 |
 |
Gaming results on my Mac Pro w/7300GT.
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hi guys. I just got my Mac Pro yesterday, and I thought i'd give you guys a bit of info of how some games ran on it. I currently have the 7300GT in there, my X1900XT upgrade kit hasn't shipped yet...
All results are at 1920x1200.
Call of Duty 2:
This game can be maxed out, but it'll lag alot during foggy areas, and you can't snipe very well.
When I set it to "Texure Quality: Auto" and AA off, it ran amazingly! No drop in framerates ever! But there was this one point where it froze!!!  I had to restart the level to get past that point and because of that I didn't have my weapons that I had from before....
Quake 4:
This game can also be maxed out. It runs between 10 and 35fps during the intro, and then when you're outdoors it runs between 10 and 15fps, and indoors between 25 and 40fps. That's with AA 16x, Ultra Quality, 1920x1200 resolution.
Doom 3: All settings maxed out except for AA, I got 26.2fps on the timedemo test. With AA on it wouldn't do the test, and it was a pain to even move the mouse at the main menu.....
Knights of the Old Republic:
No problems running through rosetta. Runs like a dream with all settings maxed out!
Call of Duty, Call of Duty UO, Return of the King and UT 2004 all ran perfectly with maxed out settings. UT 2004 is universal, but Call of Duty/UO and Return of the King aren't, and they ran great with no problems.
Basically i'd say that any game old enough to not be universal is old enough to run with no problems in rosetta.
Anyway I just thought i'd throw this info out there in case anyone's interested.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Between heaven and hell
Status:
Offline
|
|
That is great news, especially about the old games.
|
|
Yes, I know I could buy a PC, but why?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, California
Status:
Offline
|
|
That's good news, considering the X1900XT is quite a leap above the 7300GT.
Was this under Windows or Mac OS X? I'm assuming the latter.
Post some benchmarks when you get the X1900XT to see how they compare!
|
|
Linkinus is king.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, all under Mac OS X. Oh and also, i'm on a 3.0Ghz with 2GB of ram.... I should've said that in the first post.
It definetaly is good news. In fact, just today I "showed off" the amazing graphics capabilities to my dad on this machine, by playing him the intro and cutscene of Quake 4 with all settings maxed out! I mean, the fact that this video card can do that!! Man, I can't wait to get the X1900XT!!!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Torrance, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sounds good Macgeek.  I can't wait to get my X1900 MacPro Thursday (at least hopefully), so many games I want to try. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Anyone with the X1900 XT has a lot to look forward in WoW
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status:
Offline
|
|
Nice...I have a 2.66GHz Mac Pro with 7300GT and 1GB Ram and run Ghost Recon 1 at max settings and the FPS pegs at 60 almost lal the time (it's limited to 60 by game).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Torrance, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by cgc
Nice...I have a 2.66GHz Mac Pro with 7300GT and 1GB Ram and run Ghost Recon 1 at max settings and the FPS pegs at 60 almost lal the time (it's limited to 60 by game).
Oh cool, thanks. I was wondering about that. Do you have either of the Rainbow Six games?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, WoW seems to be capped at 60FPS too. Why is that?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Good question. The human eye can see until about 100fps, then it makes no difference.
|
|
Linkinus is king.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by brokenjago
Good question. The human eye can see until about 100fps, then it makes no difference.
Really? I thought cinema people always claimed 24 images per second was the max we can recognize and that being the reason why cinemas had a rate of 24 images per second (at least in the old days when movies where still on film).
|
|
•
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Interesting link. Thanks!. 
|
|
•
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
Really? I thought cinema people always claimed 24 images per second was the max we can recognize and that being the reason why cinemas had a rate of 24 images per second (at least in the old days when movies where still on film).
Yes and no. The human eye can see about 24 images per second... however, unless those images are rendered at precise and constant 1/24th of a second intervals, which is unlikely if a graphics card is being pushed to the edge, some slowdown may be noticable.
However, if someone can spot a difference up to 100FPS (that's 100 rendered images per second, not 100 CRT refreshes per second, I should emphasise) they either have god-like vision, or something's not quite right with the setup...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top