Gaming on iBook G4 vs PB

[tek]

Hey there, i'm trying to decide between these notebooks:

iBook
• 256MB DDR266 SDRAM - 2 SO-DIMMs
• 40GB Ultra ATA drive
• CD-ROM
• Bluetooth Module
• AirPort Extreme Card
• Keyboard & Mac OS
• 933MHz PowerPC G4
• 14-inch TFT display
• Two USB ports
• One FireWire port
• Power Adapter
• Battery


Subtotal £970.79

iBook
• 256MB DDR266 SDRAM - 2 SO-DIMMs
• 60GB Ultra ATA drive
• CD-ROM
• AirPort Extreme Card
• Keyboard & Mac OS
• 1GHz PowerPC G4
• 14-inch TFT display
• Two USB ports
• One FireWire port
• Power Adapter
• Battery


Subtotal £1,125.89



Powerbook
• 1GHz PowerPC G4
• 256MB DDR266 SDRAM - 1 SO-DIMM
• 40GB Ultra ATA drive (4200rpm)
• DVD/CD-RW
• AirPort Extreme Card
• Keyboard & Mac OS
• 12.1-inch TFT display
• NVIDIA GeForce FX GO 5200 - 32MB DDR
• 56K internal modem
• Power Adapter
• Battery


Subtotal £1,267.61

I would like to play a few games on this computer - probably World of Warcraft when it comes out, Warcraft III, Diablo II etc. No "requires 50ghz processor" fps games.

Would all these be able to play the games i said fairly well?

I would buy an extra 512mb stick of ram for any machine i bought.

I would also be doing some photoshop/flash work, although i wouldn't be working on 500mb images etc. - most images i work with are between 5 and 30mb.

Please let me know!

[ScottDodson]

Go with the ibook IMOH

Bigger Screen, More HD, better graphics (I'm an ATI guy), and cheaper.

This is the reason why apple needs to put the G5's in the powerbooks!!!! It's not as easy picking out a laptop anymore :( As far as playing WCIII and Diablo 2...any of those machines will do it fine, heck i used to play em on my G3 ibook!!! But from my experience...a 12 inch screen can be a real pain in the butt with gaming...and especially graphics work :mad:

[Dont Hurt Me]

when it comes to mac gaming 1st get as much cpu speed as you can and 2nd get as much videocard/chipset as you can everything else is less important except as allways memory.

[alxths]

My opinion as the owner of a revB 12" pb.

The ATi 9200(i think) is probably a slightly better card then the pbook's fx5200, but I think having twice as much L2 cache gives the pbook a big advantage over the ibook. Couple that with the extra expandibility of the pbook and I think there's more then enough to justify spending the extra 100-200 pounds.

[tek]

I'm definately going to go powerbook now. I should have the money by christmas :)

[lewdvig]

Look at barefeats and xlr8yourmac websites for reviews of the new iBook soon.

12" iBook should be a bit faster than the PB in games that demand a lot from the GPU (UT2k3 or THPS4).

The 15" PB and greater have a significantly better GPU than either 12." Iyou can get enough for the 15." 1GHz model, that would be a wiser choice.

[yamabushi]

The 15" or 17" PB will deliver much better performance for gaming than any of the choices you mentioned due to the ATI 9600. I would think that one of the iBooks or the 12" PB will only deliver adequate performance for many games at modest graphics settings. The increased RAM capacity and clock speed of the 12" PB will somewhat compensate for its arguably slightly less powerful graphics (the ATI 9200 and NV 5200fx are very close in power). That makes the 12" iBook the best value for the low end and the 15" PB w/combo drive the best value at the high end for gaming. If you want a little extra power you can remove the superdrive from the 1.25GHz model. The 17" model with 1GB or more of RAM is of course the dream machine for portable gaming on a Mac.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by yamabushi
The 15" or 17" PB will deliver much better performance for gaming than any of the choices you mentioned due to the ATI 9600. I would think that one of the iBooks or the 12" PB will only deliver adequate performance for many games at modest graphics settings. The increased RAM capacity and clock speed of the 12" PB will somewhat compensate for its arguably slightly less powerful graphics (the ATI 9200 and NV 5200fx are very close in power). That makes the 12" iBook the best value for the low end and the 15" PB w/combo drive the best value at the high end for gaming. If you want a little extra power you can remove the superdrive from the 1.25GHz model. The 17" model with 1GB or more of RAM is of course the dream machine for portable gaming on a Mac.

