Mac, Windows-On Mac gaming with MacBookPro. 1280x720 resolution 2x to 8x AntiAliasing:
2007: Runs all the latest games at 35% of MAX detail settings
Fixed that for you.
Here the 8600GT does 1024x768, no AA, medium detail, and reaches a 30fps average. Now, it depends on the individual what they perceive as smooth and controllable gameplay, but the most commonly held standards for single player FPS gameplay I have observed gamers and gaming journalists use are "30 average fps", "30 minimum fps" (with dips allowed in situations that do not require any twitch input from the gamer) and "60 average fps". As a general rule, multiplayer players tend to aim higher. So the 30fps average is okay for a lot of people, but at the same time a lot of people do not consider it solid and would prefer to drop the graphic quality and/or resolution even further.
As long as you already have the $2000 workstation of course.
Even then, you can't be sure of a better gaming experience. First if you do get a Mac, you have to install Windows. Then install the game, which at about 4GB+ each these days takes about 15-20 minutes before you get started. You might even have to reboot as some PC games have copy protection (with things like Orange Box, you'll even have to suffer using Steam again). Then you'll have to face up to the fact that there aren't close to the same selection of good games on the PC as on a console. Then you can easily get DirectX errors or performance variation during play if you don't get the multitude of settings right.
The plus side to PC gaming is the games tend to be much cheaper. If the PC version sells for £29 and it's so easy to develop for the XBox360, why does the 360 game cost about £49? I guess they are maybe factoring in the cost of losing money from the console but it's still a pretty high premium per game so that has to be weighed up in the comparison. But despite the lower cost of PC gaming and being able to use a keyboard and mouse, I find console gaming overall to be far more enjoyable.
Maybe he meant $300 (the 8800 GT at the moment, since demand is so hot), but the PS3 only uses the equiv. to a 7600 or 7800 in SLI - beefy, but the 8800 is better, plus HD video decoding and DX10 (which has no benefit at this point, but it took a couple years for XP to get going, and I don't see Vista being any different, but that's a whole other topic).
As for me, I am at a complete crux in my computing needs, I sorta kind need to upgrade my PC, and could build a pretty sweet rig for ~$700 (C2D, ATI HD3850 or Nvidia 8600, 4 GB of RAM, a nice mobo, a new PSU, other parts I would cannibalize from my current AMD machine), or buy a Mac Mini, which is pathetic in nearly every area, but it does have a C2D and run OSX. The iMac doesn't fit my needs, the Mac Pro is way out of my budget, and I already have a newer laptop.
Computers are a cheap commodity anymore - desktop DDR2 ram is dirt cheap (doesn't matter for Apple, as they only use laptop/server ram), hard drives are cheap, but again, unless you have Mac Pro or love external drives, and graphics cards and CPU's are dropping in price, and adding tons of features, but again, the boat sailed on, Apple was late at the pier, I don't care about using Xeons in a desktop.
For the price of the Mac Pro, it should have top-of-the-line everything, but it doesn't.
And I do think gaming can be easier to do on a console, but games do push PC technology along, and cause lower prices on components.
I am at a complete crux in my computing needs, I sorta kind need to upgrade my PC, and could build a pretty sweet rig for ~$700 (C2D, ATI HD3850 or Nvidia 8600, 4 GB of RAM, a nice mobo, a new PSU, other parts I would cannibalize from my current AMD machine), or buy a Mac Mini, which is pathetic in nearly every area, but it does have a C2D and run OSX. The iMac doesn't fit my needs, the Mac Pro is way out of my budget, and I already have a newer laptop.
The Mac mini is for someone who wants a small footprint machine for basic computing. It's a great alternative for many who don't want to buy a new PC and wish to give OS X a go, but it doesn't sound like a good alternative for you. If you want to build your own machine, $700 is your limit and you wish to use OS X then I suggest Hackintosh. Disclaimer: Providing you buy an authentic copy of OS X first.
Somebody argued that "nobody pays X dollars to play games."
Well, nobody buying a game-enabled iPhone would be paying that just to play games. They would be paying that for everythng the iPhone offers which would hopefully include games.
There are going to be tons of iPhone clones in the coming years. The average, non-apple fanboy, consumer is going to look at the phones available. See two phones that do pictures, movies, maps, video, etc. Oh, but this one here also does games and the iPhone doesn't. That will be the dealbreaker for a lot of people.
