Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macbook + Vista + HL2
- Thread starter ElCambo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pretty sure - actually make that very sure - that one or two people on MacRumors have posted about MB/HL2 performance, so would be worth doing a search. From what I've seen on other forums, it's fairly playable.
I think XP would be the way to go - I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me - rather than Vista... certainly all the PC technicians I know are sticking to XP anyway!
I think XP would be the way to go - I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me - rather than Vista... certainly all the PC technicians I know are sticking to XP anyway!
Agreed. It if does in fact run, performance will be better on XP. Vista hogs more RAM if nothing else.
Having tried a number of games on Vista and comparing the responsiveness of the system at the time, there is nothing in Vista that makes the current games play any better than they did on XP SP2. In fact, they are usually much faster loading in XP SP2, particularly when moving around quickly and HL2 loves to say, "Loading..." a lot.
I would use a minimal install of XP SP2 on a Boot Camp partition, but the Intel GMA 900 is going to make things pretty slow anyway.
I would use a minimal install of XP SP2 on a Boot Camp partition, but the Intel GMA 900 is going to make things pretty slow anyway.
Gaming performance in Vista now is extremely sucky because of the new aero interface. Depending on which version of Vista you have of course. If you don't have one with Aero, the overhead of the new UI will definitely slow down your gaming experience. So if you want to game, stick to XP.
What no. It's not Aero that is affecting games. It's just Vista as a whole. In any case, people with Aero can disable it just like those who don't have it. If you turn everything off and make Vista look like a vanilla Windows 2000 without any themes, it's the closest you can get to performance. Given the choice though, use Windows XP.
'
Well we were both wrong in a sense. Read it here and here oh and here too. Basically, with Aero a lot of the UI drawing elements is offloaded to the graphics card. But since the GMA950 is an integrated thing so the CPU will have to bear the brunt of the work anyways. So, unless you have discrete graphics, its better to stick to XP
youtube macbook and you will come across people playn hl2,cod2 and wow.using parallels or something
'
Well we were both wrong in a sense. Read it here and here oh and here too. Basically, with Aero a lot of the UI drawing elements is offloaded to the graphics card. But since the GMA950 is an integrated thing so the CPU will have to bear the brunt of the work anyways. So, unless you have discrete graphics, its better to stick to XP
Right but none of that stuff is going on when you're in a game. From what I've read and been told, the UI only affects things really when it's actively rendering...
Must switch to it's Direct X 7 code path to be able to run. Although technically the 950 is a Direct X 6 part.
The 950 is a full Direct X 9 Part... GMA x3100 is Full DX10....
You guys arent pc hardware people
Intel Extreme 2 is DX8
GMA 900+ is DX9.
Gma x3100 Can do DX10 but drivers cant yet.
Also a x3100 is about as fast as a 7300.. Pretty good for integrated.
No it isn't (the 950 I mean). A part has to meet ALL the requirements of a shader model to be that level. It can't just cherry pick some features and do the rest in software. It doesn't even qualify as a Direct X 7 part, let alone 9.
The highest level it fully meets is DX 6, so it's a DX 6 part. Having some features from DX 9 doesn't change that.
Other companies that have tried to pawn stuff off like that have gotten slammed by Microsoft and the press, but I think since it's Intel, they have the clout to make bogus claims and not really get corrected (aside from us hardware geeks).
In theory at least, the x3100 is Intel's first part that exceeds DX 6 level...if they actually get drivers working (that part reminds me of one of S3's chips years back that never actually supported features it supposedly had).
It supports them but doesnt do them. Like the Gma 3100 could do DX10 if it wanted but wont.
Also, think about what a nightmare it would be if other companies got to get away with this sort of thing. ANY part could be labeled as DX 10, even a 12 year old Rage 128, if it included emulation in it's drivers. Specs would become totally bogus if they didn't list actual HARDWARE support.
...There is a amount it has to actually do.. but the GMA_950 isnt fast enough for the like 2 features it doesnt do anyway but a core2 is.
Regardless, it's a Direct X 6 part. Other companies wouldn't be able to get away with calling it DX 9.
It supports all DX8 Features and does some in software... Other people do that you know intel just advertizes
Doing it in software isn't supporting a feature
GMA950 does transform, lighting and vertex shading in software, and those are all required for full hardware DX7 support.
Doing it in software isn't supporting a feature
GMA950 does transform, lighting and vertex shading in software, and those are all required for full hardware DX7 support.
Exactly. That's why it's only a Direct X 6 part.
I really don't think anyone but Intel could get away with this. They're one of the few companies that even Microsoft can't automatically boss around.