Mac Pro Playing games with Bootcamp vs High End PC

[Neonguy]

Hello,

I bought the Mac Pro with the default config 2.6Ghz Dual Xeon 7900XT NVidia. Somehow when playing PC game with Bootcamp on my 23 ACD the graphic isn't very good compare to the actual High End PC one. I saw the exact game my friend play on his Alienware PC and the graphic was top notch! It's very smooth and crisp. However on my Mac it isn't the same. The graphic isn't as nice as his. I notice this on all the Games I play with Bootcamp.

Is this Mac Pro not built for gaming? Am I wrong to buy the Mac Pro thinking it play game like the PC? I like Mac a lot and OS X but I play games a lot too. Well, I was thinking return or sell my Mac Pro off eBay and buy the Alienware or get the ATI x1900. Will this card make any different?

Please help me.:confused:

[Jiddick ExRex]

Hello,

I bought the Mac Pro with the default config 2.6Ghz Dual Xeon 7900XT NVidia. Somehow when playing PC game with Bootcamp on my 23 ACD the graphic isn't very good compare to the actual High End PC one. I saw the exact game my friend play on his Alienware PC and the graphic was top notch! It's very smooth and crisp. However on my Mac it isn't the same. The graphic isn't as nice as his. I notice this on all the Games I play with Bootcamp.

Is this Mac Pro not built for gaming? Am I wrong to buy the Mac Pro thinking it play game like the PC? I like Mac a lot and OS X but I play games a lot too. Well, I was thinking return or sell my Mac Pro off eBay and buy the Alienware or get the ATI x1900. Will this card make any different?

Please help me.:confused:

To avoid any confusion, I'd bet my shoelaces that you didn't buy the mac pro with a 7900Xt Nvidia. You must have gotten the 7300, since that is what is the stock config.
Second of all, what do you mean with your friend's "High end PC one"??? Does he have the same graphics card? Does he have an 7900xt? If you know he has the 7900xt and you think you have it, there is the misunderstanding, since you actually have the 7300. You have a 23" ACD which means that you should play the games in the monitor's native resolution also, which is 1920 x 1200. If you try to run it with 1280 x 900'ish, it's gonna look crappy, and that could also be the reason why you dislike it compared to your friend's machine. If he has a CRT or a 19" LCD that runs in 1280 x 900'ish native, then of course his machine's graphics look better.
No, it is not built for gaming if you only buy a machine with a mediocre graphics card. It's like complaining about a machine built for gaming with 2 GB RAM, an Athlon 64 processor with integrated graphics (I know they don't exist but you get my point). It's just not going to cut it.
That was the long version of 'yes, you should have played it smart and upgraded to the real graphics card built for games, the ATI X1900. And yes you should probably investigate just a tiny wee little bit more into computer hardware than you already seem to know, before whining. And yes you should sell your Mac Pro to me, since it's obviously not gonne make you happy!' :)

[Neonguy]

Ok my bad it's a 7300XT NVidia. He have a NVIDIA SLI GeForce 7900 GTX. He have very nice Anti Alias while mine doesn't seam to have any. I guess my question is if I get the ATI x1900XT will it make my game graphic look better and faster? People who use the ATI X1900XT, does it feel like the real High End PC while playing Games on it? Game are somewhat slow on my Mac Pro with the defualt NVidia if I switch everything to High.

I don't know if Built to order machine are returnable :(. Let me know before I order the ATI because it very expensive. If it doesn't do that, I rather just get the Alienware.

Thanks

[crazzyeddie]

Ok my bad it's a 7300XT NVidia. He have a NVIDIA SLI GeForce 7900 GTX. He have very nice Anti Alias while mine doesn't seam to have any. I guess my question is if I get the ATI x1900XT will it make my game graphic look better and faster? People who use the ATI X1900XT, does it feel like the real High End PC while playing Games on it? Game are somewhat slow on my Mac Pro with the defualt NVidia if I switch everything to High.

I don't know if Built to order machine are returnable :(. Let me know before I order the ATI because it very expensive. If it doesn't do that, I rather just get the Alienware.

Thanks


The 7900GTX SLI is actually 2 7900GTX cards working together... there is no way you can match that performance with a Mac Pro. However, the ATI X1900XT will be MUCH better than the 7300GT you have now... at least twice as fast. I can't imagine that his Alienware was the same cost as your machine, either. By my estimates his machine would cost at least $4000, while yours would only cost around $3000...

EDIT: I just configured one on AlienWare's site and it looks like you can get a machine similar to the Mac Pro 2.66ghz (but the Alienware only has two processors, not four) for about $3000 with Dual Nvidia graphics.

[Neonguy]

Everytime I turn my Graphic to max, it choke and slow down. Can't believe the 3K machine do this. If I install the ATI X1900 XT, will I be able to play game on Max setting without slowing down? Alienware is nice, but having 2 computer in one is also nice. Want to know if it worth investing in it first.

