Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Allan

      Forum Rules   04/13/2018

      Hello folks! As some things are being fixed, we'll keep you updated. Per hour the Forum Rules don't have a dedicated "Tab", so here is the place that we have our Rules back. New Users Lounge > [READ] - InsanelyMac Forum Rules - The InsanelyMac Staff Team. 
Sign in to follow this  

Trying to get GT 220 to work at full speed

5 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hello, hackintoshers!

So I installed Mac OS X 10.8.2 ML Retail on:




nVidia GeForce GT 220

Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 2,53 Ghz


So I booted, checked About Mac, everything is okay. Videocard is recognized.

Looks like QE\CI is working, I see ripple effect while adding new widget, Menu is transparent, Mission Control animation is okay.


I downloaded GLview benchmark for Mac and for PC and had run tests.


Windows - Cube Test = ~1500 FPS (1440x900)

Mac - Cube Test = ~330 FPS (1280x800)


5 times slower? Is this okay?


It's a clean install, none kexts were used. I got it working by GraphicsEnabler=yes. I also checked NVADGH50Hal.kext for my Device ID, and yeah, it's there in info.plist (0x02a2). So no need to add my Device ID.


Just a simple question for you, guys. Should it give me the same FPS no matter what OS I use? Is this okay that QE\CI works, but mac gives me 5 times slower FPS compare to Windows? If it's not, I give up on Mac. I want 1500 FPS on Linux, Mac, Windows, Solaris, etc. I don't care what OS is this, I want my 1500 FPS!











Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

First , you can compare only same screen res FPS values. YOurs are different.

But more problem: Your screenshoot FPS for Mac shows NOT! Cube FPS Bench, its First Iron King FPS result which is much more complex = less FPS than cube.

Test again with same OpenGL bench (CUBE vs CUBE or First King vs First King).

Also test OpenGL Ext. Viewer always in Fullscreen Mode ( activate fullscreen option) - otherwise , in windowed mode you will get much lower FPS because of Vsync.


1. always test fullscreen

2. always use same Bench type


I added my 9600 GT values for CUBE + First King (not Kings, which is even more complex as King). all 1440x900 fullscreen (1280x800 windowed is only 1/2 - 1/3 of fullscreen FPS)

With cube fullscreen OS X you should reach near same FPS (1500) as Win with your GT 220.

9600 GT is much faster than GT 220, because VRAM speed (and overall speed) is slow in GT 210/220. GT 230/240 or GT 430/440, GT 630/640 is (much) faster.

Bildschirmfoto 2013-01-20 um 15.13.46.jpg

Bildschirmfoto 2013-01-20 um 15.12.15.jpg

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is awesome. I didn't knew that full screen makes such a difference.

The irony is that Mac OS now gives me better results. :thumbsup_anim:


Check this out. Also why there's no SSE2 on Mac?


Thanks, mitch_de.





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

fullscreen vs. windowed mode make much diff only on some Apps / Benches.


You can use also Furmark OpenGL bench to test. Here fullscreen vs windowed get near same fps (no vsync slowdown)






PS: SSE2 and SSE3 normally used by OS X - depends only by CPU type (and kernel). Most new cpus even can do SSE4.

Bildschirmfoto 2013-01-20 um 16.35.08.jpg

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, mitch. Still Google Chrome animation feels slowly and choppy compare to Safari. This is why I was mad, I though my vcard isn't on full acceleration.


When I add new tab, the "Add tab" button slides to the right, and it's animation is horrible. While Launchpad slides like on the butter.

Is Chrome really so bad for Mac?


Anyway, problem solved. I gotta blame Google for horrible Mac version of Chrome :3


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.