Sure, you can rant about the superior user experience with the iPhone, but this doesn't work with most people. It's price and features. That's why people still buy MP3 players that aren't iPods. I know. I ask people who aren't using iPods and they say things like "this one was cheaper and has a radio tuner." I explain that the iPod has a better interface and they say "I can find the songs on this one just fine."
People who don't know the Apple experience cannot be swayed by words promoting the superior user interface. People can't imagine it being that much better. The average consumer is sold on bullet points and dollar signs. Apple's been missing this bullet-point for a long time and it's rather foolish.
Remember when Steve Jobs was promoting DVD stuff while the entire PC industry was doing the MP3 player and CD-burner thing? Then Jobs finally caught the tail end of that train and they put out iTunes and started making CD burners fairly standard on Macs? Now Apple is pretty prestigious in the music industry.
This is like that except Apple's still missing the train and it might be too late to catch up and come out on top but they still better get on that train before it leaves the station.
The gaming industry going to outgrow the movie industry and I hope Apple is going to be there.
It seems pretty bizarre to complain that the iPods aren't opened for game support. That's not what they were designed to do, they are built to play audio and video and the few extras are just extras. And don't forget that opening them to third party apps would mean maintaining compatibility between the different generations, which would mean limitations on changes in the hardware and OS.
Obviously the touch and iPhone change the situation. But how much gaming can a platform like that handle anyway? And how much would you gain by native programming as opposed to java and things like that?
Seriously, he's complaining that iPhone development needs to be done on an emulator? For that kind of platform doesn't that make the most sense?
It seems pretty bizarre to complain that the iPods aren't opened for game support. That's not what they were designed to do, they are built to play audio and video and the few extras are just extras. And don't forget that opening them to third party apps would mean maintaining compatibility between the different generations, which would mean limitations on changes in the hardware and OS.
Apple is only as stuck maintaining compatibility as they want to be. At one extreme they can just do their own thing and let the 3rd parties worry about keeping their apps compatible. That's what happens with WoW add-ons, for instance, and there are a ton of those.
Quote:
Obviously the touch and iPhone change the situation. But how much gaming can a platform like that handle anyway? And how much would you gain by native programming as opposed to java and things like that?
Typically, a lot. It certainly doesn't hurt the developers to have a choice.
Quote:
Seriously, he's complaining that iPhone development needs to be done on an emulator? For that kind of platform doesn't that make the most sense?
Most of the time emulator is the preferred way to develop. Not having access to the hardware in the instances where you need it to debug and profile the code is a problem. Emulators are not perfect. The more you push the hardware and the closer to it you work, the more you need access to the real thing.
Apple is only as stuck maintaining compatibility as they want to be. At one extreme they can just do their own thing and let the 3rd parties worry about keeping their apps compatible. That's what happens with WoW add-ons, for instance, and there are a ton of those.Typically, a lot. It certainly doesn't hurt the developers to have a choice.Most of the time emulator is the preferred way to develop. Not having access to the hardware in the instances where you need it to debug and profile the code is a problem. Emulators are not perfect. The more you push the hardware and the closer to it you work, the more you need access to the real thing.
If a new generation of iPods breaks compatibility with third party apps, people would go nuts over it. Just look what happened with the new batch and the few iPod games. I can't blame apple for wanting to avoid that, is it worth the minor benefit of a few iPod apps over the bad press every time they update? Or the pain of having to worry about app compatibility?
How much can the iPhone or touch really do gamewise anyway? Do they have the cpu power to run a complex game (the kind that would really need to be optimized) or would they be limited to fairly simple stuff anyway? I get the impression that there's not that much going on in the hardware that a game dev would really be able to push that much anyway.
The Nintendo DS is the fastest selling video game system in history, selling over 50 million units in about three years and continuing to sell strong.
The Nintendo DS has two processors:
A 67 Mhz ARM
A 33 Mhz ARM
The iPhone has a 620 Mhz ARM.
The processors are possibly from different families and have different capabilities, but regardless of architectural changes, the iPhone's processor is still significantly faster.
John Carmack recently wrote a 3D engine for the Nintendo DS. It only took him four days. He says everything well-documented, he had direct access to the hardware, and the development tools were very good.
The iPhone has enough power, but it sounds like developers do not have enough to work with if they want to maximize the iPhone's capabilities. It's a valid complaint.
Fixed that for you....Here the 8600GT does 1024x768, no AA, medium detail, and reaches a 30fps average. Now, it depends on the individual what they perceive as smooth and controllable gameplay, but the most commonly held standards for single player FPS gameplay I have observed gamers and gaming journalists use are "30 average fps", "30 minimum fps" (with dips allowed in situations that do not require any twitch input from the gamer) and "60 average fps". As a general rule, multiplayer players tend to aim higher. So the 30fps average is okay for a lot of people, but at the same time a lot of people do not consider it solid and would prefer to drop the graphic quality and/or resolution even further.
