Battlefield 3 and iMac 27 inch (2.8ghz and 8GB ram)

[TapWater]

Hey guys,

this thread is just me wanting to share some FPS info about BF3 on an older mid 2010 iMac, the 2.8ghz model i5, and it has 8GB ram installed with a mobile ATI 5850 (1GB card).

Im am actually just shocked that this simple computer with its minimalist everything-sealed-up approach even runs the game.

Just wanted to share to those who might care, that on high settings, 1920x1080 res I get around 32 FPS (very happy).

Pusihing the limit further, on ULTRA with 1600x900 resolution I get around 23-25 FPS. (it might spike down to 21 or up to 27 but 23-25 is the AVG).

For me this is playable the 25FPS, Just!

At 1600x900 the ULTRA setting looks awesome. Im just kind of stoked for a 2010 generic computer which basically runs laptop equipment can run this game so well all things considering.

If I put GFX on Medium, FPS jumps way 50, and if GFX go on LOW then you easily get at least 65-70 FPS..

Im just trying to get gauge where my desktop is at, I will test that next..

I can say that the equipement is from around the same era so I will be curious to see if having the ballsy for its time i975 Extreme processor and GTX 295 - proper desktop power back in the day, actually do much better - I know they cost about 3 times as much as the $1999 iMac lol

What do people expect to happen..?

 

[TapWater]

I just ended up finishing BF3 start to finish whilst trying out the GFX on this iMac... talk about getting caught up in the FPS.. Ok NOW im off to try it on the other computer!

 

[aaksheytalwar]

The game was released in 2011. My 2010 6970 and i7 2600k(maybe 2011) could max out at 1080p with 80+ fps avg. I too had 8gb ram then.

I cant believe it runs that bad on a mac.

 

[Sleepingforest]

You're comparing a top end desktop GPU (which was released for 2011) with a middle tier mobile GPU from a generation back. That's not really a fair comparison--it's not that Macs are inherently bad, it's just outdated and was middle tier at best even when new.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Not really. A 5870 is about as fast as a 6950 which was still high end in 2011. And a 6970 is just 20% faster than a 6950 tops. And more like 40-45% faster than a 5850. I got better fps at 1080p ultra no MSAA read 60-90+ than he gets at 1080p minimum. That is a huge difference.

 

[TapWater]

Delete.

 

[mfenn]

Not really. A 5870 is about as fast as a 6950 which was still high end in 2011. And a 6970 is just 20% faster than a 6950 tops. And more like 40-45% faster than a 5850. I got better fps at 1080p ultra no MSAA read 60-90+ than he gets at 1080p minimum. That is a huge difference.

That's all well and good, but not terribly relevant. The iMac uses a mobile 5850, which is really an underclocked 5770.