[Eug]

So who has posted this stuff? I don't see much except Cinebench and Photoshop, etc. so far. Shall we start our own benchmarking thread?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Can't wait to see some Doom 3 (sometime next year?) benchmarks and comparisons to high-end PCs.

Doom 3 will not only be GPU intensive but also CPU intensive. I'm almost willing to bet it'll be CPU bound rather than bound by graphics cards.

But for the moment, some UT2k3 and Q3A benchmarks wouldn't hurt.

[i am yujin]

Well I'll tell ya this, Warcraft 3 will stil run craptacular even on a G5.

Well maybe not too crappy but nothing compared to War3 running on a a low end PC.

[Vash]

yujin wtf is your problem. Warcraft 3 runs amazingly PERFECT on even a 867mhz G4. And that at 1280x1024 with all the crap up. Do you have some thing against that game?? It is nicely optimized and is 3D so is harder on the computer than most RTS games but still runs on fairly old machines. Anyway, yea I can't wait for some Dual G5 ut2k3 benchmarks and maybe some RtCW ones.
(Yes RedJag, it does, and I have one to prove it. Though the Geforce 4MX may make a big difference)

[redJag]

I doubt Warcraft III runs amazingly perfect on an 867 G4, there can't be that much difference from my 733 1gig of ram and radeon 8500. Well, maybe, but whenever things get complicated my computer chokes. I love my mac, but it just can't do it. So I have a PC that can until a can afford a mac that can

edit: WarCraft III will undoubtedly run butter-smooth on the G5s. It does on 1.25 G4s.

[Liquidity X]

ran killeron my dp 800 / 8500, runns even bette ron my geforce 4 and wiht a new HD and more ram. U must have somehting busted with yers.

[i am yujin]

Originally posted by Vash:
yujin wtf is your problem. Warcraft 3 runs amazingly PERFECT on even a 867mhz G4. And that at 1280x1024 with all the crap up. Do you have some thing against that game?? It is nicely optimized and is 3D so is harder on the computer than most RTS games but still runs on fairly old machines. Anyway, yea I can't wait for some Dual G5 ut2k3 benchmarks and maybe some RtCW ones.
(Yes RedJag, it does, and I have one to prove it. Though the Geforce 4MX may make a big difference)

No I love Warcraft 3. I play the game every day, I just feel sorry for those who play it on running Mac OS X.

But anyways, I'd doubt it runs perfectly.
I can tell you're full of **** for 2 reasons:
My brother's G4 laptop can barely run War3 at the lowest settings on a 2v2 game. 1v1 is not that bad but only during battles.
And you can't even run War3 at 1280x1024 so there's another bogus reason.

But then agian, if you're running War3 through OS 9, that's a different reason.

[MindFad]

WC3 pretty much runs like ass on my dp800 with GF3 and 768MB. Hey, it's cool if you don't like watching battles much. The framerate takes too much of a dive, and kills the fun for me. I imagine it will run great on a G5, even a 1.6. I don't see why it wouldn't with a decent graphics card and more than 256MB of RAM. DOOM 3 will probably run great on a dual G5, too. Make sure you have at least 64MB of VRAM, though. 128 wouldn't hurt. Thems is a lot of high-res textures and bump-maps and geometry.

[ginoledesma]

Wouldn't be counting on Doom III just yet. Even the latest GeForce FX/Radeon 9800 cards on insanely rigged PCs are getting so-so framerates/performance.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by ginoledesma:
Wouldn't be counting on Doom III just yet. Even the latest GeForce FX/Radeon 9800 cards on insanely rigged PCs are getting so-so framerates/performance.

Right, about 30 FPS at 640x480 (this is like starting a new generation of gaming with tons of effects, so we will probably be starting low again on the resolution front) with all effects on, including anti-aliasing, on a 2.8 P4 with 9800? On alpha software, no less. At least, from what I have heard from people who have tried it and had good PC gaming gear. That's not bad at all, I say, considering all the stuff the DOOM 3 engine will be doing. And you know Carmack will dual-optimize the thing to hell like with Quake 3. I imagine it won't run that bad at all, even on single G5 machines.

We can start wagers, if you want.

