x1900 xt is UNDERCLOCKED is OS X :(

Discussion in 'Mac Basics and Help' started by m3henn04, Oct 4, 2006.

  1. m3henn04 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    #1
    I have a 2.66ghz MacPro with the x1900xt card and just realized how underclocked the card is when running OS X. I launched the game Return To Castle Wolfenstein and was expecting much higher FPS but was only able to get 125fps and even that wasnt constant. When I booted up Win XP Pro and launched the same game with the exact same config settings i was able to maintain about 360 FPS and had spikes of over 700 FPS which is way higher than what I can even get close to when running under OS X.

    I guess my question is....does anyone know how to fix this so I can get the full potential out of the video card that I shelled out and additional $250 for?

    Right now it performs only moderately better than my Powerbook G4 with only 64mb of vid ram. I have checked ATI Accelerator II and it doesnt support the x1900 or the x1600 yet. My Powerbook's ATI card is moderately overclocked and the difference is wonderful and has been stable for over a year.
     
  2. jamesi macrumors 6502a

    jamesi

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Location:
    Davis CA
    #2
    i know this is off topic so i apologize, but how do you overclock your video card in the pb? i have a 128MB 9700 in my 17" and id love to get more juice out of it
     
  3. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #3
    Did you ever consider that the card may be bad?
     
  4. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #4
    How could the card be bad if he is getting spikes of 700 FPS in windows?
     
  5. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #5
    Because he's only getting 125 in OS X.

    My video card worked fine in everything but Aperture. It was defective despite working with most everything else.
     
  6. chris200x9 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    #6
    sry this is off topic but I just get really sick of ppl bing like i only get 100 fps ok i was talking about cinematagraphy in film today most films are like 24 fps and your eye loses track after like 32 fps so i don't get why ppl are always like "ah dude im only getting 50 fps" or "ah man i just got 150 fps it was so sweet" i mean u can't tell the difference! sry if this is rude and sry to get of topic its just one of my pet peeves
     
  7. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #7
    Oh, I didn't know that, well we all learn new things everyday. So maybe he should make an appointment with the genious bar and see if it can be replaced.
     
  8. m3henn04 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    #8
    The reason you want more fps is for gaming....a higher fps mean you can react faster and as for RTCW i have played for like two years with my fps capped at 43 and trust me there is a huge difference between 43 and 125. You shoot faster, run faster, reload faster, etc.

    I took a film class as well and NTSC is filmed at 29.97 FPS but I'm not talking about film or PAL or anything having to do with video. I can tell you that you can set a video as low as 18fps and it will still look smooth. Like i said in the paragraph above you can very much so notice a difference. I can tell when my FPS drops on my powerbook even if it is still above 32FPS.

    As for the possibilty of it being defective....I dont think it is because I know for a fact that OS X underclocks the card. My original question is not about that it is about how to fix it. It works in everything and doesnt ever give me an issue...i just seems slow compared to the same card and the same system running XP Pro using bootcamp.

    For the question about overclocking a card on the power book you need to download ATI Acclereator II. It will install a preference pane that is very easy to use and doesnt require retarting.

    http://thomas.perrier.name/index.html
     
  9. CubeHacker macrumors 65816

    CubeHacker

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    #9
    The performance disparity you are seeing has more to do with differences between the way Windows and OSX handle games, rather than the slight difference between clockspeeds. You can overclock the card back under OSX, but it still won't perform anywhere as well as under Windows.
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Is wolfestien even universal? if not it's bound to be a lot worse under OS X than when it's native under Windows
     
  11. Jiddick ExRex macrumors 65816

    Jiddick ExRex

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Location:
    Roskilde, DK
    #11
    If not, that would really explain a lot ^_^
     
  12. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #12
    Can the human eye even distinguish between 150FPS and 700FPS??? :rolleyes:
     
  13. Josias macrumors 68000

    Josias

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    #13
    What monitor do you use? What response time? Be aware that you'll need a response time of 8 ms or below for your screen to even display 125 fps.;)

    Faster monitors today are 2 ms, they can pull 500 fps.:eek:
     
  14. X-Morgan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    #14
    With my iMac I get 45 FPS on the X1600 256MB in OSX and over 150 FPS when playing Enemy Territory on Windows XP which is basically the same as Return To Castle Wolfenstein.

    I simply put it to both running in Rosetta and not using Universal code, thus it takes a big performance hit when playing on OSX and still fast in Windows XP.
     
  15. m3henn04 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    #15
    I dont think it is universal because it is an older game. So i guess that would explain alot.

    As for my monitor I have the LG194wt which has a 4ms response time. So yes i do "see" a bit of a difference when running a higher frame rate above 125.
     
  16. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #16
    That can be discussed but it can certainly see a difference in the fluidity of the image.

    The higher Frames Per Second makes for more fluid movements.
     
  17. generik macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #17
    <fanboispeak>

    Oh don't be such a fool like the rest of the windows users and trust all those "FPS" figures. Huh? I is Mac user, what are FPS? Sorry me Mac user no know any geek acronyms.

    Oh, frames per second, trust Apple's wise "form over function" design! 60 FPS is good enough for everyone! In fact on LCDs you don't even need more than 25 FPS! Why get so many FPS if you can't even see it?

    You see, Apple's engineers wisely decided that since you don't get to see it, then might as well close it slower! That way you will come to have the impression that OSX requires a lot of GPU processing power, more than it really needs! That'd drive you to spend more of your money and buy faster and faster graphics cards... money you spent which nets you minimal gain!

    Apple: charging you three times as much for a graphics card for 1/2 as much performance!

    </fanboispeak>
     
  18. m3henn04 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    #18
    For the last time I didnt start this thread to discuss the human eye and its ability to see 150FPS. All I was wondering is why I get better FPS when in Windows XP than when I am in OSX. I have figured it out now.

    So if all of you who think you are smart and want to discuss what the human eye can and cannot see gaming is much different than film or video work. I know that the human eye cant see more than 32FPS but try to play a game against some one who gets 100+ FPS with your 32FPS and you will wonder why it seems they killed you in only 2 shots. Well its because what they just did was empty a clip into you but your 32FPS only showed you a third of the images or less of what they just saw. END OF STORY.
     
  19. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #19
    Oh noes!

    generik... you never quit. Did Steve Jobs kill your pet gerbil or something?
     
  20. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
    #20
    Nah generik just has this fetish about OS X and cries at night about not having that extra 100mhz of CPU speed that the other computers have.
     

Share This Page