OS X 10.1 Quake Benchmarks

[MacRumors]

xlr8yourmac posted benchmarks comparing OS X 10.0.4 vs 10.1 (MacWorld Preview) for App launch times as well as Quake 3 framerates.

The App (as expected) launch faster... but more interesting is that Quake 3 frame rates were about 14% faster... and up to 26% faster.

 

[MrMacMan]

Apple did a bang up job!

Apple did a lot better on 10.1 only thing is that they didn't compare the 9.1 to the new 10.1 . The speeds of all of the tests were up and the Quake Tests Ruled.

 

[synp]

Too bad...

I wish they'd run the test on some older machine with a little less RAM, like the machines found in most homes.

Perhaps a 300-400 MHz iMac with 128MB would be nice.

Plenty of G3s out there.

 

[guest]

Re: Too bad...

Originally posted by synp
I wish they'd run the test on some older machine with a little less RAM, like the machines found in most homes.

Perhaps a 300-400 MHz iMac with 128MB would be nice.

Plenty of G3s out there.

Cutting edge gaming is a harsh reality, especially for Macs. If you want to play state-of-the-art games, you need a state-of-the-art machine. There is absolutely no point in testing a game like Q3A on the machine you describe above. Absolutely none.

Keeping up is somewhat easier with a PC, since you can build a machine yourself with readily available cheap hardware. Frankly I think it is a good thing that game software houses keep pushing the edge...it means we all get cooler games and cheaper hardware faster, even though it is hard for us Mac users. With Macs you need to wait until the next Mac is released by Apple, and of course it is difficult to spend $3K US on the latest Mac every six months.

Fortunately you don't have to do this every six months to maintain a reasonable gaming machine; 1 year usually suffices. Keep in mind that I am talking about cutting edge gaming here. There are other games designed with the casual gamer in mind (see for example http://www.ambrosiasw.com).

As a Mac gamer, I learned my lesson two and a half years ago when I dumped a ton of money on a top-of-the-line B&W G3/400. Two years (and two vid cards) later, it is *way* below the bar for any serious game. I can't even get an nVidia board for it (no AGP), which might have gone a long way to rehabilitate it. So from now on, I'm buying only midrange Macs (such as the 867 tower on its way...woohoo!). That way I can better afford more frequent upgrades.

BTW, anyone know if you can get Mac nVidia boards separately? I've looked around, and so far I've only found them as BTO options for new Macs. Would be a shame if no one else could upgrade with these excellent cards.

 

[MrMacMan]

Nvida sells there boards sepertaly

Nvida sells there boards sepertaly. At the MWNY I could buy em.

 

[blakespot]

Re: Re: Too bad...

Originally posted by guest

Originally posted by synp
I wish they'd run the test on some older machine with a little less RAM, like the machines found in most homes.

Perhaps a 300-400 MHz iMac with 128MB would be nice.

Plenty of G3s out there.

Cutting edge gaming is a harsh reality, especially for Macs. If you want to play state-of-the-art games, you need a state-of-the-art machine. There is absolutely no point in testing a game like Q3A on the machine you describe above. Absolutely none.

Keeping up is somewhat easier with a PC, since you can build a machine yourself with readily available cheap hardware. Frankly I think it is a good thing that game software houses keep pushing the edge...it means we all get cooler games and cheaper hardware faster, even though it is hard for us Mac users. With Macs you need to wait until the next Mac is released by Apple, and of course it is difficult to spend $3K US on the latest Mac every six months.

Fortunately you don't have to do this every six months to maintain a reasonable gaming machine; 1 year usually suffices. Keep in mind that I am talking about cutting edge gaming here. There are other games designed with the casual gamer in mind (see for example http://www.ambrosiasw.com).

As a Mac gamer, I learned my lesson two and a half years ago when I dumped a ton of money on a top-of-the-line B&W G3/400. Two years (and two vid cards) later, it is *way* below the bar for any serious game. I can't even get an nVidia board for it (no AGP), which might have gone a long way to rehabilitate it. So from now on, I'm buying only midrange Macs (such as the 867 tower on its way...woohoo!). That way I can better afford more frequent upgrades.

BTW, anyone know if you can get Mac nVidia boards separately? I've looked around, and so far I've only found them as BTO options for new Macs. Would be a shame if no one else could upgrade with these excellent cards.