[nutman]

a mac pro isnt going to be gaming class the way an alienware is. no matter what you do, the graphic system in a mac pro isnt going to be as good as an alienware. of course its a three thousand dollar machine. but it was built for things like video editing and more "professional" things. so yea. do your research.

[hollerz]

What game are you trying to play? I can run Half Life 2, Fear, CS:S etc. with everything on max on my 20" ACD + X1900XT at a good enough frame rate. :)

[vormkrijger]

Everytime I turn my Graphic to max, it choke and slow down. Can't believe the 3K machine do this.

its the GRAPHIC CARD
its the GRAPHIC CARD
its the GRAPHIC CARD

so get the X1900XT

[knome]

the 7300 can barely even handle osx what do you think its going to do playing games?

[GFLPraxis]

a mac pro isnt going to be gaming class the way an alienware is. no matter what you do, the graphic system in a mac pro isnt going to be as good as an alienware. of course its a three thousand dollar machine. but it was built for things like video editing and more "professional" things. so yea. do your research.


What are you talking about? They both get the same chips from Intel, and you can buy the same graphics cards from ATi. From that point the difference is in the branding.

In fact, since the Alienwares use Core 2 Duo's and the Mac Pro's use Xeons (higher bus speed), the Mac Pro's are actually faster; although the Alienware's support SLI, the Mac Pro doesn't, yet.

Everytime I turn my Graphic to max, it choke and slow down. Can't believe the 3K machine do this. If I install the ATI X1900 XT, will I be able to play game on Max setting without slowing down? Alienware is nice, but having 2 computer in one is also nice. Want to know if it worth investing in it first.

A Geforce 7900 GTX or Radeon X1900 XT is well over 10x as powerful as a Geforce 7300GT. That's why it's so much slower.

[Neonguy]

What are you talking about? They both get the same chips from Intel, and you can buy the same graphics cards from ATi. From that point the difference is in the branding.

In fact, since the Alienwares use Core 2 Duo's and the Mac Pro's use Xeons (higher bus speed), the Mac Pro's are actually faster; although the Alienware's support SLI, the Mac Pro doesn't, yet.



A Geforce 7900 GTX or Radeon X1900 XT is well over 10x as powerful as a Geforce 7300GT. That's why it's so much slower.

I'm so glad to hear this. I have place my order for the ATI X1900 XT! Hopefully it run game a lot smoother now. Playing game with medium graphic on 23 ACD is very gross.

[MacRumorUser]

Everytime I turn my Graphic to max, it choke and slow down. Can't believe the 3K machine do this. If I install the ATI X1900 XT, will I be able to play game on Max setting without slowing down? Alienware is nice, but having 2 computer in one is also nice. Want to know if it worth investing in it first.

Short answer Yes.

And if you bought a mac pro for gaming then you bought unwisely.

Most people buy mac's for OS X not windows gaming.

[livingfortoday]

I'd just like to mention that you should probably check out the Gaming forums here, as well as the Windows on Mac one (I think that's what it's called). There's a lot of threads about clock speeds and optimizing your video cards under Windows, as Apple tends to send them out underclocked. You might be able to squeeze some more juice out of what you have, with minimal effort!

[^squirrel^]

I have the Macpro 2.66ghz with the X1900 512mb card. It rips apart battlefield 2142 and Half Life 2.

You need the X1900 card if your gaming. Seriously when you get this it'll blow most gaming pc's outta the water!

[Chone]

Why do people like this end up with Mac Pros?

You see, you really need to have more or less the same components as your friend to have comparable graphics, if you get an extra 2x512mb of RAM and a X1900XT, you'll probably get "high end pc" graphics as you describe them.

[MacRumorUser]

Why do people like this end up with Mac Pros?

:confused: :o :confused: :o

[kumbaya]

Why do people like this end up with Mac Pros?

The man said it himself:

Alienware is nice, but having 2 computer in one is also nice.

I like this!

:D

[Sesshi]

Depends on what you want to do with it.

I started off by considering the Mac Pro as a do it all machine like you. I thought about trouble-free Mac configurations without lots of hacks, etc and in the end I've ended up ordering the Mac Pro, a Dell Precision 490 and an XPS 700. The 700 is (depending on which channels you order it through and what spec you go for) cheaper than the Mac Pro and will blow the Apple out of the water for gaming.

After considering the Mac Pro only and deciding that it would hamstring me, I first decided to buy two computers, a 3D/gaming machine for Windows and the Mac Pro and I ordered them. But then I thought a bit more and realised even the PC I chose, a Precision 490 (which has a very similar spec to the Mac Pro) wouldn't actually be all that amazing a gaming machine and furthermore putting in a gaming card (X1950XTX) inside it would make it less suitable for 3D work - so I was crippling myself still.

