Gaming?

[Zoolook]

The Quadro line of cards is geared more toward engineering and professional applications (like CAD/CAM) rather than gaming.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx.html

Agreed - the Quadro FX 4500 is like a very fast Ti4600, not really much use for modern gaming, but certainly a good OpenGL target rendering aid.

 

[Aggreko]

So much good information in this thread. I do have a question. I am about to buy a Macbook Pro within the next couple months. Fully loaded: 2.6 ghz processor, Top graphics card, 4GB of ram... When I install bootcamp and windows, how does the gaming rate on a macbook pro? I really want a laptop badly and want a macbook pro. Thx in advance for any answers.

 

[Alexis]

Some harsh opinions on the iMac here.

Games fly on my Radeon 2600 iMac under Windows XP with the latest drivers.

Need For Speed Carbon has everything on max at 1600 resolution and there are some good videos of Crysis on You Tube.

True, you'll be disappointed if you want everything at max at insane resolutions, but who can tell the difference between trilinear and bilinear filtering?

And antialiasing is a massive gimmick as well. I've never ever used it and it doesn't actually make games look all that different.

 

[jaywong87]

A lot of people here dont seem to answer people's questions, just promoting Mac. Relax, he's already sold on it. Also, telling him that "PS3, Wii, and 360" should be used for gaming, is not really helping. He's asking about gaming on Mac, not on consoles.

To your question:

Straight answer: No, OSX is horrible for games. Even the Mac versions suck in performance compared to their Windows counterparts. Why? I dont know, maybe because its not developed with the OSX architecture in mind. Anyway, you'll have to use Bootcamp and install Windows on your Mac to get real gaming.

http://www.youtube.com/KamikazeX1

This guy used his MBP (its either the MBP or iMac for gaming, anything else will suck), with Windows installed, to play Crysis, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock and more. And, if you upgrade the ram, the MBP and iMac really are great systems for gaming. Crysis runs at a solid 40FPS average w/ Medium-high settings. Bioshock, with mostly high settings, run at a good 45FPS average, Call of Duty, with EVERYTHING maxed, gives a solid 45FPS..

And, for your other question, PC World rated the MBP as the fastest laptop for Vista, and Im sure it will be the same result for XP.

 

[Zoolook]

Some harsh opinions on the iMac here.

Games fly on my Radeon 2600 iMac under Windows XP with the latest drivers.

Need For Speed Carbon has everything on max at 1600 resolution and there are some good videos of Crysis on You Tube.

True, you'll be disappointed if you want everything at max at insane resolutions, but who can tell the difference between trilinear and bilinear filtering?

And antialiasing is a massive gimmick as well. I've never ever used it and it doesn't actually make games look all that different.

Well NFS:Carbon is distinctly last gen and of course Crysis can be made to look good on a highly compressed 2 inch window - it may even look 'good' on an iMac screen, until you see what it is supposed to look like on a 8800Ultra SLI - even that gets slow downs on the highest settings.

Anti-Aliasing is important if you have a large screen right in front of your nose, and a limited resolution. Oh hang on, that sounds like an iMac!

The 2600, in PC gaming terms, is barely adequate for games coming out now, at medium resolutions - arguing otherwise is deceiving people, plain and simple. I think the MBP has a better GPU, pixel for pixel, and that is why it gets such good reviews as a Windows machine, as well as being a Mac.

There is a world of difference between the last gen games and the new DX 10 era games being released now - and I think the experience of people who have spent years on PC gaming tells them that the low-end GPU market now, will not support the games of 2008. We've seen this all before.. The 2600 and 2400XT are outperformed by top end GPUs that came out in 2005 (6800u for example).

Remember that the iMac cannot have its GPU upgraded - so the latest games will become more and more compromised in terms of turning down the quality. Don't buy an iMac for hard-core gaming - get a console.

 

[cwa107]

A lot of people here dont seem to answer people's questions, just promoting Mac. Relax, he's already sold on it. Also, telling him that "PS3, Wii, and 360" should be used for gaming, is not really helping. He's asking about gaming on Mac, not on consoles.