It's of note, and breaking with the normal way of things, to point out that one of the biggest PC games right now, Giants: Citizen Kabudo has been ported to OS X by OmniGroup and in doing, they made the game multiprocessor aware and actually wrote custom OpenGL modules corresponding with portions of DirectX 8 to allow full GeForce 3 features to be seen on the Mac. On a dual 533 G4, their port runs faster than on ANY PC out there (their test). Impressive. Yes...this is not the normal course, but hopefully we'll see more of this.

I bought a b&w G3 400, two monitors, SCSI, etc. two and a half years ago, myself. Recently sold it to get a dual-800 (on its way) but must say... I was able to get some decent gaming out of it. Q3A was pretty good at lowish res, Unreal Tournament was _great_ using my Voodoo2 board. It's OS X that caused me to upgrade--the speed under 9 was fine. Granted, 10.1 will address these issues to a large degree...but 2.5 years is a long time to have a machine.


blakespot

 

[Some Guy]

Not everyone plays

You know not everyone is going to PLAY on a Mac OS X machine.

Some of us actually need to get work done on a Mac and moving to Mac OS X is inevitable. We need to know how well it runs general apps like FileMaker Pro, how fast does IE launch and run, how fast is moving around in the Finder now (vs. 10.0.x).

You know, the stuff that makes the world go 'round.

So you get more FPS in Quake now on the same hardware with Mac OS X and soon 10.1.

Great, duh, no kidding, imagine that.

How about how long it takes to open really big files in a Carbonized app (latency/optimization issue, don't start a carbon sucks rant thread).

Gaming accounts for so very little of even the Mac universe. Asking how OS X 10.1 works on an iMac is a valid point for general use and not just relating to gaming which seems to be the automatic knee-jerk response anymore.

I also love that "casual gamer" reference to Ambrosia. Why is playing an Ambrosia game a "casual" experience? Because they don't get 200 FPS in Ferazel's Wand? FPS is not the ONLY "true" game. There used to actually be thought and strategy in games since games began, now its how fast you can shoot someone else before YOU get shot - or how big of an explosion you can create and how much damage it causes.

Geeze, grow up already. We in the real world do much more than play Quake on ultra-top-end G4s all day and run web sites all night (or vice versa).

 

[guest]

Re: Re: Re: Too bad...

Originally posted by blakespot

It's of note, and breaking with the normal way of things, to point out that one of the biggest PC games right now, Giants: Citizen Kabudo has been ported to OS X by OmniGroup and in doing, they made the game multiprocessor aware and actually wrote custom OpenGL modules corresponding with portions of DirectX 8 to allow full GeForce 3 features to be seen on the Mac. On a dual 533 G4, their port runs faster than on ANY PC out there (their test). Impressive. Yes...this is not the normal course, but hopefully we'll see more of this.

Yeah, I heard about this. I didn't know about the geforce3 OpenGL modules, this is great news. I will definitely be purchasing this game, not because I particularly like the game, but just to support this awesome company! I hope they do more ports in the future.

Originally posted by blakespot

I bought a b&w G3 400, two monitors, SCSI, etc. two and a half years ago, myself. Recently sold it to get a dual-800 (on its way) but must say... I was able to get some decent gaming out of it. Q3A was pretty good at lowish res, Unreal Tournament was _great_ using my Voodoo2 board. It's OS X that caused me to upgrade--the speed under 9 was fine. Granted, 10.1 will address these issues to a large degree...but 2.5 years is a long time to have a machine.

Indeed it is. It seems that a gaming Mac does last a bit longer than a gaming PC, but I think this is mainly due to "porting delay" of the latest games. About a year ago (a year and a half after I got the Mac) Deus Ex came out. It was delayed past the PC release, of course, so by the time it was on the Mac it wasn't completely bleeding edge on the PC anymore. But my Mac was old enough by that even with a voodoo5 board this game was only marginally playable (frame rates around 15 or so at 800x600). That's when I realized I needed a new machine, but of course I didn't have the money. This time I am going to try for a 1.5 year upgrade cycle.

But you are right, 9 works fantastically on my B&W, and 10.0.4 is marginal.

 

[guest]

Re: Not everyone plays

Originally posted by Some Guy
You know not everyone is going to PLAY on a Mac OS X machine.

That may be, but this thread happens to be about a Mac game, so you should probably take your holier than thou attitude elsewhere (although where it would be welcome I find it hard to imagine).

