Time to trade in that trusty old Bondi Blue iMac, Mavericks runs great on newer computers
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.
Apple Seeds First OS X Mavericks 10.9.3 Beta to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Time to trade in that trusty old Bondi Blue iMac, Mavericks runs great on newer computers
Nvidia 320m was custom made by Nvidia only for Apple. Whereas the 9400m was mass produced for PCs and Macs. It's arguable that the Nvidia 320m got less attention from Nvidia because it was being produced in such small quantities as compared to 9400m. Also, the Nvidia 320m came to show amidst the crazy lawsuits between Nvidia and Intel. This is also the reason the Macbook Pro 13" never saw i5 processors and was stuck with core 2 duo. Basically the MBP 13" was a half a$$ed machine for its time, which I'm using until today.
But seriously, Apple should work towards making the graphic driver better. This card is capable of doing much better than 9400m. I've had this choppy animations issue for way to long. (Yes I did a clean install and didn't run any unusual apps).
Nvidia 320m was custom made by Nvidia only for Apple. Whereas the 9400m was mass produced for PCs and Macs. It's arguable that the Nvidia 320m got less attention from Nvidia because it was being produced in such small quantities as compared to 9400m. Also, the Nvidia 320m came to show amidst the crazy lawsuits between Nvidia and Intel. This is also the reason the Macbook Pro 13" never saw i5 processors and was stuck with core 2 duo. Basically the MBP 13" was a half a$$ed machine for its time, which I'm using until today.
But seriously, Apple should work towards making the graphic driver better. This card is capable of doing much better than 9400m. I've had this choppy animations issue for way to long. (Yes I did a clean install and didn't run any unusual apps).
But since 10.9.2 320m drives my 27" cinema display pretty good. I only get the crappy performance when i unplug the extenal display but if i restart its good again
Older version of OpenGL and graphics drivers are mainly to blame.
e.g. The OpenGL Nintendo Wii Dolphin emulator renders games better in BootCamp due to the newer release of OpenGL found in Windows and the improved ATI/Nvidia drivers. On OSX, visual effects like shadows and fire don't always render correctly in Dolphin - according to the Dolphin developers forum, these issues are due to bugs in Apple's version of OpenGL and outdated graphics drivers. Mavericks was supposed to address a lot of these issues with the update to OpenGL 4 but it's still not great.
I dont understand why people just can't buy a freakin playstation or something if they want to play games. The worst issues i have is if i get glitches (i think i have not seen one since i moved to Apple four years ago) in applications i need to use. Like a random black box where there should be some text. Or something like that.
I can't understand why some people can't understand that some of us prefer gaming on computers with keyboards, mice and joystick options instead of brain-dead consoles where the games rarely come down in price and you still need the same type of network connections. What is better about a console than a full blown computer? NOTHING except available titles and consistency of bugs per hardware (less variation in hardware = less untested bugs).
The console is outdated the moment it's produced. You can get newer computers or upgrade components in them (sadly not Macs anymore for the latter). No console can EVER compete with that. A console version of a popular game like Dragon Age Origins (#3 is coming out next fall) will be limited to standard HD resolutions. The computer version will likely support whatever is available at whatever power level you can support (probably 4k type resolutions in the new one). WTF would you want a POS console? Because that's what other people play games on? Yeah, people buy their KIDS consoles because it keeps them off their computer and they cost less than a state-of-the-art computer system and don't need replaced for several years.
I had a Colecovision and I had a C64 in the early '80s. The Colecovision was awesome at first. But it became plainly obvious even before Coleco pulled it that it was getting great arcade ports, but the other games fell short. Due to cartridge limitations and the hardware itself, it could never compete with what came out for the C64 for a good decade+. The Amiga came out in 1985 and games got even more excellent. The Nintendo wasn't in the same realm as a C64, let alone an Amiga. So how is it that people would say I should just get an XBox 360 when the thing was hopelessly outdated after a couple of years and wouldn't be significantly improved until the XBox One came out. Now how long will it be before that next one comes out? 5 years? Can you imagine how much more powerful computers will be in just two to three years time? Yeah, that console won't look so great then. It's not even state-of-the-art NOW. It's made to be CHEAP.