So my justification for ending up with three PC's when I was going to only buy one is thus:

The Mac Pro will replace the 'so stationary it might as well be a desktop' 17" MBP as the main home OS X machine. It's just going to be a powerful OS X machine - no gaming. And I now don't have any plans to Boot Camp it.

The Precision 490 was what I wanted for 3D stuff as it's certified with many pieces of professional CAD software. I'm now going to run 3D design software on this machine and it will be my main home 3D PC. I changed the planned spec on this machine to include a Quadro card instead of the X1950XTX and so it's no longer a gaming machine.

The XPS 700 will be my new general purpose and gaming PC.

The Mac Pro will result in some tradeoffs. it'll make a fairly decent gaming PC but ultimately not as good as even a considerably cheaper PC for many titles. If you're heavily into games then it would make a lot of sense to sell that Mac and either roll your own games PC or buy a high-performance PC.

Oh, and don't bother with the X1900XT on a PC - go straight for the X1950XTX.

[waremaster]

Depends on what you want to do with it.

I started off by considering the Mac Pro as a do it all machine like you. I thought about trouble-free Mac configurations without lots of hacks, etc and in the end I've ended up ordering the Mac Pro, a Dell Precision 490 and an XPS 700. The 700 is (depending on which channels you order it through and what spec you go for) cheaper than the Mac Pro and will blow the Apple out of the water for gaming.

After considering the Mac Pro only and deciding that it would hamstring me, I first decided to buy two computers, a 3D/gaming machine for Windows and the Mac Pro and I ordered them. But then I thought a bit more and realised even the PC I chose, a Precision 490 (which has a very similar spec to the Mac Pro) wouldn't actually be all that amazing a gaming machine and furthermore putting in a gaming card (X1950XTX) inside it would make it less suitable for 3D work - so I was crippling myself still.

So my justification for ending up with three PC's when I was going to only buy one is thus:

The Mac Pro will replace the 'so stationary it might as well be a desktop' 17" MBP as the main home OS X machine. It's just going to be a powerful OS X machine - no gaming. And I now don't have any plans to Boot Camp it.

The Precision 490 was what I wanted for 3D stuff as it's certified with many pieces of professional CAD software. I'm now going to run 3D design software on this machine and it will be my main home 3D PC. I changed the planned spec on this machine to include a Quadro card instead of the X1950XTX and so it's no longer a gaming machine.

The XPS 700 will be my new general purpose and gaming PC.

The Mac Pro will result in some tradeoffs. it'll make a fairly decent gaming PC but ultimately not as good as even a considerably cheaper PC for many titles. If you're heavily into games then it would make a lot of sense to sell that Mac and either roll your own games PC or buy a high-performance PC.

Oh, and don't bother with the X1900XT on a PC - go straight for the X1950XTX.

WOW. That has to be one of the most insanely wild solutions to the Mac vs PC for gaming that I have heard. I would love to know the difference in FPS in even games like FSX BF2142 and F.E.A.R. that you get with your XPS 700 vs the Mac Pro or even the 490 for that matter can the difference of 10 - 20 fps justify nearly $3000.00 in expense as well as the space it takes in the home/office. I am not criticizing your decision. Hell I actually love it but I who own 3 high-end machines myself couldn’t rationalize that decision. Even having a QUADRO 4500 in the Mac Pro would have performed very descent in Games as well as 3D apps maybe not the best for gaming but certainly would get respectable scores.

Tom

[Sesshi]

It's actually not as insane as it seems - or at least I've all sorts of ways to justify the outlay :D

[waremaster]

It's actually not as insane as it seems - or at least I've all sorts of ways to justify the outlay :D

LMAO true at that you have somehow justified it to yourself. :D

All in good fun my friend

Tom

[steelfist]

remember, bootcamp is still beta, so windows isn't going to completly run at full speed or without problems.

if you want some good comparason, you can look up some benchmarks. the results are staggering, seeing the high-end graphics handle the latest games, while seeing the budget-card 7300 start to cripple.

it's a better investment to buy a gaming console, IMO.

[waremaster]

remember, bootcamp is still beta, so windows isn't going to completly run at full speed or without problems.

if you want some good comparason, you can look up some benchmarks. the results are staggering, seeing the high-end graphics handle the latest games, while seeing the budget-card 7300 start to cripple.

it's a better investment to buy a gaming console, IMO.



Bootcamps issues are currently minimal there are some sound issues that need to be worked out as well as a recurring Bluetooth keyboard pairing issue in XP but that may just be my keyboard. But when using an x1900xt video card the performance when using 3dmark05/06 as the benchmark is exactly comparable to the PC equivalent. Also using apps like sisoft sandra to test CPU performance and HD performance the Mac Pro is again right inline where it should be for such high end hardware.

I fully expect that by the time Leopard is released the few remaining issues will be worked out but lets be honest the ones that do exist are not impeding the performance they are just nuisances. Right now my ONLY complaint with bootcamp that hurts my needs is the lack of ability to install Linux as well.

