How is the Mac version?

  • 55 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by produceman (98 posts) -

I was thinking about ordering the low tier Imac, but before I choose that over a windows machine I need to know how this game works. I know thier were frame rate issues in the beta, are they taken care of? Are there any other problems?

#2 Posted by produceman (98 posts) -

bump

#3 Posted by norenewalfee (108 posts) -

I am playing it on my 2011 MBP 13" and it runs ok in native res with details set to low/medium. I really like it so far...

#4 Posted by produceman (98 posts) -

Okay, I just want to make sure its optimized or whatever. I dont want to play a bad port of a good game

#5 Posted by MB (12207 posts) -

@produceman: I'm playing on PC mainly, but I did install it on my mid-2011 MacBook Air and it runs fine on low, better than I expected it to. This thing only has a 1.7ghz core i5 and 4gb of RAM, and on-board Intel video.

Moderator
#6 Posted by TimFReilly (98 posts) -

I compared running it on Mac and Windows and didn't perceive a big difference. Not a close inspection, but unlike some games I'm sticking with the Mac side so I don't have to reboot to fire it up.

#7 Posted by VirtuaXav (450 posts) -

I've got a mid-2010 15" Macbook Pro. It's got a 2.4 i5, with 4GB RAM and onboard Intel video so it looks like that should do the job.

Can anyone confirm whether it'll run for me before I drop the cash for Diablo?

#8 Posted by Jetpaction (77 posts) -

I have a mid-2010 MBP as well but mine has an nVidia GT330, it runs good on 1280x800 on high-medium settings.

#9 Posted by MisterMouse (3546 posts) -

Blizzard has always been incredibly good with having both versions of a game pretty much identical and I am playing it on my mac and have been enjoying it thus far.

#10 Posted by Panpipe (473 posts) -

@VirtuaXav said:

I've got a mid-2010 15" Macbook Pro. It's got a 2.4 i5, with 4GB RAM and onboard Intel video so it looks like that should do the job.

Can anyone confirm whether it'll run for me before I drop the cash for Diablo?

It'll run on low settings.

The game isn't amazingly optimised. I imagine it runs better in Windows (not tested it myself yet), but Starcraft 2 always runs at least 10fps faster on Windows. I have a maxed out 2011 iMac and on all high settings with V-Sync it jumps between 60 and 30 fps.

If it's anything like Starcraft, they'll release some updates, and Apple might even release a driver update if it takes their fancy. Hopefully that'll boost performance, it'd be nice to have a solid 60fps given the graphics aren't particularly special.

#11 Posted by VirtuaXav (450 posts) -

@Panpipe said:

@VirtuaXav said:

I've got a mid-2010 15" Macbook Pro. It's got a 2.4 i5, with 4GB RAM and onboard Intel video so it looks like that should do the job.

Can anyone confirm whether it'll run for me before I drop the cash for Diablo?

It'll run on low settings.

The game isn't amazingly optimised. I imagine it runs better in Windows (not tested it myself yet), but Starcraft 2 always runs at least 10fps faster on Windows. I have a maxed out 2011 iMac and on all high settings with V-Sync it jumps between 60 and 30 fps.

If it's anything like Starcraft, they'll release some updates, and Apple might even release a driver update if it takes their fancy. Hopefully that'll boost performance, it'd be nice to have a solid 60fps given the graphics aren't particularly special.

Ah ok, fair enough. I guess I won't rush out to get it unless I can get the most out of it. Maybe I'll grab it whenever I can get a decent PC. Thanks for filling me in, duder.

#12 Edited by AndrewB (7568 posts) -

To anyone wanting to play it on a 2009 Macbook Pro with the 9400m... I wouldn't recommend. Lowest possible settings will not give you a steady framerate; and keep in mind this is with 8GB of RAM running on an SSD. It's just not worth it.

Then again, I'd really like to try it with Snow Leopard over Lion. Lion doesn't have the performance or battery life that Snow Leopard did from my experience.

#13 Posted by benpatient (14 posts) -

Just to add my 2 cents.

2011 15' MBP, 6490M with the high-res display option, 8 GB RAM and SSD.

With no AA, and shadows turned off, I get 22 fps while walking around new tristram. It drops during fights to ~10 fps.

If I turn shadows to "low" it drops to 10 fps as the max. If I lower the resolution, it looks like crap (as non-native always does), so I put it in a 1024x768 window and got ~30 FPS in town.

