WoW/OS X is much slower than WoW/Windows on MacBook Pro - why?

[JavaCowboy]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31121

Edit:

Placating the moderator:

Is there merit to the conclusion drawn that OS X is an inferior OS in some respects, including gaming, or is the conclusion reached by the article erroneous?

Happy?

Edit by mod:

Weak, man.

[m01ety]

Originally posted by JavaCowboy
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31121

Please don't just post links without content.

[iPeon]

Huh? So World of Warcraft plays slower on Mac OS X than Windows according to that article. How does that equate to "OS X is slower than Windows"?

A true statement would have been "World of Warcraft plays slower on OS X than Windows." :grumble:

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

That article could have supplied more info.

I can't help but wonder if the version of WoW he was running under OSX was not universal. I can't imagine Rosetta would handle that very well.

[Kickaha]

Yeah, talk about content-free reporting...

1) Was the copy of WoW under MacOS X Universal or not?

2) Did they happen to stop and consider, even for a *microsecond*, that the drivers for the video card are different?

I mean really, JC, that was pretty weak.

A content-free post linking to a content-free verbal spewage?

Ya gotta try harder than *that*...

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]Yeah, talk about content-free reporting...
2) Did they happen to stop and consider, even for a *microsecond*, that the drivers for the video card are different?

That does not in any way change anything. If you have bad drivers, that's not Windows' unfair advantage. That's just OS X's (or Apple's, or ATi's, whoever writes the drivers) weakness.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally posted by Kickaha
Yeah, talk about content-free reporting...

1) Was the copy of WoW under MacOS X Universal or not?

2) Did they happen to stop and consider, even for a *microsecond*, that the drivers for the video card are different?

I mean really, JC, that was pretty weak.

A content-free post linking to a content-free verbal spewage?

Ya gotta try harder than *that*...

For a moderator you jump to conclusions far too quickly.

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
That does not in any way change anything. If you have bad drivers, that's not Windows' unfair advantage. That's just OS X's (or Apple's, or ATi's, whoever writes the drivers) weakness.

You're right. But it doesn't mean that one *OS* is slower than the other, it only means that the *drivers* are slower than the other on that task.

The article is still ill-thought out drivel based on a fact-light informal post on Penny Arcade. It was just designed to get hits, is all.

I mean heck, why don't we compare how long it takes to copy a file on the same volume, and then make grandiose sweeping statements about network speeds?

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by JavaCowboy
For a moderator you jump to conclusions far too quickly.

Oh please. I read the article, *and* the original PA post, before commenting. It's content-free, and doesn't provide enough info to make any conclusions at all, one way or the other.


As for the rest...

Posting Guidelines. Again.

9. Be descriptive with the title of new threads. Do not start a thread with an ambiguous title like "Guess what..." and then use the text portion of the post to explain. Give your post a headline. This courtesy is especially appreciated in the more highly trafficked forums. Furthermore, threads with no original content will not be allowed. Do not post a link or quote an article while contributing little to nothing of your own.

Edit your original post, or this gets locked, like it should have been in the first place.

[kim kap sol]

There's an issue with full screen glow in WoW for Mac that cuts frame rate nearly in half...for fuck's sake, how many of these exact same threads will be started today?

Here, I've done JavaCowboy's homework: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mac-tech-support&t=224&p=1&tmp=1#post224

I told his teacher too...so he's getting a zero.

[lundy]

Not to mention that games are written for Windows and ported to OS X. So naturally the game code never uses some of the advanced features of OS X - just enough to glue the Windows calls into a workable OS X call.

This "comparison" is completely useless. These guys apparently do not even realize that they are comparing two different source codes.

I would never expect a cross-platform port of anything to be faster than the original that was written for its platform.

[Towel]

Originally posted by Kickaha
I mean heck, why don't we compare how long it takes to copy a file on the same volume, and then make grandiose sweeping statements about network speeds? Don't get him started on how OS X takes 20 minutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_trolling_phenomena) to do a simple 20 MB file copy. :D

[tonton]

Well, until Vista comes out, at least OS X file searches will always be 1000 times faster than Win.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally posted by kim kap sol
There's an issue with full screen glow in WoW for Mac that cuts frame rate nearly in half...for fuck's sake, how many of these exact same threads will be started today?