Tom

[Sesshi]

WOW. That has to be one of the most insanely wild solutions to the Mac vs PC for gaming that I have heard. I would love to know the difference in FPS in even games like FSX BF2142 and F.E.A.R. that you get with your XPS 700 vs the Mac Pro or even the 490 for that matter can the difference of 10 - 20 fps justify nearly $3000.00 in expense as well as the space it takes in the home/office. I am not criticizing your decision. Hell I actually love it but I who own 3 high-end machines myself couldn’t rationalize that decision. Even having a QUADRO 4500 in the Mac Pro would have performed very descent in Games as well as 3D apps maybe not the best for gaming but certainly would get respectable scores.

Tom

The Quadro 4500 is what I've had put in the Precision, but from the point of view of the OP it doesn't make sense - unless your reason for buying the machine is for 3D work, you're pissing away performance/$ with the Quadro for gaming. And this applies just as much to a Boot Camped Mac Pro as well as the Precision. Maybe the new kexts in a separate thread gives you more options - a 7950GX2 might work. But even then you've got stuff like sound problems and the FB-DIMM issue. A C2D Extreme or an overclocked C2D SLI/Crossfire machine (and apparently these are dream OCing processors) would quite easily best the stock Mac Pro for gaming.

[xli_ne]

why not spend a little bit more for a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB?

[waremaster]

The Quadro 4500 is what I've had put in the Precision, but from the point of view of the OP it doesn't make sense - unless you're reason for buying the machine is for 3D work, you're pissing away performance/$ with the Quadro for gaming. And this applies just as much to a Boot Camped Mac Pro as well as the Precision.


Oh I fully agree with you on that. The OP would not need the 4500 but for your needs it would have been the proper choice in the Mac Pro for an all in one solution instead of separately spending probably 12k or more on 3 seperate systems.

Tom

[Neonguy]

I place the order for the ATI X1900XT yesturday. I choose next day which is cheap but still have to pay the tax. It show deliver on Nov.3 - 6. And I should get it Nov.6. It show it not shipping yet. I hope I don't have those problem where the card is high demand and it take forever to ship. I don't expect it to play like the Alienware gaming PC because it is not, but hoping I get smoother frame rate.

As I wait for my ATI Card, I have a problem when I play Games with Bootcamp the volumes is still playing on my Mac Pro. I have a Sounstick II plug in but it now coming out both speaker. How do I disable the built in Mac Pro speaker so it only come out of my external speaker? I thought Bootcamp 1.1.1 Beta fix this issue?

[Sun Baked]

Workstations/Servers aren't always the best bang for the buck for gaming compared to some of the custom built gaming machines -- especially since the graphics capabilities/choices may be a bit more cutting edge.

[waremaster]

Workstations/Servers aren't always the best bang for the buck for gaming compared to some of the custom built gaming machines -- especially since the graphics capabilities/choices may be a bit more cutting edge.



In the past Xeon(netburst) days I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you on that statement but with the Core 2 based Xeons of the Mac Pro the only real drawback would be the FB-Dimms but we are not talking about a major speed loss or in the case of games FPS loss.

When looking at reviews of the new kentsfield processors in sandra cpu and arithmetic scores are identical to what you will get when testing the Mac Pro under bootcamp.

So what makes this setup not particularly ideal as a gaming setup? I can think of only 2 real reasons.

1) Lack of EAX or something similar for gaming sound. (Likely to be resolved by some hardware manufacturer as PCI-E is catching on)

2) Lack of SLI or Crossfire. SLI can be achieved in windows now with hacked drivers using NVIDIA cards with a bridge. Crossfire is not likely to happen.

So based on those do you think that having Crossfire or SLI will make or break a gaming machine? Also do you think that not having a soundcard like an Audigy will make the machine undesireable for gaming? Because firewire sound devices do exist for windows and do work quite well. And is the 5 – 10 FPS average loss due to FB-DIMMS kill it’s possibilities as a gaming machine? I think that Apple has come up with a damn good solution in the Mac Pro for the people that want a good Windows Gaming system and a OSX machine.

Tom

[Chone]

Yes Mac Pro is a fine gaming platform but its too expensive, every GB of memory costs 200$ (in a 2x512mb configuration, the price goes up as density goes up) there are no available graphics cards (although not much of a problem, you can still get any card to use on WindowsXP).

A Mac Pro with a 2.66 GHz processor, a X1900XT and 2GB of RAM (4x512MB) will run you over 3000$ so overall as a whole workstation\gaming platform its an incredible deal especially considering you get OSX and WinXP but from a gaming perspective alone, Mac Pro is overpriced but it will scale nicely into the future, games and everything is taking a turn toward multi core processing (more than just 2).