[DBvader]

my roomate was actually getting pretty decent framerates on his 2.53 @2.8 with a 4400 in the alpha of d3

warcraft three doesnt not play as well on my Dual 867/9000 as it does on my 2000+/4200. though the difference only becoems significant when a lot of things are going on. faster PCs than the 2000+ run the game better, though, with smooth animation and no lag.

amazingly perfect? nah...i dont think any mac game (except maybe Q3) runs well on the mac.

you can play war 3 at 1280 x 1024...i do it all the time.

and, from what i have seen so far about gaming comparisions is that the G5 isnt stacking up so nicely. barefeats has some benchmarks up...and the P4s are destroying the G5s...

too bad, i guess the mac just isnt a gamers platform. even if the machines performed on par, the price difference is so extreme. you can build a 3.2/1 GB RAM/120 GB HD/ATI 9800/DVD Burner/52 X burner for a bit cheaper than you can a 1.6 G5! Thats nuts, and there is no way that the 1.6 is overcoming a processor running, literally, at twice the frequences (not to mention the HD is smaller there is less RAM, the video card isnt as good, etc...)

[voyageur]

Warcraft III runs just fine on my G4 933MHz with 1.25 Gb RAM.

[fireside]

Originally posted by DBvader:
and, from what i have seen so far about gaming comparisions is that the G5 isnt stacking up so nicely. barefeats has some benchmarks up...and the P4s are destroying the G5s..

its cause the G5s that they are comparing them with have sh�t for graphics cards. i keep telling apple, ship with awesome graphics cards, but noooo, do they listen?

[gbafan]

Originally posted by redJag:
I doubt Warcraft III runs amazingly perfect on an 867 G4, there can't be that much difference from my 733 1gig of ram and radeon 8500. Well, maybe, but whenever things get complicated my computer chokes. I love my mac, but it just can't do it. So I have a PC that can until a can afford a mac that can

edit: WarCraft III will undoubtedly run butter-smooth on the G5s. It does on 1.25 G4s.

Since the 733 lacks a L3 cache, Wc3 will suffer, heck any game for that matter. I play just fine on a G4/533 GeForce2MX at 1024x768 with everything turned down except Med. Textures.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Fact: The G5's performance under 10.2.7 is relatively disappointing (some benchmarks return odd results that go against everything we heard about the G5).

Safe-assumption: The G5 is crippled when run under 10.2.7.

Fact: Panther is much faster on G3s, G4s and G5s than Jaguar.

Fact: The performance increase ratio is greater for the G5 than the performance increase ratio of the G4.

Fact: Memory management and Altivec have been optimized significantly.

Fact: The G5 has the bandwidth to shove and grab data from RAM rapidly.

Fact: Xbench confirms (I'll use that term loosely) the last 4 facts.

Safe-assumption: There are some G5 optimizations in Panther...or the memory management and Altivec revamp show the G5s true performance capabilities.

Fact: OpenGL speeds have increased in Panther.

Safe-assumption: The G5's capabilities will begin to emerge when Panther ships and between Panther dot releases.

Conclusion: Benchmarking the G5 under the crippled 10.2.7 is a waste of your time and my time.

And this includes Barefeat...there's no way UT2k3 could perform so badly without something being wrong somewhere.

[benb]

Look, WC3 runs great on your machine. Until you play it on a faster Mac or a PC. Then it runs like crap. I used to think it was silky smooth on my TiBook (1GHz/1GB/9000 Mobility) with everything maxed. I thought it was super on a 867 Quicksilver with a 2MX and 1.5GB. Then I built a PC for Ravenshield and Unreal II. I played WC3 on it. Then I went on vacation. Took the TiBook with me. Decided to play WC3 campaign. I couldn't stand the performance. It was irritating.

So, those who say that WC3 runs great, I don't doubt you. I thought the same thing. Just never play it on a decent PC.

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by DBvader:

amazingly perfect? nah...i dont think any mac game (except maybe Q3) runs well on the mac.

you can play war 3 at 1280 x 1024...i do it all the time.

That's just plain wrong.

War3 runs like butter on my 1Ghz Ti @ native (1280x854) resolution w/ all details up except shadows. The ONLY time it runs even remotely slower than perfect is in large (3x3 or 4x4) multiplayer games, other than that it runs like a dream.

To say no mac games run well is simply wrong (or misinformed). SOF2, Quake3, Warcraft 3, RTCW and even MOHAA (though less so) play excellently even on my (comparatively underpowered) Ti. I can imagine a nice dual G4 (or G5) w/ a RADEON 9800 Pro or some such would fair rather nicely actually.

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by benb:
Look, WC3 runs great on your machine. Until you play it on a faster Mac or a PC. Then it runs like crap. I used to think it was silky smooth on my TiBook (1GHz/1GB/9000 Mobility) with everything maxed. I thought it was super on a 867 Quicksilver with a 2MX and 1.5GB. Then I built a PC for Ravenshield and Unreal II. I played WC3 on it. Then I went on vacation. Took the TiBook with me. Decided to play WC3 campaign. I couldn't stand the performance. It was irritating.

