[Peter]

I've been seeing loads of people asking how wow runs on x and x machine, so how about all wow users list there specs and a rough general fps? I'd list mine but i game on a pc

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Peter:
....but i game on a pc

HEATHEN!!!!

[videian28]

well the 10.3.5 update definatly made a difference on my revb 12" PB my FPS is all over the place, some times I can get 30 FPS other times 4 FPS (SW)

gnomeregan was hell as a healer due to the 4-6 FPS, have not been since the update, would be interesting to see now tho



*anxiously awaits his new dual 2.5*

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by videian28:
well the 10.3.5 update definatly made a difference on my revb 12" PB my FPS is all over the place, some times I can get 30 FPS other times 4 FPS (SW)

gnomeregan was hell as a healer due to the 4-6 FPS, have not been since the update, would be interesting to see now tho



*anxiously awaits his new dual 2.5*

With 10.3.5 you're getting 30 and other times 4?

[-Q-]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
With 10.3.5 you're getting 30 and other times 4?

It's possible. In areas with high traffic (Stormwind) the lag makes the area almost unbearable. Most of the time, tho', you're trucking along at 40-50 fps.

I'll take a look at my specs when I get home from work.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by -Q-:
It's possible. In areas with high traffic (Stormwind) the lag makes the area almost unbearable. Most of the time, tho', you're trucking along at 40-50 fps.

I'll take a look at my specs when I get home from work.

I hope part of the reason is because WoW for Mac is still fairly unoptimized.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
I hope part of the reason is because WoW for Mac is still fairly unoptimized.

Nope, it's like that for everyone, including me on my wife's 2.4GHz Dell laptop with a 64MB graphics card. Blizzard has acknowledged the issue and says they are working on it.

[videian28]

SW is bad all around, gnomeregan gets tough when you get to the irradiated guys, I would like to try it now with 10.3.5 tho, see if there is any improvement

Turias grats on the new order!

[Turias]

Originally posted by videian28:
SW is bad all around, gnomeregan gets tough when you get to the irradiated guys, I would like to try it now with 10.3.5 tho, see if there is any improvement

I've never had a problem in Gnomeregan, so I bet that is more machine/video card specific. Only Stormwind, Iron Forge, and flying around have been problems for me. I bet there are some memory leaks, too, because the longer I play, the more trouble I am given in those areas.

Originally posted by videian28:
Turias grats on the new order!

Thanks! Now I just have to wait a month and a half.

[Adam Betts]

From Rob "tigerclaw" Barris in WoW Technical Support Forum:

10.3.5 has new OpenGL drivers that address a number of issues with World of Warcraft on OS X. It's available online via Software Update.

As some of these issues were quite severe (flickering and corruption on NVIDIA GPU's, and shader bugs on ATI) this release is going to be the new minimum for World of Warcraft upon release.
This requirement will not be enforced in the next revision of the Beta, but will probably be a hard requirement for subsequent versions. So, you have some time to decide when you want to put 10.3.5 on your system, make backups etc.

There is still a known performance bug with ATI 7500/8500/9000 GPU's in 10.3.5 - we're expecting another update down the road to address this if we don't arrive at a workaround in our own code.

With the next beta push, if you have an ATI 9600 or better ATI GPU, you should see full shader effects in WoW (if you have OSX 10.3.5). On FX5200 cards however, we are leaving some shaders disabled in the next release for performance reasons, pretty sure this includes the 'death effect'. I'll try to put together a more specific list of what to expect before the push goes out.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/threa...&p=1#post13358

[Arkham_c]

I don't know that any benchmarks are really going to be valid, other than to say it won't get slower.

On my dual 2 G5/9800, I get around 35-45 fps at 1280x1024 with all options on high.

In Stormwind, I get around 2fps when I land, then about 5fps when I walk by the auction house, and about 10fps elsewhare in the trade district. Other places in SW are fine for me.

[videian28]

WOW, thats sick Arkham, that's almost what I get on my 12" rev b

blizz really needs to work on that

how does gnomeregan work for you?

[The Placid Casual]

I noticed a nice increase in fps after 10.3.5... I now average about 10-15 fps in SW, and 30-70 elsewhere... Settings on medium in 1280. (Dual 1.8 G5, 2 gig RAM with 5200...)

