PDA

View Full Version : Quake 4 System Requirements for Mac


MacBytes
Feb 2, 2006, 01:09 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Games
Link: Quake 4 System Requirements for Mac (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060202140933)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

iJaz
Feb 2, 2006, 01:39 PM
Yesss! I can play! :)

iGav
Feb 2, 2006, 01:41 PM
I just read that as Quark 4 system requirements... hahahahaha.

Will Cheyney
Feb 2, 2006, 01:47 PM
Looks like I'll be fine too :)

Meemoo
Feb 2, 2006, 01:54 PM
Mac Gaming might get interesting since Windows can't utilize multi core processors and the Mac OS can...

plastique45
Feb 2, 2006, 02:03 PM
Mac Gaming might get interesting since Windows can't utilize multi core processors and the Mac OS can...

Makes no fifference, since games are created for Windows, they don'Mt use more than one CPU/Core. Since games are translated to OS X and since OS X does suck a poor job at handing out openGL control to games, you'll still see games that run much slower on Macs than PC's.

On a side note, I'll give a million to anyone that can play Quake 4 with a decent framerate (20 or even 15) on a 1.67GHz G4 with a 64mb 9600 :rolleyes:

these "recommended specs" are more like it (and even then):

Recommended System Requirements:

Quake 4 runs best on a Power Mac G5 or Intel 2.0 GHz or faster
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.4.4 or later
CPU Processor: PowerPC G5 or Intel chipset
CPU Speed: 2.0 GHz or faster
Video RAM: 128 MB

BlizzardBomb
Feb 2, 2006, 02:13 PM
Seriously doubt any Rev. B iMac G5 is up to the challenge.

greatdevourer
Feb 2, 2006, 02:13 PM
Makes no fifference, since games are created for Windows, they don'Mt use more than one CPU/Core. Since games are translated to OS X and since OS X does suck a poor job at handing out openGL control to games, you'll still see games that run much slower on Macs than PC's. Quake 4 is written for simultanious multithreading. It may only be in the Linux version, but it's there

macgeek2005
Feb 2, 2006, 02:22 PM
Does this mean I can't play? I've got a Radeon 9000. It's not in the supported cards list!!!

Anonymous Freak
Feb 2, 2006, 02:31 PM
Mac Gaming might get interesting since Windows can't utilize multi core processors and the Mac OS can...

What a load of FUD. Windows XP Home Edition supports up to two 'processors' in one socket. This includes dual-core and hyperthreading systems. XP Professional (and Media Center,) support 8 'processors' in as many sockets as you want, meaning two dual-core Hyperthreading Xeons are supported just fine.

The fact that most Windows programmers DON'T use multithreading as prevelantly as they should is a different matter, and has nothing to do with the OS itself. Quake 3 Arena supported multiple processors on Windows 2000 or XP, and ran quite well on an 8-way Xeon with a 4-chip Voodoo3 card. :-)

I haven't seen anything on Q4 as to if it really does support multiple processors or not, though. (For example, Doom 3 does *NOT* take advantage of multiple processors, which includes dual-core.) You will see SOME benefit from multiple processors, if merely from the fact that all the background OS tasks will use one processor, and the game another, giving the game 100% usage of at least one processor.

AlmostThere
Feb 2, 2006, 02:37 PM
Quake 4 does take advantage of dual core processors in Windows and it can give a big boost in performance.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/

plus, what ehurtley said vis-a-vis multi CPU windows. Call of Duty 2 is also patched for dual core processors, so hopefully when that hits the Mac world, it will be up and running in all its glory.

bigandy
Feb 2, 2006, 02:39 PM
universal binary?

hoo haa. :rolleyes:

Eidorian
Feb 2, 2006, 02:50 PM
universal binary?

hoo haa. :rolleyes:That's the first thing I was looking for. Then again, you can't beat Quake III and the original Unreal Tournament. :cool:

Wes Jordan
Feb 2, 2006, 03:00 PM
Wow...I'm suprised that my new MacBook Pro just barely squeezes by on the system requirements. I expect more from a $2000 laptop. I wonder how well it would play. Well, then again I don't know why I am worring about it, the only video game I really play is TS2. But I still can't help but have this big pit in my stomach that something I spent so much on will barely scrape by on current games:(.

macgeek2005
Feb 2, 2006, 03:06 PM
Wow...I'm suprised that my new MacBook Pro just barely squeezes by on the system requirements. I expect more from a $2000 laptop. I wonder how well it would play. Well, then again I don't know why I am worring about it, the only video game I really play is TS2. But I still can't help but have this big pit in my stomach that something I spent so much on will barely scrape by on current games:(.

You paid for portability not power.

ReanimationLP
Feb 2, 2006, 03:26 PM
Quake 4 rocks. :D

Its gruesome at points though, espically the part about becoming one of the enemy. *shudders*

I play it on my AMD64 machine at HIGH. XD

Looks like my G4 wont be able to play it.

nagromme
Feb 2, 2006, 03:28 PM
But I still can't help but have this big pit in my stomach that something I spent so much on will barely scrape by on current games:(.
This current game is also a TOP-end game. It uses one of (if not the) highest-level 3D engines out today. (UE3 should surpass it though.) Top-end 3D games will always run best on desktops.

But don't worry: your MacBook Pro is far better than "barely squeaking by." The minimum is a G4. You have Intel Core, which is more in the G5 class. Oh... and you have TWO of 'em :)

Wes Jordan
Feb 2, 2006, 04:25 PM
This current game is also a TOP-end game. It uses one of (if not the) highest-level 3D engines out today. (UE3 should surpass it though.) Top-end 3D games will always run best on desktops.

