Counterstrike Source on the Macbook

Has anyone been able to play Counterstrike Source on their Macbook properly?

Cheers

 

Bootcamp?


Macs are NOT for gaming, not even with bootcamp it wont game well.....

 

Macbooks that is. Macbooks Pro should runs CS:S without a hitch. Well, even a Macbook should run CS:S acceptably, since the Source engine scales rather well, but it isn't really a game machine. I haven't tried it, but there are some videos on Youtube of Macbooks running HL2 and CS:S.

 

Yes they can run, but they are not a gaming machine, all macs in general arent.

 

You know, I'm still not sure what this means. Outside of specific boutique laptops designed specifically for gaming or something like Dell's XPS line, I'm not sure why some Macs couldn't be considered "gaming machines" as much as many other computers. I mean, clearly with the MBP and the iMac (with both have ATI X1600's, even if the X1600 in the MBP is underclocked), there are people who ARE gaming with them, and playing fairly demanding games like Prey, Fear, Oblivion, etc. without any problems (and certainly able to play stuff like HL2 and CS:S with no problems)..... so what does it really mean to say they are not a "gaming machine"?

I think the point is clear that if your primary use of the machine will be gaming, it makes sense to buy a dedicated gaming laptop, but if you're in the market for a Mac but also want to do some gaming on it, it's pretty clear that the MBP and iMac can both handle some fairly demanding games.

I just really don't know what it means to say they simply "aren't gaming machines", or how much it really matters if people can in fact get good gaming performance out of them.

And this isn't just about Macs. I'd say the same thing about other laptops that aren't specifically designed for gaming, but which are certainly capable of providing a good gaming experience anyway.

-Zadillo

 

Because they overheat way too easily, the GPU is underclocked, the games (i mean by software) doesnt run well on a macs hardware. OSX is definetly not a gaming OS, you need to shell out $90 for a copy of XP and then run bootcamp which just adds to the already overpriced Imacs.

I dont understand why you would pay $1899 for a mac with an X1600 when for $1300 you can have a PC with the same specs and an X1600 which isnt underclocked.

 

I'll agree with your first two points (although ideally Apple will work with Asus on the next revision to take care of the overheating issue, and people have overclocked the GPU). What do you mean when you say that games don't run well on the Mac hardware though? As I said before, plenty of people are running games with no performance problems on the hardware, so that isn't really an issue.

Yes, of course OS X isn't a gaming OS (although some games do run well on it).

To answer your question though, yes, obviously if you only intended to game with it and install Windows on it, it wouldn't make any sense to buy a MacBook Pro or iMac. The answer is that someone would buy it who DID want to be able to run OS X, but also have the option to buy and install Windows and run games on it. Of course, there are also other differences, but that is the general idea.

So yes, it would be nuts to spend the money on a MBP if you were just going to install Windows on it and use it for gaming. But it would not be nuts if you wanted or needed to run OS X, but also did want the ability to install Windows and run Windows games, etc. as well.

There is a huge difference between saying that a computer can't handle games and saying that it isn't the best choice for games. A MacBook Pro or iMac would not be ideal choices for someone who was going to use it primarily for gaming and primarily with Windows. But that is not the same thing as saying that you can't game with these machines, which isn't accurate (as I said, plenty of people are doing just that).

I just don't see the point in telling someone that a MBP or iMac "isn't a gaming machine" when what you mean is just that it would not be ideally suited for gaming if that was your primary use of the machine.

-Zadillo

 

Just did some research on this, sounds like CS:S doesn't run well at all on the regular MacBook (although strangely, HL2 itself seems to be able to run well). There's various speculation about what is unique about CS:S that it doesn't seem to run well (this isn't just a MacBook thing, it seems like CS:S has problems on regular PC laptops with Intel 950 graphics as well). Some people did mention that some third party maps in CS:S run much better, so it might be something special about the standard CS:S maps. It does run very well on MBP's however (seems to be able to run on mostly high settings at around 50-88 fps according to reports).

-Zadillo

 

I play both CSS and HL2, they both run on the same identical source engine. The only technical differences between the games are the textures and models they load, also the maps loaded in CSS, are much less intensive then a level in HL2,- HL2 is full of bigger levels, AI, physics objects, and more effects. Perhaps the poor performance being seen in CSS is due to the connection to the internet, or server they are playing on. If the graphic options are set the same as HL2, then I would not be so quick to blame CSS.

-I would be sure to shut off HDR lighting, as in de_dust and some other maps, it can be very abusive to the computer.

 

Yeah, someone had suggested turning off HDR, etc. but I didn't hear if that helped things any. It would seem to be a good explanation though (for why someone might notice poor performance with the IGA 950 chip with the maps like dust and office, but notice smooth performance with third party maps which didn't use those things).

-Zadillo

 

HL2 is entirely coded without HDR lighting, they later released a demo level titled The Lost Coast that showed off HDR lighting, and Episode One has HDR lighting. The original CSS levels did not have HDR lighting, but some of them- (de_dust I know of for sure) were later updated to use HDR lighting. That would be my first guess as to the differences in performance. Integrated cards, at the moment don't have any chance of running HDR- perhaps the GMA x3000 will be able to do so- even if not spectacularly.

 

Thanks everyone for your replies!