Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Pandora · Sep 24, 2002, 03:04 PM

hi

I got

Dual G4 800 with 2MB L3
512 MB RAM
GeForce 2 MX 64 MB
blablabla

how will it run? will I be able to play it at 800*600 everything maxed up?

thanks

btw...does it support SMP?

SteveJobs · Sep 24, 2002, 03:35 PM

The Geforce 2 MX is definitely a problem.

Steve

xyber233 · Sep 24, 2002, 06:09 PM

My friend downloaded the demo for his pc. He has a 700mhz Pentium III, and a 32mb geforce2mx. I say it runs pretty well. He gets an average framerate of 34 fps at 800x600.

CheesePuff · Sep 24, 2002, 08:45 PM

Either get a ATI Radeon 7500 with 32 MB DDR video RAM (which will actually be better) or either the Mac version or flash a PC version of the 8500 with 64 MB DDR video RAM. The PC version goes for about $115, Mac around $240.

Pandora · Sep 25, 2002, 12:04 PM

Hi

Thanks for the replies

Mhh so the GF2 MX is to slow?

I have a PC radeon 7500 64 mb ddr lying around...it's one of the first produced by ati..can't I flash it?

I don't have the money to buy a radeon 8500

xyber233 · Sep 25, 2002, 01:45 PM

There will be a demo for beat testing purposes. You might as well wait and try out the demo before you make any decisions. Even at 800*600, UT2k3 looks so sweet

!

MindFad · Sep 25, 2002, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by xyber233:
My friend downloaded the demo for his pc. He has a 700mhz Pentium III, and a 32mb geforce2mx. I say it runs pretty well. He gets an average framerate of 34 fps at 800x600.

Cool. Dual-800, GF3 here. 30 frames and above is acceptable and great for me.

rampant · Sep 26, 2002, 12:34 AM

30 FPS AVERAGE.

That means it's mostly below 30 fps most of the time.

BTW, both your processors and your video card are really going to hold it back.

xyber233 · Sep 26, 2002, 09:59 AM

It never got choppy when I was watching and this was online with lots of people. I know the gf2mx isnt that great but at least it will run decently and still look really nice.

andycroll · Sep 26, 2002, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by rampant:
30 FPS AVERAGE.

That means it's mostly below 30 fps most of the time.

BTW, both your processors and your video card are really going to hold it back.

Not to be too much of a nitpicker but 'average' does mean exactly that. It means that (in simpe terms) half the time it'll be more than 30 and half the time less. Leaving an mean average in the middle.

Frankly the GeForce2 MX is the card in my iMac and the card I had in the PC before that and it seems to me to be fine if you run in 800x600, admittedly that wasn't for UT2003 but then as long as it's playable with a little less eyecandy I'm sure you'll be fine.

It all comes down to that age old unsolvable argument. What's good and playable for one man (jo shmo GeForce2MX) is abhorrent to the other (with a Radeon 9000). Til the next fastest card comes out.

My (inoffensive) tuppence

Andy

parallax · Sep 26, 2002, 02:28 PM

Meh, count yourself lucky. My G4/400 SP / Radeon 8500 probably won't perform well at all.

Pandora · Sep 28, 2002, 03:54 AM

ah nice to hear that

..don't want to buy a new videocard

mhh and when will it get released? I read that it'll come before christmas..what does that mean? 23th of december?

Thanks

davecom · Sep 29, 2002, 02:00 PM

Crossing fingers that my G4 500 with Radeon AGP will get 30 FPS.

bradoesch · Sep 29, 2002, 03:18 PM

Crossing fingers that my G3 400 iMac with Rage128 VR will get 3 fps.

rampant · Sep 29, 2002, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by davecom:
Crossing fingers that my G4 500 with Radeon AGP will get 30 FPS.

Sorry- nope. The processor is just as important as the video card in UT2003, and yours is highly lacking. Run at lowest details, but I wouldn't buy it, it would be a waste.

xyber233 · Sep 30, 2002, 12:40 PM

Why don't we all just wait for a demo/beta test to be released? Some people have lower standards for framerates/quality than others. Even if the game doesn't run super fast, its fun as hell.

rampant · Oct 1, 2002, 02:46 PM

I'm speaking from my experiance running the UT2003 demo on multiple hardware configurations.

FredTheDead · Oct 15, 2002, 04:27 PM

You probably shouldn't get you hopes up, just because the game performs well on a PC with GF 2MX. Pzees run the games faster than macs, mostly due to bad ports, and so it will likely require more mac power to run UT 2003 at a descent framerate.
If only more games were coded directly for the mac. Pc users would be crying like babies...

- Fred

FatBastard · Oct 16, 2002, 08:51 AM

I have a Dual G4 533 768Megs of Ram and a NVIDEA Geforce 2 MX. Now a hear the Geforce 2 MX will be the problem but what is the solution?

At this point (14 years of Mac), I'm so sickened to hear what my mac cannot do, I may just get a PC package that is loaded for around $2,000+. Considering my current G4 ran me $4,000 less than two years ago, all of the major graphic titles are being coded for the PC, and the opportunity for expansion in any direction is all there, I think this Mac man may be going the other way.

juanvaldes · Oct 17, 2002, 01:03 AM

Apple has been selling POS GPU's as default fora few years now. If you want to game on your mac get a real video card. Search for threads on it.

Leonard · Oct 17, 2002, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by FatBastard:
I have a Dual G4 533 768Megs of Ram and a NVIDEA Geforce 2 MX. Now a hear the Geforce 2 MX will be the problem but what is the solution?