So, those who say that WC3 runs great, I don't doubt you. I thought the same thing. Just never play it on a decent PC.

I would chalk that up to configuration/other performance problems.

I've compared my Ti (1Ghz, RADEON 9k 64Mb, 1Gb RAM) directly (as in, side-by-side) w/ a friend's 1.8Ghz Athlon (GF4 64Mb) and while the Athlon had the advantage that it could keep it's silky framerate with EVERY option up... it honestly wasn't noticeably "faster" at playing War3. The gameplay was the same "smoothness"... I turn my details down to medium for large (2x2+) multiplayer games... on both machines.

I'll admit that the case with many games is such that the Mac version (due to hardware or porting or whatever) performs significantly worse... I just completely disagree that War3 is one of those games. It is (in my opinion) one of the few games that actually performs really well on the Mac, provided you throw enough hardware at it.

[benb]

Originally posted by juanpacolopez:
I would chalk that up to configuration/other performance problems.

...and while the Athlon had the advantage that it could keep it's silky framerate with EVERY option up... it honestly wasn't noticeably "faster" at playing War3. The gameplay was the same "smoothness"...

I wasn't noticeably faster, yet it kept the framerate with everything on high in large battles, something that the Ti cannot do. It cannot. Play 4 on 4, get into a big battle and try to micro. You can't. Because you can't select units quick enough. Nothing against the Ti. I use it all the time. The PC has the role of a "console with a keyboard and a mouse". But let us not get too optimistic, the TiBook is not a "gaming machine". It can run games, but it is not made for that.

I am sure however, that a dual G5 with a 9800 would slaughter my P4 2.9 with a 9700.

[Eug]

Originally posted by benb:
I am sure however, that a dual G5 with a 9800 would slaughter my P4 2.9 with a 9700.

I'm not so sure. Is the game well dual optimized?

[kikosxl]

My athlon xp 1700+ (1.47ghz), 512mb PC2100, Geforce4 4200 (128mb vram) PC

v.

My 15" Powerbook 1ghz, 512mb, ATI mobility 9000 (64mb vram).

I call BS on anyone who says that given the similarly spec'd machines above, the Mac runs just as well, "amazingly perfect, or "like butter."

First of all, scrolling the map on the PC is always far smoother. My PC doesn't lag during online battles either.

The extra 64mb vram probably gives the PC its edge in this comparison, but all I'm saying is that there is no way that any current powerbook runs WC3 better than that $400 PC spec'd above.

[benb]

Originally posted by Eug:
I'm not so sure. Is the game well dual optimized?

I believe it is. Not sure though. But the game doesn't use much more above a 2GHz P4, after that the bottleneck is just the card. Which is why I think that even just 1 970 at 2GHz with a 9800 would be better than what I have.

If you want benches, PM and we can work out a fundraiser so I can purchase MacNN's Official 2GHz G5 For Games Benchmarking by Benb.


Edit: It seems as if early versions of the game were not. However, I think patch 1.07 made it a bit dual-aware, with the audio being on the second processor. Not incredibly dual aware, but better than before.

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by benb:
I wasn't noticeably faster, yet it kept the framerate with everything on high in large battles, something that the Ti cannot do. It cannot. Play 4 on 4, get into a big battle and try to micro. You can't. Because you can't select units quick enough. Nothing against the Ti. I use it all the time. The PC has the role of a "console with a keyboard and a mouse". But let us not get too optimistic, the TiBook is not a "gaming machine". It can run games, but it is not made for that.

I am sure however, that a dual G5 with a 9800 would slaughter my P4 2.9 with a 9700.

Right... and I turn my shadows and a couple other details to medium, and it runs great.

I've never had a problem.

My friend (w/ the Athlon) said he was quite impressed that a laptop kept up.

I'm not saying it's exactly as fast (it's not) but the performance difference ISN'T NEARLY as bad as some on here have been saying (I don't even really notice it, to tell the truth).

[lewdvig]

Doom III benchmarks on PCs are available:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDc0

Since May.

I ran the alpha on my old P4 2.4 with 256MB of PC 3200 and a RADEON 8500. I was getting 15-16 fps in 640*480 in medium detail. That was almost a year ago I think - seems like forever.

Looks like the May release is faster. Medium detail at 10*7 was getting a fast system 85-90fps.

