The state of Mac gaming

[dma550]

I am thinking of making the smallest gaming rig possible and hiding it somewhere. I admit, I miss my alienware M17x with two 5870 video cards sometimes.

Playing Total War games on release with Ultra settings usually takes a custom built gaming PC. I know Empire will drop frames on Ultra settings with our custom built gaming PC with a over-clocked NV690 graphics card (3GB VRAM)!

Bottom line Total War games on Ultra historically max out the next generation of machines never mind the current generation on release The good thing is they stay looking awesome for years after release.

If you want to run on Ultra settings high resolution etc then a gaming PC with a ~$1000 graphics card is the way to go

Edwin

 

[mslide]

Is it really that bad to ask for a device to do everything for you?

Yes. You want a portable device that is super thin, lightweight, quiet, fast, plays the latest games on the highest settings for at least 2 years and has a very hi res screen? Yes, that's too much to ask for. The car analogy is a good one. That's like asking for a high performance sports car that's capable of hauling your entire family plus a load of stuff from Home Depot.

Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone would want to spend that kind of money on such a device even if it did exist. For less than whatever that kind of device would cost one could buy a 15" non-retina MBP and build an awesome gaming PC (that will last longer and be easily upgradeable). Heck, for the cost of today's 15" rMBP you could probably buy a 13" non-retina MBP or Air and still have enough for a really good gaming PC (not counting the cost of a monitor).

 

[gregorsamsa]

Playing Total War games on release with Ultra settings usually takes a custom built gaming PC. I know Empire will drop frames on Ultra settings with our custom built gaming PC with a over-clocked NV690 graphics card (3GB VRAM)!

Bottom line Total War games on Ultra historically max out the next generation of machines never mind the current generation on release The good thing is they stay looking awesome for years after release.

If you want to run on Ultra settings high resolution etc then a gaming PC with a ~$1000 graphics card is the way to go

Thanks Edwin. I agree, but that tends to apply only until the inevitable patches. Frankly, that's to be expected & I won't mind much waiting for those. Otherwise, I think you may be underestimating how well Creative Assembly optimize use of GPUs in all of their Total War games.

Naturally, as with previous TW titles, it's in Creative Assembly's financial interests to make the game as playable as possible on higher settings, on as many PCs as possible. After "Rome 2: TW" is patched, I greatly doubt you'd need cutting-edge graphics for Ultra settings. IMO, even a HD 7770 might do it & that's now about £100 or lower, ie. roughly $150.

Keep in mind that the PC version of "Empire: TW", is now playable in Ultra settings in some scenes even on a MacBook Air via Bootcamp, despite inevitable heat issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcoFCUdsMig

Whilst "Shogun 2: TW" runs well enough in Ultra at 30+ FPS on a PSU-efficient HD 7750, which is even cheaper than the HD 7770:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zssJp6q5nQ

 

[edddeduck]

Thanks Edwin. I agree, but that tends to apply only until the inevitable patches. Frankly, that's to be expected & I won't mind much waiting for those. Otherwise, I think you may be underestimating how well Creative Assembly optimize use of GPUs in all of their Total War games.

Having ported 3 of them including all the patches and seen the game code up close I stick to my comments

Naturally, as with previous TW titles, it's in Creative Assembly's financial interests to make the game as playable as possible on higher settings, on as many PCs as possible. After "Rome 2: TW" is patched, I greatly doubt you'd need cutting-edge graphics for Ultra settings. IMO, even a HD 7770 might do it & that's now about £100 or lower, ie. roughly $150.

I would be amazed if you could run on Ultra (with native resolution) on launch on mid range card and get great performance. Note I said you would drop frames not that the game would become unplayable.

It's in CA's interest to make the game run on as many machine as possible hence the settings from Low to Ultra. However there are limits to what lower end cards can do, if they did not exist we would just remove settings and run everything on Ultra

Keep in mind that the PC version of "Empire: TW", is now playable in Ultra settings in some scenes even on a MacBook Air via Bootcamp, despite inevitable heat issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcoFCUdsMig

Whilst "Shogun 2: TW" runs well enough in Ultra at 30+ FPS on a PSU-efficient HD 7750, which is even cheaper than the HD 7770:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zssJp6q5nQ

Yep, you can in theory play the Mac version of Empire on ultra on the Map or in a 3D battle if you have no troops with an HD4000. However I would never say that it was supported If you want to fight massive battles with loads of troops with fireballs etc then Ultra will start to drop frames in busy periods on most Mac machines (even in bootcamp).

