Splinter Cell plays but it has no pixel shaders so it is actually missing some effects, the worst of which is no heat vision. Turning it on crashes the game. This makes avoiding mines and detecting keypad presses very difficult. You have to tab out the game to see the codes in a walkthrough. Night vision just over saturates the colors and doesn't look very good. Still playable but you lose a lot of nice effects. I won't be trying to play any of the other Splinter Cell games until I get a better GPU because I feel I'm missing out. Due to lack of hardware T&L, you get some glitches on the oil-rig level too.
- Legacy of Kain Defiance doesn't play. I tried everything, disabling two cores, using 3Danalyze and it just runs very very choppy. I strongly suspect a lack of hardware T&L is the issue here yet again and it's very annoying because people are saying that even a Geforce 2 MX runs this game. That's pathetic that the GMA can't run games that a Geforce 2 can. Bring on the X3000 or those nice Geforce go 7400s in the Apple TVs I say. The latter are around the same performance as the Radeon X1400s but have the added benefit of being able to run the Nvidia gelato rendering software.
I thought about this as well & wanted to know the limitations of my Macbook Pro, (Intel Core Duo,2.16 GHz, Cache 2 MB, Memory 1 GB, 667 MHz) I have UT2004 but it seems to put a lot stress on the video card, I don't want to burn the book up so I don't play it as much also I thought MBP have cooling issues, they were never really intended for hard core gaming.
I guess this would be the best thread to pose this question....
How would the GMA950 or x3000 in a MacBook compare to the Radeon 7500 that I have in my 667MHz PowerBook? (I realize that the x3000 isn't out yet, but I'm just asking for an estimate in peoples' opinion.)
I thought about this as well & wanted to know the limitations of my Macbook Pro, (Intel Core Duo,2.16 GHz, Cache 2 MB, Memory 1 GB, 667 MHz) I have UT2004 but it seems to put a lot stress on the video card, I don't want to burn the book up so I don't play it as much also I thought MBP have cooling issues, they were never really intended for hard core gaming.
It should be fine to run games. Don't worry about damaging it. You paid extra to get one of that spec so don't avoid using the extra capability it has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyr3
How would the GMA950 or x3000 in a MacBook compare to the Radeon 7500 that I have in my 667MHz PowerBook? (I realize that the x3000 isn't out yet, but I'm just asking for an estimate in peoples' opinion.)
It depends what you do. Features-wise the GMA is actually worse. For example, Maya's hardware rendering supports the Radeon 7500 but does not support the GMA. For raw performance though in supported software, the GMA in the Intel will be quite a bit faster than the 7500 in the G4. The faster system bus and dual processors really help.
If you are considering getting a new Macbook, you're probably better hanging off for two months as the new chipsets have faster system buses and the X3000.
Of course, you could buy now and then wait maybe 6 months before upgrading to a newer laptop when you will get leopard with it. The current Macbooks will still be much faster than a 667 G4.
update:
- battlefield 2
+/- battlefield 1942 - it doesn't work on my Mini but it seems to work for other people so experience may vary.
- Call of Duty 2 (Windows version)
+ Call of Duty 2 (Mac version)
+ Far Cry - only on low but it works
+ GT Legends
- Splinter cell Pandora Tomorrow
+/- Quake 4 (runs about the same as the Mac version at 10-15 fps). If you don't mind the game being choppy, it is still playable, though I recommend god mode to prevent frustration.
How much is the x3000 supposed to improve upon the GMA950? I know that it's just added some extra stuff into hardware implementation instead of software, but how much is that going to improve actual performance?
How much is the x3000 supposed to improve upon the GMA950? I know that it's just added some extra stuff into hardware implementation instead of software, but how much is that going to improve actual performance?
Preliminary benchmarks suggest 2-3 times faster but the speed increase is not required so much as features like pixels shaders and hardware Transform and Lighting, which should resolve a number of compatibility issues.
I can't play Counter Strike 1.6. I got the Half-Life 2 DVD with Half-Life Source but it says it needs Half-Life to play. It must be a different version. I have played CounterStrike Source but only under Crossover. When I free up some space, I'll test Half-Life 2 and CounterStrike Source in Bootcamp.
On the issue of Couterstrike 1.6, since it's based on the Half-Life 1 engine, I imagine it plays very well. Half-Life 1 itself plays very quickly at maximum.
update:
Thanks to silentnight for testing these Mac games:
+ Close Combat First to Fight
+ Halo, works well at normal settings.
+ Ghost Recon Desert Seige
+ Unreal Tournament 2004, normal settings
+ Call of Duty 2, normal
+ Medal of Honor Allied Assault
+ Star Trek: Elite Force 2
Some that I've just tested under Windows:
+/- Broken Sword 4, it runs but you have to use 3danalyzer to get round the lack of hardware T&L error but it is quite choppy.
