Bioshock on a MacBook

[Jack Flash]

Has anyone given this a try in Bootcamp 1.4?

I realize it would likely only run on absolute minimum settings, but will it run on a GMA 950 based device?

[Cougarcat]

Has anyone given this a try in Bootcamp 1.4?

I realize it would likely only run on absolute minimum settings, but will it run on a GAM 950 based device?

No.

[binaryspazz]

I've downloaded the demo and having been playing it. It works very well.
It supports widescreen even. Very playable. I'm going to buy the game. I wanted to check out the demo first, and i'm very pleased. Almost everything is set to max too.

I have a 15" 2.16 core due 2 MBP

[Jack Flash]

I've downloaded the demo and having been playing it. It works very well.
It supports widescreen even. Very playable. I'm going to buy the game. I wanted to check out the demo first, and i'm very pleased. Almost everything is set to max too.

I have a 15" 2.16 core due 2 MBP

That's a MacBook Pro with a dedicated graphics chip.

[rodti]

That's a MacBook Pro with a dedicated graphics chip.

Indeed. Bioshock requires a recent card with Pixel Shader 3. The GMA950 is not for games, full stop.

r.

[flopticalcube]

GMA950 is not for games, full stop.


C'mon! That's just not true and you know it. I can play WoW on my MacBook and many older games or new games with low reuirements can play perfectly fine on a MacBook.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=209966
http://www.apple.com/games/hardware/

[socamx]

There is a difference between being able to run games and being able to play games well, which the GMA950 can't do. Sub-30 framerates for 1 and 2 year old games is crap when the other hardware (cpu etc) is more than capable.

The GMA950 is not for games, full stop.

[nagromme]

The GMA950 is not for games, full stop.

An exaggeration, as well known by all the GMA950 gamers out there. You wouldn't game on a 950, but many would--and their fun is not imaginary :)

They are not, however, running UE3 I suspect :)

[PCMacUser]

An exaggeration, as well known by all the GMA950 gamers out there. You wouldn't game on a 950, but many would--and their fun is not imaginary :)

They are not, however, running UE3 I suspect :)

Yeah chess doesn't seem to be that demanding on the 950 ;)

[PCMacUser]

The only Apple computer that I would recommend playing Bioshock on is the Macbook Pro. It has a DX10 video card, and it's much faster than the one in the new iMacs. (DX10 cards are still not available for the Mac Pro platform, although ATI's x1900xt is a solid DX9 performer, despite being severely out of date now).

[JackAxe]

You're calling the X1900 XT severly out of date, when it was released August 23 of 2006 according to this article. (http://ir.ati.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=105421&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=898453) :eek:

What is WRONG with you? :p :D

<]=)

[flopticalcube]

The only Apple computer that I would recommend playing Bioshock on is the Macbook Pro. It has a DX10 video card, and it's much faster than the one in the new iMacs. (DX10 cards are still not available for the Mac Pro platform, although ATI's x1900xt is a solid DX9 performer, despite being severely out of date now).

Bioshock on a 24" iMac at full res/max settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbY1kTP79vc
DX9 performance btw.

[it5five]

The GMA950 is not for games, full stop.

That's strange, because I could have sworn I've played games on my MacBook. But I guess if socam says it, it must be true.

Here's the thing: I don't care about new PC games. I don't care about FPS. I don't care about MMORPG's.

Games I play on my MacBook:

Age of Empires II
Sim City IV
Civilization III

All very fun games, and they run very well on my MacBook.

[PCMacUser]

You're calling the X1900 XT severly out of date, when it was released August 23 of 2006 according to this article. (http://ir.ati.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=105421&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=898453) :eek:

What is WRONG with you? :p :D

<]=)

Hahah, nice try, but you got the wrong card. That article you refer to was the press release for the 'cut down' 256mb version of the card.

The press release for the X1900XT 512Mb card is here:

http://ir.ati.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=105421&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=807679&highlight=x1900&#37;20xt

And this is from January 2006. Which makes the card approximately 18 months old - as old as the Intel Core Solo processor! :eek:

Get my drift?

