Steam for Mac: First Impressions, Windows Is Faster

[matt87_50]

whats this? one of the foremost games developers unable to get decent performance out of a mac? still, must be THEIR fault I suppose, just like it's Adobe's fault that they can't get Flash running on it...

Steve, STFU and fix your bloated, convoluted and **** OS!

also, if valve was using the openGL implementation on the PS3 I would stay as far away from their games on the PS3 as possible! (well I would anyway, who the hell would pick PS3 over PC for a valve FPS??)

from what I've heard, the openGL implementation on the PS3 is terrible (and you don't have to use it) possibly even worse than it's implementation on OSX!

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]matt87_50[/nom]Steve, STFU and fix your bloated, convoluted and **** OS![/citation]
I hope you're talking to Steve Ballmer. OSX isn't really bloated. Even if it was, that's not going to cause the performance issues you see here (else Vista would be well behind XP and to a lesser degree Win 7 in gaming performance and we know that is certainly not the case). The problem here is a poor OpenGL implementation, unoptimised drivers and/or a quick and dirty port of the game. I expect the Linux version to be similar, since the drivers aren't up to scratch either.

 

[mitch074]

Oh, the things we see in comments...

Porting DirectX to OS X. Are you out of your friggin' mind?! Game developers have enough to deal with different level of hardware support and bugs in DirectX on Windows, now you want to add a DirectX version witha different ABI? Come on! DirectX is made on Windows, for Windows and only for Windows.

OpenGL is more capable than DirectX (OpenGL is a graphics API, which can handle 2D, 2.5D, 3D, screenless rendering, client/server structures... Stuff DirectX can't do) but, since it is less used in games, drivers are generally not optimized for speed.

And on the Mac, it's even worse: OS X 10.6.3 has a performance regression compared with previous versions - and yes, graphics driver on the Mac are shipped with OS updates. They are custom-made driver versions that go through Apple before they ship.

Long story short: the performance delta is in large parts caused by outdated, unoptimized drivers.

Next: some games are made with both OpenGL and DirectX in mind. When these come out, performance between both modes on Nvidia hardware may advantage one or the other mode; it depends on how this or that feature that favours one or the other side is implemented. On the other hand, a pure DirectX game that is rewritten for OpenGL tries to fit a glove on a foot.

It may fit, but it sure ain't comfortable.

Yes, Steam for Linux wil be released (it has been known for quite a while due to leaked code), and rides on the shoulders of the OS X release. Why shouldn't it?

- Steam did away with IE for rendering: it now sports Webkit, which is platform-agnostic.
- Steam on Mac uses lots of shell scripts: running them on Linux isn't that much more difficult.
- Steam uses the OS's network stack: since Windows' stack is compatible with BSD's TCP/IP stack, and Mac uses it directly, and Linux has its own compatible port, what prevented it?

If, on top of that, OS X causes games to be ported to OpenGL, and OpenGL is tailored for any-machine-and-OS, porting a game to OS X means that supporting Linux is a few fixes away - especially since the presence of Steam will cause a few required libraries to be present.

 

[varfantomen]

[citation][nom]Jarmo[/nom]There's a thriving market for second hand macs.[/citation]

Looking at the hardware they put in macs it's already second hand the day you buy a new mac.

 

[Guest]

I can not believe how superficial you guys are!
Yes, we, the Mac users, tend to be a bit "cocky" when it comes to our machines; but that's just a reaction to the lack of the usual PC issues. Usually that feeling comes from..... not seeing a system crash or a "BSOD" in almost 2 years!!!
I never claimed that the hardware in my Mac is of the latest breed or that the variety that you get in PC world is equaled in the Mac side. If I would hope for something like this then I should be ready to accept the multitude of badly written drivers that crash the systems left,right and center.
I will never assume that my Mac will ever play the latest games like a PC plays them but yet again, I was never crazy about games so I've chosen a machine that does what I need: WORKS!!!