It was even worse before I installed 10.7.4 last night. I am not impressed. An equivalent PC would be getting double the fps, so I'm assuming it would be twice as fast in boot camp. not much room for boot camp when you're running an SSD in a laptop, though. I'm honestly glad that I didn't spring for the paid game, yet, because it's just too slow.

#14 Posted by bemusedchunk (681 posts) -

@MisterMouse said:

Blizzard has always been incredibly good with having both versions of a game pretty much identical and I am playing it on my mac and have been enjoying it thus far.

#15 Posted by Warihay (481 posts) -

@benpatient: I have a 2011 15" MBP with only 4 GB ram, the same graphics card and I have not experienced anything like you are describing. I have shadows on medium I believe with low textures, high physics and it has been running fine. Make sure you are not running any CPU intensive programs while you're playing.

#16 Posted by SuperCycle (332 posts) -

@produceman: I'm running it on my 2010 iMac and it's running really well. I'm enjoying the game quite a lot and glad I was talked into buying it.

#17 Posted by ckeats (489 posts) -

I'm having the problems said. Slow frame rate on the lowest settings thanks to my 9400m.

Balls.

#18 Posted by Unlogik (163 posts) -

Running fine on my 15" MPB with 2.4ghz i5 and a 330M card. Pick it up!

#19 Posted by reverendk (19 posts) -

In my experience Blizzard games and those on board intel cards don't usually agree right off the bat so get ready to play around with the settings to find your preferred combo of performance and fps. That really shouldn't stop you from having a great time though.

#20 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

Everything is at medium or high and I turned AA off and it runs fine.

2010 13" macbook pro.

#21 Posted by Irvandus (2875 posts) -

Fine, have to mess with settings a bit but game still looks great, running on a much older mac.

#22 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

If it's like any other Mac game use Boot Camp instead for way better performance. It runs bad on my MacBook Air on OS X but better on Windows.

@MisterMouse said:

Blizzard has always been incredibly good with having both versions of a game pretty much identical and I am playing it on my mac and have been enjoying it thus far.

Seriously? SC2 on Windows for me was medium/high settings with super smooth FPS, SC2 on OS X was low/medium with bad FPS.

#23 Posted by None_Braver (91 posts) -

I have 2008 17in MBP. Not sure of the specs but it does have a 2.6 dual core. It defaulted to the lowest settings and it still is pretty choppy. I think I need to lower the fps and make the resolution smaller. I currently had it set to 1920x1200. We'll see this weekend when I get around internet again.

#24 Edited by UitDeToekomst (708 posts) -

i am playing on an iMac i bought new roughly 6 months ago and have had no problems whatsoever in the roughly 10 hours i have put in since buying the game yesterday afternoon. Looks really nice and runs very smoothly even with all settings on 'high'. i have also not experienced a single hiccup regarding lag, latency or error messages that i have seen posted here numerous times by PC gamers and also evident in the staff videos. am i just lucking out, or is it possible that playing this on a quality Mac is preferable to PC at this juncture?

#25 Posted by stinky (1544 posts) -

^lag or latency will have to do with your internet connection not your computer.

#26 Edited by handlas (2672 posts) -

Runs perfectly fine on high-medium settings on my 2 or so year old Macbook Pro.

...that said, I thought the settings were on low when I first started up the game. Hmmm.

#27 Edited by Asurastrike (2165 posts) -

It runs great on my 2010 15" Macbook Pro. I've got it set to high.

#28 Posted by SuicidalSnowman (396 posts) -

I have a 2007 MBP with 2GB ram and a 8600GT Nvidia card, and I can run the game fine on the lowest settings but max resolution. I get a half second delay when using portals or entering dungeons, and sometimes with too much on the screen I get small frame rate drops, but otherwise it is fine. I'm not too concerned about graphics myself, mostly just want to experience the game.

#29 Posted by Hizang (8533 posts) -

Everybody seems to be playing it on Macbook Pro's/Air's, is anybody here playing it on an iMac?

#30 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

My MBP is mid 2010, I have 4gb of RAAM, 2.26 intel core 2 duo, and an NVIDIA GeForce 9400M 256MB graphics card.

I'm not entirely interested in Diablo 3, but my cousin is offering me a guest pass. How will the game run for me?

#31 Posted by jasonefmonk (350 posts) -

Everyone should keep in mind that Lion will run this better than Snow Leopard, and if you're really seeking a few more frames, Windows 7 will run it best in Boot Camp.

