Crysis

Ad

Crysis Pic We should point out that we didn’t test the game with the MacBook because we’re not masochists.

Crysis, the demo

Crysis is a long awaited game that fails to disappoint. Apart from the graphic wantonness (which demands a calculation power reserved for the five richest kings of Europe) the game is a damn good FPS. The very power-hungry demo was tested on the MacBook and on the iMac. Like in previous tests we used the native resolution. Stats 4

As we can see it’s very slow. We used the default parameters (medium detail level). It is unplayable on the iMac (but not many machines can work in WUXGA with this game) and it is barely workable on the MacBook Pro. The Very High mode, for which three graphic cards in SLI are recommended, is more of a slide show than a game. The reason for this being that we couldn’t get more than 1 image/s. In the end don’t hope to play Crysis without lowering the details and the resolution. Then you will be able to take advantage of the superb blurring that is redimensioning.

Call of Duty 4, let’s go

Call of Duty 4 is also quite power-hungry. It’s not Crysis bad, but it’s pretty bad. How are the Macs going to cope?

Stats 5

In the end they don’t do well at all. The graphic cards are restrained and it shows. We rarely get more than 20 images/s with the MacBook Pro and the iMac only almost reaches the 15 fps mark. It’s very slow, jerky and downright unplayable. Unreal Tournament III, while waiting for MacSoft While waiting for the Mac version (originally planned for the beginning of 2008) we tested the Unreal Tournament III demo.

Stats 6

With the iMac and its 256 MB of dedicated video memory there were no problems. It is fast, fun and looks good. Be careful though, the game automatically starts in 640 x 480 and we wondered if we hadn’t just launch Doom. The redimensioning coupled with a very low resolution gives awful results. On the MacBook Pro it is a bit slower. The reason seems to be (without being sure) the small quantity of video memory (only 128 Mb of dedicated memory). Once the game needs an additional 384 MB (handled by TurboCache), the performances collapse and the bandwidth becomes too weak. We note that it is playable and nothing more.


Talkback

rtfm 15/02/2008 01:29
Hide
-0+
rtfm
The Bottom Line (corrected): Macs = No good for games (maybe battleships and doom II)
human_error 15/02/2008 04:28
Hide
-0+
human_error
Quote :The Windows part was tested with Windows Vista Ultra Edition.


Do you mean ultimate? (as far as I'm aware there is no "ultra" version of vista) and was it ultimate 64bit or 32bit?
Akula971 15/02/2008 07:17
Hide
-0+
Akula971
A very weak and uninformed review. The MacBook and MacBookPro are not designed for gaming, but for media and business use. So why test them? The IMacs that can play games very well, Just search in Youtube.com for "Imac crysis" and watch the videos. Why did they use Vista? everyone knows that it creates a huge performance hit for games, that why Mac Gamers who use boot camp use Windows XP. The bottom of the range MacPro was excluded? why? because it might have shown a result that the authors didn't like? it only costs $2299. Not $3000 and comes with the HD2600 XT card not the 7300 mentioned in the article. I guess the article was written some ago before 10.5.1/2 as both updates have enhanced features that benefit gaming and in bootcamp you can put any Windows graphics card in. I guess that Pierre already had his conclusion and wrote an article to back it up. Very poor composition, certainly not constructive journalism! Why not find someone who knows about Mac's to write an article on getting the best out of gaming on a mac, just pop along to http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=125 there are lots of people there who could tell you differently. Overall a disappointing article for its lack of accurate information and depth.
ebernet 15/02/2008 08:28
Hide
-0+
ebernet
Pretty bad review....
There is a 256 version of the MacBook Pro, which if you are a gamer would be the one you go for...
You CAN scale the res on all those machines, and even have the apps autoswitch them, so I don't understand your comment that the Mac cannot do resolution scaling so you had to go with full res...
While I agree you should not be buying a Mac if what you want is gaming, this article was just uninformed....
orthorim 16/02/2008 02:54
Hide
-0+
orthorim
Good points above - a proper review should use the latest machines.

I still found the review very interesting because it directly compares the performance with Parallels and VMWare to OS X native and Windows native. One of the big selling points of Parallels (which I bought) is that it emulates accelerated 3D graphics in Windows. And this review shows that this is just marketing hot air as that 3D acceleration makes the difference between 5 FPS and 1 FPS, 5 times as fast in marketing speak, still completely unusable in the real world.

So, big thanks for making the effort!

PS: I am not a native english speaker myself but the english in this article is pretty hard to understand in places. I am sure you'd find english-speaking volunteers to edit / proof read this...
Macbrewer 16/02/2008 09:35
Hide
-0+
Macbrewer
Face it, the MAC is a far better computer because it has support for a far better operating system. Windows is just BS, as you will see quite easily for yourself if you actually use the computer and don't just play games. Life is short folks, do yourself a favor and give it a try. Be warned though, it's very true, once you go Mac you don't go back.

But some readers jump to conclusions (e.g. "Bottomline, Macs are no good for games"--geez did you read this at all?), and even the writers of this article have many misconceptions--it is obvious you are out of your element a bit. But I applaud your efforts nonetheless, don't get me wrong.

Windows is basically 'owned' now by OS X, OS X has Windows running in a window, or available at the touch of a button. And there are plenty of instances of "It is even faster, generally, than on Windows."

Thanks for pointing out that even WINDOWS runs better on Mac! Which it does. And, you don't have to rely on Windows horrible and almost complete lack of security.
darthpoik 18/02/2008 02:02
Hide
-0+
darthpoik
Macs suck
darthpoik 18/02/2008 02:24
Hide
-0+
darthpoik
What we wanted was a more direct comparison between hardware and OS. Macs use PC hardware now so the comparison should be much easier. I suspect Tom is being paid, forced or coerced into not showing us this important comparison. Macs suck but I suspect their OS is far less addled than vista.
Hyperchio 19/02/2008 01:45
Hide
-0+
Hyperchio
Are They Any Good For Gaming? The reveiw is flawed in some ways yes, but the definitive answer is that if you want to play the latest and best games, why get a mac?

Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.



  •
Submit my comment
Google Ads