Guys, this infantile war of "my dog is better than your dog" will never end.
Let's just say that I am not going to be buying a Rolls-Royce and hope to win a drifting competition with it.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]notthesame[/nom]Usually that feeling comes from..... not seeing a system crash or a "BSOD" in almost 2 years!!![/citation]

I managed a kernel panic back when I used to use OSX 10.4 😀 Not exactly sure how, it was too long ago. I found I was forever getting crashes with certain applications, but OSX itself was fairly solid apart from that one incident. I've not used OSX in about 4 years though, apart from the occasional use at my university since the iMacs they have randomly lock up and shut themselves off when dual booting in Windows. The IT guys are pretty hopeless for not sorting that out yet.

[citation][nom]notthesame[/nom]If I would hope for something like this then I should be ready to accept the multitude of badly written drivers that crash the systems left,right and center.[/citation]

Allow me to pre-empt the PC fanboys in saying that:

1. "I've not had a crash or driver problem in Windows for [insert variable length of time]." and

2. "It's not Microsoft's fault if hardware manufacturers write bad drivers" (let's consider of course that most users will blame the OS when they get crashes but their friend's Mac never crashes)

On another note, bring on the Linux version!!

 

[omikron48]

Well, if you did things right, you shouldn't even have a reason to see a BSOD on Windows... ever. The last time I saw a BSOD was when I tried updating the drivers for my NIC without seeing the changelog for the BIOS update having a revision concerning the NIC. Fixed the issue by also updating the BIOS.

One way gaming can be introduced to the Mac would be to treat the platform as some kind of console. I mean, admit it, it's similar to a console in the way that the hardware/software configuration is controlled. Maybe it would make things easier if the Mac got classified as a console system when it comes to gaming.

 

[hemelskonijn]

How moronic is it to read an article that clearly describes the lack of optimization between the original DirectX version and this new OpenGL version of a game and conclude that windows is better for gaming.

Optimization is the key word here since any program optimized for a mac will run better and faster on a mac then on a comparable PC. The same thing goes for the Xbox360 VS. the PS3. I guess its just cool to hate Apple since when there was no steam there was a lot of wining because macs lacked a lot of game releases and now it wining because the games run with lower stats.

I don't use mac's at the moment and i don't use windows either i use OpenSuSE and like it a lot however where the mac has only a few games released for it there are near to none for Linux. Opening the mac this way makes people think about using OpenGL and if it runs on OpenGL it can be ported to Linux. Platform depending software has never been good for the consumer since it only limits choice, you don't have to use a mac to be able to see that and your an idiot for complaining about the framerates of a game you don't own on a platform you don't own.

 

[cryogenic]

[citation][nom]hemelskonijn[/nom]How moronic is it to read an article that clearly describes the lack of optimization between the original DirectX version and this new OpenGL version of a game and conclude that windows is better for gaming.Optimization is the key word here since any program optimized for a mac will run better and faster on a mac then on a comparable PC. The same thing goes for the Xbox360 VS. the PS3. I guess its just cool to hate Apple since when there was no steam there was a lot of wining because macs lacked a lot of game releases and now it wining because the games run with lower stats.I don't use mac's at the moment and i don't use windows either i use OpenSuSE and like it a lot however where the mac has only a few games released for it there are near to none for Linux. Opening the mac this way makes people think about using OpenGL and if it runs on OpenGL it can be ported to Linux. Platform depending software has never been good for the consumer since it only limits choice, you don't have to use a mac to be able to see that and your an idiot for complaining about the framerates of a game you don't own on a platform you don't own.[/citation]


Oh really?

How come Starcraft II, runs better on the PC despite Blizzard's efforts to optimize it, and Blizzard is a company that that made Mac games for a long time.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24630623229&sid=5000

We are aware that SC2 is running much faster under Windows. This is expected because MacOSX is lacking graphic features and the drivers are not as optimized. That said, we will do everything possible to optimize the game.

So, MacOSX, lacking features and not as optimized, there you have it, please contradict Blizzard themselves, if you can put so much weight as them behind your words!

