Thread: MAC bombs at gaming!
March 16th, 2005, 05:22 PM #1
MAC bombs at gaming!
Lots of mac fan-boys upset. The holly apple proved PC users right with recent tests on doom IIII. The architecture just plain doesn't make up for the raw cycles per second advantage that PC CPU's have. The test were done with same cards gamers are using on PC. Though the benches were like 50% the fps. The only diff was the rig the card was in. Proving beyond a doubt-PC is tons more powerful then most think. The point being? Well just like rendering has shifted more toward PC due to its increase in speed over mac. Gaming is also stronger, and NO its not the coding-its hardware. Steve'O its time to tell IBM you want a CPU that hits 2gig and NO dual doesn't count!. LOL.
March 16th, 2005, 05:27 PM #2
I'm willing to throw Apple a bone here and lay a large % of the blame on id Studios for unoptimized code - photoshop and lightwave have been maximumly coded for PC and Mac and perform neck and neck with similar configurations.
With greater scalability available in PCs, the best Mac is often no comparison to the best PC system... although one could argue with much vigor as to what the best PC configuration is.
/throws to wolves
March 16th, 2005, 05:31 PM #3Originally Posted by XtreemeRIP, F-14 tomcat. Best fighter in the world for 33 years
March 16th, 2005, 05:31 PM #4
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Tampa, FL USA
- Blog Entries
While I am no fan of gaming on the Mac, this debate can go either way. It is difficult to claim this is entirely a hardware issue, as we have no concrete information concerning the porting of the game engine, especially in regards to Altivec and other possible optimizations. Doom 3 was built from the ground up for the x86 architecture. It is quite difficult to port such code to PPC, especially when the original developer is not doing the low-level code porting.
Robert RichmondRobert Richmond | Infinite perceptions. One reality.
TechIMO.com Community Director
March 16th, 2005, 05:32 PM #5
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
Although everyone's always known Mac's completly suck for gaming, PCs are also starting to make up ground in things that Macs used to excel at, ie. video editing, picture editing, rendering etc.
March 16th, 2005, 05:34 PM #6
I think you are correct in the optimization point DPA.
Most OSX applications are written in Cocoa, which the bulk of the code is similar to Windows, but it does need to be optimized for OSX. I can certainly see a company just getting this game to run on a system that won't sell a lot of software for, instead of going the distance to make it run right.
March 16th, 2005, 05:37 PM #7
Interseting. Guess i never though of the mac sucking for gaming.3.2ghz HT P4
ATI 9800pro 256mb
160gb sata raid hd
March 16th, 2005, 05:38 PM #8
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
Also, it just reaffirms everyones beliefs (wheather truthfully or falsely) that Macs suck for gaming. This means in the future, they won't have to optimize anything for Mac. If their test showed that the game was FASTER or EQUAL on a Mac, more people might start moving towards a Mac, and they'd have to optimize every single game they made for PC onto OSX.
March 16th, 2005, 05:58 PM #9
O.K. since its agreed that rendering programs are more evenly ported. So things are fair. Look at this article. Mac gets slaughtered at RENDERING by P4. The point is beyond OS the mac is not superior in any apps I can find. None. If there is ONE please point it out so I can finally understand why the staunch support for them?
There was a time mac owners claimed the lack of gaming was due to the lack of decent 3d accelerators. Now they have same cards one could toss the blame to coding or drivers I suppose. But numbers that low i don't think a driver update will cure. help yes-cure no. Coding now that is possibly the most problematic. Macs access mem backward compared to PC. Read and write access I mean. So I think thats the main thing. So if mac would finally admit their mem access is crap, and change to what every other PC in the world uses, they may have more games ported and running well. Hmmm.
P.S. this isn't flame bait. I just want a calm discussion on the subject.
March 16th, 2005, 06:06 PM #10
I don't know where you are getting the memory access being crap thing from, but I can explain a few things.
As I stated earlier, applications have to be written/optimized for Cocoa. Second, applications have to be written specifically to take advantage of the Altivec engine and the PPC. As for 3d accelerators, they are different. Macs use ATI cards with the powermac using 64MB memory.
The thing about the Macs is that they have the ability for phenominal bandwidth and can move much larger chunks of data at a time as compared to a pc. It's just that programmers need to code for it, which doesn't seem to be a hugely popular area for most companies in a very competitive market.
