Company of Heroes... poor performance on Mac Pro?!?

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by ejdge, Aug 1, 2007.

  1. ejdge macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #1
    I'm running stock boot camp on an XP (no additional drivers).

    I have a standard 2.66 Mac Pro (1gb ram, 7300 gt)

    My performance in-game is really poor... I've tried running it at various resolutions (1900, 1300, 1200) with high/medium settings. My memory usage is yellow on high textures and full green on medium.

    Do I need to update my graphics card drivers?

    Are my stock memory and card causing the problems? I just ordered 2gbs of ram so hopefully that'll answer my question.
     
  2. gloss macrumors 601

    gloss

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Location:
    around/about
  3. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #3
    Ditto. On my Mac Pro, Company runs wells at 1280x1024 but medium settings with a few highs, if you want better gaming performance, pony up for a better videocard.
     
  4. ejdge thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #4
    Any ideas how I can get this to run well with the card (settings, configs, etc)? thanks
     
  5. gloss macrumors 601

    gloss

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Location:
    around/about
    #5
    Don't expect to, honestly.
     
  6. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #6
    Use NGOHQ drivers and overclock the **** out of your 7300GT like I did and then check http://www.tweakguides.com/, they don't have a CoH tweakguide up but they have a few tips for increasing your overall system and game performance.

    Then, just experiment with your in-game settings and try so CoH is the only application running at the time.
     
  7. overcast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #7
    I don't care what you overclock to, that 7300GT is going to play COH like garbage. That game taxes even highend cards.
     
  8. ejdge thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #8
    Mmm looks like I'll have to upgrade. Any ideas where I can buy the card? Seems to be sold out or on backorder everywhere online. Thanks.
     
  9. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #9
    Yeah, CoH pummels my X1950 Pro at high settings, so I can imagine the 7300 is choking to death on it.

    X1950 Pro is the same as the X1900XT.

    I'd buy more RAM and the X1900XT for your Mac Pro.

    Though wait until after the 7th, because maybe we'll see some updates on the Mac Pros, that will give newer and faster graphics card options.
     
  10. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #10
    The thread ended here.

    Anyways...

    My X1600 could crank out 30 fps average at 1366 x 768 and at Medium texture settings. I'd turn down the effects fidelity and post processing on the 7300GT to Low.
     
  11. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #11
    The X1600 isn't that hot either... in fact I own both cards and the X1600 and the 7300GT are roughly the same, both overclocked to their limit.

    I'm sorry these threads have become GameFAQs where a user can't post help on running a game without half the forum bringing down his hardware. Yes we all know the 7300GT sucks, chill out, but he can still enjoy Company of Heroes on it and overclocking makes a substantial difference because Apple underclocks their cards.

    I've been playing Company of Heroes on my 7300GT Mac Pro and I am sure I could beat you "X1900XT" guys in a skirmish. So chill out. :rolleyes:

    Oh, and don't comment on a thread about a game on certain hardware if you don't own both the game and the hardware.
     
  12. overcast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #12
    I own the game, the hardware and everything in between. I'm telling you right now, the 7300GT will not play CoH at ANY respectable resolution or graphics setting. What is the point of buying a beautiful looking new game, when you turn it down to 640x480 with zero effects? And spare me on the "it's the gameplay, not the graphics" shpeel.
     
  13. contoursvt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #13
    LOL I must be living under a rock. Never heard of this game but I was curious so I downloaded the demo it and it seems pretty good but ya its pretty intensive. I'm doing the gaming on a PC which is a Core2 Duo E6600 (2.4Ghz) with Vista 64bit and the video is an Nvidia 7950GT.

    I tried the following settings and the results I got for it. I have no point of reference for it but at least you guys can test the 7300GT and the X1600's and 1900's and see how they do for curiosity sake.

    In the graphics options area there is a performance test option - at least in the demo version there is.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #14
    Looks like the Vista + Ultra textures issue has been fixed.

    My suggestion is at least a X1600 or 7600GT to play the game.
     
  15. mouchoir macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #15
    How about more RAM?

    Oops! Just re-read original post and see that he mentions more RAM is on order...
     
  16. overcast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #16
    contoursvt not exactly impressive at 1024x768 and NO anti-aliasing!! So you have really shiny low resolution objects with jaggies - sweet.
     
  17. contoursvt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #17
    Its not meant to be impressive. Its meant to be a point of reference and 1024x768 is a standard resolution which anyone with any monitor will be able to run.

    Also I'm on a 22" CRT which by nature is going to be softer than an LCD so really, I dont need AA most of the time because the games dont look as bad on lower resolutions as they do on an LCD. Also I dont spend time standing still looking at jaggies. I actually am busy playing the game. I'd rather have lower resolution with proper textures and all the effects than to have a high res slideshow with no jaggies ;)


     
  18. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #18
    Except a X1600 is barely any better than a 7300... :rolleyes:
     
  19. contoursvt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #19
    I tried it on a work machine - E6300 CPU and 7100GS video card (bottom of the barrel) and Vista 32bit. It was like watching a slideshow. I used the same settings as my previous post. Kind of funny to watch :)

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #20
    Runs great at 1366 x 768 with textures at Medium and AA on. Then again I did use ATITool to clock it up to the stock speeds.
     
  21. Wild-Bill macrumors 68030

    Wild-Bill

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    bleep
    #21
    There's your problem.
     
  22. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #22
    I overclocked my 7300GT and I run at similar settings, trust me when I say the X1600 chip is roughly the same as the 7300 one and both are similar to the 6600 chip, performance wise I mean. A 7600GT is leagues and leagues above both the X1600 and the 7300.

    Now this thread should probably be closed because all people post now are "lolzorz 7300gt suxz, lol funny" or "lolzorz look at game run on 8800ultra for reference!!!!111!!oneelven!!11!, lolzors".

    Yes if you want proper gaming experience, get a better card for your Mac Pro, if you want, you can still play Company of Heroes on your Mac Pro with a 7300GT, I've done it and on LANs when I have to use my Mac Pro (with 7300GT) instead of my regular gaming rig I don't see a problem, sure it doesn't look as good but I can still play the game and not think I'm playing Command & Conquer 1 :rolleyes:
     
  23. contoursvt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #23
    You're right I think the thread should be closed. I mean its better we all have blinders on when it comes to seeing how different hardware affect game performance. God forbid anyone actually realized the 7300GT sucks (I'm sorry I meant suxz) for any games newer than 3 years ago. PS. You have a 7300GT so I can see why you'd be defensive. This thread is good for the people who were going to buy a 7300GT but now seeing how poorly it performs in new games, will be swayed to spend a bit more and get the X1900 to leave their options open ;)



     

Share This Page