*DAMN R6 Forum

ArsTechnica posted an article in which WoW has been tested on one of the new iMacs. It took place on the running Macworld 2006.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/1/12/2478 (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/1/12/2478)

The game ran with an average of 60 FPS (with high settings), with peaks up to 100 FPS and never lower than 40 FPS. Fantastic. :)

And other games most likely, too... just WOAH! Finally PC-like FPS on a Mac!

great news!! Now all we need is  1. bigger market share 2. more mac game ports 3. to stop gamers from just loading up windaz to play games and thus kill mac porting houses

You can forget about Dual-Booting for quite a while, if ever at all possible and good enough to run PC games with acceptable performance... I don't really think that's a problem anymore. This great performance boost for Mac games on Intel-Macs will discourage many people who'd consider Dual-Booting also, I'm pretty sure.

Im not to sure about that - depends whether we're looking at BIOS or EFI. It may be a case that as soon as people have these new comps on their desks they can repartition the HD and boot windows (no fast user switching but still...)

Yes this is a great performance boost - but if there arn't the games for people to be albe to take advantage of the great performance on, then we arn't any better off.

There are many games which get Universal Binary updates within this month... and all recently announced games will be Universal Binary from the start. There are, respectively will be very soon, plenty of games for people to play on their Intel-Macs.

The Intel-Macs use a very advanced version of EFI, not BIOS... making the installatio of Windows pretty much impossible, not to mention getting a good performance if any hacks come out in the future at all.

yeah just read this http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060112-5962.html

Made me very happy :D

somenthing a lot of people don't seem to realise btw is that Once Microsoft ships a version of Virtual PC for Mac OS X compiled as a Universal Binary, Mac users will be able to run Windows at near-native speeds on their machines.. and there is the possiblility of GPU hardware acceleration there as well.

That's something people don't talk about but think about BFG... Paying MS two times to use windows is scary.

it still needs to convert alot of code to make it work, even if it made it fast. it won't be that faster as a 1 ghz.

Wow, thats truly uninformed troll-like post Ethion... what has got into your postings recently? [I guess I just got back to *DAMN but this is an odd attitude]. There wouldn't be CODE CONVERTING it's called running the OS on the same chip in a controlled environment. the only slow down would be EFI conversion which is looking more capable by the day. Even a firmware update/hack could make that possible with it's Bridge technology.

Lismore Systems will likely make GuestPC x86 before MS gets off their asses.

um to kinda double up what myst said... Ethion basically your way of the spot im afraid mate - the whole advantage is that VPC will actually run at almost native speeds - it dosn't have to deal with moving between X86 and PPC - 90% of the work VPC has to do on your G4/G5 now it won't have to do on a intel mac.

So if Microsoft provided a version of VPC which had hardware support for GPU etc, your looking at a very good alternative to actually partitioning your mac and having windows running on its own partition.   

Oh - and if that worked you could also have fast user switching (Run VPC full window under one OSX User)

faster, much much much faster than VPC as you know it today.

What.. you still need to REWRITE most of the application to make it work better on an intel computer.
The app itself has been programmed to work and emulate Windows under PPC.

They could start over from the beginning and make it x86 only for what I care.
You still need to rewrite alot of the architecture and what not.

Wow, was that all you were trying to say? I think BFG all but said that VPC would need a new version with this line:


But you know that wouldn't stop you from dragging this on. In either case there is already a windows version [on Windows OS version] so people can use more than one version of windows at a time to do work. They would likely just use the framework for x86 in that the windows version. All they would have to do is write the small application to make use of the x86 processor framework they have had for along time.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1470

I wouldnt be so fast to plunk down $$ for a intelmac right now. Ethion has some value in what he's talking about..so don't kill the messenger. Now if BFG was my customer because of his Video/Audio projects this is what I would tell him:

