Apple's suggestions for gaming hardware

Discussion in 'Games' started by yamabushi, Nov 20, 2003.

  1. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #1
    I noticed that the US Apple site now contains suggested configurations of Macs for gaming purposes. While I believe that this is a very good idea, many of the configurations listed seem woefully underpowered.
    http://www.apple.com/games/hardware/

    Edit: There should at least be more RAM in the default configurations.
     
  2. etoiles macrumors 6502a

    etoiles

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Where the air is crisp
    #2
    as my PC-using friends would say:"there are games on the mac ?"
    ;)
     
  3. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #3
    apple has had that for more than a year now. its pretty stupid, honestly i only feel the g5 is capable of playing games with almost as par with the pc. the problem is we have hardly as many games as the pc, so we are still left hanging.

    iJon
     
  4. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    though we get a fraction of the games the bests games do make it to mac, since OSX things are getting better and better for mac gamers. Only 1 big problem, games are coded for clock cycles on wintel so when it hits a slow clocking G4 it goes slow unless altivec is used big time and even then. we need simply faster CPU'S and Motorola is infamous for No advancement on the G4 i mean really 1.25 or 1.4? G5 is smoking at 2 gigs and all i need is one, i dont need 2 cpu's, also i love the 20 inch imac, but a G4 is going to kill off sales like mine and a lot of others. we have to be patient for this transfer of power from G4 to G5 but the sooner apple can overcome its history of slow G4's the better it will be. the G5 is making it happen! its been a long wait.
     
  5. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #5
    You are absolutely right. I have a hunch that January is going to be a big month for Apple. :)

    I bought the cheapest G4 tower recently knowing that within a year I will be able to get a G5 that fits my budget. I convinced myself I could not go 6-12 months without a Mac.
     
  6. ITR 81 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    #6
    I think PM's should all come with 1GB of ram.

    And you'll also need the ATi 9800 Pro as well.

    Hey does anyone know if there is big performance increase from 128 to 256 megs of DDR ram on graphics cards? I know they don't have them on the Mac yet but I'm just wondering if they are worth 450 bucks they are asking for them.
     
  7. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #7
    Not unless you want 16*12 with 4x AA. In which case even the mighty GF FX 5950 and 9800XT will choke.
     
  8. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #8
    I don't get how they can recommend an all-in-one machine for gaming. Not being able to get to the video card is what makes those machines obsolete faster than a tower. I still play games on my dual 450 because I upgraded the card to an Ati 8500. I can't play top of the line games, but it will still play most of last years games even.
    (PS It's is getting close to buying a new tower for me:D )
     
  9. howard macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #9
    i can't answer this out of personally experience, but on the difference between a card with 128 or 256...right now i would say not much...a 9800 with 128 will run anything at full speed...however i bet in a year you'll be begging for the 256 to get the BEST settings and blazing frame rates

    so getting a 256 your essentially buying for tomorrow in my opinion
     
  10. CmdrLaForge macrumors 68040

    CmdrLaForge

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Location:
    around the world
    #10
    Hi DHM

    well you said this now a couple of times ( I mean another thread) and even so I am not a hard gamer I have to agree that Apple would do a good thing to upgrade the iMac line asap to the G5 with clockspeeds around 2GHz and more and have at least a BTO option for up-to-date graphics card. I am not sure what the current problem is with the iMac. Maybe the fastest cards just get to hot and they can't use em.

    But as the iMac is the consumer mac it should be useable to what consumers want it to use. And one big part is gaming.

    Even so I am not a heavy gamer - when I buy a $2000 machine I want to play the current games and maybe games coming out the next 2-3 years.

    just my 2 cents
     
  11. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #11
    well i agree with you on most of that a 2000 dollar mac or pc will not play the latest games 2-3 years from now. my pc i built 1 year ago still plays games full detail with no problem, but the gap is narrowing for it and soon it will be time to build myself a new computer, probably next summer or sooner. g5 is a step in the right direction, with that 8x pro slot the g5 is set for impressive cards in the future. the g5 is new, and the g5 needs to get to the point where it has a huge speed gap from the slowest to the fastest so they can put them in a imac and emac and the fastest for the powermacs.

    iJon
     
  12. yamabushi thread starter macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #12
    This is right on target. Consumer Macs need to be able to play games well. A G5 iMac could fill this need if released early in 2004.
     
  13. ethernet76 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #13
    The reason why G4's suck at gaming is because They are single threaded. So the low clock speed hurts, then that other Processor you have? Goes pretty much unused.
     
  14. yamabushi thread starter macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
  15. ethernet76 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #15
    The xBox is only 133 i believe.
     
  16. manitoubalck macrumors 6502a

    manitoubalck

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #16
    Gee your keen, Why not save your money and buy a better machine when you get the opertunity.
     
  17. manitoubalck macrumors 6502a

    manitoubalck

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #17
    Bingo, your right on the money it's a 733MHz P3 from memory with a Geforce2 graphics card, both are souldered in so you can't upgrade:mad: Just imagine if they had used AMD's socket A and not souldered the chips in.

    Anyway the graphics of Sonic 2 on Dreamcast are still above most releases on either xbox, PS2 or NGC. It has alot to do with how the system is configured, not just in core clock speeds and being a mac user you could possibly entertain that.
     
