Games on a 1.25 !

Discussion in 'Games' started by TheCat, Sep 19, 2002.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    #1
    Has anyone got a 1.25 Mac yet?

    Was wondering how the more demanding games perform - esp if you've got the fastest Mac ever WITH GF4-Ti rather than ATI9000

    wow! i've started my first thread.. well, assuming someone replies;)
     
  2. macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #2
    Here let me help your first thread out.

    I have a Dual Ghz/DDR mac and it really flies with games running a paltry G4MX. I'm waiting for the ATI9700 to come out. With QuakeIIIArena at 1280x1024 32bit high everything I consistently get over 100Fps.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    #3
    Phew! someone replied:rolleyes:
    I'm glad u mentioned the 9700, i wonder if a mac version will ever come out? This is supposed to kick the Ti's ass!
    For now though, if i had the money!, i would get the 1.25 with a Ge4Ti - this would rock. I wonder how Q3 would perform to yours? Not that it matters if you're allready getting way over 60fps:)
    I'm wondering now about the near-future: ie a 9700 playing Doom3... i'll get saving :D

    Thanks
    Steve

     
  4. macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #4

    I took the G4MX because it was a lot cheaper in the config then the ATI 9000 but at the same time is actually faster it just doesn't have hardware T&L. The ATI 9700 for the Mac is suppose to be out by December and let me tell you it will kick some serious a**. If I get around 100FPS with Quake right now and around 75FPS with Unreal. I would expect to get closer to 200-250FPS with the ATI 9700 in Quake barring any hardware limitations. Maybe faster.
     
  5. macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #5
    Dont tempt me!!!! :D, I dont have the money to be tempted right now... :D :D :D But I want a new video card. I am going to resist though. I am going to save money so I can get an awesome computer in 2003 around this time....
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    #6
    the radeon 9000 is consistently faster in games except for ones based on Quake 3(where it doesn't trail by much at all) also take into account that the 9000 has programmable vertex shaders where the GF4mx doesn't.
     
  7. macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #7

    The problem with the 9000's Vertex shaders and hardware T&L is that from what I've seen in tests that the board doesn't have enough power to drive the shaders and other.

    Here's the thing if you were to buy the Dual/Ghz/DDR like I did Apple will take $100 off to drop from the ATI9000 to the G4MX. Now for $100 I'm willing to ignore the nearly useless hardware T&L that the ATI9000 has and get the G4MX when I fully plan on buying the ATI9700 when it comes out anyway.
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #8
    I know that I, along with you guys, am really excited about the 9700. You have to keep in mind, however, that the GPU is limited by the CPU...I don't have any hard facts to back this up, but I think that you will not see a 150% performance boost with the 9700.

    Even with a dual 1.25 Ghz, I think the GPU will top out lower than expected because of the slower speed of the G4. Remember though, since the human eye past 60 FPS cannot see any improvement, I'd just as well buy a GeForce 4 now and not wait 3 months+ however long it takes the 9700 to ship.

    Don't get me wrong though...I love the Mac, and I'd snatch up a dual 1.25 and a radeon 9700 if I wasn't a broke student. Instead, I'm having to "settle" for a 1Ghz G4 and a GeForce 4 (Both upgrades to my Digital Audio G4).

    If someone can prove me wrong with benchmarks with a 9700 and 1.25 gig (when both are availabe) though, I'd be very happy! :D
     
  9. macrumors 604

    MacBandit

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

    You don't need 200FPS, this is true in most cases. But when FPS is listed it is almost always max FPS and not what it bottoms out on. When you're playing a game like Unreal Tournament and your in a game with 75 other players on a big open field that 200FPS can quickly become 15FPS and this is why you need more graphics power.

    Also on a page here on Macrumors I have had explained to me the bases behind the physics engine in these modern games and basically there are prime frame rates that need to be achieved if I remember right 120FPS is one of those where it matches exactly with what the physics engine wants. What this does is basically by not missing any frames in the calculations the physics engine one thing that happens is that if you jump the trajectory of the curve is calculate correctly and you basically end up jumping higher allowing you to get power ups and the like that you might not normally be able to reach.

    A quick search of video card performance at www.xlr8yourmac.com will show up nVidia G4Ti cards achieving nearly 140FPS on a Dual Ghz/DDR and I do believe that the processor is not the limiting factor because this matches up closely to some of the PC sites. Also the same PC sites have shown that even with the processor as the limiting factor the ATI9700 shows a %20-%25 increase in frame rates over the G4Ti.
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #10
    Cool MacBandit. I always like to be better informed.

    But I still don't wanna wait 3 months. :D
     
  11. macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #11

    No I quite agree waiting isn't an option. That's why when I purchased my Dual Ghz/DDR I ordered it with a G4MX.
     

Share This Page