World of Warcraft on a 12" PB 1.33ghz

Discussion in 'Games' started by kelvinz, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. kelvinz macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    #1
    Anyone played it on their rev c 12" powerbook? I played through the open beta on my PC gaming desktop but was intrested how it would run on my 12' rec c PB. :D
     
  2. BrianKonarsMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #2
    ran fine on my pb. beware of vraxtus, he'll tell you it doesn't but he expects PC fps so :p. i average 17+fps in outdoor environments, 50+ in cave or dungeon crawls.
     
  3. iBert macrumors regular

    iBert

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    #3
    I played it on my rev B. 1GHz, 512 MB, 32MB video, 4200rpm HD. It played pretty good I was very impressed with the performance I got.
     
  4. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #4
    Ha ha, ass.

    I tested the FPS rates on my 1ghz and I got about 9FPS in towns and 15FPS outdoors. So eat it, vid boi.
     
  5. shortyjj macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    #5
    I have a 12" 1.33 with 768 and was happy with performance.

    However, I'm very unhappy that the beta is over.
     
  6. Barham macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    #6
    I have the same as the last poster and I get 25 fps out doors and 15 in town. Indoors you get a huge boost. I consider myself to be a gamer and it's perfectly playable considering the system. I'd like blizzard to improve performance, but who knows on that. It will get better, I just don't know how much.

    Vraxtus is a bit of a pessimist on the subject and I agree that these framerates are unacceptable for a First person shooter, but it is fine for WoW as long as your main goal isn't PvP.

    I'm buying it.

    -Hasta
     
  7. JasonL macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Location:
    Ware, MA
    #7
    I guess it could run okay on the 1.33 GHz 12" PB (after all it runs alright on my 1.25GHz machine) but the GPU will be a limiting factor. The other thing is that you'd want quite a bit more RAM then the 256MB that the 12" PB comes with.
     
  8. BrianKonarsMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #8
    according to blizz the WoW doesn't stress your GPU very much aside from draw distances (which i turn down :p) but it's very processor and ram intensive, so GPU is far less of a limit than available ram. 512 i'd say is the absolute minimum! Go for the gig :).

    i told you beware of vraxtus :).

    what did you have the draw distance set to? i put mine to about 1 notch above the lowest setting, seemed to help alot as far as chop. but your results were pretty much the same as mine so what can i say :p, he may be pessimistic but he's also right o_O. whenever i entered a town that was loaded with ppl (think the crossroads at peak hours, everyone dueling) my FPS would drop to around 6 - 8 :eek:

    they really fixed flight though, in first stress test i peaked at about 7 fps in flight, now it peaks at about 20, averages 14-15, i can actually watch the flight (rather than intermittent graphical updates :/ ).

    never had a problem in large raid type actions (40+ char. group) as far as playability. the performance is sub par, but enough to play :p.
     
  9. kparvez macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    #9
    Same here

    I played it on my 1 Ghz Powerbook (12inch, 512 RAM) and when i tried ctrl-r, i saw frame rates of 9 FPS towns and ~15-18 FPS outdoors, but during large raids, it dropped to 2FPS. So it's not the best system, but it works if you solo lots in the game.
     
  10. 7on macrumors 601

    7on

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2003
    Location:
    Dress Rosa
  11. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #11
    Look at kparvez results.

    I had my settings ALL at LOWEST. Thx.

    I might also mention that I never got above 40 FPS on my G5... so I have NO idea where Brian is getting "50+ indoors" -_-

    I'll also mention that for both computers I was running at native resolution.
    On the PB, I switched out res from 10x7 to 8x6 but saw only a +2-4 FPS gain (in general). My G5 I never really switched out res since I liked the way it looked :D
     
  12. AoWolf macrumors 6502a

    AoWolf

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Daytona Beach
    #12
    WoW runs fine(unless in a big pvp battle but thats what g5s are for) on my iBook 1 ghz with 768 ram. Although if you have a P.C. for gaming you will want to use that. But if you have the hard drive space you might as well put it on your PB in case you want to play somewhere other then your house.
     
