[guysmiley8090]

I am coming from a PC world and have decided to change to Mac. The only thing that was keeping me in PC land was games, but now I have come to find out that all the games I play are on the Mac.

Warcraft III
Age Of Mythology
Dungeon Siege
Neverwinter Nights
Diablo
Age Of Empires
Stronghold
Wolfenstein
Tony Hawk
etc.....


Now my big question is what Power Mac tower do I get? I am thinking about the G5 1.6 single processer ($1799) or the G4 dual 1.25 processor (1599). Keep in mind I am going to take my Memory to 1 gig or above and I will have a 64 mb video or above (most likey 128 mb video card). Wich one will be better? also I am planing on playing World Of Warcraft which comes out in late 2004, and I want this game to run flawless.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by guysmiley8090:
I am coming from a PC world and have decided to change to Mac. The only thing that was keeping me in PC land was games, but now I have come to find out that all the games I play are on the Mac.

Warcraft III
Age Of Mythology
Dungeon Siege
Neverwinter Nights
Diablo
Age Of Empires
Stronghold
Wolfenstein
Tony Hawk
etc.....


Now my big question is what Power Mac tower do I get? I am thinking about the G5 1.6 single processer ($1799) or the G4 dual 1.25 processor (1599). Keep in mind I am going to take my Memory to 1 gig or above and I will have a 64 mb video or above (most likey 128 mb video card). Wich one will be better? also I am planing on playing World Of Warcraft which comes out in late 2004, and I want this game to run flawless.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

Heh, all the games you listed will run dandy on an eMac with 32mb.

For more robust games such as UTk4 (coming soon) then you'll want a G5 with atleast 64mb,

No idea what the WoW specs are but I assume internet connection is atleast as important.

Basically, any desktop will do you proud but you got to decide how proud you wanna be.

[i am yujin]

I wouldn't count on playing War3 on ANY mac.

[MindFad]

Go for the G5 if you can, by all means. A 1.6 G5 will run all of those games a lot better than a dual 1.25 G4. Could maybe even hold out for a few months, since new machines are supposed to be coming out, or you can just go all out right now. Good luck and happy gaming!

[Truepop]

In most benchmarks, the dual 1.25 beat the 1.6 but that is because Mac OS X is a multitreading multiprocessor OS. However most games don't even see that second little chip (I think gaints does) so if gaming is all you plan to do than G5 (plus it has 5.1, and many other advanages over the dual g4)

Personally I would go for the g4 because hard drives will be cheaper, RAM might be, the video cards are about the same price and because I would use it for more than gaming. I have a dual 867MHz after having an older single 867MHz and will not be going back to single processor ever again (well laptops I will.)

[James L]

Warcraft 3 runs fine on the Mac... no problems at all (that is on a PB with 64 MB VRAM).

[CrackedButter]

Yes i run W3 on my PB (15" 1.25Ghz) with the processor REDUCED and it runs fine with max details... i don't know what the other poster is talking about.

[sideus]

Warcraft 3 on a dual 867 768MB RAM G4MX at 1280 x 1024 with all settings to max and it runs fine for me.

[guysmiley8090]

I will be using my Mac for more than just games. I will be using for artwork and animation also. So dose the G5 1.6 beat the dual g4 1.25 or would the dual G4 be better? By the way I don't understand all this warcraft III won't work. I played it at Compusa. Looked great to me.

Thanks again for your guys help. I just wish I would have become a Mac Man along time ago. Oh well better late than never.

[DBvader]

Before I went to school last year, i decided to ditch my PC for a mac becuase all the games I wanted to play were on the platform. Sadly mac gaming is nothing special, my one year old Dual 867 barely runs the newest releases (regardless of what someone is bound to say, that was still one of the fastest computer apple made a year ago) with its gig of RAM and ATI 9000. I would honestly reccomend getting a Dual 1.8. They are very expensive. If you are a student, check out Apple's student developer program at developer.apple.com

it will cost you 100 dollars to join, but after that, a Dual 1.8 will only set you back a cool 1999.

here is the hardware purchase program store:
http://developer.apple.com/membership/usa.html

click the link to get in the actual store.

good luck

[Tulkas]

Wait for the new G5s, get either a dual G5 or single G5... But GET a G5!

[justinkim]

The adage that one should always get as much computer as one can afford for gaming is as true on the Mac as it is on the PC.

Take it from someone who usually buys low end. While the latest gen of G4s may run the current crop of games reasonably well, it won't be too long before the new releases are beyond those machine's grasp.

[mac freak]

A 1.6 G5 updated to a 9800 is probably the best bang for your buck in the Mac gaming world (VERY few games are multiprocessor aware, though those are that are [*cough*Q3*cough*] have huge speed boosts).