By the time the game comes out we will have 3.6GHz CPUs and R420 from ATI. I think 100+ fps in 10*7 with max detail will be doable.

The dual G5 with the 9800Pro successor (not the speed bump coming from ATI later this month) will provide a very enjoable experience. It won't beat a PC though - those days are far behind Apple.

Smart people will spend $150 on an XBox and enjoy Doom III and Half Life 2 (amoungst other games) and keep their perfectly good Macs for more important stuff.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by lewdvig:

Smart people will spend $150 on an XBox and enjoy Doom III and Half Life 2 (amoungst other games) and keep their perfectly good Macs for more important stuff.

I shudder at the thought of playing FPS games on consoles.

[DBvader]

"To say no mac games run well is simply wrong (or misinformed). SOF2, Quake3, Warcraft 3, RTCW and even MOHAA (though less so) play excellently even on my (comparatively underpowered) Ti. I can imagine a nice dual G4 (or G5) w/ a RADEON 9800 Pro or some such would fair rather nicely actually."

not at all, the simple fact of the matter is that macs arent good gaming machines. When i bought my Dual 867 last year it was a pretty decent machine. It replaced my then-600 dollar 2000+/Ti4200. The only game that ran on par with my PC is Quake 3 Arena. Warcraft 3 runs decently on my mac, but it is smoother on my PC (which cost a third of my mac!). Sure they play, and they play with decent framerates, but macs dont in anyway compare to PCs in gaming. Its really simple, and i dont know why most mac users dont accept it. RTCW runs at about half the framerate as my PC (and other PCs less powerful). MOH with SMP and w/o SMP runs consistently at half the framerate (at a lower resolution, with less options, and no AA on!!!). G5 benchmarks with Radeon 9800s are showing much the same thing. Sure they are fast, but dont compare, in any way, to PCs much more underpowered (let alone PCs that have the same specs).

i have tested all the games you say run well on your mac (on my faster mac) except SOF2, and i have found that framerates are half of what they should be and that resolutions and options arent set anywhere near as high as they should. Look at newer games, not based on the Q3 engine, like Sim City 4 and UT2K3 and the difference is blatant. Please dont call my conclusions misinformed as i, personally, own and have tested the differences between two fairly comparable machines.

check out the barefeats benchmarks, the G5 with a 9800 still doesnt stack up against the 3 GHz P4 with a 9800 (and i would wager against other, less powerful PCs would also outperform the G5). Its obvious why. PCs have optimizations, their Video card drivers are excellent, Windows lets on app consume every last resource. I mean, for gaming, the mac cant compare to the PC. That said, when i came back from school this summer i have had my mac and my PC in my room, and i havent used my PC once. think about that for a while.

[Adam Betts]

For some people, complaining is a game

[Eug]

the simple fact of the matter is that macs arent good gaming machines. When i bought my Dual 867 last year it was a pretty decent machine. It replaced my then-600 dollar 2000+/Ti4200.

A dual 867 isn't really all that fast at anything, much less gaming, esp. if you got it with the stock video card.

[Vash]

DBVader have you lost your head or something!? Apple has FINALLY caught up to PCs in gaming, ut2k3 CAN NOT be played with full settings on a 1.5ghz+ laptop PC and Geforce 4 GO (the same one in the powerbooks). My cousin has a PC laptop that is around 1.5ghz, and has the geforce 4 GO. He also has ut2k3 and I have tried to blast everything maxed on it, it gets about 3 or 5 FPS. Same as the TiBook. When he plays ut2k3 and I play it on the TiBook we usually have about the same settings. They are equal on par, not to mention the PC has a higher mhz rating. And the G5!? Have you seen it's Q3 benchmarks!? 300+ FPS! I bet at 1600x1200 it would NOT lag in ut2k3 period. As my Geforce 4 Ti w/dual 1ghz quicksilver gets about 20fps at this setting. The Mac IS equal to the PC in gaming now, get over it. (btw there has to be something wrong with Spearhead as it gets the same low fps no matter how low u set settings in it on OS X) One last thing, you say you compare the G5 to computers on par, is 3ghz = dual 2ghz. Well maybe with some very MP aware games, but if there is a dual 2ghz PC then that would truly be an equal match up.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Macs are not 'not good gaming machines'. They're excellent gaming machines. But the games that come to Mac have been created on a PC and optimized for the PC. There are some instances where the porters put in time and effort to optimize for the Mac...ie Altivec optimizations in Nascar and Dual processor support in Giants...but for the most part, the games are still fine-tuned for the PC (DirectX and such).

