Highly unscientific BF1942 benchmarks

Discussion in 'Games' started by oingoboingo, Jul 9, 2004.

  1. oingoboingo macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #1
    I picked up a copy of the Mac edition of Battlefield 1942 during the week, and I've had a little bit of time to get some very raw and incomplete performance figures (although I figure something is better than nothing). I won't say anything about the game itself, since as far as I can tell it is a 100% faithful port of the PC version. If you want a gameplay review, there were many good reviews written of the PC game when it was first released.

    My system is a 1.6GHz G5, with a 64MB Radeon 9600 Pro, and 1.25GB RAM. I also have a Rev C 12" PowerBook and I'll be testing that system soon, but this limited set of data is for the G5 only. OK...as far as I can tell there isn't a benchmarking script for BF1942, so I've had to rely on the unscientific method of getting the FPS counter up on screen and watching how that behaves out of the corner of my eye while I play the game. You can get the FPS counter and onscreen graph to display by hitting '`' to bring up the console, then typing 'fps 1' (both without the quotes).

    Settings for all benchmarks were sound quality at 22KHz and all other sound settings as per defaults, single-player map 'Battleaxe', with AI set to 'Hard'. Video quality settings were all set to 'High'...basically all video quality settings were maxed out I only varied resolution.

    - For 1600x1200x32, FPS seemed to vary from around 8 FPS up to around 20 FPS, with the average looking to be around 14 FPS.

    - For 1280x1024x32, much the same story.

    - And finally, for 1024x768x32...almost the same story.

    Well that was fun :) Looks like the game, at the settings I used at least, is CPU limited. Even when cutting the resolution fromn 1600x1200 down to 1024x768, there didn't seem to be a great speedup...average FPS (as determined by my highly scientific eyeballs) seemed to stay around the 14 to 16 FPS range, no matter what the resolution setting.

    Anyway, as I mentioned, these are obviously very incomplete, very unscientific tests, but I thought I'd give people an idea how the game plays on the bottom-rung of the G5 family at least. More benchmarks to come, and I'll try out the 12" PowerBook too.

    If anyone knows of an automated benchmarking method for BF1942 I'd like to try that out also...simply monitoring the FPS counter by eye isn't a really great way to benchmark.
     
  2. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #2
    That's too bad. It sounds like pretty sloppy coding and that they probably didn't take advantage of AltiVec either.

    Still, it might improve a lot with the first patch.

    Hope you enjoy it anyway.
     
  3. oingoboingo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #3
    I've just been playing around with the texture detail settings and shadows, and it looks like dropping texture detail down a notch or two and turning shadows off makes a big difference. It might take a bit of experimentation to find a combination of video quality, video resolution and computer AI settings which result in smooth gameplay. Kind of dreading what the benchmarks will look like on the PowerBook though...
     
  4. FasterSoonerNow macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    #4
    Why would you try it out on a 12" PB anyway?

    I don't think the main reason behind a purchase of that model is gaming.

    Give it a go on a 15" or 17" with the faster (5400rpm) hard drive, and the upgraded VRAM (128 ghz) and it'll probably run beautifully.
     
  5. oingoboingo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #5
    Because I already own a 12" PowerBook and I'd like to know how the game I've just purchased runs on it? ;)

    I see your point though. I didn't buy the 12" PowerBook as a gaming rig...it's the machine that goes to university and my part-time job with me for regular MS Office and coding type stuff, and relaxes on the couch with me for some wireless web surfing and e-mail writing. If I'm going to play games on a Mac, then the G5 is used, and there's an Xbox stuck under the TV for drunken bouts of Midtown Madness and co-op Halo with friends. If I was after a gaming notebook and wanted to stay with Apple, yes, I would have bought a 15" or 17" system.

    But the point remains...I do own both a 1.33GHz 12" PowerBook, and a new copy of Battlefield 1942. Why not mix the two together and see how it goes? I'm sure there will be people interested.
     
