Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wow... that's not much of a difference - average 5%. However, I don't understand why the 17" has better benchmarks than the 15", when it's the same specs?

in the 15" there is less space so it is underclocked to reduce heat
in the 17" it is not underclocked

the underclock is marginal though
 
Oh, right. Didn't think of that.

Well, I've been doing some more research (because I'm cheap and will do anything to save the money and go for the small version) and it seems like Crysis is quite tweakable... so, with my gigantic brainpower, I have come to this conclusion: Since XP/Vista runs natively on the Intel based system, all the performance tweaks and such should work on the macbook, too. Right?
 
Oh, right. Didn't think of that.

Well, I've been doing some more research (because I'm cheap and will do anything to save the money and go for the small version) and it seems like Crysis is quite tweakable... so, with my gigantic brainpower, I have come to this conclusion: Since XP/Vista runs natively on the Intel based system, all the performance tweaks and such should work on the macbook, too. Right?

good luck running crysis on an intel GPU

lmao..

http://www.barefeats.com/mbook2.html

if you got it running on low at a playable fps i would be impressed
 
^ He meant on his macbook PRO

Read his first opening thread. Or even the title of this thread...... and see where it says 'Thread Starter' under his name.

So there's no need to post a 'I scoff at you' post ;)
 
Umm.. yeah... still talking about the MBP... I won't be getting the MB, it's simply too expensive for what you get. By Intel based system, I meant the Intel processor, not the gma 950
 
Crysis: 'Very high' settings on XP

folks,

sorry to take so long to get back with this, but HERE is the article i posted about earlier. how to get 'very high' settings on XP.

will try this shortly (i.e. tonight) on my shiny 3 day-old MBP... ;)
 
Crysis on MBP: The Verdict!

Installed it at 2am this morning, played the first few checkpoints in both 'High' and 'Medium' settings. Not a huge difference visually between the two, but framerates significantly better on 'Medium' - definitely playable, and still looks gorgeous.

In fact, this is enough confirmation that my bittorrented copy of the game will be replaced by a bona fide version from amazon.

The bump-mapping and textures of rocks etc looked pretty good, even on 'Medium', and i can only guess what the whole thing looks like on 'Very High' - it will be a slideshow, but oh, what a beautiful one!
 
Which MBP do you own? 2.2, 2.4, 2.6?

Look in his signature ;)

I agree Prisoner, it would almost be worth lagging your way through it just to get the Very High graphics... Too bad it'll be another year before I'm getting a PC that will be able to run it smoothly on high :mad:
 
The game honestly looks great even w/ just high settings. And pick and choose which settings you use - some like postprocessing and shadows take up a lot more GPU resources than other settings. Textures are primarly affected by RAM so high textures can be affected by lack of it.

I can run it at 1920 x 1080 with most settings very high or high on my PC and it looks gorgeous, but even at lower settings it still looks quite good! The upper settings IMO are for immersiveness more than anything else
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.