I have the "early-2011" 13-inch MacBook Pro, with 8GB of RAM the integrated graphics have more memory allocated to them. In OSX the game defaults to medium and high settings. Haven't played enough to see what happens in big battles, but it's smooth so far.

#32 Edited by AndrewB (7568 posts) -

@mcderby4 said:

My MBP is mid 2010, I have 4gb of RAAM, 2.26 intel core 2 duo, and an NVIDIA GeForce 9400M 256MB graphics card.

I'm not entirely interested in Diablo 3, but my cousin is offering me a guest pass. How will the game run for me?

So poorly it's not worth it. Believe me. I have the same setup but with 8GB of RAM and it's running off a Corsair Force 3 SSD and the game just isn't playable on lowest settings. That 9400m just can't run modern games.

#33 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@AndrewB said:

@mcderby4 said:

My MBP is mid 2010, I have 4gb of RAAM, 2.26 intel core 2 duo, and an NVIDIA GeForce 9400M 256MB graphics card.

I'm not entirely interested in Diablo 3, but my cousin is offering me a guest pass. How will the game run for me?

So poorly it's not worth it. Believe me. I have the same setup but with 8GB of RAM and it's running off a Corsair Force 3 SSD and the game just isn't playable on lowest settings. That 9400m just can't run modern games.

Is the game truly that demanding? I run both TF2 and Left 4 Dead 2 quite smoothly on medium settings. Diablo 3 doesn't look all that impressive.

#34 Edited by AndrewB (7568 posts) -

@mcderby4 said:

Is the game truly that demanding? I run both TF2 and Left 4 Dead 2 quite smoothly on medium settings. Diablo 3 doesn't look all that impressive.

The key is "steady framerate." If you're getting around 15 FPS in heavy combat, you're also taking a ton of damage you otherwise wouldn't be. It's survivable on normal difficulty, but I imagine it renders the game unplayable on anything higher.

Unless there's something drastically wrong with my Macbook... all I'm going off of is my own personal attempt to play it, because I'd really love the option of not being tethered to my desktop computer.

The only thing I could turn down is the resolution, but I never feel like gaming below a screen's native resolution is worth the hit in quality.

#35 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@AndrewB said:

@mcderby4 said:

Is the game truly that demanding? I run both TF2 and Left 4 Dead 2 quite smoothly on medium settings. Diablo 3 doesn't look all that impressive.

The key is "steady framerate." If you're getting around 15 FPS in heavy combat, you're also taking a ton of damage you otherwise wouldn't be. It's survivable on normal difficulty, but I imagine it renders the game unplayable on anything higher.

Unless there's something drastically wrong with my Macbook... all I'm going off of is my own personal attempt to play it, because I'd really love the option of not being tethered to my desktop computer.

The only thing I could turn down is the resolution, but I never feel like gaming below a screen's native resolution is worth the hit in quality.

Hmm, I truly care little about graphics. I'm not a fan of PC gaming in general but I merely wanted to give it a try. I'll try it out and give you a shout concerning my personal experience with the guest pass.

#36 Edited by AndrewB (7568 posts) -

@mcderby4: Graphics are as low as they can possibly go... but anything lower than the native resolution of your LCD display is going to be a sad, blurry mess. Antialiasing is one thing, but that's just not a compromise I'm willing to make to call a game playable.

Just turned on the FPS counter and realized I'm actually averaging 15-17 FPS (and only 22 at 1024x640, although strangely it's more like 28 when windowed). I'm willing to bet it would run better in Bootcamp.

#37 Posted by ArcadeHero (70 posts) -

I literally bought an iMac yesterday (the lowest tier one) and it runs diablo 3 great. Im getting about 30 fps on high settings, but i havent tried boot camp.

#38 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@AndrewB: I understand the frame rate dropping below a certain rate is demeaning but I find it very hard to believe that D3 is that graphically demanding.

#39 Edited by AndrewB (7568 posts) -

@mcderby4: *shrugs* so did I when I first fired it up, but that's the truth. The 9400m is an old-ass integrated *mobile* graphics chip which is already crippled by basically running games in emulation under OS X. Those are about the worst terms you can try to run the game on in the first place.

Also, I still feel like OS X Lion is the real fault. I just find it weird that it would run *worse* in fullscreen mode than windowed at the same resolution.

