OS X Deus Ex: Mankind Divided on Metal!

[jeanlain]

Wasn't my experience as noted in another thread. On my late 2015 27" iMac with M395X, the macOS hitman was a resolution below the Windows version, i.e. I was getting the same performance in 1440p (Windows) as 1080p (Mac).
The same is the case in F1 2017.

If performance is CPU-bound, then screen resolution would have little impact on performance. I don't know your numbers, but it's possible to have, say, 100 fps at 1080p and 90 fps at 1440p on a game, while windows may show 100 fps at 1040p. In that case the game would just be 10% slower on macOS.
If performance is GPU-bound, it's another story as fps may decrease a lot from 1080 to 1440p.
But at very high resolution (4K) I've measured the exact same performance between OSes on Hitman. The largest difference is at 720p.
[doublepost=1512602132][/doublepost]

December 12 is the day. The requirements are… steep.

They are the same as Hitman on the GPU side, unless I'm mistaken. Hitman on the Mac is said to require a 2GHz i5 though, but at this stage I suspect Feral meant 3GHz (the Windows version of Hitman requires a 3.3 GHz i5 as minimum, while Deux Ex requires a 3.1 GHz i3, and a 3GHz i5 on macOS).

 

[Eric5h5]

December 12 is the day. The requirements are… steep.

I wonder if older Mac Pros with third-party R9 280x cards (like mine) would work; I suspect so. But I also wonder how sustainable ports like this are for Feral.

--Eric

 

[marksatt]

December 12 is the day. The requirements are… steep.

Given the difference in GPU performance between these Mac models and their predecessors and the PC version's required min. spec. I'd say that it is pretty much as you'd expect. A couple of the BTO models of the 27" iMac & aftermarket upgrades to the 2010-2012 Mac Pro apart that list seems to be everything that would run the game well on Windows.

I wonder if older Mac Pros with third-party R9 280x cards (like mine) would work; I suspect so.

It is understandable to me as PC GPUs are harder to support as they aren't 'official' configurations.

But I also wonder how sustainable ports like this are for Feral.

Good question. Certainly Apple shipping more fast Macs & even eGPUs would probably help all Mac games developers.

 

[Eric5h5]

Oh, I wouldn't expect official support, but as I believe a R9 280X beats a M290 by a decent margin, I suspect the performance would be fine, as it's been for everything else (especially since I just have a regular HD monitor).

--Eric

 

[Janichsan]

They are the same as Hitman on the GPU side, unless I'm mistaken. ...

Well, it's not as if Hitman's requirements were particularly low either.

 

[jeanlain]

[sorry, wrong topic]

Blizzard is backpedaling with respect to Metal support in HoTS (and possibly SC2, I haven't checked).
This is from 10 days ago:
http://us.battle.net/heroes/en/blog/21273597

While we would like to support OpenGL4.1 and Metal for Mac users, we’ve found that our current implementation doesn’t meet our goal of providing the best experience possible. As a result, they have been disabled with today’s patch, and Mac users will default to OpenGL2.1. Apologies for any inconveniences this may cause, and thank you for your patience as we explore ways we can better support these experiences in the future.

So, back to OpenGL 2.1. With a huge performance hit according to players. https://us.battle.net/forums/en/heroes/topic/20759457467

I find extremely suspicious that Metal (or even OpenGL 4) could not power a game engine initially written for such an old API, and that they preferred sticking to the old OpenGL, which has no future. Methinks things aren't going well between Blizzard and Apple.
Are Blizzard intentionally screwing Mac users?

 

[Janichsan]

I find extremely suspicious that Metal (or even OpenGL 4) could not power a game engine initially written for such an old API, and that they preferred sticking to the old OpenGL, which has no future. Methinks things aren't going well between Blizzard and Apple.
Are Blizzard intentionally screwing Mac users?

Hm... the removal of the OpenGL 4.1 renderer is strange, as I found it mostly bug-free (though not really more performant than the old OGL 2.1), in contrast to the Metal renderer, which had glitches throughout.

 

[jeanlain]

They'd better outsource the porting of their games to another company like, say... Feral. At least, Feral guys know how to port a DX game engine to Metal.

 

[wubsylol]

WoW Metal seems to break with every game and macOS update, so perhaps they're refocusing their efforts to actually delivering a single issue-free Mac product, rather than three troublesome ones.

They're running the same engine, but I've not seen anything about Metal being removed from Starcraft 2. Anyone in a position to check?