Here, I've done JavaCowboy's homework: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mac-tech-support&t=224&p=1&tmp=1#post224

I told his teacher too...so he's getting a zero.

You guys are so defensive. You all feel so threatened by the implication of the slightest imperfection in Mac/OS X, etc.

Maybe it would occur to you that the reason I posted is because I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS ISSUE AT ALL , and that I want to hear other peoples' opinions. Instead, you've all assumed that I'm out to get you... or something.

From the pattern you've established, I'm sure that if I were to ask if the Mach kernel needs further optimization to catch up vis-a-vis the Windows or Linux kernels, you'd probably have a conniption.

You need to lighten up. Seriously.

Edit: Yeah, I know I should have put a question mark in the title, but from what I see (I could be wrong) it's not possible to edit the title of the thread.

[kim kap sol]

Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You guys are so defensive. You all feel so threatened by the implication of the slightest imperfection in Mac/OS X, etc.

Maybe it would occur to you that the reason I posted is because I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS ISSUE AT ALL , and that I want to hear other peoples' opinions. Instead, you've all assumed that I'm out to get you... or something.

From the pattern you've established, I'm sure that if I were to ask if the Mach kernel needs further optimization to catch up vis-a-vis the Windows or Linux kernels, you'd probably have a conniption.

You need to lighten up. Seriously.

Edit: Yeah, I know I should have put a question mark in the title, but from what I see (I could be wrong) it's not possible to edit the title of the thread.

Hey...I'm not the one bolding and capitalizing entire phrases. Are *you* ok?

[JavaCowboy]

Originally posted by kim kap sol
Hey...I'm not the one bolding and capitalizing entire phrases. Are *you* ok?

Uh...emphasis, and for those with short attention spans? ;)

[Marvin]

It's always been the case that Mac gaming was slower because the market was always so small, people were glad to have a port no matter what condition it was in. Windows was *the* gaming platform so people not only expected the game but that it was highly optimized.

Mac on Intel could help because developers will now be able to test and optimize builds on the same machine but since Mactel is just out, you can't expect instant results.

Also, if it wasn't a universal binary they used, then it speaks for itself. Benchmarks are generally unreliable especially when they are presented in such an ambiguous way.

[DanMacMan]

Give Windows a couple months of use, trust me it will be much slower than OS X.

[Mr. H]

Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You guys are so defensive. You all feel so threatened by the implication of the slightest imperfection in Mac/OS X, etc...and that I want to hear other peoples' opinions. Instead, you've all assumed that I'm out to get you... or something.

You did say, in your first post:

Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Is there merit to the conclusion drawn that OS X is an inferior OS in some respects, including gaming, or is the conclusion reached by the article erroneous?

I would suggest that the "defensiveness" to which you refer is simply an answer to your question. People are trying to get across (correctly) that the article is entirely devoid of merit. Yes, Mac OS X can be slow at gaming sometimes. Is it right to test one game on one mac running OS X and Windows, see that the game is slower on OS X, and then conclude that OS X is "slower than Windows"? No, of course it isn't.

The only thing you can conclude is that OS X is slower at running that particular game. That could be OS X's fault, or it could be the game's fault.

Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Uh...emphasis, and for those with short attention spans? ;)

As I understand it, "cap locks" on an online forum is equivalent to shouting. Some people consider it to be impolite.

[Chucker]

Using a single example to prove a wholly more complex thesis is simply nonsensical. Observe one Frenchman driving at 100 km/h and a Spanish-man driving at 50 km/h and you'll state that the Spanish always drive slower than the French?

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You guys are so defensive. You all feel so threatened by the implication of the slightest imperfection in Mac/OS X, etc.

Hardly. I've got my own hitlist of things wrong in the OS. This was simply a facts/logic issue. WoW is a lot slower. That's true. Jumping to 'the OS is slower' without any qualifiers, parameters, or such is fallacious. That's all.

It's a lot more interesting to deduce *why* than to make sweeping generalizations that aren't really founded in reality, isn't it?

Maybe it would occur to you that the reason I posted is because I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS ISSUE AT ALL , and that I want to hear other peoples' opinions. Instead, you've all assumed that I'm out to get you... or something.

See, now *that* would have been a great thing to put in your first post: "Anyone have any ideas on why there's this huge slowdown??"

From the pattern you've established, I'm sure that if I were to ask if the Mach kernel needs further optimization to catch up vis-a-vis the Windows or Linux kernels, you'd probably have a conniption.