I missed the post where someone said that Macs rock for gaming.

Quite the contrary, just about every poster recommended either using a dedicated, easily upgradeable Windows machine for gaming or doing so via Boot Camp.

In recent posts there was some debate over the power of some of the video cards offered in the Macs - but I don't think anyone was skirting his questions, mindlessly promoting Macs.

 

[Village Idiot]

And, for your other question, PC World rated the MBP as the fastest laptop for Vista, and Im sure it will be the same result for XP.

Come on now, that has already been discussed in depth on here. They only tested like five or six notebooks. It's not "the fastest laptop for Vista".

I guess since they didn't review this monster http://www.alienware.com/configurat...aspx?Syscode=PC-LT-AREA51M9750&SubCode=SKU-EX
that it doesn't count as a laptop...two 160GB 7200 RPM drives setup as a raid configuration, two Nvidia 8700M GPUs setup in a SLI configuration, 2.33ghz c2d, and a bunch of other stuff.

 

[Alexis]

Well NFS:Carbon is distinctly last gen and of course Crysis can be made to look good on a highly compressed 2 inch window - it may even look 'good' on an iMac screen, until you see what it is supposed to look like on a 8800Ultra SLI - even that gets slow downs on the highest settings.

Anti-Aliasing is important if you have a large screen right in front of your nose, and a limited resolution. Oh hang on, that sounds like an iMac!

The 2600, in PC gaming terms, is barely adequate for games coming out now, at medium resolutions - arguing otherwise is deceiving people, plain and simple. I think the MBP has a better GPU, pixel for pixel, and that is why it gets such good reviews as a Windows machine, as well as being a Mac.

There is a world of difference between the last gen games and the new DX 10 era games being released now - and I think the experience of people who have spent years on PC gaming tells them that the low-end GPU market now, will not support the games of 2008. We've seen this all before.. The 2600 and 2400XT are outperformed by top end GPUs that came out in 2005 (6800u for example).

Remember that the iMac cannot have its GPU upgraded - so the latest games will become more and more compromised in terms of turning down the quality. Don't buy an iMac for hard-core gaming - get a console.

I'm puzzled how you can make all these assertions when I understand you don't even use an iMac?
You automatically assume every game is a slideshow on it and anything other is 'last gen'.

Of course games are great on an 8800. Driving a Lamborghini would be great, but it doesn't mean all other cars in the world are automatically slow and rubbish.

As for arguing otherwise being 'deception' - what utter codswallop.

 

[jaywong87]

I missed the post where someone said that Macs rock for gaming.

Quite the contrary, just about every poster recommended either using a dedicated, easily upgradeable Windows machine for gaming or doing so via Boot Camp.

In recent posts there was some debate over the power of some of the video cards offered in the Macs - but I don't think anyone was skirting his questions, mindlessly promoting Macs.

I missed the part where I implied anyone said that Macs rock for gaming. What I did mean, however, is that instead of giving the dude a good response, I noticed some people say, "You dont need to use a computer for gaming, you can get a PS3 and 360 for that." You're right though, it isnt promoting mac, its just missing the question. Which asks, "How is the Mac for gaming" not "What should I use for gaming?"

 

[jaywong87]

Come on now, that has already been discussed in depth on here. They only tested like five or six notebooks. It's not "the fastest laptop for Vista".

I guess since they didn't review this monster http://www.alienware.com/configurat...aspx?Syscode=PC-LT-AREA51M9750&SubCode=SKU-EX
that it doesn't count as a laptop...two 160GB 7200 RPM drives setup as a raid configuration, two Nvidia 8700M GPUs setup in a SLI configuration, 2.33ghz c2d, and a bunch of other stuff.

The dude asked whether or not Macs are good for Vista, and I posted that quote as a way of saying, "Yea, you wont be missing out on anything if you use Vista on Mac."

 

[Zoolook]

I'm puzzled how you can make all these assertions when I understand you don't even use an iMac?
You automatically assume every game is a slideshow on it and anything other is 'last gen'.