[austeros]

isnt omni porting a bunch of games for macplay now? pretty sure they usually have mp support in their ports (provided the origional game could support it).

the guys at omni are great.

get a g5, but wait till jan just in case. They are ripe for an upgrade, which might push the dual 1.8 or dual 2.0 into your price range.

your graphics design apps will probably take advantage of the 2nd chip too. thats something else you should consider.

[superfula]

DO NOT buy the 1.6. It's the worst bang for the buck out of Apple's computer lineup. Either get a dual 1.25, 1.8, or dual 1.8. And don't skimp on the video card.

Don't expect smooth sailing on all your games. The Mac isn't made for games, so performance is well below what a similarly specced pc would be. If you will be spending most of your time playing games, then a Macintosh isn't for you.

War3 plays horribly on OS X. And Age of Mythology doesn't play that smoothly either. This on a 867 Powermac. Apparently "smooth" changes definitions from one person to another, but War3 is not "smooth" on many Macs.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by austeros:
isnt omni porting a bunch of games for macplay now? pretty sure they usually have mp support in their ports (provided the origional game could support it).

the guys at omni are great.

get a g5, but wait till jan just in case. They are ripe for an upgrade, which might push the dual 1.8 or dual 2.0 into your price range.

your graphics design apps will probably take advantage of the 2nd chip too. thats something else you should consider.

According to a statement made by an OmniGroup employee, they're not currently porting any games. The added MP support to Giants. Not all their games get MP support though. I think only Quake 3, Giants, and SoFII MP get MP support. Their port of FAKK2 might as well.

What I find ironic is that a lot of people were praising OG for awhile, then when a couple of their games had issues (some due to stuff out of their control) those same people started ragging on them saying how much they suck and all their ports are bad... Whatever.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by superfula:
The Mac isn't made for games, so performance is well below what a similarly specced pc would be.

Neither are PCs. They're designed to calculate 1s and 0s. They just do things a bit differently. Macs and Windows computers are still just computers. To say the Mac isn't made for games is ridiculous. It's the software that determines what a computer can do. And I have plenty of games that say Macs are great gaming machines.

Consoles are made for games. Macs and PCs are both made to get things done, and games are just one of the things they can do.

[superfula]

Well you'd be one of the few people who'd be wrong in saying that. A Macintosh has NEVER been a great gaming machine. Mediocre at best.

Computers aren't made for games? Go talk to Dell, Alienware, etc etc and tell them that. Apparently they don't share the same outlook you do.

[petehammer]

What mac should you get? A PC or a console. Honestly, I use my mac for working and creative stuff, and my PC for games. The PC plays games and that's about it.

PC games are, in general, cheaper and so is the hardware (especially video cards). Get a mac for work, and a pc for games (or a PS2, cube, xbox, or dreamcast )

[jcgerm]

Originally posted by petehammer:
What mac should you get? A PC or a console. Honestly, I use my mac for working and creative stuff, and my PC for games. The PC plays games and that's about it.

PC games are, in general, cheaper and so is the hardware (especially video cards). Get a mac for work, and a pc for games (or a PS2, cube, xbox, or dreamcast )

I agree. If you want games, go PC. That's pretty much the only thing I use my PC for anymore. My 15" 1.25 GHz powerbook is ok for some games, but my PC (Athlon XP 2100+ w/Geforce Ti4400) runs everything I throw at it. And the PC is pretty old compared to other PC hardware today. Plus, if you go PC you won't have to wait for ports on games.

Also, remember that you want to buy this system for games. You'll be staring at a game on the screen all the time, not the OS.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by superfula:
Well you'd be one of the few people who'd be wrong in saying that. A Macintosh has NEVER been a great gaming machine. Mediocre at best.

Computers aren't made for games? Go talk to Dell, Alienware, etc etc and tell them that. Apparently they don't share the same outlook you do.

Way to take things out of context. Those computer setups they use are designed for gaming but computers in general are not made just for games.

My Mac plays games just fine. In fact, my Mac plays Halo better than a similarly configured PC.

[superfula]

I didn't take it out of context. That's what you said and I called you on it. And well, we know the comment about Halo is a lie, don't we. All one has to do is browse through the current Halo topic int he gamers section to figure that out.

[benb]

Originally posted by CrackedButter:
Yes i run W3 on my PB (15" 1.25Ghz) with the processor REDUCED and it runs fine with max details... i don't know what the other poster is talking about.

Nice, the ol' Warcraft performance argument again.

The answer? Warcraft does not play nice with the Mac framerate wise. Sorry, it just doesn't. You can still play solo, just don't do any RT or AT games. And don't try to cast many spells. That'll choke any Mac.

