Houston, WE HAVE FRAMERATES! (10.3.5)

Discussion in 'Games' started by MACDragan, Aug 9, 2004.

  1. MACDragan macrumors newbie

    MACDragan

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    #1
    I just downloaded 10.3.5 from Software Update and the UT2K4 Demo is actually playable! I only tried Deathmatch and kept it at the lowered settings from when I was trying to get it to run on 10.3.4. Very Promising! Just thought I'd share....I'm going back in!!



    12" 1.33 GHz Powerbook, 768MB RAM, 60 GB HD, GeForce FX Go5200, Bluetooth Mouse, yada, yada, yada...
     
  2. invaLPsion macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #2
    That's TERRIFIC! Those new drivers must have really helped... :)
     
  3. MACDragan thread starter macrumors newbie

    MACDragan

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    #3
    Onslaught wasn't so great, but better. At least its a step in the right direction :D
     
  4. ijimk macrumors 6502a

    ijimk

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    Here
    #4
    the retail version of Unreal 2004 runs perfect on my rig. Have not tried the demo on it tho. The game is just so good, just buy it.
     
  5. Capt Underpants macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #5
    If it didn't run perfectly on your rig, the rest of us would have no hope...
     
  6. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #6

    Little or no change here.

    Actually Halo benchmarked worse -_-
     
  7. neonart macrumors 65816

    neonart

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Near a Mac since 1993.
    #7
    That's pretty funny!

    But yeah, I'd like to see if I got any improvements too!? I'm way busy today and tomorrow- but will try Wed to gauge improvements on a G5. I'll check Halo, which is by far the crappiest running game in history. If this update helped- I'll see it there.
     
  8. BrianKonarsMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #8
    my 12" 1.33 now pumps out 30+ fps on my 17" LCD at 1280x1024 with AA turned on. in 10.3.4 it typically ran at closer to 20 fps, dipping into single digits even! Now it varies from 30 to 60, but never dips below 30, and averages 48-50 fps. Huge boost IMO. Even in windowed mode (about 1/4 of the 1280x1024 screen, set to large, or full iTunes window) I average 40 fps, this is great!

    The only game i play on my mac is W3 FT, and it runs far smoother IMO tho i don't know how to check FPS. I can play random 3v3 games, with all settings at High at 1280x1024 res, and the system doesn't choke in the midst of huge battles. 10.3.4 stuttered so much I was forced to drop all settings to low to get a bearable playing experience. Now I can crush my enemies in full visual glory! I'm currently ranked lvl 22 using random armies, with this new boost to my gaming performance, I am gunning for lvl 30 very soon.

    i now get better performance than on my 933 with a GeForce 4 MX :D (which is at it should be, although 4200rpm HD sucks).
     
  9. Littleodie914 macrumors 68000

    Littleodie914

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #9
    Woo Hoo!

    I can also report better gameplay... I've heard people saying that their Halo benchmarks dropped, but I don't own the game, so can't clarify anything in that depatment... I CAN, however, tell you that Rainbow Six, Warcraft 3, and Medal of Honor all run MUCH smoother than they did in any previous version of OS X. I don't have any numbers to prove it, but I can say that I've been playing those 3 games for a long time, and was getting quite familiar to slowdowns in certain areas, and general twitchyness... None is apparent now, however! Smooth as a baby's bottom :D (Though much more pixelated)
     
  10. TheGimp macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Location:
    anywhere, usa
    #10
    Battlefield 1942 is also much better on a dual 1.8/nvidia 5200
     
  11. angelneo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    afk
    #11
    Maybe they upgraded the driver that will scale back on the quality to mainten the speed?
     
  12. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #12

    So how exactly do you even know you're getting 48-50 FPS avg... when you have no way of checking that for sure...
     