Naw, we'd trot out funnels and point at them and laugh with you.

Edit: Yeah, I know I should have put a question mark in the title, but from what I see (I could be wrong) it's not possible to edit the title of the thread.

I got it for you. Actually, I edited it to have both the factual info (and even added the word 'much' because, yeah, 50% the FPS is much slower), without the conclusions the article jumped to, and added a question to prod discussion. *whew*

Work, work, work.

[grad student]

uh, not that i play any video games, but for the sake of discussion: compilers could have something to do with it. intel compilers are much, much better at producing x86 code than gcc is. plus, GL vs. D3D (not taking sides on that one though), it could be a lot of things.

[kim kap sol]

It's not 'it could be a lot of things' in this particular case.

One of the main problem with the test, and Gabe says so, is that both ran with max settings so there's no reason to believe that 'Full Screen Glow' was turned off during the Mac test.

Blizzard says (and you can check it out in the link I provided) that full screen glow kills performance on Macs. I'm not saying WoW for OS X performance will suddenly be on par with WoW for Windows performance but I'm saying it won't be anywhere near twice as slow.

Can someone with an iMac CD and Boot Camp do a test without full screen glow under OS X and Windows so this thread can die?

I know I've said all this and it'll again fall onto deaf ears and the thread will still be overflowing with "it could be a number of things". "of course, Mac graphics drivers are not as optimized as Windows graphics drivers", once I stop posting.

I'm not saying the full screen glow is Blizzard's fault. I don't know who's fault it is...it could be Apple's drivers, Blizzard's code, or both...but in general, OpenGL performance on Mac isn't 'much slower' or 'twice slower'.

There are many instances where OS X beats Windows in OpenGL performance...look no further than Cinebench. There's also a Bare Feats test that shows Quake 3 for Mac beating Quake 3 for Windows by almost 50% (although this one's a bit hard to believe.)

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by tonton
Well, until Vista comes out, at least OS X file searches will always be 1000 times faster than Win.

Google Desktop Search.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Google Desktop Search.

Third party app. Doesn't count.

[JavaCowboy]

Is it possible that OS X, being a relatively young operating system, just does some things well and some things poorly, vis-a-vis Windows?

There's no question that OS X is more secure, user friendly, and, most importantly, more modern (ex Unix shell) than Windows.

However, is it possible that OS X has weaknesses, such as its ability to run games?

This is a sincere question.

Originally posted by kim kap sol
It's not 'it could be a lot of things' in this particular case.

One of the main problem with the test, and Gabe says so, is that both ran with max settings so there's no reason to believe that 'Full Screen Glow' was turned off during the Mac test.

Blizzard says (and you can check it out in the link I provided) that full screen glow kills performance on Macs. I'm not saying WoW for OS X performance will suddenly be on par with WoW for Windows performance but I'm saying it won't be anywhere near twice as slow.

Can someone with an iMac CD and Boot Camp do a test without full screen glow under OS X and Windows so this thread can die?

I know I've said all this and it'll again fall onto deaf ears and the thread will still be overflowing with "it could be a number of things". "of course, Mac graphics drivers are not as optimized as Windows graphics drivers", once I stop posting.

I'm not saying the full screen glow is Blizzard's fault. I don't know who's fault it is...it could be Apple's drivers, Blizzard's code, or both...but in general, OpenGL performance on Mac isn't 'much slower' or 'twice slower'.

There are many instances where OS X beats Windows in OpenGL performance...look no further than Cinebench. There's also a Bare Feats test that shows Quake 3 for Mac beating Quake 3 for Windows by almost 50% (although this one's a bit hard to believe.)

[Chucker]

It's possible that OS X's OpenGL implementation is sub-par. A lot of results appear to suggest this.

It's also possible that OS X's graphics drivers are sub-par.

Finally, it's possible that OS X's architecture generally delivers lower per-application performance and focuses more on overall performance, or that its algorithm for perceived performance vs. real performance works very much differently.

However, this thread is too highly speculative to be of any value.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Chucker
Third party app. Doesn't count.

Why not? It's searching files just fine.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Why not? It's searching files just fine.

Don't be silly. The point was to compare Windows XP to Mac OS X Tiger. Tiger contains fast file searching (in fact, so did Panther). XP does not. Third-party software, or even first-party add-on software has nothing to do with it, regardless of its price.