Yes...the Mac drivers are kinda shitty. This is changing.

Panther has some significant OpenGL and memory management optimizations. It's clear that Mac games that don't see any improvements after being installed on Panther have another type of bottleneck (that probably stems from, yeah you guessed it, PC optimized code.) For the most part though, OpenGL games perform quite well on Panther.

I see DBvader seems heavily influenced by Barefeats' benchmarks. Barefeats has been ridiculed by both PC users and Mac users in the past for providing uncontrolled benchmarks.

Barefeats may have changed...the benchmarks seem a bit more controlled now but there are still missing details.

And they'll have to redo the benchmarks when 10.3 comes out because 10.2.7, being the hack OS that it is, hardly takes advantage of the new G5 architecture.

[OwlBoy]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
I shudder at the thought of playing FPS games on consoles.

Halo Roools1 !!111!1111

[lewdvig]

check out the barefeats benchmarks, the G5 with a 9800 still doesnt stack up against the 3 GHz P4 with a 9800 (and i would wager against other, less powerful PCs would also outperform the G5). Its obvious why. PCs have optimizations, their Video card drivers are excellent, Windows lets on app consume every last resource. I mean, for gaming, the mac cant compare to the PC. That said, when i came back from school this summer i have had my mac and my PC in my room, and i havent used my PC once. think about that for a while. [/B]

You are correct. Apple uses questionable benchmarking IMO. Current P4/9800P conditions are getting 360+ fps in Quake 3 at 10*7 highest detail. The 2xG5/9800 combo gets 270fps.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...-r9800_12.html

Not everyone here wants or needs a G5 just for games.

FPS on a console can't be that bad - I have not heard anyone say a negative thing about Halo. And Sony's Kill Zone looks incredible.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Macs are not 'not good gaming machines'. They're excellent gaming machines. But the games that come to Mac have been created on a PC and optimized for the PC. There are some instances where the porters put in time and effort to optimize for the Mac...ie Altivec optimizations in Nascar and Dual processor support in Giants...but for the most part, the games are still fine-tuned for the PC (DirectX and such).

Yes...the Mac drivers are kinda shitty. This is changing.

SSE, SSE2, and even 3DNow really help games on the PC. Intel has a performance tuner they like to get all the developers using. They claim it produces code that rivals hand coded optimizations. In my experience it worked quite well.

I don't think Apple has such tools. Maybe now they will get something from IBM. Moto sucked.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by Eug:
A dual 867 isn't really all that fast at anything, much less gaming, esp. if you got it with the stock video card.

Sad thing is a dual 1.4GHz isn't much faster either. The video card does not matter as we have been CPU limited since the GF3. So your point is kinda meaningless as most people don't even have their G5s.

Point is, what could dude have done differently at the time to get a better gaming experience on the Mac? Nothing. He is right.

[Eug]

Sad thing is a dual 1.4GHz isn't much faster either. The video card does not matter as we have been CPU limited since the GF3. So your point is kinda meaningless as most people don't even have their G5s.

You can walk into a store tomorrow and pick up a 1.8 GHz G5.

Point is, what could dude have done differently at the time to get a better gaming experience on the Mac? Nothing. He is right.

Point is, if he really wanted to have maximum gaming performance then, he should have bought a PC.

SSE, SSE2, and even 3DNow really help games on the PC. Intel has a performance tuner they like to get all the developers using. They claim it produces code that rivals hand coded optimizations. In my experience it worked quite well.

I don't think Apple has such tools. Maybe now they will get something from IBM. Moto sucked.

I'm not a programmer, but at least there's Shark and IBM's compilers etc.

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by DBvader:
i have tested all the games you say run well on your mac (on my faster mac) except SOF2, and i have found that framerates are half of what they should be and that resolutions and options arent set anywhere near as high as they should. Look at newer games, not based on the Q3 engine, like Sim City 4 and UT2K3 and the difference is blatant. Please dont call my conclusions misinformed i, personally, own and have tested the differences between two fairly comparable machines.

check out the barefeats benchmarks, the G5 with a 9800 still doesnt stack up against the 3 GHz P4 with a 9800 (and i would wager against other, less powerful PCs would also outperform the G5). Its obvious why. PCs have optimizations, their Video card drivers are excellent, Windows lets on app consume every last resource. I mean, for gaming, the mac cant compare to the PC. That said, when i came back from school this summer i have had my mac and my PC in my room, and i havent used my PC once. think about that for a while.

