mac or pc?

I have a new Mac Pro, with the D700. And the game is absolutely unplayable. Even with the settings at the lowest. Once I build more then like 10 - 20 builds the frame rate drops dramatically.

Then again, I tried it also on 2 different boxes running windows and it was only a little bit better. I just got purchase it today and I am not exactly happy.

Most likely AMD drivers poor as always.

What is your monitor(s) resolution? Are you running game though Steam?
If yes I'm recommend to try it with Steam overlay disabled or try non-Steam version.

I don't see how that is possible because I have an iMac from 2009 and PA is very playable.

Bullocks
I started building my own computer 24 years ago. I know my ****. I had of any sort. Macs are just awesome.

Linux is coming. Slowly... but ultimately it will take over.

I know it doesn't make any sense. If I put everything on total low, it will at least load. Where I get about 10 FPS. If I try to increase anything, the screen is black and shows only the mining nodes just like the HDR bug. I have HDR disabled and that doesn't affect it.

Hope they have this fixed in next build, really want to play

I've been using Linux since '96 or so. I have been hearing this forever. Linux is incredible for servers, I wouldn't consider anything else.

But for desktops, it has such a long way to go it will never get there. It's always playing catch up and doesn't have enough commercial backing.

That's the main thing. There's not enough software being developed for Linux. Particularly software primarily used by everyday people.

For me, there's no viable image editor for Linux. So I can't use it.

Not to mention the reputation Linux has... That of one for programmers and people who know code only.

I can't seriously understand what software you talking about. Usually "everyday people" use browser, video player, torrent client and music player. Sometimes they also use office software, photo viewer, IM, twitter/facebook or email client. Actually at moment ChromeOS-powered laptops have pretty high sales in US while it's only have browser in it. Those aren't popular because low price because non-advanced user can't install Windows on it.

Professional software it's different story, but most of people don't need it. So question like "why Linux not become popular" is totally related to "why Mac not become popular". It's 3 totally different OS with different philosophy and design.

Linux ecosystem don't actually need tons of rubbish freeware/shareware software like on Windows or mobile OSes when there 100 programs doing same thing bad. And I doubt "pay for everything" Mac OS X model will work here as well just because people who agree pay for cool-looking UI use Mac already.

It's all a long standing debate...

Yup. Just saying that popularity of OS isn't actually depends on software or it's quality.

*giggles* At least we already have better graphics drivers than OS X.

Let the Holy War begin! Just kidding, AMD drivers is as bad everywhere at moment, we have parity here.

heh. I've been trying my best to avoid this thread. lol

Something that is undeniable is that different operating systems are better suited for different roles. Mac is what's best for my computer's primary role.

Okay let's back to topic.

AMD drivers are crap, but you obviously should have way better performance so here is one more idea. This game don't support multi-gpu and if it's working that might cause significant performance loss.

I have completely no idea how OS X graphics stack handle Dual-GPU. On Windows/Linux only fullscreen applications can work with CrossFireX so it's just don't work for PA. Any idea if Dual-GPU works for windowed applications on OS X? Is there any way to control it?

PS: Also again. Can you please say what number of monitors you have and what resolution they have?
And yeah check game without Steam overlay and non-Steam version as well.

I've never understood this. Software for OS X isn't necessarily more expensive than its counter part for Windows. But it is a fact that OS X is way more efficient than Windows.

Also, I've never understood what Windows users should be seen if Mac users "pay for cool-looking". Are they paying for "cheap and inefficient?". Just asking.

In the end it all boils down to personal choice. I had countless PC before to switch to Mac. I built them myself and I knew very well what was inside. Always had problem. Once one passes to Mac there is very rarely a coming back. Totally an other planet.

You could say that people who pays more to get more are dumb. That's all right. So go buy a Lada and pretend is a Maserati.

When you built your own PC (with what so ever OS of your choice) you're doing the same. You pay in proportion of what you expect to obtain - well, if you're smart. So a PC that runs Windows and it's very capable cost just as much as a Mac. You have to consider also the time you put into it to design it and built it, test it, repair it, changing, it, etc... Ehj, time is the most precious thing we all have.