For the many features Mac OS X still lacks or has broken support for, you can't state either "yeah, but there's some thing you can download and then it's much better".

[Placebo]

Google Desktop, and MSN Desktop Search which is MICROSOFT PROVIDED AND FREE AND THUS SHOULD BE COUNTED, are both cample replacement equivalents to Spotlight.

[kim kap sol]

Originally posted by Placebo
Google Desktop, and MSN Desktop Search which is MICROSOFT PROVIDED AND FREE AND THUS SHOULD BE COUNTED, are both cample replacement equivalents to Spotlight.

So where do we draw the line then...if a line must be drawn. If no line can be drawn, I can name quite a few apps that run much faster under OS X than under Windows.

Please, tell us what should count and what shouldn't...

[Kickaha]

I think he did. If it's provided for free by the OS vendor, include it.

Personally, I'd rather see the line at what ships in the box, just because many people aren't going to be savvy enough to go grab the tool online. (Yes, believe it or not, there are still tons of people out there in that category.) But the above distinction is valid, and I can't *really* argue with it.

Given the above line, I'd include MSN Desktop Search, but not Google's version. That's 3rd party, and I can't see a valid rationale for including those. Otherwise it becomes an intractable fanboi argument. "Oh yeah? Well I know about application RandomObscureApp that shows a 2% improvement over your piece of crap, so MY OS IS BETTER!" Feh. Mindless drivel, that.

(Although I'm still trying to figure out what a 'cample' replacement is... ;) )

[Mr. H]

Originally posted by kim kap sol
So where do we draw the line then...

It depends upon whether you are trying to compare operating systems or platforms. Whilst the first is an interesting exercise, the later makes more sense as that is what you use, the platform as a whole, not just the OS in isolation.

[Kickaha]

Except that the latter is almost impossible to create meaningful comparisons for that are relevant to all but niches areas. Outside of specialized realms, it's hard to find two people who use the *exact same apps* in general. The best you can really do is say "App A runs better on OS X, but App B runs better on OS Y." and then let people mix and match the apps they use to try and decide which OS to select.

Unfortunately, very precious few people want to do that, because it's like, y'know, hard and stuph, and instead they'd like to state unequivocally that one OS is better than another based on individual data points.

Besides, look at what we're discussing - not just the actual OS, but the applications that come with it. Is that not a platform? You pay for a box o' software, which now includes the OS and some apps. That's the default install, which you are right, is a platform, but it makes a natural line in the sand for comparisons, IMO.

Once you bring 3rd party apps into it, the permutations become essentially boundless, and any given comparison loses whatever statistical significance it may have had.

[Mr. H]

Indeed, the user needs to think of what they want to achieve, and then decide which platform lets them do that best.

However, there are a lot of users out there that fit into certain user-segments, such as image editing, video editing, publishing, engineering, consumer etc., and it is possible to compare Windows and Macintosh as platforms in each of these areas.

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by Mr. H
Indeed, the user needs to think of what they want to achieve, and then decide which platform lets them do that best.

However, there are a lot of users out there that fit into certain user-segments, such as image editing, video editing, publishing, engineering, consumer etc., and it is possible to compare Windows and Macintosh as platforms in each of these areas.

Er, only vaguely and roughly, IMO. Heck, define 'consumer', and a list of the apps they'll be using. :\

I mean, yeah, you can fuzz the definitions out, but the fuzzier you make them, and the more generalized, the less pertinent and relevant they are.

[Mr. H]

Originally posted by Kickaha
Er, only vaguely and roughly, IMO. Heck, define 'consumer', and a list of the apps they'll be using. :\

I mean, yeah, you can fuzz the definitions out, but the fuzzier you make them, and the more generalized, the less pertinent and relevant they are.

I agree. I just think they are likely to be more relevant to someone than a straight comparison of OSes.

[Zenga]

World of Warcraft is the only game I play..
Read below to see where I play it..
I don't care if it's slower than WINSHIT..
I use MAC OS.
:smokey:

"for the alliance"

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by Mr. H
I agree. I just think they are likely to be more relevant to someone than a straight comparison of OSes.

Agreed - which is why I always try and talk to someone about the specific apps and tasks they need, when helping them decide on a system to buy. The more specific you can get, the more useful to that particular individual. Aggregate data in this case only works for aggregate groups of people, not individuals.