The game is optimised very well but the upper end of the Ultra settings tend to be aimed at super high end graphics cards so that (I assume) 18 months+ after the initial release the game will look amazing on newer machines as these previously too high settings become standard.

Rome for example took years until your average computer could run with Ultra settings. Now even a MacBookAir can do it.

Edwin

 

[gregorsamsa]

Having ported 3 of them including all the patches and seen the game code up close I stick to my comments

I would be amazed if you could run on Ultra (with native resolution) on launch on mid range card and get great performance.

My sincere respect for that, but that doesn't prelude occasional subjectivity &, however inadvertently, the blurring of some incontrovertible facts... whatever our background. I never said "on launch", but something quite different.

Yep, you can in theory play the Mac version of Empire on ultra on the Map or in a 3D battle if you have no troops with an HD4000. However I would never say that it was supported If you want to fight massive battles with loads of troops with fireballs etc then Ultra will start to drop frames in busy periods on most Mac machines (even in bootcamp).

I want to avoid turning this into a PC v Mac, or a DirectX v OpenGL discussion. After all, it's common knowledge that PC versions have better FPS on same hardware. That can't be helped thanks to Apple's lack of focus over the years in not developing greater support for OpenGL.

However, kindly note, my posted link of "Empire: TW" running in Ultra settings on a MacBook Air is a PC version running in Bootcamp.

As can be clearly seen in the video, esp in final couple of minutes, while it's not showing the biggest battes, it still has plenty of action, lots of troops & runs very well for Ultra settings on a MacBook Air.

I linked it purely to highlight what I mean by successive patches from Creative Assembly better optimizing GPUs. I assume that running "Empire: TW" on Ultra settings in Bootcamp wouldn't have been possible on a MacBook Air when the game was first released. Now it is.

 

[El Awesome]

If you want a Mac that is capable of some real good gaming, you need to build yourself a hackintosh. That's what I ended up with. Got a good high end GPU, the top end Ivy Bridge CPU, lots of RAM, 2 SSDs and 3 HDDs, even a custom water cooling loop with some badass components, and still payed a grand less than for the top end iMac, which is even slower. With that grand, I could buy me a nice Dell 27" screen, and still have some money left. This machine is absolutely stable under OS X and screams in games with 40-60FPS constantly in BF3 maxed out (2560x1440, 8xMSAA all details Ultra). And I haven't even started to overclock it... for the next few titles ow Battlefield I should be fine.

What I want to say is that most recent Macs are fine for a bit of casual gaming, but if you want a lot of gaming power, you will need to go the PC route. I thought I'm just gonna build me a gaming PC and use my MacBook for the rest, but when I saw how good OS X worked, I rarely use my MacBook anymore, even for working I now use my hackintosh (jus because it's way faster).

 

[edddeduck]

My sincere respect for that, but that doesn't prelude occasional subjectivity &, however inadvertently, the blurring of some incontrovertible facts... whatever our background. I never said "on launch", but something quite different.

True and I never said you did although I get you point. I just stated any card available to buy on launch day would have to be a high end card to be able to run on Ultra. Patches might make all cards run faster but it will not make a low end card (shipping on release day) into a card that supports ultra.

My point is patches might make the game faster on all cards but it cannot turn a medium end card into a high end one. Empire dropped frames on all cards before the patches afterwards all cards could play smoothly but only high end cards (for the time) supported Ultra.

Now the game has been out for 4 years even a lower end modern machine can run on high settings.

I want to avoid turning this into a PC v Mac, or a DirectX v OpenGL discussion. After all, it's common knowledge that PC versions have better FPS on same hardware. That can't be helped thanks to Apple's lack of focus over the years in not developing greater support for OpenGL.

Some of that is true some I would debate with you about but like you I don't want to open the can of worms so lets forget anyone said anything

However, kindly note, my posted link of "Empire: TW" running in Ultra settings on a MacBook Air is a PC version running in Bootcamp.

As can be clearly seen in the video, esp in final couple of minutes, while it's not showing the biggest battes, it still has plenty of action, lots of troops & runs very well for Ultra settings on a MacBook Air.

