HALO performance

Discussion in 'Games' started by blakespot, Apr 29, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. blakespot Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #1
    I just saw an old thread from these forums indicating that HALO crawls in any G3 and that a single 867 G4 PowerBook had slideshow framerate, and that dual 1.25 G4 was really a minimum spec.

    I have a dual G4 800 w/ GeForce 4Ti and 1.5GB RAM and HALO plays on my 20" Cinema at the 2nd to highest widescreen mode (1280x840 or some such) and it's smooth as glass. I recently notched it to max rez of 1344x900 or some such and I noticed no slowdown - but it didn't look that much sharper, so I toned it back to the 2nd highest just for an assumed minor speed advantage.

    Again - like glass. Does this jive with others' experience with the game?



    blakespot
     
  2. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #2
    In my experience with Halo, it seems to decrease the graphic quality to keep the framerate up.
     
  3. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #3
    Well the reason that you can get good frame rates while others can't is because you have a 128MB Geforce4Ti compared to the 32MB Radeon 9000 Mobile in the Powerbook 867mhz and the iBook low-end graphics. You also have 1.5GB of RAM to help Halo out.
     
  4. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #4
    You should run the benchmark and post results here. 'Smooth' is subjective and means almost nothing. People say their iBooks run Halo smooth and I don't believe them either.

    With your config I will be surprised if you top 35fps at max settings 10*7. That means you will spend half of the time playing this game at less than 24 fps which is what most people call choppy.

    Smooth is when you never dip below 24fps.
     
  5. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #5
    i play with most settings turned way down and it's still a little slow sometimes. machine in sig.
     
  6. Jigglelicious macrumors 6502

    Jigglelicious

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #6
    How do you benchmark Halo? The game runs like a slug on my Mac (check sig) even on the lowest rez and detail settings, and i'd be very surprised if it "ran like glass", even WITH your Geforce4 Ti. The game doesn't take advantage of dual processors, so you're still esentially using a 800MHz G4. I'd like to compare the speeds people are getting.
     
  7. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #7
    Barefeats had a nice article comparing lots of systems (I helped write it). www.barefeats.com

    I was very disappointed with how the game played at the lowest settings on my MDD 1.25 GHz. That is why I question the original post. I sold my copy, so I can't remember how to bench it but I know I described the process in teh article (it is super easy).

    Halo needs both a fast CPU and GPU - it is very demanding.
     
  8. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #8
    Yeah, but your machine is wicked cool. So who cares how well it plays Halo. You can make movies on it and it almost fits in a pocket. It plays Halo badly, but does everything else very well.

    Halo is a short experience. Call of Duty will run very well on your machine. I doubt it will dip below 30 fps at a reasonable detail level.
     
  9. Danrose1977 macrumors regular

    Danrose1977

    #9
    I played through COD on a freinds PC and found it harder but conciderably shorter than Halo.... much better multiplayer experience on COD though.
     
  10. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #10
    Halo shorter than COD???

    did you play the Halo demo version by mistake?

    :)
     
  11. BrandonRP0123 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #11
    Both my machines run Halo OK at the lowest resolution (640x480). Halo's minimum requirement is a 700Mhz chip, so I have to hold down P to start it on my Power Mac. In some instances the Power Mac runs better than the PowerBook - mostly attributed to the fact that the Power Mac has a GeForce 2MX with 64MB and well you know the specs of the Rev A. Powerbook 12". Halo runs beautifully on the new Powerbooks with either the 64MB or 128MB ATI card in them.
     
  12. BrandonRP0123 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #12
    Try GeForce Go 420 or whatever in the PowerBook 867 12".
     
  13. blakespot thread starter Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #13
    Interesting contribution / direction to take this thread, lewdvig...


    blakespot
     
  14. blakespot thread starter Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #14
    Yes, it's hearing such comments that makes me wonder why I can run it, with full settings on, so smoothly at so high a res. The game likely isn't threaded to take advantage of multiple processors, but if it uses subsystems (like CoreAudio for instance) in the normal fashion, then OS X will offload those ops to the free CPU - and of course the overhead of OS housekeeping (which wasn't an issue w/ OS 9 since there was nothing happening in the OS but the game when it ran) is handled on the lesser burdened CPU. So you do get some advantages - probably just enough to feel.

