15gb I believe, around the same size as the GTAIV games. It's all quite monstrous!
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.
RAGE by iD
- Thread starter harveypooka
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
15gb I believe, around the same size as the GTAIV games. It's all quite monstrous!
no, it's not. 21.1GB. I actually finished it already three days ago. now, I run through second one.
That is very interesting. It reminds me of a game from the 90s by Shiny called Messiah that was meant to scale its graphics according to the power of the computer it ran on. Fans of id Games will probably be shocked that they no longer have a million graphics options to tinker with but I am all for it if it simplifies the process of running a game as well as it can run on every computer.
Now I'm torn here...
RAGE for my PS3 or my older late 2010 MBP...
Anyone have a Mac similar to my decked out 13"?
2.4Ghz Core 2, 8GB of memory, 750GB Hard Drive, 27" ACD, Nvidia 320m, Windows 7 Pro Bootcamp.
Naturally I imagine it will perform better on the 1280x800 laptop display but playing on the 27" ACD is just awesome at native resolution.
RAGE for my PS3 or my older late 2010 MBP...
Anyone have a Mac similar to my decked out 13"?
2.4Ghz Core 2, 8GB of memory, 750GB Hard Drive, 27" ACD, Nvidia 320m, Windows 7 Pro Bootcamp.
Naturally I imagine it will perform better on the 1280x800 laptop display but playing on the 27" ACD is just awesome at native resolution.
I'd pick it up on PS3 given your spec. At least you know you will have a consistent experience on the PS3.
don't expect the good performance on your spec. your graphic card is very weak. it's not even dedicated. it's customized share chip. plus, Rage use tons of CPU power, and virtual memory along with GPU. you don't even have 512MB dedicated. it's like you have only intel HD interated chipset. if you will get 10fps, then you will be lucky. but don't get me wrong. the game is not power hugry (it uses megatexture image). it requires that the game continues to stream textures when you play game. forget about your 27' monitor. keep dreaming on gaming in your mac. it won't happen this time.
I have Asus G73 gaming laptop which equips with intel quadcore i7 2.0 ghz, NVIDIA GTX 560M (1.5GB video memory), 750GB HDD, 8GB memory, and so on. graphic card is one of the fastest card for laptop in the market. there is only AMD 6970M is competitor today. so go figure. I enjoy my Rage so much. it runs so great on my laptop (60fps on 1920X1080 screen, the game has cap on 60fps).
then again. sorry that your mac can't handle.
for the record, the game uses openGL rather than directX. mac maybe take advantage of it. but it would be straight on your mac os x (not bootcamp windows os). by the way, ID software actually has a plan to make mac version. I don't know the date. but it will be someday in 2012. you'd better buy new mac or gaming PC. it's better than sticking with your old mac. money issue? well, when you bought expensive mac, I guess you don't worry about money, huh?
He bought his mac in 2010, was your laptop available in 2010? His laptop is also 13", I would guess yours is a 17" that feels about as heavy as a chopping board.
Your condescending tone is not welcome, there is no need for it all. I guess you are a better person than him because you own a PC.
In answer to the poster, just get it on PS3.
I don't think he was being condescending on purpose but I agree that comparisons between laptops of different sizes and from different years are irrelevant. People who count frames generally love to boast about their gaming PCs and I think that is a way for them to justify having spent their money on those things. Personally I would not buy a computer just for games and perhaps that is why I only ever consider Macs. A dedicated console may not give you the most high-end graphics but given the variety and volume of games available for them, not to mention the huge libraries of budget titles, they are most definitely the best option for video games.
I do laugh when people like this come on a board without knowing all the FACTS of a given tech let alone more experience to not sound so condescending as well.
Id Software codes all it's engines in Open GL so they would have to port to Direct X in order for your Winbox to understand it all. Secondly, consoles were the target platform for RAGE (PS3 which happens to use OpenGL natively and the Xbox 360 that uses an offshoot of DirectX).
Finally, the wonder of such a great laptop as mine is the fact that it's extremely portable, yet robust enough to run Bioshock without a problem. Open GL based games perform even better as there is no translation bottleneck, Prey (using the Doom 3 engine) may be old, but runs wonderfully on my humble laptop even at resolutions of 2650x1440 on my "Intel rated GPU"...
Whoopie on your plastic PC, how hot does that get by the way or do you have to use a cooling pad before thermal shutdown? Also, you talk about a waste of money, guess you're going to have to upgrade soon so you might as well eBay that PC and start buying another just to get another two frames per second on your average monitor. 1080p... Pffft... That only fills a portion of my display? Why cheat yourself and get a decent computer instead?
Then again, why are you here? This forum is for MAC gaming, not comparing benchmarks on how fast I can run a Crysis timedemo or the next e-peen craze.
If you wish to concern yourself with my finances, this is only one of my Mac setups but the one I use most often for viewing photos that I pull from the CF card on my Canon DSLR. It's a workhorse, and it still loves to play. I get paid rather well and have a nice condo overlooking a wonderful river. I tend to sink more money in my gadgets than I should, but I do so mainly because I can.