Add to this the fact that nVidia's 8800 series cards have been out for nearly a year (November 2006), Apple really need to get with the programme...

[PCMacUser]

Bioshock on a 24" iMac at full res/max settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbY1kTP79vc
DX9 performance btw.

Unfortunately that video shows that the iMac is not fast enough to play the game at maximum resolution and settings. The YouTube video just shows the first 10 minutes of the game - which is entirely scripted. The video you see at the beginning 'Atlantic 1960', is just an AVI... the first bit of 'almost' actual gameplay comes after 8 minutes of the video, and even then it's still scripted with relatively little requirement from the GPU - and yet it is still jerky - well below 30 fps I'd say.

Having said that, if you drop a few settings, maybe down to the next resolution below native, you could have a playable Bioshock experience.

And I really do recommend playing it - I've played the whole thing through twice in the last week, much to my wife's bewilderment.

[Green Lantern]

I started playing Bioshock this week on an Alum 24" iMac with all settings maxed and only noticed a frame rate problem once or twice and it was minimal. Game runs and looks great.

[Green Lantern]

BTW....where do you get the frame rate results?? then I could post results back.

[dal20402]

The only Apple computer that I would recommend playing Bioshock on is the Macbook Pro. It has a DX10 video card, and it's much faster than the one in the new iMacs.

Rob-ART disagrees with you. (http://barefeats.com/imacal.html) His results show the iMac being very marginally faster, except in Quake 4 for some strange reason.

I don't have either an Al iMac or an SR MBP, so I can't give firsthand experience...

[BigJohno]

So how would it run on a 2.33 mbp 15inch 3 gigs of ram?

[JackAxe]

Hahah, nice try, but you got the wrong card. That article you refer to was the press release for the 'cut down' 256mb version of the card.

The press release for the X1900XT 512Mb card is here:

http://ir.ati.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=105421&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=807679&highlight=x1900&#37;20xt

And this is from January 2006. Which makes the card approximately 18 months old - as old as the Intel Core Solo processor! :eek:

Get my drift?

Add to this the fact that nVidia's 8800 series cards have been out for nearly a year (November 2006), Apple really need to get with the programme...

Apple's always a little bit behind on their video cards, I doubt this will change. But I guess you're right, 18 months is too old, let us all throw out anything that's of that age or older, including pets. :o

You can call a Voodoo, or even a GF2 MX severley old, but a card that still has plenty of juice left it in it -- when most games are still DX 9 happy -- is just silly. If you want severely old, look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Multimedia#Viper)! I'll classify this card as that, when it can't run any new game on any system on even the lowest settings, so give me about 3 years. :)

<]=)

[GFLPraxis]

You're calling the X1900 XT severly out of date, when it was released August 23 of 2006 according to this article. (http://ir.ati.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=105421&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=898453) :eek:

What is WRONG with you? :p :D

<]=)

Because it is typical of the hard-core PC gamers. One year is severely out of date.

I'm sorry, I'm just sick of the ridiculous upgrade cycle. There's enormous online peer pressure of sorts about graphics cards. They're almost instantly 'outdated' in everyone's eyes, and decent budget cards suck of they can't run the latest games at max resolution. It's just silly.

[garethlewis2]

Actually it is typical of ATi and NVidia's continuing hatred for each other. NVidia started the 6 monthly product refresh and Apple have never been able to keep up. So give it 6 months and there will be games on Vista and XP that will play like treacle on the newest iMacs and MBP's. I gave up playing games on the MBP as the experience was so rubbish. Slow down, and massive amounts of heat being issued from the case.

[overcast]

You're calling the X1900 XT severly out of date, when it was released August 23 of 2006 according to this article. (http://ir.ati.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=105421&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=898453) :eek:

What is WRONG with you? :p :D

<]=)
I don't care what the article says. The X1900 line came out end of January 2006, because I bought mine on the release. For a video card, that is ancient history.

[overcast]

Because it is typical of the hard-core PC gamers. One year is severely out of date.

I'm sorry, I'm just sick of the ridiculous upgrade cycle. There's enormous online peer pressure of sorts about graphics cards. They're almost instantly 'outdated' in everyone's eyes, and decent budget cards suck of they can't run the latest games at max resolution. It's just silly.
Welcome to consumer electronics. If you can't handle the PC upgrade schedule, stick to consoles.