I am on a campaign against the GF FX 5200. The one used in the PB is actually 5200GO - way different from the desktop version.

Difference?

1. Half the memory bandwidth (64bit vs 128bit). This alone would cripple it for games, but it also has....

2. No hidden surface removal! HSR eliminates overdraw, i.e. intellegently not rendering stuff that you can not see (like the side of a building you can not see).

Please factor this in when looking at the 12" PB.

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/9200_geforcefx/001.htm

[yamabushi]

The desktop version of the NVidia GF FX 5200 isn't that great anyways. I have noticed quite a few draw errors when playing some games with this particular card for some reason.

[dennis88]

The ati 9200 mobility in the ibook is 64bit also...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by lewdvig
I am on a campaign against the GF FX 5200. The one used in the PB is actually 5200GO - way different from the desktop version.

Difference?

1. Half the memory bandwidth (64bit vs 128bit). This alone would cripple it for games, but it also has....

2. No hidden surface removal! HSR eliminates overdraw, i.e. intellegently not rendering stuff that you can not see (like the side of a building you can not see).

Please factor this in when looking at the 12" PB.

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/9200_geforcefx/001.htm the whole fx5200 thing is a cheap videocard/chipset to make. period. so apple buys millions and forces them on us even in the new G5. yet go to toms harware or barefaets or for that matter anywhere and this card simply sucks. its at the bottom of the benches everytime.

[QCassidy352]

but bottom of benchmarks as compared to what? It's still a whole lot better than what used to be in either the Rev. A 12" powerbook or the G3 ibook.

I agree that it's not a good choice by apple, but let's not overstate the case here. The only game I play personally is War3, so that's all I can speak to, but the new 12" plays that beautifully. (I know it's not a graphics intensive game, but why would i buy a mac laptop if I wanted to play Doom3 and the like?)

[lewdvig]

Why not?

Why should you adjust how you use a computer in order to make up for Apple's weak (in some cases) hardware. PC users are not faced with the same choices, they get to have it all. So should we.

The G4 iBook should be able to play Doom III. Carmack went on record that it could be played on a Mobility 9000 equiped laptop.

The 8500, 9000, Mobility 9000 and Mobility 9200 are all based on the same core (they have the same features as the 8500 more or less, but are refined in how they are manufacturered to make them cheaper to produce).

So the iBook, with the exception of 1mb or level 2 cache, is as fast as last years fastest singe CPU G4 tower. On paper at least.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by dennis88
The ati 9200 mobility in the ibook is 64bit also...

Where did you see this? I could not find any mention of it in the dev notes for this model.

[blepo]

I've come across a few pages which indicates that the iBook graphics is "crippled" to 64 bit.

A german site says that the 9200 mobility supprts either 32MB integrated 64 bit, 64MB integrated 128 bit or up to 128 MB external memory.

An Apple dev note says:
The Mobility Radeon IC includes 32 MB of DDR SDRAM

Well !



http://www.ati-news.de/HTML/Berichte/ATI/Mobility03/Mobility03-Seite2.shtml´

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/iBookG4/2_Architecture/chapter_3_section_4.html

[ChronoIMG]

Originally posted by lewdvig
I am on a campaign against the GF FX 5200. The one used in the PB is actually 5200GO - way different from the desktop version.

Difference?

1. Half the memory bandwidth (64bit vs 128bit). This alone would cripple it for games, but it also has....

2. No hidden surface removal! HSR eliminates overdraw, i.e. intellegently not rendering stuff that you can not see (like the side of a building you can not see).