No, what people should WANT is better computer gaming support (even for Windows) since you have a lot more flexibility and can improve incrementally as the newer hardware comes out if you so desire. Plus you can usually continue to play OLD games on your NEW computer system whereas there is no gaming compatibility for older XBox and Playstation machines on the newer models so you have to keep multiple systems around to play your old games. THAT SUCKS. Who wants to store 6 consoles in their closet and drag them out to play an old favorite? With VMWare, I can even play games that don't like newer versions of Windows too well. Hell, I can play Colecovision and Atari 2600 games on my Mac or PC as well (along with Amiga, Atari 800, 5200 & 7800, C64, etc. on the computer. Try that on a console.
Frankly, there's no reason Macs couldn't improve both their GPU hardware offerings and their graphics drivers and OpenGL system. I already have 16 games waiting to play after the Steam Christmas sale (plus some other sales on Amazon and the App Store). Some of them are older games; some are simply less demanding games like platformers. Some are available for consoles, but I doubt I could get the console versions for what I paid for the Mac/PC versions (I get both on Steam). Many games cost me as little $3-6. I got Dragon Age Origins Ultimate and II for $4.99 each, for example. I got The Walking Dead for $6. And I don't have to worry about whether I can still play them 5-10 years from now as there's always a way to play older games on newer computers. Yes, there are console emulators, but it's harder to get the games onto your computer, especially without resorting to illegal copies, etc.
Oh, I (still) have all the Playstations — 1, 2, 3 and I just bought a 4 this weekend. I love Playstation for a lot of reasons but even with a setup like that there are several games you'll want/need to play on a Mac/PC.
Thanks. Thanks a lot.
Makes me appreciate the effort of quality Mac developers such as, say, Aspyr, even more.
As a general rule of thumb (just a ballpark figure), can anything be said about how much worse GPU drivers are on OS X vs. Windows? (5%, 10%, 20% worse/slower?).
And what about OpenGL on OS X vs. Windows (?)
Unreal Engine?
Unity?
Just to get a general idea if at all possible.
So...
Driver difference varies depending on what you're doing, but I'd put it to less than 5%. Open GL is practically the same thing really. Mavericks allows OS X to use Open GL 4.4, which is the latest version, and the specifications for Open GL are the same across the board (slight difference between AMD and Nvidia, and Apple and Microsoft do have different API's you can use if you really want, but generally it's the same thing). So Open GL really isn't different between the two platforms.
Unity and Unrealy Engine both allow developers quite a lot of control over how the game is rendered and so on, but by default Unity is quite horrible on OS X (which is fun since it runs pretty fine on iOS.) and Unreal is somewhat mediocre. Hope that cleared it up a little more. Feel free to ask further questions if needed.
Driver difference varies depending on what you're doing, but I'd put it to less than 5%. Open GL is practically the same thing really. Mavericks allows OS X to use Open GL 4.4, which is the latest version, and the specifications for Open GL are the same across the board (slight difference between AMD and Nvidia, and Apple and Microsoft do have different API's you can use if you really want, but generally it's the same thing). So Open GL really isn't different between the two platforms.
Unity and Unrealy Engine both allow developers quite a lot of control over how the game is rendered and so on, but by default Unity is quite horrible on OS X (which is fun since it runs pretty fine on iOS.) and Unreal is somewhat mediocre. Hope that cleared it up a little more. Feel free to ask further questions if needed.
When did they update to 4.4? The last I heard they were at 4.0 which is nowhere near V4.4 (as in like just over THREE YEARS behind). Sorry, but I can find ZERO evidence online to support your claim OS X uses 4.4. Everything says 4.0 or some basic profile support for 4.1 at best. V4.4 just came out last summer and there's no way on earth Apple would ever move that fast for something it cares very little about. I don't think Intel HD chipsets even support anything newer than 4.0 functions so they probably figure it's a waste bothering for the few NVidia and AMD users out there (well more like they just don't care period).
Last edited:
No proof, but...
I have personally tested up to 4.2 and I have been informed by acquaintances that 4.4 is also supported. I believed these people, but in terms of knowing for sure, I can only confirm 4.2.
