Gaming on the 17 inch powerbook

Discussion in 'Games' started by invaLPsion, Apr 28, 2004.

  1. invaLPsion macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #1
    I recently purchased a 17 inch powerbook. (Specs below)

    One of the main things I wanted to do on my powerbook was game.

    I hope this thread will put an end to the people who are saying that powerbooks can't game well.

    Warcraft 3: I ran the powerbook at 1440 by 900 with everything at max and the frame rate was amazingly smooth. It never dipped below 30 FPS except on tower D (20-25 FPS rarely at times with lots of creatures) which is a very demanding multiplayer game for WAR3.

    Warcraft 3 Load times: In most multiplayer games the powerbook loaded the maps about .5 - 1 second slower than an AMD64 3000+ and FASTER than a 1.6 G5!

    True Combat: This is a mod for Quake 3. My frame rate was anywhere between 75 - 175 outdoors and 200-250 indoors. (1024 by 768 settings at max)

    If you're a mobile gamer, this is your mac, it will blow you away with its performance.
     
  2. amyhre macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    #2
    I have played both UT2003 and 2004 with pretty high detail, etc. The 17in is a gorgeous fun gaming machine. Whoever said Macs don't do games never tried it on a TiBook before.
     
  3. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #3
    Wow that's good to hear. Have you run any benchmarks on your Powerbook?
    Any results?
     
  4. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #4

    Excellent! :D This is exactly the config I am getting (in 2-4 weeks :( )

    I wanted to get UT2004. Doom would be cool. Halo is my favourite X-Box game so I am keen on that as well.

    Any other games people can recommend or not re performance on the G4/1.5 PB?

    Oh, and how do you measure frame rates to determine your performance?
     
  5. invaLPsion thread starter macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #5
    Scored a 138 on Xbench. 13 points higher than my bro's 1.6 G5.
     
  6. invaLPsion thread starter macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #6
    I tried MOH Spearhead demo at 1024 by 768 with everything at max and it was as smooth as glass. When I get COD and Ghost Recon I'll update you some more if you want.

    Some games have built in FPS measures and others you can get programs for...
     
  7. powerbook4me macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    #7
    Hopefully this will be true to 12 inch ibooks/powerbooks.
     
  8. mikeyredk macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
  9. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #9
    yeah, Unreal Tournament 2004 is AMAZING on my 17" - no lag - it rocks!! 1GB of RAM helps....
     
  10. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #10

    What are your settings? What kinds a FPS are you getting?

    My poor Windows machine seems to struggle with UT2004, no matter what the settings.
     
  11. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #11
    With a 1.5 GHz I think your CPU is just fast enough to keep the fps higher than 24fps. I would guess that you are in the 30-40 range in UT2003/4 for the botmatch demo. That is great for a Mac.

    Your machine is still bottlenecked by the CPU, so you can crank detail up quite high before fill rate becomes the cause of low fps.

    These new PBs are really nice. I think they are way cooler than Centrino laptops.

    ---------------------------------------

    ...way slower than I thought: http://barefeats.com/pb11.html

    An avg fps of 24-28 is not smooth and anyone that says it is needs glasses. This means there will be dips into single digit fps - a slideshow.

    But you don't buy an awesome machine like this just for games unless you are really stupid. Leave that to those ugly garish alienware laptops with the brightly colored cheap plastic cases.

    Heck, even the fastest PC gaming laptops are still slow compared to a decent SFF PC.
     
  12. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #12
    Your windows machine must really suck. Get a new video card, your CPU is pretty fast. My machine cracks 105fps in UT2004 botmatch (12 bots) at 10*7 with max detail, ATI control panel set to override everything to 4x AA and 8x AF - Quality settings. I could probably get it higher too.
     
  13. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #13

    That's great.

    I would be interested in hearing more.
     
  14. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #14
    so far this week we have 2 people describing their mac gaming experience as "smooth as glass" and no responses to the requests for benchmark numbers to indicate exactly what this might be...

    you will find that most of these games have built in benchmarking programs...if you guys would use them and post the results along with "smooth as glass", then we might gain a better understanding of what that means.

    to me, "smooth as glass" is 1280x960x32 with full detail and ~100fps in UT2004 flyby demo.

    at least 50-60+ fps for the same settings in botmatch demo.

    if you're not getting those sorts of numbers, then i don't think you should be saying that it is "smooth as glass," whatever that means. Maybe "smooth as two-year-old-plexiglass" would be more appropriate?

    and yes, i know, i know, you can only see 30ish fps or something similar, and science has proven it, and so on and so forth. someone always says that when their FPS are low. Here's my test for you: turn your monitor's refresh rate down to 30hz for about 2-3 minutes (if you have a monitor capable of such a low setting, if not, just put it on the lowest one you can and imagine how much more pronounced the effect would be at 30hz).

    that's literally 30fps you would be seeing, and if you can't tell a difference between that and say 75 or 85, then i wonder how you're able to watch any sort of action in the real world or otherwise and keep up at all...

    the truth is, ideally you want 60-80fps CONSTANTLY, because that's where most monitors' refresh rates are. That is one frame per refresh cycle, and optimal for smoothness. if you've got a consistent 60fps (never drops below 60), then i think you can feel confident in a claim of "smooth as glass" performance...because that's what you'll have.
     