And my Mac saves me tons of time. That's a fact, specially in my profession.

About games, I see on Steam that more and more titles are being released for all PC platforms, where PC stands for Personal Computer. Therefore for Windows, Mac and Linus alike. And that's awesome.

Final note. On my Mac I can basically play everything at maximum details (even at 2880 x 1800 - but that's excessive and I usually turn it don't to a lower res). Even the most recent titles runs smoothly. It is only PA that runs like ****. Of course it's in Beta. And I do not think it is because the hardware of a Mac is incapable. Indeed, there is no PC with the same top notch hardware than a retina MBP for less of a price. 16 Gb ram 1600 MHz DDR3 and 500 Gb Solid State Drive aren't efficient piece of hardware? ...please... ok the video card isn't the best on the market, but it is also a notebook designed for other purposes than a play station.

Oh, by the way, OS X now is free, you get it at no cost.

Yup. My experience too (up to about minute 5). Until I discovered the amazing virtues of subsampling to 50% (aka -2). Yah it looks like total utter crap, but my fps rivals those other guys near 3 ( and sometimes above!!!) now all the way past minute 20. Oh the glory.

Not sure if my sarcasm tags were fully applied there.

In any case, I have a retina MBP and fully expected to run this game eventually in two to three monitor mode. I have a 27" thunderbolt monitor attached. And a 24" led acd that's connected most of the time. How can this game require so much more?!?!?!

Unfortunately as "most titles" you most likely mean console games that also run fairly well on 2005/2006 middle-end hardware that found inside old consoles.

In PA at moment only planet might easily have 1 million of triangles and with tons of units/effects it's even more like 2-3 millions. Yes there is many things in PA that far from efficient, but this game is much way heavier than any console title you played.

Though PA should work fairly well if you have Macbook Pro with Nvidia GT 750M so if you actually have this one make sure you use Nvidia graphics.

As you notice lot of RAM and SSD don't help with rendering and unfortunately Intel drivers for OS X are worse than their Windows/Linux versions. It's just fact and if you don't believe me you can always check those benchmarks and compare their performance on Windows and OS X:
http://unigine.com/products/heaven/download/
http://unigine.com/products/valley/download/
Just run it both times in OpenGL mode and you'll see clean picture of performance differences.

Also I guess there at least one problem that affect both Linux open source and OS X drivers. Both graphics stacks lack of GL_ARB_compatibility and as result current version of PA only use OpenGL 2.1 on Mac so it's missing number of features that can boost performance on newer hardware.

Sorry if I'm get you wrong, but...

If you have MBP with only Intel Iris Pro 5200 you obviously overestimate it's hardware capabilities. Performance of this iGPU is lower than Nvidia/AMD mobile graphics and obviously nowhere near gaming-grade desktop graphics.

Problem that @joped have is actually weird and need investigation, but for laptops with integrated graphics it's excepted.

MBPs come with a double Graphic card by default. An Intel chip for a normal use. And a more pimped Nvidia for intensive usage.

But you're right. It's still a notebook. Its points of strength may not be video games. It's designed for other purposes. Mainly showing off the Apple brand. Kidding.

Regarding the high specs requested by Planetary Annihilation, I do trust that much can be done. For instance, why render all details when the units are entirely hidden under a Strategic icon? Same with planets.

Unfortunately I'm afraid that the lag we are experiencing now a day is primarily due to the data transfer across server and clients.

It's was only true for prior years. If you check latest MBPs only $2600 model have Nvidia graphics:
http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina/
I have completely no idea why Apple did that because everybody who used Intel-only MB know it's real performance.

I guess there tons of things can be improved, but I just trying to explain why exactly there is more lag on OS X version.

There few nice optimizations that already here, but don't work on OS X due to OpenGL 2.1 usage. I'm already posted my guess why is that happen, but there wasn't any confirmation from @varrak so I can be wrong.

Bandwidth throttling do not affect client FPS. If you enable performance monitor and there is low FPS that's clearly not related to data transfer.