Here's the problem with your comparison... Sim City 4? Have you SEEN that pile of steaming sh** on a PC? It runs almost (but not quite) as badly... SC4 is just a very poorly written/ported game. I'll ignore anyone who says the Mac is a bad gaming machine due to Sim City

You're right.... many games DO get a higher framerate on a PC than they do on my Ti (and I'd imagine the majority of Macs)... that being said, I didn't spend $2500 on my machine for gaming, that would have been silly.

My point was that it played many games well (yes, WELL). As in, I can fire up SOF2/MOHAA/RTCW and play @ a SOLID 50-60fps with a reasonable amount of detail in multiplayer games so that it's nice and pretty. I've never once been killed/shot in a multiplayer game and thought "damn, if only I had another 10fps I wouldn't have been hit". This mentality that follows many PC gamers around is honestly quite funny.

Now, if my games were running unplayably well on my machine... I might take issue; but that's simply not the case.

Also, your assertion that Windows "lets an app consume every last resource" leads me to believe that you have only a VERY basic understanding of virtual memory and multithreaded/multitasking design/implementation. Depending on your version of Windows, that's also completely incorrect (anything based off the NT; NT4, 2000, XP; kernel has a mutlitasking model very, VERY similar to OSX).

[devmage]

Originally posted by lewdvig:
You are correct. Apple uses questionable benchmarking IMO. Current P4/9800P conditions are getting 360+ fps in Quake 3 at 10*7 highest detail. The 2xG5/9800 combo gets 270fps.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...-r9800_12.html

Not everyone here wants or needs a G5 just for games.

FPS on a console can't be that bad - I have not heard anyone say a negative thing about Halo. And Sony's Kill Zone looks incredible.

Ok Then I will! Halo sucks :b

Though I will agree with anyone who says console suck for FPS to a certain extent. It has been done well and usuable in the past. Metroid Prime for instance is easy to control. However I have played Halo several times at a friend and the controls are nasty, not only that I never saw what so many people saw in that game.

Anyways I'm still waiting on my Dual G5 other wise I'd have some G5 critiques to give By the end of october... I have the empty desk, the new 19" LCD display and will be getting another gig or 2 of ram for it before it gets here

Devmage

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by devmage:
Ok Then I will! Halo sucks :b

Though I will agree with anyone who says console suck for FPS to a certain extent. It has been done well and usuable in the past. Metroid Prime for instance is easy to control. However I have played Halo several times at a friend and the controls are nasty, not only that I never saw what so many people saw in that game.

FPS on consoles require people to use two analog sticks to control what should be something natural (like torso movement with the mouse). Two analog sticks reminds me of piloting a helicopter...not fun.

[DBvader]

"A dual 867 isn't really all that fast at anything, much less gaming, esp. if you got it with the stock video card."

im not sure a i agree witih you there. my machine is no Dual G5, but its also only a year old. PCs that cost as much as my G4 at that time have no problem running any newer games. my 600 dollar PC cost a fraction of my mac, was purchased before my mac, has a worse video card than my mac, but still pumps out much faster framerates. a Dual 867 was one of the top macs a year ago...why cant i play games on it only 4-5 months after its release?

" Here's the problem with your comparison... Sim City 4? Have you SEEN that pile of steaming sh** on a PC? It runs almost (but not quite) as badly... SC4 is just a very poorly written/ported game. I'll ignore anyone who says the Mac is a bad gaming machine due to Sim City"

Ive seen it run on a variety of machines, including my 2000+/4200, and a 1.4 P4. both ran it much smoother than my mac. as a matter of fact, i set up my aunts new iMac and that seemed faster than my mac at sim city...

"My point was that it played many games well (yes, WELL). As in, I can fire up SOF2/MOHAA/RTCW and play @ a SOLID 50-60fps with a reasonable amount of detail in multiplayer games so that it's nice and pretty. I've never once been killed/shot in a multiplayer game and thought "damn, if only I had another 10fps I wouldn't have been hit". This mentality that follows many PC gamers around is honestly quite funny."

thats about what i see in MOH too. problem is, PCs like my 600 dollar athlon easily get 100 or so FPS at 1280 x 1024 with everything on high...i cant pull >60 at 1024 x 768 with things on medium! if something that costs 600 dollars is faster at games than something that cost 2000 dollars, then clearly the 2000 machine is not a good gaming platform.