  18. manitoubalck macrumors 6502a

    manitoubalck

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #18
    This is pure gold from Apple

    "Turbocharged with the PowerPC G4 processor, brilliant active-matrix " in relation to the new G4 ibook. Remember that the ibook is the ONLY consumer laptop currently avaliable that uses a 180nm chip. Alright I'm chuckling now

    Here's more.
    "Featuring the blazing-fast 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 processor supercharged with the Velocity Engine" in relation to the 20"imac"
    Now I'm close to falling off my chair

    And last but not least
    "This top-of-the-line Power Mac G5 is a gamer’s dream-machine"
    Well @ $5300AUD it would want to be, but an Athlon 64FX would still be a better gaming machine. not to mention the money you could spend on RAM, extra WD Raptor HDD's, etc... to make up the difference.

    And that's the game I'm on the floor in a fit of laughter. Sorry these statements just cracked me up.
     
  19. GroundLoop macrumors 68000

    GroundLoop

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    #19
    Ha!

    Personally, I like this one....

    Umm, the 80's called, they want their slang back.

    Hickman
     
  20. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #20
    but the thing about the xbox is is that developers develop for on platform and specific hardware that doesnt change. that way they can milk out every ounce of power that the xbox has. this is something mac developers don't do, and that is why many things can perform poorly, especially games.

    iJon
     
  21. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #21
    Also, you can depend on it not running a calculator, writing to a DVD, updating your budget, and various other things that a computer will do.

    The single-mindedness of the game console is always going to win because the game has no competition within the console.
     
  22. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #22
    Mac devs do the best they can. Any more than a few months porting and they would not make money.

    I am going to write an article on the economics of porting games. You won't be so hard on them after reading it.

    Some quick responses to the insanity posted here:
    1. The DC uses WinCE OS and PowerVR GPU. 1998 PC technology on a SuperH 3 series RISC chip. Sonic on DC is not the best example for illustrating its talents, Sould Caliber is. In either case there are 1/4 as many poly's and way smaller textures and no buffer effects.

    2. The XB GPU is a derivative of the GF3. Call it a GF 3.5. Again, the images being displayed are tiny rez compared to a PC so performance comparisons are unfair. Low rez, plus NTSC output gets you free AA.

    3. Where does this 'singlethreading' nonsense come from? All modern apps have multiple threads. I think you mean lack of SMP support. SMP support is useless if you have to wait for data to be crammed in a narrow slow bus (167MHz). This is a common oversimplfication of why many Mac games suck. Even Q3 performance with its vaunted SMP support on Mac, pales in comparison to the PC version. All things being equal (vide card, ram) a 2003 PC will give you 2x (or more) the perfomance that you get on the Mac. Disabling SMP drops the Mac score, what 10 percent? My 1.6GHz P4M laptop with 32 meg Radeon 7500 gets 155fps in a test where my MDD 1.25 with Radeon 9000 gets 90. I say teh P4's 400 MHz bus is the difference here (my desktop PC's bus is 1200 MHz). Suddenly G5s are contenders (much faster at the same clock speed as a PC BTW). I chalk it up to the architecture as much as the CPU.
     
  23. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #23
    I did a currency conversion and a top of the line G5 is about 4500 AUD but that is the price on the US website converted to AUD are there additional markups (ie destination fees and such) that you would have to pay?
     
  24. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #24
    lewdvig:

    Multiple threads for handling human interface and other IO perhaps, but rarely do they have multiple threads that do significant work.

    Threads are SMP support.

    That bus is nothing but a scapegoat for the G4's outdated design, and possibly for Apple's system controller. I've seen a hell of a lot done in PC land with busses running at 100mhz or 133mhz, without the benefit of 2MB L3's, but people just refuse to understand and insist on blaming the "slow" FSB for everything. Yeah, there are definately things that won't go faster when threaded due to bus bandwidth limits, but those things aren't games. Even Quake3 saw an SMP speedup on those slow busses, and thats a game that loves to have fast FSB/memory (as has been well demonstrated by the PC benchmarkers over the years).

    I say that there are too many variables to conclude anything.

    Yeah the FSB and memory did boost performance, but none of that would have done any good without the much more powerful processor that isn't so upset by code that isn't laced with AltiVec. The G5 is good at games cause it doesn't need any hand-holding. (You may have noticed that the "Big Mac" supercomputer didn't use AltiVec to get its official 3rd place rank.)

    Also, your claim that in games the G5 outperforms PC's at the same clock will likely fail when you compare it to A64's, the other 64-bit desktop processor so often ignored by those who would like things to be clear cut.
     
  25. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #25


    When you are ripping a CD and browsing your music collection that is multiple threads. If not tyhe application would pause as the first thread completes. Threads are not the same as SMP.

    The point is it was a very small increase and, jumping back into 2003, modern games if optimized for SMP will offer little gains because of the limitations of G4 architecture.

    System to system comparison. What variables other than the obvious (OS, Architecture)?

    It would make a difference if the relevant apps supported vectorization. Eventually they will, and VT will get some free performance. A similar XEON system would have achieved similar results. VT still took teh expensive route - expect many A64 copies next year that are even less expensive.

    Easy to ignore when you can't buy one. A64 is roughly equal to P4 EE/XEON, big deal. I will stick with Intel. Is there even going to be an A64 clocked at 2GHz? And which one would you compare the G5 with? The FX51, 53 or the slowpoke? 64 bit is a gimmick for all but scientific users. When I need real-time HDTV NLE I will ask for it.
     

Share This Page