  6. zakee00 macrumors regular

    zakee00

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    #6
    that is really terrible. its not the developers faults, at least not aspyr's. they do a good job of porting games. the original game didnt work as well as it should have on the pc. it is the fault of apple and IBM. that 1.6 GHz G5 will blow though photoshop and FC, but it cant play BF1942 decently. If you tried playing that game on the new dual 2.5GHz powermacs with that same 9600, it would probably run WAYYY better (obviously). it isnt the 9600 either, otherwise lowering the res would have caused a dramatic fps increase. i have a 9600 pro 128mb in my pc, which is an 800MHz PIII (384mb of RAM). i run battlefield on all highest, 1280x1024 and it runs alright, better than ur rig is going. that is sad. in my rig it is also processor (and memory) limited, lowering the graphics dosnt improve the fps very much. anyway, i WISH that apple and ibm would hurry up and put faster G5's (2.8,3GHZ) in theyre computers(powermac AND iMac)...because in the gaming world, more MHz=more proformance sadly :(
    and im not anti mac at all, i LOVE my powerbook and ipod :D when my PB gets back from being repaired, BF1942 will be waiting, i hope it works alright :eek:
     
  7. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #7
    It is the original development team's fault that they're so sloppy. Apple has little control over poor coding. Their work with gcc to automatically vectorise code (AltiVec-enable) should help. It may help, but I doubt it's going to make up for pathetic or mediocre code. Hopefully, patches from Aspyr will streamline the code.
     
  8. Ninja_Turtle macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Fullerton, California
    #8
    party

    all you can hope for is an update for the game...most of these things are fixed, so just wait... :)
     
  9. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #9
    bousozoku:

    99% of the code is likely not changed from the PC version. The G5 is a processor that should require no hand-holding at all, and if it does, then IBM and/or Apple have some explaining to do. Mega superscalar, out-of-order executing, pretty high clocking, super bandwidth...

    Anyway I'd be interested to hear about realistic online play scenarios... 1024x768, 30+ real players, etc.
     
  10. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #10
    Try turning off sound, I bet you will see a big increase in fps. Macs don't have hardware sound cards, so all the sound work has to be done on the cpu.
     
  11. Jigglelicious macrumors 6502

    Jigglelicious

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #11
    AltiVec has nothing to do with games. 3d games are 100% FPU, and so a vector unit would have nothing to do in that case. Battlefield was actually coded very well, at least for its original incarnation. I'm not sure what differences were made when ported to the Mac, but you shouldn't blame the original developer for a mac port that they did not make.
     
  12. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #12
    Tell id Software that AltiVec has nothing to do with games. They seem to take advantage of it and dual processors just fine.

    There seem to be differing views on whether it worked well or not originally. Perhaps, it doesn't run too well on 2 GHz x86 machines either.

    ddtim:

    99 percent of sloppy coding is still sloppy coding. A 3 GHz clockspeed can soak up quite a lot more slop than a 1.6 - 2.0 can. The PPC970 is a capable processor, but even the best isn't going to do its best with poor code.
     
  13. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #13
    A dual 2.5 +NV6800 would be a brute force solution. It should be about three times as powerful as this test system. A lot of money just play games, though.
     
  14. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #14
    I've read sound doesn't take up that much processing power. UT2K4 is a different story, but it usually is supposed to take up only about 2%.

    I would recommend turning off shadows. I would also recommend just using the default settings. The game should automatically match up to your system's configuration. Also, lower the amount of bots. Those bots will eat up your processor for sure. Play it online, the preferred way.

    BF1942 is definitely a processor intensive game. Check the minimum system requirements. You need at least a 867 MHz G4. Much higher than the old 500 MHz or 800 MHz we used to be getting. Apple needs to pick up the pace with newer Macs, preferably the iMac. We are getting dangerously close to having slow processors and fast processors that are expensive.

