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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Is WoW on Windows Direct-X based?
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
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?
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.
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.
BareFeats
there you go.
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.
Originally posted by howyoudoin
Someone was asking for benchmarks of Doom 3 and Unreal, etc.
BareFeats
there you go.
Those results are hella better than I thought for the professional apps.
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/
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.
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.