"You are correct. Apple uses questionable benchmarking IMO. Current P4/9800P conditions are getting 360+ fps in Quake 3 at 10*7 highest detail. The 2xG5/9800 combo gets 270fps."

thanks, thats why i dont understand why macs are even considered in the very least to be good gaming machines. Even the Dual G5 running at 3000 dollars cant topple a better equiped PC (3.2/9800/1GB RAM) that costs 50 percent less!

" I see DBvader seems heavily influenced by Barefeats' benchmarks. Barefeats has been ridiculed by both PC users and Mac users in the past for providing uncontrolled benchmarks"

also, i am a switcher, so i think a bit more aware of how much faster PCs are at games, especially when price to performance is figured in. Other sites also show the G5 being beat by 3.0s and 3.2s. The thing is quake is the one game that runs well on the mac, so its not really a fair comparision. i would love to see the FPS differences between PCs and Macs in UT2K3. I barely crack 30 FPS most of the time on my mac. My PC runs at about 50, with things on higher res and options.

"DBVader have you lost your head or something!? Apple has FINALLY caught up to PCs in gaming, ut2k3 CAN NOT be played with full settings on a 1.5ghz+ laptop PC and Geforce 4 GO (the same one in the powerbooks)."

nope. for the price of a powerbook, you can get a PC notebook that would eat UT2K3 alive.

"he Mac IS equal to the PC in gaming now, get over it."

no it isnt. youre basing your opinions on machines that only get 5 FPS? how much did that 1.5 cost? how much do powerbooks cost? it isnt the mHz im worried about. its more the price to performance.

"And the G5!? Have you seen it's Q3 benchmarks!? 300+ FPS! I bet at 1600x1200 it would NOT lag in ut2k3 period. As my Geforce 4 Ti w/dual 1ghz quicksilver gets about 20fps at this setting. The Mac IS equal to the PC in gaming now, get over it. (btw there has to be something wrong with Spearhead as it gets the same low fps no matter how low u set settings in it on OS X) One last thing, you say you compare the G5 to computers on par, is 3ghz = dual 2ghz. Well maybe with some very MP aware games, but if there is a dual 2ghz PC then that would truly be an equal match up"

so far, all the benchmarks i have seen show the G5 behind the P4s by a lot. Again Q3 is a bad benchmark, as it misrepresents mac games. i would say that its the only game optimized to the point where it runs equally on both systems (my PC and mac both get the same framerate in Q3...thats the only game where that is the case). were not matching up MHz, were matching up prices. the Dual G5 is 3 grand. Faster PC gaming machines can be had for 1500-2000 dollars. Less Performance, but almost twice the price? I think youre right, macs have caught up to PCs in gaming

[redJag]

Originally posted by lewdvig:
It won't beat a PC though - those days are far behind Apple.

Ah yes, the good old days. I remember the G3 slaughtering the Pentium IIIs and intially the P4s as well. Hopefully "those days" are also ahead of Apple. I have high hopes for future configurations of the PPC970 (and future versions). The G5 definitely kicks, though.

[a2daj]

The whole problem is that you're comparing prices and not the technical aspects of the PC vs. Macs.

[Vash]

Yes, a2aj has it. DBVader is the one here comparing prices and most others are going by technical(mhz, RAM, graphics chips), as my post was. And the 1.5ghz laptop was 2k at the time btw DBVader, it was one hell of a laptop (for PCs) in it's day. You claim Quake 3 is unfair because it's optimized for macs, well guess what. ALL OTHER GAMES ARE OPTIMIZED FOR PCS. So this one game is the only fair comparison, not the unfair one. If for some reason the games were written for a mac in the first place, instead of being ported then the FPS would most likely be higher on the Macintosh. One last thing, can you give me the specs of this sub "$600" PC you claim to have. Are you using MOH, or spearhead, if it's spearhead then that's y its lagging so very badly on the mac. There's just something wrong with that or something...makes no sense for FPS to drop like 30 for an expansion pack.

[nforcer]

Originally posted by benb:
Look, WC3 runs great on your machine. Until you play it on a faster Mac or a PC. Then it runs like crap. I used to think it was silky smooth on my TiBook (1GHz/1GB/9000 Mobility) with everything maxed. I thought it was super on a 867 Quicksilver with a 2MX and 1.5GB. Then I built a PC for Ravenshield and Unreal II. I played WC3 on it. Then I went on vacation. Took the TiBook with me. Decided to play WC3 campaign. I couldn't stand the performance. It was irritating.

So, those who say that WC3 runs great, I don't doubt you. I thought the same thing. Just never play it on a decent PC.

Good point. Everything is relative.