Originally posted by Some Guy

I also love that "casual gamer" reference to Ambrosia. Why is playing an Ambrosia game a "casual" experience? Because they don't get 200 FPS in Ferazel's Wand? FPS is not the ONLY "true" game. There used to actually be thought and strategy in games since games began, now its how fast you can shoot someone else before YOU get shot - or how big of an explosion you can create and how much damage it causes.

I actually quite enjoy Ambrosia games, thank you, but I realize that there is a difference between Apeiron and Warbirds III. One requires the latest hardware, and the other doesn't. The phrase "casual gamer" has long referred to someone who doesn't need/want to play the games with the biggest graphics engines etc, and threfore does not need/want the latest hardware for that purpose alone. It is not and is not intended to be a derogatory term. Deal with it.

 

[guest]

Re: Nvida sells there boards sepertaly

Originally posted by MrMacman
Nvida sells there boards sepertaly. At the MWNY I could buy em.

You are correct. I'm not sure how I missed this before, but the Apple Store sells them for $500:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP....3.0.3.30.3.0.NVIDIApromo.0.2.0.3.1.1.0?35,21

$200 above the equivalent PC card, unfortunately, but we can't expect everything.

 

[MrMacMan]

Thsi post was about...

Oh I remember that OS 10 vs Os 10.1 and 10.1 beat it's ass in, so even if the FPS was lower then what it wa in 9.1 or 9 it was still a big improvement.

 

[Kela]

I agree with SomeGuy

I totally agree with "Some Guy"s comment that not every mac user is a gamer. For god sake, there arent any decent games for the mac. Honestly, every time one says mac gaming, one thinks QUake 3. What the.... i mean, is that it?? Or that Matrix wannabe Deus Ex. YOU WANT A REAL GAMING EXPERIENCE. GET A Playstation 2 and play GRAN TOURISMO 3. NOW THAT IS GAMING REALITY. YOu got a mac, enjoy awesome 3D modelling, animation, desktop publishing and web publishing. Burn CDS and make awesome Videos. Pop in the occasional game. BUT DO NOT ARGUE THAT mac is a gaming machine cause it is not. THERE ARE NO GAMES FOR THE MAC. Q3, UT, Q3, UT thats all I hear!! STOP IT!!

My sugestion, get a QUiksilver G4 with Corel Bryce 5.0 and unleash your inner imagination. Stop dwelling on that damn Quake.

 

[Pants]

Re: I agree with SomeGuy

Originally posted by Kela
I totally agree with "Some Guy"s comment that not every mac user is a gamer. For god sake, there arent any decent games for the mac. Honestly, every time one says mac gaming, one thinks QUake 3. What the.... i mean, is that it?? Or that Matrix wannabe Deus Ex. YOU WANT A REAL GAMING EXPERIENCE. GET A Playstation 2 and play GRAN TOURISMO 3. NOW THAT IS GAMING REALITY. YOu got a mac, enjoy awesome 3D modelling, animation, desktop publishing and web publishing. Burn CDS and make awesome Videos. Pop in the occasional game. BUT DO NOT ARGUE THAT mac is a gaming machine cause it is not. THERE ARE NO GAMES FOR THE MAC. Q3, UT, Q3, UT thats all I hear!! STOP IT!!

My sugestion, get a QUiksilver G4 with Corel Bryce 5.0 and unleash your inner imagination. Stop dwelling on that damn Quake.

as an a occassional Blake baiter, I have to agree with blake on this one. The video games industry makes more money that Hollywood and employs more people.
'one' does not always think q3 when one talks about a game - I usualy think UT, but then it just happens to be the one Im rather good at! And, yeah, I do play on a mac, and I do suffer the consequences..... Howvere, for real world benchmarking, games are actually a far better indicator than many other apps - including photoshop. They are also one of teh very few applications that really push a home users computer. You think you really need a dual 800 or a p4 1.8 to run word?

There used to actually be thought and strategy in games since games began, now its how fast you can shoot someone else before YOU get shot - or how big of an explosion you can create and how much damage it causes.

its because theres money in FPS gaming that probably sets it apart from 'casual' gaming. That and the team based element and gaming community that these games generate. There is an awful lot of strategy in FPS based games - id say as much i not more than many 'real' strategy games, especially when one plays as team. As for 'creativity' etc, i could point you to many an artist that is employed in the gaming industry, and many that build mods, levels etc for fun. If you want cutting edge games, forget the ps2 - mac gaming still outranks that!