Using Crysis as an example is a bit tangential for various reasons. Firstly because this is billed primarily as a DirectX10 game. Secondly, if you look at most of the titles I mentioned, and most PC gaming from shooters (Fear, HL2, Battlefield), racing (NeedForSpeedEtc, Sega Rally), and RTS (C&C3, DawnOfWar, etc.) and even multiplayer online, as I mentioned, you will find 1280x720 4xAA, AF, you can play most of these at very high detail settings on latest MacBookPro.
And I am talking about smooth play. On my setup at 1024x768, 4xAA, games above I mentioned, I get smooth for racing, shooting, RTS. I don't do the frame rate fudgery. It's about good smoothness of graphics, responsive gameplay, etc.
The NeedForSpeed: ProStreet, Sega Rally, HL2[Source], FEARXP/XP2, DawnOfWar, C&C3 engines are generally efficient, well-coded, and beautiful.
I really am not too impressed with Crysis. Requiring Vista [OMFG], DirectX10, and probably an 8800GTS minimum is a deal killer for me. There is a niche for games like these.
But other developers and publishers are smart. NeedForSpeed: ProStreet for example, runs on a good variety of hardware "down" to even, I would contend, a 6600GT, given 1GB RAM, Core2Duo 2.0ghz.
I would strongly advise people at this stage to only consider Crysis if they are willing to really pony up the hard cash to get the latest latest gaming hardware and are willing to waste a lot more resources (time money etc.) on Vista.
Crysis is perhaps the perfect example of the wrong direction games can take. Requiring Vista, DirectX10, obscenely high hardware requirements. Games like these potentially can cause me to give up on PC gaming altogether and just get a PSP, Wii or PSP2.
I don't care much about the iPhone or any cell phone for that matter; however, I would like to see as many games as possible available for Macintosh. At least the new Intellimacs! I just got a nice Core 2 Duo iMac and would love to play some games on it, even though I have a PC with just as much power right next to it.
The Macintosh platform needs to quickly be compatible with as much as it can or it will loose to PC.
Apple computers make way more sense for the average computer user, esp. those who are scared to use computers or are not intrested in learning new things, but do want a computer.
Windows has never been user friendly, that's why everyone makes friends with at least one computer geek, so they can have free PC Tech Support. With Apple products, you rarely need it for daily use.
Comments
Mac, Windows-On Mac gaming with MacBookPro. 1280x720 resolution 2x to 8x AntiAliasing:
2007: Runs all the latest games at 35% of MAX detail settings
Fixed that for you.
Here the 8600GT does 1024x768, no AA, medium detail, and reaches a 30fps average. Now, it depends on the individual what they perceive as smooth and controllable gameplay, but the most commonly held standards for single player FPS gameplay I have observed gamers and gaming journalists use are "30 average fps", "30 minimum fps" (with dips allowed in situations that do not require any twitch input from the gamer) and "60 average fps". As a general rule, multiplayer players tend to aim higher. So the 30fps average is okay for a lot of people, but at the same time a lot of people do not consider it solid and would prefer to drop the graphic quality and/or resolution even further.
As long as you already have the $2000 workstation of course.
Even then, you can't be sure of a better gaming experience. First if you do get a Mac, you have to install Windows. Then install the game, which at about 4GB+ each these days takes about 15-20 minutes before you get started. You might even have to reboot as some PC games have copy protection (with things like Orange Box, you'll even have to suffer using Steam again). Then you'll have to face up to the fact that there aren't close to the same selection of good games on the PC as on a console. Then you can easily get DirectX errors or performance variation during play if you don't get the multitude of settings right.
The plus side to PC gaming is the games tend to be much cheaper. If the PC version sells for £29 and it's so easy to develop for the XBox360, why does the 360 game cost about £49? I guess they are maybe factoring in the cost of losing money from the console but it's still a pretty high premium per game so that has to be weighed up in the comparison. But despite the lower cost of PC gaming and being able to use a keyboard and mouse, I find console gaming overall to be far more enjoyable.
Maybe he meant $300 (the 8800 GT at the moment, since demand is so hot), but the PS3 only uses the equiv. to a 7600 or 7800 in SLI - beefy, but the 8800 is better, plus HD video decoding and DX10 (which has no benefit at this point, but it took a couple years for XP to get going, and I don't see Vista being any different, but that's a whole other topic).