I linked it purely to highlight what I mean by successive patches from Creative Assembly better optimizing GPUs. I assume that running "Empire: TW" on Ultra settings in Bootcamp wouldn't have been possible on a MacBook Air when the game was first released. Now it is.

True that video looks impressive but the HD3000 is not the best example of card as it does a fair bit of the graphics on the CPU in software (as it is not a dedicated card) so the performance of the card is a lot more dependant on the Intel drivers and the CPU clock than on the game improvements alone. The HD3000 drivers on the PC were highly optimised for Vista/Windows 7 to support Aero with the side effect they became decent compared to where they started.

The Mac HD3000 drivers do not support the same level of graphics or performance. That said the HD4000 card is a big old leap on the 3000 both in terms of hardware and in Mac drivers.

You do make a valid point just I don't think it is not as big or clear cut as you might think it is.

As always a pleasure to have a public debate with you as it's usually productive without things turning ugly

Edwin

 

[gregorsamsa]

EL Awesome, thanks for some VG points! FWIW, I've considered a hackintosh, but it's probably not the best solution for me personally right now. Mostly as I'm unlikely to have much spare time for maintenance issues in the event of future OS X updates breaking things. My free time is in short supply as it is.

I'm fairly sure that going for a gaming PC for all those non-Mac titles is the best route available to me. I just need to factor in an extra justification for the outlay as it'd almost certainly be my last hardware buy for at least over 2 years.

OTOH, if I Bootcamp it, I'd still have that money towards a new Mac later.

FWIW, I wasn't even thinking this way until fairly recently, but I now see I can't trust Apple on the non-casual gaming side, esp as they'll likely continue apace with further integration of OS X with iOS & increasingly focus on mobile devices.

It's not the Mac-gaming scene that's a problem here, as in fact it's going well thanks to companies like Feral. The problem for me is Apple. I'll already be rebuying some favourite older games for PC that I already had on Mac, but which OS X Lion bust. I fear there may be more of that to come in the near future.

 

[edddeduck]

I'll already be rebuying some favourite older games for PC that I already had on Mac, but which OS X Lion bust. I fear there may be more of that to come in the near future.

As an aside to this unless our license runs out we always try and make sure all our games run on the latest OS even if they are really old. Sometimes it's not possible but we have games from OS 9 days like Enemy Engaged with support in 10.8.3!

Edwin

 

[gregorsamsa]

True and I never said you did although I get you point. I just stated any card available to buy on launch day would have to be a high end card to be able to run on Ultra. Patches might make all cards run faster but it will not make a low end card (shipping on release day) into a card that supports ultra.

My point is patches might make the game faster on all cards but it cannot turn a medium end card into a high end one. Empire dropped frames on all cards before the patches afterwards all cards could play smoothly but only high end cards (for the time) supported Ultra.

Now the game has been out for 4 years even a lower end modern machine can run on high settings.

Thanks again, Ed! Some VG points & nothing I'd go against there. I think previously a wire has been crossed somewhere, quite inadvertently. Latter probably down to me for going off-topic.

Some of that is true some I would debate with you about but like you I don't want to open the can of worms so lets forget anyone said anything

True that video looks impressive but the HD3000 is not the best example of card as it does a fair bit of the graphics on the CPU in software (as it is not a dedicated card) so the performance of the card is a lot more dependant on the Intel drivers and the CPU clock than on the game improvements alone. The HD3000 drivers on the PC were highly optimised for Vista/Windows 7 to support Aero with the side effect they became decent compared to where they started.

The Mac HD3000 drivers do not support the same level of graphics or performance. That said the HD4000 card is a big old leap on the 3000 both in terms of hardware and in Mac drivers.

You do make a valid point just I don't think it is not as big or clear cut as you might think it is.

As always a pleasure to have a public debate with you as it's usually productive without things turning ugly

Edwin

I agree & thanks for further elaborating on what is far more complex discussion to be had than can be surmised in a couple of comments from a mere gamer, as I am. Maybe something to tackle in another thread, at a later date.

Let's hope that the lowest spec Macs get upgraded to at least Haswell during the next updates, about 3 times more powerful graphics-wise than the current Ivy Bridge chipset. Cheers!

 

[El Awesome]

EL Awesome, thanks for some VG points! FWIW, I've considered a hackintosh, but it's probably not the best solution for me personally right now. Mostly as I'm unlikely to have much spare time for maintenance issues in the event of future OS X updates breaking things. My free time is in short supply as it is.

