Macbook 2 GHz slower than Powerbook 1.25 GHz for Enemy Territory

[babucher]

I own a Powerbook G4, 1.25 GHz that includes an ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 video card.

My friend owns a Macbook 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, which includes a GMA 950 video card.

Surprisingly, I get significantly better framerates (FPS) in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory than he does, even with the same in-game-video-options. Any ideas why this might be?

Running ET on the Macbook in window mode, and watching the Activity Monitor shows that ET is using 99-100% (sometimes 101!) of the CPU when running.

Anyone know how to optimize the Macbook to run Enemy Territory?
Thanks.

[Freyqq]

b\c games rely heavily on the video card..and you have a far superior video card than the macbook.

the only chance to improve the macbook's FPS is to add ram. Even so, it will likely not approach your FPS.

[Eidorian]

It's not really surprising the GMA 950 would perform poorly...

[babucher]

Thanks for the replies.

It looks like (from my various readings) that the GMA950 dumps a significant amount of processing work to the CPU, so the faster CPU has to work harder than my powerbook CPU.

Not sure if it was taking full advantage of the dual-cores either, since the CPU% maxed out at 101%, whereas it should have been significantly higher if both cores were maxed.

[KingYaba]

I do not believe any game (to date) takes advantage of multiple cores.

[Eidorian]

I do not believe any game (to date) takes advantage of multiple cores.I'll just forget about WoW and Company of Heroes then.

Just to name a few...

[Cassie]

Isn't enemy territory made for PPC? That would explain at least some of the speed difference.

[Eidorian]

Isn't enemy territory made for PPC? That would explain at least some of the speed difference.http://www.splashdamage.com/?page_id=14

[WildPalms]

I do not believe any game (to date) takes advantage of multiple cores.

With the exception of 2 games, I believe you are correct. Its shameful really, as most of the hardcore gamers I know have dual core machines as a minimum. Unreal Tournament has been CPU locked for years now, the GPU has less of an effect on performance than CPU.

[Eidorian]

With the exception of 2 games, I believe you are correct. Its shameful really, as most of the hardcore gamers I know have dual core machines as a minimum. Unreal Tournament has been CPU locked for years now, the GPU has less of an effect on performance than CPU.Sims 2, Half Life 2 Episode 2, Supreme Commander, Crysis...

[Eric5h5]

I do not believe any game (to date) takes advantage of multiple cores.

Quake IV sure does. Intel specifically helped make it use multiple cores, actually. (Which is why the bragging points always mention using multiple cores on Intel Macs, even though dual core/CPU PowerPC Macs benefited just as well.)

Anyway, yeah, it's not really surprising at all that ET would do better on the Powerbook, since even the ancient (in computer years) 9600 is a lot better than the GMA950. The only way to optimize the Macbook for gaming is to trade it in for a Macbook Pro.

--Eric

[yamabushi]

New Macbooks have Intel GMA X3100 graphics which would be slightly better than the older GMA 950. Still way too weak for serious gaming though.

[Eric5h5]

New Macbooks have Intel GMA X3100 graphics which would be slightly better than the older GMA 950.

Better on paper, but apparently worse in the real world from what I've heard, due to drivers that don't really work. At least that's something which can potentially be fixed, hopefully.

--Eric

[motulist]

Is it possible that you're running the PPC version of the game on your macbook as well as your powerbook? If so, then the process of rosetta conversion from PPC instruction to Intel instruction will cause a huge hit in performance.