To the others, appreciate your feedback, just want so see if the image quality is worth it playing on my Mac vs. 720p (or less) for the sake of speed on my PS3.
BTW, can your PC handle Bioshock fully cranked at 2650x1440?
You can't... You're limited to your LCD display unless you find a way to span HD monitors. You should just pack up and buy a Mac Now get back to your benchmarking or and such...
See, I can be an assclown too...
A few "impossible" screen caps of an actual 13" MacBook running games (other than Chess)
Bioshock at native resolution of my ACD, and one of my favorites Fable: Lost Chapters.
All ran under OS X 10.6.7 at the time. Upgraded to Lion just recently.
Bioshock at native resolution of my ACD, and one of my favorites Fable: Lost Chapters.
All ran under OS X 10.6.7 at the time. Upgraded to Lion just recently.
Attachments
Last edited:
Help...
I've downloaded Rage 4 different times now, and every one has failed the consistency check. Any ideas on what might be different on my system? I am Windows 7, with the latest bootcamp drivers under Snow Leopard 10.6.8.
Any suggestions will be appreciated....
I've downloaded Rage 4 different times now, and every one has failed the consistency check. Any ideas on what might be different on my system? I am Windows 7, with the latest bootcamp drivers under Snow Leopard 10.6.8.
Any suggestions will be appreciated....
A few "impossible" screen caps of an actual 13" MacBook running games (other than Chess)
Bioshock at native resolution of my ACD, and one of my favorites Fable: Lost Chapters.
All ran under OS X 10.6.7 at the time. Upgraded to Lion just recently.
...and what about framerate?
I played bioshock on my late 2008 imac (3,06ghz 2duo and the geforce 8800Mgts)on bootcamped Vista.
The game ran very good on a full hd res but the framerate was not optimal (30 to 60 fps, and not because of vsync).
Last time i checked bioshock ran on the unreal engine 2.5, wich was direct X9+10 only (at the time), no matter how much good the port is, I find it highly improbable that it runs better on osx on a 4 times inferior gpu. Plus looking from your screenshots the game lacks quite a bit of post processing effects, not a surprise since every win>mac port i've seen they had to tone down/disable stuff due to Mac Os X open GL framework limitations.
Thought I'd just chime in that it runs surprisingly ok on a 2010 13inch MBP. There is a bit of the texture pop in issue, but it's sporadic, and indoors/enclosed places (like towns) are generally fine, so is driving, but I guess the pop in is down to the lack of/shared(slow) VRAM.
I'm only a few hours in though, not sure if it gets a bit mental later on in the game. No crashes yet either!
I don't know of any games recently ported that have had to disable effects to work on OSX.
Bioshock looks the same
WoW looks the same
All of the Valve games look the same
Some run better than others under OSX, but none of them look any different with the same settings.
My point of posting those screencaps was to show that even a 320m could do so as I pleased. If I tried this on my older white MacBook with the Intel GMA x3100, that would be pure hell.
Even at full resolution of the ACD, fps was stable around 20 or so and my MBP was working overtime with the cooling fan. I'm not the one comparing Apples to Oranges but you do seem to also be the type (to a lesser degree).
I've compared side by side with my PS3 (1080p native with some funky AA going on) but the detail textures from my Mac were superior in many areas. The main reason why I took that screen shot to begin with was the day I got my ACD and loved it in every way compared to the confines of my 13" MBP to begin with.
So I take it as frame rate is key (which it is as well in my book) but to see the little MBP take on such a task was pretty impressive to me considering the 320m and it's shared memory. I have a Sony SZ series notebook with a dedicated Nvidia 7400 GPU which was crap but it was built for different tasks as the SZ series of notebooks were pointed towards business use. The best it would run is Prey (I also have the Mac version) and of course my MBP stomps it due to the newer processor and GPU. Prey on my old x3100 based MacBook would run, but my Sony (which was older and running a 1.83Ghz Core Duo) outpaced it in every way with my newer white MacBook running a Core 2 at 2.2Ghz with lame Intel Video.
The surprise really was Fable on my MBP connected to my ACD in "closed lid mode". It got solid 30's or better at native 2650x1440 with detail sliders maxed and 2x FSAA. I was expecting to be far worse but Feral really made a great port.
In closing, I didn't buy my Mac as a gaming machine, that was a bonus. My 13" MBP is my perfect companion for my DSLR so I can see results on a larger screen and working with Aperture, it's really common to carry along with me when I go out to shoot some serious photos. Clients like results that they can see easily. Sure my iPad would be more ideal for my camera bag, but I wish Apple would make a CF adapter so I can view the photos in RAW instead of carrying another bag with my MBP in it and my CF reader.
I dont think bioshock for mac featured the dx10 water effects.
Black & white 2 port lacked some effects and options.
WoW always had limitations on osx and still have. It does not look the same as the windows version.
the whole dynamic shadow system for example looks different (more aggressive lod)
Not to mention dynamic shadows were initally unavailable because of Leopard openGL Limitations/bugs/whatever the issue was, and the other options had a inferior maximum view distance.