[benb]

Originally posted by a2daj:
Neither are PCs. They're designed to calculate 1s and 0s. They just do things a bit differently. Macs and Windows computers are still just computers. To say the Mac isn't made for games is ridiculous. It's the software that determines what a computer can do. And I have plenty of games that say Macs are great gaming machines.

Consoles are made for games. Macs and PCs are both made to get things done, and games are just one of the things they can do.

This is just stupid. A Mac is not made for games. If it were, there would be some guy at Apple writing a very similar and easily ported DirectX instruction set. And OpenGL performance would be better. And you would be able to manually set AA and AF on OEM cards. And there would be driver updates for video cards. And so on.

[sideus]

Originally posted by benb:
Nice, the ol' Warcraft performance argument again.

The answer? Warcraft does not play nice with the Mac framerate wise. Sorry, it just doesn't. You can still play solo, just don't do any RT or AT games. And don't try to cast many spells. That'll choke any Mac.

Wrong. 1280 x 1024 everything set to max works great for me.

[guysmiley8090]

You know there is somthing I just don't get. If the Mac is so great for Video, Artwork, Graphics, Animation etc... Why wouldn't it be great for Games? I do believe games include all of the above. In fact OS X is like a game with its beautiful graphics amazing 3d features.

I think what it boils down to here is we don't have any gaming company's making games for the Mac. The problems occur when you try to take a PC game that was built for the use of Direct X, and porting it to the mac. I do believe that Microsoft will not make Direct X for the Mac (that's what I have heard and read, but I am not sure)

Ok, what it really boils down to is we need to help people open there eye's and show them what a great computer the Mac is. We increase the number of Mac users will increase everything else. More Software companies will want to make for the Mac including games. Bottom line if 90% of the world used Mac, Apple would be the Killer Gaming Machine and not PC. So lets start spreading the Word, MAC'S RULE!

[bimmerphile]

Originally posted by guysmiley8090:
You know there is somthing I just don't get. If the Mac is so great for Video, Artwork, Graphics, Animation etc... Why wouldn't it be great for Games? I do believe games include all of the above. In fact OS X is like a game with its beautiful graphics amazing 3d features.

I think what it boils down to here is we don't have any gaming company's making games for the Mac. The problems occur when you try to take a PC game that was built for the use of Direct X, and porting it to the mac. I do believe that Microsoft will not make Direct X for the Mac (that's what I have heard and read, but I am not sure)

Ok, what it really boils down to is we need to help people open there eye's and show them what a great computer the Mac is. We increase the number of Mac users will increase everything else. More Software companies will want to make for the Mac including games. Bottom line if 90% of the world used Mac, Apple would be the Killer Gaming Machine and not PC. So lets start spreading the Word, MAC'S RULE!

What it boils down to is that 90% of Mac games are ports of PC games, put on a strict time schedule because mac gamers would rather have the game than wait. As such, the game doesn't get optomized nearly as much for the Mac OS or the Mac Hardware as it does for the PC.

[Thomthus]

Macs suck. If u wanna play games a pc is needed. What inda 3dmarks does a g5 mac get ? (2001 and 2003 but state) Macs seem to me to be for n00bs to the computer world.

[mac freak]

That was perhaps the most constructive, helpful reply I've ever read. Particularly poingnant was the request for scores from a cruddy benchmarking program that does not exist for the Mac, since it is a (Micro$oft) DirectX benchmark.

[Crusoe]

I would go with a G5. The dual G4s only edge out the single G5s when there aren't many BoTs/MoBs/PCs running around. Playing the high end of games like EQ and SB or FPSs with a lot of action is where you'll see the advantages. Lastly don't use the stock nvidia card, pay to upgrade to the ATI 64MB.

G5s would be a great game platform if game companies wrote the games for G5s from the get go.

[benb]

Originally posted by sideus:
Wrong. 1280 x 1024 everything set to max works great for me.

Nice, the ol' Warcraft performance argument again.

The answer? Warcraft does not play nice with the Mac framerate wise. Sorry, it just doesn't. You can still play solo, just don't do any RT or AT games. And don't try to cast many spells. That'll choke any Mac.

[sideus]

Originally posted by benb:
Nice, the ol' Warcraft performance argument again.

The answer? Warcraft does not play nice with the Mac framerate wise. Sorry, it just doesn't. You can still play solo, just don't do any RT or AT games. And don't try to cast many spells. That'll choke any Mac.

You said that already. How can you make a statement like that? That's like saying all Democrats are pro-choice. W3 runs like a champ for me, every setting set to max with no problems. Warcraft does play nice. Sorry, it just does.

[blizzard]

This is an interesting greeting for someone who has just transitioned over from PC to Mac, guys. It would seem fairly self-evident that he doesn't want a PC for games, he wants a Mac...maybe it would be better for all involved if you focused on answering his question than scaring him off with these pointless arguments about Mac vs PC gaming.