Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Warcraft 3 performs better on my mac. And Wow performs better and more stable on both my G5 and my iMac than on PCs with the same specs.

I also haven't heard of anyone reaching level 70 on a computer 1GHz and nVidia GeForce 4 MX installed with 768 mbytes ram. My brother did, in an iMac G4.

Is wow supporting multithreaded OpenGL on PCs?

the only objective way to test it is to compare a mac and a PC with exactly the same specs. This is most easily obtainable by running a game on OSX and bootcamp. Do this..and I assure you the PC side will be much faster. There are benchmarks all over proving this. I think barefeats even did one a while back. From my own experience trying out the doom 3 demo on osx and bootcamp...i got about 15 fps in OSX and 60 solid in bootcamp with vista.

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inqui...-camp-reveals-that-osx-is-slower-than-windows

quick google search showed that. go look yourself.....
 
the only objective way to test it is to compare a mac and a PC with exactly the same specs. This is most easily obtainable by running a game on OSX and bootcamp. Do this..and I assure you the PC side will be much faster. There are benchmarks all over proving this. I think barefeats even did one a while back. From my own experience trying out the doom 3 demo on osx and bootcamp...i got about 15 fps in OSX and 60 solid in bootcamp with vista.

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inqui...-camp-reveals-that-osx-is-slower-than-windows

quick google search showed that. go look yourself.....

I wouldn't question that games run faster on Windows than on OS X but I think that article is misleading by claiming that "Boot Camp reveals that OSX is slower than Windows" when it should be referring to games specifically.

When you tried the Doom 3 demo, were you using an Intel or PPC mac? The demo is for PPC only and will undoubtedly run like sludge on Intel macs. I know because I've tried it also and was dismayed our crap it ran till I realised the demo was not optimised for Intel macs.
 
another thing about windows vs osx. The newer videocards can use ram as extra vram. My SR mbp has 128 onboard but shares another 512 with the ram..giving it a huge boast in performance. OSX has no such feature. Yes..its the driver's fault and maybe someday they'll get it to work on OSX too..but still RIGHT NOW that is a huge boast that is not present on OSX..making gaming on OSX far slower than windows on the newer cards.
 
another thing about windows vs osx. The newer videocards can use ram as extra vram. My SR mbp has 128 onboard but shares another 512 with the ram..giving it a huge boast in performance. OSX has no such feature. Yes..its the driver's fault and maybe someday they'll get it to work on OSX too..but still RIGHT NOW that is a huge boast that is not present on OSX..making gaming on OSX far slower than windows on the newer cards.

Actually, that is not true... Apple hardware has been able to do this for a long time, but it isn't exactly a feature that is boasted about (not to mention that there are other issues which hurt performance beyond that).
 
Actually, that is not true... Apple hardware has been able to do this for a long time, but it isn't exactly a feature that is boasted about (not to mention that there are other issues which hurt performance beyond that).

turbocache?

that's a pretty new thing...
 
The hybrid solution (low amounts of dedicated VRAM + allocatable system RAM) has only been around since PCI-Express.

TurboCache is really just a marketing term to describe a 'needed to do it at some point' advance in the technology of VRAM management, but get the customer to go 'oooh, shiny' at it anyways. Video cards have been able to leverage system memory and access it directly since AGP.

"TurboCache" is only new-ish in the sense that it is 3 years old, and the only thing it added was the ability to feed the system memory request directly into the GPU rather than VRAM, which does improve performance for games that have a lot of textures that are used pretty regularly that wind up stuck in system memory.

In PCI, the problem was that the driver had to manage the textures, and it wasn't pretty. The GPU had no way to control what textures were in VRAM, and it lead to some rather inefficient uses of VRAM in many cases (since the OGL/DX driver only had a small piece of the big picture to work with for optimization). AGP's solution was to add a pipe that let the GPU talk to the controller and out to system memory. The GPU would then fetch the textures from system memory, rather than the driver feeding them to the card. The drawback here is that you are still using VRAM for textures that are rarely used.

"Turbocache" or whatever the hell you want to call it, makes it so that these rarely used textures don't hit VRAM, and instead are just fed from system memory into the GPU's pipelines as needed. That way you don't take nearly as large a hit on games that are hard to store in VRAM (or on low-end cards with little VRAM).

Apple does support it on cards that leverage this sort of VRAM management, mostly because you can't turn it off, and it is in the GPU's logic itself, not the driver. The performance woes of GPUs on Apple systems don't lie in the 'lack' of feature support (Apple actually does pretty well making sure nVidia and ATI extensions make it into their OGL implementation, and GPU features that do require driver support work)... but with other woes of how the OGL stack itself works, among other things. Apple just doesn't believe the marketing speak from nVidia or ATi should be plastered all over their webpages.
 
Apple has billions in the bank, heck they wouldnt even miss a million. Apple should give Valve a million for this one and another million or two for an exclusive Mac only game.

The real problem is that a million dollars for an advance to port a game is expensive for smaller markets. If Valve asked for that, then they essentially would be telling the firm doing the port that they would be lucky as hell to make any sort of profit what-so-ever on the game, while Valve makes an easy million in pure profit. I would be insulted if a company presented those sorts of numbers to me.

Assuming you paid nothing to port the game, other than the 1 million (no development costs, no per-unit royalties for the first X copies, no manufacturing costs, etc)... you still need to sell 20 thousand copies before you can break even on revenue. Throw in manufacturing costs, and development costs that would likely be another million or so, and you are in the 45k copy range before you will ever see a single penny in profit.

45k copies might not sound like a lot, but in a market were games sometimes fight just to sell 50k copies over their lifetime, it is a huge gamble that Half-Life 2 will sell that number of copies on a platform that is tiny in comparison to the PC market.

While I can understand that Valve believes their IP carries considerable weight and will succeed on any platform... those numbers don't quite make sense unless the million was for Valve to hire and port the game themselves... but then you still have to ask, what am I getting in exchange for my million dollars directly? Nothing. If I was Apple, I could take that million and invest it in my own platform to expand it in different directions.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.