Here's my question about game play (performance)

[tinydancer]

I play games like Medal of Honor, Battlefield 1942, Cal of Duty, Jedi....you know...1st person shooters. Anyway, I know jack about computers. I just know how to play. My mac G4 is great, as a computer, but it stutters and hangs up when engaged in intense action during game play, which really tics me off. 1.) Is this a graphics card issue or a processor issue? I have been following the thread about the NEW iMacs, and have noticed some dissapointment in the discussion with regard to the graphics card. 2.)What's the bottom line with the NEW iMacs, with regard to gaming? 3.)So, if I wanted a machine that could handle these games I mentioned above, do I need a power mac G5 or would one of the new iMacs suffice? And when I speak of game play I am talking about online play and in single player mode.

What's the word ya'll

[vraxtus]

Originally Posted by tinydancer

I play games like Medal of Honor, Battlefield 1942, Cal of Duty, Jedi....you know...1st person shooters. Anyway, I know jack about computers. I just know how to play. My mac G4 is great, as a computer, but it stutters and hangs up when engaged in intense action during game play, which really tics me off. 1.) Is this a graphics card issue or a processor issue? I have been following the thread about the NEW iMacs, and have noticed some dissapointment in the discussion with regard to the graphics card. 2.)What's the bottom line with the NEW iMacs, with regard to gaming? 3.)So, if I wanted a machine that could handle these games I mentioned above, do I need a power mac G5 or would one of the new iMacs suffice? And when I speak of game play I am talking about online play and in single player mode.

What's the word ya'll

1) Both, and also a game coding issue. There's still CPU bottlenecks when it comes to feeding the GPU the necessary data. On top of that most Mac GPUs are pretty crappy, with the exception of the 9600XT and the 9800XT (which even then are getting long on the tooth). Most Mac games are not very well optimized for Mac hardware. Jedi Academy, for instance, can drop to 10 FPS on my G5 when I'm looking at a wall...

2) If you're a "pro" gamer, don't go with an iMac. A nonupgradeable GPU is like asking to be discontent with future (and even some modern) games.

3) PowerMac G5 all the way. And even then, the PM comps run these games nowhere near as well Athlon rigs do. Best advice? Get a PC if you want to play games. This is coming from a guy who spends countless days playing, and is getting a little sick of the sub-par game performance on our Macs.

[Jigglelicious]

Originally Posted by vraxtus

1) Both, and also a game coding issue. There's still CPU bottlenecks when it comes to feeding the GPU the necessary data. On top of that most Mac GPUs are pretty crappy, with the exception of the 9600XT and the 9800XT (which even then are getting long on the tooth). Most Mac games are not very well optimized for Mac hardware. Jedi Academy, for instance, can drop to 10 FPS on my G5 when I'm looking at a wall...

2) If you're a "pro" gamer, don't go with an iMac. A nonupgradeable GPU is like asking to be discontent with future (and even some modern) games.

3) PowerMac G5 all the way. And even then, the PM comps run these games nowhere near as well Athlon rigs do. Best advice? Get a PC if you want to play games. This is coming from a guy who spends countless days playing, and is getting a little sick of the sub-par game performance on our Macs.

I agree with everything written here. Get a PC if you want to game. It'll be cheaper, and you'll have a better overall experience.

[ThomasJefferson]

I have a PC desktop/Athlon for games and use 2 Apple notebooks for everything else.

[Converted2Truth]

The new iMac will leave you wanting... don't go that route... this new imac won't even run doom3 > 30fps at any setting.

[Edot]

Originally Posted by Converted2Truth

The new iMac will leave you wanting... don't go that route... this new imac won't even run doom3 > 30fps at any setting.

You may be right, but there is no way you can prove that now. Since A) The game isn't released for Mac, and B) You don't have an iMac G5. And even if you have benches on a PC with the 5200, A and B still apply and you can't say it won't.

[Converted2Truth]

Originally Posted by Edot

You may be right, but there is no way you can prove that now. Since A) The game isn't released for Mac, and B) You don't have an iMac G5. And even if you have benches on a PC with the 5200, A and B still apply and you can't say it won't.

Neither A or B apply because the ports always run crappier on a mac. No game has ever run faster on a mac (here come the objections! so let me restate: no cool and recent game run faster on a mac) given similar configurations. I understand your logic in opposing my statement, but it still has no merrit.

