So I Really Need a new computer. I want a mac air, but macs dont run games well, do they? I want a computer that has good editing and can run steam nicely. I might go with the mac air but im not sure. I need help. Thanks.
Pretty fly for a white guy.
i would say go with windows build you're self a custom pc
"Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is?
was her name tenneassi
omtish
If your main concern is gaming and video editing, I would recommend building a cheap, custom, Windows desktop. If you must keep things portable, then I would recommend getting a Windows laptop for the gaming aspect.
Keep in mind that Macs can use Windows through BootCamp, but you will still need a copy of Windows to install it (if I'm not mistaken). The issue with doing this is that most cheaper Macs and small Macs (as in thin like the Mac Air) use integrated graphics cards which are not that great at gaming. On the other hand, they would be decent at video editing.
Buying a Windows laptop would be cheaper than buying a Mac with the specs to front what you have in mind. To summarize, you would need a 15" MacBook Pro ($1800) plus a copy of Windows ($50) if you wanted to video edit and play newer games. You would need something like this if you went with the Windows equivalent laptop ($700), or you could build your own desktop computer ($400).
Pretty fly for a white guy.
Just get a Windows 7 PC. If you want games you will get absolutely nothing on MAC.
I'm just a dreamer.
At 3/29/13 03:04 PM, sweet21 wrote: Just get a Windows 7 PC. If you want games you will get absolutely nothing on MAC.
hmmm ok, but I want some editing too. windows movie maker would be good too, right?
Pretty fly for a white guy.
At 3/29/13 03:05 PM, CloudStrife108 wrote:At 3/29/13 03:04 PM, sweet21 wrote: Just get a Windows 7 PC. If you want games you will get absolutely nothing on MAC.hmmm ok, but I want some editing too. windows movie maker would be good too, right?
I would assume. I haven't used any form of video editing. But like any computer program you have to know how to use it.
I'm just a dreamer.
I'd recommend an iMac with a Windows Boot. The iMac's now come with GeForce 675's and a quad-core core i5 3.2 GHz, with a 27-inch screen with LED-backlit display with IPS technology (If you still move at an angle to that of the screen, you will still see the screen perfectly) with a 2560-by-1440 resolution, has 8 GB RAM, and a 1TB hard drive. It's like $2,000 for all of this, there are cheaper options, but this is what is here. It is a bit cheaper than Alienware.
But I recommended this because this is the best Mac machine you could get for gaming. As for the Macbook Air, it has Intel Graphics 4000, pretty much the newest integrated graphics from Intel, and if you boot your Macbook to Windows, you could run Battlefield 3 at around 20 FPS. Games like FIFA will run at around 100. You could look around at TigerDirect and/or NewEgg for some parts on sale that work with eachother and watch videos on how to assemble it yourself if you don't know already how to do so. But, to be honest, even if you do get all the parts equivalent to the computer you want, it's gonna be just like $100 cheaper or so, used to be a bigger margin. As for video editing, iMovie is better than Windows Movie Maker, but as for the Windows Movie Maker for windows 7/8, it's alright, but the problem is that it's too basic with problems like not being able to add more than 1 sound at a certain time. But, to get some good editing software, it's gonna cost you around $50-900, but good editing programs are basically everything here.
That Scout is a Soldier!
At 3/29/13 08:09 PM, scoutthesoldier wrote: I'd recommend an iMac with a Windows Boot. The iMac's now come with GeForce 675's and a quad-core core i5 3.2 GHz, with a 27-inch screen with LED-backlit display with IPS technology (If you still move at an angle to that of the screen, you will still see the screen perfectly) with a 2560-by-1440 resolution, has 8 GB RAM, and a 1TB hard drive. It's like $2,000 for all of this, there are cheaper options, but this is what is here. It is a bit cheaper than Alienware.
This is a parts list that I quickly put together from Newegg (online computer parts distributor). It comes with most of the same or equal parts (including the screen) to the iMac listed above. The only difference is that the computer components I listed have a much better graphics card.
The GPU (graphics processing unit - graphics card) listed in the iMac's specs is a mobility version. In other words, the iMac uses a version of the Geforce 675 that you would normally see in more portable devices, like a laptop. The Graphics card listed in that parts list is the desktop version, which is significantly more powerful.