Oh yeah about the FB-DIMM penalty its not such a big deal, especially when running in Quad Channel.

I think that is all he was sying

[Carguy172]

Ummm... your all forgetting something very very important you need the graphics cards drivers for windows and yes you can use the mac pro for gaming that ati card is very powerful and could run any game with ease. Ill bet you friend dos'nt even use half the power of his graphics card these cards are more powerful than you think.

So try getting the drivers for that card in windows that could be your problem.

[knome]

Yes Mac Pro is a fine gaming platform but its too expensive, every GB of memory costs 200$ (in a 2x512mb configuration, the price goes up as density goes up) there are no available graphics cards (although not much of a problem, you can still get any card to use on WindowsXP).

A Mac Pro with a 2.66 GHz processor, a X1900XT and 2GB of RAM (4x512MB) will run you over 3000$ so overall as a whole workstation\gaming platform its an incredible deal especially considering you get OSX and WinXP but from a gaming perspective alone, Mac Pro is overpriced but it will scale nicely into the future, games and everything is taking a turn toward multi core processing (more than just 2).

Oh yeah about the FB-DIMM penalty its not such a big deal, especially when running in Quad Channel.

I think that is all he was sying

That depends if you use educational discount! I got mine with that configuration for 2600.

[Neonguy]

Can I use any PCI Graphic Card for Windows XP? Since it use the same PCI slot as windows. And I can just download the Driver for Windows. I tend not to do 3D, Rendering and play game on Mac OS X. Wonder if it even possible since it a not Mac Compatible card. Currently only Apple sell the high end Graphic Card but it very overprice.

[FF_productions]

Can I use any PCI Graphic Card for Windows XP? Since it use the same PCI slot as windows. And I can just download the Driver for Windows. I tend not to do 3D, Rendering and play game on Mac OS X. Wonder if it even possible since it a not Mac Compatible card. Currently only Apple sell the high end Graphic Card but it very overprice.


Nope, not possible (sorta). I don't feel like getting technical but you just can't download a driver and it will just work.

[knome]

Some cards will work. All of them will register in XP but some will freak out osx. If you can find EFI firmware for the card then you should be able to buy any card you want. Which i believe some company is producing it.

[Jiddick ExRex]

Here is a binary that emulates loading the EFI drivers for any NVIDIA card. http://omni.starchaser.org/titan/

You can return that x1900 btw ;)

[greenmac]

Just letting everyone know that you are beating your head up against the wall, check out the threads the OP's started, the best was "My 1 Week Old Mac Pro G5 Xeon won't turn back on!"

[Neonguy]

Just letting everyone know that you are beating your head up against the wall, check out the threads the OP's started, the best was "My 1 Week Old Mac Pro G5 Xeon won't turn back on!"

Well, arent you very helpful. Are you saying I don't know anything about Computer or anything? My question was plain and simple the NVidia 7300 Graphic Card I got picture qaulity was bad so was thinking if it's the Graphic Card or Mac playing PC Games with Bootcamp is like that. I alway been playing Games on PC. If getting the ATI Card would actually make the pictures qaulity pictures better. Since it's a $400 investment, so I wanted to make sure before making the purchase.

[miniConvert]

The X1900 card will be fine.

I only play WoW on my Mac Pro games-wise, but I play it on a 30" ACD with the X1900 card and oh my god is it good! Everything on full, frame rates up to and over 100, maximum 30" ACD resolution. Silky smooth.

Basically the base Mac Pro is not a gaming machine, it comes with a simple card suitable for most workstation usage. You bought the wrong graphics card, but now you've ordered the right one. Everything will be rosey, so chill, sit back, and revel in the thought that your Mac Pro looks a zillion times nicer than any Alienware PC ever will.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I play in OS X. I believe that if I were to play in BootCamp, from what I have heard, the frame rates would be even better. Not that I could possibly need them any better.

[Sesshi]

I only play WoW on my Mac Pro games-wise, but I play it on a 30" ACD with the X1900 card and oh my god is it good! Everything on full, frame rates up to and over 100, maximum 30" ACD resolution. Silky smooth.

In terms of systems requirements that's a little like saying "Well I only go to Walmart two blocks away in my Neon but it's great" in reply to a thread asking about a high-performance car.

and revel in the thought that your Mac Pro looks a zillion times nicer than any Alienware PC ever will.

It depends on your sense of decor. The XPS 700 is IMO equal to, or better than, the Mac Pro with it's aggressive slanted aspect.

[Neonguy]

First time ordering ATI Card anyway. As you can see I'm an NVidia Fanboy. NVidia Graphic was excellent in every games I play. So I like it a lot. This of course was on my PC which is sold already. I was a bit suprise when I find NVidia Graphic Card that come with the Mac Pro that graphic wasn't very good with game. I thought it was just my Mac, but find out if I turn everything to max setting it slow down. Since everyone tell me the ATI X1900 XT is so good I may as well get it. That will stop my friend from making fun of me using a Mac. He laugh very hard when my Mac Pro died on me. But that another story because I got a replacement from Apple after 1 months. Talk about slow time and bad services from Apple.

