Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Portables (Apple) Businesses Entertainment Games Apple

Gaming Benchmarks For the New MacBook Pros 46

PC World takes a look at the performance of the new MacBook Pros compared to models from the middle of 2007. In addition to benchmarking software, they run comparisons on the Crysis demo and the World in Conflict demo. The results show improvement by a significant margin. Additional benchmarks are available at MacWorld. "Crysis shows a similar performance bump, though viewed practically, those numbers might look a little depressing. Crysis arrived in November 2007, but I'm fairly certain I won't be comfortably running it on a MacBook Pro until somewhere north of 2010. Drop the settings to 'medium,' however, and I can vouch that the average frame rate on the November MacBook Pro rested comfortably in the very playable middle 20s."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gaming Benchmarks For the New MacBook Pros

Comments Filter:
  • So? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pdusen ( 1146399 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2008 @11:49PM (#25812467) Journal
    I don't think anyone questioned that the new Macbook Pros would probably perform better. The more relevant question is, are they priced competitively for their performance?
    • But how many people are going to buy a Mac for games anyways?

      Yes, I use a Mac every day. I also maintain an office of iMac and MacPro workstations as well as MacBook Pros. Yes, I even play Call of Duty 4 on a Mac sometimes.

      No, I don't think they're gaming machines, no matter what anyone tells me. I also think running Windows on a Mac is just ignorant, and throwing away even more money.

      • Exactly. You buy a Mac for more of a life-style choice; its not great for working although it manages, but people buy them because they're simply easy.
        Mac had stressed this quite a lot from the campaigning but everything you buy comes from Apple and so it all works seamlessly.
        HAHAHAhahha. People buy Macs simply because they are stylish--so buying one and putting Windows on it or putting OS X on a PC is utterly defeats the purpose of the OS-es.

        Although, I'm a "PC/Windows" person because of the plethor
        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Not good for working? Hmph.

          My new MacBook running XP and Vista in VirtualBox on OS X handles my consulting job brilliantly. Hell the network management in OS X is leaps and bounds ahead of the pure shit Vista has for networking management. Auto routing when the connection medium or IP changed was sluggish, pulling up the network dialog was sluggish, and this was all post SP1. While on the subject of my m1330, let's not get started on Dell's poor fit and finish, with two screen failures added in for good mea

        • by SaDan ( 81097 )

          Maybe you didn't read the part where I manage an office of Macs. They most certainly get used for work in a professional environment, and in every aspect of a small business from design, development, accounting, and systems administration.

          In the past, I have also managed corporate offices that used Windows 2000/XP and Active Directory. I'd much rather deal with the Macs than Windows systes.

          • Sorry, I didn't mean that they don't work -- I meant to point out the fact that the MS Office was simply ported to Mac. Unless of course you managed to find an alternative to them?
            • by SaDan ( 81097 )

              OpenOffice 3.0 works very well under MacOS X, and I do use it where MS Office isn't required for whatever reason.

      • I also think running Windows on a Mac is just ignorant, and throwing away even more money.

        The point of running Windows on a Mac is so that you can have one machine that does everything, including playing games (or running $WINDOWS_ONLY_APP). It means that the same machine that you get all your work done on can be used for leisure time. This is enormously convenient. How is it "ignorant" or "throwing away money?"

        I've been very satisfied with the experience of using my Macbook Pro to play games. Just beca

    • I suppose one could argue that question either way until they're blue in the face.

      IMO, the inclusion of integrated graphics from nVidia for their entire laptop update means that the Macbook and the Air can now be considered for games that were considered "graphics-heavy" 2 years ago. When I was selecting a Mac this January, my primary considerations were portability and graphics power in Boot Camp. At the time, the Air came out, and even though I was intrigued for a few moments, I knew that there was no way

    • However your not buying just performance in a Mac book pro. Your buying the whole package. It is so very light, so thin, compared to similar machines. Of course it can run both OS X and Windows makes it worthwhile to me.

