PDA

View Full Version : Game performance in 10.9


Impede
Jun 12, 2013, 04:06 PM
I haven't seen anyone else posting about it but this is a fairly big deal for some of us.

So far, Ive had a really excellent experience with Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, and once borderlands 2 installs ill see how that goes.

Testing on a quad 2.8 2010 mac pro with a 5870 and 16gb of ram. games running at 1920x1080.

Diablo 3, max settings Solid 60fps... the only word i can find to describe it is, buttery. Its amazing now, because previously, it was playable smoothly at mid settings, so if the game got busy it wouldn't hang and get me killed. In my play testing, I'm confident that the game will not stutter at Max settings and get my hardcore character killed. its great.

SC2, Max settings, overall 55-60 fps with slight resource hangs occasionally. but those drops in fps (down to 15-20) are so quick and the game recovers fast enough that i couldn't actually feel the hangs while playing. but they did show up when i moused over to see the fps information

Borderlands 2 Ill find out tonight.

Looks like the New OpenGL support seems to be the ticket to a better Mac OS X gaming experience. Hoping it just gets better.

travisbrowning
Jun 12, 2013, 05:29 PM
I haven't seen anyone else posting about it but this is a fairly big deal for some of us.

So far, Ive had a really excellent experience with Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, and once borderlands 2 installs ill see how that goes.

Testing on a quad 2.8 2010 mac pro with a 5870 and 16gb of ram. games running at 1920x1080.

Diablo 3, max settings Solid 60fps... the only word i can find to describe it is, buttery. Its amazing now, because previously, it was playable smoothly at mid settings, so if the game got busy it wouldn't hang and get me killed. In my play testing, I'm confident that the game will not stutter at Max settings and get my hardcore character killed. its great.

SC2, Max settings, overall 55-60 fps with slight resource hangs occasionally. but those drops in fps (down to 15-20) are so quick and the game recovers fast enough that i couldn't actually feel the hangs while playing. but they did show up when i moused over to see the fps information

Borderlands 2 Ill find out tonight.

Looks like the New OpenGL support seems to be the ticket to a better Mac OS X gaming experience. Hoping it just gets better.

I haven't noticed any real improvements, but the only game on the computer I play is WoW.

Ddyracer
Jun 12, 2013, 05:44 PM
I would like to see complete 4.2 support and maybe some of .3 around the release.

mattdo93
Jun 12, 2013, 08:46 PM
Can anyone test Guild Wars 2 on Mavericks?

Johnf1285
Jun 12, 2013, 09:32 PM
I haven't noticed any real improvements, but the only game on the computer I play is WoW.

Were you playing Wow on the computer in your signature?

I am interested in what Open GL 4 will add to Wow and hope it gives a bump in performance to begin to close that Mac/PC performance gap on the same hardware.

travisbrowning
Jun 12, 2013, 11:00 PM
Were you playing Wow on the computer in your signature?

I am interested in what Open GL 4 will add to Wow and hope it gives a bump in performance to begin to close that Mac/PC performance gap on the same hardware.

Yes I was.

anzio
Jun 12, 2013, 11:02 PM
Were you playing Wow on the computer in your signature?

I am interested in what Open GL 4 will add to Wow and hope it gives a bump in performance to begin to close that Mac/PC performance gap on the same hardware.

OpenGL 4 support will need to be added by developers. While some drivers are improvedľand you will see improvements there even without OpenGL 4, it still requires developer work.

The Mac team lead for WoW said they will add OpenGL 4 support if it improves performance in WoW

Source: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/9245385714#10

w0lf
Jun 12, 2013, 11:12 PM
Are you sure this isn't like a placebo effect?

Dont developers actually have to implement/allow their games to access the new openGL extensions before the game would benefit from them?

Maybe it just seems smoother because your system is running better in general?

I dunno though maybe I'm completely wrong about this.

negativzero
Jun 13, 2013, 12:36 AM
I'm playing Diablo 3 and I still don't see any framrate increase in my game. Same with Portal and Torchlight.

Impede
Jun 13, 2013, 01:07 AM
I Got borderlands 2 up and running when i got home, and it appears to be better as well, higher settings, less chop.

Maybe its just Newer drivers? Its possible that in general the new OS is just better... i don't know, but I usually would turn things down because I like normalized performance across the board instead of frame rate drops when the action starts.

ill note that even though BL2 runs "better", it does beach ball a whole lot until you are in the game.

