Graphics Settings for Intel MacBook

[ThnderbltDoherty 0]

Hey guys. I have a 1.83 GHz MacBook with a gig of RAM and I can't seem to get SC4RH to run as smoothly as I think it should, considering what I'm working with. If you guys could, let me know where your settings are and how they're working for you. Grazie.

[ThnderbltDoherty 0]

Hey guys. I have a 1.83 GHz MacBook with a gig of RAM and I can't seem to get SC4RH to run as smoothly as I think it should, considering what I'm working with. If you guys could, let me know where your settings are and how they're working for you. Grazie.

[ThnderbltDoherty 0]

Hey guys. I have a 1.83 GHz MacBook with a gig of RAM and I can't seem to get SC4RH to run as smoothly as I think it should, considering what I'm working with. If you guys could, let me know where your settings are and how they're working for you. Grazie.

[Kakaze 0]

It's not running smoothly because it's not running natively.

SC4 is a PPC only app, so to run on an Intel chip, like that in the MacBook it has to convert the PPC instructions to Intel and back to PPC again, which takes a lot of processor power. Also, the MacBook has integrated graphics which are not very good for such a graphically intensive game as SC4. Right there you have a double whammy going against you.

Aspyr has said they'll be coming out with a Universal version but when that happens is up in the air.

For now, just put everything on the lowest settings possible.

[Kakaze 0]

It's not running smoothly because it's not running natively.

SC4 is a PPC only app, so to run on an Intel chip, like that in the MacBook it has to convert the PPC instructions to Intel and back to PPC again, which takes a lot of processor power. Also, the MacBook has integrated graphics which are not very good for such a graphically intensive game as SC4. Right there you have a double whammy going against you.

Aspyr has said they'll be coming out with a Universal version but when that happens is up in the air.

For now, just put everything on the lowest settings possible.

[Kakaze 0]

It's not running smoothly because it's not running natively.

SC4 is a PPC only app, so to run on an Intel chip, like that in the MacBook it has to convert the PPC instructions to Intel and back to PPC again, which takes a lot of processor power. Also, the MacBook has integrated graphics which are not very good for such a graphically intensive game as SC4. Right there you have a double whammy going against you.

Aspyr has said they'll be coming out with a Universal version but when that happens is up in the air.

For now, just put everything on the lowest settings possible.

[callagrafx 3]

Native or under Rosetta, the jump in processor speed and the Dual Core makes the translation impossible to notice...I have PPC Photoshop CS2 running on my MacBook under Rosetta, and it blazes compared to my 1.4Ghz G4 Powerbook...at least a 4x speed increase on a zoom blur test!!

The graphics system inside the Macbook is the Intel GMA 950, which is an extremely clever piece of kit, in that it utilises system memory direct for graphics (another reason why PS CS2 flies). It's built in but there hasn't been a piece of software written that it could not handle with ease.

Your problem, Mr Dallas, is OS X 10.4....the OS and hardware is much more advanced than Aspyr coded the game for, therefore SC4 cannot really utilise the new technology and runs like a pig.... It's like putting 13" steel tyres on a Ferrari, the power's there but it cannot translate to the road.

Sorry, not what you wanted to here, I expect...

[callagrafx 3]

Native or under Rosetta, the jump in processor speed and the Dual Core makes the translation impossible to notice...I have PPC Photoshop CS2 running on my MacBook under Rosetta, and it blazes compared to my 1.4Ghz G4 Powerbook...at least a 4x speed increase on a zoom blur test!!

The graphics system inside the Macbook is the Intel GMA 950, which is an extremely clever piece of kit, in that it utilises system memory direct for graphics (another reason why PS CS2 flies). It's built in but there hasn't been a piece of software written that it could not handle with ease.

Your problem, Mr Dallas, is OS X 10.4....the OS and hardware is much more advanced than Aspyr coded the game for, therefore SC4 cannot really utilise the new technology and runs like a pig.... It's like putting 13" steel tyres on a Ferrari, the power's there but it cannot translate to the road.

Sorry, not what you wanted to here, I expect...

