Mac G5 Gaming

Discussion in 'Games' started by The Dreaming, Feb 1, 2004.

  1. The Dreaming macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, USA
    #1
    Hi everyone, I am hoping some of you have G5's out there. Can some people tell me how smoothly complex games run on them? Please list configuration and type of graphics card. I have a G4 SP 867MHz with an ATI Radeon 9800 128MB graphics card. Halo runs okay with the lowest possible settings, but lags like an old lady in a roller rink when I turn everything on. The demo for UT2003 runs a bit better than Halo.

    I'd like to upgrade to a G5 DP 2.0 with the Radeon 9800 8X... So can anyone tell me how much of a performance leap I will be making? Will it just be incremental, or will it be a huge difference?
     
  2. unixkid macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2004
    #2
  3. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #3
  4. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    Halo is not a good bench mark since it is such poor poor job of coding and porting and is loaded with faults and bugs galore. should never have been released with so much wrong( shame on you MacSoft) I would use other games for benches such as UT 2003 or Jedi Knight II or RTCW. Also remember those G5 benches are running games in G4 mode. wait until we start seeing G5 optimized games such as UT2004 then you will realize how obsolete G4 is becoming. G5 will be a Gigantic Leap as stuff comes out for it.
     
  5. The Dreaming thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, USA
  6. LoadRunner macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Location:
    Manhaton Beach California
    #6
    I have a dual 500 MHz g4 with one 512 sim of ram, and a geforce 4 ti with 128 built in ram. With no sound card. I am running on a 17" screen. I get a decent fps in all q3a based games such as jedi knight, wolfinstine. I play q3a constantly with a very tweaked config, but I time demo at 245 fps. It's been a while but with every thing maxed at a reasonable resolution I think I get about 80 fps.

    Mean while a g5 owner with a gig of ram can break 500 fps, and with all the eye candy at a maxed resolution g5 owner can get almost 200 fps.

    [q3a the only game with any optimization for the g5 available to the public]
     
  7. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #7
    The PC version of Halo is just as bad, people with high end systems are having problems running it with all the settings on max.
     
  8. bonk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    #8
    got a 2x2 G5 with 2.5gigs of ram, and the 9800 card on a 23" cinema display. so far I've played UT2K3, warcraft 3, and halo on it. halo plays really crappy, but a) I only just installed it recently and have not monkeyed with it too much yet, and b) it sounds like I'm not alone. UT and WC are nothing short of breathtaking. I dont have exact framerates on either, but both play at at least 60fps (if not much faster - never noticed any - ANY - lag or choppiness) at 1900x1200 (full screen on the 23) with EVERYTHING maxed out. it's a near-religious experience.
     
  9. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #9
    halo being slow is not macsofts fault. it's the fault of whoever ported it over to pc. i've read that the mac code is much more optimized than the pc code cause macsoft spent extra time making it that way. i think macsoft did the best job they could and did a great job with what they were given.
     
  10. spencecb macrumors 6502a

    spencecb

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    #10
    I was just wondering what the optimal configuration is for the G5. I'm planning on getting one as soon as the Rev B line comes out. Hopefully, the middle of the lineup will be a dual 2.4. If so, what graphics card should I get? And, do I need 1 gig of ram, or is 512mb enough? Some insight would be great. Oh, I don't know if this makes a difference, but I would be getting the 20" Cinema Display.
     
  11. Veldek macrumors 68000

    Veldek

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #11
    It really depends on what you're planning to do. For everyday use 512MB will probably be enough, but then, you wouldn't buy a G5 for everyday use, would you? So I would recommend getting 1.5GB RAM, because all tests I have read implied that more doesn't give a big boost. If you are in video editing, though, I think you should max out your Power Mac, but then again, you would already know the answer...
     
  12. LoadRunner macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Location:
    Manhaton Beach California
    #12
    I'd be interested in how Microsoft who make the window os, would not be able to maximize performance of their game. The game was originally for their portable system. Both OS are made by Microsoft. Each use similar technology developer by Microsoft.

    The xbox is a 733 MHz pc with a modified geforce 4, and 64 MB DDR memory. People complain about performance on a 4.3 GHTz pc with 1 gig of ram, and a NVIDIA Quadro NVS.

    Mean while on the mac halo has problems with fsaa on any card, a commonly used process to increase performance. The halo nvidea shader doesn't work. It's full of glitches. What really bothers me is in multi player I can see shots fired behind walls through the wall. This tells me the game not properly detecting what surfaces are not visible, because it's rendering object that are not visible.
     
  13. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #13
    but the game was ported to the xbox from Mac OS, then ported to PC, then back to Mac OS... that's a crap load of porting.
     
  14. LoadRunner macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Location:
    Manhaton Beach California
    #14
    I don't know if it was really ported from os 9 to xbox. If you can find the old apple demo shown at mac world it is nothing like the xbox version. I'm pretty sure they built a hole new app from the ground up. I forgot when or where I read this, but I'm pretty sure bungle mention this in an interview.
     
  15. oingoboingo macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #15
    People should also bear in mind that the Xbox runs games at television resolutions, that is, something close to 640x480. Very few PC or Mac players will be playing at resolutions this low. That's why the Xbox can pull off acceptable frame rates for complex games using 2 or 3 year old video technology and even older CPU technology. Run your desktop system at 640x480 and see how fast everything runs. An Xbox will choke playing Halo at 1024x768 or 1600x1200 as well.
     
  16. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #16
    Re: Mac G5 Gaming

    It's interesting you're having problems with Halo. Westlake showed a development version of Halo on a 867 MHz G4 and ATI Radeon 9800 on MacGamer.com. They seemed to have no trouble running it. Do some more tweaking. Lower the resolution and definitely lower the lens flare quality. You should definitely be able to achieve a steady 30 FPS with mostly high settings minus lens flare and resolution. Try turning down FSAA as well.

    But yes, even high-end PCs suffer frame rate drops, so don't be surprised, too much.
     
  17. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #17
    yeah i'll 2nd that on Halo's poor performance.

    My friend used his 3.2P4 with 5900Ultra in it, and it was only "adequate" (40-50fps @ 1280 x 1024)

    Two high end components got only "ok" fps tells me something is wrong, so don't get bogged down with the Mac port. Direct PC to Mac ports will have far better performance.

    I personally could not even get the game to install right, but that may be something more to do with my 8500 than anything else.
     

Share This Page