BF1942 benchmarks: 12" PowerBook (1.33GHz)

Discussion in 'Games' started by oingoboingo, Jul 13, 2004.

  1. oingoboingo macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #1
    Ok, finally had a bit of spare time to collect some performance figures for the Revision C, 1.33GHz 12" PowerBook, running Battlefield 1942. Specifications of my PowerBook are the standard-issue 1.33GHz G4, 64MB nVidia GeForce FX 5200 Go and 60GB HDD. I have 768MB RAM. Mac OS X version is 10.3.4, and all the latest patches are applied. Battlefield 1942 is exactly as installed from the DVD-ROM. I am running off AC power, with processor performance set to 'Highest'. No other software except the Finder was running during the benchmark tests. Connectivity to internet game servers is via the AirPort Extreme card, communicating with my 802.11b base station (about 50cm away, so full signal strength), hooked up to a 512kbps ADSL connection.

    For Battlefield 1942 configuration, default settings were used for all bot configuration in single player mode, ie: 100% bot count, bot AI set at 20% CPU time, and 'Medium' difficulty. Sound configuration was as per defaults. Graphics options were adjusted by selecting the 'Low', 'Medium' or 'High' presets in the Video Options panel. Resolution was adjusted in the same panel. Benchmark frames per second scores were determined via manual assessment and averaging of the onscreen FPS counter (invoked with 'fps 1' from the BF1942 console) whilst performing several actions, including running around, shooting at enemy soldiers, entering bunkers, changing weapons, and entering and driving vehicles. Due to the highly manual procedure involved, your mileage may vary...severely...and I take no responsibility for any harm or damage these benchmarks may cause to you, your system, or friends and family.

    Single Player Mode, 'Operation Battleaxe' map:
    -1024x768x32, high graphics details: ~ 12 fps
    -800x600x32, high graphics details: ~ 14 fps

    -1024x768x32, medium graphics details: ~ 13-14 fps
    -800x600x32, medium graphics details: ~15-16 fps

    -1024x768x32, low graphics details: ~ 15-18 fps
    -800x600x32, low graphics details: ~ 18-20 fps

    Multiplayer mode, 'Omaha Beach' map. Server ping approximately 110ms. Very lightly loaded server, 2-3 players online.
    -1024x768x32, high graphics detail: 8-10 fps
    -800x600x32, high graphics detail: 10-14 fps

    -1024x768x32, medium graphics detail: 8-10 fps
    -800x600x32, medium graphics detail: 13-14 fps

    -1024x768x32, low graphics detail: ~15 fps
    -800x600x32, low graphics detail: ~21 fps.

    A few points. The game looks great at both the 'high' and 'medium' detail settings. Conversely, it looks downright crappy at the 'low' setting. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time playing it on the 'low' setting unless forced. I couldn't honesly say at any time did the whole game feel fluid or completely smooth. There was always an element of jerkiness. That is not to say the game is unplayable; even at around 15fps I would still say the game was 'playable', but only just. When the action picks up and you have a few tanks and some infantry all onscreen at once fighting it out, you really feel that dip down into 8-10 fps territory.
     
  2. shortyjj macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    #2
    Thanks so much. I have the exact same setup, and was in the Apple store yesterday with a copy of BF in my hand, but am glad that I put it back down.

    Now to wait for WoW...
     
  3. Aaon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    #3
    Interesting...

    Thanks for these benchmarks. I am not a hardcore gamer, but the occasional game would be nice, and the BF1942 stats on the 12" don't really impress me...

    Does anyone have the souped-up 15" and a copy of BF1942? I would be very interested to see the difference between the 12" and the 15", especially as I consider my future powerbook purchase!

    Thanks!

    Aaron
     
  4. Laslo Panaflex macrumors 65816

    Laslo Panaflex

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Location:
    Tokyo
    #4
    How do you run bechmarks on BF1942. I will run the benchmarks and post the results if I knew how.
     
  5. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #5
    Try playing an online match with humans. I hear the ping might be anywhere from 50-300 even with the fastest connection, but the slowdown has to be from the bots.

    My friend has a 800 MHz G4 iMac, GeForce4MX with 32 MB VRAM, and a 768 MB RAM (same setup as mine). I played a bot match with default settings for graphics (which is the absolute lowest) and played a bot match (don't remember the exact settings) on default settings. It was choppy! Hovering from 5 FPS to 10 FPS.

    Now, I dragged down the number of bots to the lowest possible percentage, turned down the AI to 10%, and lowered the difficulty all the way. It said 33% overall difficulty. Now I was getting 14 FPS to 25 FPS. Much more playable. It seems smoother than those numbers, but either way, any computer above the first generation of iMacs should be capable of playing it pretty decently, IMHO. I didn't get a chance to play online because his cable connection was down, but at least you people have an idea how it can run.
     
  6. oingoboingo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #6
    Laslo,

    If you read my description of how the benchmark was run, you will see that I'm just keeping an eye on the FPS count that the game displays, and calculating a kind of 'mental running average'. It's not very scientific, but I don't think there is a good benchmarking tool for BF1942 like there is for Q3 or UT2004. You can get BF1942 to display the FPS count by bringing up the game console (hit the ` key during the game), and then type 'fps 1' (without the quotes), hit enter, and then hit ` again to make the console disappear. You will now have FPS stats being displayed in the upper left hand corner of the screen, and an FPS graph being displayed across the centre of the screen.

    If you want to compare results directly, I have tried to document exactly what I did in my original post. Look forward to seeing your results.
     
  7. Laslo Panaflex macrumors 65816

    Laslo Panaflex

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Location:
    Tokyo
    #7
    Sorry, I didn't catch how you did it specifically, I skimmed through the post and jumped to the benchmarks at the end. I will try some and see what I come up with.
     

Share This Page