SC2 Mac OSX vs Bootcamp

On August 09 2010 17:13 stafu wrote:
Apart from the performance benefits of running via Windows, the most important thing for me is the mouse input! It's an absolute joke on OS X—which I love as a general purpose/work OS, btw, it's just not built for gaming. Mouse input is far better in Windows.

On August 09 2010 19:17 phl0w wrote:
Esperanto, it's got something to do with Apple's and Nvidia's subpar drivers for OS X, that and some technical blah I don't know much about Something with precompiled shaders that Mac OS X has trouble processing...
Aaanyway, what's the word on which Windows to use, XP or 7(32/64? Ultimate)?

SC2 runs badly on 2 gb RAM even though it's listed as a recommended setting. Having more than 3 gb RAM is a problem with a 32-bit OS

On August 09 2010 19:22 Lysenko wrote:
I have noticed that lowering the screen resolution has been a huge help for performance on both my Macbook Pro with a 9600M and my Mac Pro with an 8600GT. Both are running on High at less than 1/2 screen resolution, but it's more than enough res to play and it looks good and runs smoothly.

On March 19 2011 10:34 Crushgroove wrote:
@ hdkhang:

You are correct on the VRAM allocating differences between directX and OpenGL... however, some things in your post I very much disagree with. To say that SC2 will never achieve parity cross platform is a ridiculous thing to say. My SC2 in MacOSX runs at over 80FPS on extreme/ultra in native 1440x2560 resolution without using anything close to what my system is capable of. In fact, I do this while streaming, running general apps and iTunes on a second monitor, and videochatting on skype without any kind of system lag or hesitation whatsoever.

Now, in Windows, I run SC2 and it runs..... the same?

My point is, that after a certain threshold, SC2 cannot be run any better. Therefore, if your hardware is such that both OS's support SC2 up to that threshold... then for all intents and purposes there is parity, because SC2's performance is identical.

You are right, cheaper systems will experience better operating of SC2 in the windows environment, because of the way that DirectX uses VRAM and other things, but if someone was asking you which would be a better os to run, say, diablo 2 in... I'm sure you'd say it doesn't matter. The same is true with SC2 when your hardware doesn't suck.

Specs: Mac Pro 12 core (Two 6 core 3.33ghz Intel), 32GB 1333 RAM, ATI Radeon 5870x2, Four 2TB HDs, 256MB SSD, blu-ray burner, Apple superdrive, two 27" apple cinema displays.

EDIT: As an appendage, OpenGL has much more robust and developed features available to it that bring it close to DirectX in terms of features and capability. Apple does not have these versions of OpenGL installed by default in OSX. Even in these higher versions of OpenGL, however, textures still take up more VRAM.

On March 19 2011 13:18 JesusNeverGotLaid wrote:





Holy fucking shit, what do you use that computer for? From what I know, that setup costs like over 9000 dollars literally.

Making that with the part would cost like over 9000 dollars and with the mac price jump it would be like over 20000 dollars, wtf???
So rich, bro.

On March 19 2011 10:34 Crushgroove wrote:
@ hdkhang:

You are correct on the VRAM allocating differences between directX and OpenGL... however, some things in your post I very much disagree with. To say that SC2 will never achieve parity cross platform is a ridiculous thing to say. My SC2 in MacOSX runs at over 80FPS on extreme/ultra in native 1440x2560 resolution without using anything close to what my system is capable of. In fact, I do this while streaming, running general apps and iTunes on a second monitor, and videochatting on skype without any kind of system lag or hesitation whatsoever.

Now, in Windows, I run SC2 and it runs..... the same?

My point is, that after a certain threshold, SC2 cannot be run any better. Therefore, if your hardware is such that both OS's support SC2 up to that threshold... then for all intents and purposes there is parity, because SC2's performance is identical.

You are right, cheaper systems will experience better operating of SC2 in the windows environment, because of the way that DirectX uses VRAM and other things, but if someone was asking you which would be a better os to run, say, diablo 2 in... I'm sure you'd say it doesn't matter. The same is true with SC2 when your hardware doesn't suck.

Specs: Mac Pro 12 core (Two 6 core 3.33ghz Intel), 32GB 1333 RAM, ATI Radeon 5870x2, Four 2TB HDs, 256MB SSD, blu-ray burner, Apple superdrive, two 27" apple cinema displays.

EDIT: As an appendage, OpenGL has much more robust and developed features available to it that bring it close to DirectX in terms of features and capability. Apple does not have these versions of OpenGL installed by default in OSX. Even in these higher versions of OpenGL, however, textures still take up more VRAM.