Source: Tom's Hardware UK – Keywords: Guide, Macs, Gaming
Categories: Gaming
The Sims 2 Results
Like for Quake 4, we tried Star Wars: Empire at Wars in virtualisation and exactly like the case of Quake 4 we were disappointed.
The game does launch with VMware and Parallels but it is filled with graphic bugs making it unusable. On top of this the performances are very weak. It is impossible to reach 10 images /s. With CrossOver, the game doesn’t install, with Cider the keyboard and mouse no longer function.
So if you’re looking to destroy to help the rebels bring down the evil empire, look elsewhere. Only one Mac out of the three was capable of running the game (without bugs) but was much too slow. If this is the game for you head for the windows version. Our next game is the famous World of Warcraft. This MMORPG (massive multiplayer online role playing game) is loved by millions of players. The first thing is that the game is available in Mac version in the same box as the Windows version (or vice-versa). The installation CDs are hybrids and usable on both platforms. The game works on machines with PowerPC or Intel processors (after downloading the patches of course).
The game was tested in Windows and Mac OS X. We were unfortunately unable to test the game on a MacBook but the GMA950 is still a bit weak for 3D games anyway so no harm, no foul. This will all become clear when we come to the results. The game was used in native resolution on the Kirin Tor server in the capital interfaction Shattrah. We also held the tests at the end of the day (between 5 and 7 o’clock).
On the MacBook Pro, we notice that the two version give exactly the same values (at a few tenths of fps apart). This is clear proof that Blizzard has optimised its game for Mac OS X. It is very playable in the native resolution, you just need to add a mouse.
World of Warcraft works well on the iMac. The game is still fluid, even in a busy zone, and the casting of a couple of spells. It works better in Windows but that’s not really at issue. It looks very good and immersive. This is true particularly in 1920 x 1200. Virtualisation and World of Warcraft.
We abstained from testing it. Not because of time constraints (although the install is never ending) or because we’re lazy (and we are). The reason is because there was no point. The Mac and Windows versions are given in the box: why try to virtualise a program when you have the native version available which is bound to be faster? We should also point out that CrossOver is compatible with World of Warcraft.
- Previous page Star Wars Empire at War
- Next page Ever increasing Tests
- To Leech and to Share - Fibrionic's BitTorrent Box
- Vista Workshop – Performance Boost with 8GB of RAM
- Hardware News Roundup - February 2008
- Candid Camcorders - A brand new guide to HD Camcorders
- Upgrade Modules – Remote Controls for Media Centers
- Build Your Own System Rescue CD
- Neuros OSD vs. Archos AV500: Face-Off
- Christmas Buyers' Guide 2007: Media Players
- Christmas Buyers' Guide 2007: Last minute gift ideas
- An introduction to LAN file-sharing protocols
The Bottom Line (corrected): Macs = No good for games (maybe battleships and doom II)
Do you mean ultimate? (as far as I'm aware there is no "ultra" version of vista) and was it ultimate 64bit or 32bit?
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.
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....
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...
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.
Macs suck
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.
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?
I had a mac, and I'll never go back...to mac that is. I can buy 3 pc laptops with similar internal hardware for the price of a mac nowadays. Macs are to computers what Starbucks is to coffee. The folks that drink it can come up with all kinds of reasons why they are right to pay 3 times as much for their 'super special' coffee. More power too ya, but seriously, macworld...wake up. Macs just can't compete.