Of course games are great on an 8800. Driving a Lamborghini would be great, but it doesn't mean all other cars in the world are automatically slow and rubbish.

As for arguing otherwise being 'deception' - what utter codswallop.

I understand hardware, I built gaming rigs for myself and other people for 11 years, wrote numerous reviews for hardware for 7 years and spent far too much of my life analysing hardware performance.

It's fine that you dissagree, but don't assert that I am making assumptions. The iMac was not built for gaming, and it shows. Even the Mac Pro has a laughable 7300GT... a poor performer even last generation. At least it can be upgraded though.

Just because you're able to play a mainstream game from last generation, by a mass market publisher (EA) doesn't make the iMac a gaming rig.

Now I am not attacking your hardware, the iMac is NOT underpowered for what it was designed to do. But it was not designed to play Bioshock, Crysis or UT3 on anything other than modest settings for a quick blast. Don't take it so personally.

And YES, arguing that this either doesn't matter or is not the case, is deceptive, because it could influence someone less informed to perhaps buy an iMac thinking it'll cover gaming, rather than say a MacBook and an Xbox, which would be a much better choice.

 

[Village Idiot]

The dude asked whether or not Macs are good for Vista, and I posted that quote as a way of saying, "Yea, you wont be missing out on anything if you use Vista on Mac."

You posted what I quoted in my previous post and what I'm quoting below. I was just pointing out that that article has been discussed on here. PC World tested like five laptops. That's no where near the selection out there and is a some what ignorant and misleading of some one for saying it's the fastest laptop for Vista.

I could test an iMac, a gateway, and a dell with the appropriate specs and come out with the iMac running Windows the fastest. If I think said the iMac is the fastest computer for running Vista, then I would sound like I have no idea what I'm talking about since there's obviously ten other computers I could name off the top of my head that would prove the afore mentioned statement wrong without even having to run tests.

And, for your other question, PC World rated the MBP as the fastest laptop for Vista, and Im sure it will be the same result for XP.

 

[Village Idiot]

I understand hardware, I built gaming rigs for myself and other people for 11 years, wrote numerous reviews for hardware for 7 years and spent far too much of my life analysing hardware performance.

It's fine that you dissagree, but don't assert that I am making assumptions. The iMac was not built for gaming, and it shows. Even the Mac Pro has a laughable 7300GT... a poor performer even last generation. At least it can be upgraded though.

Just because you're able to play a mainstream game from last generation, by a mass market publisher (EA) doesn't make the iMac a gaming rig.

Now I am not attacking your hardware, the iMac is NOT underpowered for what it was designed to do. But it was not designed to play Bioshock, Crysis or UT3 on anything other than modest settings for a quick blast. Don't take it so personally.

And YES, arguing that this either doesn't matter or is not the case, is deceptive, because it could influence something less informed to perhaps buy an iMac thinking it'll cover gaming, rather than say a MacBook and an Xbox, which would be a much better choice.

Some times it doesn't pay to work in the IT business and nit pick about specs all day when other people could care less about actual performance and how they're affected by other hardware/software factors. Oh well, maybe I can retire early and become a full time photographer.

 

[Zoolook]

Some times it doesn't pay to work in the IT business and nit pick about specs all day when other people could care less about actual performance and how they're affected by other hardware/software factors. Oh well, maybe I can retire early and become a full time photographer.

Heh - time to bow out I guess. I am happy to discuss performance and why low-end cards exist and their limits etc, but I don't think the argument is about that. I think it's about someone trying to justify a purchase and not wanting to hear that it is not what they thought it was. Shame, because iMac is a superb peice of hardware... it's just not a gaming rig, anymore than a Honda Civic is a racing car.

 

[Village Idiot]

Heh - time to bow out I guess. I am happy to discuss performance and why low-end cards exist and their limits etc, but I don't think the argument is about that. I think it's about someone trying to justify a purchase and not wanting to hear that it is not what they thought it was. Shame, because iMac is a superb peice of hardware... it's just not a gaming rig, anymore than a Honda Civic is a racing car.

That's why I have the luxury of owning three computers: A MBP for recording studio work and photography editing, a Dell notebook for gaming, and a Dell tower for a file server.