As for me, I am at a complete crux in my computing needs, I sorta kind need to upgrade my PC, and could build a pretty sweet rig for ~$700 (C2D, ATI HD3850 or Nvidia 8600, 4 GB of RAM, a nice mobo, a new PSU, other parts I would cannibalize from my current AMD machine), or buy a Mac Mini, which is pathetic in nearly every area, but it does have a C2D and run OSX. The iMac doesn't fit my needs, the Mac Pro is way out of my budget, and I already have a newer laptop.
Computers are a cheap commodity anymore - desktop DDR2 ram is dirt cheap (doesn't matter for Apple, as they only use laptop/server ram), hard drives are cheap, but again, unless you have Mac Pro or love external drives, and graphics cards and CPU's are dropping in price, and adding tons of features, but again, the boat sailed on, Apple was late at the pier, I don't care about using Xeons in a desktop.
For the price of the Mac Pro, it should have top-of-the-line everything, but it doesn't.
And I do think gaming can be easier to do on a console, but games do push PC technology along, and cause lower prices on components.
I am at a complete crux in my computing needs, I sorta kind need to upgrade my PC, and could build a pretty sweet rig for ~$700 (C2D, ATI HD3850 or Nvidia 8600, 4 GB of RAM, a nice mobo, a new PSU, other parts I would cannibalize from my current AMD machine), or buy a Mac Mini, which is pathetic in nearly every area, but it does have a C2D and run OSX. The iMac doesn't fit my needs, the Mac Pro is way out of my budget, and I already have a newer laptop.
The Mac mini is for someone who wants a small footprint machine for basic computing. It's a great alternative for many who don't want to buy a new PC and wish to give OS X a go, but it doesn't sound like a good alternative for you. If you want to build your own machine, $700 is your limit and you wish to use OS X then I suggest Hackintosh. Disclaimer: Providing you buy an authentic copy of OS X first.
Well, nobody buying a game-enabled iPhone would be paying that just to play games. They would be paying that for everythng the iPhone offers which would hopefully include games.
There are going to be tons of iPhone clones in the coming years. The average, non-apple fanboy, consumer is going to look at the phones available. See two phones that do pictures, movies, maps, video, etc. Oh, but this one here also does games and the iPhone doesn't. That will be the dealbreaker for a lot of people.
Sure, you can rant about the superior user experience with the iPhone, but this doesn't work with most people. It's price and features. That's why people still buy MP3 players that aren't iPods. I know. I ask people who aren't using iPods and they say things like "this one was cheaper and has a radio tuner." I explain that the iPod has a better interface and they say "I can find the songs on this one just fine."
People who don't know the Apple experience cannot be swayed by words promoting the superior user interface. People can't imagine it being that much better. The average consumer is sold on bullet points and dollar signs. Apple's been missing this bullet-point for a long time and it's rather foolish.
Remember when Steve Jobs was promoting DVD stuff while the entire PC industry was doing the MP3 player and CD-burner thing? Then Jobs finally caught the tail end of that train and they put out iTunes and started making CD burners fairly standard on Macs? Now Apple is pretty prestigious in the music industry.
This is like that except Apple's still missing the train and it might be too late to catch up and come out on top but they still better get on that train before it leaves the station.
The gaming industry going to outgrow the movie industry and I hope Apple is going to be there.
Obviously the touch and iPhone change the situation. But how much gaming can a platform like that handle anyway? And how much would you gain by native programming as opposed to java and things like that?
Seriously, he's complaining that iPhone development needs to be done on an emulator? For that kind of platform doesn't that make the most sense?
It seems pretty bizarre to complain that the iPods aren't opened for game support. That's not what they were designed to do, they are built to play audio and video and the few extras are just extras. And don't forget that opening them to third party apps would mean maintaining compatibility between the different generations, which would mean limitations on changes in the hardware and OS.
Apple is only as stuck maintaining compatibility as they want to be. At one extreme they can just do their own thing and let the 3rd parties worry about keeping their apps compatible. That's what happens with WoW add-ons, for instance, and there are a ton of those.
Obviously the touch and iPhone change the situation. But how much gaming can a platform like that handle anyway? And how much would you gain by native programming as opposed to java and things like that?
Typically, a lot. It certainly doesn't hurt the developers to have a choice.
Seriously, he's complaining that iPhone development needs to be done on an emulator? For that kind of platform doesn't that make the most sense?