 

[TheGreatWumpus]

They're running the same engine, but I've not seen anything about Metal being removed from Starcraft 2. Anyone in a position to check?

Just checked, SC2 still has the Metal (Beta) options in graphics. Interesting..And the OpenGL 4.1(Beta) option still remains as well.

Metal in hots doubled my FPS so its definitely a drag to see it gone. Not sure why blizzard took it out, it was working fine. Seems like they could left it in for people who want to use it then updated it later? Who knows I guess.

 

[jeanlain]

Metal was an just option. Its removal makes the game worse, judging from the complains. Blizzard just fixed some issue by introducing bigger ones. And the way they announced it suggests Metal is not coming back ."In the future" means "no plans" in development time.
At worse, they could have put Metal development on hold in HoTS and just leave the option, but using OGL 2.1 is a big step back, which makes no sense. Legacy openGL code may break at any moment with OS updates. It's basically deprecated and Apple won't fix any new bug. Why not make the game 32 bits while they're at it?
Anyhow, if they can't offer support for a Mac game, they should have better not released it in the first place. It becomes increasingly clear why they haven't ported Overwatch.

 

[mario-64]

FYI, on my 2017 15” MBP 3.1ghz I am getting 32fps avg using 1400x900 and medium settings. 1680x1050 drops it to 25fps avg. Dropping all settings to Low at 1400x900 gives me 42fps avg. It seems 60fps is simply not achievable :-(

 

[wubsylol]

FYI, on my 2017 15” MBP 3.1ghz I am getting 32fps avg using 1400x900 and medium settings. 1680x1050 drops it to 25fps avg. Dropping all settings to Low at 1400x900 gives me 42fps avg. It seems 60fps is simply not achievable :-(

This was always a demanding game and a personally feel it misleading of Feral to have implied people running anything other than the Radeon Pro 580 and perhaps D700 we’re going to have a pleasant experience with it

 

[jeanlain]

This game is very demanding and Feral can't do miracles. The Deus Ex engine is not renowned for its performance, especially compared to others like the Doom Engine (Id Tech 6) or Frostbite, which look at least as good run quite a bit faster.

 

[marksatt]

This game is very demanding and Feral can't do miracles. The Deus Ex engine is not renowned for its performance, especially compared to others like the Doom Engine (Id Tech 6) or Frostbite, which look at least as good run quite a bit faster.

Agreed.

Point of interest: DXMD was built on a variant of IO Interactive’s Glacier 2 Engine vs. DXHR which was built on Crystal Dynamics’ Crystal engine.

Typically PC games are developed such that at the low end the target is >= 30fps with all settings on their lowest option and resolution of <= 720p. That is a consequence of the performance delta between the fastest and the slowest GPUs now, as the low end hasn’t kept pace with the high end. Assuming mario-64’s experience is in the ballpark of the Windows version on same/similar hardware I’d say Feral have done a fabulous job.

 

[jeanlain]

Point of interest: DXMD was built on a variant of IO Interactive’s Glacier 2 Engine vs. DXHR which was built on Crystal Dynamics’ Crystal engine.

Yes, and I'm not sure why Hitman (based on Glacier 2) runs significantly more smoothly than Deus Ex. I don't see a clear difference in graphical quality.

 

[wubsylol]

I never said they didn't work miracles, but it's misleading to imply the experience on a MBP/Radeon Pro 560 is going to be enjoyable.

 

[imacken]

Firstly, let me say thanks to Feral for doing their usual excellent job in bringing games like DEMD to the Mac. It's as good a port as we could expect.
Having said that, it does worry me that we are still lagging way behind the Windows version in terms of fps.
Benchmark results:
1920x1080 High - Windows 44/30/56 Mac 33/26/44 (ave/min/max)
1920x1080 Very High - W 37/26/46 M 26/16/38
2560x1440 High - W 27/17/33 M 20/15/26
2560x1440 Very High - W 23/16/30 M 18/12/25.
The good news is, however, that the benchmark test is pretty demanding, and in the actual game there is better performance. For example, I use 1080 High and get between 35 and 60 fps in-game.
Test run using same hardware - late 2015 27" iMac, 4Gb M395X, 4GHz i7, 32Gb 2133MHz RAM - and latest AMD Crimson drivers and DX12 for Windows.
Of course the other thing is, that it is so much more immersive having Dolby Digital 5.1 channel sound in Windows and not on my Mac. It's just weird hearing sounds in front from sources that are behind you!
(Is there any way of getting in-game DD 5.1 sound on Mac?)

