on.

And, although there may be less overhead on OSX...you miss out on many windows features aimed at graphics, such as directX(which arguably there is OpenGL, but is not really as optimized when it comes to games IMO).


----------



## diduknowthat

tlarkin said:


> The human eyes and brain can only actually process about 25 to 30 frames per a second in actual life.



You can definitely tell the difference between a game running at 30 fps and 60 fps, especially if something is moving quickly. The game feels more fluid with higher than 30 fps.

some more info:

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm


----------



## tlarkin

You can definitely tell the FPS difference up to a point.   I am certain if I gave you all the Pepsi challenge and sat you down in front of a machine that played a game at 75 fps and one that did it at 100fps you wouldn't really tell the difference.  After a certain point you cannot process that much more.

Also, not everyone wants the most cutting edge.  The highest end video cards are damn expensive.  Developers do not code games that require that hardware.

As for OS X it fully supports Open GL and has a set of APIs developers can use to access Open GL with in the OS called Core Animation.   Direct X isn't the only game in town, but it is highly more used than anything else when it comes to gaming.


----------



## bomberboysk

tlarkin said:


> You can definitely tell the FPS difference up to a point.   I am certain if I gave you all the Pepsi challenge and sat you down in front of a machine that played a game at 75 fps and one that did it at 100fps you wouldn't really tell the difference.  After a certain point you cannot process that much more.
> 
> Also, not everyone wants the most cutting edge.  The highest end video cards are damn expensive.  *Developers do not code games that require that hardware.*
> 
> As for OS X it fully supports Open GL and has a set of APIs developers can use to access Open GL with in the OS called Core Animation.   Direct X isn't the only game in town, but it is highly more used than anything else when it comes to gaming.


Crysis, Far Cry 2, Flight Sim X(for anywhere near high settings anyhow), Battlefield 2(in its day), Doom 3(in its day) are all examples of games in which developers coded them for platforms far more powerful than what a standard person would have. I do however agree you have an entirely valid point, as those games are only a small sector of the market.

As for DirectX, its sort of what i was saying yet not quite. Due to DirectX being more prevalent, many of the features in OpenGL are not fully utilized, hurting gaming performance when running on OSX, but its sort of a non-mention when running windows on an apple machine.

And again, like i said, visually....you won't notice anything above 60fps on most any display anyhow, as most LCD TN panels are 60hz. However, even when the display has a 60hz refresh rate, you will still end up with a noticeably more fluid gameplay...not visually, but the actual "feel".


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> The human eyes and brain can only actually process about 25 to 30 frames per a second in actual life.



That sounds pretty low...Pretty sure I can easily tell the difference between 30 fps game and 60fps game.  In fact it's about the late 40's early 50's where it gets hard to tell.  For me at least.

Either way, Macs lack newer video hardware, and you'll never see a hard core gaming mac.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> That sounds pretty low...Pretty sure I can easily tell the difference between 30 fps game and 60fps game.  In fact it's about the late 40's early 50's where it gets hard to tell.  For me at least.
> 
> Either way, Macs lack newer video hardware, and you'll never see a hard core gaming mac.



I am not disagreeing with your statements, I am saying that hardcore gaming, is well, mostly marketing and not a lot of facts back it up.  They market it to enthusiasts and the like who will drop lots of $$$ to get the so called, higher end performance.

I don't game on my Mac, but I have steam on it, and it works and it runs all the games it can play just fine.  My Macbook Pro is almost 3 years old.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> I am not disagreeing with your statements, I am saying that hardcore gaming, is well, mostly marketing and not a lot of facts back it up.  They market it to enthusiasts and the like who will drop lots of $$$ to get the so called, higher end performance.
> 
> I don't game on my Mac, but I have steam on it, and it works and it runs all the games it can play just fine.  My Macbook Pro is almost 3 years old.



Sure it can be with some people, but that doesn't make the 4850 any better.  I spent less than $1000 on my gaming rig, now 2 or so years old, which is about on par with what the new imacs can do gaming wise

Running steam ain't an accomplishment.. I played those games back in my radeon x300 days


----------