Thanks for everyone help, I think I made a good decision in purchasing this Graphic Card even though it so god damn expensive!

[MacRumorUser]

The Ati is a stellar card.

I've just been playing the new Dark Messiah game.

I'm at 1680x1050

Everything on Max
AA at 8x (overkill at that resolution I know)
Antristropic Filtering at 16 x

HDR lighting etc....

And it's as smooth as a baby's bum. Amazing.
Just hope Crysis looks as good ;)

[Chone]

That depends if you use educational discount! I got mine with that configuration for 2600.

Thats a great price, in fact as far as prebuilts go, and I've said this a million times, an Apple is the only thing I'll ever buy. Nothing beats building your own though (at least in the high end consumer market), I can't imagine myself buying a Dell for gaming *shivers*.

[Sesshi]

Thats a great price, in fact as far as prebuilts go, and I've said this a million times, an Apple is the only thing I'll ever buy. Nothing beats building your own though (at least in the high end consumer market), I can't imagine myself buying a Dell for gaming *shivers*.

I find most people who say this are those who have only built their rigs piecemeal as budgets allow. There are distinct advantages to buying a prebuilt high-performance rig if you want to play games, not babying a patched-together rig. I've done it all and if I wanted an entertainment system, I'd buy it pre-built. If I was stretched for cash - sure, I'd do it myself. The exception is the case where you are going for an extreme system (as I did with a multi-Opteron rig a while back which is sadly now outperformed by my 5160-based machines) but 90+% of the people who dismiss prebuilds never go this far.

[Chone]

I find most people who say this are those who have only built their rigs piecemeal as budgets allow. There are distinct advantages to buying a prebuilt high-performance rig if you want to play games, not babying a patched-together rig. I've done it all and if I wanted an entertainment system, I'd buy it pre-built. If I was stretched for cash - sure, I'd do it myself. The exception is the case where you are going for an extreme system (as I did with a multi-Opteron rig which is sadly now outperformed by my 5160-based machines) but 90+% of the people who dismiss prebuilds never go this far.

Hmm I'm not sure I understand you well but as far as consumer builds go (not dual xeon builds which actually building your own comes pretty close to the price of a Mac Pro with similar specs) even if I had like 6000$ to blow on a system, I'd still build it myself, heck for 6000$ you can get vapor phase cooling! (a good one at that), you still get a better deal and you get other advantages like separate warranties for every component, overclocking options, unlimited upgreadability (unlike Dell who uses tons of propietary parts and voids your warranty if you do anything beyond adding a hdd or card)

If you are buying a workstation, prebuilt (I suggest Mac Pro) is the best way to go but my point is, if you want something to use in your house (for example encoding or editing video for personal uses or the most demanding non-work related chore of them all, gaming) at ALL pricepoints (minus less than $500) building your own will get you a better system with a few other advantages as well.

[Rodimus Prime]

One thing you need to remember games made today are not multi CPU or core aware and can not take advantage of 2 cores. They can only use one core. AMD even public stated that there dual core CPU are poor for gaming than there single core counter part and the reasons for this is the fact that games are currently not code I a way that can take advantage of it. Hell very few programs are made that way. I expect it to be another few years before it becomes a standard to do that.

Also you are comparing it to a High-End gaming PC and well Macs can not compete in that area as it stands. For Gaming PC is king and will be that way for a while. Because the gaming needs of the computer are upgraded first and foremost. Apple does not do that in their computers because it would cripple them in a lot of other ways and make them less useful as a desktop computer for that type of use. Gaming PCs are not looking to do workstation work, they are going Gaming only and Apple does not seem to have any plans to go that way so until they do Apple can not compete against Gaming PC for Gaming purposes. I would like to add that I think it would be a bad idea for Apple to try to competed in that market.

[Latisha]

People are making it sound like the Mac Pro is a mediocre gaming machine. That is complete crap. My Mac Pro 2.66 with an X1900 XT runs BF2, Far Cry, FEAR, all those intense games absolutely spectacularly.

When people criticize the Mac Pro as a gaming machine, it's not because it's somehow bad at it, but because you could get the same kind of performance for much less with a non-workstation gaming PC.

Also, people exaggerate the performance drop between the Xeon using FB-DIMM and the Core 2 Duo using normal DDR2 RAM. It's not like comparing an Apple II to a Cray at all.

Here's why: games these days are very much GPU-bound, meaning that there is increasing stress on the GPU and relatively less on the GPU. What this means is that any disadvantage the CPU and RAM may have to the non-Xeon counterparts is anulled by the fact that most new games coming out are bottlenecked by the GPU.

