Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
30 fps on diablo??
- Thread starter sk8r1230
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the OS X client considering that I was replying to and quoting a a post that was complaining about D3 performance on OS X.
I tried D3DOverrider and it does make the frame rate more stable on the 4850M. One area in the forsaken cemetery, near a crypt entrance, saw the FPS dip to 20, but with D3DOverrider it stays at 30, even with other players around (I tried solo and public games).
Well worth using if you're running the Windows version on an old iMac. Technically it also improves the framerate, to 36-40 ish however the jumping framerate is somewhat worse than a stable one. It stutters. So what I did is use D3DOverrider, and then set the Max FPS in game to 31 (which shows as "30" if you use CTRL-R to display the framerate).
I hope you realise that native resolution on a 27" iMac is 2560x1440 
Also, a lot of these kind of games are built for Windows, then ported to Mac. This would explain the loss in performance. You could always use Bootcamp if you want a few more fps.
Also, a lot of these kind of games are built for Windows, then ported to Mac. This would explain the loss in performance. You could always use Bootcamp if you want a few more fps.
Well i had thought that if you were an avid gamer, you can easily make a new "mac mini" like pc to play games and i betcha it will cost less than 300 without a monitor.
Atleast an option eh....
Right. On what planet do you live where a PC comparable in performance to the high-end 27" iMac will cost 300$? Already the CPU costs more then 200$. And a comparable desktop GPU will be another 150$. With a decent case, PSU, mainboard and other components you are looking at 700$ minimum - and that just to match the iMac's specs.
I did say mac mini like.
Make it like a Xbox ish kind of media centre.
The best part is the trinity APU even allow AMd eyeinfnity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJAMs_byXkA
And you must be kidding if it will cost 700..thats just crazy talk..
check this out, powered but either Intel or AmD llano..
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=zotac+zbox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=zotac+zbox&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvnsr&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=zvW9T-7MFcPYrQej7JWnDQ&ved=0CGQQrQQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=798709e3c2c13650&biw=1428&bih=979
I was under impression that the OP complains about bad gaming performance of his iMac. How is your suggestion to build an even slower machine helpful? Why should I waste money on a slow gaming PC if my iMac is already at least four times as fast?
I have 2 TB Displays and an i7-2860qm macbook pro w/ 1gb 6770m and figured I'd chime in, the biggest improvement is to turn off Shadows, followed by Ground Clutter & lastly Anti Aliasing (the latter are somewhat marginal)... Vsync Off & I get FPS between 42-47 @ resolutions up to 1080p (25-30fps 2560x1440p), so would expect the iMac to perform considerably better w/ the 6970m... also, there is virtually no difference in performance w/ this card between bootcamp and os x running latest Catalyst drivers... i know some of the older cards vary greatly though so ymmv but would suspect the difference isn't major w/ the 6970m... vsync off, shadows off are the biggies.
Heya
Yep bad gaming performance and Trinity is able to get DOUBLE the frame rate of IVY Bridge HD4000.
Using less power and stable play with DX11 Ver 2.
How is that slower in your mind?
Also a single and trinity chip can be used for 3 monitors.
Important difference between CPU and GPU.
Last edited:
What does Trinity's performance in comparison to Intel's integrated graphics have anything to do with this thread, which is about iMacs that don't use Intel's integrated graphics?
Considering the fact that the Trinity 7660G manages about 20 FPS at 1920x1080 in Diablo III, I hardly see the point of your posts. Maybe you thought you were in the MBA sub-forum?
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7660G.69830.0.html
This is the review of the 7660G, which is in the top of the range Trinity APU.
Last edited:
You are aware that that iMac is equipped with a Radeon 6970M, which is (or used to be) one of the fastest mobile GPUs, are you? That is a completely different class from best that Fusion can offer.
Judging by your post, I assume you have the 2011 iMac. These are the benchmarks for your card, but running in windows
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6970M.43077.0.html
Diablo III (2012) low: 193.4 fps
med.: 132.1 fps
high: 89.4 fps
ultra: 64.6 fps
With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
But, ultra in these benchmarks is only 1920x1080 resolution so I cannot predict what happens at 2560x1440. I would suggest trying the game out (demo) in Bootcamp, if you have it installed or bumping the resolution down to 1920x1080. I wouldn't expect any mobile GPU to have good performance at resolutions above 1080p.
I have the same experience with mine. A while ago I installed SC2 in Bootcamp to test the difference, and with the same settings I only saw maybe 1-2 FPS increase under Windows. Not worth rebooting for, IMO.
i was just giving an alternative since the poster wanted to play Diablo 3 with better experience.
We all now the macs are not gaming PC , so he can easily make a new media player less than 300 use for games which he can hook up to his HDMI 40 inch TV.