 

[blakespot]

Part of what I'm excited about is some of the more interesting gaming coming to the Mac now, through OS X. <i>Giants</i> is quite a game, and not an FPS. <i>Alice</i> is another, interesting FPS-type game that has some psychedilic twists. Yes, there's other FPS coming--DOOM III, Unreal 2, etc. But what about HALO and other likely ports from the PC. Maybe with the Cocoa environment (though not completely a "magic bullet," removing any coding need from a game developer) we'll see more original games coming for the Mac. I mean...the dev tools are free!

I am a pretty hardcore gamer. I have a PS2 and an N64. And a good portion of the reason I ordered a dual-800 is for gaming. Certainly why I added a GeForce3 to it.

If someone likes games, they will want to play games on their Mac. It's not a silly pursuit, or a childish one--my main happiness from games comes in being impressed by what the hardware can do, and as Pants points out, games are the arena through which one can really see where the rubber hits the road, so to speak.



blakespot

 

[Ramza]

hey, guest. If you want a cheap GF3, just go buy a PC Gf3 and flash it.
Cheap $300 Gf3 for ya.

 

[Kela]

Fine...be that way

YOu know, you can support the mac in the gaming field all you want but ask any person they will rank Consoles or PCs at 1 or 2 and then the mac. Simply because there are VERY VERY few games for the mac. Secondly, "Pants", how can you you say that the Mac outranks the PS2 for gaming? That is probably the most childish thing ive ever heard. Firstly the PS2 graphically eats through latest PCs for gaming and I doubt Gran Tourismo 3 can be displayed as well on a mac. Secondly, availability of PS2 games has already exceeded that of macs. Just wait a year and well half hundred fold more. So AS I SAID before, you want to GAME, get a console. Ofcourse using games as benchmarks is good if you want to see where the power of the mac wears out. But where pure gaming is concerned, if Quake 3 is the highlight of mac gaming, then its got a long way to go. I mean, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, WHAT OTHER GAMES THAN QUAKE 3, RUNE, AND UT can you think of? (all are the same boring genre) Don't say Driver cause that is like 4 years old. DOnt say Deus Ex cause the graphics are pathetic in comparison to upcoming games like Metal Gear Solid for PS2. YOu know what makes me even more angry? Its the fact that Mac addicts have a field day and enter a state of euphoria over horrible titles such as Dark CAstle, (a 2d adventure using like 3 colors). WAKE ME UP WHEN HALO COMES FOR THE MAC, until then i sleep.

p.s when i say PS2 i also speak for other heavy duty consoles like X-Box and Game Cube.

 

[guest]

Originally posted by Ramza
hey, guest. If you want a cheap GF3, just go buy a PC Gf3 and flash it.
Cheap $300 Gf3 for ya.

That's cool, I didn't know you could do this. Still, call me crazy but I would actually spend the extra $200 and buy the Mac version, just to demonstrate support for the Mac, and let HW/SW houses know that there is a market for Mac products. The downside to that is that I'm also encouraging the notion that Mac users will pay extra for HW/SW; OTOH I don't think that can be helped, what with the relative structures of the Mac and PC markets.

 

[guest]

Re: Fine...be that way

Kela:

There are a couple reasons that I prefer PC and Mac games to console titles.

1) Consoles are limited to TV resolution. I think this is still true (correct if wrong). That means 320x240. Or is it 640x480 alternately interlaced every other frame? I forget. Whichever it is, it pretty much blows.

2) Style of games. I like massively multiplayer games, games which make you use your brain, games which require the complex input that can only be provided by something like a keyboard, but also look and sound really great. That combination I think is only available on the PC/Mac. Sure, Wipeout is fine when you get back from work and want to settle on something mind-numbing with a certain roller-coaster-like rush. But it's nowhere near as interesting to me as World War II Online, or Warbirds III.

3) I've played a number of console and PC games, and the fact of the matter is that many of them suck. OK, so that is my opinion. You can go to CompUSA and salivate at the rows upon rows of box covers, but in the end many of the good ones get ported to the Mac, and I'm fine with that situation. Of course I would like to see more ports, done faster. For example, remember the original X-COM UFO? What an incredibly well-executed game--great strategy and action, and *exceptional* atmosphere supported by eerie graphics and dark music.

But bottom line is, live and let live. If you like consoles and console games that's cool. Some of us like Macs and Mac games, and that's fine too.

 

[blakespot]

Are you sure you can flash a PC GeForce 3 to work on the Mac?? I'd not heard this confirmed.



blakespot

 

[MrMacMan]

Apple needs to put pressure of Gaming groups

I think that FPS games are great games but I still like a causal game of Starcraft. FPS games are the equivalent of Counter strike on a PC. I think they need to be more games like the command and conquer series by westwood. Mac gamers are missing the best games that come out of the PC.