Funny how we went from a specific app to generalizing about the quality of OS, and them from comparing OSs to specific apps, eh? ;)

[Kickaha]

Just so you don't feel left out of your own thread... :)

Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Is it possible that OS X, being a relatively young operating system, just does some things well and some things poorly, vis-a-vis Windows?

Well... *yeah*. No OS is perfect. Every OS has flaws. I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise with a straight face.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally posted by Kickaha
Just so you don't feel left out of your own thread... :)



Well... *yeah*. No OS is perfect. Every OS has flaws. I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise with a straight face.

Yes, but the mere suggestion that OS X has inferior gaming performance seems to provoke a vitriolic reaction among some of the Mac zealots.

I'd be very interested in seeing some objective, detailed benchmarks for some popular Windows games versus their OS X universal binary (or Intel only binaries, if applicable) equivalents such as:

1) WoW (DUH!)
2) Doom 3
3) Quake 4
4) Unreal Tournament

Granted, this is probably not a sufficiently representative sample, but these are the only major games I know of that are available as universal binaries.

My gut feeling is that OS X performance is noticeably inferior to Windows, but I have no evidence to back this up.

However, once Leopard comes out, this could change dramtically. There are rumours that Apple wants to position Intel OS X and their implementation of OpenGL as a competitive gaming platform. There's also a Cringely rumour that Apple is considering replacing the Mach kernel with a monolithic kernel, which could also help overall performance.

[Kickaha]

Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Yes, but the mere suggestion that OS X has inferior gaming performance seems to provoke a vitriolic reaction among some of the Mac zealots.

Only the clueless ones.

Notice that the only venom you dredged up here was because you were claiming, indirectly, that it reflected on the OS as a *whole*. That's just ludicrous.

But saying that gaming on the Mac is behind the optimization curve will generally get you a big 'ol "Well duh..." from most folks here. No news there.

I'd be very interested in seeing some objective, detailed benchmarks for some popular Windows games versus their OS X universal binary (or Intel only binaries, if applicable) equivalents such as:

1) WoW (DUH!)
2) Doom 3
3) Quake 4
4) Unreal Tournament

Granted, this is probably not a sufficiently representative sample, but these are the only major games I know of that are available as universal binaries.

My gut feeling is that OS X performance is noticeably inferior to Windows, but I have no evidence to back this up.

WoW seems to be an aberration at this point, from what I've seen. Sorry, no citations off the top of my head, but I do know that ArsTech did a quick rundown using Q4, I believe, and the Mac version held up pretty well. For some reason 85-90%fps is sticking in my head, but I'm likely wrong.

In other words, yes, it's slower... but not by much. Definitely room for improvement.

However, once Leopard comes out, this could change dramtically. There are rumours that Apple wants to position Intel OS X and their implementation of OpenGL as a competitive gaming platform. There's also a Cringely rumour that Apple is considering replacing the Mach kernel with a monolithic kernel, which could also help overall performance.

Ayup. Those blasted funnels, while clever and elegant back in the mid80s, have rather outstayed their welcome on most modern chips.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally posted by Kickaha
Only the clueless ones.

Notice that the only venom you dredged up here was because you were claiming, indirectly, that it reflected on the OS as a *whole*. That's just ludicrous.



Yeah. I hate OS X and I hate Macs. That's why I invested over $2,000 in the platform.

[Kickaha]

Now who's being defensive? Did I say *you* made that leap of illogic? No. Note the use of the word 'indirectly'.

I'm saying that your observation that we all got up in arms because you pointed to an article that said Mac gaming wasn't up to par, is false. It was the poorly thought out conclusion that the article made that was silly and got people rolling their eyes.

Mac gaming isn't up to par with Windows gaming, especially for high-end games. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. As has been being said all along in here, the real question is... why?

[xdaniel]

Originally posted by Kickaha

Ayup. Those blasted funnels, while clever and elegant back in the mid80s, have rather outstayed their welcome on most modern chips. [/B]

A while back Sun offered to allow Apple to use Solaris 10 as the unix core of OS X. In my experience, Solaris 10 is a very fast, very stable unix. There are some other things I would be interested in. Micro-kernals don't necessarily have to be slow... take a look at the L4 kernal. I know apple is probably gaining quite a bit in terms of portability in using a micro-kernal, but it seems that their usefullness is not truly worth the speed hit (especially in certain areas -- take a look at MySQL). I would LOVE to see Apple truly modernize all the under-the-hood stuff (which to some extent they are, but I'd like to see a more aggressive go at it). It would be cool if Apple TRULY had the most advanced/modern OS in the world.

