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."
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose you might be a troll - I am by no means an Apple faithful, but I do know the difference between american prices and australian prices.
So without going into all the specs in American dollars in America, the 2.5GHz 1730 with 4gb RAM and a nVidia 8700 with 256MB RAM is $2349 after the $458 "instant" savings.
The mac pro with 2,5 GHz processor, 4GB RAM, 320GB drive and nVidia 8600 with 512MB RAM is 2799.
More expensive yes...$2000 more, no.
Re: (Score:2)
The mac pro with 2,5 GHz processor, 4GB RAM, 320GB drive and nVidia 8600 with 512MB RAM is 2799.
Well, you've got to add $50 to up the HDD to the 7200rpm/sata equivalent in the Dell for $2099.
Making the difference, a not inconsiderable $750 - the Mac is a third more expensive than a Dell that gives twice the 3dmark performance. (this is what we're discussing remember).
More expensive yes...$2000 more, no.
That will teach me not to use the first two links I find! (well - probably not).
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
If you're so insistent on discussing that Dell with the Macbook, then the Apple blows it out of the water on a price comparison, since the Dell was 4480 USD (MSRP) [extremetech.com] and is now about 3349 USD. I guess you didn't bother to read the article and see that it's the special SLI configuration with a pair of Mobile 8800M GTXs. If you're doing a price comparison with the cheaper M1730s then you'll need to find benchmarks for them since they use a different graphics set up e.g. these CNet [cnet.com] benchmarks. I have'nt seen link yet for performance of the 17" MacBook Pros; only the new 15.4" ones.
Of course if you're going to make this comparison, then you have to acknowledge that the weight of the Dell (10.6 lbs, twice that of the Mac, along with twice the thickness) renders it unsuitable for mobile use and if you're factoring in sale prices, you need to take a look at Apple's refurb store a well. Compared to the 2099 USD Dell, the Mac has twice the level 2 cache, twice the VRAM and a faster processor. The Dell wireless is also inferior, supporting only g, compared to a/g/n for the Mac and Bluetooth (along with Firewire 800) is missing. Add these in as far as possible, bump the graphics from the single 8700 w/256 MB to the dual SLI version, ignore the sale discount since we could get that in the Apple refurb section and you find that the Dell is 2749 USD - 100 USD cheaper than the Mac, which is a negligible difference (less than 4%). The Dell will have higher framerates in games, but be far less portable (and lacking in Firewire 800) and chew your batteries up twice as fast (based on how long they last playing a DVD). It should also be remembered that the current 17" is quite old and wasn't updated when the other MacBook Pros were.
So, what exactly do you want to discuss?
* The very expensive custom Dell with the high benchmarks vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro?
* The cheaper dual SLI Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro?
* The non-SLI Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro?
* A Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro, each with custom configuration to match each other's specs as closely as possible?
* A Dell on sale vs. a 17" MacBook Pro from the refurb store (i.e. on sale)?
So far you've picked a cheap Dell, on sale, given the benchmark for the most expensive one and compared it to a full price MacBook with extra stuff added to match the Dell's configuration without getting the Dell to also match the MacBook's. Now, is it just me, or does that seem a little like tilting the playing field ridiculously in favour of one side? We'll forget about you giving the Mac price in Australian dollars and assume that wasn't trolling.
If you compare full price products, specced to match each other, the Dell is slightly cheaper, better for gaming, but worse for high speed I/O and more of a movable desktop than a laptop i.e. gamers are better off with the Dell, but everyone else is probably better off with the Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
the Dell is slightly cheaper, better for gaming,
Jeeze - I can't believe it took you that long a post to agree with me!
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe you needed to quote that much of my post to making a trolling comment. But you live and you learn I guess.
For gaming? Absolutely not. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
OpenOffice 3.0 works very well under MacOS X, and I do use it where MS Office isn't required for whatever reason.
Two birds, one stone. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Price for performance falls way short (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Need I remind you... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
BUT
It DOES use the GPU to accelerate many of the features within the CS4. But yeah, technically its not a game.
This just in (Score:4, Funny)
Current iteration of product better than last. Stay tuned for in depth coverage...
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
... Microsoft confused.
Bill Gates quoted "Huh!?"
Balmer seen throwing chair....
fps in the mid 20s = playable? (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Bullcrap, I get awesome FPS on my MacBook Pro (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bullcrap, I get awesome FPS on my MacBook Pro (Score:4, Funny)
You should see the frame rate I get from nethack!
Re: (Score:2)
You should see the frame rate I get from nethack!
I wish my computer could nethack :( It's the new crysis.
Re: (Score:2)
Warcraft (Score:1)
Truth is, we all just want to know how well will it handle WotLK.
Now back to grinding to 80.
Still getting mileage out of my late 2007 (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How does it compare with a PC? (Score:2)
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?
Apples or Oranges? (Score:1)
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.
Man I’m such a snob— (Score:1)