[callagrafx 3]

Native or under Rosetta, the jump in processor speed and the Dual Core makes the translation impossible to notice...I have PPC Photoshop CS2 running on my MacBook under Rosetta, and it blazes compared to my 1.4Ghz G4 Powerbook...at least a 4x speed increase on a zoom blur test!!

The graphics system inside the Macbook is the Intel GMA 950, which is an extremely clever piece of kit, in that it utilises system memory direct for graphics (another reason why PS CS2 flies). It's built in but there hasn't been a piece of software written that it could not handle with ease.

Your problem, Mr Dallas, is OS X 10.4....the OS and hardware is much more advanced than Aspyr coded the game for, therefore SC4 cannot really utilise the new technology and runs like a pig.... It's like putting 13" steel tyres on a Ferrari, the power's there but it cannot translate to the road.

Sorry, not what you wanted to here, I expect...

[Kakaze 0]

I've never heard anyone say Photoshop is faster on their Intel Machine than running natively on a PPC Mac. It is possible that some operations may perform faster based on their level of complexity, but overall performance levels have consistently been much slower than native PPC. http://www.barefeats.com/rosetta.html http://www.barefeats.com/pbcd.html

As far as the GMA950, there's nothing clever about integrated graphics, and using the system memory has historically and empirically been shown to do nothing but degrade performance. The GMA950 is good for what it is, but it can in no way compare to a discrete graphics solution and it's dedicated memory. http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

[Kakaze 0]

I've never heard anyone say Photoshop is faster on their Intel Machine than running natively on a PPC Mac. It is possible that some operations may perform faster based on their level of complexity, but overall performance levels have consistently been much slower than native PPC. http://www.barefeats.com/rosetta.html http://www.barefeats.com/pbcd.html

As far as the GMA950, there's nothing clever about integrated graphics, and using the system memory has historically and empirically been shown to do nothing but degrade performance. The GMA950 is good for what it is, but it can in no way compare to a discrete graphics solution and it's dedicated memory. http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

[callagrafx 3]

OMG...The King of Contradiction strikes again...

If you actually bothered to read my post, I stated I ran the test myself using MY OWN HARDWARE and I notice a massive decrease in the time it takes to run a specific filter..that benchmark test is useless (and unofficial) because the G4 has been ramped up to 2Ghz....not something everyone does. In a real life situation (one that doesn't involve finding useless benchmark stats) that's a massive speed jump. Apple's own benchmark tests show an increase of over 5x on FP and integer calculations.

Question: Do you own a MacBook or MacBook Pro? Can you honestly tell me you would prefer an Nvidia GeForce FX chip over a GMA950?  Criticise all you like, but the fact remains the MacBook pro is the most advanced laptop on the market.

[callagrafx 3]

OMG...The King of Contradiction strikes again...

If you actually bothered to read my post, I stated I ran the test myself using MY OWN HARDWARE and I notice a massive decrease in the time it takes to run a specific filter..that benchmark test is useless (and unofficial) because the G4 has been ramped up to 2Ghz....not something everyone does. In a real life situation (one that doesn't involve finding useless benchmark stats) that's a massive speed jump. Apple's own benchmark tests show an increase of over 5x on FP and integer calculations.

Question: Do you own a MacBook or MacBook Pro? Can you honestly tell me you would prefer an Nvidia GeForce FX chip over a GMA950?  Criticise all you like, but the fact remains the MacBook pro is the most advanced laptop on the market.

[Kakaze 0]

Just because they're using a 2GHz G4 does NOT make the test useless. 2GHz is faster than 1.5 but it's still not faster than a Core Duo unless you're running stuff through Rosetta. *EVERY* Photoshop benchmark shows the exact same results...Rosetta=slower than PPC.

And yes, I most certainly would prefer an nVidia or Radeon chip over integrated graphics such as the GMA950. So would every gamer on the face of the planet. I suggest you do some research into the differences between integrated and discreet graphics.

And, while the MacBook Pro--weren't we talking about the MacBook, sans Pro? - is certainly a very advanced laptop, there are several out there that will soundly trounce it. Of course, they're huge laptops with SLI graphics and they generally tend have desktop harddrives in them, or at least space for multiple drives.

I love the MB and MBP but they are not the top of the line as far as laptops go; they are, however, just slightly under the top.

