Yeah, I should have emphasized that it only retains to the UI elements. However Blizzard can still make optimizations and render at a higher resolution and then scale to 2880 x 1800 like certain iPad apps does.
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.
New retina MPB + Diablo 3. I don't believe it.
- Thread starter knucles
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, I should have emphasized that it only retains to the UI elements. However Blizzard can still make optimizations and render at a higher resolution and then scale to 2880 x 1800 like certain iPad apps does.
While I cannot give you too much information, but according to a close friend who works for them (not his department but from an internal memo) a patch is in the works that will include (not exact quote but you get the idea) multi-core and higher-res support on the Mac built of D3.
When it'll be released? We don't know.
However I've seen reduced load from the new 1.0.2b patch applied today on my good old 2007 MBP compare to the older patch.
When it'll be released? We don't know.
However I've seen reduced load from the new 1.0.2b patch applied today on my good old 2007 MBP compare to the older patch.
Still waiting for my MBP Retina to come, but got this excerpt from Engadget's review.
"To create such a scenario, we installed one of the hottest games of the moment, Diablo III, and cranked it up to full resolution and full graphical details. We did, however, make one exception: anti-aliasing. When you're running at 2880 x 1800, there's no real need.
We were quite happily surprised to see the frame rate hovering between 25 and 30 fps as we explored a few towns and crawled a few dungeons -- perfectly playable at an obscene resolution. Turning it down to something a little more reasonable, 2048 x 1280, netted 40 to 45 fps and running at a relatively mundane 1280 x 800 delivered frame rates over 70. This, then, is a quite passable gaming machine."
That seems perfectly playable at "full graphical details". And it should get better once Blizzard "optimizes" the game for the Retina resolution like they say they are doing now for a later patch.
"To create such a scenario, we installed one of the hottest games of the moment, Diablo III, and cranked it up to full resolution and full graphical details. We did, however, make one exception: anti-aliasing. When you're running at 2880 x 1800, there's no real need.
We were quite happily surprised to see the frame rate hovering between 25 and 30 fps as we explored a few towns and crawled a few dungeons -- perfectly playable at an obscene resolution. Turning it down to something a little more reasonable, 2048 x 1280, netted 40 to 45 fps and running at a relatively mundane 1280 x 800 delivered frame rates over 70. This, then, is a quite passable gaming machine."
That seems perfectly playable at "full graphical details". And it should get better once Blizzard "optimizes" the game for the Retina resolution like they say they are doing now for a later patch.
2048x1280 is crazy resolution to play a game at.. to run it at 40 to 45FPS is amazing. I would probably play like that.
I wouldn't bother with 2880x1800, too hardcore for gaming, even if it can manage it.
I wouldn't bother with 2880x1800, too hardcore for gaming, even if it can manage it.
***sorry guys i am very very new at this***
just got (ordered a retina mac pro) i have read this thread and am curious especially from the last few post that sounds very playable. but is anyone here talking about bookcamp in windows and playing? or is the all on apple side, and would that even make any difference playing through windows to improve performance.
thanks helping clear this up anybody and everybody
just got (ordered a retina mac pro) i have read this thread and am curious especially from the last few post that sounds very playable. but is anyone here talking about bookcamp in windows and playing? or is the all on apple side, and would that even make any difference playing through windows to improve performance.
thanks helping clear this up anybody and everybody
***sorry guys i am very very new at this***
just got (ordered a retina mac pro) i have read this thread and am curious especially from the last few post that sounds very playable. but is anyone here talking about bookcamp in windows and playing? or is the all on apple side, and would that even make any difference playing through windows to improve performance.
thanks helping clear this up anybody and everybody
Playing Diablo 3 on bootcamp does improve performance on earlier year Macs. Especially guys on 9400Ms.
Blizzard are working to make performance on Mac OS X better though and have already released one patch, which helped in some areas a bit.
With a machine like a new Retina Macbook Pro - it doesn't matter. It's so powerful that games like D3 will run brilliantly on OS X.
Not so.
9400Ms find D3 very difficult to run in some areas. D3 might not look next-gen, but it's surprisingly taxing.
My girlfriend's 2010 MBP 9400M gets around 9 to 12FPS on bootcamp at Izual for example - on low settings.
A crossfired setup of 4 top of the line video cards are required to run Diablo 3 at max settings at 1920x1080. That's with 4x antialiasing. It's hilarious that people think a midrange mobile GPU can run this at anything more than maybe 1280x900 on that card.