  13. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #13
    You guys really need to *validate* these claims with actual framerate PROOF instead of eyeballing. Maybe my posts wouldn't seem so disgruntled if you actually looked at the hard results about how poor game performance is on Macs.
     
  14. markjones05 macrumors 6502a

    markjones05

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #14
    Give it to me straight...

    I have dual 1 ghz g4 1 gig ram, nvidia geforce 4.
    Is it worth me picking up?

    Please no ********!
     
  15. zosma macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    #15
    What GeForce 4 model is it? Is it the MX or the TI version?

    I have a Cube running at 1.2Ghz with a GeForce3 (a little better than the GeForce 4MX) I average about 15-17 fps. I also have periodic access to a dual 1.25Ghz G4 with a GeForce 4 TI which gave me about 30-35 fps.

    I can't confirm, but WoW should be playable on your system. It will not be silky smooth, but it will still be good for some fun times.
     
  16. markjones05 macrumors 6502a

    markjones05

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #16
    I have the Ti. Thanx for the no bull answer
     
  17. zosma macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    #17
    Glad to help. I have heard that WoW is more CPU oriented than GPU though I don't really know, either way the TI should still go a long way to enhancing performance.
     
  18. BrianKonarsMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #18
    WoW loves your cpu, not gpu.

    vraxtus, when the game releases tomorrow, i'll send you a screenshot of my 50+fps inside caves with my 1.33 PB. it's nice to know i get better performance than your G5 :).

    you do realize in a cavern the draw distance is pretty much nil, thus even a mac can pump out 50+ fps inside, right? maybe my computer is just lying to me though...
     
  19. kparvez macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    #19
    Wow is worth it.

    Definitely get the game!!!! Even though I'll be playing it on a lowly powerbook, I know it's definitely worth it! The occassional lag is a small price to pay for the release of beta-endorphins from my hypothalamus and extremely high sense of pleasure i receive when i level up.

    And remember, Blizzard has gone out of their way to provide a MAC/PC hybrid DVD/CD, how many companies provide simultaneous releases? You gotta support Blizzard for the love they show their gaming audience!!

    Even though the performance for some people on a 1Ghz machine may be sub-par based on specs (i.e. FPS), the game is still definitely playable on a 1 Ghz system, just avoid raiding or having too many mobs on screen at once... or turn down the quality of the graphics (ie. texture details, etc) to compensate. The amount of fun you have will be apparent when you begin playing.
     
  20. JLaFrance macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    #20
    sorry to shift gears, but, would WoW play -well- on a 1.8ghz imac? (+/- 1gb ram)


    LaFrance
     
  21. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #21
    Well, to be perfectly fair, you need to validate your claims as well. Especially considering most think it runs fine.
    But I agree with you however, Game runs pretty poor on Macs. On this 1.8 imac, I got range of 14-24fps outdoors and about 28-34fps indoors. This was beta though, so it would be hard to judge till I see final verion (which probably I won't). My Dell 3Ghz can pump 2x frame rate of this imac on higher settings.

    As far as people telling how great their old computers run new games is normal though. It's like they fall in love with their computers and live in denial. Or they really think that 15fps is a decent framerate. I've seen people claim that they had like 30fps in UT2004 ONS mode on their ibook 800MHZ (Seriously).
    The bottom line is, if one enjoys wathing a fast slideshow on their 1ghz pbooks or whatver (judging from beta) and doesn't mind pumping 15$/mo for it, flag is in their hands. I don't think i'll buy it for my well performing dell, let alone for the Mac.

    P.S Also make sure your CPU performance is set to highest. I assume you did that, but I'm just making sure.
     