The bottom line is that all current games, such as Battlefield 2 and Half-Life 2, run amazingly on the Mac Pro. Don't let anybody confuse you on this point. It really comes down to how much money you want to waste on power that won't be reflected in games as much as in professional creative/scientific work.

[Sesshi]

Yes, but BF2 and HL2 run acceptably on even a Macbook Pro.

[waremaster]

People are making it sound like the Mac Pro is a mediocre gaming machine. That is complete crap. My Mac Pro 2.66 with an X1900 XT runs BF2, Far Cry, FEAR, all those intense games absolutely spectacularly.

When people criticize the Mac Pro as a gaming machine, it's not because it's somehow bad at it, but because you could get the same kind of performance for much less with a non-workstation gaming PC.

Also, people exaggerate the performance drop between the Xeon using FB-DIMM and the Core 2 Duo using normal DDR2 RAM. It's not like comparing an Apple II to a Cray at all.

Here's why: games these days are very much GPU-bound, meaning that there is increasing stress on the GPU and relatively less on the GPU. What this means is that any disadvantage the CPU and RAM may have to the non-Xeon counterparts is anulled by the fact that most new games coming out are bottlenecked by the GPU.

The bottom line is that all current games, such as Battlefield 2 and Half-Life 2, run amazingly on the Mac Pro. Don't let anybody confuse you on this point. It really comes down to how much money you want to waste on power that won't be reflected in games as much as in professional creative/scientific work.

Exactly!! Anyone know of any game that does run spectacularly? I would love to know. The Mac Pro is a hell of a gaming system.

[waremaster]

Yes, but BF2 and HL2 run acceptably on even a Macbook Pro.

LOL I disagree with that. I think you are still in your justifying stage hehehe just busting man. :D

[Chone]

People are making it sound like the Mac Pro is a mediocre gaming machine. That is complete crap. My Mac Pro 2.66 with an X1900 XT runs BF2, Far Cry, FEAR, all those intense games absolutely spectacularly.

When people criticize the Mac Pro as a gaming machine, it's not because it's somehow bad at it, but because you could get the same kind of performance for much less with a non-workstation gaming PC.

Also, people exaggerate the performance drop between the Xeon using FB-DIMM and the Core 2 Duo using normal DDR2 RAM. It's not like comparing an Apple II to a Cray at all.

Here's why: games these days are very much GPU-bound, meaning that there is increasing stress on the GPU and relatively less on the GPU. What this means is that any disadvantage the CPU and RAM may have to the non-Xeon counterparts is anulled by the fact that most new games coming out are bottlenecked by the GPU.

The bottom line is that all current games, such as Battlefield 2 and Half-Life 2, run amazingly on the Mac Pro. Don't let anybody confuse you on this point. It really comes down to how much money you want to waste on power that won't be reflected in games as much as in professional creative/scientific work.

I never said and I don't think anyone did say that Mac Pro was a mediocre gaming machine... its just that for the money from a solely gaming perspective its too pricey, thats all.

Xeon is just a Conroe, in fact its better as it has a 1333mhz FSB and multi processor support so with 4 cores so no worries about the processor. As far as videocards go... you can use anything with Mac Pro, you can only not use SLI/Crossfire but thats hardly a disadvantage, there ARE single card multi GPU solutions and in any case, a single top of the line card will play any game at 2560x1600.

Then come FB-DIMMs, an obvious disadvantage is price, costing almost double of what regular DDR2 costs, Anand benchmarks shows up to a 30fps penalty... sounds bad but its necessary to consider the fact that it went 30 fps down from an already staggering 130fps AND they were running at 1024x768, resolutions that are CPU/RAM bound, at higher resolutions and settings that difference should close considerably. In any case, I don't think anybody is going to whine for losing a few FPS off such high performance.

So yes indeed, Mac Pro is a great gaming machine and an awesome deal for what you get but from a STRICTLY gaming perspective point of view... there are far better deals.

[waremaster]

I never said and I don't think anyone did say that Mac Pro was a mediocre gaming machine... its just that for the money from a solely gaming perspective its too pricey, thats all.

Xeon is just a Conroe, in fact its better as it has a 1333mhz FSB and multi processor support so with 4 cores so no worries about the processor. As far as videocards go... you can use anything with Mac Pro, you can only not use SLI/Crossfire but thats hardly a disadvantage, there ARE single card multi GPU solutions and in any case, a single top of the line card will play any game at 2560x1600.

Then come FB-DIMMs, an obvious disadvantage is price, costing almost double of what regular DDR2 costs, Anand benchmarks shows up to a 30fps penalty... sounds bad but its necessary to consider the fact that it went 30 fps down from an already staggering 130fps AND they were running at 1024x768, resolutions that are CPU/RAM bound, at higher resolutions and settings that difference should close considerably. In any case, I don't think anybody is going to whine for losing a few FPS off such high performance.