At this point (14 years of Mac), I'm so sickened to hear what my mac cannot do, I may just get a PC package that is loaded for around $2,000+. Considering my current G4 ran me $4,000 less than two years ago, all of the major graphic titles are being coded for the PC, and the opportunity for expansion in any direction is all there, I think this Mac man may be going the other way.

As juan has said, the standard card in a Mac is a low to mid-end card. If you want to play high-demanding 3D games at good framerates, you need a higher end card. When I bought my DP800 I made sure it had a Geforce 3 in it - the best at the current time.

Your Geforce 2MX is already 2 or 3 generations old - The Geforce 3 and 4's are already out and Nvidia is already talkin' about the Geforce 5. I'd suggest a Geforce 4TI, ATI Radeon 8500, or if you want to wait a few months, ATI Radeon 9700 (NOT the ATI Radeon 9000). You'll want to make sure the card is compatible with your Mac and it has the connectors(VGA, ADC, or DVI) you need.

FatBastard · Oct 17, 2002, 06:11 PM

Great suggestions, I'll keep my eyes open and stick with my mac for a litlle while longer.

P.S. I'm a big time UT sniper

CIA · Oct 18, 2002, 12:48 AM

Terrible, but one instance where it's true, if you want top notch gaming, buy a PC. Everything else, Mac all the way.

SOLIDAge · Oct 18, 2002, 01:50 AM

how will my 17" iMac w/ 512RAM run UT2003?
i hope decently?

FatBastard · Oct 18, 2002, 04:14 PM

Given the some of the previous postings, my guess would be not at all.
Then again you don't tell us what processor your using and what video card is in it.

SOLIDAge · Oct 18, 2002, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by FatBastard:
Given the some of the previous postings, my guess would be not at all.
Then again you don't tell us what processor your using and what video card is in it.

well id think you guys would pick up on it beeing 800Mhz G4 w/ a GeForce 4MX since thats what comes in ever 17" iMac

Guy Incognito · Oct 18, 2002, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by solidage:

well id think you guys would pick up on it beeing 800Mhz G4 w/ a GeForce 4MX since thats what comes in ever 17" iMac

You gotta remember, some people can't make these kinds of connections.

FatBastard · Oct 18, 2002, 06:43 PM

hmmm
The Riddler. LOL

I'm no expert but judging from past responses that Video Card is near the top of the line and should be fine. But I'm no expert!

How's the 17" with the current UT now? I have the 17" cinema screen in work and it rocks. I'm dying to get one for home but I wondered how it looks with games. So it's either a 21" monitor or the 17" cinema screen. I'm going to have to wait for UT any way so I'll hold of on the video card until then. Maybe something bigger and better will come out by then.

xyber233 · Oct 18, 2002, 07:04 PM

Heh, you have to keep in mind that its an mx. Its not that much better than a geforce2mx(which I have). I guess it all depends on how good the X version is now that they dont have to worry about making a 9 version. Can't wait for the demo/beta.

juanvaldes · Oct 19, 2002, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by solidage:

well id think you guys would pick up on it beeing 800Mhz G4 w/ a GeForce 4MX since thats what comes in ever 17" iMac

Don't expect much out of that, Nvidia pulled a fast one with the GF4MX. They are really Overclocked GF2's (high end of the 2MX's) and is still very old. iMac's just don't have gaming cards in them (which does make sense if you look at who they are targeted at)

SOLIDAge · Oct 19, 2002, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by juanvaldes:

Don't expect much out of that, Nvidia pulled a fast one with the GF4MX. They are really Overclocked GF2's (high end of the 2MX's) and is still very old. iMac's just don't have gaming cards in them (which does make sense if you look at who they are targeted at)

my iMac gets around 30-40 FPS in Q3, MOHAA and UT for X, (all at high colour and high res) thats all i want, i'm a gamer but not hardcore, i'm not looking for FPS in the 100s, i just want to be able to play it smoothly

xyber233 · Oct 19, 2002, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by solidage:

my iMac gets around 30-40 FPS in Q3, MOHAA and UT for X, (all at high colour and high res) thats all i want, i'm a gamer but not hardcore, i'm not looking for FPS in the 100s, i just want to be able to play it smoothly

Exactly. That why I think a lot of people will like how ut2003 will perform on their computers. Just because it doesn't run at 200fps with everything maxed out doesn't mean its not good. It's such a fun game and looks sweet even at 800*600.I'm a casual gamer. As lon as I get 30-40 fps on average, I'm really happy.

CIA · Oct 21, 2002, 11:29 PM

Remember how long it took Q3A to run well on macs? People complained long and hard about that one, untill Mac hardware caught up with the PC version.. Of course by then the PC people had long since moved on to greener pastures...... I have a feeling this will happen again to us with UT2K3 and Doom 3....

sleepyrenderer · Oct 22, 2002, 07:46 AM

It all depends on what you're used too.

If you're used to games giving you more modest framerates (like 15-30) I doubt UT2003 will really be that bad if you turn some details down. If you're used to games being silky smooth (80+FPS nearly all the time) with full details then the more modest performance drives you nuts and won't cut it any more.

So I bet a lot of people will feel it runs just fine.

El Pre$idente · Oct 22, 2002, 09:15 AM

Max Payne is awesome on my Ti800 and supports the widescreen res. Wolfenstein is nice and zippy too. But MOHAA. Here's what annoys me. I buy this game for the second time (I got the PC version too) and it runs ok in single player mode but it is SOOOOO JERKY in multiplayer that I have to drop down to 640x480. Even at that resolution it is jerky and impossible to play well. I just get killed by everyone.

The hardware seems fast enough. But the OS doesn't seem to be able to handle graphics rendering and sending/recieving data over the net very well.