I am really sick of reading crap like "oh, such and such game runs PERFECT on MY G4/867" and other such BS. If one thinks something runs "perfect", they either have very low standards, or they aren't looking hard enough for flaws.

[DBvader]

" You claim Quake 3 is unfair because it's optimized for macs, well guess what. ALL OTHER GAMES ARE OPTIMIZED FOR PCS"

well, i say its unfair not becuase they are equally optimized. thats great, imo (though its weird that Q3-based games arent so optimized...). I think its unfair becuase it gives mac users the wrong impression...they keep telling themselves, well look at quake, macs runs that well, they must run everything well. sadly thats not the case, so saying that mac gaming is just as good as PC gaming, becuase they both run Q3 similarly is just reckless. And Clearly games are optimized for the PC...thats my whole point. mac gaming sucks becuase there is a measly library, lousy performance due optimization (not to mention slow hardware that costs hundreds more than PCs) and other issues.

" One last thing, can you give me the specs of this sub "$600" PC you claim to have."

i claim to have?

yeah, its a 2000+, 512 DDR, 80 GB HD, Ti 4200. im running it on my old Viewsonic PF 790. i built that much more than a year ago, now im sure you can get it for cheaper now. This machine would squash a majority of the macs out there in gaming, and wasnt anything special when i built it, and it hasnt become any better since.

"And the 1.5ghz laptop was 2k at the time btw DBVader, it was one hell of a laptop (for PCs) in it's day."

in its day? youre commenting on the state of mac gaming with a computer that was good in its day? No. im talking about the current powerbooks vs. thte current cream of the crop PC notebooks. i saw a 17 inch ugly ass toshiba the other day with a 2.8GHz P4M in it. thats a lot faster than the 1.33s showing up in the current batch of 17ers...and they cost a thousand more dollars at least.

"The whole problem is that you're comparing prices and not the technical aspects of the PC vs. Macs."

Does it even matter? can a Dual G5 outgame a 3.2 P4 that costs about a thousand dollars less? Nope. So for gaming, its clear macs arent a good platform anyway you look at it. There is a poor library. There are few optimized games. And even the fastest system is no match for machines costing about a grand less. Yet people still feel the need to argue

[macenthusiast]

NEVER BUY A MAC FOR GAMES. This is not what they are designed for and it never will be. PC's have cornered the gaming market, if you like games and you like macs, live with the fewer fps or buy a pc for gaming.

unless somebody comes out with a 64 bit video game ;-)

[a2daj]

Macs and PCs are designed for computing. Gaming is a very nice side effect of computing. I upgrade or buy faster Macs to help improving my gaming performance, but I use my Mac for other things. PCs won't be running Mac OS X any time soon so I will not be buying one any time soon. My Mac allows me to game just fine (and I play a lot of games) and do other things any computer can do (surf the web, watch movies, send email, download crap, software development, etc). I don't NEED a PC for gaming.

64 bit Video game? What's that suppose to mean? The Atari Jaguar was a '64 bit' video game console. So was the N64. The Dreamcast was, what, a 128 bit system?

Comparing technical aspects IS important. If some people can't figure that out, then there's no point trying to argue with them since they just won't get it.

[macenthusiast]

i'm talking about a game that is specifically optimized for the G5, and can use it to it's full potential

[CobraMantis]

...More benches, please!

[Crusoe]

Things that need to happen for Apple to be on par with PC games are in this order

Greater market share... so
Companies will be created or move to develop Mac games exclusively ... so
3D engines will be written for Mac only optimized for the G5...so
we'll have great games created by Mac users with novel ideas, and have that "picky" design sense that make for beatiful graphics and gameplay.

Then hopefully ATI and Nvidia's Mac drivers will stay near as current as the PC side. To bad 3dfx and (Glide) went away ; (

The hardware is there. G4s have the bus bandwidth limitations, the G5 doesn't. The G5 is a sweet platform for gaming with an unfortunate small market.

[SpeedRacer]

Just came into this post, so i may have missed something, but how is it that anyone here can assert that Mac has equivalent performance in gaming as Wintel?

After installing UT2003 on a brand new eMac/1gHz/512MB the other day I had to completely disable sound to even make the game PLAYABLE. We're talking <10fps at the lowest possible settings.

That's simply absurd.

The P4/2gHz/512/Radeon7500 down the hall runs UT2003 beautifully.

Perhaps this is not exactly representative of the rest of the gaming market, but to have such a flagship product (particularly one which Apple actively promotes on it's website) perform so pitifully on a Mac is just not terribly encouraging for the platform.

Speed