I'm fairly sure that going for a gaming PC for all those non-Mac titles is the best route available to me. I just need to factor in an extra justification for the outlay as it'd almost certainly be my last hardware buy for at least over 2 years.

OTOH, if I Bootcamp it, I'd still have that money towards a new Mac later.

FWIW, I wasn't even thinking this way until fairly recently, but I now see I can't trust Apple on the non-casual gaming side, esp as they'll likely continue apace with further integration of OS X with iOS & increasingly focus on mobile devices.

It's not the Mac-gaming scene that's a problem here, as in fact it's going well thanks to companies like Feral. The problem for me is Apple. I'll already be rebuying some favourite older games for PC that I already had on Mac, but which OS X Lion bust. I fear there may be more of that to come in the near future.

Some true points in there. Basically my reasons for a hack.
Just a side note: Hardware changes in a yearly circle. So forget about having the newest hardware for 2 years straight. But if you buy a powerful single-GPU now, e.g. a GTX680, you can SLI later to keep up with newer hardware. Recently Nvidias Titan series was presented, and they say that it's about 30% faster than a GTX680. As I said above, my GTX680 isn't overclocked yet and already has enough power for 1440p gaming. For BF4, I can start to overclock it to get another 10-15% (thanks to my WC loop), and if I'd need even more power I'm just gonna SLI it.

 

[gregorsamsa]

Some true points in there. Basically my reasons for a hack.
Just a side note: Hardware changes in a yearly circle. So forget about having the newest hardware for 2 years straight. But if you buy a powerful single-GPU now, e.g. a GTX680, you can SLI later to keep up with newer hardware. Recently Nvidias Titan series was presented, and they say that it's about 30% faster than a GTX680. As I said above, my GTX680 isn't overclocked yet and already has enough power for 1440p gaming. For BF4, I can start to overclock it to get another 10-15% (thanks to my WC loop), and if I'd need even more power I'm just gonna SLI it.

Thanks for the very sound advice! However, if I choose a gaming PC, initially I can easily forgo anything even close to cutting-edge. I simply won't need it straight off. By the time I do, what was cutting-edge this year will have greatly come down in price.

Take the GTX680: that's a very powerful GPU with a top score of 5,548 in benchmarks link. But it'd be overkill for my needs, besides still being too expensive ($464+):

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Doing SLI would be an even more distant consideration. I'm confident that a starter gaming PC with mid-range GPU would suffice. I'm thinking something like a HD 7770, only $119, which scores 2,111 in the linked video card benchmarks.

As even the weaker HD 7750 plays games like "Shogun 2: Total War" at Ultra settings with acceptable FPS, then the HD 7770 should be fine for my current needs. I can always upgrade the GPU next year.

FWIW, currently I have a 2011 Mac Mini with HD 6630M card, scoring a relatively poor 572 in the benchmarks. Both said mid-range PC cards are of course a major improvement on that. So it's partly about having a relative perspective here.

FWIW, I used to have an iMac, but no longer. I simply can't stand glossy screens, whilst a Mac Pro is overkill for me & at too high a cost. Thus my options are limited. They are: either get a mid-range gaming PC that I can upgrade later, or use Bootcamp with the HD 6630M Mac Mini for games not available on Mac, with inevitable compromises & wait for a more powerful Haswell Mini. The latter may arrive later this year, or it may not.

Then I can just hope that future Minis see similar upgrade cycles. The even more powerful Skylake chipset is scheduled for about 2015.

I know all these are integrated chipsets & not to compare with the most powerful discrete GPUs. But whatever I do, some compromise is unavoidable. The compromise with a gaming PC is that most of my serious work is done in OS X. But that's enough from me. - Cheers!

 

[El Awesome]

If you are interested in gaming, I'm not sure whether waiting for Haswell is a good idea. The integrated graphics get better each generation, and the mobile market will more and more get rid of dedicated graphics. I could imagine that only the top end Haswell Mac Mini will get a dedicated GPU.
Take that into account.
And secondly, a Mac Pro doesen't have to be very expensive. Look over to the Mac Pro forum of this site, you can put certain stock PC cards into a MP without issues. And a good 2009 MP is available for 1500 $.