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]Some times being right can make one feel good. Just saying I told you so just doesn't quite cut it but perhaps game developers NEED to revisit the days ware DX wasn't the standard yet when Glide and openGl were still common for high end titles. The games won't be as appealing but having something that works as intended as well better on lower end specs would make gaming enjoyable under OSX and Linux with out bloating. For me gaming will remain under Windows since I prefer being able to play vintage games as well modern with out needing emulation.[/citation]

LOL @ openGL

 

[Guest]

This is a Dark day for computer games. Not only will games be dragged down to the underpowered Macs (that spot hardware at least one generation behind)

but we will also have to wait to be released there first. Guess steam and the game industry are shooting the hardware guys down

why bother buying the latest corei7 when all games have highest spec a core2duo for example why buy nvidia 480 when you can play the latest title with a 9600

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]Porting DirectX to OS X. Are you out of your friggin' mind?! Game developers have enough to deal with different level of hardware support and bugs in DirectX on Windows, now you want to add a DirectX version witha different ABI?[/citation]
I think it was a rhetorical statement.
You dont seriously think that anyone at MS is going to put any time or effort into helping Mac do anything in the gaming field?
Even if they could, as you say, the whole gaming industry would have to work day and night to produce a product for a minority market.
Same with graphics drivers, the effort to give the same performance is overly difficult for the market size.
Face it, if a graphics card is 2% slower than its rival then the hardcore gaming fraternity mercilessly tear the slower card to bits, so exactly how is the same hardcore gamer supposed to react when he is only able to use a jerry-rigged DirectX to OpenGL port and loses between 40% to 60% performance.

Quite simply Mac owners should just be grateful that they can get games at all, if they really wanted to play games properly they should have bought a PC.

 

[Sorax]

It's unclear whether Valve has ported Portal from Windows to OS X or recoded and optimized.

This is a false dichotomy. Moving software from one platform to another is "porting", which always requires some amount of recoding. And there is nothing inherently deficient about the process.

Valve did a commendable job on their first foray with Mac. I expect there to be continual improvement, just like there is on Windows. But Mac is an insular platform, and this will likely limit what Valve can do.

 

[cbrei10213]

[citation][nom]xyz001[/nom]I have to remind everyone on this board one more time that an apple laptop, for example, is NOT more expensive than a similar spec'ed Think Pad or Sony Vaio. It is actually often cheaper with better specs.The mac books are VERY good value for money, strictly in terms of specs, for a thin-light laptop. And ironically, especially because of the relatively powerful graphics cards in the mac books, compared to what you find in vaios or think pads.On top of this, they are proabably the most well designed and well manufactured laptops out there. So this is not about paying for an apple logo. Apple laptops (and even the desktops, when compared to similar spec'ed dells) ARE competitive in terms of price/spec. They are actually cheaper. And you get an exeptional product design and build quality on top of that for free. It seems no one on these board actually understood this...If you want to compare prices/specs, just go to sony.com or lenovo or even dell, and try to spec a machine comparable to the mac.[/citation]


Last time I tried to do somthing like this the sony, or dell, or w/e manufacturer you wish to insert was around the same price, or more expensive. That being said, their hardware wasnt 2 years old.

 

[cbrei10213]

Actually I did it just now. I started with a Mac Pro, which uses Xenon processors, who knows why. No PC I can get on dell will have it so I went to I Mac. Starting at the cheapest I have Core 2 Duo. 3.06ghz. on a computer starting at 1200. I left it as is.

$1200 iMac
core 2 Duo 3.06GHZ
4GB ram
500GB drive
9400m graphics

Now the dell (I looked for the $1200 price tag, but the $1100 was plenty for the point.)
$1100 Dell

i7-920 2.66ghz
8GB ram
750GB drive
geForce 310

And with the extra hundred bucks I can do things like. Upgrade graphics card, ram, monitor, hard drive size, even add a second or third, better or second cd/dvd drive, better speakers, upgraded sound card, fancy keyboard, etc. I could even manage to do 2 or 3 of these things depending on the ones i chose.

