How do you view Unreal tournament 2004 frame rates?

Discussion in 'Games' started by Koree, Sep 9, 2004.

  1. Koree macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #1
    Well? :)

    Just wondering, after reading that post about whether mac gamers have lower standards in game performance, i just wanted to see how my G5 fares.

    Thanks in advance!

    Koree
     
  2. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #2
    I believe hit tilde, then type "stat fps" (no quotes).
     
  3. AppleMatt macrumors 68000

    AppleMatt

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Remember Mac OS X UT2004 render default = OpenGL
    Windows UT2004 render default = D3D.

    D3D performs a lot better than OpenGL, so to make it fair benchmark your Windows PC with OpenGL set as the renderer in the .ini files.

    AppleMatt
     
  4. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #4
    actually, to make it fair, you should develop DX for OS X, because it's better now than openGL is.
     
  5. Converted2Truth macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #5
    I say that it's always fair to compare the best of each system. Mac with OGL vs PC with Direct API's is totally acceptable. Now if apple wants to truely compete they need to write the following interfaces:
    DirectX for the mac
    DirectPlay for the mac
    DirectSound for the mac
    DirectAudio for the mac
    DirectInput for the mac
    and i may have got the name's wrong, but whatever.
     
  6. Aaon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    #6
    I think comparing OpenGL to Directx stats is perfectly acceptable. I mean, thats the real life comparison, and the one that matters to people. Its truly the wayt o compare the game performance on a Mac versus that on a PC.

    Aaron
     
  7. Darwin macrumors 65816

    Darwin

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Location:
    round the corner
    #7
    On my PC when I changed the render to OpenGL I actually noticed that I got more fps outta my hardware, of course there are a few little things that I looked better on D3D but still :)

    I'm sure they might consider if they were allowed access to the code :rolleyes:
     
  8. Converted2Truth macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #8
    That's the thing i don't understand. They don't need the code, they just need to hire competent staff. Re-write OpenGL but start at the hardware level and move up.. optimizing as you go. That's exactly what Microsoft did with DirectX. They know the Windows OS so well that they know all the shortcuts. Apple SHOULD know the OS well enough to write their own foundation (not OpenGL) that's optimized for the hardware.... Apple is just lazy and doesn't see that the initial investment would pay off exponentially. If apple wasn't using OpenGL as the ONLY framework for 2-d&3d, they'd make gamers happy. And since Quartz/Quartz Extreme relies on OpenGL, it's slooooow. That's why scrolling a browser takes so much CPU time on a mac... it's using openGL. PC's have amazing 2-d redraw... and it's because they didn't take the short way out... they put in the effort and wrote directX. Writing their own code would improve every aspect of the Mac OS and the applications written for it.
     
  9. Darwin macrumors 65816

    Darwin

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Location:
    round the corner
    #9
    It might be an idea but wasn't this done before with something called QuickDraw? part of QuickTime I think but obviously it was dropped completely in OS X for OpenGL
     
  10. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #10
    actually, what would make more sense would be if apple took OpenGL and translated it at the most basic level, to the DX language...sorta the way porters do it for DX-only games that come to Mac...but do it really, really well. If you use the same calls and the same "thinking" that MS has developed for DX, then the translation of a game that is 3d-reliant to OS X would be a MUCH easier task, and would probably remove some of the discouragement that many companies feel when then consider an OS X version of their games. It's just not worth it for small companies, and it isn't a big enough market for big companies that could afford the translation. MS is creating what is essentially a unified DirectX for PC and xbox, and you'd think that if apple wanted in on it they could easily do so...It's not like MS didn't bail them out back in the day...it may have been politically motivated, but without MS's support in the 90s, apple wouldn't exist today...
     
  11. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #11
    I don't quite know about a UT2K4 with DX on the PC vs. UT2K4 with OpenGL on the Mac is quite fair. Only because, if I remember correctly, there is an OpenGL renderer for the PC version. For a fair test, you should be comparing the PC version of UT2K4 with the OpenGL and DirectX renderers.

