Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is Warcraft 3 more CPU-bound or video bound? I actually booted the War 3 demo on my G3/366 MHz with a 6 MB video card (LOL) and was stunned to see it even hit the 12 FPS (Frames-Per-Second) mark; everything on low.

Now, is the VRAM lacking majorly here or my 366 MHz G3 processor? I'm going to test it on a Rage 128 16 MB soon to see the difference, but would like pre-feedback.

Once I run it off the Rage 128 16 MB - what's going to improve: The speed; or, the graphics look better, no speed increase. Or both?

Sorry, I know this sounds confusing. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
A faster graphics card will increase either speed or quality, or both, depending on what your settings are....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Most Blizz titles have alot to do with the speed of CPU as well...but the card will help most definatley.

Also make sure you download the latest updates..especially if your running it on Jag.
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
What are the latest ATI drivers for the Rage 128? The October ones?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
I found with WarCraft 3 that while it would start up on my iBook (Rage 128 8MB), it would only run for a few minutes before freezing up, and if it did continue to run it was painfully unresponsive.

CPU power helps, but a 16MB video card lets it run with a degree of playability.

Luckily my GF has an iMac with a 32Mb GeForce card.

Why not go for the Radeon 7000 PCI card lars? Much better than the Rage 128 16Mb Card is so many ways. You can even enable Quartz Extreme on it (with a third paty hack) which you can;t do with a Rage 16MB Card.

--PB
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PosterBoy:
I found with WarCraft 3 that while it would start up on my iBook (Rage 128 8MB), it would only run for a few minutes before freezing up, and if it did continue to run it was painfully unresponsive.

CPU power helps, but a 16MB video card lets it run with a degree of playability.

Luckily my GF has an iMac with a 32Mb GeForce card.

Why not go for the Radeon 7000 PCI card lars? Much better than the Rage 128 16Mb Card is so many ways. You can even enable Quartz Extreme on it (with a third paty hack) which you can;t do with a Rage 16MB Card.

--PB
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would buy a Radeon 7000, but $200 for a outdated Mac seems tight to me. However, I may do it anyway until I get a new Mac. I assume adding a Radeon 7000 32 MB increases re-sell value of the G3 by a good amount. Hmm, QE... I like that... even a better reason to get one... choices, choices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
I would recommend a minimum of a 32MB card for WC 3 on any machine. 16 is fine, if you reduce some detail, but 32 would be my minimum recommendation.

:cool:
 

·
Mac Guru
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Does anyone have any real-hard FPS records of Warcraft 3 on a G3/350-400/16 MB VRAM/256 + RAM?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Warcraft 3 was not very impressive on my stock G4/450 (640MB RAM). I managed to find a Mac-flashable PC Radeon 8500 and the game was much better. I could actually get to at least medium detailing and have good performance. But I still would need better CPU and bus performance (particularly AGP 4x) to get any better detail.

Short answer: Warcraft 3 needs a beefy CPU and graphics card.

- Martin.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top