Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Feb 22, 2001, 01:42 AM

So now Macs have the ultimate video cards. They have the ultimate processing power when Altivec is fully exploited. And they will soon have the ultimate OS in OS X. So do you still think that when Mr. Devine of Id software said that macs will be "safely ahead of PCs" with the altivec optimized quake, that he meant to say "safely ahead but not in frame rates" ? ( I don't understand what this means but you said it).

I envision a Mac that stomps PCs at Quake 3 framerates. Do you still think I'm smokin' crack? If I had the money for for one of these new G4s + Geforce 3, I'd probably be in need of methamphetamines to stay alert on my 96 hr. Quakeathon...

Cipher13 · Feb 22, 2001, 02:37 AM

Still, a Mac that will make a good games machine will cost a lot more than a PC that will make a good games machine.
And we still have slower mobo's, RAM, etc.
And Ca$h is still whingeing - its in the lounge somewhere.

Cipher13

blizzard · Feb 22, 2001, 06:38 PM

You know, Phaedrus, Macs aren't the only ones to get the new video card...they just get it first. So we'll have bragging rights for a while, but a short while only. Plus, and not many people seem to realize this, Macs at this point are processor-limited, not video-card limited. Take for evidence the fact that the new G4 533s can do 44 fps at 800x600, 42 fps at 1024x768, and 39 fps at 1280. This shows that the processor is what is holding the machine back, as if it were the video card, the drop off would be more pronounced at each resolution. So I would be surprised if even the current Macs could pull much more than 50 fps out of the GeForce3s. I'd like to see what the new 733s can do, however.

Damn, I always come off sounding so negative. Rest assured I am excited just like you. Maybe a wee bit more realistic, but excited nonetheless.

Blizzard.

Feb 22, 2001, 10:59 PM

You know, Phaedrus, Macs aren't the only ones to get the new video card.

You know, Blizzard, the point is that if Macs have the same high end video card, then the video card is no longer the Mac's ball 'n chain for gaming performance. You know, Blizzard, you don't have to be so arrogant. You know, Blizzard, I'm not a mentally handicapped 3 year old who can't figure out that the N20 was developed for both PCs and Macs.

Macs at this point are processor-limited

MHz-limited, but not cpu-limited. Once the altivec-optimized version of Quake is here, we will know for certain if the cpu is still the limiting factor. Will Quake run as fast or faster on a G4 with altivec, compared to a Pentium 4? Only a handful of people at Id and Apple know for certain, but I'm optimistic.

I would be surprised if even the current Macs could pull much more than 50 fps out of the GeForce3s

Huh? You're kidding, right? http://www.barefeats.com/quakeX.htm
This is without altivec optimization.

I always come off sounding so negative

When talking about Mac gaming, its safe to play it cool and predict gloom and doom. I'm a gambler, I like long odds with big payoffs.
What I'm really negative about is how overpriced macs are. Like Cipher said, even if Macs can match PCs at some games, the Mac machine will cost much, much more.

I think we cannot know for sure until benchmarks are made, but the prospects for Mac gaming are looking very good. Macs may have some slower components on their Motherboards, but its important to remember that some of these faster components on PCs don't neccisarily lead to better performance. Marketing also dictates components and oftentimes a manufacturer can sell more widgets based solely on "speed" ratings of parts that have no bearing on performance. (Rambus?)

For example, take the GeForce 3 that everyone is splooging all over the past day. It's GPU is rated about 50 MHz LESS than the GeForce 2! Oh my GAWD, they took a step backwards, it's slower! What are those idiots thinking! aaaaaAAARRREGGGHGHHHHhhhhh!

[This message has been edited by Phaedrus (edited 02-23-2001).]

ShortcutToMoncton · Feb 23, 2001, 12:17 PM

Phaedrus, while your excitement is of course very cool, you aren't looking at the facts quite straight.

Macs are CPU-bound.

That's a fact. CPU bound. The fact is, no matter how much Altivec coding you use (and, as far as I have heard, it actually doesn't make a HUGE amount of speed increase), a 733 MHz G4 just won't beat a 1 GHz PIII or Athlon in Quake Arena.

Yes, we have many of the better games (although late), and now we've got the best video card. However, more than likely that video card won't make a huge difference...just because our computers can't give it enough data.

I think that once the 733 MHz G4 becomes the "common-place" (ie. middle line) computer to buy and our memory bandwidth starts hitting the speed the better PCs are at, then we can take a look at just how the gaming scene stacks up.

Right now, I probably couldn't justify dropping the money for a GeForce 3 in a 533. I doubt it would make a huge amount of difference. As well, the extra features of the card have to be coded...so lost of today's games won't see any great increase beyond the natural speed bumps from new hardware and 64 meg or RAM.

I want to see the AA, though....man, this thing is so powerful, I'm wondering what it would be like to see 4x AA like the Voodoo5 while hitting some crazy framerates.....

greg

------------------
Though the day's been
really long
I still feel I'm close to
nowhere....

blizzard · Feb 24, 2001, 12:20 AM

My apologies if I come off as arrogant.

But I don't agree with you. I am simply trying to point out the reasons why I don't agree with you. If this makes me arrogant, then so be it. And Macs have had the 'ultimate video cards' for quite a while. They're called the Radeons, and they have the power to push over 90 fps on a gigahertz PC in Unreal Tourney! (And yes, I realize that you actually mean the GeForce 2 GTS Ultra - but stick with me for a moment). The point is, even Radeons can't pump out frame rates like that on Macs. Why is that? Because the video cards aren't the limiting factor. Thus, Macs are CPU-bound. But, as I said, WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER.

Blizzard.

Feb 24, 2001, 04:58 PM

Hey Phaedreus:

check this out:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=...mp;pid=106#193

austeros · Feb 25, 2001, 06:13 PM

why oh why must we provoke a shooting war? wait till we actually have evidence, then have your arguement, but right now, we have nothing but speculation.

we are all friends here... and if we wanted to sacrifice our humanity, we would buy pcs.

ShortcutToMoncton · Feb 25, 2001, 10:55 PM

Agree 100%, Austere One.....

Everyone has feelings, but I feel they SHOULDN'T be expressed on this forum like Ca$h seems to.

Still...to each his own.....

greg

------------------
Though the day's been
really long
I still feel I'm close to
nowhere....

gorefan68 · Feb 25, 2001, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by ShortcutToMoncton:
Agree 100%, Austere One.....

Everyone has feelings, but I feel they SHOULDN'T be expressed on this forum like Ca$h seems to.

Still...to each his own.....

greg

You're saying we shouldn't express how we feel or what we think? Commie.

-Ca$h

PS: Conform. Conform. Conform. Get a PC. Conform Conform Conform drive a chevy Conform Conform.

No thanks. I think different, and I am different.

seanyepez · Feb 26, 2001, 02:12 AM

Shhh, Ca$h.

gorefan68 · Feb 26, 2001, 03:41 AM

Yes yes, supress my originality. Conform. Conform. Conform...con...... conf.....

>monotone voice<

yay. we have best video card. yay.

- Ca$h

xterminator · Feb 26, 2001, 01:19 PM

check this out: http://www.barefeats.com/agppci.htm

In Quake3/1024*768 the g4/533 (gf2mx/radeon) smokes a 866mhz Pentium3 with the same video card even with the current drivers!
So we can say that in quake3, a g4/533 is equal to a Ghz Pentium3 (i know that the g4 is still lagging behind in lower resolutions but wait 'till the altivec version of q3 comes)

I think a g4/533 is a rock solid machine, and yes, for gaming too. I'm planning to get a 533dp with a geforce3

, this thing is gonna SCREAM!

ShortcutToMoncton · Feb 26, 2001, 03:41 PM

Xterminator, I think yer wrong with those benchmarks...no, wait. I think THEY are wrong with them....

BareFeats has done a few comparisons before of PC/Mac computers, and I know myself that at least one of them (an iMac one) was flawed. Be careful there.

Actually, I've just got off Slashdot and read Carmack's comments. He basically said what I've been saying for a little while. The new 733 MHz G4's ARE NOT as fast as a 1 GHz PC. As well, at MacCentral he notes that Altivec isn't actually that great for games right now, since the new hardware (video cards) can do most of the stuff that Altivec can...thus, Altivec != extreme speed.

So, if a 733 G4 won't beat a 1 GHz PC in FPS, then the G4 isn't quite as fast as many would like to believe.....

greg

------------------
Though the day's been
really long
I still feel I'm close to
nowhere....

xterminator · Feb 26, 2001, 04:44 PM

it's strange that carmack and devine (both work at id software) have such different opinions about altivec and games... Devine said exactly the opposite, that altivec is great for games and that we can expect a +40fps performance gain with altivec support in q3...

we can only wait for the 1.27h release. this version of q3 could be a change for the mac-gaming world.

or the opposite...

osiris · Feb 26, 2001, 06:54 PM

Check out this Q&A with xlr8yourmac's Micheal Breeden and Nvidia:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/....html#storytop

70fps 1024x768 32bit 4xFSAA !!

The Geforce3 handles code normally processed by the cpu - so if you have an AGP slot you'll be amazed as to what this card can do.

blizzard · Feb 26, 2001, 09:38 PM

xterminator - i don't think devine ever actually told us to expect a 40 fps increase in performance. Could you get us a source on that information?

ShortcutToMoncton · Feb 27, 2001, 04:29 PM

Exactly my thoughts, Blizzard.

As far as I'm aware, Devine only said that the Mac version of Q3A is now "safely ahead" of the PC one. He didn't mention anything about a 40+ FPS increase; besides, that number is pulled out of a hat, I think. That would basically almost double the FPS on many G4s...Altivec optimization doesn't have that much effect.

As well, whan Devine made that claim, he said he was running it on a G4/533 with a MX. Now, I don't know about you, but I laugh at the thought of that computer actually running higher FPS than a, say, 1.2 GHz Athlon or PIII with an Ultra stuck in it. Some people, though, actually took it that way.

It defies logic, in my opinion.

greg

------------------
Though the day's been
really long
I still feel I'm close to
nowhere....

xterminator · Feb 28, 2001, 06:15 AM

Here is the source : it's a ICQ Conversation with zaphod (zaphod is Devine's nickname)

ArMaDillo *BW* : hey, thanks for altivec support, how much fps increase u getting with it 10 -20 fps? or just 5fps?

zaphod : well, there's been other optimizations too.. on my machine I get +40fps.. but it's a geforce2/533.

ArMaDillo *BW*: wow on my g4/350 agp/rage 128 i was getting almost 60fps with my custom config, that looks reall good. U using high quality settings and everthing?

zaphod: you can get texturebound on some of the terrain maps, so I use picmip 1. But everything else is on.