[tinydancer]

What I'm hearing is: even though we haven't seen the new iMacs in action, it is safe to assume, that by looking at the specs and going on past performace, this mac will fall short as have previous iMacs. Is this correct? If so, what would Apple have to do to make the Mac a true gaming platform? Incoorporrate higher-end graphics cards???? Make more significant processor gains???? You tell me..

[Timelessblur]

Umm simple the CPU has the power that not going to be quition. what does need is a better graphic card. A 64 meg 5200FX is not going to cut it. Put in something other than a bottom of the line graphic card. Put in a mid range graphic card at least

[Converted2Truth]

I am still in shock that they put a 2yr old card (with only 64mb vram?!) in the top end consumer model... Sure it's cute and high tech, but only in the sense that they stuck everything behind a flatscreen in so small an area. This iMac will not preform well in games... THE 1.6/1.8 POWERMACS WITH NVIDIA 5200 ULTRA RUN GAMES CRAPPY, and they've got a better System bus. They're advertising big fps increases with halo and UT2004, but people should realize that halo still isn't going to break 20fps when nothing is going on... Oh well... it's not like i am buying one of these, I just feel really bad for all those people that waited... Apple just didn't deliver this time. ...but i'm still hopeing for a new computer linup: single cpu upgradable G5 mini-tower... yeah...

[vraxtus]

Originally Posted by Converted2Truth

I am still in shock that they put a 2yr old card (with only 64mb vram?!) in the top end consumer model... Sure it's cute and high tech, but only in the sense that they stuck everything behind a flatscreen in so small an area. This iMac will not preform well in games... THE 1.6/1.8 POWERMACS WITH NVIDIA 5200 ULTRA RUN GAMES CRAPPY, and they've got a better System bus. They're advertising big fps increases with halo and UT2004, but people should realize that halo still isn't going to break 20fps when nothing is going on... Oh well... it's not like i am buying one of these, I just feel really bad for all those people that waited... Apple just didn't deliver this time. ...but i'm still hopeing for a new computer linup: single cpu upgradable G5 mini-tower... yeah...

Don't forget that higher end cards like Rad9600 or Rad9800s run much hotter than a 5200... so maybe that was all they could fit in the rig.

[benpatient]

Edot, he actually CAN say it with great confidence.

Here's my bet:

If Doom 3, on a new 1.6 or 1.8 G5 iMac, runs with an average FPS over 30 on the standard timedemo benchmark at 640x480 with details set to Medium and nothing changed on "advanced options" (i.e. you can't turn off the shadows or the specular highlights, because doing that turns it into a slower Q3 engine, basically), then I will refund you the money for your purchase of Doom 3, provided you purschase it...

Reasons for my confidence: 1. All indications are that Doom 3 is EXTREMELY graphics-card dependent. It also uses a LOT of VRAM. What this means is that people with 128MB cards can't really play the game very great at the High Quality setting, they have to go with "medium" or deal with really low resolutions. That said, even a 128mb 5200 U card has an extremely hard time with D3 on the PC. It runs very, very slow in anything but the lowest of settings. Check around the internet for some stats for proof.

2. iD is trying to make it "acceptable" on the Mac right now. This probably means they are just cutting the necessary corners to make it run at all on moderate hardware. G5s will not do a very impressive turn on D3 in all likelihood, and most certainly the bus-bandwidth-starved iMac versions will not. Even "mac-friendly" developers haven't been able to make their games shine on OS X. The OS requires too much for a shell environment to really get what it needs when there is serious graphical and computational work to be done. The graphics card in 10.4 will be so busy trying to render Aqua that it won't have time to be bothered with D3.

and incidentally, if you think D3 will beat 10.4 out of the starting gate, I've got a bridge in istanbul you might be interested in...

[Edot]

Originally Posted by benpatient

Edot, he actually CAN say it with great confidence.

Here's my bet:

If Doom 3, on a new 1.6 or 1.8 G5 iMac, runs with an average FPS over 30 on the standard timedemo benchmark at 640x480 with details set to Medium and nothing changed on "advanced options" (i.e. you can't turn off the shadows or the specular highlights, because doing that turns it into a slower Q3 engine, basically), then I will refund you the money for your purchase of Doom 3, provided you purschase it...

