Best Gaming Mac out now?

Discussion in 'Games' started by Gus, Jan 30, 2003.

  1. Gus macrumors 65816

    Gus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #1
    Ok, this is a frustration thread.

    If I have a machine that is more than 2x the minimum requirements, and well above the recommended requirements, why are these freaking games so laggy? (WCIII, MOAAA, D2)

    And why, after years of doing business with each other, can't Apple and ATI get on the same page with the performance of their cards/OS. Ugghh.

    Who here has a gaming Mac that performs flawlessly? I want to look into a new machine, and I figure if it will play these games well, it will do most anything else pretty well.

    Regards,
    Gus
     
  2. Sol macrumors 68000

    Sol

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    Australia
    #2
    Well by the contents of your collection it looks like you know a few things about games on OS X but let me help you run your games better.

    First off, configure the graphics with emphasis on speed, rather than detail. Getting smooth graphics out of your Mac is a simple process: lower the screen resolution (except on LCDs) & lower your texture quality. Filters such as anti-aliasing should not be used in resolutions higher than 800 X 600 and even then you can do without them.

    Update the OS and game applications to the latest versions and keep doing so. Anyone who suddenly got a boost in Jedi Knight 2 with the highest quality textures after the OS X.2.3 update would tell you the same thing.

    If you run dual-displays from the same graphics card know that performance will not be that of a single display (the memory on the graphics card is halved for each screen).

    Last but not least, buy games that are older than your hardware. Just because it is not the latest does not mean it is not more fun to play. As a bonus for you, the graphics can probably be run in their highest settings without chocking your machine.
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    This is a good question, I have a PM800 geforce3 and i will tell you its not enough! If Apple had say a 1.25 single or 1.42 with the new radeon pro 9700 or fx then that would be the ticket. But it looks like if you want that then you have to again go dualies which jacks up the costs. This is why i would like a gamers or whatever Imac with the latest greatest.I like the 3d stuff,Wolfenstein,MOH,Nascar and who wants to play with lower resolutions/stuff turned down or off?Sure my mac can do iphoto with ease and all that other stuff but when it comes to hard core gaming it is still lacking somewhat. I could get a aftermarket 1.2ghz and wait for the radeon 9700 to show and stuff this in my PowerMac. But have decided to just wait for the IBM970 or get a new Imac if or when they beef it up. Probably will be christmas time for me!----sorry didnt answer the question best gaming mac right now i would say the 1 gig Powermac unless you can afford a dualies.This will allow upgrades that you will need when doom 3 comes out and whatever follows!
     
  4. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #4
    Many times those requirements are the minimum for the games to run. Do you truly believe that any application will run well with 128MB on Mac OS X since that's the same amount of memory that Mac OS X requires?

    My G3/400 runs games acceptably due to fast hard drive and lots of memory. Dual G4/800 does it due to fast processors and lots of memory.

    The newest games stress even faster machines. I've been running Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Jedi Knight II and, while I'd say they run smmothly, I wouldn't say they're fast in default resolution.

    Still, Unreal Tournament and Quake III are great on both machines. You might want to try Marble Blast for something different. Also, MacPlay just released quite a few of their games for Mac OS X.
     
  5. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #5
    I have a dual G4 450 with 512mb of ram (pc100) and I can run almost any game adequately and quite a few of them well. The other thing to consider is that an app made specifically for osX will run a lot better than a cabonized one like D2
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    I was going to critique your statement but i see you dont meet the minimum requirements for the game i was about to use!I can see you are not into 3d simulations or First person shooters
     
  7. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #7
    I also have an ati 8500 with 64 mb of ddr for video
    Yes i do like 1st person RTCW, UT osx pp3, TTR mod for UT, AOT, D2 and the sims and I did say adequately:)
    The only game I am aware of that I dont meet min. standards is WWII online which requires an 800mHz comp
     
  8. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #8
    I do have to agree with you about the lack of preformance in general with gaming on macs, but I still love them and will probably upgrade when the new chip comes out
     
  9. whawho macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #9
    L3 Cache

    I think L3 cache makes a big difference.

    I have recently upgraded from a Powermac g4 800 mhz / 1 gig ram/ geforce4 ti (no L3 cache-->to a dual 867 mdd with the same video card and 768 ram (with L3 cache).

    I always had issues on my 800mhz with games like MOHAA and Undying and WC3...but when I upgraded I can play those games now without any problems with High detail at 1024X768.

    And techincally I am only running 67 Mhz faster since MOHAA doesn't support SMP...well the and DDR Ram..
     
  10. Gus thread starter macrumors 65816

    Gus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #10
    No, I understand that they are minimums, but I am taling about having well over the "Recommended" specs. I don't understand why a 32MB GPU lags like heck on a game that requires 16MB. On new machine even. It's just frustrating. Especially when I e-mail the game maker, who blames it on Apple, eho blames it on ATI, who blames on the game maker's code. Ugh. Still love my Mac though. Just want the gaming performance.

    Regards,
    Gus
     
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    I feel the same as you, the game i was going to use is Nascar 2002. With a geforce3 and 800 PM I have to cut the field down from 43 to about a dozen and still have to turn a few things down to play.When UT 2003 and DOOM3 and Halo come out I know ill be lacking and am watching apple and their cpus very closely. RTCW is such a great game isnt it!
     
  12. Das macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    #12
    I don't know, on the PC side, I have the same problems. I mean, I've got a GF3 and an athlon 2000+ overclocked to a 2200+, but when I play a game like SOF 2 with levels set to the max and get into a gunfight in the jungle scene with grass blowing and all, it bogs down to about 10 fps even though the minimum spec is waaaaaay bellow what I have.