+ Colin Mcrae Rally 2003 & 2005, these play at maximum
+ Still Life, plays at full with the exception of anti-aliasing
+ Simpsons Hit and Run, plays at maximum
+ The Thing, plays at maximum
- Spy Hunter, glitchy polygons everywhere. It performs fast but very glitchy. I've heard from some developers saying it's caused by not having hardware T&L and I've seen it in other games. Mildly in Half-Life 2 episode 1.
+ Post Mortem, plays at full. This is the prequel to Still Life.
does anyone know if Fable: The Lost Chapters or Grand Theft Auto: Vice City work on the macbook in any shape or form.
Thanks
Vice City works very well, options at maximum - gameplay is very smooth. The graphics in that game are fairly old so I expected it to work quite well.
The graphics in Fable look fairly old too but it says it requires hardware pixel and vertex shaders, I don't know if that would be an issue - some of the screenshots look Prince of Persia style and those games don't play. Some games you have to use 3D analyzer to get past system checks and after that the game often runs fine.
Post 20 here suggests Fable does play, you just have to turn some of the graphics down a bit:
There is a Mac version of Fable from Feral I think but I don't know if it's a universal binary.
supposedly so I've looked for it but all I can find is announcements that it will be coming and preorder-lists so I thought it wasnt availeble yet, seeing that amazon tends to stay up to date. thanks again for the intel.
I downloaded and am currently playing the WOW trial on my macbook no problem. I don't see why people say you can't?Are people saying that causes the graphics don't look as good or that the framerates drop? I'm as noob as they come (level 5) so I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe I'll try the trail for Burning Crusade and see if I see anything wrong with that. I don't need the best graphics in the world to be entertained with the game. I DO have a maxed out macbook but people have told me even that won't work.
I downloaded and am currently playing the WOW trial on my macbook no problem. I don't see why people say you can't?
Everyone in this thread who mentioned WoW has said that it plays very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4metta
Maybe I'll try the trail for Burning Crusade and see if I see anything wrong with that.
Great, please report back how it goes. Also note whether it's Windows or Mac versions and if it's part of a series e.g Medal of Honor: Allied Assualt, Rising Sun etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4metta
I DO have a maxed out macbook but people have told me even that won't work.
The graphics chips in all the Macbooks are the same so increasing the Ram and what not won't affect it much. Apple really need to start offering better chips as BTO like their PC couterparts do.
Everyone in this thread who mentioned WoW has said that it plays very well.
Great, please report back how it goes. Also note whether it's Windows or Mac versions and if it's part of a series e.g Medal of Honor: Allied Assualt, Rising Sun etc.
The graphics chips in all the Macbooks are the same so increasing the Ram and what not won't affect it much. Apple really need to start offering better chips as BTO like their PC couterparts do.
Oh I meant everybody in the gaming community is saying you can't play WOW on a macbook, not here. I should have clarified that. They are even saying that in the official WOW forums but that could just be the anti mac people. I think the gaming community misunderstands gaming on a mac in general, especially now with the intel chips.
I will probably be downloading Burning Crusade unless I get scared of being so addicted to a game and delete WOW. No wonder they give people a free 10 day trial.
If I notice that it starts to act up I'll be sure to post an update but I am really enjoying myself with the game thus far
Oh and I am using the Mac version of the game...I'm not into installing Windows on my mac if I can help it.
I have a G4 iBook with a 1.33 GHz processor and I used to play World of Warcraft and BF1942. Then again, those aren't even that graphically great.
I'm playing WoW on a 1.2GHz iBook. It's a rather awful experience no matter what way you look at it. You can mostly forget playing vs other players. Go into a tight spot in a battleground, or worse, a raid, and things turn into slideshow or the game crashes. I'm talking 5 seconds between a drawn frame. I also frequently lose sound for a second or two. The game's minimum requirements are low, which is commendable, but it was written without much concern for those with a computer towards the minimum. Unlike in almost any game I've seen, input handling is not prioritized before graphics. In WoW your runspeed actually drops when your graphics lag, seriously hurting your internal lag compensation. In FPS's where in my experience there is a 1:1 mapping between your inputs and your avatar's actions in all situations, even though others still have an edge I can have fun and even win occasionally because it's more predictable. Additional funkiness comes from the WoW client doing its own checks about whether an action is allowed - and lagging, so that the server and a properly functioning client would allow you to make a certain input at time X but a laggy client won't till time X+1. I have a nagging feeling that the client might just plain ol' drop some inputs in addition to that, but am not certain.
