Could people with a 30" ACD and a Mac Pro with 7300 GT or x1900 XT run some benches?

[Spanky Deluxe]

I'd really like to know how these cards run in the following games:

Half Life 2 - Lost Coast or Episode 1 at 2560x1600 and 1280x800
Sims 2 (Bootcamp) at 2560x1600 and 1280x800
Quake 4 (Bootcamp) at 2560x1600 and 1280x800
WoW (Bootcamp or OS X) at 2560x1600 and 1280x800
BFME1&2 at 2560x1600 and 1280x800

I might be ordering a Mac Pro very soon and I would really like to know how these games perform so that I can decide whether I should break the bank and get a 1900 XT or not. I haven't played Episode 1 yet but would like to do so and I haven't played BFME2 yet although all the other games I already own.

I'd be very grateful for any help!

Spanky

 

[studiox]

I'd really like to know how these cards run in the following games:

Half Life 2 - Lost Coast or Episode 1 at 2560x1600 and 1280x800
Sims 2 (Bootcamp) at 2560x1600 and 1280x800
Quake 4 (Bootcamp) at 2560x1600 and 1280x800
WoW (Bootcamp or OS X) at 2560x1600 and 1280x800
BFME1&2 at 2560x1600 and 1280x800

I might be ordering a Mac Pro very soon and I would really like to know how these games perform so that I can decide whether I should break the bank and get a 1900 XT or not. I haven't played Episode 1 yet but would like to do so and I haven't played BFME2 yet although all the other games I already own.

I'd be very grateful for any help!

Spanky

There already are threads about this on macrumors (some of them).

If you want to know graphics performance from the ATI 1900XT go to Tomshardware.com and look at the PC review. The card has been out for a while and it WILL produce the same results on the Windows box. (Just look at 3DMark results)

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

There already are threads about this on macrumors (some of them).

If you want to know graphics performance from the ATI 1900XT go to Tomshardware.com and look at the PC review. The card has been out for a while and it WILL produce the same results on the Windows box. (Just look at 3DMark results)

Toms Hardware only benched HL2 and the max res was at 1600x1200. I haven't any specific threads with benchmarks yet on here, maybe I haven't looked enough, only a few benches hidden in other threads. I know the 7300GT scores ok frame rates at 1900x1200 but I'm specifically interested in these games and these resolutions, hence the thread.

 

[MovieCutter]

I don't know what's sadder, the fact that I have all those games, a 30" and a Mac Pro, or the fact that I'm too lazy to benchmark them. I could tell you now though...you DEFINITELY want the x1900 if you're playing games. I was running Oblivion and Empire at War on a PC 7900GT and it screamed like a banshee compared to the 7300, even at a lower power since I didn't have the power cable to plug into it. I can only imagine what my x1900 will do once i get it.

 

[bob5820]

Benchmarking in this situation is kind of pointless any way. Do you really need numbers to tell you the X1900 is the card to go with if your playing 3D games.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Benchmarking in this situation is kind of pointless any way. Do you really need numbers to tell you the X1900 is the card to go with if your playing 3D games.

Well yeah, if the X1900 XT can't play the games I mentioned at the full 30" ACD resolution (2560x1600) then I would run them at 1280x800 and if the 7300GT can run them at that res without any problems then there would be no need to spend the money on the more expensive card and save that money for a future upgrade. I'm not interested in playing games at non native or half native resolution because it looks pants on an LCD screen if you do. Do you see my logic?

 

[Mackeyser]

My take is if you're forgoing the 2 grand for the 30" monitor, don't starve it. Get the x1900 bto. It's an extra $250 and for that you get a card nearly as fast as the Nvidia Quadro 4500.

Retail Mac options, especially with the Mac Pros being EFI based aren't going to abound and the old days of just repurposing PC cards won't work.

 

[FleurDuMal]

Well yeah, if the X1900 XT can't play the games I mentioned at the full 30" ACD resolution (2560x1600) then I would run them at 1280x800 and if the 7300GT can run them at that res without any problems then there would be no need to spend the money on the more expensive card and save that money for a future upgrade. I'm not interested in playing games at non native or half native resolution because it looks pants on an LCD screen if you do. Do you see my logic?

But surely most games don't even have a 2560x1600 option?! In which case, if you're not willing to run at non-native resolutions, you should get a 30" monitor?

 

[Mrjynx]

i'm running at 1920x1200(23" ACD) with the 1900xt and have had 0 issues with running any games. haven't tried HL2 just yet, but i've tried BF2, WoW, and eve-online. Also I had Wow running at max and eve-online at max in windowed mode and they both ran flawlessly next to each other.

This is by far the fastest computer I've ever used for anything.. hell even when I compile large projects it's ridiculously fast..

 

[bob5820]

... Do you see my logic?

No I'm afraid I don't. If gaming is I priority why would you be looking to cut corners on the GPU? If money is a concern, go with a different monitor. As has been said the 30"ACD may not be the best solution.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

No I'm afraid I don't. If gaming is I priority why would you be looking to cut corners on the GPU? If money is a concern, go with a different monitor. As has been said the 30"ACD may not be the best solution.

Gaming is not a priority, I'd like to play some of the games I already own and I'd prefer to play them at native or half native resolution. I want the 30" screen for a whole plethora of other reasons. If I can't run games at the native resolution of the 30" screen with the 1900 XT then I would run the games at half native resolution, i.e. 1280x800. If the 7300 GT runs these games at a decent frame rate then there is no need for the more expensive card. Any frame rates above 60 would go unused anyway. Its quite simple logic! All i asked was for some benchmarks, not the third degree on why I should be asking for them!!

 

[damado]

A friend of mine has the 7300gt in his mac pro and is waiting on his x1900...he tried playing wow at 2560x1600 and is not playing anymore until his x1900 gets here if that's any indication...

 

[bob5820]

All i asked was for some benchmarks, not the third degree on why I should be asking for them!!

Sorry, I got to caught up in my own logic. No offence meant

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Sorry, I got to caught up in my own logic. No offence meant

No worries. I really would like to know if the 1900 XT can run HL2 at 2560x1600 with a *smooth* frame rate. I'm tempted with the card but I could just save the money and get the mac quicker, upgrading in the future. I'm not adverse to flashing any cards or such in the future and I would rather have an nVidia card due to the potential of SLI in Windows.

 

[radiantm3]

No worries. I really would like to know if the 1900 XT can run HL2 at 2560x1600 with a *smooth* frame rate. I'm tempted with the card but I could just save the money and get the mac quicker, upgrading in the future. I'm not adverse to flashing any cards or such in the future and I would rather have an nVidia card due to the potential of SLI in Windows.

I highly doubt it. In fact, I'll even bet money that it won't run smooth at 2560x1600 (if even a game supports that kind of resolution). If games are of any importance, don't get the 30". Anyways, it's practically impossible to play games comfortably on a 30" unless you sit far away from the display. Pick up a secondary 20" or 23" if you want to play games. That's what I'm planning on doing.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I highly doubt it. In fact, I'll even bet money that it won't run smooth at 2560x1600 (if even a game supports that kind of resolution). If games are of any importance, don't get the 30". Anyways, it's practically impossible to play games comfortably on a 30" unless you sit far away from the display. Pick up a secondary 20" or 23" if you want to play games. That's what I'm planning on doing.

Playing games on a 30" screen is very comfortable and is far from practically impossible. I'd be going from a 30" LCD TV screen to a 30" ACD screen anyway and have been playing loads of games at 1280x768 for the last two years and its fantastic. I'll admit that 2560x1600 is a resolution usually reserved for SLI and Crossfire solutions. If it was an nVidia card that was the top end (non workstation) card then I wouldn't hesitate because there are already non chipset specific SLI drivers out there and SLI is a lot easier to set up and use.

 

[FleurDuMal]

I highly doubt it. In fact, I'll even bet money that it won't run smooth at 2560x1600 (if even a game supports that kind of resolution). If games are of any importance, don't get the 30". Anyways, it's practically impossible to play games comfortably on a 30" unless you sit far away from the display. Pick up a secondary 20" or 23" if you want to play games. That's what I'm planning on doing.

Is there no way you can reduce the resolution, but restrict the amount of the screen being used? For example, reduce the resolution to 1280x800, but only use half the actual screen? (I know that last example would be stupid, but you get the idea - a better example would be to reduce the screen used to the resolution used by the 24" screens).

I probable haven't explained myself very well

 

[Mackeyser]

for 4x3 games without stretch option, you'll get the black bars on the sides and it will play at the 4x3 resolution you select. That said, you can't have it ONLY power a certain range of pixels so that the rest of the screen is blank.

Btw, you CAN do this with QT movies. I just saw the Showtime Apple event, put it full screen, then shifted it back to actual. The screen stayed black except for the much smaller video. Using the minimize button in the on screen controller changed it to a window again. I thought that was pretty cool...sorry, off topic.

Anyway, no, you can't have it play at the native resolution of the monitor, regardless of size. It either scales or plays in a window (if that's made an option).

 

[radiantm3]

Playing games on a 30" screen is very comfortable and is far from practically impossible. I'd be going from a 30" LCD TV screen to a 30" ACD screen anyway and have been playing loads of games at 1280x768 for the last two years and its fantastic. I'll admit that 2560x1600 is a resolution usually reserved for SLI and Crossfire solutions. If it was an nVidia card that was the top end (non workstation) card then I wouldn't hesitate because there are already non chipset specific SLI drivers out there and SLI is a lot easier to set up and use.

Hardly comfortable. Probably depends more on the type of games you play. I played a few FPS games on my 30" ACD and it just gave me a headache. I prefer a 20-23" display for gaming on the computer and save the larger displays for playing from my couch.

 

[apfhex]

Is there no way you can reduce the resolution, but restrict the amount of the screen being used? For example, reduce the resolution to 1280x800, but only use half the actual screen?

Well, you could always run in windowed mode if the game supports it.

 

[studiox]

I highly doubt it. In fact, I'll even bet money that it won't run smooth at 2560x1600 (if even a game supports that kind of resolution). If games are of any importance, don't get the 30". Anyways, it's practically impossible to play games comfortably on a 30" unless you sit far away from the display. Pick up a secondary 20" or 23" if you want to play games. That's what I'm planning on doing.

Not sure if this is a factor, but another point is that the textures that generate all nice graphics is not made for that high resoultion, meaning you could even get worse graphics running at those resolutions.

To my personal opinion is that there is no really point doing that. However i remember that the "game scene" at WWDC all where Powermac's with 30" ACD

 

[2ndPath]

Is there no way you can reduce the resolution, but restrict the amount of the screen being used? For example, reduce the resolution to 1280x800, but only use half the actual screen? (I know that last example would be stupid, but you get the idea - a better example would be to reduce the screen used to the resolution used by the 24" screens).

I probable haven't explained myself very well

I think I have seen this on windows as an option of the display drivers. But it might also just have been an option for laptop LCDs. At least this option allowed you to run only a part of the display or to stretch the image to the full screen.