Most of the time emulator is the preferred way to develop. Not having access to the hardware in the instances where you need it to debug and profile the code is a problem. Emulators are not perfect. The more you push the hardware and the closer to it you work, the more you need access to the real thing.
Apple is only as stuck maintaining compatibility as they want to be. At one extreme they can just do their own thing and let the 3rd parties worry about keeping their apps compatible. That's what happens with WoW add-ons, for instance, and there are a ton of those.Typically, a lot. It certainly doesn't hurt the developers to have a choice.Most of the time emulator is the preferred way to develop. Not having access to the hardware in the instances where you need it to debug and profile the code is a problem. Emulators are not perfect. The more you push the hardware and the closer to it you work, the more you need access to the real thing.
If a new generation of iPods breaks compatibility with third party apps, people would go nuts over it. Just look what happened with the new batch and the few iPod games. I can't blame apple for wanting to avoid that, is it worth the minor benefit of a few iPod apps over the bad press every time they update? Or the pain of having to worry about app compatibility?
How much can the iPhone or touch really do gamewise anyway? Do they have the cpu power to run a complex game (the kind that would really need to be optimized) or would they be limited to fairly simple stuff anyway? I get the impression that there's not that much going on in the hardware that a game dev would really be able to push that much anyway.
The Nintendo DS has two processors:
A 67 Mhz ARM
A 33 Mhz ARM
The iPhone has a 620 Mhz ARM.
The processors are possibly from different families and have different capabilities, but regardless of architectural changes, the iPhone's processor is still significantly faster.
John Carmack recently wrote a 3D engine for the Nintendo DS. It only took him four days. He says everything well-documented, he had direct access to the hardware, and the development tools were very good.
The iPhone has enough power, but it sounds like developers do not have enough to work with if they want to maximize the iPhone's capabilities. It's a valid complaint.
Fixed that for you....Here the 8600GT does 1024x768, no AA, medium detail, and reaches a 30fps average. Now, it depends on the individual what they perceive as smooth and controllable gameplay, but the most commonly held standards for single player FPS gameplay I have observed gamers and gaming journalists use are "30 average fps", "30 minimum fps" (with dips allowed in situations that do not require any twitch input from the gamer) and "60 average fps". As a general rule, multiplayer players tend to aim higher. So the 30fps average is okay for a lot of people, but at the same time a lot of people do not consider it solid and would prefer to drop the graphic quality and/or resolution even further.
Using Crysis as an example is a bit tangential for various reasons. Firstly because this is billed primarily as a DirectX10 game. Secondly, if you look at most of the titles I mentioned, and most PC gaming from shooters (Fear, HL2, Battlefield), racing (NeedForSpeedEtc, Sega Rally), and RTS (C&C3, DawnOfWar, etc.) and even multiplayer online, as I mentioned, you will find 1280x720 4xAA, AF, you can play most of these at very high detail settings on latest MacBookPro.
And I am talking about smooth play. On my setup at 1024x768, 4xAA, games above I mentioned, I get smooth for racing, shooting, RTS. I don't do the frame rate fudgery. It's about good smoothness of graphics, responsive gameplay, etc.
The NeedForSpeed: ProStreet, Sega Rally, HL2[Source], FEARXP/XP2, DawnOfWar, C&C3 engines are generally efficient, well-coded, and beautiful.
I really am not too impressed with Crysis. Requiring Vista [OMFG], DirectX10, and probably an 8800GTS minimum is a deal killer for me. There is a niche for games like these.
But other developers and publishers are smart. NeedForSpeed: ProStreet for example, runs on a good variety of hardware "down" to even, I would contend, a 6600GT, given 1GB RAM, Core2Duo 2.0ghz.
I would strongly advise people at this stage to only consider Crysis if they are willing to really pony up the hard cash to get the latest latest gaming hardware and are willing to waste a lot more resources (time money etc.) on Vista.
Crysis is perhaps the perfect example of the wrong direction games can take. Requiring Vista, DirectX10, obscenely high hardware requirements. Games like these potentially can cause me to give up on PC gaming altogether and just get a PSP, Wii or PSP2.
The Macintosh platform needs to quickly be compatible with as much as it can or it will loose to PC.
Apple computers make way more sense for the average computer user, esp. those who are scared to use computers or are not intrested in learning new things, but do want a computer.
Windows has never been user friendly, that's why everyone makes friends with at least one computer geek, so they can have free PC Tech Support. With Apple products, you rarely need it for daily use.
Cheers.
Freud