[videian28]

hmm, thats better than Arkham must be a nvidia thing, I am told it handles opengl much better

[videian28]

just got my dual 2.5 stock config (they had them at the local store so canceled my online order) brought it up to 2gb ram

running at 20 cinema display native 16??x1050 everything maxed except farclip which is around half

30ish FPS everywhere outside and much more inside (50ish? I forget) will clarify later

[TheDeathman]

With new patch combined with 10.3.5 I have setting on medium and I get 30 fps basically everywhere, when I get inside it shoots between 40-50. I havent been to SW yet sine IM horde

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by videian28:
hmm, thats better than Arkham must be a nvidia thing, I am told it handles opengl much better

The thing is, I get the same performance at 1600x1200 as I do at 1024x768. The only reason I don't run at max resolution is I can't read the fonts. If I turn down to medium detail l get 50-70fps. I just like the look of it with all detail maxxed out.

As far as Gnomeregan, I have zero performance problems. I never drop below 30fps in there. Really, SW in the trade district, and IF around the forge are the only places where I have any noticeable slowdown.

[rareflares]

those of you in the beta, what kind of performance would the Rev. C 12" laptop (stock model but 512 MB RAM) do in the majority of the game?

I just want to know if I'll be able to get it playable (30 FPS average +- 5 fps) on any settings (even lowest possible if need be)


thanks

[Peter]

Originally posted by rareflares:
those of you in the beta, what kind of performance would the Rev. C 12" laptop (stock model but 512 MB RAM) do in the majority of the game?

I just want to know if I'll be able to get it playable (30 FPS average +- 5 fps) on any settings (even lowest possible if need be)


thanks

powerbook or ibook?

[rareflares]

the powerbook 12" 1.33 Ghz

[t0ast]

As we all know Blizzard, the performance is comming with the patches.
-Diablo 2 got a significant performance bump at the 1.10 update, which even made d2 compatible with NuBus!



I'm getting ahold of an overclocked eMac ( 1.33 or 1.4 GhZ )

I'm hoping to get WoW going on it, if not I'll stick to bf1942..

[mac freak]

For the record, WoW performs significantly better on my P4 3.06/512MB/Radeon 9700 Pro than my G5 DP1.8/1.5GB/Radeon 9800 Pro; the performance difference is in CONSISTENCY at high framerates. The G5 hits higher framerates than the P4 -- significantly in some areas -- but the Mac version is ridden with loading bugs or something, as FPS drop very low on quick turns or view changes that bring much more terrain into view. FPS stablize after 3 seconds or so, back to higher levels than the PC, but this constant stutter effect makes the game overall more enjoyable on the pc

G5 gets 35-70 fps depending on the area, not counting Stormwind ( ), at 1280x1024/high/about 70% farclip/4xFSAA/4xAF.

[rareflares]

i'll repost my question:

how would the game perform on a 12" 1.33 Ghz Powerbook, 512 MB RAM?

[videian28]

rare, before my dual 2.5 I was playing on a revb 12" 1ghz with 768 ram, it will be playable for sure, just rough in some areas, very rough (most pretty avoidable) I would reccomend upgrading your ram tho, that is very important

[Nacente]

Blizzard has to work on improvements!

[-Q-]

Yeah, I'm still getting some random crashes, although they've moved from mid-game to mainly when logging off (yep, /bugged 'em).

[gbafan]

Originally posted by rareflares:
i'll repost my question:

how would the game perform on a 12" 1.33 Ghz Powerbook, 512 MB RAM?

I play on a 12" 1Ghz PB with 32MB VRAM 512 MB RAM and it plays fine with the latest patch and 10.3.5. I average ~25fps in outdoor areas, sometimes more in small dungeons and instances. Really just depends on the amount of people and polygons in the area. Stormwind isn't a problem at all anymore since all the people are gone Ironforge is actually fine too even with all the people now.

I wouldn't worry too much about performance at this point, it's been getting a lot better and it should be even better upon release.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by Nacente:
Blizzard has to work on improvements!

Considering the fact that the app is a beta and Blizzard has mentioned several times they're always working on optimization, I'd have to say you have a gift for pointing out the obvious!

[Apfhex]

Is there anyone with access to the beta running it on a 800MHz PBG4 (Radeon 7500, 32MB)? I'll certainly be checking out the open beta later this year if I can, but how well it runs on my 2 year old computer will be a factor in any purchase decision.

[redJag]

In its current state, WoW will not run well on your machine. Perhaps, with optimization and lower graphic quality choices in the Video Settings it would be playable. Right now you'd be getting single digit FPS everywhere, I believe. Others in the beta can chime in if I'm wrong..

Running it on my PB (see sig) I get ~30FPS average, dropping to 10-15 in cities and jumping to 40-50 in instances and mini-dungeons.