Im pretty in tune with what my machine is capable of, and since i was waiting for the announcement of a new Mac Pro I opted to hold off on getting a better GPU for this machine. The 5870 is dated, and lots of people with newer machines, for instance a new iMac would trounce these games anyway. I see better performance on older hardware, is all I'm saying. Couldn't tell you exactly why.

leman
Jun 13, 2013, 01:42 AM
Are you sure this isn't like a placebo effect?

Dont developers actually have to implement/allow their games to access the new openGL extensions before the game would benefit from them?


Extensions and driver quality are two completely different things. It is a fact that OS X 10.9 GPU drivers are much faster.

Can anyone test Guild Wars 2 on Mavericks?

It is actually playable now, I am getting FPS which is only slightly lower than on Windows. And the annoying stuttering when rotating the camera is almost gone.

Cougarcat
Jun 13, 2013, 12:12 PM
Can someone try Civ V?

MarcBook
Jun 13, 2013, 04:51 PM
It is actually playable now, I am getting FPS which is only slightly lower than on Windows. And the annoying stuttering when rotating the camera is almost gone.

That's great news. One of the best moment of the WWDC keynote (in my opinion) was when I saw 'OpenGL 4' on the screen. Hopefully it's a sign that Apple is going to take graphics much more seriously from here on.

leman
Jun 13, 2013, 05:29 PM
That's great news. One of the best moment of the WWDC keynote (in my opinion) was when I saw 'OpenGL 4' on the screen. Hopefully it's a sign that Apple is going to take graphics much more seriously from here on.

Well, it was just a question of time. Steve Jobs didn't care much for gaming but I think Apple recognised how strong driving force games can be. And OpenGL 4 is important for Apple, because it brings API compatibility with OpenGL ES. This means that developers could more easily create games that run on both iOS and OS X.

travisbrowning
Jun 14, 2013, 03:09 PM
Oh wow, I got a pretty large performance boost in The Lord of the Rings Online! :eek: Did not expect that, I can turn on quite a bit more features.

Baklava
Jun 15, 2013, 05:56 PM
Is someone using GameRange for online gaming? I can't open GameRange on Mavericks. Can someone confirm that?

ResPublica
Jun 15, 2013, 07:25 PM
I don't think there should be any difference with current games because of OpenGL 4; it's not used by any Mac game up to this date. However perhaps Apple has updated some video drivers or made other improvements.

freedevil
Jun 16, 2013, 02:30 AM
I agree on Diablo 3 running much smoother with 0 stutter on max settings.

Serban
Jun 17, 2013, 12:57 AM
so there are improvements in fps between mountain lion and mavericks in games like diablo/starcraft/league of legends?

ErikGrim
Jun 17, 2013, 01:48 AM
Can someone try Civ V?

Same or slower on my 2010 iMac. To be fair I'm running a fairly involved end game at the moment, so turns are slow as molasses anyway.

Serban
Jun 17, 2013, 02:18 AM
so...blizzard had all the games like starcraft /diablo use OpenGl 3, so the improvements you see is tha gap between opengl 1.2-v3. So the developers will have to bring even more to make their games support opengl 4 and i thing beginning with 2014 will have no more differences between windows and maverciks performance

w0lf
Jun 17, 2013, 03:07 PM
and I think beginning with 2014 we will have no more differences between Windows and Mavericks gaming performance.

Nope. Having openGL 4 support is not going to suddenly make macs amazing gaming machines.

Game developers really have to make a game from the ground up for Mac to even give it a chance to perform on a similar level to Windows. Ports always suffer in comparison to their original and until Mac becomes a platform with enough Gamers to support paying for the development of more Mac native games there will still be a performance gap between Windows and Mac.

Also just because we have openGL 4.1 doesn't necessarily mean games will see astonishing performance.

I do however believe that Mavericks is a step in the right direction if you happen to be a Mac gamer. Maybe 5-10 years down the road Mac and Windows will be on an even level but not now.

slime73
Jun 17, 2013, 03:15 PM
Nope. Having openGL 4 support is not going to suddenly make macs amazing gaming machines.

Game developers really have to make a game from the ground up for Mac to even give it a chance to perform on a similar level to Windows. Ports always suffer in comparison to their original and until Mac becomes a platform with enough Gamers to support paying for the development of more Mac native games there will still be a performance gap between Windows and Mac.