Each does the task I bought it for exceptionally well, but trying to cross them over will work and some times acceptably, but often will not yield results that the intended computer will produce.

That probably sums up this thread best.

 

[Zoolook]

That's why I have the luxury of owning three computers: A MBP for recording studio work and photography editing, a Dell notebook for gaming, and a Dell tower for a file server.

Each does the task I bought it for exceptionally well, but trying to cross them over will work and some times acceptably, but often will not yield results that the intended computer will produce.

That probably sums up this thread best.

but... but... but... you could have bought a MacBook to be a file server... ;D

 

[Village Idiot]

but... but... but... you could have bought a MacBook to be a file server... ;D

I very well could have and it would have worked perfectly for me, but the other people in the house would probably be pretty angry when the file server went with me and they were stuck without files being served. ;D

 

[D3v1L80Y]

but who can tell the difference between trilinear and bilinear filtering?

... and who can really, honestly tell the difference between 40fps, 50fps, or 60fps without the aid of software to calculate it?
Yet, there are gamers that claim they can.... and drop the cash for a graphics card that says it can do it.

A large portion of the gamers only buy hardware because of what the specs are. It makes no difference how much better the specs are, or if they are even noticeable... if the box says the specs are "higher" it is therefore "Better" and they buy it.

 

[Village Idiot]

... and who can really, honestly tell the difference between 40fps, 50fps, or 60fps without the aid of software to calculate it?
Yet, there are gamers that claim they can.... and drop the cash for a graphics card that says it can do it.

A large portion of the gamers only buy hardware because of what the specs are. It makes no difference how much better the specs are, or if they are even noticeable... if the box says the specs are "higher" it is therefore "Better" and they buy it.

20 FPS is a jump. That goes from being incredibly smooth with no discernable "jumpiness" to having a screen that starts to lag. It's really easy thing to see how much you notice by playing a game that has a visible FPS monitor and then running around in situations that cause the game's FPS to drop considerably and see when you're able to start seeing a difference. Anything under 30fps starts getting into that territory of being able to tell for me.

 

[Zoolook]

... and who can really, honestly tell the difference between 40fps, 50fps, or 60fps without the aid of software to calculate it?
Yet, there are gamers that claim they can.... and drop the cash for a graphics card that says it can do it.

A large portion of the gamers only buy hardware because of what the specs are. It makes no difference how much better the specs are, or if they are even noticeable... if the box says the specs are "higher" it is therefore "Better" and they buy it.

Yes there is a difference, you can tell the difference, and there is a simple reason why.

If you play with V-sync disabled, the difference between 50fps and 60 fps is barely noticable, true. However, remember these are averages, so the min and max framerates are more important - if your avg is 50 fps, then your min and max will be 25 - 75 fps for example. However, switching off v-sync causes tearing and artifacting issues, so for the best image, you leave v-sync on.

With V-sync 'on', the card will try and sync with your monitor refresh rate (usually 60hz or 60-fps on modern flat panels). So, the card must display the frame-rate at a factor of the refresh rate. So lets say the card can output at 100fps (like the really top end ones do) then your actual on screen refresh rate will be 60fps (the refresh rate) and this will be constant. As soon as the rendering speed drops below 60fps, the output drops to 30fps immediately.

If your card does a max of 65 fps and a min of 25 fps (which is realistic), the onscreen fps will be between 60 fps and 15 fps (as soon as the rendering dips below 30fps) because it goes to the next lowest factor of 60. This is noticable by most gamers. It even happens on consoles.

So assuming your refresh rate is 60hz, these are the actual frame rates you'll see

120 fps + = 60fps
60fps + = 60fps
30fps - 59fps = 30fps
15fps - 29 fps = 15 fps
10 fps - 14 fps = 10fps

Of course, unelss you're a hardcore eye-candy lover, you might not care. But when you're talking about gaming rigs, these kinds of things are important and this is the difference between a card costing $120 and one costing $400 and yes, people pay for this. Even more so when playing online, because a sudden slowdown will lose you accuracy and possible a match.