Will World of Warcraft eat an eMac alive?

Discussion in 'Games' started by TheSoap, Jan 13, 2005.

  1. TheSoap macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    #1
    I have an eMac (the new kind, 1.2ghz, 512 mb ram, ATI 9200) and I'm wondering if World of Warcraft could even conceivably run on that machine. It meets all the recommended system specs, but I've been hearing a lot of things that make me think Macs and Warcraft don't get along so well. Opinions? Is it worth buying the game? Thanks.
     
  2. x86isslow macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    check out the thread about overclocking your eMac. you can take your beast up to 2 Ghz.

    I have the older 133bus 1 Ghz eMac, and Warcraft 3 ran splendidly on it, so you have a chance with WoW on your eMac, though, you may need to turn down detailing and rez a bit.
     
  3. Converted2Truth macrumors 6502a

    Converted2Truth

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Hell@HighAltitude
    #3
    You will be able to run it. Playing it is an entirely different story.
     
  4. TheSoap thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    #4
    Thanks. I can't find the thread you mean. I've seen some things about overclocking an eMac around the web, but it's all about the old 800Mhz version. I'm no expert, don't know if it would work the same. It's still under warranty, so I'm a little hesitant to go poking around in it just yet.
     
  5. AoWolf macrumors 6502a

    AoWolf

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Daytona Beach
    #5
    Yes you will be able to run it just turn every thing down all the way. I play it on a 1ghz iBook need more be said...

    P.S. Play on mannaroth alliance and whisper me(ari)me and I will give some money.
     
  6. Jigglelicious macrumors 6502

    Jigglelicious

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #6
    Uhh, what planet are you living on? A 2GHz G4? Have any proof of that? Running STABLE for any extended period of time?

    Anyway, I DID overclock my 800mhz eMac to 1.4GHz. The game doesn't run all that well though. Averages around 10-15fps outdoors, ~30 indoors. Its playable, but the clipping plane has to be turned all the way down, so its not all that pretty. Warcraft 3 and WoW performance are in a completely different ballpark. Oh yeah, i'd also HIGHLY recommend 1GB of RAM, or at least 768.

    It'll run on an eMac, and be playable. But it all depends on how low a FPS you can tolerate and call enjoyable.
     
  7. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #7
    *snicker* "spendidly" *snicker*

    ROFL
     
  8. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #8
    Um... you know that he's talking about warcraft 3 and not WoW, right? As in, warcraft 3 that is 3.5 years old? My brother has been playing that on the same machine (1Ghz emac) for over a year and it runs flawlessly.

    As for the original poster, yes, the emac will play it but not all that well. It does meet minimum specs, but that 32MB video card will be a problem. Also, RAM is WoW's friend. My SP 1.8 Ghz G5 with radeon 9600 Pro sometimes had problems when I had 512 RAM, but after upping to 1.5 GB (thank you santa :) ) it runs extremely well.
     
  9. JasonL macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Location:
    Ware, MA
    #9
    I'd be interested in peoples' experiences with WoW on eMacs, iBooks, etc, as I'll probably be buying a Mac mini (1.42GHz, 512MB RAM) as a second computer, for the kids...of course.

    Right now I'm playing WoW on my PB, which is generally acceptable. The consistent exception being Ironforge, particularly during busy hours.

    I wonder how much of a performance difference there would be between my PB (1.25GHz, 1GB RAM, Rad9600m 64MB) and the Mac mini I'm looking at getting.

    Oh, and if anyone is on Doomhammer I'm Arandor (lev 38 dwarven priest).
     
  10. x86isslow macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    to the thread starter: the emac overclock thread

    i was referring to the miracle-mac that was referred to in the overclock thread. going back, it turns out that the 2 ghz i was thinking of was later clocked back down. :rolleyes:
     
  11. rasp macrumors regular

    rasp

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Location:
    Easthampton, MA
    #11
    Not at all sure about on that machine, it plays acceptably on my PB 1.5 (about 25fps avg), but it very well could eat your life.
     