 

[gregorsamsa]

If you are interested in gaming, I'm not sure whether waiting for Haswell is a good idea. The integrated graphics get better each generation, and the mobile market will more and more get rid of dedicated graphics. I could imagine that only the top end Haswell Mac Mini will get a dedicated GPU.
Take that into account.
And secondly, a Mac Pro doesen't have to be very expensive. Look over to the Mac Pro forum of this site, you can put certain stock PC cards into a MP without issues. And a good 2009 MP is available for 1500 $.

Thanks again & I see what you saying re Haswell Minis. FWIW, I've similar doubts. But having considered a 2nd user Mac Pro, I've decided that I could never bring myself to take the plunge.

Kindly note, the iMac I previously owned lasted me 2 yrs & 10 months. Logic board problem & no AppleCare. I've written about this briefly elsewhere on this forum. - Yes, my responsibility entirely for not buying AC, as I meant to.

I know some might say: "you were just unlucky, it probably won't happen again, longevity of Macs is well-known", etc. But once bitten, twice shy. I could never take the risk again of having no warranty on anything fairly expensive. Fact is, fully-working, 2nd user Mac Pros don't come cheap.

As a consequence, even my Mini has AppleCare. Any PC would also have a 3-year warranty. What you propose is sound & if only I could afford a new MP, or Apple released a cheaper low-end MP when they update them later this year. Unfortunately, both the latter are wholly unrealistic.

I'll decide within a week, but I'm likely to stick with one of 2 options. For now, the gaming PC idea is gaining favour. Namely, upgradability over time according to my growing needs, whilst Haswell Minis, as you rightly point out, may not even have discrete options anyway. Plus, it's by no means certain we'll see them this year. The Skylake chipset would serve my needs so much better, but that's not slated for release until at least 2015. - Cheers!

 

[Huntn]

Kindly note, the iMac I previously owned lasted me 2 yrs & 10 months. Logic board problem & no AppleCare. I've written about this briefly elsewhere on this forum. - Yes, my responsibility entirely for not buying AC, as I meant to.

Typically my Mac desktops have lasted very long times, but I can't vouch for every Mac sold. For every Mac laptop, I usually buy AC and 40% of the time, it has paid off. Something needed to be fixed within 3 years that AC would cover. What is happening with Apple hardware these days? Don't know if there are trends for the good or the bad. My MBP is the last Mac I have purchased in 2011. So far so good.

 

[gregorsamsa]

Typically my Mac desktops have lasted very long times, but I can't vouch for every Mac sold. For every Mac laptop, I usually buy AC and 40% of the time, it has paid off. Something needed to be fixed within 3 years that AC would cover. What is happening with Apple hardware these days? Don't know if there are trends for the good or the bad. My MBP is the last Mac I have purchased in 2011. So far so good.

I've been thinking along the same lines, but of course it'd only be mere speculation. But once bitten... well, since then I made sure I got AC even for my HD 6630M Mini, something I would never have done previously.

Is it a trend? Good question. No doubt many will swear that most of the PPC hardware was more reliable. However, in Apple's defence, as they've sold far more Macs in recent years, a greater breakdown rate may still be in keeping within an overall low percentage that's still acceptable.

Re my specific iMac with HD 2600 Pro bought in 2008: I've noticed a number of threads on various forums, some with literally hundreds of posters, all citing similar problems for iMacs of that era.

Whether there was something seriously amiss with a batch of that generation of iMacs specifically, rather than something indicative of a more serious problem with lack of QC across a greater range of Macs, remains to be seen. It'll be interesting to see how these newer, thinner iMacs fare over the next 3 to 4 years.

As expensive as my iMac experience was, I now have 2 large anti-glare monitors on my desk, one attached to a HD 6630M Mini. Due to those 2 monitors alone, I'd never go back to any AIO computer, even if it wasn't for the reflective screens. The latter irked me no end, whether on sunny days or when using artificial light.

I sincerely hope your MBP lasts you a good while longer &, to be fair, I've not come across many threads highlighting that many similar problems with MBPs as I've found for said generation of iMacs. Cheers!

 

[tudyniuz]

Just got Diablo 3, it runs perfectly fine on my 11" MBA (2012), with everything pushed to high. I'm not running bootcamp, but the Mac version. It runs smooth enough to not have any fps drops. So far I'm very pleased by this. I am running the game in only 720p, but that's the screen resolution. Probably on a TD it would suffer from lag, but it's fine playing it normal.