10.3.9 Improved gaming performance?

Discussion in 'Games' started by Soulstorm, Apr 16, 2005.

  1. Soulstorm macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #1
    Is it just me or did 10.3.9 boost performance in 3D? I am seeing this in my UT2004. A guy at macologist observed the same thing.

    http://www.macologist.org/viewtopic.php?t=1200

    I know that apple doesn't mention anything about updated Opengl drivers... Maybe it is just code clean up??
     
  2. pgc6000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    #2
    Maybe. Or maybe we are just used to the slow 10.3.8. That update slowed down OS X. Though I'm not quite sure with games. Anyway, hopefully it did improve graphic speeds.
     
  3. pgc6000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    #3
    I just played a round of Call of Duty: UO. There did seem to be a slight increase in frames. UO is probaly the toughest 3D game for my machine to run, so an increase of frames was most noticable on that game.
     
  4. Orlando Furioso macrumors 6502

    Orlando Furioso

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    Bezerkeley
    #4
    Subjective? Relative? too early?

    pick one?

    I tried out UT and it did indeed seem to run a lot more smoothly (all settings maxed out at highest resolution). Text appears to stand out more, and is more crisp than I remember it. It might just be a font change (why? I have no idea). For some reason though, my aim was really off (perhaps it is too early in the morning... on that note, I could just be imagining the whole thing).

    Since I have been playing Doom3 lately, the speed "improvements" I perceived may just be my subconscious comparing UT performance against Doom3.

    On the other hand, Doom3 also seems to pick up a performance boost from 10.3.9. Although, it is not a significant increase.

    If anyone out there who has not updated the OS would be willing to do a "before"/"after" benchmark to compare gaming performance, I (and others I’m sure), would appreciate the post.
     
  5. csubear macrumors 6502a

    csubear

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #5
    I know WoW is running faster. I'm seeing numbers in the 40s and even 50s now. I've never seen anything above the 30s. My guess is something happend.
     
  6. Hydra macrumors regular

    Hydra

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    Finland
    #6
    Sounds good, PB or iMac?

    I'm thinking about getting a 15" PB or something to replace my iBook so I could play the game.
     
  7. WhiteSavage macrumors regular

    WhiteSavage

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Location:
    Here.
    #7
    No Hydra! Dont move to the dark side!!! Argh!
     
  8. pgc6000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
  9. TDM21 macrumors 6502a

    TDM21

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    #9
    I just ran a Doom3 test on my PB to see if there was an increase in performance. I ran 2 time demos before the update then repeated afterwards. Here are my results:

    Setup and Settings:
    Pb 12" Rev C 1.33gHz 768mb ram nVidia go 5200
    (Energy setting to highest)

    Dom display settings:
    Medium Detail
    800x600 resolution
    Shadows off, vsync off, antilasing off

    results:
    10.3.8 demo1: 18.1 fps demo2: 20.4
    10.3.9 demo1: 18.1 fps demo2: 20.4

    That is not a typo. I got the same results before and after the update. Maybe someone will have better results on a more high end system.
     
  10. csubear macrumors 6502a

    csubear

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #10

    Ye old powerbook.
     
  11. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #11
    10.3.9 might bring compatibility with FCP 5.0 to be released tomorrow. I was hoping for improved OpenGL drivers for better Doom 3 fps scores, but I'm going to defer my testing until after NAB to see the real deal on this update. 51MB is pretty hefty for changes that don't seem to make a difference on my system.
     
  12. Hydra macrumors regular

    Hydra

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    Finland
    #12
    Ok, I think I'll buy a PB in the fall or so. I hope they have new versions ready by then. Anyway if it's not fast enough for the game I might consider building a x86 computer once again after the dual core A64s come out. But it's a longshot, I'd really hate to have a ugly and noisy computer with wihdows lying around. So I guess the performance even on a G4 PB and FX5200/R9700 mobility is good enough to really enjoy the game, actually I'm much more interested in Xbox2 and PS3 to go along with my Apple laptop.
     
  13. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #13
    Guys! Here are my results in Xbench:

    10.3.8

    Overal score: 72.68

    CPU test: 82.94
    Thread Test: 60.55
    Memory Test: 62.74
    Quartz Graphics Test: 85.38
    OpenGL Test: 66.54 (46.56 FPS)
    UI Test: 94.76 (30.48 refresh/sec)
    Disk test: 68.95.

    10.3.9

    Overal score: 67.75

    CPU test: 83.42
    Thread Test: 60.03
    Memory Test: 65.69
    Quartz Graphics Test: 87.51
    OpenGL Test: 71.32 (49.91 FPS)
    UI Test: 94.07 (30.26 refresh/sec)
    Disk test: 42.78. :eek:

    With each OS update my Open GL speed goes down, but now it raised abit!

    CPU is also usually speeds up with each update.

    But now my disk performance has significanlry dropped. I think thats because I have only 13 GB of free space on my 120 GB HD?
     
  14. iPoster macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Location:
    Off I40/I85, near the Cracker Barrel
    #14
    10.3.9 doesn't seem to make much difference in Wolfenstein:ET, maybe slighty smoother...

    And no difference in Cinebench2003 from 10.3.8 to 10.3.9...

    But my Quake3 timedemo went from 76.0 to 105.1fps!
    (though I may not have had exactly the same configuration, the screen size and general options were the same...high detail defaults and 800x600)
    :confused:
     
  15. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #15
    I wouldn't take much from the Xbench OpenGL results, it's an awful test... maybe just even a fluctuation.
     
  16. James Philp macrumors 65816

    James Philp

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    Oxford/London
  17. Devie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #17
    Im not buying a mac to play games, but I would like to be able to play games.
    I dont get people like you, there is nothing wrong in expecting a system to be able to play a game.
     
  18. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #18
    Yes and no. I dont only play games. I also use iLife, FCP, Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, web...
     
  19. Rocksaurus macrumors 6502a

    Rocksaurus

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #19
    Don't take anything from Xbench, no matter what the test. It's junk.
     
  20. Soulstorm thread starter macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #20
    I know that in COD i have seen smoother performance in areas where fps dropped to 20's. This is in my G5 system (see specs below).

    In doom 3 I observed no difference. In UT 2004 I did. It runs smoother.
     
  21. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #21
    Aside from Xbench, I noticed no difference in KOTOR (VERY unplayable), but 1 fps more in ONS-Torlan (didnt try anything else)
     
  22. pgc6000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    #22
    No, not just for games. But what's wrong with picking up games to play? Honestly...

    There was indeed an improvment with Open GL and ATI and NVIDIA graphics drivers. Plus a lot more. Big update:
    http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/macosxcombinedupdate1039.html
     
  23. Hoef macrumors 6502a

    Hoef

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Location:
    Houston, TX..... (keep walking)
    #23
    Maybe just me but hardly any difference in UT2004. Any one who did a scientific experiment (count frame rates or so) to determine the improvment?
     
  24. Soulstorm thread starter macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #24
    Do not confuse combo update with the other one...

    The info you read about is meant for the combo update, that means that the changes you read there concern all changes from 10.3.0 to 10.3.9.

    What I am asking is if there is an increase in performance during update from 10.3.8 to 10.3.9.
     

Share This Page