You cannot also have multisampling antialias while enabling the new water and sun effects.
During vanilla wow (osx tiger era), Bloom effects were disabled by default because it grinded to halt the framerate.
Don't get me wrong, I really love the developers efforts to bring games on os X, If you compare wow mac from the beggining (barely playble) to now, they really made the impossible.
And valve with portal 2 did an awesome job (very minimal performance impact).
I wish apple gave better open gl support for game developers. I love gaming on my macs (heck I'm still amazed by my imac, an all-in-one being good with games), I'm just tired of having crappy framerate because of osX
Back on topic now.
Rage works pretty decent on my 2008 imac (2duo 3ghz, 4gb ram, geforce 8800gs, lolvista 64) with default settings @ 1680x1050. Tomorrow I'm gonna try it on my mbp (late 11, 2,2ghz) and see how it runs over a cinema display.
I dont think bioshock for mac featured the dx10 water effects.
Black & white 2 port lacked some effects and options.
WoW always had limitations on osx and still have. It does not look the same as the windows version.
the whole dynamic shadow system for example looks different (more aggressive lod)
Not to mention dynamic shadows were initally unavailable because of Leopard openGL Limitations/bugs/whatever the issue was, and the other options had a inferior maximum view distance.
You cannot also have multisampling antialias while enabling the new water and sun effects.
During vanilla wow (osx tiger era), Bloom effects were disabled by default because it grinded to halt the framerate.
Don't get me wrong, I really love the developers efforts to bring games on os X, If you compare wow mac from the beggining (barely playble) to now, they really made the impossible.
And valve with portal 2 did an awesome job (very minimal performance impact).
I wish apple gave better open gl support for game developers. I love gaming on my macs (heck I'm still amazed by my imac, an all-in-one being good with games), I'm just tired of having crappy framerate because of osX
Back on topic now.
Rage works pretty decent on my 2008 imac (2duo 3ghz, 4gb ram, geforce 8800gs, lolvista 64) with default settings @ 1680x1050. Tomorrow I'm gonna try it on my mbp (late 11, 2,2ghz) and see how it runs over a cinema display.
These things may have happened in the past, but currently games look the same. Bioshock has the water effects, feral spent a lot of time getting those to work well. 10.5 came out a long time ago, no need to talk about that like it applies today. I have yet to see any developers make use of opengl 3.2 in Lion.
There is a multisampling bug with WoW, but that's a bug with the graphics drivers, not a opengl limitation. But everything else looks the same. And as you said, portal2 runs just as fast on my iMac as it does in windows.
But fair enough, plenty of room for improvement all round. But things are looking up
Finally finished downloading the gargantuan 21.75gb game and I'm a bit dissapointed really after couple hours of play, 6 races won and few side quest completed,. It's all ok but not wowing me. Graphically a rather mixed bag too, some objects in the distance (rocks etc.) look great, but strangely the rock r building I'm standing next to looks blocky and poorly textured.
The wing nut is totally over powered. Takes 3 shots with a shotgun or nipper, but throw a ing nut and try go down in one go.
Also running game at 1920x1080 with 2x AA it doesn't look very much sharper than 1280 x 720 4xAA enabled.
The wing nut is totally over powered. Takes 3 shots with a shotgun or nipper, but throw a ing nut and try go down in one go.
Also running game at 1920x1080 with 2x AA it doesn't look very much sharper than 1280 x 720 4xAA enabled.
all of them, its no secret either because the devs come on the message boards and tell us
Dirt 2 for example lacks some of the fancier water effects
DX 10 and 11 have some features that are not mappable to the Macs OGL implementation (we don't have the latest OGL).
99% of people can not tell the difference, but there is one
We don't need 'the latest opengl' to get a feature set comparable to DX10. We've had that for a while.
The only thing OSX is missing that is on the windows side of things is hardware tessellation support.
That being said... RAGE doesn't use that.
I hope to see it come to macs in the near future.
"DX11 water effects will not be on the Mac version as Mac OS (and the version of OpenGL bundled) does not support Hardware Tessellation. This means things like the DX11 eye candy in DiRT2 will have to wait for more of the OpenGL 4 features to be implemented on the Mac before it is possible to have DX11 style effects on the Mac.
However as mentioned by others the DX11 stuff is very subtle so on new iMacs the Mac version will look a lot nicer than the XBox or PS3 versions but very slightly less than a PC with DX11 enabled but if you run them side by side at full speed you would have to look closely to notice! I have to say on new Mac's DiRT2 will be the nicest looking game in the Feral list of games and will be up their for the status of being the nicest looking game on the Mac. Then again I am a little biased
Edwin "
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41981&view=findpost&p=402402
lot's more where that came from
split hairs all you want your post was wrong, the games are not identical in appearance
get back in your hole hobbit
You're right about Dirt2.
But as I said in my last post... The only thing we are missing is hardware tessellation support. And Rage isn't using that. Or any of blizzards games, or valves games, or bioshock.