    I believe BF1942 was coded well and this was a decent port. People seem to be not having much trouble. I think the higher resolutions are also murdering performance. And the amount of bots you're playing with seems to have a very big effect.
     
  15. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #15
    People pay a lot of money to have the biggest, fastest rig. Of course, they have to ride their bike to their job because they can't afford a car. :D
     
  16. kuyu macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #16
    I am interested in the 12" pbook rev C. How's the game look/play on your powerbook? How's the FPS? Is the game playable, or too choppy? How about on the web? FPS on the internet?

    Thx
    :)
     
  17. oingoboingo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #17
    Sorry, been too busy with other stuff...will get some 12" PB benchmarks done soon. :)
     
  18. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #18
    Would love to see specs on how it runs on the latest 17" PB with HDD and VRAM upgrades...
     
  19. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #19
    You can buy a hardware sound card if you like. I suggest the M-Audio Revolution 7.1.
     
  20. aldo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Location:
    England, UK
    #20
    WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

    The reason games take so long is because there is SO much code that needs changed. It has to go from directX to openGL. It's a huge project.

    This is also why mac gaming sucks, and is going to get worse and worse. Games are getting more DirectX-ified every day and that means to port them takes more and more and more work for worse and worse results.

    I'm sure in the future we will see Mac gaming slowly die, like it is now. The userbase is there but the technology is not. Apple has never really supported game developers (unlike Microsoft - give them their due, they have added so many great things for game developers) like they should, and could have. It's all too late now, though.
     
  21. Coolvirus007 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    #21
    what? pc games like half-life and cs run way better on OpenGL.
     
  22. Timelessblur macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #22
    I might like to part of his problems is his graphic card. It a very poor graphic card for gaming. You need pretty much doulbe it mem up to 128. There is a notic diffence when you make that jump
     
  23. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #23
    WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!, as one would say it.

    We had a nice conversation on IMG with a few developers at porting companies about how much time is taken for ports and what takes the longest time, etc. Here's the conversation: http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16158

    In a nutshell, not that much time is taken for turning DirectX calls to OpenGL calls for most games. It's usually stomping bugs and making the game compatible across many systems that takes time.

    It's still not too late for Apple to push game developers. It still isn't really in their interest to push game developers anyway. Microsoft has a game studio, so of course it wants to push it hard and make it easy to develop a game. A-rate games don't sell that much in the Mac market. It's only in the tens of thousands. Not very high when it can sell a million on the PC. The Mac game market still has room to grow. Sales of games on the Mac are steadily rising, not dropping.

    The hardware is still not here at an affordable amount. You really want a G5 if you want to do any serious gaming on the Mac. You hear too many people complain about a game not working when their system is the minimum requirements. Well, duh, it's not going to play great.

    The Mac gaming market will die when the PC gaming market dies. PC games are not selling as well as they used to. Consoles own the gaming market.
     
  24. kuyu macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #24
    The whole mac gaming argument comes down to price. I great gaming mac is $2500. A great gaming pc is $1500.

    Mac's are better at EVERYTHING but games. It costs too much to get a good gaming mac, where a pc is affordable, even with new tech.

    I recommend both. A mac is your computer, email, web, word proc, photo, video, and audio rig. A pc is for games and viruses.

    I was going to buy a powerbook, but my emac 700 does everything I need a computer for except games. So there really isn't a reason for me to get a new mac. I'd take a decent pc running winblows + an HDTV over a G5.

    However, I'm a gamer (have all three consoles) and mac's aren't good for that. From the "gamer" perspective, it's great to have both. Play games on the pc, do everything else on a 2 year old mac.
     
  25. shortyjj macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    #25
    PB gamers unite

    I'm another new 12" owner who's interested to see how this game plays. Please post some numbers before I drop $50 and end up regretting it.

    (Even Neverwinter Nights, with low system reqs, can run REALLY slow)
     

Share This Page