March 16th, 2005, 07:09 PM #11
"It's just that programmers need to code for it, which doesn't seem to be a hugely popular area for most companies in a very competitive market."
Mainly because there is little to no money to make a return on investment by base coding for Mac versus base coding for Windows and porting over. I suppose one could argue that this porting of Doom 3 to Mac is purely on the generosity of id Studios, but somehow I doubt it.
March 16th, 2005, 07:27 PM #12
"I don't know where you are getting the memory access being crap thing from"
Well why does the mem access on mac work they way it does. Any real reason other than to make it diff?
"As I stated earlier, applications have to be written/optimized for Cocoa."
Dude, the last link I gave was ADOBE. That IS written and optimized great for mac. Was the app many used on the mac front to compare to PC. The P4 kills it. Like I said show me the application one would NEED to use mac for since it runs that app faster. I cant find one. At all. The only thing the mac cpu is stonger then pc at is Reduced Instruction set code, which most programers dont use much on pc side. Since it has a weak RISC unit. CISC easier to program for Id imagine. And I think (not sure) RISC is why the mac "can" in theory have so much bandwidth. But in reality it seems to matter very little. Its like having a car with a $50,000 engine up on blocks just sitting there reving its engine. Looks cool, in theory- very fast. But it never gets driven!
Last edited by Xtreeme; March 16th, 2005 at 07:29 PM.
March 16th, 2005, 07:27 PM #13
Originally Posted by Xtreeme
- Join Date
- Feb 2001
- Blog Entries
If AMD or Intel could double CPU clock speed on something they had only toyed with, then yeah, PCs would close the door on Macs, hands down, but I'm not holding my (Athlon based) breath just because folks could foolhardily assume that IBM is 'up to speed' on getting more clocks per second. Give IBM as much experience at gigahertz devices as Motorola has had, lets see what big blue can lay on us!
March 16th, 2005, 07:32 PM #14
Out of context my friend. When your that far behind sure you can double speed in 2 years. It had too. And the tech for faster cpu's had long been there as even you pointed out. The pc wasnt failing to increase speed but rather kept up all along. The under dog caught up in on leap, cause the tech had been there unused for so long. When the mac cpu is higher mhz then pc, then you can claim your advancing faster. So far-that isnt the case.
March 16th, 2005, 08:17 PM #15Originally Posted by Xtreeme
March 16th, 2005, 08:27 PM #16Originally Posted by Xtreeme
Last edited by Mr.Macintosh; March 16th, 2005 at 08:33 PM.RIP, F-14 tomcat. Best fighter in the world for 33 years
March 16th, 2005, 08:59 PM #17Dude, the last link I gave was ADOBE. That IS written and optimized great for mac. Was the app many used on the mac front to compare to PC. The P4 kills it. Like I said show me the application one would NEED to use mac for since it runs that app faster. I cant find one. At all. The only thing the mac cpu is stonger then pc at is Reduced Instruction set code, which most programers dont use much on pc side. Since it has a weak RISC unit. CISC easier to program for Id imagine. And I think (not sure) RISC is why the mac "can" in theory have so much bandwidth. But in reality it seems to matter very little. Its like having a car with a $50,000 engine up on blocks just sitting there reving its engine. Looks cool, in
Not only that, the actual x86 CISC intstruction set has mostly been abstracted from the processor as all modern day x86 processors immediately break an instruction down into what is pretty much RISC instructions anyways. That's what the decode stages do.
Also there is no "separate" RISC unit in an x86 since RISC is a TYPE of instruction set, NOT an instruction set. You do not write assembly code in RISC or MISC or CISC. You write them in x86 or PowerPC or 68000, etc assembly. Also the code is not interchangeable from a mac to a pc.
Also Carmack and the Id team did not write Doom3 in assembly except for some custom graphics work, which was written in the assembly languages for the nvidia and ati graphics chips (i don't remember there names). The cpu code was written in C++.
Also I heard Carmack say in person that the main reason he doesn't think that the Mac platform is good for games is gcc. Personally I think I will take Carmack's word over just about anybody else's word when it comes to stuff like this.