Cool right...it is an alternative.
----------
Yep and technology always advances.
What was great then is no longer now.
And Fusion can give 50% more frame rates compared to LLano/HD4000.
So i was just giving an alternative.
Your alternative is slower to what the poster ALREADY HAS. Why can't you understand this? It's not rocket science. It's like someone is complaining that his Mercedes C-class Coupe 6.3 AMG feels too slow and you're suggesting a VW Golf GTI. Seriously.
It does NOT MATTER that Trinity is faster than HD 4000 or Llano. He does not have HD 4000 or Llano. He has an iMac with a 6970M. Your alternative suggestion is just plain silly.
I hope you realise that native resolution on a 27" iMac is 2560x1440
Yes, I agree that it is expecting an awful lot to push that many pixels to produce modern 3D graphics with all the effects at 60+ frames per second. It really makes you wonder, what kind of computer did they use in-house to build this game? It's been in development for 10 years. What kind of frame-rate did the designers really shoot for? At what resolution?
But you see, that's really what has everyone buzzing about this . . . Blizzard does not 'port' their games to OS X after they finish up their Windows version of it. Two separate teams are in place, with identical specifications, sharing resources, one team developing a Windows client, while the other team develops a Mac OS X client. Not a port. Should be equivalent in EVERY WAY, including performance, unless some OS X specific factor prevents performance matching. Some have pointed to OpenGL as the culprit, many believe the OS X team gets less support / has fewer members, therefore OS X client does not get optimized as thoroughly as the Windows client does. Who knows? Posts by Blizzard on the Battle.net forum state they are aware, and are efforting a fix. Only time will tell.
For the record, I'm a huge Starcraft II fan, and a 10% difference in performance between the Windows and Mac clients still exists, two years after it's release. . .
Last edited:
In WoW, there was a place in an .ini file to enable the OpenGL engine in Windows. There may be one in Diablo too; that would make a more interesting comparison in Bootcamp. Because it is true, DirectX gets the advantage of hardware acceleration.
You are not very bright are you? Ok, I will repeat it again, specially for you: the iMac of the poster is MUCH MUCH faster than your Fusion, both CPU and GPU wise. Agan: how is Fusion 'a better experience'? What would you say if you complained about your Porsche being too slow and I suggested you to get a cheap bicycle 'because it will be a better experience'?
P.S. Oh, Seb already covered it, didn't see
----------
Of course OpenGL on Mac is hardware accelerated. The quality of driver optimizations is just not as good as their Window's counterpart. OpenGL on windows will be faster too, there is no reason for OpenGL or DirectX to have any performance differences on a reasonable driver implementation.
I don't know if this helps, but on my PC turning shadows off doesn't hurt the experience. In a big swarm it's hard to see anything and removing some detail probably helps the experience.
1920x1080 on a 23" in screen is also a little cramped. I would think the same rez on a 27" screen should also be a pretty good experience.
1920x1080 on a 23" in screen is also a little cramped. I would think the same rez on a 27" screen should also be a pretty good experience.
I can easily compare the performance on OS X vs Win7 using my hackintosh. Hardware specs: Asus P8P67 Pro MB, i7-2600 CPU and AMD 6870 GPU.
On windows, all settings are (by default) maxed out and I get consistent performance of 60fps. Sometimes a few framedrops when it gets busy with mobs and special fx, but that is to be expected.
On OS X, all settings are maxed out (again, by default) except shadows which is set to medium. Same performance, unless I also increase shadows to high. Then framerate drops considerably.
Conclusion: OS X performance of Diablo3 is pretty much the same as Win7 performance, except when you want the same shadow quality rendering.
I do have the feeling that the Win7 looks nicer, maybe because of better shader effects or something. That was also the case for SC2. Can't be bothered to make screenshots and compare, Im sure some nerdy website will do that soon. Im just enjoying the game.
Could be that OS X drivers for older hardware simply suck for gaming, I would suggest you a) try bootcamping or b) upgrade your computer.
Good luck!
On windows, all settings are (by default) maxed out and I get consistent performance of 60fps. Sometimes a few framedrops when it gets busy with mobs and special fx, but that is to be expected.
On OS X, all settings are maxed out (again, by default) except shadows which is set to medium. Same performance, unless I also increase shadows to high. Then framerate drops considerably.
Conclusion: OS X performance of Diablo3 is pretty much the same as Win7 performance, except when you want the same shadow quality rendering.
I do have the feeling that the Win7 looks nicer, maybe because of better shader effects or something. That was also the case for SC2. Can't be bothered to make screenshots and compare, Im sure some nerdy website will do that soon. Im just enjoying the game
.Could be that OS X drivers for older hardware simply suck for gaming, I would suggest you a) try bootcamping or b) upgrade your computer.
Good luck!