Also just because we have openGL 4.1 doesn't necessarily mean games will see astonishing performance.

I do however believe that Mavericks is a step in the right direction if you happen to be a Mac gamer. Maybe 5-10 years down the road Mac and Windows will be on an even level but not now.

Actually game developers just have to make an OpenGL rendering backend for their game. OpenGL performance is equal in OS X and Windows, the majority of performance issues with ports stem from OpenGL wrappers/renderers which are poorly made or misuse an API feature.

OpenGL 4.1 allows developers to use new rendering features found in DirectX 11-capable GPUs. Some of those can give greater performance than alternatives, if the developer makes proper use of them.

Mattww
Jun 17, 2013, 03:26 PM
I haven't seen anyone else posting about it but this is a fairly big deal for some of us.

So far, Ive had a really excellent experience with Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, and once borderlands 2 installs ill see how that goes.

Testing on a quad 2.8 2010 mac pro with a 5870 and 16gb of ram. games running at 1920x1080.

Diablo 3, max settings Solid 60fps... the only word i can find to describe it is, buttery. Its amazing now, because previously, it was playable smoothly at mid settings, so if the game got busy it wouldn't hang and get me killed. In my play testing, I'm confident that the game will not stutter at Max settings and get my hardcore character killed. its great.

SC2, Max settings, overall 55-60 fps with slight resource hangs occasionally. but those drops in fps (down to 15-20) are so quick and the game recovers fast enough that i couldn't actually feel the hangs while playing. but they did show up when i moused over to see the fps information

Borderlands 2 Ill find out tonight.

Looks like the New OpenGL support seems to be the ticket to a better Mac OS X gaming experience. Hoping it just gets better.

Interesting that the 5870 got another lease of life. It would be nice to see if the 7950 performance improves as it seemed to offer little more other than the extra VRAM with 10.8, only the GTX680 seemed even worth considering for 5870 owners.

Serban
Jun 17, 2013, 03:27 PM
Blizzard already official said that if supporting OpenGL 4 will improve performance they will make add ons /patches for every big games starcraft/diablo/wow.

leman
Jun 17, 2013, 05:07 PM
Actually game developers just have to make an OpenGL rendering backend for their game. OpenGL performance is equal in OS X and Windows, the majority of performance issues with ports stem from OpenGL wrappers/renderers which are poorly made or misuse an API feature.


No, its not. Windows drivers are generally faster. The reason behind it is simple: games. GPU vendors can sell more cards if they are performing better in games, this is why they optimise the heck out of the drivers to make common API usage scenarios faster. Modern GPU drivers are a huge mess, as they contain lots of hacks which would allow them to perform better in games, up to on-the-fly shader rewriting and other stuff. The reason DirectX is slightly faster then GL on Windows, is simply because more games use DX so vendors would concentrate on speeding that API up. In contrast, Apple's implementation is still fairly generic.

I do believe that we need a new kind of API... an API that would most closely expose the modern GPU hardware. OpenGL would still need a major clean-up, but the core profiles are a big step up. I am still very disappointed that the original Longs Peak didn't fly, that was a very elegant API design...

JordanNZ
Jun 17, 2013, 05:52 PM
so...blizzard had all the games like starcraft /diablo use OpenGl 3, so the improvements you see is tha gap between opengl 1.2-v3. So the developers will have to bring even more to make their games support opengl 4 and i thing beginning with 2014 will have no more differences between windows and maverciks performance

No Blizzard games currently use OpenGL 3.2 on OSX. They're still using the 2.1 path.

Blizzard said that they will use OpenGL 4.1/3.2 IF it makes the games faster...

slime73
Jun 17, 2013, 06:29 PM
No, its not. Windows drivers are generally faster. The reason behind it is simple: games. GPU vendors can sell more cards if they are performing better in games, this is why they optimise the heck out of the drivers to make common API usage scenarios faster. Modern GPU drivers are a huge mess, as they contain lots of hacks which would allow them to perform better in games, up to on-the-fly shader rewriting and other stuff. The reason DirectX is slightly faster then GL on Windows, is simply because more games use DX so vendors would concentrate on speeding that API up. In contrast, Apple's implementation is still fairly generic.

