Macbooks suck for 3d!

Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #1
I tried my game Rubber Ninjas on a last generation macbook (not the very latest ones with nvidia gpu, the one before), 2 gb ram, intel x3100 card and... it sucks! it goes painfully slow, and doesnt even do multisampling!

Ok, i'm a bit polygon happy, but hell i dont think something like 30000 polygons is too much to ask these days! It runs great on my almost 2 year old imac even while supporting a 24" external monitor.

I think the iMac is a good machine, you pay a bit of premium, but it's a stylish box with a nice screen that runs os x and is fast enough in processing and graphics, but hey, there's no way I'll ever get a macbook if it sucks so much at 3d (and macbook pro is overpriced, basically you pay $700 more for the gfx card alone).

I seriously hope with the nvidia card things will change...

©h€ck øut µy stuƒƒ åt ragdollsoft.com
New game in development Rubber Ninjas - Mac Games Downloads
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 2005.02
Post: #2
Yeah, I read that about the last-gen macbooks. It was the main reason I opted for a MBP.
Quote this message in a reply
⌘-R in Chief
Posts: 1,253
Joined: 2002.05
Sage
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #4
While it's true that they weren't graphical powerhouses, they weren't that bad. There was plenty of graphically impressive games that could run on them.

Your game doesn't look that graphically demanding. Only simple shading and lighting. Again, this isn't meant to be offensive, but an observation of other games that run great and look great on the same hardware.

You might want to look into what you can do to optimize the graphics as a lot of people have X3100 and GMA 950 hardware. MacBooks, Airs, and Mac minis. You would be crazy to cut out that much of your market.

Scott Lembcke - Howling Moon Software
Author of Chipmunk Physics - A fast and simple rigid body physics library in C.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #5
Thanks for the benchmarks Seth, those look very promising. Check the Quake 4 performance, 5x higher framerate on the new macbooks! That's quite a jump.

Skorche Wrote:While it's true that they weren't graphical powerhouses, they weren't that bad. There was plenty of graphically impressive games that could run on them.

Like what?

Quote:You might want to look into what you can do to optimize the graphics as a lot of people have X3100 and GMA 950 hardware. MacBooks, Airs, and Mac minis. You would be crazy to cut out that much of your market.

Yeah that's the point. All those are 5 times slower at 3d than your average PC. I guess apple so far has basically chosen to give up non-casual 3d gaming for those systems. The nvidia benches were great news.

©h€ck øut µy stuƒƒ åt ragdollsoft.com
New game in development Rubber Ninjas - Mac Games Downloads
Quote this message in a reply
Sage
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #6
Najdorf Wrote:Yeah that's the point. All those are 5 times slower at 3d than your average PC. I guess apple so far has basically chosen to give up non-casual 3d gaming for those systems. The nvidia benches were great news.

On the contrary. Those are the average machines that your game will be running on. That is the only important fact.

Scott Lembcke - Howling Moon Software
Author of Chipmunk Physics - A fast and simple rigid body physics library in C.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #7
Yeah well I guess I'll have to point more on the PC market.

©h€ck øut µy stuƒƒ åt ragdollsoft.com
New game in development Rubber Ninjas - Mac Games Downloads
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 522
Joined: 2002.04
Post: #8
It might not be the same PC market as yours, but we're *lucky* when our users have something as "good" as a GMA 950.

http://unity3d.com/webplayer/hwstats/

30k polygons shouldn't be too bad. The more you can make unlit the better too, obviously. Maybe there's some optimization to be done?

-Jon
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003.01
Post: #9
Meh, yeah I'm probably using too much lights for the macbook. 4 spotlights, the global ambient one, and up to 4 lights for the "plasmas".

While the difference in computing power between 2 computers nowadays isn't that huge, the difference in graphics capability can be crazy.

Whatever, I'll see what I can do.

©h€ck øut µy stuƒƒ åt ragdollsoft.com
New game in development Rubber Ninjas - Mac Games Downloads
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 2004.07
Post: #10
Whenever you can fake lighting, do it. You could also detect which card the user is running, and if they're running the GMA950 or x3100 you can kill some of those lights.

Justin Ficarrotta
http://www.justinfic.com
"It is better to be The Man than to work for The Man." - Alexander Seropian
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 3,572
Joined: 2003.06
Post: #11
aarku Wrote:http://unity3d.com/webplayer/hwstats/

Wow, I didn't realize that there were still that many sucky cards in use! Also, surprised just how popular the GMA 950 is!

Yeah, 30k triangles on the 950 shouldn't be a show-stopper. Too much lighting will definitely hurt though. 3100 can handle some more.
Quote this message in a reply
Sage
Posts: 1,482
Joined: 2002.09
Post: #12
Yeah, a lot of PC users have integrated video as well. It's not like Apple was really stiffing their customers by using it.

Scott Lembcke - Howling Moon Software
Author of Chipmunk Physics - A fast and simple rigid body physics library in C.
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 2004.07
Post: #13
I think you'd be crazy not to assume that people will try to run your game on a 4 year old computer. My main mac is 4 years old and has a radeon 9200... the intel graphics seem downright fast after that.

It's not magic, it's Ruby.
Quote this message in a reply
⌘-R in Chief
Posts: 1,253
Joined: 2002.05
Post: #14
Quote this message in a reply
Sage
Posts: 1,199
Joined: 2004.10
Post: #15
How do these new machines compare to an older MBP, with the ATI x1600? Obviously, the new MBP will trounce my october 2006 MBP. But I'm curious if the new MacBooks' integrated 9400 is better than my MBP's discrete x1600.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply