Sign In
Register
Help
Post your comments for Make the MacBook better for gaming here
Make the MacBook better for gaming
MultiQuote
#2
lenn 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 27-January 06
Posted 14 March 2008 - 02:51 PM
I agree 100%!
Although I doubt Apple will ever put the "current" good GPU in any iMac, MB or mini. Jobs' has never done it and I doubt will ever do it in the future.
Looks like he's focusing all Apple's gaming future on the iphone/touch.
lenn
Although I doubt Apple will ever put the "current" good GPU in any iMac, MB or mini. Jobs' has never done it and I doubt will ever do it in the future.
Looks like he's focusing all Apple's gaming future on the iphone/touch.
lenn
#3
Cesium133x
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 21-June 04
Posted 14 March 2008 - 02:56 PM
I'd be interested to know how Aperture 2.0 runs on a MacBook with a GMA X3100. I don't need it to be lightning fast but it would be nice if it were useable.
#4
TheBoyKen
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 171
- Joined: 24-September 04
Posted 14 March 2008 - 03:21 PM
Peter said:
Ia??ve spoken with Mac game developers who have looked at the hardware and how its performance and features compare to GMA X3100 systems running on Windows, and the Mac driver implementation always comes up short.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Peter, but when you say it lacks the features of GMA X3100 systems on Windows, how do you mean? Isn't it the same hardware? Or are you saying the mac itself is underspecced vs. integrated graphics Windows systems?
Also in terms of the mac driver not being up to snuff, is this a real comparison or a "DirectX game XYZ works better on Windows GMA X3100 than it does when ported to OpenGL on the mac"?
For instance does the MacBook run slower than the PC when it's in Boot Camp playing the game (i.e. DirectX running on Windows, on the MacBook)? (And even so that could be Apple's Windows driver, rather than their mac driver, to blame).
I'm just wondering what figures you're basing that statement on (and I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm just seeking evidence). All too often people think Aspyr should be able to work miracles porting heavily optimised DirectX algorithms into OpenGL, and trying to get equal/better performance out of them (while delivering the game at the same time as the Windows version, and making it cheap too etc.).
And I'm not saying that OpenGL is slower than DX, just that when you port an already-optimised-for-one-platform algorithm, you rarely are able to mimic that performance on the "foreign" system.
Ia??ve spoken with Mac game developers who have looked at the hardware and how its performance and features compare to GMA X3100 systems running on Windows, and the Mac driver implementation always comes up short.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Peter, but when you say it lacks the features of GMA X3100 systems on Windows, how do you mean? Isn't it the same hardware? Or are you saying the mac itself is underspecced vs. integrated graphics Windows systems?
Also in terms of the mac driver not being up to snuff, is this a real comparison or a "DirectX game XYZ works better on Windows GMA X3100 than it does when ported to OpenGL on the mac"?
For instance does the MacBook run slower than the PC when it's in Boot Camp playing the game (i.e. DirectX running on Windows, on the MacBook)? (And even so that could be Apple's Windows driver, rather than their mac driver, to blame).
I'm just wondering what figures you're basing that statement on (and I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm just seeking evidence). All too often people think Aspyr should be able to work miracles porting heavily optimised DirectX algorithms into OpenGL, and trying to get equal/better performance out of them (while delivering the game at the same time as the Windows version, and making it cheap too etc.).
And I'm not saying that OpenGL is slower than DX, just that when you port an already-optimised-for-one-platform algorithm, you rarely are able to mimic that performance on the "foreign" system.
#5
prestoleum
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 19
- Joined: 14-January 07
Posted 14 March 2008 - 04:06 PM
This is the only reason I bought a MBP over the MacBook. I suppose in my case, Apple made a good decision, considering they probably make more $ on the MBP.
#6
drimwit
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 152
- Joined: 25-August 07
Posted 14 March 2008 - 04:21 PM
The graphics hardware would have to be pretty much identical - its integrated into the chipset. I can't see Apple doing anything to that for any number of reasons.
As far as the drivers go, maybe Apple should be looking at licensing DirectX, MS would surely be happy to oblige, and legally required to do so, probably.
As far as the drivers go, maybe Apple should be looking at licensing DirectX, MS would surely be happy to oblige, and legally required to do so, probably.
#7
techwild2008
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 13-January 08
Posted 14 March 2008 - 04:58 PM
This probably won't happen. but if Apple could experiment with a few different chipsets along the lines of NVIDIA's MCPs and ATI's Radeon Xpress family (which can be built around the Intel CPU's), they might find something marginally better in the IGP field than the X3100.
Blasted exclusivity agreements! But then again, Macs wouldn't be as good if it weren't for the current contract.
Blasted exclusivity agreements! But then again, Macs wouldn't be as good if it weren't for the current contract.
#8
Peter Cohen
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,646
- Joined: 05-February 03
Posted 14 March 2008 - 05:34 PM
Put simply, I'm saying that Apple's OpenGL drivers lack the performance or the same capabilities as DirectX drivers on GMA X3100 hardware.
