New Quake for OS X released!

  • Posted: 25 June 2001 01:31 PM #16

    Well, after digging on the PeeCee guy’s interests, i figured i oughtta pipe in. 

    Ya see, i have what you’d call “the low-end new g4”  good ol’ 466.  I use a nvidia geforce2 agp card on it, and have 384 megs of ram on it.

    So, here’s some OSX Framerates for ya…

    the enviroment had only q3 running, for posterity and accuracy.

    At “everything turned up all the way” in 800x640 i get 28 fps on timedemo
    at everything on low quality in 640x480 i get 36 fps
    at everything turned up all the way no sound i get 77 fps
    at everything on low quality no sound i get 86 fps

    with the computer turned off and me doing something productive, i get 0 fps… i’ll have to do something about that.

    so.. for PC folks, mebbe go out and buy the cheapest itineration of the newest models and see if you perform equally with the’out of the box’ hardware configuration (ok ok .. add some ram, jeeze!) and see where you are.


    p.s.  i forgot to mention that the load times beat the pants off of any pc i’ve seen.  the altivec (if that’s the result) enhancements are _VERY_ noticeable!
    _________________
    The world’s dumbest g4 and newton user.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: esworp on 2001-06-25 16:33 ]</font>

    Signature

    The world’s dumbest g4 and newton user.

         
  • Posted: 25 June 2001 01:52 PM #17

    You should reload Quake 1.29f-2 for OS X.  The sound bug has reportedly been fixed.

    Signature

    Signatures are for geeks…. I’m a geek.

         
  • Posted: 25 June 2001 09:11 PM #18

    On 2001-06-25 16:52, Retro wrote:
    You should reload Quake 1.29f-2 for OS X.  The sound bug has reportedly been fixed.

    after updating to 1.29f-2, i saw the following results…

    800x640 max detail 32 fps
    640x480 min detail 44 fps

    someone fill me in… is this at all comparable to a new-yet-bottom-of-the-line peecee? 

    Signature

    The world’s dumbest g4 and newton user.

         
  • Posted: 26 June 2001 06:06 AM #19

    Not really.  Sadly, Macs are lacking in the frame rate department.  The PC market for vid cards is so saturated that they basically have to put a really good card in every machine to sell them.  Their good cards are roughly equivalent to our very good cards.

    Your fps are more than adequate though.  I’ve played for over a year competitively at quake, never sustaining anything like your fps, and I was still able to kick some bootay.

    Signature

    Signatures are for geeks…. I’m a geek.

         
  • Posted: 26 June 2001 09:08 AM #20

    Retro how do I get a star like you have by your name?

    Signature

    Windows sucks.

         
  • Posted: 26 June 2001 09:28 AM #21

    On 2001-06-26 12:08, Alfonzo wrote:
    Retro how do I get a star like you have by your name?

    You are almost there Alfonzo.  Post 50 times and you are golden.  Check out the FAQ, we can rack up a lot of stars!

    Signature

    Signatures are for geeks…. I’m a geek.

         
  • Posted: 26 June 2001 10:36 AM #22

    Ooooohhhhh, I see.  That is cool.  I didn’t know this board did that.  Thanks for your help.

    Signature

    Windows sucks.

         
  • Posted: 27 June 2001 07:35 AM #23

    My PC Specs:
    P3 - 800
    196 Mb RAM
    Voodoo 3 - 3000

    FPS:
    120 @ 800x600
    70 @ 1024x768

    Then again…I have some massive cooling on my Voodoo and its overclocked pretty good.

    Quake 3 tip: Try playing with crosshairs off…you learn to shoot better in the long run.

    Signature

    Growing old is mandatory;
    Growing up is optional.