In other words, that picture has a list of parts that you could buy and put together yourself. You would end up with a computer that is more powerful than the iMac listed above, and it would be ~$500 cheaper. If you are not comfortable building your own computer, you could always buy the parts and have your local tech shop build it for you for ~$50. The total cost would still be ~$450 cheaper.
At 3/29/13 08:09 PM, scoutthesoldier wrote: But I recommended this because this is the best Mac machine you could get for gaming. As for the Macbook Air, it has Intel Graphics 4000, pretty much the newest integrated graphics from Intel, and if you boot your Macbook to Windows, you could run Battlefield 3 at around 20 FPS. Games like FIFA will run at around 100.
The Intel HD Graphics 4000 GPU is integrated. In other words, the processor and GPU are put together. This means that the GPU is really small, and usually pretty weak. The Intel HD Graphics 4000 GPU is not good for most modern games. You will not be able to play newer games at a high resolution (especially 2560x1440) with that card. Make sure you get a dedicated GPU (the GeForce GTX 670 in my parts list is a dedicated card).
At 3/29/13 08:09 PM, scoutthesoldier wrote: As for video editing, iMovie is better than Windows Movie Maker, but as for the Windows Movie Maker for windows 7/8, it's alright, but the problem is that it's too basic with problems like not being able to add more than 1 sound at a certain time. But, to get some good editing software, it's gonna cost you around $50-900, but good editing programs are basically everything here.
This is a link to a few free video editing applications.
At 3/29/13 03:17 PM, harryharryharry98 wrote: My System specs are
GTX 55Ti Graphics Card
AMD FX4100 Quad Core Processor
4Gb RAM
and I bought it from Dino PC which has a build your own PC sort of thing so you can play around and get the best of your money
I don't recommend buying from shops that customize a PC for you. Whenever you click on the customize button, you are given a base product with everything it needs to operate. You then go through a bunch of screens that allow you to upgrade the parts in that base product. When you click on an upgrade, the part originally included in the base product is not subtracted from the fee.
If you click on a PC that costs $500, then lets assume $100 of that is from the processor. You then come to a screen that says, "Upgrade the processor for $200." That processor costs $200, and the total fee is now $700 ($500 + $200). When you click the upgrade button, the $100 processor already included in the base system is not subtracted, even though you opted to switch what processor will be in your computer.
You are basically trading in one part for another, but getting no trade-in value. The end fee once you have clicked all of the upgrades is way more expensive than if you just built it yourself.
If you want a gaming computer I'd suggest waiting for the 780/770 gpu to come out. I say stick with Nvidia(Unless Nvidia gets cocky and they don't want to match their prices against ATI and overprice their gpus). Only reason I stick with Nvidia is because Physx, and I don't want to hear this bs about no game supports it because thats a lie, and a lot of Indie games support Physx features. I played a free pc game earlier that had physx in it, except I personally didn't enjoy the game but there's others who did, that game was called Warframe. Not a bad graphics game for an indie game but the Story was lackluster and I have no idea what was going on in the game aswell as I think the gameplay elements need to improve. All I knew how to do was shoot and use a sword. It going boring real fast.
Jesus Christ the one True God of Love and Peace.
At 3/30/13 04:05 AM, TheKlown wrote: If you want a gaming computer I'd suggest waiting for the 780/770 gpu to come out. I say stick with Nvidia(Unless Nvidia gets cocky and they don't want to match their prices against ATI and overprice their gpus). Only reason I stick with Nvidia is because Physx, and I don't want to hear this bs about no game supports it because thats a lie, and a lot of Indie games support Physx features.
Showcase of PhysX on an AMD graphics card.
PhysX can be done on an AMD card by simply enabling it. I would suggest going with whichever card comes with better freebies or at a better price. AMD's current lineup gives and takes blows from Nvidia's; some games perform better on one than on the other. The blows that are traded are so negligible, I wouldn't worry about the brand (AMD or Nvidia). Although their architecture is different, they both perform relatively the same in games.