I do believe that we need a new kind of API... an API that would most closely expose the modern GPU hardware. OpenGL would still need a major clean-up, but the core profiles are a big step up. I am still very disappointed that the original Longs Peak didn't fly, that was a very elegant API design...

What you're saying is essentially what I was saying earlier: The performance difference tends to be between OpenGL and Direct3D implementations of the games' rendering backends, rather than the fact that it runs on OS X or Windows. Most high-profile windows games use Direct3D - drivers don't have specific OpenGL optimizations for those games on any operating system.

As seen here, there are many small variations in GL performance that go way beyond OS X versus Windows, and more often than not depend on very specific uses of the API that's implemented slightly differently on different drivers (within Windows even): http://www.g-truc.net/post-0552.html#menu http://www.g-truc.net/post-0547.html#menu

Another tangential tidbit: Both OpenGL and Direct3D 10/11 will nearly always be faster than Direct3D 9. D3D9 has a high function call overhead compared to the other APIs.

twcbc
Jun 17, 2013, 09:04 PM
I hope OSX 10.9 finally brings fully OpenGL 3.x support to Nvidia GT130.

According to https://developer.nvidia.com/opengl-driver GT130 is capable to support OpenGL 3.x. But, even in OSX 10.8.4, Apple still unfinish OpenGL 3.x implement on GT130.

JordanNZ
Jun 17, 2013, 10:40 PM
I hope OSX 10.9 finally brings fully OpenGL 3.x support to Nvidia GT130.

According to https://developer.nvidia.com/opengl-driver GT130 is capable to support OpenGL 3.x. But, even in OSX 10.8.4, Apple still unfinish OpenGL 3.x implement on GT130.

OpenGL 3.2 has been supported on the GT130 since Lion...

https://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/opengl/capabilities/GLInfo_1075_Core.html

ErikGrim
Jun 17, 2013, 10:43 PM
For the record, XCOM still stutters in some of the cutscenes. Notably the ship landing.

But then again it's out for the iPad on Thursday. :D

twcbc
Jun 17, 2013, 11:21 PM
OpenGL 3.2 has been supported on the GT130 since Lion...

https://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/opengl/capabilities/GLInfo_1075_Core.html

Thanks for your information. But OpenGL Extensions Viewer tells me my GT130 only support OpenGL 2.1:confused:

JordanNZ
Jun 17, 2013, 11:58 PM
Thanks for your information. But OpenGL Extensions Viewer tells me my GT130 only support OpenGL 2.1:confused:

You're looking at the 'Compatibility profile' Change it to 'Core Profile' and look again.

twcbc
Jun 18, 2013, 12:16 AM
You're looking at the 'Compatibility profile' Change it to 'Core Profile' and look again.

Thanks, I will check it once I can access my iMac.

Could you explain me what's difference between "compatibility profile" and "core pro file"?

JordanNZ
Jun 18, 2013, 01:52 AM
Thanks, I will check it once I can access my iMac.

Could you explain me what's difference between "compatibility profile" and "core pro file"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_3.2

leman
Jun 18, 2013, 06:43 AM
As seen here, there are many small variations in GL performance that go way beyond OS X versus Windows, and more often than not depend on very specific uses of the API that's implemented slightly differently on different drivers (within Windows even): http://www.g-truc.net/post-0552.html#menu http://www.g-truc.net/post-0547.html#menu

Another tangential tidbit: Both OpenGL and Direct3D 10/11 will nearly always be faster than Direct3D 9. D3D9 has a high function call overhead compared to the other APIs.

As Netkas pointed out in another thread, it does not make much sense to use these benchmarks for API comparisons because we have no idea how they are written internally and what feature sets they are using. This is particularly problematic with OpenGL with its extensions... what one would need is a series of microbenchmarks using optimal API snippets which would benchmark specific aspects...

MikhailT
Jun 18, 2013, 07:17 PM
Remember that Mavricks contain a lot of under-the-hood changes. Drivers are not likely the only reasons it's smoother for games on Mavricks but the rest of the changes they made to the core of OS X.

Mr. Wonderful
Jun 18, 2013, 09:56 PM
I would like to see complete 4.2 support and maybe some of .3 around the release.

Please, do tell me what feature of 4.2 and 4.3 are you waiting on so badly that we need it in a few months? Yeah, I'd like it, too, but I swear, almost all people on this forum are demanding features they don't understand.