  12. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #12
    Runs like ass on my PB! gg
     
  13. white1827 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    #13
    I bought a new iBook this week (1.33g4, 768 ram) and it runs wow acceptably with all options turned down. I was quite impressed honestly. There is barely any stuttering on griffin rides. It runs better on this machine than on my roommates new Vaio (3.0 gig p4, Radeon IGP, 512Ram).
     
  14. JasonL macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Location:
    Ware, MA
    #14
    Thanks for the input. It is starting to make my decision easier :)
     
  15. TheSoap thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    #15
    Thanks for the advice, everybody. I think I'll try it out.

    It's amazing how fast these forums get responses...
     
  16. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #16
    and that, honestly, is the crux of the issue.

    overclocking an emac to 2.0 ghz, even if it was stable, wouldn't help you out much at all with games, especially not newer ones like WOW. Why? because the primary bottleneck with WOW is one of two things, depending on your system:

    1.) RAM: less than 512 MB of RAM when playing WOW in OS X will be a big slow down no matter what your other specs are. That's just reality. You need more than 256mb if you want the game to run well.

    2.) GPU: The eMac and the iMacs and the iBooks and most (except the newest) PowerBooks all have graphics cards that will struggle with WOW quite a bit. They may run, and even be playable, but not at decent resolutions, and not with the visuals set as the game was meant to be played. Even dual 1.8 G5 will choke on it if they are using the 5200...it will be much better than say, a G4 iMac (or probably a MacMini, also), but it won't even look like the same game as mid-level PC players are seeing.

    Basically, to see how WoW will run on an eMac, someone needs to take WC3 and bump the resolution ALL the way up, and turn on every single graphical feature. A mid-range PC from 2 years ago will do that game at 1600x1200x4xFSAA with all detail settings maxed out...and it will stay above 60fps most of the time. The same system will run WOW at 1280x1024 with no FSAA and all details turned up at perfectly good framerates of 30-50fps, with spikes way up towards 100.

    Different people have different expectations, but for me, less than 1024x768 with nearly every detail option turned "on" isn't worth it, because you can't see the game as it is meant to be seen.

    Then again, since I've gotten my 6600 GT, I haven't had to worry about ANY settings. I can just pretty much turn them all on and raise the resolution until I can't see individual pixels anymore, and then play away.

    To me, THAT is worth dealing with stupid Windows and MS and all of it.
     
  17. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #17
    I had the same powerbook as you until I traded it for my current machine. I had 256 more RAM but that's it. It ran completely smooth, no problems at all. Not sure what is wrong with your machine, but it's definitely something because that computer should be able to handle war3 without blinking. Hell, my other brother's 700 mhz imac G4 with 32MB geforce2 (or some card similar to that) can run it acceptably well. Do you have all the settings maxed or something? Running folding@home at the same time? Terrible internet connection?
    'Cause that is an old game and I have many, many examples of it running acceptably or better on hardware as old or older than yours.
     
  18. JLaFrance macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    #18

    I play it on my eMac 1GHz, 768. I think its COMPLELTY playable. I love it.
     
  19. white1827 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    #19
    Actually, I have a KVM for using my iBook at my desk. I was able to compare how it looked on my mid level 2 year old PC setup (P4 2.4ghz, 1g Ram, Radeon 9700 Pro) @ 1024X768 (All options at max = 45-60fps) with my iBook (same resolution, all other options at lowest = 15-30fps ) using the same monitor. The only difference was FPS. The other options had minimal effect on the quality of the picture.

    Considering that my ibook is just about the lowest end of the performance spectrum for apple computers at the moment, that's quite impressive.
     
  20. robo74 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Near Chicago
    #20
    I let me cousin inlaw have the 10-Day free trial that came with my WOW game.
    We installed it on his 1.25 emac with 768 Ram.
    I was really impressed on how it ran. At some points he gets nearly 60FPS. now his settings are not jacked up all the way, but they are not on the lowest either. He is very happy with it and I was really impressed on how it ran. Needless to say, he went and purchased it and has quit the EQ life for now.

    So if you have a newer eMac, I think it will run just fine.