      Yet I can't help but wonder why Apple keeps putting mediocre screens on the pro models. 1440x900? Say what? I have a five year old Dell with 1600x1200 on that same screen size. Glossy only is a killer for some as well. The screen is what stopped me from buying one. It simply is not

  • Photoshop, as fun as CS4 may be, is not a game.
    • They're mac benchmarks. Not OS X benchmarks.

      RTFA & you'll see the guy (like everyone with a mac it seems) is running XP or Vista.

    • Yes..
      It DOES use the GPU to accelerate many of the features within the CS4. But yeah, technically its not a game.
  • by poity ( 465672 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2008 @12:17AM (#25812715)

    Current iteration of product better than last. Stay tuned for in depth coverage...

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ... Microsoft confused.

      Bill Gates quoted "Huh!?"

      Balmer seen throwing chair....

  • by clragon ( 923326 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2008 @12:29AM (#25812835)

    Drop the settings to 'medium,' however, and I can vouch that the average frame rate on the November MacBook Pro rested comfortably in the very playable middle 20s

    common now, does anyone seriously believe that a shooting game can be playable with fps in the mid 20s? If it's already stuttering a little when you are running around, add in a few NPCs/bullet sparks/explosions then the game wont be playable anymore

    for most of the shooting games I play, I try to lower the settings until the fps is well above 30 so that I wont get stuttering frames when an intense firefight happens

    • anything below 60fps is unacceptable. It may be ok for the average joe, but if your playing online multiplayer, anything below 60fps is putting yourself at a disadvantage. Considering that I dont have the time to invest in being the best, even a minor disadvantage is frustrating.
      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        if your playing online multiplayer, anything below 60fps is putting yourself at a disadvantage.

        Does this mean Xbox Live users in Europe, where TVs natively run at 50fps, are at a noticeable disadvantage?

        • It's not like the 60Hz of NTSC is any better. Considering the TV signal is interlaced you'll have a frame rate of either 25 or 30.
          But that's just refresh rate of old CRT screens. While refresh rate is important, the rendering speed is more important for the responsiveness. An fps of 100 won't show all 100 frames on a 60Hz monitor. But it does mean that the game processes your input 100 times per second. Of course this mostly matters for PC gaming where you use high responsive input like the mouse and keyboa

  • by kbrasee ( 1379057 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2008 @12:38AM (#25812911) Homepage
    Spectre VR has never played this silky smoothly.
  • Truth is, we all just want to know how well will it handle WotLK.
    Now back to grinding to 80.

  • I am using a late 2007 MBP (15", 2.4Ghz, 4GB RAM). The nVidia 8600 has been doing great. I haven't played Crysis (didn't like Farcry), but it plays Left 4 Dead and Fallout 3 just fine. So if the new MBP's are even better, I think they'd be just fine for most gaming.

    • Same here. I'm playing Fallout 3 just fine on a 2007 MBP, and I played Crysis on it just fine as well. Apparently this guy doesn't understand what graphics quality settings are for. You don't have to play games at some insane resolution with every single bell and whistle turned on to enjoy them.

  • 15 fps in Crysis? What could you get for a comparably priced (ie $2000+) laptop or desktop PC?

    I know the Very High Quality setting in the http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870-x2,2073-18.html [tomshardware.com]recent Video Card rundown at Toms Hardware was seeing in excess of 30. So how does the Mac really stack up for gaming?

  • So are we talking Improved benchmarks on applications designed to run using the OS X frameworks, or are we talking a Windows Game in a Cider DirectX Wrapper?

    I mean seriously, all Cider does is allow you to play Windows-programmed games on a Mac like in a VM. It doesn't actually let you play the game natively.

  • but I love opening up Vista on my Mac Pro and seeing Microsoft give my machine such an incredible performance index—especially when compared against their biggest and baddest PC OEM’s.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.