[Kakaze 0]

Just because they're using a 2GHz G4 does NOT make the test useless. 2GHz is faster than 1.5 but it's still not faster than a Core Duo unless you're running stuff through Rosetta. *EVERY* Photoshop benchmark shows the exact same results...Rosetta=slower than PPC.

And yes, I most certainly would prefer an nVidia or Radeon chip over integrated graphics such as the GMA950. So would every gamer on the face of the planet. I suggest you do some research into the differences between integrated and discreet graphics.

And, while the MacBook Pro--weren't we talking about the MacBook, sans Pro? - is certainly a very advanced laptop, there are several out there that will soundly trounce it. Of course, they're huge laptops with SLI graphics and they generally tend have desktop harddrives in them, or at least space for multiple drives.

I love the MB and MBP but they are not the top of the line as far as laptops go; they are, however, just slightly under the top.

[callagrafx 3]

In a REAL LIFE situation, where these computers are being used for things OTHER THAN GAMES, the Macbook AND the MacBook Pro piss all over a Powerbook.....Like I said, I did my OWN test using my Powerbook and my MacBook (not pro) and in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, the Macbook came out top....I use my computers to do serious work in Photoshop, Illustrator, Maya and After Effects, each app heavily reliant on the graphics processor and my productivity has jumped massively...render times in Maya are cut by at least a third, After Effects now flies, because the GMA is using the system RAM of 1GB, rather than the pissy 64MB of an Nvidia.

Could you please stop quoting Internet articles at me and do your own testing in your own situation.

btw...What laptop, other than a MBP can use both OS X AND Windows XP...Has the most advanced chip for a laptop, the most advanced screen technology, Memory addressing, Magsafe power supply, incredible battery life, built in wireless, bluetooth, camera and is only 1" thick?  And lets do a like for like comparison, no "externals", because it then ceases to be a mobile computer.

What machine would you place on top?

[callagrafx 3]

In a REAL LIFE situation, where these computers are being used for things OTHER THAN GAMES, the Macbook AND the MacBook Pro piss all over a Powerbook.....Like I said, I did my OWN test using my Powerbook and my MacBook (not pro) and in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, the Macbook came out top....I use my computers to do serious work in Photoshop, Illustrator, Maya and After Effects, each app heavily reliant on the graphics processor and my productivity has jumped massively...render times in Maya are cut by at least a third, After Effects now flies, because the GMA is using the system RAM of 1GB, rather than the pissy 64MB of an Nvidia.

Could you please stop quoting Internet articles at me and do your own testing in your own situation.

btw...What laptop, other than a MBP can use both OS X AND Windows XP...Has the most advanced chip for a laptop, the most advanced screen technology, Memory addressing, Magsafe power supply, incredible battery life, built in wireless, bluetooth, camera and is only 1" thick?  And lets do a like for like comparison, no "externals", because it then ceases to be a mobile computer.

What machine would you place on top?

[Zelgadis 638]

Um, folks, could you continue this in PM rather than here?  It's way off the topic put forth in this thread.

ISF

[callagrafx 3]

Don't worry Zel, I won't be wasting my breath on Captain Lurker here again.

[Kakaze 0]

And just because I have to get in the last word: you're just mad cause you know I'm right and you can't handle it. I use internet links to other people's benchmarks because they're, first, trusted sources, and second, they're generally fairly comprehensive. None of the apps you use, save for Maya relies on the GPU of the system, and in Maya only the view ports rely on the GPU as they show everything in OGL. The final render is a completely different animal, however, as rendering is done entirely by the CPU, so of course that's going to be faster - even when Maya is still a PPC only application as rendering does not require a large amount of binary translation back and forth.

I've said my piece; take it however you want.

[callagrafx 3]

I'm not mad, I'm respecting the Moderators wishes...I suggest you do the same.

[Zelgadis 638]

One more "last word" and this thread gets locked.

~zel~

[Dark Horse 0]

I know this topic is old, but I just have to chip in, The point that somone actually thinks the GMA950 is better than a discreet GPU just blows me away.   

This comprehensive score chart speaks for itself. 

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ky2_snIVY2gJ:www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html+notebook+graphics+benchmarks&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

You will find the GMA950 around #66 on that list.