I don't need beautiful graphics at all, and of course I have everything turned down, but I absolutely hate getting beat in situations I know I would win on even footing. Worse still, the lag blocks out many quite crucial strategies and exchanges, so it's not really the same game but slightly different, playing which does not allow me to develop into a better player of the "real" game.
Macbook's massively better but I doubt I'd be really happy with it either. I'd know for sure after playing up to level 20 and dropping in battlegrounds for a match or two.
Comments
Splinter Cell plays but it has no pixel shaders so it is actually missing some effects, the worst of which is no heat vision. Turning it on crashes the game. This makes avoiding mines and detecting keypad presses very difficult. You have to tab out the game to see the codes in a walkthrough. Night vision just over saturates the colors and doesn't look very good. Still playable but you lose a lot of nice effects. I won't be trying to play any of the other Splinter Cell games until I get a better GPU because I feel I'm missing out. Due to lack of hardware T&L, you get some glitches on the oil-rig level too.
- Legacy of Kain Defiance doesn't play. I tried everything, disabling two cores, using 3Danalyze and it just runs very very choppy. I strongly suspect a lack of hardware T&L is the issue here yet again and it's very annoying because people are saying that even a Geforce 2 MX runs this game. That's pathetic that the GMA can't run games that a Geforce 2 can. Bring on the X3000 or those nice Geforce go 7400s in the Apple TVs I say. The latter are around the same performance as the Radeon X1400s but have the added benefit of being able to run the Nvidia gelato rendering software.
How would the GMA950 or x3000 in a MacBook compare to the Radeon 7500 that I have in my 667MHz PowerBook? (I realize that the x3000 isn't out yet, but I'm just asking for an estimate in peoples' opinion.)
I thought about this as well & wanted to know the limitations of my Macbook Pro, (Intel Core Duo,2.16 GHz, Cache 2 MB, Memory 1 GB, 667 MHz) I have UT2004 but it seems to put a lot stress on the video card, I don't want to burn the book up so I don't play it as much also I thought MBP have cooling issues, they were never really intended for hard core gaming.
It should be fine to run games. Don't worry about damaging it. You paid extra to get one of that spec so don't avoid using the extra capability it has.
How would the GMA950 or x3000 in a MacBook compare to the Radeon 7500 that I have in my 667MHz PowerBook? (I realize that the x3000 isn't out yet, but I'm just asking for an estimate in peoples' opinion.)
It depends what you do. Features-wise the GMA is actually worse. For example, Maya's hardware rendering supports the Radeon 7500 but does not support the GMA. For raw performance though in supported software, the GMA in the Intel will be quite a bit faster than the 7500 in the G4. The faster system bus and dual processors really help.
If you are considering getting a new Macbook, you're probably better hanging off for two months as the new chipsets have faster system buses and the X3000.
Of course, you could buy now and then wait maybe 6 months before upgrading to a newer laptop when you will get leopard with it. The current Macbooks will still be much faster than a 667 G4.
update:
- battlefield 2
+/- battlefield 1942 - it doesn't work on my Mini but it seems to work for other people so experience may vary.
- Call of Duty 2 (Windows version)
+ Call of Duty 2 (Mac version)
+ Far Cry - only on low but it works
+ GT Legends
- Splinter cell Pandora Tomorrow
+/- Quake 4 (runs about the same as the Mac version at 10-15 fps). If you don't mind the game being choppy, it is still playable, though I recommend god mode to prevent frustration.
How much is the x3000 supposed to improve upon the GMA950? I know that it's just added some extra stuff into hardware implementation instead of software, but how much is that going to improve actual performance?
Preliminary benchmarks suggest 2-3 times faster but the speed increase is not required so much as features like pixels shaders and hardware Transform and Lighting, which should resolve a number of compatibility issues.
+ Broken Sword 3: The Sleeping Dragon
update:
+ Broken Sword 3: The Sleeping Dragon
does cs 1.6 work well?
does cs 1.6 work well?
I can't play Counter Strike 1.6. I got the Half-Life 2 DVD with Half-Life Source but it says it needs Half-Life to play. It must be a different version. I have played CounterStrike Source but only under Crossover. When I free up some space, I'll test Half-Life 2 and CounterStrike Source in Bootcamp.
update:
Thanks to silentnight for testing these Mac games:
+ Close Combat First to Fight
+ Halo, works well at normal settings.
+ Ghost Recon Desert Seige
+ Unreal Tournament 2004, normal settings
+ Call of Duty 2, normal
+ Medal of Honor Allied Assault
+ Star Trek: Elite Force 2
Some that I've just tested under Windows:
+/- Broken Sword 4, it runs but you have to use 3danalyzer to get round the lack of hardware T&L error but it is quite choppy.