[overcast]

Rob-ART disagrees with you. (http://barefeats.com/imacal.html) His results show the iMac being very marginally faster, except in Quake 4 for some strange reason.

I don't have either an Al iMac or an SR MBP, so I can't give firsthand experience...
The results are all close, because those games are all old news. The Doom3 engine should not be used in benchmarking any longer.

[gloss]

The video you see at the beginning 'Atlantic 1960', is just an AVI... the first bit of 'almost' actual gameplay comes after 8 minutes of the video, and even then it's still scripted with relatively little requirement from the GPU - and yet it is still jerky - well below 30 fps I'd say.

Uh, no. It's all in-game.

[METOO999]

Welcome to consumer electronics. If you can't handle the PC upgrade schedule, stick to consoles.

I'm fine with my PS3 where I can play Warhawk and The Darkness and not worry about graphics cards, RAM, etc. I did play a few games on my black C2D Macbook like COD2, Dreamfall, and Half-Life 2.

[JackAxe]

I don't care what the article says. The X1900 line came out end of January 2006, because I bought mine on the release. For a video card, that is ancient history.

I know, that card is so antiquated, you should be ashamed of yourself for spending the money on it. Shame on Apple for not giving us a new card to buy every week. :p

The 2x Voodoo 2 cards in my PC junk box are ancient history if I want to exaggerate, not any card that's come in the past 3 years, especially not a card that can still play every new game released and will be able to for a few years. Yes, GPUs progress every 6 months, but comments like yours and PCMacUser lead to unnecessary waste from others that are too pliable to think on their own.

Oh no, I can't play this game, because I don't have the settings on max! :eek: What will I ever do? After all it's all about graphics and impressing others not gameplay! To continue my sarcasm, I feel sorry for anyone that doesn't have a 30" like me, because obviously they'll never be able to enjoy any game, because of their ancient sub-par resolutions. bleh. ;)

<]=)

[JackAxe]

Because it is typical of the hard-core PC gamers. One year is severely out of date.

I'm sorry, I'm just sick of the ridiculous upgrade cycle. There's enormous online peer pressure of sorts about graphics cards. They're almost instantly 'outdated' in everyone's eyes, and decent budget cards suck of they can't run the latest games at max resolution. It's just silly.

I blame it on peer pressure. :)

<]=)

[flopticalcube]

Welcome to consumer electronics. If you can't handle the PC upgrade schedule, stick to consoles.

And that is exactly the same conclusion that most other people are coming to. PC gaming is dying because of the horrendous ongoing costs in hardware.

[takao]

Because it is typical of the hard-core PC gamers. One year is severely out of date.

I'm sorry, I'm just sick of the ridiculous upgrade cycle. There's enormous online peer pressure of sorts about graphics cards. They're almost instantly 'outdated' in everyone's eyes, and decent budget cards suck of they can't run the latest games at max resolution. It's just silly.

the only thing more annoying is the "consoles are cheaper than PCs for gaming crowd"
i need a PC _anyway_ so it's never a 1500 vs 500 but a 200 vs 500 decision;)

(actual graphics card prices: old x1950 pro from asus <140 euro, 8800 GTS from MSI: <270 euro including taxes)
most PC gamers i know buy a cheaper PC and then simply slap in extra ram and a graphics card in the 150-200 range which will be good enough for 3 years

only idiots with too much money upgrade with 500$ cards every year
middle range on the PC is simply too good in terms of price/performance ratio to ignore

edit: oh and PC gaming dying ? i've heard that before... last time a console generation just has launched .. and the generation before
around here PC gaming is still the king

[garethlewis2]

You have obviously never seen what turmoil there is at the moment with DX10.1, that lovely little update which makes all DX10 cards obsolete. Every optional feature that DX10 has is now mandatory.

[flopticalcube]

only idiots with too much money upgrade with 500$ cards every year
middle range on the PC is simply too good in terms of price/performance ratio to ignore

Funny. Reading the numerous threads on MR about gaming, one could easily come to the conclusion that only the very latest high-end cards will do.