The only time picking one brand over the other is important is when you are doing large math/physics calculations outside of gaming, such as running complex algorithms or solving a large number of equations. Nvidia tends to use fewer but more powerful cores which allows better performance when doing a few "hard" calculations. AMD tends to throw on tons of weaker cores which allow better performance when doing a lot of "easy" calculations. To put it simply: if you plan on doing graduate-level calculus/physics calculations, go with Nvidia; if you plan on password cracking/bitcoin mining/insert random code generation here, go with AMD.
I doubt that many people reading this are seriously interested in doing either of the above. As such, just go with the cheaper card/card that has the biggest bundle of free stuff. Again, each company has a graphics card that performs relatively the same for the same price point.
I wouldn't suggest waiting for Nvidia's GTX 700 series. A release date has not yet been confirmed, so expect a Q3 or Q4 (Fall - Winter) release. Brand new graphics cards are usually $600 upon release; you could buy a graphics card now for $300 that would play every game on max settings. Buying premium on release day is almost always a waste of money. I would recommend buying an Nvidia GTX 670 or an AMD 7950. If you want to upgrade later on, wait until Nvidia's GTX 700 series drops in price to $400, then sell your Nvidia GTX 670 or AMD 7950 for $200. That way, you save a bit of money.
Pretty fly for a white guy.
Amd does not support physx, that video that guy posted is bullshit. Amd doesn't have physx built into their gpu. Go to overclock.net and ask about it. Intel cpus can run Physx to some degree but not at high even overclocked.
Jesus Christ the one True God of Love and Peace.
At 3/30/13 05:58 PM, TheKlown wrote: Amd does not support physx, that video that guy posted is bullshit. Amd doesn't have physx built into their gpu. Go to overclock.net and ask about it. Intel cpus can run Physx to some degree but not at high even overclocked.
PhysX can reallocate its work to the CPU. In software accelerated PhysX, AMD cards are technically passing off the work to the CPU. The AMD card is not doing the PhysX work, but your computer is. You are using PhysX with an AMD card; your AMD card is not doing PhysX. I apologize for my poor wording ealier; I did not want to confuse readers or the OP with techno-babble.
The effects of PhysX were originally processed by the CPU; Nvidia changed it to GPU to lessen CPU usage; Nvidia added a few specialized cores to facilitate PhysX. Most games using PhysX can be played with decent enough framerates on a modern, high-end processor. I would imagine that a very few amount of games have issues with CPU-based PhysX; Borderlands 2 is supposedly not one of them.
Here is a list of games that use hardware based PhysX. I have only checked a few games using CPU-based PhysX with an AMD card (Borderlands 2, Mirror's Edge, Mafia 2, Batman: Arkham City), but they all have fairly good framerates when paired with a newer processor (i5 2500k, AMD Phenom II 1090T, MD FX-8120, and 3770k respectively).
I recommned Nvidia card still if he wants al special graphics. But I will warn him that while those extra special effects are pretty cool, I do not think it's worth it if Nvidia won't compete against ATI in pricing. But they're both pretty close in pricing tho Nvidia is a little more expensive. My recommendation is Nvidia, is your recommnedation ATI if he is on a budget? Also, I'm on an Amd cpu, so in my case it was a good thing that I went with a Nvidia card since I wanted the Physx special features in games such as Batman. Yes, Intel cpu's are capable of doing some of the Physx but can Intel even do Cuda? Nvidia cards also does the Cuda effects, I know that most games don't use Cuda but Just Cause uses Cuda.
Jesus Christ the one True God of Love and Peace.
At 3/28/13 04:25 PM, CloudStrife108 wrote: So I Really Need a new computer. I want a mac air, but macs dont run games well, do they? I want a computer that has good editing and can run steam nicely. I might go with the mac air but im not sure. I need help. Thanks.
If you build your computer you can buy parts for an intel/motherboard combination that works with Hackintosh Mountain Lion. You would have to google about it. I think I heard it's some certain gigabyte boards that work perfectly for Hackintosh Mountain Lion but I can't confirm that. This means you can run two os's on your computer Windows 7 and Hackintosh Mountain Lion. You can get the best of both worlds.
Jesus Christ the one True God of Love and Peace.
You can get the best of both worlds.
Oh! Ok Thanks! So my best option would be to just build my own computer, i see. And thanks to everyone that replied!
Pretty fly for a white guy.
