Yea, that totally explains why "gaming rigs" have more powerful hardware than Macs.
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.
Is it me or is Apples computers are being targeted more at gamers???!
- Thread starter MatLane
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea, that totally explains why "gaming rigs" have more powerful hardware than Macs.
It's unfortunate really. Apple could bring in even more to the fold if they'd quit being old farts about the whole deal.
Although emulators are doing particularly well these days on the Macs, particularly MAME OSX.
Although emulators are doing particularly well these days on the Macs, particularly MAME OSX.
Not for me to stick my oar in but I will anyway... Isnt the problem that OS X is not developed as a gaming OS rather than the hardware not being up to it????
I switched in 2006 and I only noticed my gaming get better under bootcamp.
Mind you had to install all sorts of drivers, core duo patches and what-nots to really see it shine....
I switched in 2006 and I only noticed my gaming get better under bootcamp.
Mind you had to install all sorts of drivers, core duo patches and what-nots to really see it shine....
Ignore him/her, seems they got lost and stumbled onto a forum they're not really interested in
.Time to go tell photographers forum their hobby is a waste
.
No, if the games were coded natively for OS X, they would perform just as well as on Windows.
Sadly, it is you. The better GPUs are more for Apple's General Purpose GPU plans in Snow Leopard. They will be using the GPUs for things like accelerating encoding, transcoding.
Many Mac devs are stuck in 1980's business models and don't see all the opportunity out there. A game like Stubbs could still be selling if they were to update the executable and put it on an online distribution service for $19.95.
If a two year old PC game can not be ported and sold for $30 (or less) they should not even bother.
They would be close. Driver updates from NV and AMD on a monthly basis keep improving performance 2% here, 5% there. This is to support the huge add-in card market they have built.
Apple does their own drivers and update them less often. There is no incentive for them to keep improving performance.
Depends on what hardware. Most games are heavily dependent on the GPU and (less so) on single-core performance. Scientific computing needs total CPU performance; performance per core is less important. An 8-core 1GHz processor is almost as good as a 4-core 2Ghz chip for simulations. The same is not at all true for gaming. For simulations, the GPU doesn't do a damn thing. In other words, for scientific work, the Mac Pro, with it's large number of cores and high RAM ceiling, will indeed outperform many computers that would blow the Mac Pro out of the water when playing games.
And of course, quite a lot of scientific software is better optimized running under OS X or Linux than it is under windows
Well I have to say the Mac Pro can be configured an insane amount of cores while the typical high-end gaming rig has no need for 8-cores and usually just stick with 4 cores. However the post I quoted simply mentioned 'Macs', which would include the iMac as well. We all know that the typical gaming rig would beat the iMac.
Coded...natively? Does that include Warcraft 3 and COD4? Because the Windows version performs far better than the Mac version.
While I know that a home built rig is the most cost effective way to go, this comment is ridiculous. Show me the parts list!
$2500 is a 4 core nehalem Mac pro (shipped and taxed), and $500 a very nice video card (or two).
Starting at $500 for the video cards, you'd need to be able to squeeze a Core i7 920 (which is still not going to compare so nicely to the xeon in the mac pro), a motherboard that supports the i7 and the video card(s), a beefy power supply, and a case that isn't made of cardboard into that $200 extra.
For $1500-2000, yes, I'd say it was possible.
Apple definitely isn't targeting gamers.
That said, the GT130M and 4850 in the new iMac's will play games nicely.
That said, the GT130M and 4850 in the new iMac's will play games nicely.
Blizzard have done a great job with the Warcraft games, but Apple's drivers are still lagging behind, often quite badly. I've heard that Apple themselves code drivers for the NVIDIA chips, and ATI write their own for OS X. Can anyone confirm this?
The GT130 in the iMac is a 9600M GT, same as in the Macbook Pro. I'd expect it to be less underclocked, though. The Mobility Radeon 4850 is a good card, and the 4870 in the Mac Pro is excellent.