I have personally tested up to 4.2 and I have been informed by acquaintances that 4.4 is also supported. I believed these people, but in terms of knowing for sure, I can only confirm 4.2.
You should probably double-check your sources before posting...
https://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/opengl/capabilities/ (the video cards listed with only 3.3 support don't have hardware capabilities that OpenGL 4 and DirectX 11 need.)
I should mention that OpenGL 4.1 is a welcome step up from 3.2 in 10.7 and 10.8, but it's still missing some useful features, especially when porting games, which OpenGL 4.2 and 4.3 would provide.
OpenGL 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 are all compatible with hardware capable of supporting OpenGL 4 / DirectX 11. OpenGL 4.3's feature-set is a slight superset of DirectX 11.1's.
https://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/opengl/capabilities/ (the video cards listed with only 3.3 support don't have hardware capabilities that OpenGL 4 and DirectX 11 need.)
I should mention that OpenGL 4.1 is a welcome step up from 3.2 in 10.7 and 10.8, but it's still missing some useful features, especially when porting games, which OpenGL 4.2 and 4.3 would provide.
OpenGL 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 are all compatible with hardware capable of supporting OpenGL 4 / DirectX 11. OpenGL 4.3's feature-set is a slight superset of DirectX 11.1's.
Last edited:
I hate to break it to you, but game devs don't care about desktop OpenGL. The only serious desktop OpenGL project right now is for SteamOS. Unless you can convince PC game developers across the board to not spend their time on Direct3D, it doesn't matter how far improved the current version of OpenGL is over Apple's shipping version.
Maybe sims 3 is crap idk but I installed it on my mbp may 2012 build 16gig memory the game is not any faster than it is on my cheap 250 dollar Dell laptop with 4 gig memory, yeah macs kinda suck at gaming oh and the fans ramped up too
That's really not true. Any games ported to OS X whether by Cider or a true port STILL have to convert DirectX/3D calls over to OpenGL to get hardware GPU performance for those routines. If a GPU you have supports calls in OpenGL 4.4 and a game has those routines available for OpenGL 4.4 if your card supports it, you will at least get hardware processing from the GPU instead of software rendering that will undoubtedly run much slower. If Apple doesn't implement anything newer than 4.0 or 4.1, those calls aren't even available for the gaming developers so any games that use the newer features will HAVE to use software rendering even if your GPU supports hardware rendering. Thus, it's imperative for Apple to keep up with OpenGL implementations. 4.4 has direct conversion calls for DirectX. This makes life simpler for porters like Aspyr and ensures a brand new iMac will at least be able to use its new hardware features rather than being just as limited as an older GPU in those areas because it's forced to use software rendering when it could have used hardware rendering.
Again, no one cares about OpenGL. Whether 4.4 is an improvement for games or not, game developers spend their time, energy, and money on Direct3D. The entire industry has to shift away from that, and it's not going to happen anytime soon. The best shot OpenGL has to remain relevant is in mobile.
If I care even, you can't say "no one" cares. I would say Aspyr probably cares. They do a LOT of conversions to Mac of high quality titles. People seemed to think Cider/Transgaming was going to change that, but Aspyr is still around and doing a lot more for Mac gaming than probably anyone else. I'm quite sure they'd support OpenGL 4.4 when it becomes available to make their conversions better/faster (supposedly 4.4 offers direct call conversion within it making conversion of DirectX/3D to OpenGL VERY easy/simple to do and thus reduces the question of what the game was originally made in much less important). The entire reason they don't use something like Cider themselves is that it's nowhere near as efficient as a straight port. They used to port to PPC and I gather that was a lot more difficult. Just the move to Intel has made for more titles faster even with a true port.
Sorry
Hey guys. Just wanted to apologize for my previous misstep. I guess I must have confused hardware support for actual support. Hoping for 10.10 then.
Hey guys. Just wanted to apologize for my previous misstep. I guess I must have confused hardware support for actual support. Hoping for 10.10 then.
I know the latest Intel GPU drivers for Windows improved OpenGL version support (additional extensions), so we might see a similar improvement in 10.9.3.