Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

CPU

Tags:
  • Games
  • CPUs
  • Macintosh
  • Mac OS X
Last response: in Mac Os X
February 10, 2012 6:12:43 AM

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

More about : cpu

February 10, 2012 7:57:18 AM

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.
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 11:00:46 AM

Twin 2.93 GHz 6-core Xeons.
Share
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 12:19:24 PM

dont get a mac if your thinking about gaming
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 3:40:48 PM

Why not? You could always dual boot Windows 7, and have the best of both worlds. Expensive, but if you can afford it....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 4:12:42 PM

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.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 6:33:24 PM

Ijack said:
Why not? You could always dual boot Windows 7, and have the best of both worlds. Expensive, but if you can afford it....


Which would (probably) allow you to install the games, but doesn't address the fact that Apple systems don't have the most up-to-date hardware to run it like a Windows-based system would.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 6:54:05 PM

People run HD 6990s on Mac Pros, and 12 2.93GHz cores aren't going to hurt. What hardware were you thinking of?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 6:59:54 PM

I was looking at the Apple Store, where the GPU options for Mac Pros are 1x or 2x a 5770, or 1x a 5880. Who uses 6990s in them?

No game currently exists which could use 12 cores, so there would be zero point in using a Mac Pro as a gaming machine from that perspective, either.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 7:09:29 PM

+1 diellur
Score
0
February 10, 2012 7:16:37 PM

can you play games as much as on a PC... quick answer no...

but then again, what games u looking at and i will say it...

you can always get a console..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 7:16:50 PM

Ijack said:
Twin 2.93 GHz 6-core Xeons.


this statement is just wrong and more wrong.

ill take a i5 2500k over a 2.93 ghz xeon any day of the week.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 7:21:39 PM

A Mac Pro is not a gaming machine, don't waste your money. Point me to any configuration of a Mac Pro, and I'll give you twenty custom built configurations that are both faster and cheaper. If you want you can put OS X on them too.

Hardware in a Mac is no better than hardware in a Windows machine, and in most cases is literally identical. Paying more just so you can install Windows to play your games does nothing but inflate the price without providing the slightest shred of a benefit.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 11:16:53 PM

I would go Windows. It really is the premier gaming platform.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 5:52:34 AM

cbrunnem said:
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 think that 12 cores at 2.93GHz are going to beat 4 at 2.5GHz any day, but you are welcome to your view. I stand by my statement that that is the most powerful CPU in a Mac.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 5:54:47 AM

willard said:
A Mac Pro is not a gaming machine, don't waste your money. Point me to any configuration of a Mac Pro, and I'll give you twenty custom built configurations that are both faster and cheaper. If you want you can put OS X on them too.

Hardware in a Mac is no better than hardware in a Windows machine, and in most cases is literally identical. Paying more just so you can install Windows to play your games does nothing but inflate the price without providing the slightest shred of a benefit.

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.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 5:58:44 AM

diellur said:
I was looking at the Apple Store, where the GPU options for Mac Pros are 1x or 2x a 5770, or 1x a 5880. Who uses 6990s in them?

No game currently exists which could use 12 cores, so there would be zero point in using a Mac Pro as a gaming machine from that perspective, either.

You won't buy them configured that way, but a little Googling would tell you the answer.

I believe that Flight Simulator X will use as many cores as you throw at it; it thrives on CPU power. I'm sure there are plenty of other games that will utilize all available cores. And why limit your buying choices to current games? Do a little futureproofing.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 6:58:08 AM

Ijack said:
I think that 12 cores at 2.93GHz are going to beat 4 at 2.5GHz any day, but you are welcome to your view. I stand by my statement that that is the most powerful CPU in a Mac.


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.

Ijack said:
You won't buy them configured that way, but a little Googling would tell you the answer.

I believe that Flight Simulator X will use as many cores as you throw at it; it thrives on CPU power. I'm sure there are plenty of other games that will utilize all available cores. And why limit your buying choices to current games? Do a little futureproofing.


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. :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 8:52:36 AM

diellur said:

Coming back to the OP's question, a MP isn't the most cost-effective, easiest or powerful system to play games on.

I wouldn't dispute that. But that wasn't the OP's original question. Of course, as I have pointed out several times, a Mac is not the most cost-effective way to play games. But that doesn't mean that you can't play games on a Mac if you have some overriding reason to purchase one.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 9:45:30 AM

Ijack said:
I wouldn't dispute that. But that wasn't the OP's original question. Of course, as I have pointed out several times, a Mac is not the most cost-effective way to play games. But that doesn't mean that you can't play games on a Mac if you have some overriding reason to purchase one.


Still waiting on those links. :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 6:03:39 PM

He has already explained that a Windows box would offer the best value.