    Anyways, people will argue that OpenGL and DirectX are still equals in features and speed. It's really the coder's opinion on which one is better. I'm sorta convinced DirectX is speedier than OpenGL, but OpenGL has been looking prettier (compare Half Life 2 to Doom 3), in my opinion.

    Technically, Apple has written its own API for graphics. You've got Quartz, QuickTime, and now CoreImage and CoreVideo. Not quite 3D renderers, but I don't think Apple is too far off from making their own API. However, it doesn't seem like Apple is interested. After all, both OpenGL and DirectX were originally developed so that researchers and CAD people (among others) had a way to utilize 3D graphics in their programs. Like I've said many times before, Apple is not interested in the game industry enough to take larger actions. And the amount of complaints about games is quite small. It's mostly here, some at MacGamer, and some at IMG.
     
  12. cc bcc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Location:
    nl
    #12
    My pc (2.8 P4 and GeForce 4 4200) at the office greatly outperformes my G5 1.8 Radeon 9800pro in UT2004. Framerates are much better on the pc despite the weaker GPU, and snappyness is also much better on the pc.
    Remember that it's only one person who's working on both the mac and linux versions!
    Performance on the mac could be far better, but it's not just about how well Apple implemented OpenGL into OS X. Graphics card drivers are important as well, and so are software optimisations. The first mac update for UT2004 doubled the framerates on single CPU macs. I bet there's a lot more that could be done, but not for just one lonely programmer.
    Now that I have worked with Apple Motion I don't believe that Apple has poorly optimized it's OpenGL.
    Apple could make the mac great at games if they could make a deal with Microsoft. The next XBOX is going to run on PPC 970's. Microsoft is sending out Powermac G5's to game developers to make games for the XBOX2.
    Microsoft could then sell an fast OS (they are using a modified NT kernel, specifically targetted at game performance) and also games to mac owners. Not a bad idea, since they loose money on each XBOX the sell.
     
  13. bnemesis macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    #13
    Back when I was an avid BeOS user, one of the more exciting things to happen before Be went down the tubes was the announcement that the company Realtech-VR was re-creating the Direct X 8 api for BeOS. They had some demos of what they accompished, and all looked good... until Be found out that the market for internet appliances was vastly overestimated.

    Anyway, I dont see a reason why someone couldnt create a Direct X 9 wrapper for OS X.

    Realtech-VR seems to have died. Here is the only link I could find:
    http://www.begroovy.com/archives/000334.html
     
  14. bux macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    Sweden
    #14
    I agree with the people who think Direct X is "better" then OpenGL on one point... that is that Direct X is not only used for graphics and OpenGL is ONLY for graphics.

    But if the people think that Direct 3D is faster and better than OpenGL, think again.
    And don't say that OpenGL lacks features because that's not true anymore, OpenGL 1.5 introduced OpenGL Shading Language and now OpenGL 2.0 is released (http://www.opengl.org/documentation/opengl_current_version.html).
    Although I'm not sure of which version of OpenGL Mac OS X has (haven't gotten my PM yet). But I guess it will be updated in Tiger atleast.

    One last thing, if you compare a game in OpenGL and Direct 3D you will ofcourse get diffrent results because the game was probably primarly developed for one of those APIs. And don't forget that ATI always have been better in Direct 3D and nVidia in OpenGL.

    EDIT: Sorry for going offtopic
     
  15. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #15
    I feel sorry for you. You're so misinformed and don't have enough of an understanding of the way OS X and the hardware works to make those broad sweeping statements that you just made, so in the processes of attempting it, you made a fool of yourself.
     
  16. CannonFodder macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    #16
    Yes, lets create a whole 'nother non-standard proprietary rendering format so that developers of hardward and software can think for a brief second before dropping all Mac support.

    OpenGL is a world accepted standard (except in the MS world).

    Firstly, Apple would be out of it's mind to think about creating such a beast at this point (it's been done, as was mentioned, and dropped for something better)

    DirectX is NOT the end all, be all...
     