So yes indeed, Mac Pro is a great gaming machine and an awesome deal for what you get but from a STRICTLY gaming perspective point of view... there are far better deals.

Now this statement I completely agree with.

[paulinbognor]

I'm not a gamer and actually not yet a Mac owner (Making the switch in the next week or so)

I very rarely play games but every so often one comes out that grabs my interest. If I'm running a 3GHz Mac Pro with the ATIX1900 card and a 30" ACD display will 'most' new games run of at the default resolution of the 30" or will the resolution need to be dropped down in order for the games to run well?

Sorry for the newbie question :)

[MacRumorUser]

I'm not a gamer and actually not yet a Mac owner (Making the switch in the next week or so)

I very rarely play games but every so often one comes out that grabs my interest. If I'm running a 3GHz Mac Pro with the ATIX1900 card and a 30" ACD display will 'most' new games run of at the default resolution of the 30" or will the resolution need to be dropped down in order for the games to run well?

Sorry for the newbie question :)

If the game supports the high res of the 30" screen you should be alright.
You dont need Anti Aliasing at that high resolution so you can take that off to boost peformance.

[paulinbognor]

Thanks for the reply :)

Three follow up questions:

1) Do most games support such a huge resolution Halo/Doom etc?
2) How would a game perform at a lower resolution such as 1920 by 1200?
3) How would the game look on the 30" at the lower resolution, would it be blurry because the screen would not be at its native resolution?

many thanks

[Chone]

Thanks for the reply :)

Three follow up questions:

1) Do most games support such a huge resolution Halo/Doom etc?
2) How would a game perform at a lower resolution such as 1920 by 1200?
3) How would the game look on the 30" at the lower resolution, would it be blurry because the screen would not be at its native resolution?

many thanks

1) All games support high resolutions, some may do so natively but others may need a little tweaking, for example widescreengaming is a great site that details how you can get widescreen res (2560x1600 is 16:10 right?) on every game which includes Doom3 and Halo, I wouldn't worry about it though.

2) Pretty good actually but it really depends on the game.

3) Depends on the scaling of your monitor but obviously, a low resolution like 1440x900 will look horrible on the 30", 1920x1200 will be ok, it will look good, anything lower than that and you'll probably get a fuzzy image.

[dusanv]

3) How would the game look on the 30" at the lower resolution, would it be blurry because the screen would not be at its native resolution?


I have the 30'' Dell and games look perfect @1280x800 because that's a pixel doubled resolution (it's exactly half of 2560x1600). If you turn on AA and AF there, it's even better. Other resolutions look good but you'll notice some blurring. It's far from a show stopper as far as I'm concerned. You should be OK with the x1900XT even if you have to turn down AA in some games - you won't notice the difference @2560x1600.

[daveIT]

Post some screen shots of Battlefield & Half Life, pretty please!

[dusanv]

Post some screen shots of Battlefield & Half Life, pretty please!

Full res? That's going to be big. Where can I host these?

[m3henn04]

why not spend a little bit more for a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB?

The quadro is way more expensive and really not worth it...I think can install multiple ati x1900xt card but don't quote me on that. Most games dont even use anywhere close to 512mb of vid ram. The most vid card intensive games may use as much as 256mb but they are optimized for usage under lower hardware capabilities.

I have a mac pro with ati x1900xt and play games under boot camp. While its not the best for gaming I can still play with all settings maxed out. I also recently added a second gig of ram to the stock one gig and it greatly increased performance under OSX and Win XP Pro since now it utilizes the full 256bit data path

[Chone]

The quadro is way more expensive and really not worth it...I think can install multiple ati x1900xt card but don't quote me on that. Most games dont even use anywhere close to 512mb of vid ram. The most vid card intensive games may use as much as 256mb but they are optimized for usage under lower hardware capabilities.

I have a mac pro with ati x1900xt and play games under boot camp. While its not the best for gaming I can still play with all settings maxed out. I also recently added a second gig of ram to the stock one gig and it greatly increased performance under OSX and Win XP Pro since now it utilizes the full 256bit data path

The Quadro is only recommended for workstation users who need high rendering power (in GPU accelerated renderer ) and stereoscopic visualization... its gaming performance is below the X1900XT and for the price, only a pro who needs it for his work could justify the purchase. 512MB IS indeed used by some games, particularly some newer more demanding ones like Oblivion or FEAR, in fact there is a considerable performance difference between the X1900XT 256MB and X1900XT 512MB so right now 512MB on the top end cards is actually a good thing to have and not just another big number to advertise (though the 8800GTX's 768MB (what an odd number) might be a little overkill).

The X1900XT is a great card and yeah, 2GB over the stock 1GB configuration is a HUGE jump and should let the X1900XT really flex its muscles.

[Neonguy]

Should I use Omega Catalyst Driver or Catalyst 6.9 Driver? Which one have better result for Gaming and which one is better to use?

Thanks