Are all these performance enhancements just a placebo?

Discussion in 'Games' started by vraxtus, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #1
    Since after updating to 10.3.5 on my G5 I don't see much of a difference at all... furthermore Halo benches lower than it did before, as did the OpenGL tests!

    It seems like some of the people here may *want* it to perform better so it "does"...
     
  2. Elan0204 macrumors 65816

    Elan0204

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #2
    I'd buy that theory. Sometimes a simple reboot will make the computer appear faster since all the memory and swap files are cleared. Perhaps the boost people are seeing is just from that. Or perhaps it is from the maintance tasks many people run before an update, like repairing permissions and the cron jobs. In the absence of true benchmarks it's really hard to figure out if there truely was a performance increase of any kind.
     
  3. MikeLaRiviere macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    #3
    On your G5 you are probably correct. However, I have a PB 12" with the nVidia GeForceFX 5200 card. 10.3.4 made games unplayable. By this I mean framerates in UT2k4 were 10 or lower, my estimate. Believe me, I am one who tolerates twenties and even high teens. Command and Conquer was literally unplayable; its framerate must have been 1 fps or well under 5 fps, at most.

    After installing 10.3.5, UT2k4 runs almost as well as it did on my gaming PC; it is by all means playable. If you want to dispute this fact, I will concede that perhaps my computer recovered from its abysmal framerates, by coincidence - or perhaps a piece of dust blocking some pipeline in the GPU - immediately after I installed 10.3.5.

    Additionally, I always run crons, repair permissions, and shut down the computer every night. I am not one of those "uptime" fools, I let my computer rest. If you had a PB 12" you would know, it's not a frame rate difference of a few fps; we're talking unplayable to very playable.

    Mike LaRiviere
     
  4. vraxtus thread starter macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #4
    Yes, but I also have a Rev B 12", and game performance is still not particularly "great." As I mentioned in other threads, I benched my laptop on Halo performance and it was in the 20's. Unfortunately I didn't have the chance to bench it against 10.3.4 because it just came back from Apple repair, but I definitely notice an FPS increase after a hard reboot.

    PS Check my sig before you say "if you had a 12" you'd notice."
     
  5. MikeLaRiviere macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    #5
    I don't know what the specs are on the Rev. B PB; I see that you have a 1 GHz processor. Given that mine is a 1.33 GHz, I assume it is a Rev. C. Therefore, I can say without doubt that framerates went from "literally unplayable" to "very playable" after installing the update. And again, I run maintenance all the time and shut down nightly. Energy Savings is also a non-factor.

    Mike LaRiviere
     
  6. vraxtus thread starter macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #6

    Actually it is. In the Halo timedemo I gained about 3 avg FPS by changing the processor settings from automatic to highest. This is a well known trick by now... it worked on my G5 as well.
     
  7. knicksfan58 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #7
    i still can't play ut2004 on my pb 1.5 in onslaught mode because the framerates are so low
     
  8. TDM21 macrumors 6502a

    TDM21

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    #8
    That's interesting. I have a 12" PB and I am able to play the UT2K4 demo on onslaught. Given I'm not playing with 60 fps, but I get a decent 20 fps which is still playable

    How much ram are you running? My PB has 768MB which made a HUGE difference on benchmarks.
     
  9. vraxtus thread starter macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #9

    Full game Onslaught maps are disgustingly large... larger than the ones on the demo.
     
  10. knicksfan58 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #10
    i have 1gb ram. and i don't find 20 fps very smooth, so i just gave up playing onslaught and started playing ctf. then i got bored with that so i got call of duty which runs infinitely better
     
  11. rbarris macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Location:
    Irvine CA
    #11
    Don't assume that any or all of the changes made to the OpenGL drivers are for performance improvements. Blizzard had half a dozen bugs that World of Warcraft encountered on 10.3.4 that have been fixed on 10.3.5 for example.
     
  12. Converted2Truth macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #12
    From what I understand, it's actually better for your computer to stay on than it is to keep turning it on and off constantly. It's the whole Apollo 13 LEMM module affect... burn-coldsoak, burn-coldsoak... you can't garuntee it'll keep running like that. lol, but we are talkin about a high quality pb here from apple, and it's not like these things burn rocket fuel... anyway, i'm straying from the current argument, doh! i mean discussion!
     
  13. MikeLaRiviere macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    #13
    Yes, I realized after I wrote the post that my choice of the word "fool" was overly harsh; seeing so many "What's Your Uptime?" threads put me in a bad mood at that time, I suppose.

    Mike LaRiviere
     
  14. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #14
    You've roused my curiousity... what do you consider "low"? Did you opt for 128 vram, faster hard disk, how much RAM, etc.?
     

Share This Page