Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Arrives for Mac on Steam

[swester]

I love CS:GO. Brings back a lot of memories of the good 'ol days of LAN parties and whatnot.

Sure, there's a lot of whining from people who spent far too long getting accustomed to CS: Source, but I'm happy that this version sort of resets the playing field in terms of the hitbox and accuracy. And the graphics + audio are an excellent upgrade as well. Runs like butter on my MBP. For $14.99, what a steal!

I will miss hearing "Fire in the hole!", though.

[faroZ06]

Originally Posted by cgk.emu

The problem is that there wasn't any technical specifications listed in the original article. Otherwise, it is open to interpretation by individual users, which, in the case of MR, is most often amazingly misinformed and wrong.

It does list the specs. I looked up the Windows specs, and they are about the same except that a much better GPU is required and I think a slightly better CPU for Windows.

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by faroZ06

It does list the specs. I looked up the Windows specs, and they are about the same except that a much better GPU is required and I think a slightly better CPU for Windows.

The E6600 is a 2.4 GHz dual core from 2006. I recall playing the original CS: Source on a single core Athlon XP and a Radeon 9600 in 2004.

The Mac OS X requirements are a sliver higher with the base being a DirectX 10 level cards vs. the DirecX 9 era Shader Model 3.0. I have no idea why so many people are tied up over specifications for a Source based game.

[munkery]

Don't some of the specs that satisfy the Mac system requirements only have 128 MB GPUs?

Or, do other factors than that have a bigger impact in GPU performance?

Is a GPUs openGL/openCL support analogous to its DirectX capability?
___

Obviously, openCL performance is better on Mac than Linux. Intel graphics support is supposedly better in 10.8 than Linux. Proprietary drivers from GPU manufacterers exist for Linux so Linux has better performance with dedicated cards but Linux has flaky support for machines with switchable graphics.

So, overall which OS has better graphics drivers support?

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by munkery

Don't some of the specs that satisfy the Mac system requirements only have 128 MB GPUs?

Or, do other factors than that have a bigger impact in GPU performance?

Is a GPUs openGL/openCL support analogous to its DirectX capability?
___

Obviously, openCL performance is better on Mac than Linux. Intel graphics support is supposedly better in 10.8 than Linux. Proprietary drivers from GPU manufacterers exist for Linux so Linux has better performance with dedicated cards but Linux has flaky support for machines with switchable graphics.

So, overall which OS has better graphics drivers support?

The Source engine is limited to the DirectX 9 coderpath and whatever feature "equivalent" over on OpenGL. HDR was the major addition years ago. On the CPU side, TF2/L4D2 added multi-core rendering support.

The CS: Source requirements under OS X include the X1000/7000 era level of cards. GS: GO steps up the requirements for Windows and OS X.

[blackcro55]

As pointed out by others, Steam has launched LOTS of major titles onto the Mac: Portal 1 AND 2, Half Life 2 and Episode 1. L4D 1 and 2 and others.

However Counter Strike: Source has been out on the Mac for several years, so CS:GO isn't even the first as claimed here.

And it isn't even the first simultaneous release.

Some seriously wrong info in this post.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare

Be that as it may, it's of interest only to Mac Gamers, and not a rumor, and so aught to go into the Mac Blog. Just my two cents on that matter.

Final Cut Pro announcements are only of interest to people who edit video. Logic is only of interest to people who record music. Should those not be on the front page either? Exactly how many people have to be involved before it's news worthy? As for rumors, much of the 'announcements' or 'confirmations' as it were are not "rumors" either, but news. MacRumors is only about 50% rumors, IMO. I'll leave it to others to determine whether its aptly named or not. Personally, I like actual news as much as rumors so it doesn't bother me either way.

[divinox]

Originally Posted by theineffablebob

Obviously the original CS runs on GoldSrc. I was talking about Source and up since any computer can run CS 1.6 today. Also, Source is built off of GoldSrc, just with significant changes to the engine.

If it was obvious, why make such a retarded comment? Second, who cares what you were talking about? I made the original statement, you jumped me. Third, Source is as much related to Gold as i am to the president. And last, what the hell does "off of" mean anyway.