[Kickaha]

Agreed. I think they've come a long way from their early NIH problems, but there's still a lot further they could go, and things they could learn from other systems.

[skatman]

Originally posted by Chucker
Third party app. Doesn't count.

Spotlight doesn't count either since it has nothing to do with the OS itself. It's just an accessory that's attached to the OS (like Explorer to Windows).

As far as MAC gaming goes, it'll be slower on consumer cards because OPENGL runs slower than DirectX does.
Switch to a pro card (FireGL) and the tables flip. This has been shown many many many times on PCs. Software that renders in DirectX runs faster than OPENGL on all major GFX cards.
On some of the older cards (Nvidia Geforce2 series core), a simple firmware flash could turn a Geforce2 into a Quadro Pro card... go figure.

[rasnet]

Originally posted by Kickaha
Er, only vaguely and roughly, IMO. Heck, define 'consumer', and a list of the apps they'll be using. :\

I mean, yeah, you can fuzz the definitions out, but the fuzzier you make them, and the more generalized, the less pertinent and relevant they are.

One segment of computer users that can be pretty well defined is that of the gamers, which includes many if not most college and high school males. In my experiences, they're the Windows users who hate their OS the most, but they will stick with it as long as it plays (or is perceived to play) their games the best.

[garyuk]

Ok lets put this one to bed.

I own an Intel iMac Core Duo with 2GB memory with a 256MB XT1600 graphics card which I run WoW at full screen resolution of 1680x1050 Widescreen.

I turn off Full Screen Glow which in my opinion irrespective of the fact it hits performance offers no real benfits for Mac or Windows users to the playing experience.

I run the game with all the options turned to Max and get very healthy speeds and FPS in some of the most graphic intensive parts of the game. If anyone plays this everyone knows that Ironforge and Stormwind are notrious for killing your machine!

I loaded Boot Camp, and installed my own copy of Windows XP SP2 onto the system, fully patched etc.

I then loaded WoW, patched the game to 1.10.1 which is the latest and ensured all was working well. I then recorded the performance in the following locations both under Windows and Mac OS X 10.4.6.

1. Stormwind
2. Ironforge (Around the AH)
3. Booty Bay
4. In two Instances
5. In a raid group to kill Onyxia

Mac OS X Results.

1. Stormwind 32fps
2. Ironforge 26-28fps
3. Booty Bay 24-26fps
4. Two Instances 26-32fps average
5. Raid Party 28fps consistent


Windows XP SP2 results.
1. Stormwind 30fps
2. Ironforge 28-30fps
3. Booty Bay 25-27fps
4. Two Instances 25-27fps
5. Raid Party 25fps consistent

As you can see from the results above that there is very little difference om performance on both Operating systems, with one never really outperforming the other. These are not exact science just played the game and recorded the FPS shown on the screen.

As a Mac user I would have love to say the Mac OS X kills Windows, but the simple fact of the matter is neither out-performed the other and OpenGL performance within this game is comparable to DirectX.

One thing I will state. The Graphics drivers are known to be flawed on the Apple Intel Machines and ATI is working on a fix to be released soon in a patch. So we may see performance increases on the Intel Mac machines in the near future that may improve the figures above!

Cheers
G

[Mr. H]

Thanks for your helpful post, Gary.

Is WoW on Windows Direct-X based?

[garyuk]

Originally posted by Mr. H
Thanks for your helpful post, Gary.

Is WoW on Windows Direct-X based?

I am guessing yes, although Windows is perfectly capable of running applications and games in OpenGL as well. ATI support and supply drivers on windows for both graphics technoligies.

Does anyone in currently participating in this thread know if WoW on Windows uses OpenGL or Direct 9?

Thanks
G

[Kickaha]

Thanks Gary! That certainly clears things up a bit.

[skatman]

Originally posted by garyuk
I am guessing yes, although Windows is perfectly capable of running applications and games in OpenGL as well. ATI support and supply drivers on windows for both graphics technoligies.