I was especially surprised because I figured the overkill amount of RAM and the SSD would make things okay, but they definitely don't.

#40 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@AndrewB: Yeah that's odd about the added amount of RAAM you have making little difference at all. Too bad there isn't a way to replace the graphics card in MacBook's or I would've gotten rid of it years ago.

#41 Posted by INV2 (256 posts) -

@None_Braver said:

I have 2008 17in MBP. Not sure of the specs but it does have a 2.6 dual core. It defaulted to the lowest settings and it still is pretty choppy. I think I need to lower the fps and make the resolution smaller. I currently had it set to 1920x1200. We'll see this weekend when I get around internet again.

Sounds like we have the same machine, REALLY curious to read what your experience is.

#42 Posted by StaleCrouton (20 posts) -

@MB said:

@produceman: I'm playing on PC mainly, but I did install it on my mid-2011 MacBook Air and it runs fine on low, better than I expected it to. This thing only has a 1.7ghz core i5 and 4gb of RAM, and on-board Intel video.

Hey MB, I was thinking of getting an air or a pro soon (but I will likely wait for the refresh this summer) and I was wondering what kind of frame rate you are getting on your air? I'm running the game on a 2010 iMac and getting a pretty poor frame rate, I'm just curious what I can expect with the current air line up. Command R displays the frame rate in the upper left.

#43 Edited by pornstorestiffi (4909 posts) -

Tried installing it on my MBP from late 2011, plays kind of well on defaults. But i guess if you lower textures, turn off shadows, no AA and such, it would run around 30 fps at least on somewhat newer macs, with discrete graphics cards.

#44 Posted by AlexW00d (6231 posts) -

@mcderby4 said:

@AndrewB: Yeah that's odd about the added amount of RAAM you have making little difference at all. Too bad there isn't a way to replace the graphics card in MacBook's or I would've gotten rid of it years ago.

The extra RAM would make no difference whatsoever, even if you had 32GB. Trying to a modern game on a 4 year old budget ass card (at the time even) would be a struggle on a Windows machine, let alone an Apple.

The SSD would only help with load times btw.

Online
#45 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@mcderby4 said:

@AndrewB: Yeah that's odd about the added amount of RAAM you have making little difference at all. Too bad there isn't a way to replace the graphics card in MacBook's or I would've gotten rid of it years ago.

The extra RAM would make no difference whatsoever, even if you had 32GB. Trying to a modern game on a 4 year old budget ass card (at the time even) would be a struggle on a Windows machine, let alone an Apple.

The SSD would only help with load times btw.

Ah I see, I never knew that. My Diablo 3 client wouldn't even finish downloading so I just gave up. I'll stick to 360 games :|

#46 Posted by Plasticstars (171 posts) -

Runs pretty well at medium settings on my new 13" Pro, native resolution.

#47 Posted by AndrewB (7568 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@mcderby4 said:

@AndrewB: Yeah that's odd about the added amount of RAAM you have making little difference at all. Too bad there isn't a way to replace the graphics card in MacBook's or I would've gotten rid of it years ago.

The extra RAM would make no difference whatsoever, even if you had 32GB. Trying to a modern game on a 4 year old budget ass card (at the time even) would be a struggle on a Windows machine, let alone an Apple.

The SSD would only help with load times btw.

The SSD marginally helps with streaming data. Also, a boost in RAM from the basic 2GB it came with allows both the integrated GPU and the rest of the system have more headroom; otherwise you've got 2 GB minus 256MB because it's shared system memory.

The 9400m was at least a serviceable budget option for the time, but there's a reason my laptop became a sole internet-browsing/work machine.

Anyway, I was just trying to give fair warning to anyone thinking about running Diablo 3 on a system a lot of people might have because it was the first 13" Macbook with an aluminum unibody.

#48 Posted by yoshisaur (2700 posts) -

@produceman: It's a Blizzard game, they port very well over to Mac.

#49 Posted by Xeirus (1296 posts) -

After beating the game yesterday I will say later in the game things get -very- crazy and it will likely have issues running act 4 in a few spots, just a heads up

#50 Posted by Deathpooky (1385 posts) -

2010 MBP and it has mostly worked fine. At the end of Act II I ran into a lot of slowdown and crashing for the last level with tons of effects. I messed around with the options to get it working again, but haven't run into any problems since, even in areas in Act III which look larger and have more crap going on. Still not sure exactly what combination of visual options caused that to happen.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.