I think the effort to make any applications dual processor aware might involve quite a lot of re-coding. Dual processor is still a rare thing in the PC desktop world so it might take some time before PC-Mac applications are written to make use of it especially when it is ported over from the PC version.2GMario said:some of the article doesnt really make sense to me
they say the megahertz mith does apply to games, but they didnt optimize for dual G5's
why wouldnt u then to get the added performace ?
they also say, that on both pc and mac, the game requires a pretty good machine
why not just release for the G5 then ? there are differences between the g5 and the g4, pretty considerable ones architecture wise as i understand it (being 64bit and all)
and no, nothing against the g4 guys out there, i have a ibook, but when the game requires about 1gb+ ram, ur not nessecerally gonna play it on a laptop.
and then, future games may be ported to the mac easier due to the liscensing of the game engine.
if the engine isnt optimized for a dual processor system, what good does it do us to have future games developed for the mac if they dont use this extra power ?
im not sure about u guys, but when im working, im working, when im playing a game, im playing a game. thats cool one of my g5 chips can sit there and deal with word or what ever in the background, but thats now how i play my games.
to me, it appears as a cop out. you know apple sells dual processor systems out of the box. optimize for a dual processor machine. its not like the G5 isnt a popular machine. everyone i know that likes apple, wants a g5 or has one.
They did it with Quake 3...Phat_Pat said:Is it possible, for instance, in the future if Doom3 sells very well, that they can go back and add support for DP?
With that video card, you don't get much at all, even a PC. Really the 52000 is crap . . .Lacero said:Looks like my DP 1.8GHz G5 with FX5200 video card ain't gonna cut it for 4x FSAA 1600x1200 Doom 3 gameplay. Damn you ID Software!
You must be kidding right?obelix said:Why is Apple so darn adament about sticking such poor quality video cards in their products. I mean really... would it kill them to throw out all that NVidia trash and just go straight with the radeon 9800 line as their base model... or the 9550 line... anything is better than those trashy 64mb cards they throw into most models. 128mb or go home!
You should take a look at the Mobile Nvidia Go 6800 ultra. IT even beats the desktop ATI X800 by 30 fps in Doom3dferrara said:That's not really true. ATI's current lineup is based on the same architecture they've been using for a long time (RV450).
Just wait until the X950 XT comes out (RV520). What people don't realize is that this is ATI's next gen, the X800 was not!! It's rumored to have 24 pipelines, and 512 MB of texture memory... with roughly 3x performance over the current X800 XT.
Macs probably won't see it for a long time. But to say ATI is "always behind" is ridiculous. They've been leading the mobile GPU market for a while now.
Furthermore... Doom 3 was optimized for the 6800 from the start. So all of those silly Doom 3 benchmarks mean very little... unless you love your Doom.
If you are referring to Tom's Mobile 6800 Ultra review, then that was a joke. The only two tests they run are 3DMark2k5 (theoretical at best) and Doom3 (the sole application/game on which the 6800 performs admirably).~loserman~ said:You should take a look at the Mobile Nvidia Go 6800 ultra. IT even beats the desktop ATI X800 by 30 fps in Doom3
And beats it in most of all other benchmarks too.
I believe this is a DOOM3 Thread after all...computerfan said:There you go again by looking at Doom 3 benchmarks. Overall, I think ATI is better for their prices and benchmarks for the games I play.