And it's already been reported that other games such as Half-Life 2, F.E.A.R., and Battlefield 2 are up and running pretty good. Now that rumored SLI (or CrossFire) -enabled gaming Mac isn't that crazy, right?

Reply

Wow!
And here I was, worried that we might not have enough Windows on Mac news today.

Reply

This is great news, does anyone have a chance to clock Guild Wars's performance on a Windows XP install on a Mac? If the WoW specs are any indication, it should perform pretty well.

Reply

Nice! Too bad you're Horde. ;)

Reply

Maybe these head-to-head OS X vs. Windows WOW comparisons on the exact same hardware will light a fire under Apple to get their OpenGL performance up? Or whatever the gaming performance issue is resolved?

I had read a rumor about major OpenGL optimization due in 10.4.6. A bogus rumor, apparently.

Reply

So here's my question:

How come the performance is so much better in the Windows environment?

Reply

Finally Mac gamers can do what Linux gamers have been doing for years: reboot into Windows.

Reply

was wow on windows running in directx or opengl. If it was directx this test doesn't mean anything.

There is a command line option for opengl in windows.

Try the test again

Reply

Who cares about WOW anyway its utter rubbish to test as its avaliable on both mac and win.

Why not test games mac users want to play like F.E.A.R.

Reply

Why does the test on the Windows machine need to be OpenGL? It can run in DirectX and it should.

The end-result matters not whether it's OpenGL or DirectX. Now that you CAN run DirectX on your Mac, there's no reason not to.

Reply

Hahaha! Good one, Eliot.

Reply

"was wow on windows running in directx or opengl. If it was directx this test doesn't mean anything.

There is a command line option for opengl in windows.

Try the test again"

That is a retarded comment. It doesn't matter HOW the game performs as long as its a given that the performance thrashes the same game in OS X under the same hardware. Its not as if Apple can increase their performance by using magical Mac fairy dust. FANBOIS OF THE WORLD UNITE TO SPREAD THE FUD! The truth of the matter, that many have known for years has been revealed: OS X while a fine work OS sucks monkey crap as a gaming platform. [insert prerequisite consoles are better anyways excuse here.]

Reply

Fifa 2006 runs well.....GTA San Andreas test tomorrow!!

Reply

If you really want to check out gaming stakes, run 3D mark 2005 on your macintel. Mine scored 3449 under windows which is hot (20" Imac).

Enjoy

Reply

Comparing WoW under OpenGL on both machines would mean a fairer test between the operating systems themselves. Direct X is right at the cutting edge of gaming technology whereas OpenGL makes some sacrifices to remain as multi-platform and as open as possible. Direct X is arguably going to perform much better as it is specifically designed to work well with Windows.
Therefore it would be interesting to see how well the operating systems themselves cope with the games when running similar 3D technology.
I think it would be a much closer fight when running games in OpenGL on Windows. We know that Microsoft has treated Windows as a whore when it comes to gaming, but to what extent? Does this stop with DirectX, or is XP actually the most efficient OS for working with games? To what extent does porting existing games to the Mac impact performance? Has OS X's advantage of security and usability curbed it's performance when compared to Windows?

These are interesting questions that people are asking because they've been comparing OS X to XP for years now. Everybody knows that if you want a machine that will run all the latest games, you should buy a PC, that's been a known quantity for a long time. The other questions ask why, and to what extent?

Reply

I would recommend maybe tracking down and installing Ati's display drivers for OS X, I've seen them add some preformance increases on Pbs in the past with games like Doom 3, and they even gave a nice bump to WoW on the last Pb rev when I tried it. I also feel the added display and preformance options they bring are something sorely lacking by default. The plethora of display options available for the x1600 on my MBP in WinXP made me feel like I was really missing out (preformance profiles and setting for powered/battery/low battery states was just one of several.) Considering the solid preformance of WoW as shown above I might just swap the OS it's installed on.

Reply

Despite performance issues, I'll never run WoW in Windows regularly over OS X on the same machine. OS X is a far more convenient OS to use, even when it can be proven that it is slower running WoW. The simple fact is that it runs close to full settings, requires very little maintenance, opens and closes when I want it to and always gets me back onto that Zeppelin ahead of everybody else. I'll take that over a few frames / second any day.

Reply

I'm not that surprised at all that it runs faster using Windows, I'm sure after the Universal version of WOW is tweaked more and Intel OS X gets more updates, their won't be much of a difference at all.

Reply

Hey guys, i tried call of duty 2 on my imac core duo 17" running windows under boot camp with the default ATI drivers, and it comes up with a render error when i try to launch the game, anyone else had this problem?

Reply

Half Life 2 ran stunningly well (I believe I was at 1024 x 768), HDR enabled in Lost Coast, though it started to hiccup upon enabling FSAA. All options were at max.

Reply