Also, if it's true that Blizzard is still using 2.1 for their Mac games, I'm calling BS that porting to 3.2 and beyond wouldn't improve performance. 2.1 is ancient, and we've already seen from other developers like Valve where supporting additional OpenGL extensions that belong to versions beyond 2.1 dramatically improves performance.

Most likely, any performance gains we're seeing in Maverick at the moment are simply driver improvements, which is a big deal in itself.

leman
Jun 19, 2013, 03:15 AM
Please, do tell me what feature of 4.2 and 4.3 are you waiting on so badly that we need it in a few months? Yeah, I'd like it, too, but I swear, almost all people on this forum are demanding features they don't understand.


I fully agree! Furthermore, 4.2 does not really bring anything interesting to the table. OpenGL 4.3 is a different story - it offers debugging capabilities, serious enhancements to the shaders and texture views and ETC texture compression. All of these are really big things!

JordanNZ
Jun 19, 2013, 04:40 AM
Please, do tell me what feature of 4.2 and 4.3 are you waiting on so badly that we need it in a few months? Yeah, I'd like it, too, but I swear, almost all people on this forum are demanding features they don't understand.

Also, if it's true that Blizzard is still using 2.1 for their Mac games, I'm calling BS that porting to 3.2 and beyond wouldn't improve performance. 2.1 is ancient, and we've already seen from other developers like Valve where supporting additional OpenGL extensions that belong to versions beyond 2.1 dramatically improves performance.

Most likely, any performance gains we're seeing in Maverick at the moment are simply driver improvements, which is a big deal in itself.

Blizz are using plenty of 3+ extensions. But their engine backends are still based around 2.1.

slime73
Jun 19, 2013, 07:08 AM
I fully agree! Furthermore, 4.2 does not really bring anything interesting to the table. OpenGL 4.3 is a different story - it offers debugging capabilities, serious enhancements to the shaders and texture views and ETC texture compression. All of these are really big things!

And you didn't even mention Compute Shaders! :)
4.3 is pretty killer, but only nvidia currently has complete support for it out of any vendor on any system...

leman
Jun 19, 2013, 09:28 AM
And you didn't even mention Compute Shaders! :)
4.3 is pretty killer, but only nvidia currently has complete support for it out of any vendor on any system...

Its part of the 'serious enhancements to the shaders' :p

Ddyracer
Jun 19, 2013, 12:30 PM
Please, do tell me what feature of 4.2 and 4.3 are you waiting on so badly that we need it in a few months? Yeah, I'd like it, too, but I swear, almost all people on this forum are demanding features they don't understand.

Also, if it's true that Blizzard is still using 2.1 for their Mac games, I'm calling BS that porting to 3.2 and beyond wouldn't improve performance. 2.1 is ancient, and we've already seen from other developers like Valve where supporting additional OpenGL extensions that belong to versions beyond 2.1 dramatically improves performance.

Most likely, any performance gains we're seeing in Maverick at the moment are simply driver improvements, which is a big deal in itself.

I'm not really demanding just would like to see Apple support the latest opengl version for once.

Is that too much to ask?

hancockr59
Jun 19, 2013, 01:19 PM
How is League of Legends on it?

Serban
Jun 19, 2013, 02:41 PM
How is League of Legends on it?


+1 how?

kaellar
Jun 20, 2013, 03:22 AM
Blizzard already official said that if supporting OpenGL 4 will improve performance they will make add ons /patches for every big games starcraft/diablo/wow.
Where did you get that from? Blizz guys at us forums told something like that regarding WOW only.
From personal conversation with them, it looks like about 30% of D3 players on Mac are still using 10.6 or below. And moving to core profile OpenGL 3.2/4 means leaving those 30% overboard.
It's kinda sad for me personally, since D3 is my favorite Blizz game so far.

anzio
Jun 20, 2013, 11:22 AM
Where did you get that from? Blizz guys at us forums told something like that regarding WOW only.
From personal conversation with them, it looks like about 30% of D3 players on Mac are still using 10.6 or below. And moving to core profile OpenGL 3.2/4 means leaving those 30% overboard.
It's kinda sad for me personally, since D3 is my favorite Blizz game so far.

The devs work on all games. They can launch two builds if needed.

kaellar
Jun 20, 2013, 11:43 AM
The devs work on all games. They can launch two builds if needed.
I thought so too, bot from what they say it looks like a real issue for them.

