Bioshock on a MacBook

[Jack Flash]

Has anyone given this a try in Bootcamp 1.4?

I realize it would likely only run on absolute minimum settings, but will it run on a GMA 950 based device?

 

[Cougarcat]

Has anyone given this a try in Bootcamp 1.4?

I realize it would likely only run on absolute minimum settings, but will it run on a GAM 950 based device?

No.

 

[binaryspazz]

I've downloaded the demo and having been playing it. It works very well.
It supports widescreen even. Very playable. I'm going to buy the game. I wanted to check out the demo first, and i'm very pleased. Almost everything is set to max too.

I have a 15" 2.16 core due 2 MBP

 

[Jack Flash]

I've downloaded the demo and having been playing it. It works very well.
It supports widescreen even. Very playable. I'm going to buy the game. I wanted to check out the demo first, and i'm very pleased. Almost everything is set to max too.

I have a 15" 2.16 core due 2 MBP

That's a MacBook Pro with a dedicated graphics chip.

 

[rodti]

That's a MacBook Pro with a dedicated graphics chip.

Indeed. Bioshock requires a recent card with Pixel Shader 3. The GMA950 is not for games, full stop.

r.

 

[flopticalcube]

GMA950 is not for games, full stop.

C'mon! That's just not true and you know it. I can play WoW on my MacBook and many older games or new games with low reuirements can play perfectly fine on a MacBook.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/209966/
http://www.apple.com/games/hardware/

 

[socamx]

There is a difference between being able to run games and being able to play games well, which the GMA950 can't do. Sub-30 framerates for 1 and 2 year old games is crap when the other hardware (cpu etc) is more than capable.

The GMA950 is not for games, full stop.

 

[nagromme]

The GMA950 is not for games, full stop.

An exaggeration, as well known by all the GMA950 gamers out there. You wouldn't game on a 950, but many would--and their fun is not imaginary

They are not, however, running UE3 I suspect

 

[PCMacUser]

An exaggeration, as well known by all the GMA950 gamers out there. You wouldn't game on a 950, but many would--and their fun is not imaginary

They are not, however, running UE3 I suspect

Yeah chess doesn't seem to be that demanding on the 950

 

[PCMacUser]

The only Apple computer that I would recommend playing Bioshock on is the Macbook Pro. It has a DX10 video card, and it's much faster than the one in the new iMacs. (DX10 cards are still not available for the Mac Pro platform, although ATI's x1900xt is a solid DX9 performer, despite being severely out of date now).

 

[JackAxe]

You're calling the X1900 XT severly out of date, when it was released August 23 of 2006 according to this article.

What is WRONG with you?

<]=)

 

[flopticalcube]

The only Apple computer that I would recommend playing Bioshock on is the Macbook Pro. It has a DX10 video card, and it's much faster than the one in the new iMacs. (DX10 cards are still not available for the Mac Pro platform, although ATI's x1900xt is a solid DX9 performer, despite being severely out of date now).

Bioshock on a 24" iMac at full res/max settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbY1kTP79vc
DX9 performance btw.

 

[it5five]

The GMA950 is not for games, full stop.

That's strange, because I could have sworn I've played games on my MacBook. But I guess if socam says it, it must be true.

Here's the thing: I don't care about new PC games. I don't care about FPS. I don't care about MMORPG's.

Games I play on my MacBook:

Age of Empires II
Sim City IV
Civilization III

All very fun games, and they run very well on my MacBook.

 

[PCMacUser]

You're calling the X1900 XT severly out of date, when it was released August 23 of 2006 according to this article.

What is WRONG with you?

<]=)

Hahah, nice try, but you got the wrong card. That article you refer to was the press release for the 'cut down' 256mb version of the card.

The press release for the X1900XT 512Mb card is here:

http://ir.ati.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=105421&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=807679&x1900 xt

And this is from January 2006. Which makes the card approximately 18 months old - as old as the Intel Core Solo processor!

Get my drift?

Add to this the fact that nVidia's 8800 series cards have been out for nearly a year (November 2006), Apple really need to get with the programme...

 

[PCMacUser]

Bioshock on a 24" iMac at full res/max settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbY1kTP79vc
DX9 performance btw.