  17. kilpajr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    #17
    First of all, I don't think it would be smart for apple to develop their own 2d/3d standard. The investment in time and money for both apple and application writers to develop and support this standard would be enormous. So, where is the benefit? Is it worth all of this just for gaming speed? Unless apple obtains a huge increase in market share, it is not feasible for them to do this. I don't believe there would be an exponential payoff for this development.

    Also, I don't see any problems with scrolling speed. Have you considered the fact that apple has optimized their GUI to take advantage of the GPU? Apple has added many features such as shadows and other effects that Windows does not have. These features place a demand on hardware. Windows can only have a speed advantage, primarily, because it does not have these features.

    I don't think he is misinformed. If you are going to call him a fool, show some evidence that he doesn't know what he is talking about. I disagree with his points but I don't believe he is a fool.
     
  18. kilpajr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    #18
    This is really shocking! I can't imagine that a 1.8GHz G5 would be the bottleneck in UT2004. It would be interesting to see what kind of performance increase there would be if you overclocked your video card. If your statement is true, I don't think you would get much of an increase in performance in overclocking. BTW, how much RAM is in each of the machines you mentioned?
     
  19. echeck macrumors 68000

    echeck

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    #19
    :D w00t! :D

    My 1ghz G4 iBook with an astounding 32 megs of video memory averages 7 frames per second!! :rolleyes:

    Good thing I didn't buy this puppy for gaming. My PC's gotta be good for somethin. ;)
     
  20. Converted2Truth macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #20
    The current OS doesn't take advantage of the GPU... it's only using software rendering. They wil however do this in Tiger. But it will be done through OpenGL and everything underneath it's framework. You say OPTIMIZED. You've got that wrong. you should say IMPLEMENTED, because all they've done is implement 3d rendering into the os through the same pathways that all the games take. If it were 'optimized', they'd use thier own 2d/3d code.
    I agree that windows is faster because they lack these features in most applications. I'd like to point out that there are programs like trillion (that universal chat client? i think i spelled this wrong) that implement transparency/shading/etc. But that's not the only reason it's faster. It's faster because thy use their own 2d/3d code (DirectX). which is more efficient in every facet. You're saying this wouldn't be exponentially benificial? well, you could be right... initially. But if apple wants to gain market share, if they want more games, if they want more programs, if they want more anything, this would help the cause. Eventually, it would help apple seem like an excellent alternative to windows. Right now, it can only be viewed as such without respect to graphics performance in 3-d (i.e., gaming).
     
  21. AppleMatt macrumors 68000

    AppleMatt

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Well then you'll love Tiger, it doubles scrolling speed (disabled in the current builds).

    I agree Apple should stick with OpenGL, they will though so it's a moot point :)

    AppleMatt
     
  22. kilpajr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    #22
    I saw this at www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme :
    "While other operating systems hope to introduce comparable technology in late 2004, Panther has it now. Quartz Extreme uses a supported graphics card built into your Mac to relieve the main PowerPC chip of on screen calculations. This dramatically improves system performance, making Panther much more responsive."

    This certainly looks to me like it is taking advantage of the GPU.
     
  23. ijimk macrumors 6502a

    ijimk

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    Here
    #23
    I get 43-45 FPS on my machine in my signature. :)
     
  24. Converted2Truth macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #24
    Ok, you've right. But this process is still slow. Read off to the side and you'll see, "Here’s how it works Quartz uses the integrated OpenGL technology to convert each window into a texture, then sends it to the graphics card to render on screen."
    So, OpenGL is the hangup. It will always be the hangup, until Apple writes a better graphics package(that's faster of course) specifically for Apple hardware. If they did that, then we'd have the equiv of directX for the mac. Which would pay off in the long run. Currently, Quartz Extreme is using OpenGL for EVERYTHING, and that's not the best... no matter whats rendering it (software or hardware).
     
  25. kilpajr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    #25
    I admit that OpenGL is not as fast as a graphics renderer designed by Apple would be. However, wouldn't this require every application designed for the Mac to be rewritten to take advantage of it? Even new/updated software would require more time to develop since OpenGL is already established and programmers already know how to use it. Maybe Apple is considering their own graphics renderer for OS 11 whenever that might come out, but I don't think they would release it for an already established version of the OS.
     

Share This Page