Xeon CPUs are the very best, but aren't cost effective, the extra performance they give is very expensive. Apple lack a mid range quad core solution. Most users won't notice the different between a 3GHz Core 2 Quad and a 3GHz Xeon, jsut like they won't notice the different between standard RAM and the ECC RAM in the Pro.
The GT130 in the iMac is a 9600M GT, same as in the Macbook Pro. I'd expect it to be less underclocked, though. The Mobility Radeon 4850 is a good card, and the 4870 in the Mac Pro is excellent.
Xeon CPUs are the very best, but aren't cost effective, the extra performance they give is very expensive. Apple lack a mid range quad core solution. Most users won't notice the different between a 3GHz Core 2 Quad and a 3GHz Xeon, jsut like they won't notice the different between standard RAM and the ECC RAM in the Pro.
That's true. Somewhat disturbing as Apple is leaning heavily towards nVidia these days...
The AMD 4870 is $160 shipped.
Phenom II X3 CPU with unlockable fourth core and cache, $140
Biostar Mobo that enables the unlock $90
4 GB Ram $60
500 GB HDD $60
Antec Sonata III $80 (includes PSU)
Superdrive $20
Logitech KB and Mouse $30
OEM Windoze $80
$720 but I must be missing something
That will beat the base MP config and run a MP + 4870 close in games.
Its a hacked together frankenbeast that I would never use, but it does support the dude's post about what you can build for about $700.
Especially the 4850. I would pass on the 130m - even though it performs OK its an old architecture (dating back to the 8600) with dubious reliability.
I wish the 4850 was available in all the models as a BTO option. I would upgrade my 20" Al.
The new Intel Mobile Quad that is appearing in $1500 gaming notebooks like the Gateway FX series would be ideal.
Gateway does a 17 FX with 250m and Quad Core for $1500. Why can't Apple put similar parts in a top of the line iMac costing hundreds more?
The FX series is awesome. I reviewed one for NBR and it played everything I tested at max settings (except Crysis) never dropping below 24 fps.
Wow, thats pretty shocking.
Honestly, as a game developer, asking for $1,000,000 isn't much at all. In fact, that's cheap.
I know some of the Value team, from what Ive met of them, they're seem to be really nice guys, honest and insanely talented -so I dont think itd be either a rip-off or bad value for money.
What a shame. I guess the reason Apple said no was because there would be no initial £ from sales for them
As a gamer I would agree with you. With the 2008 iMac I'd say things turned in favor of gamers. Obviously like a lot of people will point out that it didnt have the best graphics card, but in my opinion it was good enough for playing games
The 2009 iMac has made that even more true.
Thank you.
Well put. I'm so sick of this complaining too. This site is full of the most unsatisfied people that have ever existed.
Every apple machine can play games right now. I booted up COD4 on the cheapest alum macbook, and it ran GREAT. COD4 is a game right? Yes, and one of the best!
Just because I can't play COD4 on my 30" display at max rez with 16x anti aliasing and full details doesn't mean I can't have fun playing the game.
Stop whining people. It's getting really old.
OSX Snow Leopard suppose to take advantage of the graphics card, so having decent graphics card won't hurt.
There are pro apps that benefit from better graphics card, not only for gaming.
There are pro apps that benefit from better graphics card, not only for gaming.
Thank you.
Well put. I'm so sick of this complaining too. This site is full of the most unsatisfied people that have ever existed.
Every apple machine can play games right now. I booted up COD4 on the cheapest alum macbook, and it ran GREAT. COD4 is a game right? Yes, and one of the best!
Just because I can't play COD4 on my 30" display at max rez with 16x anti aliasing and full details doesn't mean I can't have fun playing the game.
Stop whining people. It's getting really old.
Meh. My 4 year old desktop with an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ processor and an ATI Radeon x600 plays COD4 fine. Even a cheap netbook with the Ion platform runs it decently too.
http://www.notebooks.com/2009/01/12/nvidia-ion-demo-call-of-duty-4-coming-to-netbooks-ces-2009/
Fact is, practically every computer that doesn't have a cheap Intel integrated card can play games.