 

[blakespot]

Kela,

The X-Box is considered to be more powerful than the PS2, generally. I have a PS2, but I'd agree, given what I know about the hardware. The X-Box hardware is a Pentium III 733MHz + GeForce 3. There are some tweaks thrown in as well, such as RDRAM memory architecture. Any high-end PC w/ GeForce 3 would beat the X-Box. An Athlon 1.4GHz + GeForce 3 would have more than twice the CPU power of the X-Box. I'd wager to say that any of the G4 towers currently being produced (+ GeForce 3) are more powerful than the X-Box w/ it's P III 733. And certainly (just looking at the specs) a high-end PC or high-end Mac even, with a GeForce 3 or Radeon II can outperform the PS2. But yes, there's certianly more console games--the audience is huge, these $199 and $299 consoles are not general purpose machines, and as such can command low price tags that many can afford, and the market is deep.

Consoles are not the ideal gaming platform for a number of reasons. There's challenges and issues to getting DSL/Cable connectivity with most consoles--and more likely a cost involved as far as charge/server use, etc. Consoles are limited to 640x480-ish resolution (limited by the TV) while modern PC's and Macs can happily move polygons at 1024x768 and even 1280x1024 (1600x1200 is there as well, but obviously you take a hit). The clarity of a 19" Trinitron RGB monitor running games at 1280x1024--that's a whole different experience than console gaming. Also, whether or not you like FPS games--many do, and there's nothing (and I mean nothing) that works better as a controller for them than a keyboard and a mouse, used togehter. Every console controller is inferior.

I've got a PS2, and enjoy it (and GT3), but I'd much rather be using my Mac as a games platform.


blakespot

 

[spikey]

arse to capitalism

If you r going to compare a PC or mac to a console then do not compare it to a PS2, the PS2 has been a flop. It hasnt sold well, it had a stupid launch, it hasnt got great games titles (GT3 is really only GT2 with better graphics), sony has destroyed alot of games producers by promising the PS2 will deliver too much, some companies are now bust.
Oh yeah, its also overpriced, has a stupid external hard drive and it had to be re-designed so alot of the parts (ie dvd drive) would not break.
What will be interesting will be comparing an Xbox or Gamecube to pc or mac (when they come out)....though i get the feeling the Xbox might also flop when put up against the gamecubes value for money.

Anywayz i would always choose mac or pc for gaming, just because its constantly upgradable so you do not have to wait 3-4 years to get better graphics performance out of a machine, unlike a console.

 

[blakespot]

Actually, the PS2 is quite a success. It's cost is the same as the X-Box's will be, tho the Nintendo is $199 ($100 less than the $299 PS'2). I don't see any reason to write the PS2 off. It's yet to be seen, really, how the Nintendo will stack up against it.


blakespot

 

[mymemory]

Re: Re: Too bad...



Cutting edge gaming is a harsh reality, especially for Macs. If you want to play state-of-the-art games, you need a state-of-the-art machine.


If you are gonna do that, you are gonna need an state-of the-art salary too.

I think that to pay $4.000 for a machnine just for game is a waiste of money, a Play Station is long way better, specialize, economic and with lots of games too.

For that kind of money I can go to the Bahamas with my girlfriend and have some REAL fun! Plus, I keep the pictures.
J
The only game I had in my Mac was Mech Warrior, it was nice, but I won't waist my time even downloading a Doom like software just to show my friends how stupid I am wasting my money in 32MB of video ram that doesn't produce a dime.

I got a friend that made $8.000 with his pour Commodore 64 and his video toaster. Or my ex music teacher that is making $14.000 making music for TV commercials with his Atari Falcon.
Definitely I want to make some money out of my Mac rather than waist one hour playing games (they have supost to improve your concentration skills and help you to do better in school... yeah right).
The best part of a video game is making them or selling them.

 

[blakespot]

You seem pretty down on games--can you make an objective call on what gaming is worth in $$? I ordered a dual-800 G4, and gaming is a big piece of it. I don't think that's bad or wrong--the other piece is my desire to run OS X as my desktop OS (with all the power offered by its Unix underpinnings). Games are, really, the best test of a system's overall performance, being more demanding than almost all productivity apps.

(How was your friend making $$ with a Commodore 64 and a Video Toaster??)


blakespot