    But it runs so well for me, I wonder - are we wrong? Is it threaded?



    blakespot
     
  15. titaniumducky macrumors 6502a

    titaniumducky

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    #15
    UMM...NO....

    The 12" PowerBook isn't even CLOSE to fitting in a pocket. It's small, but nowhere near that size.
     
  16. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #16
    woah now... settle down. :D
     
  17. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #17
    I finished Halo on one Saturday - and we are not talking dawn to dusk either. 12 hours max, probably less.
     
  18. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #18

    Sounds about right.

    Its the multiplayer that keeps you coming back. :D
     
  19. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #19
    First of all, your GPU is very good. You will never be fill rate limited by your current machine unless you try a crazy resolution.

    As far as the dual CPUs go. Hmmm. Halo might be SMP enabled. The barefeats review is inconclusive because of all the video card switching. If the 9800 could be tested in a single and a dual 1.8 G5 it would answer that for us I think.
     
  20. 173080 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    #20
    Halo runs nicely on my 1.5Ghz 15" PowerBook with a 64MB Video Card. (I didnt upgrade to 128 because I was not willing to wait for a BTO, I ordered mine with next-day delivery from my local CompUSA several days before they were in stock).

    Of Course, good framerate is subjective, but in my opinion it's really, really awesome. I run it at 1280x854 (Native Widescreen Resolution), High Model Detail, Vertex Shaders.

    A feature I really like is that I can play it in a window (Still at high res, only the top bar is visible aside from the game) and use Expose to hide it during class when the teacher walks by. :D All my Windows-using friends get caught by the teachers turning their laptops off or closing the lids of their computers for "no apparent reason", while I only have to press F11. :D
     
  21. Jigglelicious macrumors 6502

    Jigglelicious

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #21
    For anyone interested, here are the results from some benchmarks that I did. There are no vertex/pixel shaders turned on for any of the tests, as the Radeon 7500 does not support them.

    800x600 Rez, Low model detail, low particles, low texture detail = 31fps

    1024x768 Rez, Low model detail, low particles, high texture detail = 24fps

    1024x768 Rez, High model detail, high particles, high texture detail = 15fps


    Now, don't let these numbers fool you. Even at the lowest settings, the game is nearly unplayable. Sure, the timedemo runs very smooth, but the timedemo seems to be a horrible measure of performance for actual gameplay. The timedemo is just a compilation of 4 flyby sequences, which is not processor intensive at all. Compare UT2k4 flyby timedemos to actual deathmatch timedemos, and you'll notice that the deathmatch ones are like 1/3rd the speed of the flyby. But its these deathmatch sequences which actually measures gameplay performance.

    And on top of this, Halo is just a really UGLY game - even with all the options turned on. I realize that beauty is subjective, but IMO, the original Unreal, a game released back in 1998, looks far better than Halo.
     
  22. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #22
    While it sounds silly, I believe pressing the Windows button may also be a quick exit to a game...I can't tell you how many times I minimized out of CS because I accidently pressed the windows key when I tried to use "Ctrl" (crouch). That or the standard alt-tab (assuming you have a huge IE/Mozilla window to cover the rest lol).
     
  23. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #23
    "I played through COD on a freinds PC and found it harder but conciderably shorter than Halo". Read that again, he's saying that COD's shorter than Halo.

    As for performance, the latest versions of Halo and OS X seem to be faster. When the first version of Halo came out, I had to run at 640x480 or it lagged. But with the current versions, I can bring it right up to 1280x1024 :D
     
  24. MentalFabric macrumors 6502

    MentalFabric

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    #24
    I have a dual G5, 3.5GB of RAM and a 128mb Radeon 9800 and it still runs like crap. I have to put the setting down to make it 'bearable' but it's never really 'good'.
     
  25. eclipse525 macrumors 6502a

    eclipse525

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA, New York
    #25
    It'll probably run smoother if you even out your RAM. They say the sweet spots or 2,4,6,8. Inbetween's actual effect performance in many apps.

    http://www.macnet2.com/more.php?id=A460_0_1_0_M



    ~e
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page