Please factor this in when looking at the 12" PB.

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/9200_geforcefx/001.htm

Sorry to disappoint you but the GeForce FX Go5200 is 128bit (http://www.nvidia.com/page/fx_mobile.html).

On top of that, it supports both Vertex Shaders 2.0 and Pixel Shaders 2.0.

Hmm... the ATI 9200 does not. Bummer.

BTW - Halo runs great on the 12" PB with the 5200. Once MacSoft figures out how to turn on the Pixel Shaders (they disabled them), gold visor here I come.

[ChronoIMG]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the whole fx5200 thing is a cheap videocard/chipset to make. period. so apple buys millions and forces them on us even in the new G5. yet go to toms harware or barefaets or for that matter anywhere and this card simply sucks. its at the bottom of the benches everytime.

Oh really? Looks like Barefeats shows that the 12"PB with the "poor" Go5200 stomps the 12" iBook in UT2k3 Botmatch and Q3.

http://www.barefeats.com/ibG4b.html

[blepo]

Originally posted by ChronoIMG
Sorry to disappoint you but the GeForce FX Go5200 is 128bit (http://www.nvidia.com/page/fx_mobile.html).

On top of that, it supports both Vertex Shaders 2.0 and Pixel Shaders 2.0.

Hmm... the ATI 9200 does not. Bummer.

BTW - Halo runs great on the 12" PB with the 5200. Once MacSoft figures out how to turn on the Pixel Shaders (they disabled them), gold visor here I come.

PS2.0 performance is not very good on FX chips in general and really sucks on the 5200. That's why they always should be disabled on that chipset. Actually PS2.0 in PC Halo are disabled on every card lower than the 5700 as far as I know!!! The 5200 is not even regarded a valid DX9 card by most review sites.

[blepo]

Originally posted by ChronoIMG
Oh really? Looks like Barefeats shows that the 12"PB with the "poor" Go5200 stomps the 12" iBook in UT2k3 Botmatch and Q3.

http://www.barefeats.com/ibG4b.html

Remember that UTk3 Botmatch and Q3 are rather CPU intensive. Doesn't tell much about the graphics chipsets' performance (but of course of the general speed of the PB 12"). Cinebench is also relying on CPU: Look at the Alu 15 and 17 - same graphics chipset but different CPU speed.

That the FX5200 supports 128 doesn't necessarily mean that it is running 128 bit in the PB 12"

[ChronoIMG]

Originally posted by blepo
PS2.0 performance is not very good on FX chips in general and really sucks on the 5200. That's why they always should be disabled on that chipset. Actually PS2.0 in PC Halo are disabled on every card lower than the 5700 as far as I know!!! The 5200 is not even regarded a valid DX9 card by most review sites.
Not true. PC Halo has pixel shaders for any card that supports at least DX8 shaders which are 1.1 and 1.4. Hell, even the Radeon 9000 supports those on the PC side.

The FX 5200 is actually a very good card but the drivers suck on the Mac. However, 10.3.2 will see new drivers so I'm hopeful that we'll see some increased performance.

Also, keep in mind that pixel shaders on the Mac aren't truly pixel shaders because those are only for DX9. The Mac supports ARB_Fragments which are part of the OpenGL spec which Halo supports. Only the Radeon 9600/9800 and the GeForce 5200 support ARB_Fragments.

EDIT: Here's some good info about the state of video cards on the Mac and the 5200 debate. (http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=124510#124510)

Again, the iBook may have what appears to be a better card, but in reality, the FX Go5200 is the better card and that's probably why it's in the 12" PB.

Peace.