BFG if you already own Final Cut Studio 1.0, Aperture, or Logic Pro 7.1, these applications are not supported to run on Intel-based Macs with Rosetta, but a Universal version will be available for $49. Logic Express will be $29. You'll be able get this after February 1, 2006. Apple expects Universal application availability by March 31, 2006.
100 PERCENT NATIVE Mac OS X version 10.4.4 runs natively on both PowerPC-and Intel-based Mac systems. This means Mail, Safari, Spotlight, Dashboard,Automator, iChat AV, and all Mac OS X features will take immediate advantage of the two Intel processor cores in the MacBook Pro and iMac. Don't expect Photoshop and your other graphics programs either to run. Also I don't think BFG or my customers will rush out and purchase the update. Their workflow cannot and will not be interupted by unexpected downtime.

I'm sure my good customer BFG would appreciate hearing that instead of hearing about 100FPS on a intel iMac running nothing but WoW. Let the dust settle from MacWorld..let the "I have to have it 1st" group be the beta testers. Just covering your back BFG.

**Footnote..just FYI..the MacBook Pro IS NOT a replacement for the PowerBook!

Yeah, no shit...

No FW800=No MacBook Pro Amatuer purchase from GhostSniper anytime in the near future Apple![/size]

Firewire will disappear from the market in a few years anyway. It's only survival will be through PC/Express cards.

Myst why is firewire going to die? almost every consumer/pro sumer video camera out there uses firewire (or as sony like to call it 'ilink') Tape decks, mini boxes, Hardrives, raid enclosures, Videio IO boxes - firewire is everywhere, and i see no sense in killing of a sucessful technology that people need use and rely on.

if i was in the market for a new laptop i wouldn't look at the new Intel books - predominantly for the reason macuber has pointed out in that no pro apps are ready to run natively. Apple are going to be quicker than others - they already use Xcode and they have the biggest imputus to get their pro apps ready asap - but i don't see applications from Adobe like Photoshop or illustrator being ready for some time.. so until then no intel anything for me!!
As for firewire, i will eat my hat if apple try and kill off firewire in the next year or two - and if the Towers come out without it... well the first thing i will buy even before more ram, will be PCIe FW4 and 800.

The only reason i think we arn't seeing FW is because the 'standard' motherboards that apple have had to use because their custom intel ones arn't ready, don't have FW... im sure we'll see FW as soon as the new MB is done.


Ethion i totally agree that VPC has to be re-written, i think that goes without saying because simply enough what VPC7 does today is completely different from what VPC8 will have to do. the whole work that the application will have to do will be completely different. I wouldn't be surprised if VPC8 is a IntelMac app only - because of the nature of the programme i think trying to build a universal version would be to hard but i don't know enough about that - but it has the theoretical capability to run fast, very fasts - not native or vertualization speeds, but certainly near native.

FW is getting old, and USB2 does the job at the moment. FW800 drains alot of energy. So it wouldn't be very efficiant on a macbook. And from what i've seen FW800 hasn't really been a hit on the market. From what i've seen.

And I guess it's easier to put out USB2 then FW, because theres more computers with USB2 then FW.
And USB2 is "backwards-compatible" with USB1.

I think its a case of need and want - those of us that need FW800 want it - those of you that have no need for it arn't bothered. Firewire is far from a old or redundant technology - and there are several industrys that rely on it - namely Video. USB2 is no alternative and as for the argument that FW isn't adopted - well as an example right now i have almost 20 Firewire devices in front of me - including Vidio IO box, Deck and 16HDs.
Outdated by USB2 ?? Well the 1394 specification allow a transfer rate of 786.432 Mbit/s - thats a lot faster than USB2!

The low overhead, high data rates of 1394, the ability to mix real-time synchronous and asynchronous data on a single line and the ability to mix low speed and high speed devices on the same single network connection, provides a truly universal connection which many people rely on and which is broadly used.

What i do hope apple does is push SATA by including external SATA ports on the new desktops when they arrive. Drop or have just one FW400 maybe, but to loose FW800 on pro macs would be crazy.

