Well that's the framerate for NTSC (Never The Same Color) in Europe (except France, always a little different in France isn't it?) our normal signal PAL actually has lower framerate (about 25 i think) so overhere its even better!

Reply

128 RAM on a 1.83Ghz Core Duo?
You either mixed up the processor or the RAM...

Reply

Tell you what Anon - read the article again, see the error, post an apology outlining your new-found humility, and we'll forget you ever said that. . . . . .

Reply

The 128 MB is VRAM.

I wondered if the switch to Mattels would bring more games to the Mac platform.

This could put some third-party groups out of business because there will not be a need for Mac-ported games in the near future.

Reply

Either you misread the article, or it's been updated since you wrote your comment. It clearly says 2 GB of RAM.

Reply

well, even though its the same processor... its a different OS, so a different environment. I think there will still be a need for porting. maybe...

Reply

i would DIE if hl2 could run on it

Reply

Joseph, sorry, but you're wrong. There will still be need to port games, even though we now have the same processor. World of Warcraft was made a universal binary, they didn't use the Intel version of the game and make it work on Mac. They used the OS X version and made it a Universal Binary. Significant difference.

The thing is Windows games often use DirectX, also most calls to the system are completely different. Yes, it will be easier to port games to Intel processors, which the coders already now, but it doesn't mean that porting companies will go out of business.

Reply

So.
I'm not a gamer at all, but I'm curious...Is the FPS you are getting with the new universal binary on par, or better than what would be experienced on a comparably configured G5 machine?

Reply

If the game is written for OpenGL, such as Doom 3, then the porting will be pretty straight forward, because now all of their processor specific code (performance tweaking) will not need to be rewritten. So I think we will see more games for the Mac because of their switch to Intel. I also think this will give game developers more incentive to use OpenGL rather than DirectX if they want to support both platforms.

As for frames per second, 24 frames per second is what is used in film and isn't directly transferable to computer monitors (apples and oranges, as film naturally smoothes transitions between the frames, monitors do not). 24fps is horrible on a computer game. Every semi-serious or serious gamer will tell you that 60fps is the minimum for smooth play on anything with fast action (of course on a LCD, 60fps is as fast as you can possible go because of the refresh rate, but on a CRT, you can easily double that). "The eye can't see more the 24fps" is an old Internet Myth, look it up.

I'll be happy when I can buy a Mac Pro (or whatever PowerMacs are going to be called), buy a $500 nvidia card, and send my PC (which I keep around just for games) off to someone else to do its dull little tasks.

Reply

"24fps is horrible on a computer game."

I wonder if the fps is being reduced due to conflict with Apple's coalesced updates thingy.

It might be interesting to check the fps after disabling coalesced updates using QuartzDebug.

Reply

I'm sorry, i meant 128 MB VRAM.
As far as i know, 1.83 core duo ships with 256MB VRAM.

Reply

I have a 1.83 model at home. It has 128mb of video ram. The 2.0 20" monitor version has it as an option.

Reply

Has anyone tried to run it on a MacBook Pro?

Reply

Nice numbers.

My wife runs WoW on her G4 laptop, 1.67 GHz with 512MB RAM... it is choppy in general and unusable in the major cities. We have the video turned down to low settings.

We're going to upgrade the RAM regardless, but wondering if 1.5 GB vs. 2 GB will be noticable. Anyone know?

Reply

I am running a pbook 1.25 2g ram and i have 20fps in IF and 10-5fps in a 40man raid =)

Reply