[ExoticFish]

Originally posted by lewdvig
The G4 iBook should be able to play Doom III. Carmack went on record that it could be played on a Mobility 9000 equiped laptop.


hahahahaha

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by ChronoIMG
Oh really? Looks like Barefeats shows that the 12"PB with the "poor" Go5200 stomps the 12" iBook in UT2k3 Botmatch and Q3.

http://www.barefeats.com/ibG4b.html

The codepath for the 5200 in PC Halo is PS 1.1 and it only works decent in fixed function mode. The game chooses this for you on the PC. You can force Halo to use the PS version you want by adding a string to the application shortcut. Maybe your copy is magic or something.

The 5200 is the running joke in the PC world. Sorry. The advanced features are unusable in the real world.

PS 2 and VS 2 mean nothing to you as a Mac user. And if you were a PC user with a 5200 they would still mean nothing to you. NV does not even have its DX9 demos available for the 5200.

And even with a crappy videochip as this, your CPU will run out of steam way before your GPU hits its limit.

Have fun with Halo.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by ChronoIMG
Oh really? Looks like Barefeats shows that the 12"PB with the "poor" Go5200 stomps the 12" iBook in UT2k3 Botmatch and Q3.

http://www.barefeats.com/ibG4b.html

BTW: This links actually contradicts what you are saying. :p

The fly-by measures GPU performance and the iBook is clearly faster despite being 20% slower.

[QCassidy352]

the powerbook beats the 12" ibook in 3 out of 4 3D tests and loses the unreal flyby by 1 frame per second.

and the powerbook beats the ibook in every 2D test on page one. Not sure what you're talking about.

[Squozen]

Originally posted by ChronoIMG
Oh really? Looks like Barefeats shows that the 12"PB with the "poor" Go5200 stomps the 12" iBook in UT2k3 Botmatch and Q3.

http://www.barefeats.com/ibG4b.html

I wouldn't say it 'stomps' - sure, it goes a little faster, but the 15" PB with the Radeon 9600 is doubling their scores for most of the tests. I'd go for one of those if the budget will stretch that far.

[blepo]

Does anyone know how the iBook G4 12" runs Warcraft 3?

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by ChronoIMG
Not true. PC Halo has pixel shaders for any card that supports at least DX8 shaders which are 1.1 and 1.4. Hell, even the Radeon 9000 supports those on the PC side.

The FX 5200 is actually a very good card but the drivers suck on the Mac. However, 10.3.2 will see new drivers so I'm hopeful that we'll see some increased performance.

Also, keep in mind that pixel shaders on the Mac aren't truly pixel shaders because those are only for DX9. The Mac supports ARB_Fragments which are part of the OpenGL spec which Halo supports. Only the Radeon 9600/9800 and the GeForce 5200 support ARB_Fragments.

EDIT: Here's some good info about the state of video cards on the Mac and the 5200 debate. (http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=124510#124510)

Again, the iBook may have what appears to be a better card, but in reality, the FX Go5200 is the better card and that's probably why it's in the 12" PB.

Peace.

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/archives/2003/12/17/haloperformance.php

'Unfortunately, pixel shaders are not supported on the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, which means some of the (best) eye candy is not available. For some reason Westlake Interactive chose to support pixel shaders only in the Radeon 9600 and 9800. Owners of other cards (like the GeForce 4 Ti and the GeForce FX 5200) are out of luck.'

[ChronoIMG]

Originally posted by lewdvig
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/archives/2003/12/17/haloperformance.php

'Unfortunately, pixel shaders are not supported on the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, which means some of the (best) eye candy is not available. For some reason Westlake Interactive chose to support pixel shaders only in the Radeon 9600 and 9800. Owners of other cards (like the GeForce 4 Ti and the GeForce FX 5200) are out of luck.'
Again.... Pixel Shaders are supported with the GeForce FX 5200 and FX Go5200 chipsets. Those are facts.

Mac Halo running under anything less than 10.3.2 had this feature disabled, like I said before. With the 10.3.2 pixel shaders are now available with the 5200 cards.

MacSoft has stated that the shaders need more work on the 5200 and the forthcoming 1.0.3 patch with the combination of 10.3.2 should help that along.

