Quake 4 on 2 different CoreDuo Macs

Discussion in 'Games' started by JohnStrass, Jul 2, 2006.

  1. JohnStrass macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Miami, USA
    #1
    I recently bought two systems:
    iMac Core Duo BTO 2.0/2 gig RAM /256 VRAM upgrade
    MacBook (white) core duo 2.0/1 gig RAM

    Playing Quake 4 (with the 1.2 intel update) on the iMac is great: I can use all maxed-out settings (except ultra resolution). On the MacBook, I can only use it on the lowest posible settings, or it is really not playable.

    Why do I post this? Because there was a very nebulous answer about how important the video cards are. Some commented that the integrated video in the Intel chip (Macbook) is not as bad as others describe. Simply put, it sucks for gaming.

    I got the maxed-out iMac for HD-video editing from my new sony HD camera, so it was nice to be able to game on that one.
     
  2. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #2
    1) Stop being such a spammer. We've already had this discussion many times. No more, please
    2) You aren't exactly fair with the tests, though. The iMac has twice the RAM. And how is the MB's RAM arranged? A single 1GB stick or a pair of 512s?
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    Integrated graphics are what they are, cheapo,almost free graphic chips that are fine for email and surfing but for modern games they just dont cut the mustard. Beware of any machine that totes these. Funny how the fan boys labels your post as spam when its just a real world test by someone here at rumors saying what he found. Integrated sucks.:D
     
  4. JohnStrass thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Miami, USA
    #4
    I think you might look up the definition of SPAM. Posting on two message threads (gaming and Intel chip discussion) is not SPAM. It might be baloney, I will give you that.

    Of course these are two very diffent machines. They are, however two consumer-available devices which a shopper might purchese. Although I am a scientist, I did not try to do a Macworld type of review.
    When i was shopping, I read lots of generalities about ths integrateed chip being"not as good for 3D graphics..." This is too nebulous. I wanted to know if it woudl be acceptable for HD video editing in iMovie and for playing an off-the-shelf FPS game.

    I just hoped to share the real-world reality that a 2006 high-end MacBook is not capable of letting a user play a Universisal version of a 2006 FPS game. IMHO, this is a big mistake for Apple. College kids want to play games and this machine can't do it.

    Beware, because I will at some time post my comments of HD video editing on both mahines...sorry to jam-up this forum
    :(
     
  5. BlizzardBomb macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #5
    Going from 1GB to 2GB will hardly change the results, and it doesn't really matter that much in the real-world whether it is a single or dual sticks.

    Agreed!
     
  6. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #6
    I'm labeling it as spam, not because of my love of integrated graphics, but because (as said in my first post), we've had this discussion so damn many times! We know it sucks. We know it's not as good as dedicated. We don't need to be told over and over
     
  7. JohnStrass thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Miami, USA
    #7

    "not as good as dedicated" is obvious. However, it is not helpful to someone making a purchasing decision.
    Can it play kids games? Scrollers? Can you edit non-HD well? HD-DVD? Can you play a FPS game? Which ones?
    Post some real-world experience and contribute, general statements are not helpful. Of course a $2200 desktop will be BETTER game mchine than a $1400 portable.
     
  8. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #8
    I disagree. Quake 4 is an EXTREMELY high end game. You refer to it as an 'off-the-shelf' FPS- but this game is designed to run on the XBox 360 and ultra high end gaming rigs. It's not your average game in terms of system requirements.

    Fact is that the MacBook is capable of playing any game on the market- the ultra high end games must run at the lowest settings, and the common games can run at higher settings. Fine for a casual gamer, but not if you're trying to run XBox 360 -level games.


    Star Wars Battlefront, for example, will probably run at fairly high settings.
     
  9. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #9
    My macbook runs Halo fine, medium settings. 1280x800 medium model detail, medium lens flare, meduim pretty much everywhere else. Halo isnt 2006, but then again, why would anyone try to play a game from 2006 in OS X on integrated graphics(i bet it runs fine in XP)? Oh, the machine can play games(in OS X), just not games that are so amazingly graphics intensive, mine runs Medal of Honor ok, if COD goes universal that should be great, it runs civilization III fine, so saying that college "kids" want to play games and they can't isnt true, not to the slightest. I am a college "kid" and honestly, I don't really have a whole heck of alot of time for games, I didn't even in high school, besides, if I want to play games I'll buy an Xbox 360, the graphics kill most any computer out there, and the cost, about $600 with games.
     
  10. JohnStrass thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Miami, USA
    #10
    Just post the facts

    Of course XBox is better than an MacBook for gaming. It would be just MORE HELPFUL to have more people posting their own real-world EXPERIENCE with a specific mahine and a SPECIFIC piece of software (including games), rathen than a seires of people ranting that it should be obvious that in generial the MacBook is slower than another (more expensive) machine.

    The post above about Halo is great, because that is a good reference game and the poster added specific settings. You can get the gestalt of the machine better this way.
     
  11. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #11
    It matters a lot. Dual Channel means the RAM runs a lot faster with a lot lower latency. Big difference
     
  12. BlizzardBomb macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #12
    Really? http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html

    In 6 out of 7 tests, the difference is minute. In some tests 1GB + 256MB beats dual 512MB.
     
  13. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #13
    * Eh, well. I only know the theory, which says that it should be a lot faster
     
  14. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #14
    What I Really Want To Know..

    At the end of the day you bought Quake 4.

    Probably one of the wors FPS there is.

    Single Player is entirely tedious and multiplayer is worse than Quake 3 and that's how old at this stage.....

    Seriously this game sucks regardless of what format you play it on.....
     
  15. JohnStrass thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Miami, USA
    #15
    I agree

    I now agree, having played it for a few days. good eye candy. I have the same 2 machines as you. What FPS do you recommend? Loved halo, doom3 was just OK.
     
  16. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #16
    To be honest there isnt a great deal of games for mac that I would rush out and buy.

    I like my FPS too, but PC & console is where they are at.

    F.E.A.R PC
    Condemned 360
    G.R.A.W 360

    only game I can think of is COD2 on the mac.

    You could give the demo a try and see how it does on your hardware. I tried downloading the demo via it's torrent but it was like it was on dialup, so I gave in.... (I have it on 360 anyway :rolleyes: )
     
  17. mishi macrumors regular

    mishi

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #17
    lol @ console fps

    console FPS is a joke. they are ok when you are 12 years old, but computer fps > console fps any day of the week
     
  18. vbetts macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    #18
    What the hell are you talking about?The Macbook I could understand it not being able to run Quake 4, because it's powered by the Media acclerator 950, but the Macbook PRO is powered by the RadeonX1600, which is one of the best you could get for a Mac.The Intel based Imac has the same Radeonx1600 in it.If you were running Quake 4 on the G5 Imac, I'd have to call total ******** because the Imac G5 runs the X600, which is souly based off of the Radeon 9600.Just faster clocked speeds.
     

Share This Page