+ Colin Mcrae Rally 2003 & 2005, these play at maximum
+ Still Life, plays at full with the exception of anti-aliasing
+ Simpsons Hit and Run, plays at maximum
+ The Thing, plays at maximum
- Spy Hunter, glitchy polygons everywhere. It performs fast but very glitchy. I've heard from some developers saying it's caused by not having hardware T&L and I've seen it in other games. Mildly in Half-Life 2 episode 1.
+ Post Mortem, plays at full. This is the prequel to Still Life.
+ Sheep Dog 'n Wolf works great but you need to apply the affinity fix again because of incompatibility with the dual-core CPUs.
Thanks
does anyone know if Fable: The Lost Chapters or Grand Theft Auto: Vice City work on the macbook in any shape or form.
Thanks
Vice City works very well, options at maximum - gameplay is very smooth. The graphics in that game are fairly old so I expected it to work quite well.
The graphics in Fable look fairly old too but it says it requires hardware pixel and vertex shaders, I don't know if that would be an issue - some of the screenshots look Prince of Persia style and those games don't play. Some games you have to use 3D analyzer to get past system checks and after that the game often runs fine.
Post 20 here suggests Fable does play, you just have to turn some of the graphics down a bit:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=68241
There is a Mac version of Fable from Feral I think but I don't know if it's a universal binary.
There is a Mac version of Fable from Feral I think but I don't know if it's a universal binary.
supposedly so I've looked for it but all I can find is announcements that it will be coming and preorder-lists so I thought it wasnt availeble yet, seeing that amazon tends to stay up to date. thanks again for the intel.
I downloaded and am currently playing the WOW trial on my macbook no problem. I don't see why people say you can't?
Everyone in this thread who mentioned WoW has said that it plays very well.
Maybe I'll try the trail for Burning Crusade and see if I see anything wrong with that.
Great, please report back how it goes. Also note whether it's Windows or Mac versions and if it's part of a series e.g Medal of Honor: Allied Assualt, Rising Sun etc.
I DO have a maxed out macbook but people have told me even that won't work.
The graphics chips in all the Macbooks are the same so increasing the Ram and what not won't affect it much. Apple really need to start offering better chips as BTO like their PC couterparts do.
Everyone in this thread who mentioned WoW has said that it plays very well.
Great, please report back how it goes. Also note whether it's Windows or Mac versions and if it's part of a series e.g Medal of Honor: Allied Assualt, Rising Sun etc.
The graphics chips in all the Macbooks are the same so increasing the Ram and what not won't affect it much. Apple really need to start offering better chips as BTO like their PC couterparts do.
Oh I meant everybody in the gaming community is saying you can't play WOW on a macbook, not here. I should have clarified that. They are even saying that in the official WOW forums but that could just be the anti mac people. I think the gaming community misunderstands gaming on a mac in general, especially now with the intel chips.
I will probably be downloading Burning Crusade unless I get scared of being so addicted to a game and delete WOW.
If I notice that it starts to act up I'll be sure to post an update but I am really enjoying myself with the game thus far
Oh and I am using the Mac version of the game...I'm not into installing Windows on my mac if I can help it.
I have a G4 iBook with a 1.33 GHz processor and I used to play World of Warcraft and BF1942. Then again, those aren't even that graphically great.
I'm playing WoW on a 1.2GHz iBook. It's a rather awful experience no matter what way you look at it. You can mostly forget playing vs other players. Go into a tight spot in a battleground, or worse, a raid, and things turn into slideshow or the game crashes. I'm talking 5 seconds between a drawn frame. I also frequently lose sound for a second or two. The game's minimum requirements are low, which is commendable, but it was written without much concern for those with a computer towards the minimum. Unlike in almost any game I've seen, input handling is not prioritized before graphics. In WoW your runspeed actually drops when your graphics lag, seriously hurting your internal lag compensation. In FPS's where in my experience there is a 1:1 mapping between your inputs and your avatar's actions in all situations, even though others still have an edge I can have fun and even win occasionally because it's more predictable. Additional funkiness comes from the WoW client doing its own checks about whether an action is allowed - and lagging, so that the server and a properly functioning client would allow you to make a certain input at time X but a laggy client won't till time X+1. I have a nagging feeling that the client might just plain ol' drop some inputs in addition to that, but am not certain.
I don't need beautiful graphics at all, and of course I have everything turned down, but I absolutely hate getting beat in situations I know I would win on even footing. Worse still, the lag blocks out many quite crucial strategies and exchanges, so it's not really the same game but slightly different, playing which does not allow me to develop into a better player of the "real" game.
Macbook's massively better but I doubt I'd be really happy with it either. I'd know for sure after playing up to level 20 and dropping in battlegrounds for a match or two.