 The SATA interface is faster than both USB and FireWire 800. SATA/150 runs at 150MBps (approx. 1.2Gbps, compared to the 800 Mbps of FireWire 800, or 480Mbps of USB 2.0). SATA/300 doubles the rate to 2.4Gbps.

That said, Firewire is backwards compatable 800 to 400 and the FireWire standard technically supports up to 3.2Gbps... thats faster than SATA/300 !!

So basically don't tell me FW is dead! ;)

Yeah, I know. FW800 is great. although here in Sweden anyway,(which I pointed out)
But look at the Macbook, it doesn't have FW800. The only way of using FW800 is to buy a expresscard.

Still PC is the major computer in everyones home, and the majority of those computers have USB2, or some FW port. But I haven't seen a PC with a FW800 port yet. But i'm not saying that Firewire is dead. But don't you think it's weird that Apple isn't using Firewire anymore on their iPods? Because the majority of the iPod users have PCs, with USB..


--
And wow never heard of FW1600

The reason that FW wasn't more widely adopted in the PC world is a bit painful... basically someone told apple they should charge for the name - ie 1$ per port. Intel said bollocks to that and basically everyone went for USB2... Im certain that apples new motherboards from Intel will have FW on them though - i'll eat my hat if they dont.

A few questions about intel on mac. 1st is it really such fucking better then the ibm version? 2nd if u have a tower G5 is it possible to change from Ibm to intel? 3rd Can u use apple apps written for the ibm version also on intel and the otherway arround?
If some1 has a good link that answers all my questions just gimmi the link. thnx

If FW is gonna die well... Ipod video is all i say... if u have videos and tonnes of music thats easy 30 gigs and i know from my pc friends it takes AGES with usb! thats sertainly not the only thing but i think thats something that would hurt many ppl!

1st is it really such fucking better then the ibm version?
2nd if u have a tower G5 is it possible to change from Ibm to intel?
3rd Can u use apple apps written for the ibm version also on intel and the otherway arround?


1 - we don't know yet. for some things yes for others maybe not. they are two very different chips. reliable bench marks arn't available yet - but i think you can safely say that they arn't slower and for somthings like gaming they will be a lot faster (shorter pipes etc)

2 no - basically!

3. a universal binary means that basically when you hit 'go' the programme will excecute the version of the software that your computer needs - ie PPC or X86. 

Emulation software from apple means that you can run some PPC applications on your intel mac. However there is no current way (other than emulators like Virtual PC) to run a X86 application on a PPC mac.

edit - replaced 'install' with 'execute' to keep ethion happy ;)

rgr that kinda that i expected.. in other words.. buy a new mac again..

Not yet though, least I wouldn't get one.  Maybe wait . . half a year . . a year or so.

Absolutly. i wouldn't buy a new mac right now - whats the rush. Most Aps can't take advantage of the new chips and there really isn't any rush. i won't be buying till the end of this year/ feburary of next year at the earliest!

Universal Application contains code, so it is workable under Intel and PPC.
So BFG, it doesn't install it for a certain platform.
It just works :P

Universal binaries include both PowerPC and x86 versions of a compiled application. The operating system detects a universal binary from its header, executing the appropriate section depending on the architecture in use. This allows the application to run at full speed on either architecture, with no appreciable performance impact

In other words... Universal Binarys don't just contain code so its workable - it contains two versions of which it selects the appropriate one (X86 or PPC)

... Did you like magic when you were a kid ethion? I can just imagine you waving the magic wand and going "ooh look it just works!" ;)  ::bussi::

Yes I know that. But you wrote in ithe previous post that it INSTALLS the appropriate version of the application for that platform.

Even if you wrote "install" it's not correctly formulated to the real facts.

Ok ok that was badly worded and miss presented. rather than install i should have said 'executes' - duely edited.

My point was the same however - there are two different versions one for PPC and one for X86.

haha freaks, dont spam this threat or theyll lock it =( i hope not cuz its intressting!

