Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Macbook 2 GHz slower than Powerbook 1.25 GHz for Enemy Territory

B

babucher

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 28, 2005
21
0
I own a Powerbook G4, 1.25 GHz that includes an ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 video card.

My friend owns a Macbook 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, which includes a GMA 950 video card.

Surprisingly, I get significantly better framerates (FPS) in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory than he does, even with the same in-game-video-options. Any ideas why this might be?

Running ET on the Macbook in window mode, and watching the Activity Monitor shows that ET is using 99-100% (sometimes 101!) of the CPU when running.

Anyone know how to optimize the Macbook to run Enemy Territory?
Thanks.
 
b\c games rely heavily on the video card..and you have a far superior video card than the macbook.

the only chance to improve the macbook's FPS is to add ram. Even so, it will likely not approach your FPS.
 
Thanks for the replies.

It looks like (from my various readings) that the GMA950 dumps a significant amount of processing work to the CPU, so the faster CPU has to work harder than my powerbook CPU.

Not sure if it was taking full advantage of the dual-cores either, since the CPU% maxed out at 101%, whereas it should have been significantly higher if both cores were maxed.
 
KingYaba said:
I do not believe any game (to date) takes advantage of multiple cores.
Click to expand...

With the exception of 2 games, I believe you are correct. Its shameful really, as most of the hardcore gamers I know have dual core machines as a minimum. Unreal Tournament has been CPU locked for years now, the GPU has less of an effect on performance than CPU.
 
WildPalms said:
With the exception of 2 games, I believe you are correct. Its shameful really, as most of the hardcore gamers I know have dual core machines as a minimum. Unreal Tournament has been CPU locked for years now, the GPU has less of an effect on performance than CPU.
Click to expand...
Sims 2, Half Life 2 Episode 2, Supreme Commander, Crysis...
 
KingYaba said:
I do not believe any game (to date) takes advantage of multiple cores.
Click to expand...

Quake IV sure does. Intel specifically helped make it use multiple cores, actually. (Which is why the bragging points always mention using multiple cores on Intel Macs, even though dual core/CPU PowerPC Macs benefited just as well.)

Anyway, yeah, it's not really surprising at all that ET would do better on the Powerbook, since even the ancient (in computer years) 9600 is a lot better than the GMA950. The only way to optimize the Macbook for gaming is to trade it in for a Macbook Pro.

--Eric
 
New Macbooks have Intel GMA X3100 graphics which would be slightly better than the older GMA 950. Still way too weak for serious gaming though.
 
yamabushi said:
New Macbooks have Intel GMA X3100 graphics which would be slightly better than the older GMA 950.
Click to expand...

Better on paper, but apparently worse in the real world from what I've heard, due to drivers that don't really work. At least that's something which can potentially be fixed, hopefully.

--Eric
 
Is it possible that you're running the PPC version of the game on your macbook as well as your powerbook? If so, then the process of rosetta conversion from PPC instruction to Intel instruction will cause a huge hit in performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back