[Taenon]

nitro, on 17 November 2010 - 02:46 AM, said:

I get 125fps just fine on my MBP 13" with the 9400M chipset. your pc can have all the ram in the world and dual quads but if its integrated graphics then your S.O.L.


as for apple monitors 2560 Res @ 60Hz is a bottleneck for most graphics cards due to the crazy high res the apple monitors handle.

This is by now wayyy off topic buuut:

I'll point out that the 9400M is an integrated graphics processor, but agree that NVIDIA IGPs are superior to Intel IGPs. However, patrol's dual processor Mac desktop doesn't have an IGP of any kind, his is simply a weak and/or old discreet GPU. I will also point out that D3x's computer isn't using an IGP (unless it is a laptop and for some reason the switching isn't working properly, as suggested earlier).

That being said I have already provided empirical evidence that the 320M cannot maintain high framerates in demanding situations, and it is roughly twice as powerful as your 9400M. Maintaining 125fps is possible on small servers, however.

As for Apple monitors, they are no higher resolution than a nice Dell, for instance (in fact they use the same panel). And yes, "most" graphics cards choke above 1080p, but something as simple as a GTX 465 1GiB or HD5830, each $200 cards, would be enough to drive a 1440p monitor with >125fps in UrT. I'm just saying that the 27" iMac is a bit imbalanced, considering its beefy CPU. In three years that will be the only part not able to keep up. Why pair a $280 CPU with a $120 GPU???

[|P|Nitro]

Taenon, on 17 November 2010 - 04:51 AM, said:

This is by now wayyy off topic buuut:

I'll point out that the 9400M is an integrated graphics processor, but agree that NVIDIA IGPs are superior to Intel IGPs. However, patrol's dual processor Mac desktop doesn't have an IGP of any kind, his is simply a weak and/or old discreet GPU. I will also point out that D3x's computer isn't using an IGP (unless it is a laptop and for some reason the switching isn't working properly, as suggested earlier).

That being said I have already provided empirical evidence that the 320M cannot maintain high framerates in demanding situations, and it is roughly twice as powerful as your 9400M. Maintaining 125fps is possible on small servers, however.

As for Apple monitors, they are no higher resolution than a nice Dell, for instance (in fact they use the same panel). And yes, "most" graphics cards choke above 1080p, but something as simple as a GTX 465 1GiB or HD5830, each $200 cards, would be enough to drive a 1440p monitor with >125fps in UrT. I'm just saying that the 27" iMac is a bit imbalanced, considering its beefy CPU. In three years that will be the only part not able to keep up. Why pair a $280 CPU with a $120 GPU???

Yes I do Like DELL monitors myself too however the dell 27" IPS monitor is still using LCD eCCFL Lighting tech where as apple have been using IPS LED for a while now.

This post has been edited by nitro: 17 November 2010 - 07:07 PM

[Taenon]

While I would prefer the LED backlight on the Apple display, I actually just ordered the Dell U2711. Is the Apple prettier, yes, more power-efficient and environmentally friendly, yes, but come on. One freaking mini displayport. Thats just insulting. My parents have a 20inch Apple Cinema Display they cant use anymore because it has an ADC connector and an adapter is an additional $100. A perfectly working PVA monitor is looming for the recycler because Apple cannot be bothered to put more than one input on their displays. I'm a huge apple fan, but I'm not a huge fan of planned obsolescence. The current Apple 27" Cinema Display and the Dell U2711H use the same panel (and will therefore have the same requirements in game), just the backlights are different. LED's don't reproduce anywhere near the same color gamut, but do use less power and don't need to warm up. I'd rather have an LED backlight, but It wasn't really an option.

[Pussnboots]

patrol, on 12 November 2010 - 11:22 PM, said:

I'm running a Mac with 11 gigs of ram and two 2.66 ghz processors. I can't run the game on highest settings at 125 fps.

Umm.. *FACEPALM*

Mathematically impossible.

[|P|Nitro]

Pussnboots, on 22 November 2010 - 05:39 AM, said:

Umm.. *FACEPALM*

Mathematically impossible.

not really - could have 2 dimms using 4GB modules, 1 dimm using 2GB module, and last dimm using 1GB module.. it is possible however a machine running 2x 4GB dual channel would provide better bandwith and overall speed compared to a 11GB setup ..

[Pussnboots]

Err... let me clarify.. Mathematically impossible to judge FPS based on the info given. It's not just relative to RAM and CPU, it's also relative to the VRAM and Speed as well. (As stated by someone previously, Onboard vs Removable).

If he's running ob, then he might as well just forget it. I have an ob (which I no longer use), that has a full 1 Gb VRAM @ god knows what speed, that is slow as molasses running uphill in January. I could get a removable card with "less specs" and run better. No system resources to hog and drain from. Anyways, I switched to the ATI XFX 5770 HD a while back, so no more FPS problems. (But then again, I'm running PC - Win/Linux).

To be honest, I didn't know you were allowed to upgrade a Macs HW. Last I knew, it was difficult at best and impossible at most. Of course, this was years ago so IDK. (And I could still be wrong :D )

[|P|Nitro]

Pussnboots, on 22 November 2010 - 10:24 PM, said:

To be honest, I didn't know you were allowed to upgrade a Macs HW. Last I knew, it was difficult at best and impossible at most. Of course, this was years ago so IDK. (And I could still be wrong :D )

macs run on the same hardware as pc's theres nothing special about mac hardware... Apples warranty allows users to service their laptops/pc without voiding the entire warranty.

[Taenon]

Good luck getting to your iMac hdd though. And have fun paying double for graphics upgrades. Don't get me wrong, I love apple, but they are in no way price effective. They are in general no more expensive than pc's, but there is always something that screws you. Cinema display only has one input. iMac has a pussy gpu and ram only upgradability, MacBook pros are dual core only or still c2d. With no competition and a compelling OS, they can get away with it.

[Kolossus]

nitro, on 23 November 2010 - 02:30 AM, said:

macs run on the same hardware as pc's theres nothing special about mac hardware... Apples warranty allows users to service their laptops/pc without voiding the entire warranty.

I'm not sure about hardware difference, but the main difference between a Mac and a Pc is the OS and the way it acts.

[|P|Nitro]

kolossus, on 23 November 2010 - 11:00 AM, said:

I'm not sure about hardware difference, but the main difference between a Mac and a Pc is the OS and the way it acts.

correct :) the only hardware difference is apple put a small extra chip on their motherboards so that their OS recognises it as an official apple hardware which then allows for installtion of OSX, hence why people need to crack OSX to install on the same hardware that was not purchased from apple.

This post has been edited by nitro: 23 November 2010 - 02:08 PM