    The thing is, they lie about the min specs. Yes, you could play it with everything set to low on a P2 with a TNT card and get 15 fps, but really, is that enjoyable. Game makers often lower the specs to broaden their sales to a point where it's laughable. That's why I never read them...ever. I go find a nice review first and see how their maxed systems handle the game.

    Oh and while on the topic of game performance, does anyone know if MOH plays better in OS 9 or Jaguar? I heard it played better in 9 than 10.1, but haven't heard jack about playing it in Jag.
     
  13. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #13
    i tend to think that all games that can run in 9, run better in 9 than in any version of x... don't quote me, but i have found that.... of course, i haven't run much in 9 lately....
     
  14. Das macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    #14
    Cool, because I was thinking of getting a ti 867 just to run some games in os9, every frame per second helps =D
     
  15. AssassinOfGates macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    A cardboard box.
    #15
    The main reason I got this comp is for games. My dual 867 runs flawlessly, and all the games I play are FPS or TPS, so they have pretty high requirements. To name a few... Jedi Outcast, RtCW, Quake, Max Payne, MoH:AA, Giants. Max Payne is the only game that slightly lags, but its only in huge areas such as the beginning of the final area, and I run all my games at 800x600 or 1024x768 on medium to high settings w/ the stock GeForce 4 MX (32).

    What are the specs of your machine and OS that you use for games?
     
  16. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #16
    I will quote you. :)

    OS 9 is just less graphical, I mean OS X is just TOO graphic based, I need an option 'turn off graphical OS' and it will run a good 10% faster for everything.

    Ech, i don't know about specific games but as far as running everything goes... OS 9 is speed king. (well OS 9 1.25 Dual Vs Os X 1.42 Dual: The 1.42 Dual wins.)
     
  17. FattyMembrane macrumors 6502a

    FattyMembrane

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Location:
    bat country
    #17
    all of them are right. pretty much every big game is a port from windows to the mac (most of them from windows to os9 to osx) done with little concern for good code and more concern for time of release. neither ati nor nvidia make drivers for their mac cards that are on par with pc equivalents, so the card is not performing to its utmost. the computer is stuck with the lagging g4 which moto is only incrementaly updating (small increments at that, 6months and only 170 mhz?). it's basically the fact that apple must rely on vendors who don't care much about macs so most of our games are crappy ports running on under-utilized gpus powered by lagging (although still powerful) processors.
     
  18. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #18
    I hear a lot of talk on games and os 9, sure in os 9 you could tell the os to shut off anything but what the game needed.Osx doesnt give you that advantage it is supposed to know how to divy the resources and i have not seen to much said concerning how it goes about allocating memory and everything else. Also be aware more and more stuff is coming only on osx so saying iam planning on using my mac with only os9 games is saying you wont be playing anything new thats coming out.NASCAR,Halo,UT2003,DOOM3,and this list is just a growin folks. OS9 is obsolete.Game porters are going osx only!OSX I think still blows away 9 when you look at everything it does and will be doing in the future!I love osx but as a gamer this means i love a faster cpu with more memory and topnotch video card.Now its up to apple/motorola to deliver and if they dont ill wait for the 7457 or 970!-Yea i play MOH,RTCW,NASCAR on my mac but iwant to play with everything on and max settings to get the most enjoyment!The software is pushing hard on that hardware!



    PM800
    Geforce3
    1gigMem
     
  19. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #19
    I agree as more developers and porters use os X only tthe games will continue to improve as will gameplay. I will wait to upgrade my Dual G4 450 until the 970 comes out with an ATI 9700 pro card
     
  20. Jaykay macrumors 6502a

    Jaykay

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Location:
    Ireland
    #20
    I have a DP 1.25 with a Radeon 9000 and 1Gb of Ram and almost every game i have run so far has run exceptionaly well WC3, Moh, RtCW among others (ugh.. i spend too much time with games, anyways) for my part i love osX, once you get passed a certain performance marker then osX pretty much outshines os9 quite easily. Note : JK2 absolutely sucks on high resolution so thats the only problem i have.
     
  21. GigaWire macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    #21
    why not just build a small PC based gaming box? with a dvi/adc adapter, you still have the monitor, and if you like the mouse/keyboard, windows recognizes those too. That way you have the latest and greatest to use for games alone, and upgrading is nowhere near as impossible as it is on a MAc. or do what I do at work and run the windows box through remote desktop on a gigbit network.:p the options are there, but if your major focus in having a comp is games, then there is no real reason to have a Mac, especially since there are a multitude of GUI enhancements that make XP look and function pretty damn close to OS X.
     
  22. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #22
    It is not that hard to upgrade a mac. I have a power mac 6100/66 running at a g3 500
    and my power mac dual 450 is easy enough to upgrade any way I want to.
    It is harder to upgrade a windows box to a more modern system because of processor socket compatabilities and motherboard config problems and (gasp) hardware incompatabilities. Plus Xp is too regulated by microsoft. If you have a problem with a hardware config and you reload your system one to many times your computer will lock up on you.
     
  23. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #23
    Re: L3 Cache

    Ah but actually your speed increase is much larger thent he simple 67MHz that simple math will provide. Since OSX is truly multiprocessor aware it will do whatever it can to keep both processors at equal loads. What this means is that with your G4800 your system alone might be taking up to 20% of your processor time that means you have about 640MHz left over to play your video game. No on the dual you have two processors so even if the game isn't designed to take advantage of the duals it has nearly a full processor at it's disposal.

    Also the QuakeIII engine IS multiprocessor aware. So any game based on it will show a significant speed advantage. I don't know what games use it but it is something to keep in mind. Another thing to keep in mind is you new dual with DDR ram has something called Direct Memmory Access. This allows the vCard and all subsystems to access the ram directly bypassing the cpu altogether. I believe you older system may also have DMA but it really gets an advantage with the DDR Ram.
     

Share This Page