Anyway, im sure you get the point

 

[Jarmo]

Actually the performance numbers are about what I'd expect from a good port. I wouldn't blame Valve for the gap. The graphics driver optimization is nonexistent in the Apple land, the drivers pretty much work but that's it. As long as the system doesn't crash, everybody's happy enough. No ATI-nVidia competition.

There's never been a 3D game that'd run better on a mac and that's no coinsidence.
Poor drivers are the main thing, DX to OpenGL is another, platform to platform is yet another.
Normally the par is about 50% of the FPS of the PC version, above that is well ported.

And I still like Macs better. I have an iMac and a Phenom PC, the mac is just so much enjoyable to use.
It's like comparing two women, even if both have pretty much the same organs and even if the other one has more horsepower and comes in cheaper, I still prefer the smooth and pretty one. Call me crazy.

 

[cbrei10213]

[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]Did I just not post on page 3 that this site is full of MS trolls who are playing in their mom's basement, probably on a Dell they got for their birthday.[/citation]
You did say that, you said alot of things. But really man, I think your just angry. Because we all know for a fact that you cannot back that up.

 

[omikron48]

[citation][nom]Jarmo[/nom]Call me crazy.[/citation]

You're crazy.

If you're gonna use women, the point of comparison would be someone who is expensive and looks good but is only capable of limited housework, to someone who is practical, not necessarily ugly, but can do any housework imaginable.

I'd rather pick the second one.

 

[cbrei10213]

Id rather not have to pay for my woman...

 

[hemelskonijn]

Cryogenic:

How the hell did you manage to take my post criticize it and then come to the same conclusion?, Maybe you forget to read the complete post but i thought it would be pretty clear that the key note was that optimization (or the lack thereof) is the reason the mac wont out preform in the gaming department (or come close to it). However if some one where to write a game from floor to ceiling for the mac (read optimizes for the mac and works with the limitations and perks of the mac as a platform) things will be better. No one can expect a ported game to preform just as well as the original (specially when switching from DirectX to OpenGL or vice versa) but that is besides the point since a PC gamer wont buy a mac to game on any way.

Blizzard did a hell of a good job in the past porting games and i believe they will do all in their power to support the mac as a platform the best they can but (and this is the big but) the games are still ports. Since i did not get the chance to play starcraft II on either mac or PC (i don't have a mac and don't run windows)i cant say any thing about starcraft II for the mac.

So this joyful news about steam for mac and the possible ports that are coming is good for those who wish to play on the mac but in no way bad news. And i simply cant grasp all the negative comments from people who don't own a mac wont own a mac and never will own a mac.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]cbrei10213[/nom]Actually I did it just now. I started with a Mac Pro, which uses Xenon processors, who knows why. No PC I can get on dell will have it so I went to I Mac. Starting at the cheapest I have Core 2 Duo. 3.06ghz. on a computer starting at 1200. I left it as is.$1200 iMaccore 2 Duo 3.06GHZ4GB ram500GB drive9400m graphicsNow the dell (I looked for the $1200 price tag, but the $1100 was plenty for the point.)$1100 Delli7-920 2.66ghz8GB ram750GB drivegeForce 310And with the extra hundred bucks I can do things like. Upgrade graphics card, ram, monitor, hard drive size, even add a second or third, better or second cd/dvd drive, better speakers, upgraded sound card, fancy keyboard, etc. I could even manage to do 2 or 3 of these things depending on the ones i chose.Anyway, im sure you get the point[/citation]
Someone went to the trouble of marking this dude down -1 for using actual facts to prove that a lesser spec'd Mac costs more than a branded PC. Well done, very mature, obviously an Apple fan who cannot bear to be proven wrong and has to resort to childish name-calling or obviously false statements of superiority that cannot be supported by any facts.