But don't worry: your MacBook Pro is far better than "barely squeaking by." The minimum is a G4. You have Intel Core, which is more in the G5 class. Oh... and you have TWO of 'em :)

:D allright now you made me feel much better!

Stridder44
Feb 2, 2006, 06:56 PM
So is it OS related in some form or another that games on Mac run so much worse sometimes? Could someone please explain it to the unknowing?

shamino
Feb 2, 2006, 07:29 PM
I find it amusing that they mention G4 systems at all. Apple only made one 1.67GHz G4 - a last-generation PowerBook.

The fact that they explicitly mention Intel as a supported configuration tells me that the program may well be a universal binary. I can't imagine a program like this getting good performance on a 2GHz chip if you're running it through Rosetta.

It would be interesting to see if the clock-speed requirements are any lower for dual-CPU systems. For instance, a dual 1.42GHz G4 PowerMac might be able to perform as well as a single 1.67GHz system, depending on how much multithreading there is. (I assume my dual 1GHz box won't even come close.)

Macmaniac
Feb 2, 2006, 07:36 PM
Hooray my Powerbook G4 could run it:) Of course it will run like ****, I do wonder though if it will be UB?

Fiveos22
Feb 2, 2006, 08:23 PM
That's the first thing I was looking for. Then again, you can't beat Quake III and the original Unreal Tournament. :cool:

At least not in fps...I've seen benchmark numbers as high as 430 frames per second. (http://forums.xlr8yourmac.com/fpsdb/fpsdb.lasso):eek:

Hopefully mac games will return to being the performance leaders they once were.

nagromme
Feb 2, 2006, 08:43 PM
I do wonder though if it will be UB?
Yes :)

So is it OS related in some form or another that games on Mac run so much worse sometimes? Could someone please explain it to the unknowing?

A simple answer is nice sometimes, but in this case there isn't one: it's a bunch of factors--and not always the same ones from game to game. One thing that will help over time is Apple hiring people last year (http://lists.apple.com/archives/mac-opengl/2005/Mar/msg00199.html) to work with ATI and nVidia to improve OpenGL. And the change to Intel chips (which is what most games start on anyway) is a good thing too in some ways. Another factor is that Apple doesn't make a mid-range headless: so if you want a Mac cheaper than a PowerMac, you can't pick your GPU. (But the new Intel Macs have much nicer GPU.)

Scroll down this page (http://www.barefeats.com/doom3.html) for Glenda Adams' comments on Doom 3 performance--a good realistic look at the factors in modern game performance.

My summation, from that, of the factors that can make a Mac game slower:

First, CPU optimization/compiler issues--although they don't make the single biggest difference contrary to what one might think:

* Lack of PPC "integer conversion" optimization - which would be a massive undertaking on an app first built for Windows. Not worth it. No longer an issue with Intel chips. BUT this makes only a few % difference.

* Compiler differences. These could improve over time possibly. Presumably also helped by Intel chips, with Intel's own compiler. BUT this too makes just a few % difference.

OS design seems to be a more significant factor:

* "More robust and modern OpenGL implementation on OS X." That's right, the Mac's OpenGL actually has ADVANTAGES: it's more usable by many applications at once. (Things like window minimizing, Exposé, and Screen Zoom use it, for instance, leveraging the GPU instead of wasting CPU power.) I would NOT want to give that up for a more primitive Windows implementation. The price for that functionality is that it will need a bit faster hardware to get the same game performance. I can accept that price since I get something in return!

* OpenGL in OS X is separated from the video drivers. Certain Windows-style hacks and workarounds aren't possible. Again--this is good OS design, and I accept the price.

And apparently he MOST important factor:

* "Amount of time Apple/ATI/nVidia have had to optimize specifically for Doom 3." On the PC, they spend multiple programmer-years optimizing for JUST one game. Apple and Aspyr has only a few months AFTER that game is done before the Mac version is first released. (But luckily additional optimization is done as later versions/patches are released. And once an engine is optimized on Mac, that helps future games that use the same engine.)

That last factor may not change in terms of optimizing by the app developer. Mac versionsn tend to come second, and games tend to be targeted for proprietary Microsoft DirectX, not for OpenGL. But what IS changing is optimization from Apple, ATI, and nVidia, in terms of video drivers and OpenGL performance in general.

I doubt we've yet seen the fruits of that OpenGL team Apple hired last year. Maybe in Leopard, or maybe in the form of new video drivers?

Stridder44
Feb 2, 2006, 10:32 PM
Nicely done nagromme, many thanks. This helps make things less cloudy.

Little Endian
Feb 3, 2006, 06:46 AM
Quake 4 does take advantage of dual core processors in Windows and it can give a big boost in performance.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/

plus, what ehurtley said vis-a-vis multi CPU windows. Call of Duty 2 is also patched for dual core processors, so hopefully when that hits the Mac world, it will be up and running in all its glory.

Great!! Hopefully Quake 4 SMP performance does as well as it does on Windows or better for Mac OSX. I can't wait to see how Quake 4 will run on my Quad 2.5 with 7800GT. What I'm really waiting for is Call of Duty 2 hopefully Aspyr is still on track and will get it out by May.

jamesi
Apr 15, 2006, 11:58 PM
lol this is lame. my $2500 pb is prolly going to run this game so bad that i think ill just opt for getting it for my PC. the 9700m sucks