[Solved] CPU

What is the fastest cpu on mac, is it 2600k?
Can i play games as much as on the PC?

Even on a Mac, your gaming prowess is determined more by the graphics card than the CPU. In general, the Mac laptops and iMacs are not so good for gaming due to the limited graphics. The Mac Pros have more powerful processors and better graphics capability, but they start at $2500.

For gaming, it is best to choose a Windows 7 PC with at least a Core i3-2100 processor. Right now the most popular processor is the Core i5-2500k as there is no advantage to a Core i7 for gaming.

dont get a mac if your thinking about gaming

If you only want to use Mac OS then no. There are not as many games for Mac OS though steam is trying to narrow the gap. If you dual boot with Windows 7 then yes you can play the same games you play on a PC. Of course, a similarly priced (and well balanced) PC from a Cyber Power, or even Alienware, will be able to play the same games on higher detail.

People run HD 6990s on Mac Pros, and 12 2.93GHz cores aren't going to hurt. What hardware were you thinking of?

+1 diellur

this statement is just wrong and more wrong.

ill take a i5 2500k over a 2.93 ghz xeon any day of the week.

I would go Windows. It really is the premier gaming platform.

I quite agree that a Mac Pro would be a very expensive gaming machine, and certainly wouldn't be my choice as value for money. But that's different from saying that you can't play games on Macs. If you have the money, and the desire, you certainly can.

Only if the application you are using is multi-threaded. What if it can only take advantage of 1, 2 or 4 cores? I don't believe that the 12 cores would offer significant advantages, if any, in that case...a case which is representative of gaming. However, feel free to point us in the direction of benchmarks which prove otherwise.

Well, I did some Googling and it looks like people have problems putting a 6990 into a MP, from not being able to find enough PCIe power connectors to not having Windows recognising it as a dual-core GPU in Bootcamp. So can you show the community here the results of your Googling...a website with a MP user succesfully using a 6990 on his system would do nicely.

As for FSX...sure, maybe this is a case where the MP would be better. It's one game...the majority of games out there are only starting to take advantage of quad-core CPUs, so 12 cores would be a waste in a gaming system. Future-proofing? Tenuous...

Coming back to the OP's question, a MP isn't the most cost-effective, easiest or powerful system to play games on. The MP is more of a workstation which uses highly-threaded applications as standard...in that case, it'll blow a high-end Windows-based gaming system out of the water, no question. But by suggesting that you could drop a 6990 into a MP and play games is misleading, as it's not going to be anywhere as simple as that.

However, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong...but you'll need to show us links, not simply tell us to Google it.

Still waiting on those links.

True, that.

But he also indicated you could put a 6990 into a MP, and that a 12 core system would be a good way to future-proof yourself, despite the fact that...oh, never mind.

I appreciate that a thread like this is always going to attract a deal of anti-Mac trolling. I tried, in my original post, to provide a simple, factual answer to the question asked. The most powerful Mac CPU is as I listed; what you do with it is your own outlook.

Big mistake on my part; there's always bound to be zealots who will take every opportunity to knock hardware (or software that they have not chosen). I have, unwisely, allowed myself to be sucked in to a pointless argument.

Me, I'm quite happy with both my PCs and my Macs and a fairly wide selection of Operating Systems. I wouldn't dream of trying to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't buy. They're all just computers in the end.

Sorry, didn't see it as trolling or knocking hardware, it's just the i7 2600k (or i5 2500k) in games is the same or better compared to the xeon you mentioned for much cheaper. If the OP was asking the fastest cpu for almost anything else i'd probably back you up depending on the application or use the OP has for it.

I thought I told you to stay out of the Mac OS X section.

It's not good for your health.

Yes, yes the argument has been a little sidetracked. iJack is both wrong but technically right. While it is technically possible to install a HD 6990 in a Mac Pro, as indicated above or by Google search, this often results in issues are are solvable. Power supply problems can simply be fixed with a more powerful power supply, however compatibility problems can be fixed by an experienced coder with knowledge in firmware etc. making his own drivers (though I doubt this would happen). Honestly, that's apart from the point. Also, it would be foolish to call iJack a supporter of any operating system, as he regulars both the Linux and Windows forums.

But see it doesn't answer the OP's original question.

iJack simply answered the question. The most powerful Apple Macintosh CPU one can buy is the 12-core Xeon.

Why not i know people with i macs are into gaming a lot and have no problems at all.Think before you post something.

Having a mac and wanting to game, understandable and possible. Wanting to game and don't have a mac but thinking about one. That's a different story, its not suggested to get a mac just to play games because of the unnecessary extra costs.

im sorry but this is just wrong. just because you cant tell there is a performance hit doesnt meant its not there. unless an imac offers an i5 2500k they are just an expensive paper weight. they are not worth their money in any thing. the only thing they are good for is there battery life but they dont ever tell you that their batteries are twice the size of the normal one.

mac anything = someone who wants/trys to act like they are superior but jokes on them cause in now way are macs overall better then a windows machine.

name one thing that a Mac does better.

I would have to say that a Mac is likely to be more stable than a Windows platform. Apple spec the system hardware, then get the OS to work for that...it's similar to consoles, in that they know the hardware they're working with.

Windows is broader-brush in that it'll work with any component under the sun, pretty much, but there can be some inherent problems with that. IMHO, they've been vastly reduced in Windows 7.

So the expense of a Mac comes down to two things...the optimisation that they do, and the engineering that goes into it. It's very impressive. At the end of the day it's down to you, the buyer, to choose what they want. Given the infrequency of Windows crashes nowadays, I tend to always recommend Windows...however, sometimes people want the creme de la creme, and in that case I'd say get a Mac.

I'd also caveat it - very strongly - that I haven't got a clue how to troubleshoot it, so you're on yer own, chum...

Best answer selected by Unixdaemon.