[a2daj]

The last time I tried WoW on my PB 800 was back at the beginning of phase 2. IIRC, it was barely playable. If they've improved performance at all (which they have over the months) it might not be too bad. I'll be giving it a shot tonight sometime. But I need to clear off enough HD space first.

[Turias]

I saw the WoW stress test played on an 800MHz iMac, and it was quite playable. Not the same machine as a PB, but a comparison, none-the-less.

[a2daj]

I played a little bit of the beginning Orc quest and it was fairly playable with everything turned down. most everything was above 12 fps (easily playable with this style of game) but mostly in the 16-22 fps range.

[Arkham_c]

I've got an iBook/900 with a Radeon Mobility 7500, and WoW is unplayable on it. It's terrible. When my G5 was in the shop, I gave the iBook a try and it was awful.

This last patch was SUPPOSED to increase performance, but for me the new patch is actually slower than the last.

I'd hold off judgment on performance for now, but don't expect it to ever run well on an 800Mhz machine with a 7500.

[gbafan]

Originally posted by gbafan:
I play on a 12" 1Ghz PB with 32MB VRAM 512 MB RAM and it plays fine with the latest patch and 10.3.5. I average ~25fps in outdoor areas, sometimes more in small dungeons and instances. Really just depends on the amount of people and polygons in the area. Stormwind isn't a problem at all anymore since all the people are gone Ironforge is actually fine too even with all the people now.

I wouldn't worry too much about performance at this point, it's been getting a lot better and it should be even better upon release.

Just wanted to update folks on performance with a 12" PB. With the latest 0.11.0 WoW patch I'm actually getting BETTER performance now. Turning on the Vertex Shader option has really helped smooth out the game.

I'm very happy that it's very playable on this PB.

[Paco500]

Originally posted by gbafan:
Just wanted to update folks on performance with a 12" PB. With the latest 0.11.0 WoW patch I'm actually getting BETTER performance now. Turning on the Vertex Shader option has really helped smooth out the game.

I'm very happy that it's very playable on this PB.

I haven't played with the settings at all, but I am sad to report that on my PB 15" 1.33 (1.5GB RAM, 64MB Video), the performance has degraded with the last round of major patches. Although it was not quite up to the level of a ThinkPad I played on from time to time, it was completely playable, which was not the case with the TiBook 800 I replaced.

I don't have any FPS stats, although I may try to get some next time I log in.

I would love to know what tips and tricks those in the forum have used to optimize performance on the more humble machines- what gives you the most gain at the least cost.

[gbafan]

Originally posted by Paco500:
I haven't played with the settings at all, but I am sad to report that on my PB 15" 1.33 (1.5GB RAM, 64MB Video), the performance has degraded with the last round of major patches. Although it was not quite up to the level of a ThinkPad I played on from time to time, it was completely playable, which was not the case with the TiBook 800 I replaced.

The ATI cards are still bugged AFAIK. The newest patch released today has actually disabled all shader options until there are vendor fixes. This may actually cause worse performance for my 12"PB as the Vertex Shader was really helping. I'll find out when I get home.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by gbafan:
The ATI cards are still bugged AFAIK. The newest patch released today has actually disabled all shader options until there are vendor fixes. This may actually cause worse performance for my 12"PB as the Vertex Shader was really helping. I'll find out when I get home.

10.3.6 should have some new ATI and nVidia drivers...as well as OpenGL changes. This will hopefully resolve most of if not all problems.

I really hope Apple, ATI and nVidia are working hard to get these things fixed. I hate seeing ports with disabled graphics options.

[gbafan]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
10.3.6 should have some new ATI and nVidia drivers...as well as OpenGL changes. This will hopefully resolve most of if not all problems.

I really hope Apple, ATI and nVidia are working hard to get these things fixed. I hate seeing ports with disabled graphics options.

The thing that really gets me is I have to wait for Apple to release the driver fixes... when they keep breaking them with their driver releases...

Not only am I beta testing WoW; I'm beta testing Apple's production drivers for both my machines, one ATI and one nVidia.

At least when one doesn't work I can switch to the other

[Turnpike]

Been running great for me so far... only option that really slows things down is how far the landscape draws.... with all options on high and the draw distance on next-to-high the game is pretty much perfectly smooth.

Not sure what res I'm using... I'll check once the servers come back up. Nothing too large, but nothing tiny either. 1024 or 1280 or so, IIRC.

Minus of course the loading bug that I encounter every so often that causes things to bog down immensely every time I turn... but this seems to clear up once I've seen everything in the current area (have turned around once, looked up, looked down) and won't show up in the next areas either... very odd.

Dual 1.8
1gig
ATI 9600 PRO

[gbafan]

Originally posted by Turnpike:
Been running great for me so far...