If any Apple fan can show me, with actual links to actual websites from Sony and Apple, a comparative laptop build where both have the same CPU, same gaming graphics card, same size screen, same HDD, same optical drive - but the Mac costs the same or lesds I will buy both of them for you.

No? Didn't think so.

This test has already been done to death a hundred times before by many people including myself. I got the latest Sony with a Core i7, better graphics, double the ram, bigger HDD, same size screen but with higher res and it came in over $300 cheaper.

I have cancelled out your -1 because whoever did it is just a dick. Period.

I am not saying Macs dont have a place in the world, they do, a very important place, but that place is not one of cost-effectiveness or apparently gaming, so dont try and say that any PC is more expensive than a comparatively spec'd Mac because you will just be wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[mindless728]

@back_by_demand, i have a Compal NBLB2 (specs below), it was $1400, the mac version of this is 2x the price and it tops off at 1680x1050 not 1920x1080 (note you cannot get the i7-720QM, the one they use is the dual core i7-620M)

Laptop 2:
Windows 7 x64
Arch Linux
Compal NBLB2
Intel Core i7-720QM
8GB(2x4GB) DDR3-1333
Radeon mobility HD5650
WD 640GB HDD
15.6\\\" 1920x1080

 

[mx348]

Yawn.... Ok, if your going to run a comparison like this, why not at least match the configurations of the two machine.

Not really trying defending the MAC but come on, this is like comparing a Jetta to a Porshe.

Obviously this is a laptop against a desktop system.
If you want to compare at least try it against a MAC Pro desktop with the same video card.

I would like to see more *real* data than this comparison of basically 2 opposite machines.

 

[hemelskonijn]

back_by_demand:

I gave the -1 because there is no correct way to compare a mac to a pc.
They are two completely different machines and they both have their place in this world. I drive a Vespa motor (and love it) and though i cant transport as much as any car in the same price range and cant really dive it in bad whether i still prefer any motorcycle over a car and since i like the comfort and looks of the Vespa i bought it.

They both are means of transportation and they both have an internal combustion engine and that is where the similarity's stop. You could argue the lack of space the maintenance costs and the inability to drive in heavy rain snow or for that matter in winter in general. Still there is no possible way to compare a car to my vespa. This stretches way further since there are many types of cars in example vans minivans off-roads and sports-cars and many many more they all have their use but up to now no one has argued strongly against my overpriced no good motorcycle by doing a price comparison.

Also if you look at it that way you might conclude that the operating system on a mac computer covers the 300 "missing" dollars or even more. bringing the price down a bit but still not to the same possibility's as one would have on the windows PC platform. If you accept that i can link you far more expensive systems with even lower spec's that include an operating system that is not made by microsoft or i could link you to systems way faster and way more stable then any x86 compatible system that provide the possibility to upgrade using "standard" x86 graphics cards and clock by clock cost the same or about the same as a x86 machine. comparing them for a specific task is easy and no problem but comparing them as a platform is impossible.

 

[cbrei10213]

Give me a few minutes. I wanted to do 2 similar systems before hand but I couldent find a dell with hardware that old. Wll I could but they cost 500 bucks, so then I went for the price comparisono. Hardware not matching is a horrible arguement when the cheaper unit has newer better and more powerfull hardware. I'll do that with the Mac Pro right now. But remember, I cant find any PC from another manufacturer with the Xenon processors, (if i do tho Ill be sure to post it) that again are for whatever reason in the Mac Pro. But as I said Ill brb with the facts. Ohh abnd it wasnt laptop vs desktop. It was IMac vs Studio XPS. Although the Imac is really a laptop sold as a desktop. They dont have anything else besides the Mac Pro. They really dont have much to offer at all. Anyway, Ill be back with all the details and facts you want. Maybe ill even cover laptops.

heres some links to hold you over

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB950LL/A?mco=MTM3NDc2NDc

http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops/desktop-studio-xps-9000/pd.aspx?refid=desktop-studio-xps-9000&s=dhs&cs=19&~oid=us~en~29~performance-deals_anav_03~~