Unfortunately that video shows that the iMac is not fast enough to play the game at maximum resolution and settings. The YouTube video just shows the first 10 minutes of the game - which is entirely scripted. The video you see at the beginning 'Atlantic 1960', is just an AVI... the first bit of 'almost' actual gameplay comes after 8 minutes of the video, and even then it's still scripted with relatively little requirement from the GPU - and yet it is still jerky - well below 30 fps I'd say.

Having said that, if you drop a few settings, maybe down to the next resolution below native, you could have a playable Bioshock experience.

And I really do recommend playing it - I've played the whole thing through twice in the last week, much to my wife's bewilderment.

 

[Green Lantern]

I started playing Bioshock this week on an Alum 24" iMac with all settings maxed and only noticed a frame rate problem once or twice and it was minimal. Game runs and looks great.

 

[Green Lantern]

BTW....where do you get the frame rate results?? then I could post results back.

 

[dal20402]

The only Apple computer that I would recommend playing Bioshock on is the Macbook Pro. It has a DX10 video card, and it's much faster than the one in the new iMacs.

Rob-ART disagrees with you. His results show the iMac being very marginally faster, except in Quake 4 for some strange reason.

I don't have either an Al iMac or an SR MBP, so I can't give firsthand experience...

 

[BigJohno]

So how would it run on a 2.33 mbp 15inch 3 gigs of ram?

 

[JackAxe]

Hahah, nice try, but you got the wrong card. That article you refer to was the press release for the 'cut down' 256mb version of the card.

The press release for the X1900XT 512Mb card is here:

http://ir.ati.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=105421&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=807679&x1900 xt

And this is from January 2006. Which makes the card approximately 18 months old - as old as the Intel Core Solo processor!

Get my drift?

Add to this the fact that nVidia's 8800 series cards have been out for nearly a year (November 2006), Apple really need to get with the programme...

Apple's always a little bit behind on their video cards, I doubt this will change. But I guess you're right, 18 months is too old, let us all throw out anything that's of that age or older, including pets.

You can call a Voodoo, or even a GF2 MX severley old, but a card that still has plenty of juice left it in it -- when most games are still DX 9 happy -- is just silly. If you want severely old, look here! I'll classify this card as that, when it can't run any new game on any system on even the lowest settings, so give me about 3 years.

<]=)

 

[GFLPraxis]

You're calling the X1900 XT severly out of date, when it was released August 23 of 2006 according to this article.

What is WRONG with you?

<]=)

Because it is typical of the hard-core PC gamers. One year is severely out of date.

I'm sorry, I'm just sick of the ridiculous upgrade cycle. There's enormous online peer pressure of sorts about graphics cards. They're almost instantly 'outdated' in everyone's eyes, and decent budget cards suck of they can't run the latest games at max resolution. It's just silly.

 

[garethlewis2]

Actually it is typical of ATi and NVidia's continuing hatred for each other. NVidia started the 6 monthly product refresh and Apple have never been able to keep up. So give it 6 months and there will be games on Vista and XP that will play like treacle on the newest iMacs and MBP's. I gave up playing games on the MBP as the experience was so rubbish. Slow down, and massive amounts of heat being issued from the case.

 

[overcast]

You're calling the X1900 XT severly out of date, when it was released August 23 of 2006 according to this article.

What is WRONG with you?

<]=)

I don't care what the article says. The X1900 line came out end of January 2006, because I bought mine on the release. For a video card, that is ancient history.

 

[overcast]

Because it is typical of the hard-core PC gamers. One year is severely out of date.

I'm sorry, I'm just sick of the ridiculous upgrade cycle. There's enormous online peer pressure of sorts about graphics cards. They're almost instantly 'outdated' in everyone's eyes, and decent budget cards suck of they can't run the latest games at max resolution. It's just silly.

Welcome to consumer electronics. If you can't handle the PC upgrade schedule, stick to consoles.

 

[overcast]

Rob-ART disagrees with you. His results show the iMac being very marginally faster, except in Quake 4 for some strange reason.

I don't have either an Al iMac or an SR MBP, so I can't give firsthand experience...

The results are all close, because those games are all old news. The Doom3 engine should not be used in benchmarking any longer.