The point I had on Firewire is that PC makers aren't using it very much, and now Apple may be ending it too as standard. The worse standard has won before, and we will likely see that happen again.

Back to point, it's impressive to see the first builds of a Mactel game already matching, if not out performing/dollar the PC counterpart.

"These types of products require a dedicated team and a lot of work to rebuild them for an entirely new architecture. That said, we know that using Windows-based applications on Macs is important to our customers, and we’re working with Apple to figure out the best way to bring this technology to Intel-based Macs. We’ll have a better idea once we have the new machines and can accurately evaluate just what is required to transition the product."

MS has said the same thing when G5s came out.... when Tiger was released.... and now when the x86 mac has been released. There is no sense in quoting the same old trash... especially without source credits.

Oh, so the old Mysterio wants sources, http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1470

Good enough for you ? Or do you want me to dig even more out for you ? which you aren't going to read anyway?

And what do I care if they have said the same thing over and over again. Apparently on my side this news was fresh. I have no idea where you get your material.

Eh, that's my link! :P

http://www.damnr6.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=9808.msg131528#msg131528

yes so shut up.. You steal my links all the time..

Plus...drum roll please.... Also don't forget  OSX 10.5 "Leopard" will be released just on the horizon. So keep that in mind. Will WoW run on that as smoothy as 10.4 or will we have to see another "Update"?

It's still OSX... if anything it'll run even better.

http://openosx.com/wintel/

It's not the source I doubt, but you should credit those you take from. Open OSX's Wintel is odd in that it's a relatively unknown just appearing. We'll have to wait for some tests and what not from the people who have begun receive iMacs... If none appear before my brother's iMac arrives, I'll see if I can run some.

More results for the iMac Core Duo's: http://barefeats.com/imcd.html

Seems to be the same on all, Rosetta apps the iMac will lag behind it's PowerPC counterpart while Universial apps it rocks the house.

:MoD:Saberian did some tests of his own showing how poorly most games play on the new Core Duo Mac's.

Stumbled across this today on MOSR.
http://macosrumors.com/


Apple's "Gamer's Dream iMac" In-Depth Report

Apple is hard at work on a new product, in concert with ATi, that will enhance the Intel Core Duo iMac lineup with a model specifically for gamers. Among other enhancements, the core modification is a dual GPU using ATi's "CrossFire" PCI Express technology. Prototypes with dual X1600, X1800, and X1900 GPU's have been mentioned in recent reports but thus far we have been unable to confirm whether the X1800 or X1900 is most likely given Apple's price point demands and the desire to trump the PC/Windows marketplace on gaming performance.

Anyway. MOSR should be trusted for anything but a laugh now and then. I can't remember the last time they reported something original that was correct.

Oh yea:

http://barefeats.com/quick.html

WoW test results [beta? UB] show the CoreDuo hanging near the 6800 + Quadro. Fun!

Hmmm i ain't so sure about that im really not. putting the fact i have never heard of macosrumors.com aside (yeah i know sorry heh) it dosn't sound very much like apple to me.. especially when i scroll down the page and stuff like this:


Erm i don't think so.

damn myst just posted as i clicked post hehe, but yeah what myst said X2

I also just updated post with link to WoW FPS as UB.

...Apparently I am way behind the times, still clunking around on OS 10.3.9

Who wants to start a "Get Lone 10.5 when it is released" fund?  Anybody?

...

Anybody at all?

....

 :(

Sorry to sidetrack the thread, too much time staring at my Java program is melting my brain.

yes yes you are ;) then agian you might as well wait for 10.5 mate. (come to think of it 10.4 wasn't all it was hyped up to be. spotlight is nice but needs speeding up, widgets are nice but i hardly use em apart from the calculator and unit converter)

those WoW FPS scores suck ass - im amazed how much worse it runs full screen than it does in windowed mode! horrible.

I think that could be considered some type of bug. There's no way the X1600 would drop off that much when it does so well in UT2k4 and other stuff.