  22. ionas macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Location:
    Old Europe
    #22
    RAM is the point

    I played WoW on maxed settings on a Dual 2.0 512MB RAM Radeon 9600XT, it runs fine with some clinches if the outdoor areas are very detailed (ewylin forrest for example), but it stocks a lot which is cause of the massive amount of textures it has to load realtime... from harddisk cause I got only 512MB RAM and lots of background apps (menumeter, adium, butler, desktopmanager, and so on)...

    If it loaded textures it ran fine, but before that it ran ****ed up...

    So get +512 MB or even +1GB RAM but NOT below (means 768MB or 1256MB), then it should run quite fine.

    (with the default 256mb I dont even want to start it up (i mean the iBook))
     
  23. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #23
    Yeah, I do realize that, that's why I was pretty disappointed :(

    I think the best FPS rates I saw were in the mine by Sludge Fen where it was upwards of 40, but no more than 45. In Ragefire Chasm I averaged 20 or so... so no more than if I was just outside walking. Still skeptical HOWEVER. :D
     
  24. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #24
    Absolutely. I'm not saying it runs poorly on my G5, in fact it runs well enough for me to play it for hours and hours enjoyably... it's just the minor hitches that bug me but don't make it unplayable.

    As for my PB, however, I don't find the performance to be all that acceptable. I should note however that I did find the performance to be adequate until I actually looked at the raw FPS and saw that (on average) just walking through the Barrens I was seing 9-10 FPS at MOST.
     
  25. thatwendigo macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #25
    Man, and your iMac with a single processor and a GeForce FX 5200 sure qualifies you to say what does and doesn't happen on other macs... It's sure a good thing that you're here to tell me that my dual 1.8ghz G5 with a 9600XT isn't hitting 28-38FPS in wilderness settings and 40+ in caves and in town, because I must have been hallucinating! Thanks for the heads up, though, and I'll be sure to talk to my doctor about taking something for those damned illusory game playing sessions.

    In more blunt, serious terms, I'd like to point out that you have a crippled FSB in a processor that's data-hungry and mostly excels in moving information around. You also don't have a GPU on par with the one in the later revision powerbooks - 9600M and 9700M, to be specific - or the clock-efficiency of the G4. Despite what many people on this site will repeatedly tell you, the newer G4 PowerBooks have one of the most efficient processors Apple has ever used and that's why a 1.5ghz 7447A can keep up with a 1.6 or 1.8 single processor G5.

    I'm running 1152x870 with just about everything turned up on a dual 1.8ghz G5 with 1.25GB of RAM in dual-channel mode and a Radeon 9600XT 128MB to drive the display. As previously mentioned, it's rare for me to drop below 28-30 FPS in even the most strenuous conditions, and even the Massive Infernal invasion and the roughly 30-50 people in my immediate vicinity didn't really bog down the game.

    Please share this wonder Dell configuration.

    I have no problem believing that a good PowerBook could achieve at least 30FPS in the beta, especially since the RevisionC ones happen to have 128MB 9700M as a BTO option.

    Here's my computer spanking yours on Barefeats, with a gap of 410 on CineBench, 17 additional FPS on 1024x768 MAX botmatch in UT2004, 57 FPS in 1024x768 MAX flyby, and 170 FPS in Quake 3.

    The G5 1.8ghz iMac scores:
    CineBench OGL - 978
    CineBench CPU - 251
    UT2k4 1024x768 bot - 20
    UT2k4 1024x768 fly - 45
    Quake 3 - 137
    Halo Time - 33.5

    The 1.5ghz PowerBook
    CineBench CPU - 135
    UT2k4 1024x768 bot - 24
    UT2k4 1024x768 fly - 45
    Quake 3 - 108
    Halo Time - 42.7

    Another test at BareFeats shows the older 1.33ghz PowerBook hitting 35FPS on Halo at 1024x768 with the 64MB 9600M, with the 1.0ghz 12" still clocking 23 FPS even though it's almost half the speed of your iMac and has the mobile 5200 FX.
     

Share This Page