Does anyone in currently participating in this thread know if WoW on Windows uses OpenGL or Direct 9?

Thanks
G

Wow is set to OpenGL by default in Windows. Direct3D rendering can be enabled by Config.wtf file.

BTW, what ATI drivers are you using in Windows XP?

[garyuk]

Originally posted by skatman
Wow is set to OpenGL by default in Windows. Direct3D rendering can be enabled by Config.wtf file.

BTW, what ATI drivers are you using in Windows XP?
The drivers supplied with the Apple drivers CD. I did not know if loading the latest from ATI's website would screw the Mac, or if it addressed the hardware in the same way?

Was never scientific, just wrote down what i saw, and posted it here.

[kim kap sol]

Originally posted by garyuk
The drivers supplied with the Apple drivers CD. I did not know if loading the latest from ATI's website would screw the Mac, or if it addressed the hardware in the same way?

Was never scientific, just wrote down what i saw, and posted it here.

And it shouldn't be scientific...thanks for posting an honest benchmark.

Most people won't futz around tweaking settings. The best benchmark is one that shows the default behavior on a number of systems. Because once people start tweaking settings...an infinite number of possible results could occur.

[howyoudoin]

Someone was asking for benchmarks of Doom 3 and Unreal, etc.


BareFeats (http://barefeats.com/bootcamp.html)



there you go.

[skatman]

Originally posted by garyuk
The drivers supplied with the Apple drivers CD. I did not know if loading the latest from ATI's website would screw the Mac, or if it addressed the hardware in the same way?

Was never scientific, just wrote down what i saw, and posted it here.

I'm just asking because ATI drivers for XP go in waves... good wave, bad wave. Nvidia is a lot more consistent. Hardware is a different story.
Good peice of data anyway! :-)

I really don't understand why there is a notion that there should be a big difference between Windows XP and OS X?

I would think that there is some difference in the apps because of the way they were developed for different platforms and also drivers, but the OSs themselves are mature and should be more or less evenly matched.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by howyoudoin
Someone was asking for benchmarks of Doom 3 and Unreal, etc.


BareFeats (http://barefeats.com/bootcamp.html)



there you go.
Those results are hella better than I thought for the professional apps.

[djmb]

anyone know how it runs on the intel dedicated graphics found in the new macbooks and mac minis?

[Mr. H]

Originally posted by djmb
anyone know how it runs on the intel dedicated graphics found in the new macbooks and mac minis?

Try http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/

[junebughunter]

My understanding was that WoW is all DirextX on Windows.



It's an OpenGL port on OS X

A lot of the special DirectX features, like ground textures and stuff weren't as well implemented in the OpenGL version.

I don't know if it's possible but can you silect OpenGL on the Windows version? If so how well does that perform against the OS X version.

[kim kap sol]

Originally posted by junebughunter
My understanding was that WoW is all DirextX on Windows.



It's an OpenGL port on OS X

A lot of the special DirectX features, like ground textures and stuff weren't as well implemented in the OpenGL version.

I don't know if it's possible but can you silect OpenGL on the Windows version? If so how well does that perform against the OS X version.

Can anyone confirm this? I find that hard to believe.

When I played WoW, it was on a 2x800 G4 with a Radeon 8500 so I had everything on low. Can anyone with a modern vid card and computer tell me if the bump-mapping/pixel-shading/vector-shading mojo was implemented or not on the Mac?

This is the first time I hear such a claim...surely there would have been an outcry from everyone if the Mac version didn't have equivalent features as the PC version.

[junebughunter]

Originally posted by kim kap sol
Can anyone confirm this? I find that hard to believe.

When I played WoW, it was on a 2x800 G4 with a Radeon 8500 so I had everything on low. Can anyone with a modern vid card and computer tell me if the bump-mapping/pixel-shading/vector-shading mojo was implemented or not on the Mac?

This is the first time I hear such a claim...surely there would have been an outcry from everyone if the Mac version didn't have equivalent features as the PC version.

The thread I started about this I stated how my friend's pc with AMD Athlon 1700+, 512mb of SDRAM ram, ATI 9200SE video card vs. my Powerbook with 1.67ghz PPC processor, 1gb ram, ATI 9700 card with 128mb VRAM looked like crap compared to my friend.

With my texture options turned all the way up and his at about medium settings everything looked much more detailed than mind. The ground textures were much more detailed, the characters everything.