Furthermore, pixel shaders are truly a DirectX term. OpenGL supports ARB_Fragments and the 5200s as well as the Radeon 9600/9800 support these AND they are available within the OpenGL implementation shipping from Apple.

[lewdvig]

ChronoIMG

You don't know anything.

OGL Shader language:

http://www.opengl.org/developers/documentation/oglsl/

Seriously dude. Educate yourself.

Hardocp on the 5200:
'This issue is even more of a problem for the GeForce FX 5200 series as it does not have the Z-Buffer or color compression of the other models. When bandwidth is already an issue, the lack of such features does not seem to make much sense even when considering cost issues. '

'Given the recent push for higher image quality by NVIDIA, we have to question why the company even offers "Aggressive" mode with these cards. Of course the answer is obvious. NVIDIA included Aggressive mode because the 5200 and the 5600 are going to run into situations where the user will be likely forced to sacrifice image quality to maintain a playable frame rate. '

'Although NVIDIA has taken two steps forward in terms of features and functionality, they have seemingly taken a step backwards for both image quality and performance. As we score things, that would make NVIDIA's current position stagnant at best. Should the "cinematic computing era" be taking place, it is happening with ATI's product line, as we have seen first hand that the current GeForceFX product line simply cannot compete with ATI products released last year. '

Beyond3D on the 5200:
'Its DX7 performance in a game like Unreal Tournament 2003 is uninspiring. Its DX8 performance in a game like Splinter Cell, which in my experience is the most demanding DX8 game I've played thus far, is uninspiring. We don't have any DX9 game available yet to judge its DX9 performance but if you are to take 3DMark03's Game Test 4 scores as representative of a DX9 game (although I don't suggest you make such an assumption), then it's not only uninspiring, its downright bad.'

'In the end, the performance of Albatron's GeForceFX 5200Ultra in the games tested in this review are not spectacular. It has to be said that there are many games that are less demanding than those tested in this review and I would have to guess that such less-demanding games may run much better at the settings tested in this review. But for a low-end card, Albatron's GeForceFX 5200Ultra performance is decidedly low-to-medium end.'

Keep in mind that the cards were tested on very fast Athlons and P4 systems, so the scores they got were the ideal - best the 5200 will get.

As some of these games start coming out on the Mac, like Splinter Cell or Rainbow Six 3 (not just Halo) people with these card are going to struggle.

So, for people that care about games: stay away from the 5200 if you can.

[ChronoIMG]

Originally posted by lewdvig
ChronoIMG

You don't know anything.

OGL Shader language:

http://www.opengl.org/developers/documentation/oglsl/

Seriously dude. Educate yourself.

Hey moron, do you even have a 5200?

How come I see pixel shaders in Halo? Hmm... go educate yourself first pal.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by ChronoIMG
Hey moron, do you even have a 5200?

How come I see pixel shaders in Halo? Hmm... go educate yourself first pal.

Yeah, I had a XFX 5200 in my PC while I waited for my 9800Pro to arrive.

...and (as if it matters) I write hardware and software reviews for a few websites so I am well versed in the alternatives.

[ChronoIMG]

Originally posted by lewdvig
Beyond3D on the 5200:
'Its DX7 performance in a game like Unreal Tournament 2003 is uninspiring. Its DX8 performance in a game like Splinter Cell, which in my experience is the most demanding DX8 game I've played thus far, is uninspiring. We don't have any DX9 game available yet to judge its DX9 performance but if you are to take 3DMark03's Game Test 4 scores as representative of a DX9 game (although I don't suggest you make such an assumption), then it's not only uninspiring, its downright bad.'

Yeah... DirectX scores really matter to me and my Mac. LOL.

Idiot.

[ChronoIMG]

Originally posted by lewdvig
Yeah, I had a XFX 5200 in my PC while I waited for my 9800Pro to arrive.
That's not a Mac board so ****. You have ZERO experience with Mac Halo and the 5200s so you have no clue what your even talking about other than DX9 bs which means nothing on the Mac.