  15. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #15
    Yup, the best scenario for a smooth as glass experience is if the minimum FPS is the same as your monitor refresh rate. Some people can tolerate 65Hz but I run at 100.

    I can enable VSync on my PC and play UT2004 all day on my PC without ever having the fps dip below 60 (it averages over 100 in botmatches).

    If people use the 'I can only see 24fps anyway arguement' then they should set that as the lowest allowable, minimum, fps they will tolerate. This means that average Macs can not play most current games at an acceptable level - especially when you factor in LCD monitors and the issue of native resolution.

    If you have an LCD, you should be playing games at full LCD resolution or in a window. Otherwise the extrapolated pixels look bad.

    I gave up on Mac gaming a while ago - now I use Macs for they do best, which is everything else besides gaming.
     
  16. invaLPsion thread starter macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #16
    Just tried Ghost Recon for mac with all settings at max (1440 by 900). It surprisingly well. I'd say the frame rate was hovering around 30. It was VERY playable.

    When lowered to 1152 by 750 (or W/E it is) it was very smooth and ran around 40-80 fps.

    Pretty nice... :D
     
  17. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #17

    That's good news. ...now if only my powerbook would appear
     
  18. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #18

    I have a Radeon 9600 XT.

    I was able to increase my FPS by switching to 3D sound and also I upped the core voltage of my processor. It seems my overclock wasn't completely stable, and now things are running much smoother.

    What system are you running and what resolution?
     
  19. mr_mac macrumors member

    mr_mac

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #19
    What are you guys talking about???

    The refresh rate and the frame rate are 2 absolutely different things and should not be tought as related.

    30FPS means 30 Frames per seconds. it means that a movement to go from A to B in 1 second will be split in 30 sections.

    a refresh rate of 75Hz means that the screen refreshes itself 75 times per seconds. above 85Hz, you won't see the difference.



    The best example for this is a Stroboscope. if i crank the strobe to 30 flashes per seconds, you'll see it flashing. but put it over 85 and it will seem as a bright light.

    The reason why frames rates over 30FPS are useful is because when you play alone, with nobody or few enemies around and you get 30FPS, when the screen is flooded with people and moving stuff, your frame rate is gonna drop below 10FPS! If you start at 60FPS, then it'll probably drop to around 30-40FPS.

    Please guys, remember that a motion and a refresh are 2 different things.

    By the way, I have a Dual G5 2GHz, 1,5GB, 480GB RAID, Radeon 9600 Pro 64MB and it runs as hell any game i've thrown at it full resolution (1600x1200)!

    I'll buy a PowerBook G4 1,5GHz 17" probably next week and i know it'll run about as well because the video card does 75% of the work.

    Regards,

    Mrmac
     
  20. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #20
    Whilst I completly agree, one thing that bugs me is why PAL is 25FPS and NTSC is about 30FPS, why do people claim you need faster than 30FPS to play games properly? (and yes I appreciate TVs run 85-100 cycles a second ;) )



    Love to see your results.
     
  21. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #21

    I am going to have to agree with that. My LCD couldn't display more than 30 FPS even it wanted too, but I can't tell the difference.

    Of course in high action, my system still can dip down to 15 fps, which really sucks.
     
  22. aldo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Location:
    England, UK
    #22
    Uh, because TVs framerate stays constant? The only reason you need a faster FPS is so that when it gets busy (ie: lots of action), it doesn't drop below 30fps...
     
  23. matt18012 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    #23
    Would anyone with a new Powerbook be interested in testing Sixtyforce (a nintendo 64 emulator) performance?


    Sixtyforce
     
  24. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #24

    What kinda system are you running??
    Here are the new benchmarks of the newest unrealeased video cards and they can't even get 105 fps at those settings...

    [​IMG]
     
  25. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #25
    dude, that's 1600x1200....



    you must compare apples to apples....

    or in this case, PCs to PCs (because we know no mac is getting numbers like this)

    he was, though, exaggerating when he said 105fps if he meant constantly...because that's just not possible yet...

    but here's another, more pertinent graph from tomshardwareguide:

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page