PB gaming???

CaptainCaveMann

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 5, 2004
1,518
0
How much of a difference in gaming expereince does getting the pb with the 1.5 and 64 vid versus the 128???
 

yoda13

macrumors 65816
Sep 26, 2003
1,460
0
Texas
check out barefeats.com. They have examined this issue as have other threads here, sorry don't have any links to the threads here :eek: But I believe that everyone says that it makes little practical difference in gaming, at least in the benchmarks that have been run. Having said that it probably makes a difference if you want to drive an extra monitor. Having said that, my new PB is coming tomorrow (crosses fingers) and I went ahead and ordered the 128 mb card. I think it helps to future proof the computer a little bit and I just wanted it. Of course, PBs aren't the best for gaming. The low frontside bus and slower hard drives make PMs and probably iMacs, esp. if they'd put a better card in it, better for gaming. But you can get by with a lot if you don't have to have everything maxed out all the time.
 

ExoticFish

macrumors 6502a
i just recieved my 1.5 128MB 9700 and i am quite impressed with how well it runs! from my old 12" with the AWESOME :rolleyes: 5200 i was getting like 10FPS in UT2K4... now i'm getting 30 - 60, un-frickin-believable. i always had to bring my PC desktop to LAN parties... that's changing real quick.
 

vraxtus

macrumors 65816
Aug 4, 2004
1,043
0
San Francisco, CA
ExoticFish said:
i just recieved my 1.5 128MB 9700 and i am quite impressed with how well it runs! from my old 12" with the AWESOME :rolleyes: 5200 i was getting like 10FPS in UT2K4... now i'm getting 30 - 60, un-frickin-believable. i always had to bring my PC desktop to LAN parties... that's changing real quick.
Strange... I've actually been hitting 20+ FPS avg on UT2K4 on most every map (save for Onslaught maps) at 800x600 res. Are you sure you know what you're doing?
 

heaven

macrumors 6502a
Jun 20, 2004
553
2
ExoticFish said:
i just recieved my 1.5 128MB 9700 and i am quite impressed with how well it runs! from my old 12" with the AWESOME :rolleyes: 5200 i was getting like 10FPS in UT2K4... now i'm getting 30 - 60, un-frickin-believable. i always had to bring my PC desktop to LAN parties... that's changing real quick.
Have the same specs with a 17", same FPS here..
But im looking forward to upgrade to 1GB RAM :rolleyes:
 

heaven

macrumors 6502a
Jun 20, 2004
553
2
Not for gaming only... I have to many apps runing at the same time, using large amounts of RAM & slowing my sweet PB down :(
 

hjhhjh

macrumors member
Sep 30, 2004
67
0
ExoticFish said:
i just recieved my 1.5 128MB 9700 and i am quite impressed with how well it runs! from my old 12" with the AWESOME :rolleyes: 5200 i was getting like 10FPS in UT2K4... now i'm getting 30 - 60, un-frickin-believable. i always had to bring my PC desktop to LAN parties... that's changing real quick.
my 12" 1.33 ghz 768 mb ram powerbook runs urt2k4 at around 20-35 fps

only in intence bot mathces with massive action does it go down to 10, on a normal basis id say average 25ish, which is perfect, anythign above it is un noticable
 

cb911

macrumors 601
Mar 12, 2002
4,119
3
BrisVegas, Australia
i always thought that cards with more memory only really showed significant benefits in games that use larger textures (like Doom 3?).

but a good card like the 128MB 9700 will make Tiger fly along better as well, since that's going to be relying more on the GPU...
 

Diatribe

macrumors 601
Jan 8, 2004
4,226
21
Back in the motherland
hjhhjh said:
my 12" 1.33 ghz 768 mb ram powerbook runs urt2k4 at around 20-35 fps

only in intence bot mathces with massive action does it go down to 10, on a normal basis id say average 25ish, which is perfect, anythign above it is un noticable
I don't know but UT2004 is playable for the casual gamer on low difficulty settings on a 12". But if you ever try playing inhuman or godlike, where you actually have to hit the first time or you're dead, then it's almost unplayable.
On a 15" I can win pretty much every dm on godlike, on my 12" I win, well none. I like my 12" but with FPS it just plain sucks.
 

hjhhjh

macrumors member
Sep 30, 2004
67
0
Diatribe said:
I don't know but UT2004 is playable for the casual gamer on low difficulty settings on a 12". But if you ever try playing inhuman or godlike, where you actually have to hit the first time or you're dead, then it's almost unplayable.
On a 15" I can win pretty much every dm on godlike, on my 12" I win, well none. I like my 12" but with FPS it just plain sucks.
well myne stays around 25 fps, and believe me, i can kill god bots ez, there dumb nuth the less
 

spencecb

macrumors 6502a
Nov 20, 2003
960
17
I had a PowerBook G4 1 GHz with 64 MB Ram Video card, and it wasn't greatest (nor the worse) for gaming....but I must say...I am incredibly impressed by my new iMac G5 1.8 GHz 20" when it comes to the games...the run very smoothly
 

hjhhjh

macrumors member
Sep 30, 2004
67
0
Diatribe said:
I don't doubt your abilities but if you call 25fps smooth gameplay then I don't know what to tell you.
note ut2004, on mac graphics all ultra high with mac shadowing and fog distance, as well as resolution maxed, and in single player none online it goes up to around 65 or 70 with these settings on my comp, in battle with a few bots around 35-40 ish
 

Diatribe

macrumors 601
Jan 8, 2004
4,226
21
Back in the motherland
hjhhjh said:
note ut2004, on mac graphics all ultra high with mac shadowing and fog distance, as well as resolution maxed, and in single player none online it goes up to around 65 or 70 with these settings on my comp, in battle with a few bots around 35-40 ish
This is really odd. I wish I would get 35-40ish constantly. It is more like 20-25ish in a dm with 5-6 bots and everything turned to low. I don't know, can anyone else with a 12" 1.33 confirm those framerates?
 