[ChronoIMG]

Originally posted by lewdvig
...and (as if it matters) I write hardware and software reviews for a few websites so I am well versed in the alternatives.
Sure doesn't. Get your facts straight before you start mumbling about things your don't know anything about.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by ChronoIMG
Yeah... DirectX scores really matter to me and my Mac. LOL.

Idiot.

They seem to, you are the one who keeps bringing up PS2 and VS2 support in your crappy 5200 as justification for owning one.

Just admit the the 5200 sucks.

You are the one who started this by disagreeing with my assessment of the 5200. I am just backing up my case.

The 5200 is too low end for powerbooks and the G5. Period.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by ChronoIMG
Sure doesn't. Get your facts straight before you start mumbling about things your don't know anything about.

Since we are name calling, I will call you by yout true name:

SUCKER

Enjoy your 5200 you are on my ignore list. Probably the only way I will get the last word.

[ChronoIMG]

Originally posted by lewdvig
They seem to, you are the one who keeps bringing up PS2 and VS2 support in your crappy 5200 as justification for owning one.

Just admit the the 5200 sucks.

You are the one who started this by disagreeing with my assessment of the 5200. I am just backing up my case.

The 5200 is too low end for powerbooks and the G5. Period.

Haha! What a pansy. The 5200 is a very decent card compared to the Radeon 9200 WHICH THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

I think I can disagree with your piss poor assessment, I believe that's what these forums are for. I have first hand experience with the 5200 and Mac Halo, you have ZIPPO.

Get off your hobby horse and write a review for the latest Sims game or something. I have real work to do.

[Sheebahawk]

:D that was the gayest thing i've ever read :p

I'd go with the radeon card, ATI is where its at, they keep their drivers updated or at least make a better effort of it. the 14 inch ibook looks like a decent portable gaming rig, it should run any games you see on the mac for a long time. The screens bigger too, I think you'll apprechiate it for games. I'd go for the 12" powerbook myself, but thats only cause of the backlit keyboard, as Id use it for writing more than gaming

ibook g4 933
• 256MB DDR266 (128MB built-in & 128MB SO-DIMM)
• 40GB Ultra ATA drive
• CD-ROM drive
• Bluetooth Module
• Keyboard/Mac OS X - U.S. English
• 14.1-inch TFT XGA display
• 933MHz PowerPC G4
• ATI Mobility Radeon 9200 w/ 32MB DDR video memory
Subtotal $1,249.00 (its similarly cheaply priced in the uk im sure)

that would be good for some light gaming I bet it would run halo just fine, or any games that use the unreal engine, it can probably handle the half life 2 engine (if it ever gets released on the mac) and Doom 3 I predict runs on ths machine too. not well though. It only has thirty two megsof video RAM but I don't knowofany games out now that require more than that. you have to go up to the 15" powerbook if you want xbox exceeding power. but the machine I Suggest the 14" ibook is probably the best bang for your buck you could upgrade the harddrive and get a dvd burner when you had more money as you need them. be pretty cheap if you cut out the airport card and got a student discount.

[blepo]

Well, today I got my iBook G4 12" with 256MB RAM, 40GB HD and built in Bluetooth.
Nice machine (-:
My findings until now:

Very quiet even after 20 minutes of Warcraft 3. Don't know how long it will run without the fan, because I quit the game after 20 mins.

Runs Warcraft 3 just OK. Screen resolution and detail level have very little impact on performance which indicates that war3 is quite CPU-intensive (well that didn't really come as a surprise)

256 is actually enough to play Warcraft 3. The game only stutters a little when new textures enters the screen. This actually happened to me on a 1GHz iMac with 384 so it seems that you have to have about 512 to eliminate that... I'll buy some more some time in the new year.

( I normally play War3 on a PC with Athlon 2600 and a Radeon 9700 Pro, which off course beats the **** out of the iBook, but War3 is definately playable - not fluid, but playable)