That said, the Mac is weaker in terms of speed compared to the PC from what I've seen, except for caching (which is amazing!). The real draw for the Mac platform is the operating system. It's easy for us to look at speed for a platform because windows is all we know (and Linux for some of us). We've never stopped to think that there could be something better than windows in terms of usability, but I think that OS X is much better than any other operating system out there (with the exception of compatibility with windows software of course). The reasons for using a Mac are much more subjective...It's an experience just like Linux is an experience. It's hard for us to say why it's better than windows when it is in fact slower for games (source), but we love it anyways.
EDIT: I know both x86 assembly (a MISC language), a superset of 68000 for the MC68HC12 which is RISC, and the assembly language for the MSP430 which is also RISC and i can say that hands down RISC languages are much easier to write in.
Last edited by originel; March 16th, 2005 at 09:04 PM.
March 16th, 2005, 09:24 PM #18
"I didn't look at your link. My reply to your post had nothing to do with adobe, or any program in general. You say you are looking for a "calm discussion" about this, but I rather think you are looking to just start bashing Macs"
You thought wrong. I have ea mac here. Problem is I just cant see why some insist its far faster then p. At what> Which is why I ask which app runs better on it. As I CANT FIND ONE! Which answers your snide remark #2.
"You want someone to show you a program that one would need to use a Mac for?? Why would someone have to show you anything? If you were really so interested in the answer, rather than picking apart any reply, you would certainly go out and find out for yourself. "
Again I did try I CANT FIN DONE. You guys are making this stupid and into a argument not a discussion. LOL.
"That is, if you were interested in answers and not arguing/bashing under the guise of a "calm discussion"
Till this post, after the attitude thats been thrown at me, what wasnt calm about my discusion. Enlighten me.
"Intel can only wish if they could get 500 Mhz at each CPU upgrade."
LOL AGAIN, mac got such a boost cause they didn't get jack for so long. Intel could have stuck with 1.2 gig till now and came out with a 3.06 whats your point. That holding back speed and then releasing it all at once proves their superior, HOW?
"Not only that, the actual x86 CISC intstruction set has mostly been abstracted from the processor as all modern day x86 processors immediately break an instruction down into what is pretty much RISC instructions anyways. That's what the decode stages do"
Risc run on a strong CISC CPU is not as fast as run on a strong RISC CPU. Thats a fact. The decoder will slow it down. Thats why mac emu on PC is slow. That and the quirky way it access mem. Follow me?
Since risc/cisc doesn't matter and
"I know both x86 assembly (a MISC language), a superset of 68000 for the MC68HC12 which is RISC, and the assembly language for the MSP430 which is also RISC and i can say that hands down RISC languages are much easier to write in."
I'm waiting for you to write a zippy fast Mac emu for pc. That does PPC CPU. Ill be here all year. haha. There are diff there you guys wont even admit to. Yet reality proves its there. This conversation turned to crap. Folks insist on making it into something it wasn't. I should have known better then to expect anything else. As far as I'm concerned this thread is now so useless, will be nothing but moronic bashing. They might as well lock it. Lets see, politics, macs, Intel, AMD, Nvidia and ATI are all "don't speak off" subjects, or your garunteed a thread crap..or 10. Cripes-hows the weather out there guys. Thats all thats left to talk about. Anything else and everyone gets their knickers in twist it seems.
March 16th, 2005, 09:25 PM #19
"What? That statement made absolutely no sense. I don't mean to be offensive, but you seem to have a very week understanding of assembly languages. The instruction set has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with bandwidth. They are completely unrelated! "
"And I think (not sure) "
See cant even read/comprehend. So pissed your not even thinking clearly!
March 16th, 2005, 09:40 PM #20Originally Posted by Xtreeme
Last edited by Mr.Macintosh; March 16th, 2005 at 09:48 PM.RIP, F-14 tomcat. Best fighter in the world for 33 years
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Mr.Macintosh in forum Graphics Cards and DisplaysReplies: 8Last Post: October 25th, 2004, 07:05 PM
By hulkMAD in forum Graphic Design and Digital PhotographyReplies: 129Last Post: October 5th, 2004, 10:01 PM
By VillageIdiot906 in forum Processors, Memory, and OverclockingReplies: 11Last Post: June 29th, 2004, 02:22 PM
By maple7355 in forum General Gaming DiscussionReplies: 38Last Post: March 12th, 2004, 09:58 PM
By prisoner1572 in forum Processors, Memory, and OverclockingReplies: 45Last Post: July 27th, 2003, 01:29 AM