[Athonline]

Originally Posted by jterp7

lets not be absurd..my desktop (RIP thanks gigabyte) of 4yrs still outperformed my rMBP and it had an absolutely ancient gtx260 and q9550, which if you remove my FT02 case was built for under 1000. Unlike PCs, mac's obsolescence is more through their product releases than anything else. I still see it as a 2yr upgrade cycle, whereas my asus W3J is 6yrs today. I haven't owned the air and rMBP long enough yet but I doubt I will make it to 4yrs without having the urge.[COLOR="#808080"]

A desktop computer should outperform 1-2 generations laptops. Now if you build a powerhouse, like you did 4 years ago it is logical to still perform well. This is mainly due to the air flow and power, everything runs cooler and able to perform better. Moreover add the fact that your rMBP renders a 2880x1800 resolution and even at lower resolutions, games requirement changed, there is the mac vs pc client code difference that can justify some performance issues sometimes and the fact that everything runs on higher temps, without the ability to overclock or do anything else to increase stock performance.

The 2yr upgrade cycle is only there mainly due to the perception and indirect psychological pressure from ourselves and Apple to get the latest and greatest! There isn't much of a need to upgrade at every generation in terms of performance gain, as much psychological gain. I had a discussion with some Computing university lecturers regarding computing perfomance and upgrades, they all agreed we came to a point where we got used to "fast" performance and now we try to get even 1-2 extra seconds in everyday apps that ends up being ridiculous. We adapt to changes in technology nowadays at rapid rates, think of it as a dual core mobile, 1 year ago it was FAAAAST, now it feels so "slow" especially compare to a quad core mobile.

[Athonline]

Originally Posted by munkery

My MacBook is almost 6 years old and still works like new. I thought about buying something new but opted to upgrade the MacBook with a cheap SSD instead. Can't justify buying a new portable until this thing is dead given how I use my portable.

SSD is nowadays the best upgrade you can do to any computer! Before SSDs, the biggest bottleneck to a computer was the Hard Disk, thus those expensive, short-usage 10K RPM Disks for Gamers and servers.

Originally Posted by munkery;15507920
True, business class hardware from other manufacturers that is built to business class spec and [B

doesn't[/B] come bloated with all that crap trial and ad-supported software to subsidize the cost of the OS does cost the same for an equivalently specced machine.

Not many are aware of this so it leads to the perception that Macs are more expensive.

Yep, personally I am a Computing university student, part time photographer and I love games. A power house laptop was the only way for me. After comparing various brands, I came to the conclusion at the time of purchasing (June 2011), Alienware was actually more expensive than Apple and didn't have a SSD option.
HP and Sony were about the same cost with Apple, but I had to deal with Windows, their awful -from experience- service and after my military service as IT manager, I couldn't stand another Windows machine...

To be honest the only non-Apple computer I would had bought was either a Qosmio or a Portege from Toshiba, but to get them up to specs with my MBP I had to pay extra...

I think the main reason behind this is due to non-technology related people acting like they know what they are saying, talking about prices and hardware without understanding performance/value ratios or who needs-what. Macbook Pro line is as the name suggests a Pro line of high-end laptops. If someone needs laser performance he could go for a MBA line laptop -note that similar ultrabooks from other competitors cost the same pretty much with a 11inch MBA. Plus people are generally closed minded, stubborn idiots.

[cgk.emu]

Originally Posted by munkery

Then why do the Mac system requirements allow for lower spec'd machines than the Windows system requirements?

Your post makes no sense. I wasn't talking about system vs. system specs.

[munkery]

Originally Posted by cgk.emu

Your post makes no sense. I wasn't talking about system vs. system specs.

The Mac system requirements allow for as low as 128MB GPUs

The Windows system requirements list 256MB GPUs and above.

I know this isn't the only factor that determines gaming performance.

[cgk.emu]

Originally Posted by munkery

The Mac system requirements allow for as low as 128MB GPUs

The Windows system requirements list 256MB GPUs and above.

I know this isn't the only factor that determines gaming performance.

No, no, I realize that. I wasn't talking about Mac vs. PC sys. reqs. Nevermind.

[munkery]

Originally Posted by cgk.emu

Since when are those liberal requirements??

Originally Posted by faroZ06

Since 2006. My MacBook can't run this game (not that I want to), but my old iMac could, assuming the faulty NVIDIA GPU doesn't die on me.

Originally Posted by cgk.emu

Conservative = low

Liberal = high

You have it backward.

Originally Posted by faroZ06

Is this a technical term? I was thinking of "liberal" as "open to many different specifications" vs "exclusive" as "open only to high-end computers and/or certain GPUs".

Originally Posted by cgk.emu

The problem is that there wasn't any technical specifications listed in the original article. Otherwise, it is open to interpretation by individual users, which, in the case of MR, is most often amazingly misinformed and wrong.