You aren't really even arguing.

ijack is directly answering the question posted by the OP who seems to have disappeared.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 6:09:29 PM

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. :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 6:50:03 PM

diellur said:
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. :) 


To finish your sentence...
"despite the fact that..." by the time you could actually use those 12 cores in games, they will be outdated cores by future standards. The best future proofing while being cost effective, is building for the next 3 years, IMO. Building for too far in the future with current tech is always bad cost effective wise and performance wise in the future.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 7:02:00 PM

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.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 7:19:01 PM

Ijack said:
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.


Oooooh, I was all ready to walk away and all, but then you had to say that... :non: 

First thing's first. I've not been 'anti-Mac trolling', as you put it. I have, in my time, had an iPad, an iPhone and a MacBook Pro in my possession. I still have an iPhone (4S) as I think they're the best phones on the market, when you look at hardware, stability and OS. Personally, I wouldn't go Mac in the future for a PC as I don't think they have the same bang for buck, especially as Windows is now very robust. Anyways...IMHO, and all that.

Yes, your first post did give a simple, factual answer...but then you went on to make some claims that you still haven't substantiated, despite being asked to. You were quite happy to beat the Mac drum up to that point.

Oh, and I'm not being a 'zealot', as you put it, I'm a member of a technical community who wants to know a bit more about what you claim is possible...ie, running a MP with a 6990. We're still waiting for the 'simple, factual answer' to the question 'Please show us evidence that that is possible' (acceptable evidence in the form of a URL showing how to successfully install and operate said GPU will graciously be received).

:) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 7:27:14 PM

Ijack said:
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.
Score
0
a c 378 à CPUs
February 11, 2012 7:55:49 PM

A new HD7xxx card (7700 series?) is coming soon for about $150 and slightly more processing power than an HD6870 if I'm correct.

Based on this and other parts I pieced together a computer (theoretically) for $800 which is a pretty nice gaming system. This includes an i7-2500K, Windows 7 Premium x64 OEM, Antec 100 case etc.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 11, 2012 11:46:12 PM



Ijack said:
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.


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

It's not good for your health.

diellur said:
Oooooh, I was all ready to walk away and all, but then you had to say that... :non: 

First thing's first. I've not been 'anti-Mac trolling', as you put it. I have, in my time, had an iPad, an iPhone and a MacBook Pro in my possession. I still have an iPhone (4S) as I think they're the best phones on the market, when you look at hardware, stability and OS. Personally, I wouldn't go Mac in the future for a PC as I don't think they have the same bang for buck, especially as Windows is now very robust. Anyways...IMHO, and all that.

Yes, your first post did give a simple, factual answer...but then you went on to make some claims that you still haven't substantiated, despite being asked to. You were quite happy to beat the Mac drum up to that point.

Oh, and I'm not being a 'zealot', as you put it, I'm a member of a technical community who wants to know a bit more about what you claim is possible...ie, running a MP with a 6990. We're still waiting for the 'simple, factual answer' to the question 'Please show us evidence that that is possible' (acceptable evidence in the form of a URL showing how to successfully install and operate said GPU will graciously be received).

:) 


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.

omega21xx said:
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.


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

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


iJack simply answered the question. The most powerful Apple Macintosh CPU one can buy is the 12-core Xeon.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2012 12:34:49 AM

amdfangirl said:
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.


My point was that judging by the OP message, I think they are asking what the best CPU for gaming is for a mac. Now yes ijack is correct in terms of shear power and if you read the question literally as just the most powerful CPU for mac. However the i5 or i7 is currently the strongest gaming CPU on mac (unless they sell Sandy bridge e macs which I haven't seen)
Score
0
February 12, 2012 12:52:39 AM

alvine said:
dont get a mac if your thinking about gaming
Why not i know people with i macs are into gaming a lot and have no problems at all.Think before you post something.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2012 1:17:28 AM

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


Angry Birds doesn't count :kaola: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2012 1:19:12 AM

musical marv said:
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.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2012 1:21:35 AM

Quote:
Angry Birds doesn't count :kaola: 


But angry birds is so hardcore! :lol: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2012 6:34:59 AM

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


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.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2012 2:56:26 PM

cbrunnem said:
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.

Thank you. That certainly underlines my point about anti-Mac trolls.

I think that AMDfangirl is right. This OS X forum is not a very useful one as it tends to attract zealots from one side or another, but I see very little useful comment here.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2012 5:08:03 PM

Ijack said:
Thank you. That certainly underlines my point about anti-Mac trolls.

I think that AMDfangirl is right. This OS X forum is not a very useful one as it tends to attract zealots from one side or another, but I see very little useful comment here.


name one thing that a Mac does better.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2012 5:57:32 PM

cbrunnem said:
name one thing that a Mac does better.

Mac OS and windows are just operating systems, it just comes down to personal preference, most swear by windows some swear by Linux and some swear by mac OS. Now if you mean what a mac does better hardware wise that's all depending on the specs.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2012 6:06:24 PM

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...
Score
0
February 21, 2012 8:25:39 PM

Best answer selected by Unixdaemon.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2012 9:29:01 PM

This topic has been closed by Amdfangirl
Score
0