stellarola Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 According to the macrumors.com forums, the game runs as well as the Windows counterpart. Not sure the system but one user got these frame rates.. CoD4 Windows - 35-60fps CoD4 Mac - 30-60fps Not too shabby, I'd say. -Stell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lardinio Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Got my copy yesterday morning! Runs just as well in OSX as it does in Windows, I have two nearly identical systems, both with x1950 gt graphics cards and I get 35 - 40 fps at 1440x900 with everything uphigh apart from AA and AF. Although the sound isn't quite as 'surround' as the pc version, apart from that it is great to finally have it ported! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonefr Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 except FSAA, everything else is fine. I mean when you enable fsaa 4x, it divides your fps by 4, and by 2 with fsaa 2X. Except {censored} fsaa optimization, everything else is perfect. A good port overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GERGÖ Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Yeah! I'm happy, now I can play one of my favourite games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Why ? Because it's an OpenGL game right from the beginning and made for Linux which is pretty close to OSX (thanks to the Doom 3 engine). But COD is a D3D game, not even out for Linux, so expect it to run like {censored} compared to its windows counterpart. Call of Duty 2 uses the quake 3 engine, which is IDtech 3 and Doom 3 is IDtech 4. Quake 3 engine is based on opengl. But it's not that they're horrible coders, it's like you said, DX. It's not easy to port one platform to another like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonefr Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Dunno where you saw that CoD2 uses Quake 3 engine but you are smoking dude. It's a home made engine. Only CoD 1 uses Quake 3 engine. And again i was right on some point : while the port isn't that bad, it's still slower. Not even talking about FSAA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecluley Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I read that this needs leopard to run. I find that kinda annoying, some people don't want to upgrade to leopard, I have a mate who wants to get CoD4 but only has Tiger - he does a lot of home recording and is loathed to upgrade in case anything doesn't work anymore. Can it be installed using pacifist on tiger? Why do all new games need leopard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Software Updater Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Its like it was with Vista... Same kind of tactics anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenameisgabe Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I just got it, running it on a hackingtosh. Runs much better on xp/vista than on leopard. Leopard : 25-55fps on multiplayer. XP/Vista: 60-90fps It also doesn't look as good on OSX. Can't say I'm not disappointed. Hardware: ASUS P5B-VM 4gb ddr2 800 ram 8800GT 512mb 2.4ghz C2Duo If anyone has any tweaks that make this game run better, please let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonefr Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 make sure you disable FSAA, else it's unplayable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenameisgabe Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 was already disabled. FPS drops to like 10-15 when in heavy action. How is it running on other builds? or actual macs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonefr Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 for me it doesn't drop under 30fps, even when heavy actions fully maxed except smoke edge (useless, you wont notice it) & fsaa. But i'm running it in 1280x1024, so maybe that's why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenameisgabe Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 What's your build look like? I'm running at 1680x1050. Using iDeneb's 10.5.5 release. Never did have much luck with osx86 and gaming, although spore runs fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonefr Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 look at my signature. The 8800 GT build I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenameisgabe Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 That's odd, we essentially have the same system except for the processor. I didn't think the game was that cpu intensive, I'm going to try overclocking to see if it makes a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarola Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 That's odd, we essentially have the same system except for the processor. I didn't think the game was that cpu intensive, I'm going to try overclocking to see if it makes a difference. Actually, after testing it, I too saw some really {censored} fps. It's night and day with the Windows version and this one. Also I cranked my CPU speed up a bit and did notice a boost in fps in OSX. It appears to be more CPU intensive in OSX than Windows. -Stell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenameisgabe Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Well, OC'ed to 2.7ghz up from 2.4 and saw an increase of about 20-25fps. Now i'm running above 40 most of the time. Hoping its a bug and they can release a patch for it, though its unlikely. Oh well, been looking for an excuse to upgrade anyways. Any suggestions for a decent build that runs vanilla? Thanks, Gabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonefr Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I guess that's why the game is fast for me. It's a shame it's so CPU intensive, i guess because the CPU does most of the Direct3D to OpenGL work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lardinio Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Overclocking my E4300 from 1.8Ghz to 3.2Ghz really helps! My X1950GT has been overclocked to XTX speeds, but that doesn't seem to make too much difference, about 4fps from base to overclocked. The cpu puts about another 15fps on, running at 1440x900 with 2xAA and everything on. It runs pretty close to my other system which has identical hardware but runs XP and used to have the same 1950gt. I have recently upgraded the graphics card to a Nvidia 9600 GSO (my first Nvidia card since the GeForce 3 in my G4 Cube) I wish this card would work in OSX as it absolutely murders the 1950gt and only cost me £55 for the XXX overclocked version which is as quick as 8800GT but has a nice black PCB (which of course makes all the difference!) One thing I have noticed though is the HDR makes the models look like they have been laminated when compaired to the XP version, but I'm sure they will tweak it with additional releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iseeutoo Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 On my HacMac spectification in signature... this works like poor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnjmarlboro Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 On my HacMac spectification in signature... this works like poor Which signature? COD4 Mac plays very very well on 1920x1200 (C2D 3 Ghz / 8800GT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tastannin Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 CoD4 SP crashes on launch (2-3 bounces then disappears) on my Hackintosh. Reinstalled. Installed 1.7 patch. BUT CoD4 MP works just great. WEIRD. Hackintosh specs are 2.5 ghz C2Q, 4GB RAM, Asus P5K Deluxe/WiFi, Sapphire ATI 3870 512MB, etc. Leopard 10.5.5. Any ideas, anyone? TIA!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenameisgabe Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 could be the video card, aren't ATI cards not fully supported? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts