Jump to content


Shadow of Mordor Benchmark Videos

Benchmark

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Jan

Jan

    Legendary

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 823 posts
  • Steam Name:Jan
  • Steam ID:janfeld
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 07 August 2015 - 03:29 AM

A quick update on Shadow of Mordor running on my retro Mac Pro with a GTX 970: It's running well and stable, no crashes so far (been playing approx. 3 hours). Feral automatically set most settings to "High", some "Medium" at 1080p. With VSync off it's running smooth (somewhere between 30 and 60 fps), if you turn on VSync and cap the frame rate at 60 fps, it's still running well, but not smooth enough for my taste. I think I will try "High" settings with VSync at 30 fps (basically the PS4 version) next to see the difference. Fun game. :)

P.S. I'm not sure if I would want to play Shadow of Mordor on any MacBook (be it Air or Pro) or any iMac under a GTX 680M/780M class graphics card. Feral did a hell of a job optimizing this game for OS X, but it's the most hardware intensive Mac game to date and clearly aimed at high-end iMacs and Mac Pros.
Feral Account: Jan

MacBook 12" with Retina Display (Early 2015)
Core M 1,2 GHz | 8 GB RAM | 512 GB Flash
Intel HD5300 1536 MB VRAM
macOS Sierra

Now playing: Mad Max, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Ultra Street Fighter II, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

#22 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8087 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 07 August 2015 - 07:54 AM

View Postozzy, on 06 August 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

Has anyone tried this yet on the nVidia 650M?  In particular, I have a mid-2012 Retina MBP with the 1 GB 650M video card that shows right at the minimum requirements, but I'm not sure how it will really run.
Just tried, and the result aren't really encouraging: even on lowest settings at 1192x720, the benchmarks average at 20 fps…

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#23 Wumpus

Wumpus

    MacGameCast Host

  • IMG Writers
  • 1472 posts
  • Steam Name:the_great_wumpus
  • Location:Indieland: Bastion & Lone Survivor.

Posted 09 August 2015 - 03:27 AM

View Postozzy, on 06 August 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

Has anyone tried this yet on the nVidia 650M?  In particular, I have a mid-2012 Retina MBP with the 1 GB 650M video card that shows right at the minimum requirements, but I'm not sure how it will really run.

No, but I did try it on my 5 year old iMac with a 5750 1GB card. It got 9fps on lowest possible settings :P

I imagine you'd get 20 or 30 depending on your settings? I don't know what you find acceptable..but Steam has a refund policy now remember. So you can easily buy it, test performance, then keep it or return at your discretion.
Macgamecast.com - Mac news, reviews and more!
IMG Reviews, Previews & Features
MGC Podcast Host. (Want to hear something discussed or join the fun? Let me know.)
Subscribe to the Podcast (iTunes)

27" iMac, Core i5 Quad 2.8Ghz, 8GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD5750 1GB, 1TB Hard Drive

#24 johntravers

johntravers

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 298 posts

Posted 10 October 2015 - 03:23 AM

just bought it on a whim, not sure how well it will run on my mac, and its a big download eek

do people think i should download it in bootcamp or OS X, i really don't want to download it in both.

I'm on a 2011 iMac 27" 3.1ghz with AMD 6970M, so i am making the minimum requirements graphics card wise and almost the recommended on processor, but its one of the processors that feral don't support. however the OP seems to be doing okay on a worse one.


what would you do? mac or pc?

actually just realised the OP's video isn't actually with the machine listed in his specs, which is a bit misleading. guess ill try it on pc and keep fingers crossed.
iMac 2011 27" 3.2ghz and 1 gb 6970m

#25 spaceman

spaceman

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:00 AM

View PostJanichsan, on 07 August 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

Just tried, and the result aren't really encouraging: even on lowest settings at 1192x720, the benchmarks average at 20 fps…

Got the game downloaded (it's huge!) and played around for a while. I have mid 2012 MBP with Nvidia 650M 1GB card (16 GB, SSD, Yosemite 10.10.5, 2.3 Ghz).

The performance was strange. The opening sequence with some real action run smoothly. When the game actually started, it was laggy in low settings at fullscreen. Probably something to do with retina resolutions - when I changed the game to run on a windowed mode, I could pump the settings up to medium (textures, shadows, etc.) and it seemed to run smoothly.

Need to play this (great!) game more and see what settings would be perfect for that machine.

#26 Mr Pink

Mr Pink

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:41 PM

I only managed to get an average of 13FPS on my late 2013 MacBook Pro with the 2GB GeForce GT 750M.
That was with 2880x1800 resolution and Feral's recommended settings.

#27 macdude22

macdude22

    Like, totally awesome.

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2041 posts
  • Steam Name:Rakden
  • Location:Iowa
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 17 November 2015 - 03:02 PM

2880x1800 is a lot of pixels.
IMG Discord Server | http://raptr.com/rakden | http://www.trueachie....com/Rakden.htm
Enterprise (MacPro 3,1): 8 Xeon Cores @ 2.8 GHz || 14 GB RAM || Radeon 4870 || 480GB Crucial M500 + 2TB WD Black (Fusion Drive) || 144hz Asus Mon
Defiant (MacBookPro 9,1): Core i7 @ 2.3ghz || 8GB RAM || nVidia GT 650M 512MB || 512GB Toshiba SSD

#28 Mr Pink

Mr Pink

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 05:14 PM

I don't know yet which resolution will deliver the best experience on my Mac.
I'll have to try 1920x1200 or 1680x1050, once I find time.
The game looks amazing in full Retina solution, but of course it's unplayable.

#29 spaceman

spaceman

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 18 November 2015 - 06:36 AM

View Postspaceman, on 17 November 2015 - 01:00 AM, said:

Got the game downloaded (it's huge!) and played around for a while. I have mid 2012 MBP with Nvidia 650M 1GB card (16 GB, SSD, Yosemite 10.10.5, 2.3 Ghz).

The performance was strange. The opening sequence with some real action run smoothly. When the game actually started, it was laggy in low settings at fullscreen. Probably something to do with retina resolutions - when I changed the game to run on a windowed mode, I could pump the settings up to medium (textures, shadows, etc.) and it seemed to run smoothly.

Need to play this (great!) game more and see what settings would be perfect for that machine.

Ok, an update: these settings work well:
Windowed mode (important!)
Lowest resolution (720p)
All other settings can be set to medium. It runs smoothly and looks good.

Need to play more to see if I can find settings to play it in full screen mode.

@Mr. Pink, those resolutions are really heavy to run. But I think you can get good performance with lower resolutions.

#30 ozzy

ozzy

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • Steam Name:ozzy
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:09 PM

View Postspaceman, on 18 November 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

Ok, an update: these settings work well:
Windowed mode (important!)
Lowest resolution (720p)
All other settings can be set to medium. It runs smoothly and looks good.

Need to play more to see if I can find settings to play it in full screen mode.

@Mr. Pink, those resolutions are really heavy to run. But I think you can get good performance with lower resolutions.

So I finally got this game now that I have an eGPU.  Had some interesting challenges - it seems to run pretty poorly on the nVidia web driver with some pretty buggy drawing (which is necessary for the 1070 unfortunately).  There's a whole bunch of lines and distortion in the background.  And the benchmark doesn't run too well at 1440p Ultra, although the game itself runs ok at those settings.  I then checked it on my 650m and saw the same graphical distortions with the nVidia web driver and got around 15 FPS in the benchmark at Low and 1680x1050.  Switching to the OS X standard driver for the 650m got me a much better looking image and about 25-28FPS at Low and 1680x1050.  Very strange.

Might submit a bug report to Feral about the nVidia web driver (it's the only game I've ever had a problem with it on), but doubt they will do much given it's not officially supported.

#31 ozzy

ozzy

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • Steam Name:ozzy
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:30 PM

Here's a screenshot of what the distortion looks like.  Submitted a report with Feral - let's see if they have any suggestions.

EDIT: Can't seem to figure out how to attach an image...

#32 henryfakesmile

henryfakesmile

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Steam Name:henryfakesmile
  • Steam ID:henrycc265
  • Location:Hong Kong

Posted 16 May 2017 - 03:16 AM

View Postspaceman, on 18 November 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

Ok, an update: these settings work well:
Windowed mode (important!)
Lowest resolution (720p)
All other settings can be set to medium. It runs smoothly and looks good.

Need to play more to see if I can find settings to play it in full screen mode.

@Mr. Pink, those resolutions are really heavy to run. But I think you can get good performance with lower resolutions.

lol i am not gonna compromise any graphical quality when gaming on my mac, all settings to ultra as usual

#33 ozzy

ozzy

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • Steam Name:ozzy
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 17 May 2017 - 08:08 PM

I submitted a bug report with Feral and nVidia.  Feral said they couldn't help as it wasn't supported (not surprising).  The problems are much smaller with 10.12.5 and the new nVidia drivers that came out yesterday.  It's not as distracting - still a problem but doens't take over the whole screen.  The problem is the bee hives where each bee flying around it turns into a massive polygon so with hundreds of them flying they take over the screen.

The weird thing now is the performance.  I ran the benchmark a bunch of times, with settings from Low-Ultra, and resolutions from 720p to 1440p and it didn't really matter.  On Low and 720p it was an average of 23 FPS, on Ultra and 1440p it was 19 FPS.  I downloaded it in bootcamp and on Ultra and 1440p it gets 59 FPS and doesn't have the graphical glitch so I'm playing it in Windows now.

#34 UmarOMC1

UmarOMC1

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1434 posts
  • Location:NYC

Posted 18 May 2017 - 12:18 AM

I'm finally enjoying this game. 1. I knew I was going to have to use a controller for all the controls but 2. this game was even taxing the GTX970 I had (or was the GTX680 the last time I tried this game?). Now, with the 1070, it (and most games, IMO) probably plays maybe as well as it would in Windows with a GTX680, which is pretty darned smooth. Yes, I see the few graphical glitches—the bees look like cheap origami, but I'm finding it more than bearable too.
macOS 10.13.x/Windows 7 Pro/2009 MacPro 4,1 Xeon W3580 3.33GHz/16GB RAM/EVGA GTX1070 8GB

#35 jeannot

jeannot

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 11:57 AM

This is a game that should greatly benefit from a port to Metal, since Feral had to use workarounds fort the lack of compute shaders in OS X OpenGL. They couldn't use Metal since it lacked tessellation shaders back then.

#36 jeannot

jeannot

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 23 May 2017 - 12:11 AM

View Postozzy, on 17 May 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

The weird thing now is the performance.  I ran the benchmark a bunch of times, with settings from Low-Ultra, and resolutions from 720p to 1440p and it didn't really matter.  On Low and 720p it was an average of 23 FPS, on Ultra and 1440p it was 19 FPS.
That tells the game is limited by the CPU power and not the GPU, or possibly some synchronisation issues between the two. Because higher resolution does not imply more CPU work. This is typical of Mac ports that are impacted by poorly optimised OpenGL and drivers and have to implement workarounds for functions that have no equivalent to directX.
All types of issues that Metal should fix. Hopefully, Feral is converting already released games if performance is problematic, though I'd understand if it was not their top priority.

#37 UmarOMC1

UmarOMC1

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1434 posts
  • Location:NYC

Posted 30 September 2017 - 01:28 AM

View PostUmarOMC1, on 18 May 2017 - 12:18 AM, said:

I'm finally enjoying this game. 1. I knew I was going to have to use a controller for all the controls but 2. this game was even taxing the GTX970 I had (or was the GTX680 the last time I tried this game?). Now, with the 1070, it (and most games, IMO) probably plays maybe as well as it would in Windows with a GTX680, which is pretty darned smooth. Yes, I see the few graphical glitches—the bees look like cheap origami, but I'm finding it more than bearable too.
Updated to macOS 10.13, NVIDIA released their updated Web Drivers, graphical glitches, gone! :w00t:
macOS 10.13.x/Windows 7 Pro/2009 MacPro 4,1 Xeon W3580 3.33GHz/16GB RAM/EVGA GTX1070 8GB





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Benchmark