JeDiBoYTJ

macrumors 6502a
Jun 22, 2004
859
0
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
When I bought my powerbook, I just bought it stock from the Apple Retail Store, and I was worried that I would loose gaming performance with just the 64MB VRAM, but when I first loaded up the Battlefield 1942 Demo, set everything between Mid and Max, and played the game, I was realllly surprised at how well it was playing, it wasnt jerky, it was very smooth. The only thing I toned down a little was the viewing distance, when I did that, I must of shot up 10-20FPS MORE than what I already have.

I find games to be VERY playable on my PB 1.5ghz, 64MB VRAM. And reading those benchmarks, I feel better now about not upgrading to 128. :D :cool:
 

vraxtus

macrumors 65816
Aug 4, 2004
1,043
0
San Francisco, CA
JeDiBoYTJ said:
When I bought my powerbook, I just bought it stock from the Apple Retail Store, and I was worried that I would loose gaming performance with just the 64MB VRAM, but when I first loaded up the Battlefield 1942 Demo, set everything between Mid and Max, and played the game, I was realllly surprised at how well it was playing, it wasnt jerky, it was very smooth.
You must have a very loose interpretation of smooth then.
 

JeDiBoYTJ

macrumors 6502a
Jun 22, 2004
859
0
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
vraxtus said:
You must have a very loose interpretation of smooth then.

so for something to be "smooth", it needs to be like 100fps right?

go watch a movie, nearly all movies are filmed in 24fps, and oh yeah, we know how jerky movies are :rolleyes:

anything above 25fps is smooth enough for me, any higher just leaves more room for error.

but hey, im just saying, if you need 100fps to enjoy a game, then by all means do it, but 25+fps is good enough for me, and it works, and yes it is SMOOTH
 

vraxtus

macrumors 65816
Aug 4, 2004
1,043
0
San Francisco, CA
JeDiBoYTJ said:
so for something to be "smooth", it needs to be like 100fps right?

go watch a movie, nearly all movies are filmed in 24fps, and oh yeah, we know how jerky movies are :rolleyes:

anything above 25fps is smooth enough for me, any higher just leaves more room for error.

but hey, im just saying, if you need 100fps to enjoy a game, then by all means do it, but 25+fps is good enough for me, and it works, and yes it is SMOOTH

Wow, shows JUST how much you know!

Seeing as how the naked eye can't distinguish between anything more than 30 FPS, 100 is CLEARLY not assessable!

Nice job!

Oh and btw, most movies are above 25 and approaching 30. So, good job!
 

JeDiBoYTJ

macrumors 6502a
Jun 22, 2004
859
0
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
vraxtus said:
Wow, shows JUST how much you know!

Seeing as how the naked eye can't distinguish between anything more than 30 FPS, 100 is CLEARLY not assessable!

Nice job!

Oh and btw, most movies are above 25 and approaching 30. So, good job!
then what was the point in your original post then? you saying I have a loose interpretation of smooth, if im clearly playing the game in 25fps (did a fps test, the low point was 18, and the high point was 40fps)

and sorry to correct you again, but every single commericial big budget film is recorded in 24fps, and shown in cimemas at 24fps, but when it is processed to DVD, it is converted to the standards FPS, which PAL = 25, and NTSC = 29.97
 

vraxtus

macrumors 65816
Aug 4, 2004
1,043
0
San Francisco, CA
JeDiBoYTJ said:
and sorry to correct you again, but every single commericial big budget film is recorded in 24fps, and shown in cimemas at 24fps, but when it is processed to DVD, it is converted to the standards FPS, which PAL = 25, and NTSC = 29.97
Interesting.

Explain then, how a movie retains its "smoothness" when there is a 5 frame differential to account for in every potential shot for NTSC versions?

Also, my point is that you're nearly the ONLY person I've ever seen that's claimed BF1942 has run *SMOOTH* on a POWERBOOK system.

People running G5s have claimed it runs like ass with a dual rig.

So EVIDENTLY there's a preferential gap here, and I really doubt it runs that well on a 64 MB MRad9700.
 

yoda13

macrumors 65816
Sep 26, 2003
1,460
0
Texas
vraxtus said:
Interesting.

Explain then, how a movie retains its "smoothness" when there is a 5 frame differential to account for in every potential shot for NTSC versions?

Also, my point is that you're nearly the ONLY person I've ever seen that's claimed BF1942 has run *SMOOTH* on a POWERBOOK system.

People running G5s have claimed it runs like ass with a dual rig.

So EVIDENTLY there's a preferential gap here, and I really doubt it runs that well on a 64 MB MRad9700.
I have BF 1942, but haven't loaded it on my PB (see sig) yet. I have put KOTOR on here and it plays really well according to my standards, meaning I play it and enjoy it and the game play performance doesn't detract from me enjoying the game completely. How would you say KOTOR plays vs. BF 1942 because I have been pleasantly surprised with KOTOR on my PB? I am just curious what you think.