Sign In
Register
Help
Aspyr's Mac conversion of Doom 3 has gone Universal for Intel-based Macs. more
Page 1 of 1
Doom 3 gets Universal treatment
MultiQuote
#2
mattman32 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 09-December 04
Posted 21 February 2006 - 07:37 AM
In reply to:
The update results in greatly improved performance and much higher frame rates on those machines.
The update results in greatly improved performance and much higher frame rates on those machines.
Are these higher framerates compared to those on PPC-based machines, or compared to the Intel-based Macs trying to run the game via Rosetta? The latter would hopefully be a given thing, while the former would be greatly welcomed.
#3
Peter Cohen
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,646
- Joined: 05-February 03
Posted 21 February 2006 - 07:52 AM
In this case, both. Doom 3 is running way faster on Intel iMacs than it was under Rosetta, and it's running way faster than it was on PowerPC-based iMacs.
In this case, it has a lot more to do with the graphics chip than it does with the processor, but it's still welcome news.
In this case, it has a lot more to do with the graphics chip than it does with the processor, but it's still welcome news.
#4
MCJ
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 558
- Joined: 17-October 05
Posted 21 February 2006 - 11:46 PM
I think that Jason Snell put it even more succinctly.
I bought a new PowerPC iMac in November last year and a demo of Doom 3 that I tried out was pretty much unplayable. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I bought a new PowerPC iMac in November last year and a demo of Doom 3 that I tried out was pretty much unplayable. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
#5
Peter Cohen
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,646
- Joined: 05-February 03
Posted 22 February 2006 - 07:11 AM
It all depends on how you configure it and what you consider playable. Turning off shadows, for examples, makes a huge difference in frame rate and doesn't significantly impact the actual gameplay experience, IMO.
But the Radeon X1600 chips used in the Intel iMacs is much, much better for gaming than any chip that's gone in an iMac before it. This has been a sore point with me ever since Apple introduced the first Bondi Blue iMac in 1998.
I remember going to a special Apple event at E3 in Atlanta that year, where they unveiled the iMac, and we were all impressed with the industrial design of the box, and then we looked at the specs -- and were like, "Why the hell did they stick a RAGE 128 in here when the RAGE Pro would have been better?"
They eventually closed that gap, but by that point, the bar had moved again. And it always seemed like the iMac was a step or five behind what decent gaming machines should come with, or did come with on the PC side.
I'm not saying the Radeon X1600 is bleeding edge gamer's hardware -- in fact, the bar is way beyond that at this point. But when the iMac G4 debuted, folks in the Mac game industry liked the box but lamented the crippled graphics chipset used inside. When the iMac G5 debuted, it was the same story.
This is the first iMac I can ever remember where the game peeps I talk with on a daily basis have said, "Hey, that should turn in really solid performance."
And they're right.
Is the Intel iMac a hardcore gamer's machine? No. But is it better suited to playing a wide range of (Universal Binary) games than any iMac before it? Absolutely.
But the Radeon X1600 chips used in the Intel iMacs is much, much better for gaming than any chip that's gone in an iMac before it. This has been a sore point with me ever since Apple introduced the first Bondi Blue iMac in 1998.
I remember going to a special Apple event at E3 in Atlanta that year, where they unveiled the iMac, and we were all impressed with the industrial design of the box, and then we looked at the specs -- and were like, "Why the hell did they stick a RAGE 128 in here when the RAGE Pro would have been better?"
They eventually closed that gap, but by that point, the bar had moved again. And it always seemed like the iMac was a step or five behind what decent gaming machines should come with, or did come with on the PC side.
I'm not saying the Radeon X1600 is bleeding edge gamer's hardware -- in fact, the bar is way beyond that at this point. But when the iMac G4 debuted, folks in the Mac game industry liked the box but lamented the crippled graphics chipset used inside. When the iMac G5 debuted, it was the same story.
This is the first iMac I can ever remember where the game peeps I talk with on a daily basis have said, "Hey, that should turn in really solid performance."
And they're right.
Is the Intel iMac a hardcore gamer's machine? No. But is it better suited to playing a wide range of (Universal Binary) games than any iMac before it? Absolutely.
#6
MCJ
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 558
- Joined: 17-October 05
Posted 23 February 2006 - 07:33 AM
The game basically freezes up as soon as the base comes under attack. I've tried different settings to no avail but I'll follow your suggestion about turning off shadows.
I know that several of us had an interesting debate about the design concept versus upgradeability / serviceability. I defended Apple's design for the iMac but I did say that I would have liked to have had the option of upgrading the graphics card.
Ah well, we can't get everything we want. One thing is for sure - the iMac makes all those PC boxes look downright hideous and in my opinion it is pound-for-pound better value for money too /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif.
I know that several of us had an interesting debate about the design concept versus upgradeability / serviceability. I defended Apple's design for the iMac but I did say that I would have liked to have had the option of upgrading the graphics card.
Ah well, we can't get everything we want. One thing is for sure - the iMac makes all those PC boxes look downright hideous and in my opinion it is pound-for-pound better value for money too /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif.
Page 1 of 1
