In the Case of Quake III Arena

Ad

To carry out our measurements, we didn’t opt for any of the classic benchmarks such as the Timedemo. Instead we measured the fps on a predefined course. For each game, we carried out a sequence of actions to carry out, which were always the same. It was repeated five times, and the values that you find in our graphs are calculated as an average of the measurements. In Windows, we measured the framerate with Fraps. In Mac OS X we used Profiler, a program given in the development tools.

For the tests, we kept the drivers installed by BootCamp. The reason is simple: neither Ati nor Nvidia offer drivers adapted directly to mobile cards. It is possible to modify the desktop drivers to work with the card but some features are sometimes deactivated. On top of this the manipulation is not easy enough for amateurs. The iMac card’s drivers (Radeon HD 2600XT Mobility) are based on the Catalyst 7.7 while the MacBook Pro’s Geforce 8600M uses Forceware which dates from May 2007.

We also carried out a comparative test between the different solutions which allow you to use Windows games in Mac OS X. For this test (where Quake III Arena is the guinea-pig) we weren’t able to use our measuring tools so had to use the classic Timedemo. We did this for one simple reason: a program such as CrossOver, for example, doesn’t allow you to emulate two applications at the same time. Quake III The first game we tested was Quake 4. It is an ID Software game, a company which often offered Mac versions of its games. While the Windows version was produced by Activision, it is Aspyr (a company which is specialised in porting games for Macs) did the Mac OS X version. Lady Mac Player

The two versions (Windows and Mac OS X) were tested in version 1.42 (the latest) with activated SMP optimisations (all the machines use Core 2 Duo processors). For the details, we tested the superior quality and the ultra quality. The latter has the unique trait of requiring enormous amounts of video memory and warns that the performances can be very weak if the graphics card has less than 512 MB of video memory.


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