The main article refers to the liberal system requirements for Mac.

What were you referring to with that post about liberal requirements?

[Revelation78]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

Says the person failing to read the sentence correctly.

My reading comprehension was just fine... You on the other hand...

[HarryKNN21]

Originally Posted by battlefieldfan1

Look, I'm just saying dropping $2000 on a facebook machine to play CS when you can get a better-looking PC at 10x the performance at $1000 is a gigantic waste of time and money.

So how about the Alienware? Three times the money of a high-end rMBP but what about the performance vs. money? I really want you to voice an opinion on this

Do Facebook allow me to edit photos and run iMovie? I have never heard of that.

[HarryKNN21]

Originally Posted by pure3d2

Can you give a concrete example of this? 10x the performance for the same price, really?

LOL, for $1,000 I could hardly believe I could invest in an i7 machine with top grade GTX display card, a couple of SSD for RAID, a large tower chassis with ten fans for cooling as well as 64GB RAM and a good sound card. If I can't build this machine within $1,000 I would never say I get a PC with 10x performance of a Mac.

Even though buying PC components is well known for cheap in Hong Kong, for $1,000 I can only build a i5 machine with, just a HD 7870 and one SSD, properly without a sound card.

If PC has 10x the performance of a Mac, then someone pls tell me why PC users are expanding their machines annually just to compensate the performance loss done by Windows? A 10x faster machine should not need expansion within 5 years right?

I am using my new MacBook Pro and I don't find that is a "Facebook Machine". Some people should get a Alienware, not a PC in $1,000.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by Revelation78

My reading comprehension was just fine... You on the other hand...

Let's break this sentence down then, shall we?

"Along with Portal 2, this is the second time that Valve has launched a flagship game simultaneously on the Mac and the PC, and the first Counter-Strike release since Steam launched on the Mac in 2010."

"Along with Portal 2," one thought, separated from the others with a comma

"this is the second time the Valve has launched a flagship game simultaneously on the Mac and the PC," another thought separated from the others with a comma, though set up from the previous thought; still accurate.

"and the first Counter-Strike release since Steam launched on the Mac in 2010", yet another thought separated from the others with a comma, not connected to what came before the comma as part of the previous thought. Also completely inaccurate when factoring the release of Counter-Strike: Source for Mac.

Please tell me how I'm at all wrong here.

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by HarryKNN21

If PC has 10x the performance of a Mac, then someone pls tell me why PC users are expanding their machines annually just to compensate the performance loss done by Windows?

Really now? RAM is cheap again with surplus supplies and SSD prices have dropped like a rock. I would consider $200 on upgrading those two bits of hardware to be insignificant and mundane.

[ThrowAwayID]

Originally Posted by NMF

I'll boggle your mind with my awp no-scope headshot.

What do you use? Ink or a li'l sticker at the centre of your computer screen?

[ThrowAwayID]

Originally Posted by CarlHeanerd

It will run with gusto. The Intel graphics are over 2-3x as fast as the system requirements mentioned in the article. Additionally, since Source performance is mostly dependent on CPU over GPU, the i7 will absolutely shred this game.

What about my 13" June 2012 MBA base config?

1.8GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor
Turbo Boost up to 2.8GHz
4GB memory
128GB flash storage1
Intel HD Graphics 4000


Had some noise (too much sound, perhaps fan running too fast) problem while running CS:Source. Similar sound (less loud though) I had heard with too many Firefox tabs opened and when many downloads are running on Transmission.

Is it normal, because MBA is completely close except in the back and the fan actually needs to run that fast? Someone said I could try turning vsynch ON and also turn Power Saving Mode ON. But could find neither setting either in Mac OS or in Steam/game.

[ThrowAwayID]

Originally Posted by smirk

I haven't played games in a long time, is $14.99 an unusually low price for a top-tier game these days?

Yes it is.
But nobody wants to move from CS 1.6 so if they keep it at ~$100 then I think all those Mac users would buy rather 200-300 dollar PCs ;-) and keep playing CS 1.6.
The only reason I bought was in the hope that CS:GO shall not suck as much as CS:Source.

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by ThrowAwayID

Yes it is.
But nobody wants to move from CS 1.6 so if they keep it at ~$100 then I think all those Mac users would buy rather 200-300 dollar PCs ;-) and keep playing CS 1.6.
The only reason I bought was in the hope that CS:GO shall not suck as much as CS:Source.

CS 1.6 is IGP territory easily. Boot Camp is all you need. I believe it can be done via Wine too so that makes it viable in a VM.