#9
Peter Cohen
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,646
- Joined: 05-February 03
Posted 14 March 2008 - 05:43 PM
No, Microsoft wouldn't do any such thing -- DirectX is a key component of both Windows and the Xbox 360.
Secondly, there's absolutely no way that Apple would license DirectX. It's totally antithetical to their concept of using open standards.
Secondly, there's absolutely no way that Apple would license DirectX. It's totally antithetical to their concept of using open standards.
#10
drimwit
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 152
- Joined: 25-August 07
Posted 14 March 2008 - 05:52 PM
So Apple wouldn't licence Exchange server protocols for instance? MS is a convicted monopolist. They're forced to open their interfaces, at least by the Europeans. If Apple were serious about gaming, it would licence DirectX.
#11
Peter Cohen
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,646
- Joined: 05-February 03
Posted 14 March 2008 - 06:12 PM
Drimwit, you're not listening.
Apple isn't the first company to license Activesync and they won't be the last.
But Microsoft. Will. Not. License. DirectX.
Clear?
Apple isn't the first company to license Activesync and they won't be the last.
But Microsoft. Will. Not. License. DirectX.
Clear?
#12
TheBoyKen
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 171
- Joined: 24-September 04
Posted 14 March 2008 - 06:13 PM
Put simply, I'm saying that Apple's OpenGL drivers lack the performance or the same capabilities as DirectX drivers on GMA X3100 hardware.
erm, yes that is putting it simply isn't it. The old apples and pears routine. So how are you comparing the performance? The only way you could definitely say that DX/Win is higher performing than OpenGL/Mac (on that graphics architecture) is to take something that is doing the exact same, in both environments.
But because most mac ports have to make an OpenGL app out of a DirectX app, they're off to a bad start (similarly if you were going from GL->DX the DX app would be worse off, if the GL app was heavily optimised).
The nearest you could get for performance measurements is to take a product that purports to be built natively for each (eg. WoW?). How does that fare?
At the end of the day, you may have just proved that DirectX is more efficient at the particular task you were measuring (and/or that the code you were running happened to be better optimised for DirectX than it was for OpenGL). Neither of which would be Apple's fault, despite your implication being that Apple should pull its finger out.
Put another way: how do you know Apple's driver is at fault, and that it isn't a limitation of OpenGL itself?
As any serious programmer will tell you, the first step of software optimisation is not to optimise your code. It is to measure it so you're not trying to optimise the wrong part. You seem to be pointing the gun at Apple without having done the necessary measurements to back your suspicions up.
erm, yes that is putting it simply isn't it. The old apples and pears routine. So how are you comparing the performance? The only way you could definitely say that DX/Win is higher performing than OpenGL/Mac (on that graphics architecture) is to take something that is doing the exact same, in both environments.
But because most mac ports have to make an OpenGL app out of a DirectX app, they're off to a bad start (similarly if you were going from GL->DX the DX app would be worse off, if the GL app was heavily optimised).
The nearest you could get for performance measurements is to take a product that purports to be built natively for each (eg. WoW?). How does that fare?
At the end of the day, you may have just proved that DirectX is more efficient at the particular task you were measuring (and/or that the code you were running happened to be better optimised for DirectX than it was for OpenGL). Neither of which would be Apple's fault, despite your implication being that Apple should pull its finger out.
Put another way: how do you know Apple's driver is at fault, and that it isn't a limitation of OpenGL itself?
As any serious programmer will tell you, the first step of software optimisation is not to optimise your code. It is to measure it so you're not trying to optimise the wrong part. You seem to be pointing the gun at Apple without having done the necessary measurements to back your suspicions up.
#14
TheBoyKen
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 171
- Joined: 24-September 04
Posted 14 March 2008 - 06:24 PM
Drimwit, in Peter's defence, just because MS are required to offer DirectX licences by law (is that the case?) doesn't mean Apple have to / want to licence it. Whether or not you or I think it would be a good idea etc.
Personally I'm hoping id's Rage will be used in a lot of games (but I'm fearful it won't) instead of the DirectX-only engines, making ports better / faster / sooner / (cheaper?) for Mac users. In other words, I wish the gaming industry would give up on DirectX (but that's just wishful thinking; they have years of experience that they're unlikely to want to cast aside just for the hell of it).
Perhaps the PS3's non-DirectX environment gives us mac users some hope that game companies will look at non-DX techniques (at least in my memory I recall them being non-DX... I have absolutely no evidence with which to substantiate that!)
Personally I'm hoping id's Rage will be used in a lot of games (but I'm fearful it won't) instead of the DirectX-only engines, making ports better / faster / sooner / (cheaper?) for Mac users. In other words, I wish the gaming industry would give up on DirectX (but that's just wishful thinking; they have years of experience that they're unlikely to want to cast aside just for the hell of it).
Perhaps the PS3's non-DirectX environment gives us mac users some hope that game companies will look at non-DX techniques (at least in my memory I recall them being non-DX... I have absolutely no evidence with which to substantiate that!)