 

[marksatt]

I never said they didn't work miracles, but it's misleading to imply the experience on a MBP/Radeon Pro 560 is going to be enjoyable.

From mario’s post it sounds like you can get a decent 30fps+ frame rate at settings above the minimum. Why wouldn’t that be enjoyable?

This is (more or less) how the majority of players will experience the game on console. It is silly to suggest that level of performance in the game wouldn’t be enjoyable, provided it is maintained throughout the game. Why would you deny players a similar experience on equivalent PC/Mac hardware?

From a development perspective you can’t seriously expect developers to make the recommended specs. the min. specs. If you can’t get all the knobs turned up on console then you aren’t going to on similar PCs either. From a publishing perspective shipping on console is required to make most games worthwhile, similarly a PC release generally needs to reach down to console level of PC hardware to be commercially viable. Hence why PC games tend to have recommended specs. for you to look at.

 

[casperes1996]

(Is there any way of getting in-game DD 5.1 sound on Mac?)

Really don't see why it wouldn't be. Obviously the 3.5mm jack only supports stereo, at least with an analog signal, don't know about optical - but using DisplayPort Audio or a USB audio interface or something like that you can definitely get surround out of the Mac, so I don't see where the limitation should be in the game

 

[jeanlain]

Having said that, it does worry me that we are still lagging way behind the Windows version in terms of fps.
Benchmark results:
1920x1080 High - Windows 44/30/56 Mac 33/26/44 (ave/min/max)
1920x1080 Very High - W 37/26/46 M 26/16/38
2560x1440 High - W 27/17/33 M 20/15/26
2560x1440 Very High - W 23/16/30 M 18/12/25.

At certain settings, the Mac is not that far behind in minimum fps. I'll do comparison tests if I have the time.

 

[macintoshmac]

December 12 is the day. The requirements are… steep.

Understatement!

I'd have liked it to work with 13" MBPs.

 

[imacken]

Really don't see why it wouldn't be. Obviously the 3.5mm jack only supports stereo, at least with an analog signal, don't know about optical - but using DisplayPort Audio or a USB audio interface or something like that you can definitely get surround out of the Mac, so I don't see where the limitation should be in the game

Please tell me how! I have used optical in the past and am currently using Sound Blaster Omni from USB to receiver. Not possible to get DD 5.1 from games on Mac as I don't believe there is an encoder on macOS.
Been discussed for years and yet no one seems to do anything about it. Unless..... you know something I don't. (He says hoping!)

 

[marksatt]

Firstly, let me say thanks to Feral for doing their usual excellent job in bringing games like DEMD to the Mac. It's as good a port as we could expect.
Having said that, it does worry me that we are still lagging way behind the Windows version in terms of fps.
Benchmark results:
1920x1080 High - Windows 44/30/56 Mac 33/26/44 (ave/min/max)
1920x1080 Very High - W 37/26/46 M 26/16/38
2560x1440 High - W 27/17/33 M 20/15/26
2560x1440 Very High - W 23/16/30 M 18/12/25.
The good news is, however, that the benchmark test is pretty demanding, and in the actual game there is better performance. For example, I use 1080 High and get between 35 and 60 fps in-game.
Test run using same hardware - late 2015 27" iMac, 4Gb M395X, 4GHz i7, 32Gb 2133MHz RAM - and latest AMD Crimson drivers and DX12 for Windows.
Of course the other thing is, that it is so much more immersive having Dolby Digital 5.1 channel sound in Windows and not on my Mac. It's just weird hearing sounds in front from sources that are behind you!
(Is there any way of getting in-game DD 5.1 sound on Mac?)

That is in the ballpark of what I'd expect given the relative state of Metal vs. D3D. Depending on the rendering features in play performance will vary but we're not at the point where Metal can be expected to match D3D consistently. There's still a lot of catching up to do and the teams on Windows are inevitably still larger...

 

[jeanlain]

Yes, and because gaming is not a top priority at Apple, drivers may ship with issues that greatly affects performance. Currently, 10.13.2 reduces performance in DIRT rally if MSAA is on, so the game on Windows can be 120% faster than the Mac version (!) at 8X MSAA. It's only 20% faster without MSAA.
[doublepost=1513237004][/doublepost]

That is in the ballpark of what I'd expect given the relative state of Metal vs. D3D. Depending on the rendering features in play performance will vary but we're not at the point where Metal can be expected to match D3D consistently. There's still a lot of catching up to do and the teams on Windows are inevitably still larger...

OTOH, Metal should have lower driver overhead than DX11, right?