Reasons for my confidence: 1. All indications are that Doom 3 is EXTREMELY graphics-card dependent. It also uses a LOT of VRAM. What this means is that people with 128MB cards can't really play the game very great at the High Quality setting, they have to go with "medium" or deal with really low resolutions. That said, even a 128mb 5200 U card has an extremely hard time with D3 on the PC. It runs very, very slow in anything but the lowest of settings. Check around the internet for some stats for proof.

2. iD is trying to make it "acceptable" on the Mac right now. This probably means they are just cutting the necessary corners to make it run at all on moderate hardware. G5s will not do a very impressive turn on D3 in all likelihood, and most certainly the bus-bandwidth-starved iMac versions will not. Even "mac-friendly" developers haven't been able to make their games shine on OS X. The OS requires too much for a shell environment to really get what it needs when there is serious graphical and computational work to be done. The graphics card in 10.4 will be so busy trying to render Aqua that it won't have time to be bothered with D3.

and incidentally, if you think D3 will beat 10.4 out of the starting gate, I've got a bridge in istanbul you might be interested in...

You guys don't get it do you. I understand that you can make guesses about it's performance, but you cannot say it DOES NOT when it doesn't exist. I was just refuting his use of absolutism. I agree that Doom 3 if/when released for mac will probably not run well. I don't care that much to look up any bences so . Have some fun people!

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.



Better!?

[Edot]

Originally Posted by tinydancer

What I'm hearing is: even though we haven't seen the new iMacs in action, it is safe to assume, that by looking at the specs and going on past performace, this mac will fall short as have previous iMacs. Is this correct? If so, what would Apple have to do to make the Mac a true gaming platform? Incoorporrate higher-end graphics cards???? Make more significant processor gains???? You tell me..

Why do they need to make it a true gaming platform. I am not saying it isn't good to make a computer to do what people want, but obviously this isn't high enough on the list to make them spend resources on it. More people care about iLife, Style, and productivity than gaming and it shows by what graphics card they offer with it. I am sure they know their market better than anyone here. I know it disheartens the power users on this forum, but look at the big picture. If you all send Apple constructive feedback then maybe you can move game performance up on the list.

[Converted2Truth]

Originally Posted by vraxtus

Don't forget that higher end cards like Rad9600 or Rad9800s run much hotter than a 5200... so maybe that was all they could fit in the rig.

The 9600 doesn't generate more heat than the 5200 Ultra. They're about the same. They're just trying to make as much money off them as they can... and if they put a 9600 in them, they'd lose 10 bucks a sale (maybe even 5).

[tinydancer]

Originally Posted by Edot

Why do they need to make it a true gaming platform. I am not saying it isn't good to make a computer to do what people want, but obviously this isn't high enough on the list to make them spend resources on it. More people care about iLife, Style, and productivity than gaming and it shows by what graphics card they offer with it. I am sure they know their market better than anyone here. I know it disheartens the power users on this forum, but look at the big picture. If you all send Apple constructive feedback then maybe you can move game performance up on the list.

I never said that Apple needed to make Macs a gaming platform. My questions was: What would they need to change to make it a gaming platform. I agree, the majaority of mac users could care less about gaming. I, someone who knows little about most things but namely computers, was just curioius as to where defeciencies lie with regard to mac gaming. Peace in the Middle East

[Jimong5]

Originally Posted by Converted2Truth

No game has ever run faster on a mac (here come the objections! so let me restate: no cool and recent game run faster on a mac) given similar configurations. I understand your logic in opposing my statement, but it still has no merrit.

in my experience, the quake 3 engine on the mac goes to town on the PC version. a Dual 867 and 9700 can keep up with a 2.5 GHz PC, at max settings an everything. I think quake is a great engine, and look, its made by those doom 3 people! Quake and WC3 are the only 2 games I know of that use altevec, and quakes the only fully dual engine im familiar with.

BTW, Ive found a Dual 867 G4 cant fully feed a 9700. I found an overclocking utility, and O/ced the card about 15%, and saw no improvement.

[Abstract]

Originally Posted by benpatient

Edot, he actually CAN say it with great confidence.

Here's my bet:

If Doom 3, on a new 1.6 or 1.8 G5 iMac, runs with an average FPS over 30 on the standard timedemo benchmark at 640x480 with details set to Medium and nothing changed on "advanced options" (i.e. you can't turn off the shadows or the specular highlights, because doing that turns it into a slower Q3 engine, basically), then I will refund you the money for your purchase of Doom 3, provided you purschase it...