Serban
Jun 22, 2013, 02:14 AM
for blizzard is not..they have the power, for EA i think as well..maybe for companies like that make league of legends

kaellar
Jun 22, 2013, 04:26 AM
for blizzard is not..they have the power, for EA i think as well..maybe for companies like that make league of legends
if that wasn't a problem for blizz, we would already have the second build of graphics engine for the game released more than a year ago, that uses a core profile of opengl version Apple started providing two years ago, don't you think?

JordanNZ
Jun 22, 2013, 07:27 PM
if that wasn't a problem for blizz, we would already have the second build of graphics engine for the game released more than a year ago, that uses a core profile of opengl version Apple started providing two years ago, don't you think?

They don't have to abandon the old graphics backend. They actually supported 2 separate ones for years.

When Lion was announced they said when they do add support for core profile, that they would keep in current backend as an option for people running an older OS.

kaellar
Jun 23, 2013, 05:51 AM
They don't have to abandon the old graphics backend. They actually supported 2 separate ones for years.

When Lion was announced they said when they do add support for core profile, that they would keep in current backend as an option for people running an older OS.

yep. that was two years ago. still no support for D3.
from my POV what they said and what they done are two different stories.

jeanlain
Jun 25, 2013, 06:01 AM
Not saying that overall impressions while gaming are not relevant, but it'd be nice to have more standard and quantitative benchmarks to compare 10.8 to 10.9.

Unigine Heaven is a benchmark that uses the openGL 3/4 core profile and tessellation (openGL 4) on supported hardware. It should be a good test.
It gives 7% higher score on Mavericks DP1 compared to 10.8.4 (Geforce 9600M GT), but DP2 doesn't appear faster than ML at that test.
http://unigine.com/products/heaven/

Irishman
Jun 27, 2013, 08:35 AM
I would like to see complete 4.2 support and maybe some of .3 around the release.

What's been added to .2 and .3 that makes it a compelling upgrade for you? Other than just making the number versions to parity on paper?

----------

Not saying that overall impressions while gaming are not relevant, but it'd be nice to have more standard and quantitative benchmarks to compare 10.8 to 10.9.

Unigine Heaven is a benchmark that uses the openGL 3/4 core profile and tessellation (openGL 4) on supported hardware. It should be a good test.
It gives 7% higher score on Mavericks DP1 compared to 10.8.4 (Geforce 9600M GT), but DP2 doesn't appear faster than ML at that test.
http://unigine.com/products/heaven/

When you run Heaven, do you enable the hardware tessellation? And if so, do you see the effects of the tessellation?

----------

so...blizzard had all the games like starcraft /diablo use OpenGl 3, so the improvements you see is tha gap between opengl 1.2-v3. So the developers will have to bring even more to make their games support opengl 4 and i thing beginning with 2014 will have no more differences between windows and maverciks performance

We should only expect Mac versions of games to get the OGL 4.1 treatment where the Windows version is already there (if it wasn't originally a DX game. I would think that the effort involved in implementing OGL 4.1 support if it doesn't already exist in the game code would be much more substantial, and individual developers/porters will have to judge for themselves if that work is worth it or not.

Irishman
Jun 27, 2013, 08:47 AM
I fully agree! Furthermore, 4.2 does not really bring anything interesting to the table. OpenGL 4.3 is a different story - it offers debugging capabilities, serious enhancements to the shaders and texture views and ETC texture compression. All of these are really big things!

Thanks for the insight!

jeanlain
Jun 27, 2013, 11:14 AM
When you run Heaven, do you enable the hardware tessellation? And if so, do you see the effects of the tessellation?
My GPU doesn't support it, but from other reports Mavericks does enable tessellation in Heaven.

Irishman
Jun 27, 2013, 11:21 AM
My GPU doesn't support it, but from other reports Mavericks does enable tessellation in Heaven.

I would love to read those!! Do you recall where you read them?

jeanlain
Jun 27, 2013, 02:58 PM
http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/289731-finally-we-have-tesselation-on-os-x/

Jaskov
Jun 27, 2013, 03:11 PM
I run Primordia on 10.9 and it runs at least as good as it did on 10.7. I've also haven't noticed any increase in fans' RPM.

Lolito
Jun 27, 2013, 04:30 PM
has anybody tested if nintendo dolphin emulator works better?