4 video cards is way overkill to run Diablo 3 at max settings. I have two GTX 570s in SLI running D3 with everything maxed out, at 1920x1080, and I have never had frame rates dip below 60fps (I have vsync on). Considering people have already run d3 at higher than 1440x900 on the 650M, your argument is invalid.
Well it definitely runs Diablo 3 at 2880x1800 and is very playable. But during heavy battles, especially with a full party, FPS can suffer, sometimes getting as low as 8-10FPS. I find putting a few settings to Medium help keep the game playable with 15-20FPS. But yes it can run Diablo 3 at 2880x1800.
Actually some games let you do exactly that, render the UI and the game world in different resolutions, in order to get the UI pixel perfect, but render the more demanding 3d in lower res. Arma II springs to mind.
Yep. I also believe that many console games do this. Many modern games that output to the TV at 720p or 1080p actually do their 3D rendering at something like 540p and then upscale it. UI elements are generally the last layer applied when rendering, so that can be done after upscaling the rendered scene to full output resolution.
Given the fact I have less than an hour on my new RMBP, and I don't game, it's a non-issue for me.
I'm sorry but you are wrong about this. It is certainly possible to render the 3d scene to a smaller viewport while keeping the 2d ui pixel perfect, and this is commonly done especially on mobile where computing power is limited. Hell I could code a game that does that, it's 2 extra lines of code.
That said it is uncommon to do this on the pc.
Decent? Decent generally means acceptable. Anything over 60 is overkill...you could even argue that 60fps is perfect, since most people are never going to perceive a difference at anything above 60. So what's wrong with 30, other than not being able to say "my number is higher than your number"?
Sure, 60 would look better, but you make it sound like 30 looks terrible (by not even being "decent"). It's not like 12fps where everything is jerky and its apparent your machine can't actually run the game.
Sorry i just have corrected that.
By means is 30fps bad. Its just that after playing FPS my whole childhood, 30fps was bad. But with fps u notice it more. RTS or other top down games you dont notice it so much. So ye that was my bad.
Hell most games on consoles is locked to 30 fps.
----------
BTW
from engadet review
"To create such a scenario, we installed one of the hottest games of the moment, Diablo III, and cranked it up to full resolution and full graphical details. We did, however, make one exception: anti-aliasing. When you're running at 2880 x 1800, there's no real need.
We were quite happily surprised to see the frame rate hovering between 25 and 30 fps as we explored a few towns and crawled a few dungeons -- perfectly playable at an obscene resolution. Turning it down to something a little more reasonable, 2048 x 1280, netted 40 to 45 fps and running at a relatively mundane 1280 x 800 delivered frame rates over 70. This, then, is a quite passable gaming machine."
Seems the title of this thread can now be Diablo 3 + New retina MBP - Believe it.
TBH though, thats incredible. Everything on high, and respectable fps
Can you show me an actual example of an actual game on Mac OS or Windows that does this? I've literally never, ever seen it.
Lets do some math:
Playing D3 on an iMac 27" 6970M 2GB VRAM on 2560x1440:
With low settings somewhat playable between 30-60 FPS, but still lagging sometimes, i have to set it to 1920x1080 to make it play smooth
the GT 650 is about 30% slower than the 6970M, so on 2880x1800 how is this gonna play smooth?
Either its gonna suck real bad, or Blizzard is gonna optimize Diablo 3 for mac real bad
Playing D3 on an iMac 27" 6970M 2GB VRAM on 2560x1440:
With low settings somewhat playable between 30-60 FPS, but still lagging sometimes, i have to set it to 1920x1080 to make it play smooth
the GT 650 is about 30% slower than the 6970M, so on 2880x1800 how is this gonna play smooth?
Either its gonna suck real bad, or Blizzard is gonna optimize Diablo 3 for mac real bad
Lets do some math:
Playing D3 on an iMac 27" 6970M 2GB VRAM on 2560x1440:
With low settings somewhat playable between 30-60 FPS, but still lagging sometimes, i have to set it to 1920x1080 to make it play smooth
the GT 650 is about 30% slower than the 6970M, so on 2880x1800 how is this gonna play smooth?
Either its gonna suck real bad, or Blizzard is gonna optimize Diablo 3 for mac real bad
That's the real math right there. I don't see Blizzard being able to optimize away the laws of physics. Even without AA.