[takao]

Funny. Reading the numerous threads on MR about gaming, one could easily come to the conclusion that only the very latest high-end cards will do.

the problem is that on the apple side you can't get good cards for <200 bucks ;)

[kiang]

Unfortunately that video shows that the iMac is not fast enough to play the game at maximum resolution and settings. The YouTube video just shows the first 10 minutes of the game - which is entirely scripted. The video you see at the beginning 'Atlantic 1960', is just an AVI... the first bit of 'almost' actual gameplay comes after 8 minutes of the video, and even then it's still scripted with relatively little requirement from the GPU - and yet it is still jerky - well below 30 fps I'd say.

Having said that, if you drop a few settings, maybe down to the next resolution below native, you could have a playable Bioshock experience.

And I really do recommend playing it - I've played the whole thing through twice in the last week, much to my wife's bewilderment.

erm, no, The iMac in that vid is doing well, and no, it's not scripted at all, it's interactive. the plane scene is NOT an AVI: change the settings and you will see the difference--> not pre-rendered!

[barr08]

I have an old iMac core duo, nothing special, and much to my surprise, Bioshock is completely playable at medium settings, with a strong framerate - I am not sure how to put a number on it, but I would guess 40 fps, give or take. I know this sounds funny, but I swear its true. I played the game for about half an hour so far, with absolutely no slowdown of any sort. I even tried it on high settings, the framerate went down, but believe it or not, it rarely stuttered for the 10 minutes I had the settings cranked, it was just a lower fps.

[StonewallJ16]

Has everyone been using BootCamp to play Bioshock? Has anyone used Parallels or Crossover? I have been trying to get it on Crossover with little success. No matter what options I try, it will go through the installation process and nothing happens. Normally the application folder shows up automatically after you finish the installation process. Has anyone had experience with this?

[Clipse79]

When I saw the sytem requirments for windows for this game I pee`d a little in my pants. What a hog! Reminded me why I cannot keep up with the games out for pc and why I prefer console systems....If only the wife would let me play...Will trade good wife for new Macbook pro....

[Deanster]

Great reminder that there are 'gamers', and there are people who play games.

Unless you introduce yourself as 'Hi, I'm [your l33t hAXor nam3 h3r3], and I'm a gamer', most video cards priced over $75 or so will work, and current apple video like the 2600, 1900XT, etc. are just dandy. I went wild and bought a X1900GT for my PC last year at a stunning $200 to allow playing 'Supreme Commander', and it's a great card.

If you are that type who possesses 'f34r my l33t sk1llz' mojo, and have $500+ annually in video card spend, then go for it, and call cards in current production 'severely out of date', but it's just silly to suggest that there are no games to be played on the 950 or any of the card-carrying macs.

You may be right that there are no gamers on 950, but it's dead wrong to say there is no gaming on 950.

[Spartan-117]

Because it is typical of the hard-core PC gamers. One year is severely out of date.

I'm sorry, I'm just sick of the ridiculous upgrade cycle. There's enormous online peer pressure of sorts about graphics cards. They're almost instantly 'outdated' in everyone's eyes, and decent budget cards suck of they can't run the latest games at max resolution. It's just silly.

I got to disagree here, yeh some people upgrade for being a hard core gammer. but the x1900 is really kinda old. The new generation cards even the 8600GTS are better at handling HD and blue ray decoding as it offloads it from cpu and can free up them extra processes, I just cant see why apple cannot keep up with things in the graphics market, maby power supply issue :rolleyes: the new generation cards are power hoggers needing 150+ watts each and 20 amps on the 12 volts rails each ....

Not everyone cares about playing games on the highest resolution ;) just comes as a bonus :D to building a rendering rig :)

[MacAddikt]

LoTRO runs excellently on a macbook just incase you guys were wondering...and the grafix are SPECTACULAR!

Thats with Bootcamp

[GavinTing]

LoTRO runs excellently on a macbook just incase you guys were wondering...and the grafix are SPECTACULAR!

Thats with Bootcamp

What does that have to do with Bioshock? :(