    Rob
     
  21. Yvan256 macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #21
    Newer eMac = exact same specs as Mac mini, as far as I can tell...

    Problem is, I need to sell my main PC to afford the Mac mini (and while I'm at it, I'll get the 1.42/80GB one with superdrive). I'll probably stay with the stock 256MB though (to save money), and get a 1GB in a few months.

    I do wonder what the game looks like with the radeon 9200... I'm looking to get at least 20-25 FPS for such a game.

    Can anyone with an iBook/eMac/Mac mini post some screenshots? One with a lake and snow in it (I want to see if there's surface reflexion).
     
  22. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #22
    Warcraft 3 runs very well on my G4. I turned everything all the way up on 1600x1200 with no slowdowns at all.

    However, WoW is in a totally different league. Even if I put a CPU upgrade in my tower I would have to fiddle around with settings to make it playable. Still, I think that with a 1.4 GHz or faster CPU it would be possible to get decent framerates most of the time - as long as you have a Radeon 9600 Pro (like me), 9700, 9800, or better.

    The eMac (and Mac mini) has a Radeon 9200, which will hobble WoW performance more than the CPU. It all depends on what framerates are "playable" for you. Some people might find the eMac/Mac mini acceptable at WoW, more demanding "gamers" will scoff.
     
  23. Mantat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Montréal (Canada)
    #23
    Sorry but you are totaly wrong... I have a 5200 and the game play well and my detail level are all at above medium. The only moment where I have problem are when I am in IF or in huge PvP figths and they arent as much related to 'visual lag' to network lag. So obviously, you are making a judgement on something you havent tested...

    WoW isnt GPU dependant much, it need way more CPU than GPU and its a well documented fact... At least until you are in a PvP area with 80 people running around...

    Also, using WC3 to do any comparison is useless, they dont use the same engine. Also, playing with detail level isnt relevant because most of the graphical option can be added at no cost if the video card allow them. If the card doesnt, it is a huge punch in performance. Its kind of a all or nothing choice.

    Finaly, the thing that people dont understand about WoW, is that you dont need 60FPS to have fun! Hell, I would play it with 15fps without any problem! Since you can shoot throu wall, tree, etc.. So dodging is impossible hence the reason FPS arent very important.

    To answer the first poster... Well, I think it will be playable as long as you dont do PvP and have patience when going in IF and other big area... As stated by previous poster, a lot of ram really goes a long way to help you. So basicaly, for WoW, the performance factors (in order) are:
    CPU, RAM, video card, internet connection, HD.

    So eMac and minis should be 'fine' for light WoWing.

    BTW, dont play alliance, too many people are alliance (3 vs 1) so all the alliance zones are over populated and the tradeskill market is all screwed up. Things run much better for horde in the medium and long run...
     
  24. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #24
    I agree that the 5200 isn't hopless for WoW, but remeber that you have a G5 with a big fat FSB and slightly higher clock; that FSB makes a HUGE dufference in performance.

    The Powerbooks with 5200s will perform significantly worse than the G5 towers or iMacs (even at the same clock speed) because of their 167Mhz bus, so despite the similar video cards you will see big performance differences.

    The 5200 should be adaquate for WoW in a G5 but you should see a large improvement in performace at higher resolutions with one of the newer GPUs.
     
  25. Mantat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Montréal (Canada)
    #25
    I agree that a 5200 on anything other than a G5 would have reduced performance.

    But I think people talk too much about the visual aspect of gaming, sorry but no prety image will make a good game. Having fun while gaming is related to the 'fun factor' and it has nothing to do with FPS and resolution, it more about the right mixt of game balance, mood, strategy and player interaction.

    Seeing someone say that playing below X resolution isnt playing as the game was intented kinda frustrate me because graphics have nothing to do with it. Think about your best gaming souvenirs. Are they when you stoped for 5mins to contemplate the normal map of an alien demon or when you were trying to last minute sprints to disable the bomb in CT ? Games need to challenge you, not please your eyes.

    Of course, if it challenge me and has nice graphic its even better. But only marginaly, content is way more important...

    I just wished developpers would realize this!
     

Share This Page