  13. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    there is a console command to tell framerates in games
     
  14. FriarCrazy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Location:
    Ames, IA/Eden Prairie, MN
    #14
    I run UT2k4 maxed out (1024x768, full detail settings, no AA/AF) on my 12" rev C pb (specs in sig). I haven't tested it much in 10.3.4 vs 10.3.5, but I belive that the framrate is "smoother." I have the full version, so I can attest to the fact that UT2k4 is very playable on a PB. Anyhow, 10.3.5 didn't do much for my max framerates, but I do believe that it helped flatten out the bottem end of my FPS spikes. In Onslaught Torlan, I would bottom out at 12-13 FPS in HEAVY action, now its more like 13-15 FPS. That dosen't sound like much, but it goes down to those really low frame rates less frequently, and stays at a more smooth framrate (Dosent go from 13 to 25 to 13 to 25). I think this patch helped, I'm going to test it out more extensivly after work in UT2k4, Call of Duty and Warcraft III.
     
  15. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #15
    Wow how more wrong could you be. Evidently you don't play War3, because there is no console in it.
     
  16. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #16

    Seriously you do need to give an actual benchmark rather than just "eyeballing" it. I think half the accounts here are more placebo effects, seeing as how no one actually has timedemoes to prove their results... well other than me of course, and that's in another thread.
     
  17. FriarCrazy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Location:
    Ames, IA/Eden Prairie, MN
    #17
    Very true, however, I did not have time for actual benchmarks last night. I don't seem to have enough time for anything anymore, and I'm only 18! I can honestly say that the game looks smoother, but I'll try to get you some numbers later.
     
  18. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #18

    Thanks, I didn't bench it on mine before I updated yesterday. All I know is that I'm seeing a slight drop in FPS on Halo, see the 10.3.5 thread, as others are also noticing dips in performance. XBench also read in slower.
     
  19. pgc6000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    #19
    I updated and Halo ran fine for me. Well as fine as Halo can run, considering it can't run all that well no matter what. I'll test CoD and Age of Mythology next.
     
  20. dubbz macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #20
    He was probably talking about UT2K4 which have a console command for just that...

    And BrianKonarsMac 48-50 FPS average was for UT2K4, not WC3. As you said, he whould have had difficulties measuring FPS in WC3 :)
     
  21. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #21


    I find that VERY hard to believe... seeing as how I get that on my G5...
     
  22. pgc6000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    #22
    Tested Call of Duty. It ran fine, though seemed slightly slower. Maybe 3.5 affected CoD?
     
  23. PlatinumBlade macrumors member

    PlatinumBlade

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #23
    UT2K4 Results

    Well, I have timedemos. You can find them
    here: http://homepage.mac.com/rraborn/

    The only problem with the demos is that it doesn't display the framerate when you are using the STAT FPS command. Bummer. What I did was run UT on my PC and Mac using the same settings, or as nearly as I could. My PC is a 3.06 GHz P4 with 1GB of PC2700 memory and it has a Radeon 9700 Pro with 128MB of ram.

    The timedemos I have posted do differ in that the PC version is running at 1280X1024 where the Mac is running 1152X864. I didn't realize this until after I posted them. I did go back and change my Mac settings to 1280X1024 but I achieved nearly the same results so I didn't bother creating a new demo. The framerates varied on the PC from 25-60 but tended to hover around 28 to 30 sometimes spiking around 80. The Mac framerates varied from 40-80 usually staying around 60 and spiking at times to 120. I can't wait to see what the numbers will be when my 6800 arrives.
     
  24. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #24

    Err... the idea was to timedemo it against 10.3.4 to see if there were any improvements/reductions... but thanks anyways.
     
  25. PlatinumBlade macrumors member

    PlatinumBlade

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #25
    Timedemos

    I guess I missed that detail. I can say though that it is a marked improvement over 10.3.4. The thing that really bothered me though was that it didn't record the framerate when doing a timedemo. That strikes me as really stupid considering that one of the reasons to do a timedemo is to establish a performance record.

    Since I can't really show the actual framerates like I wanted I will say that 10.3.5 gave me about 10 fps more with UT. It isn't a great improvement but it is better than nothing.
     

Share This Page