Dual 1.8
1gig
ATI 9600 PRO

Guess I should clarify; the ATI bug effects the r200 chipsets; 8500/9000/9200. You're 9600 should be fine.

[Bookie]

Believe it or not, this game actually runs on a G3 iMac at 600 mHz, with a Rage 128 with 16 MB. Not only runs, but is playable to my tastes.

During the stress test, I ran it mainly on a 1.2 gHz iBook, where it ran great with some of the eye candy turned down. I had the game loaded on a FW hard drive, so I tried it on the iMac just to see, and was very surprised it even loaded, let alone ran. I was able to level up my undead warrior, so it worked well enough to attack and kill stuff. It was choppy, and probably well below 10 fps, but the cheap thrill of it made me play for a couple hours. BTW, the top of my iMac was burning hot when I quit, so i think WOW gave it a good workout.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by Bookie:
Believe it or not, this game actually runs on a G3 iMac at 600 mHz, with a Rage 128 with 16 MB. Not only runs, but is playable to my tastes.

You gotta be kidding me. I have an iBook/640MB/900Mhz/Radeon 7500 and with every option at the minimum setting I get about 4-8 fps, and that's not even in combat. Hit control-r and tell me what frame rate you get in the auction house in IronForge.

I play on my G5 exclusively.

[rbarris]

Originally posted by gbafan:
Guess I should clarify; the ATI bug effects the r200 chipsets; 8500/9000/9200. You're 9600 should be fine.

This is backwards.

Our vertex shader stuff is working fine on 8500-9200. The errors we are working on (on the ATI side) affect 9600+.

So, upon first release of WoW we may choose to enable vertex shader stuff on the low end parts since it works fine and gives them a needed boost, and enable it for the 9600+ GPU's later when the needed driver revs have shipped.

Rob

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
You gotta be kidding me. I have an iBook/640MB/900Mhz/Radeon 7500 and with every option at the minimum setting I get about 4-8 fps, and that's not even in combat. Hit control-r and tell me what frame rate you get in the auction house in IronForge.

I play on my G5 exclusively.

I have mostly played on my G5 exclusively too, and even with my 5200 Gfx card it is really nice to play, and getting better with each patch too!!

I have logged on a few time with my 1ghz iBook (768 MB RAM) over the last few days, and I have got 5-35fps depending on location. In the IF auction house, I averaged about 8fps... Out in the field I average about 25-30.

Not ideal, but more than playable enough when I need a wireless WoW fix at work!

Peace,

TPC

[gbafan]

Originally posted by rbarris:
This is backwards.

Our vertex shader stuff is working fine on 8500-9200. The errors we are working on (on the ATI side) affect 9600+.

So, upon first release of WoW we may choose to enable vertex shader stuff on the low end parts since it works fine and gives them a needed boost, and enable it for the 9600+ GPU's later when the needed driver revs have shipped.

Rob

Hmm... well then. Turn them back on for the r200, I need all the help I can get

[Bookie]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
You gotta be kidding me. I have an iBook/640MB/900Mhz/Radeon 7500 and with every option at the minimum setting I get about 4-8 fps, and that's not even in combat. Hit control-r and tell me what frame rate you get in the auction house in IronForge.

I play on my G5 exclusively.

I can understand your incredulity; unfortunately, unless i can get into the open beta on the virtues of my iBook, I can't give you an answer. I did notice a difference from environment to environment, but it was playable for my undead, my dwarf. and my tauren. I only wish I could log on now and hit control -r.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by Bookie:
I can understand your incredulity; unfortunately, unless i can get into the open beta on the virtues of my iBook, I can't give you an answer. I did notice a difference from environment to environment, but it was playable for my undead, my dwarf. and my tauren. I only wish I could log on now and hit control -r.

Well the "open" beta should accept everyone.

[Bookie]

ctrl-r on iMac 600 shows frame rates between 3-7 indoors, 2-5 outdoors. My iMac gnome rogue is level 6

[greenamp]

Playing on my dp 1.8 / 2gigs ddr/ radeon 9600 pro:

Resolution set to 1280x1024
Outdoors I was getting between 30-50 fps, which dropped to around 20fps in highly congested zones like Crossroads.

The biggest problem I faced was in large raids, where I saw my fps drop into the teens to single digits at times. But I attribute that largely to the high stress on the servers, as such was the point of the open beta.

I suppose I'll set my resolution down to 1024x768 in retail, since they made it to where the UI bars stay the same size across different resolutions, which was my biggest issue. (having a larger UI bar that is)