Reasons for my confidence: 1. All indications are that Doom 3 is EXTREMELY graphics-card dependent. It also uses a LOT of VRAM. What this means is that people with 128MB cards can't really play the game very great at the High Quality setting, they have to go with "medium" or deal with really low resolutions. That said, even a 128mb 5200 U card has an extremely hard time with D3 on the PC. It runs very, very slow in anything but the lowest of settings. Check around the internet for some stats for proof.

Oooh, at that resolution and details setting, I'd take that bet.

[benpatient]

what's your counter offer (no mac games please!!!)??

[MacsRgr8]

Originally Posted by Jimong5

in my experience, the quake 3 engine on the mac goes to town on the PC version. a Dual 867 and 9700 can keep up with a 2.5 GHz PC, at max settings an everything. I think quake is a great engine, and look, its made by those doom 3 people! Quake and WC3 are the only 2 games I know of that use altevec, and quakes the only fully dual engine im familiar with.

BTW, Ive found a Dual 867 G4 cant fully feed a 9700. I found an overclocking utility, and O/ced the card about 15%, and saw no improvement.

That's a point.
Id has done a super job in the past with Quake 3 on Macs. I remember my G4 400 Mhz with Radeon 8500.... it made that game run gr8 at 1600 x 1200 (had 1 GB RAM though).
I have the confidence that Id wil do its BEST to get it (big IT: Doom 3) running superbly on a Mac, but I feel that a Radeon with 128 MB VRAM will be too little...
Enter iMac G5... got a GeForce 5200 with 64 MB VRAM...

I feel Apple has mist an oppotunity here.
Create a consumer desktop Mac capable of running Doom 3 at *reasonable* settings. It could have been a publicity stunt.
IMHO a mid-range iMac G5 (1.8 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 17", Radeon 9800 XT (or SE) would have been a superb gaming iMac.
Even Apple themselves mentions Doom 3 with the current iMacs....

[vraxtus]

Originally Posted by MacsRgr8

IMHO a mid-range iMac G5 (1.8 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 17", Radeon 9800 XT (or SE) would have been a superb gaming iMac.
Even Apple themselves mentions Doom 3 with the current iMacs....

Nope. I've got that setup, and I'd say it's *decent* at best. Superb? By NO means.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally Posted by vraxtus

Nope. I've got that setup, and I'd say it's *decent* at best. Superb? By NO means.

Used the wrong phrase: "superb gaming Mac"... my bad.

What I was trying to say was that the sketched iMac would have "good enough" (i.e. decent ) hardware, and tnx to the rest of its design a superb Home Mac, capable of running the latest games.

IMHO: the perfect family Mac. Thus a superb family computer.

[Converted2Truth]

Originally Posted by MacsRgr8

...What I was trying to say was that the sketched iMac would have "good enough" (i.e. decent ) hardware, and tnx to the rest of its design a superb Home Mac, capable of running the latest games.

IMHO: the perfect family Mac. Thus a superb family computer.

I agree that'd be the perfect family PC which was decent for gaming. I really feel ashamed when my friends get in my face about the new iMac. Apple dropped the ball with that 5200. Seriously, if apple delivered an affordable gaming machine, lots of my friends would consider switching. And where are people getting this 'imac G5 and doom3' crap? Did i miss it somewhere on the hardware pages?

[Jimong5]

Originally Posted by Converted2Truth

I agree that'd be the perfect family PC which was decent for gaming. I really feel ashamed when my friends get in my face about the new iMac. Apple dropped the ball with that 5200. Seriously, if apple delivered an affordable gaming machine, lots of my friends would consider switching. And where are people getting this 'imac G5 and doom3' crap? Did i miss it somewhere on the hardware pages?

why is it always blah blah hate apple they are full of crap with doom 3.

I would think being apple, the ones that make the os and hardware, maybe just might have an alpha. and with that alpha, they maybe just may have tested it out- and deemed that test as worthwile.

just a thought.

[Converted2Truth]

Originally Posted by Jimong5

why is it always blah blah hate apple they are full of crap with doom 3.

I would think being apple, the ones that make the os and hardware, maybe just might have an alpha. and with that alpha, they maybe just may have tested it out- and deemed that test as worthwile.

just a thought.

do you have a link to where they talk about doom3? i wasn't doubting it exists, just want to read it myself...