Macbook Air 11'' gaming performance?

[linkandzelda]

Hey guys, I just registered at MacRumors. Just as a heads up, i'm gonna be purchasing a MBA 11" with 4GB RAM in the next month or so. I still haven't decided whether or not to upgrade the processor to 1.6 or not. I'll be checking out performance in a number of games like COD and Steam games. I'll probably make a thread with the benchmarks for OS X and Bootcamp to compare them. People can request game benchmarks and i'll get round to doing them and post up the FPS. I think thats what people should be doing here, like a similar thread about benchmarks for the 13" model.

When i first saw the MBA and its spec i thought they were rather bad and the idea of gaming was out the window. But then I see reports of games running great on it. Its quite unbelievable really due to the specs. I think SSD really helps in loading of games and loading data for new areas and such.

Cant wait to get the MBA, will be a great upgrade from my MSI Wind U100

 

[EthanNixon]

Hey guys, I just registered at MacRumors. Just as a heads up, i'm gonna be purchasing a MBA 11" with 4GB RAM in the next month or so. I still haven't decided whether or not to upgrade the processor to 1.6 or not. I'll be checking out performance in a number of games like COD and Steam games. I'll probably make a thread with the benchmarks for OS X and Bootcamp to compare them. People can request game benchmarks and i'll get round to doing them and post up the FPS. I think thats what people should be doing here, like a similar thread about benchmarks for the 13" model.

When i first saw the MBA and its spec i thought they were rather bad and the idea of gaming was out the window. But then I see reports of games running great on it. Its quite unbelievable really due to the specs. I think SSD really helps in loading of games and loading data for new areas and such.

Cant wait to get the MBA, will be a great upgrade from my MSI Wind U100

I'm not sure why current MBA owners are not helping out those who are on the fence of buying these laptops, but they should be helping. Even people who claim to have a MBA and CS:S haven't helped me out once. I want FPS numbers so I can compared models, not "it runs smooth". I play games competitively, and "it runs smooth" to me means over 100FPS. lol

I would greatly appreciate it that you would help some of us out when you get your MBA.

 

[acastic]

I've been playing the Mac version of Dragon Age on my ultimate edition 11.6" Air. Currently have the settings at 1366 x 768 resolution and with everything on low. Runs great without issue or slowdown. I'll have to bump the settings up and see how it performs.

Trine also plays great!

 

[edddeduck]

Someone in our office got the 11" (with 4GM of RAM) but standard CPU. I checked our latest games including a couple still in development and they run fine on the MBA. I would not expect super high settings but they are all definitely playable including high end games like BioShock.

Looking at performance it seems to perform the same as the MacBook but just with faster loading times due to the faster HD.

This was not an in depth test but the games we did check are the games we did not think would even run but the MBA surprised us with it's power.

Edwin

 

[coochiekuta]

this debate is probably over but i will add my 15 cents...

a game is like a work of art. its an team of artists expression of a particular theme. the way its meant to be played isnt at low settings. they dont place details like sweat dripping off character models just for the sake of doing it. its them painting a complete picture. a total immersion is what they want to give you. cant really do that on low settings.

however, the artists (developers) must get paid thus they must ensure their "art" is accessible to as many as possible. that is why there is the low setting. the low setting is what the game is meant to be played on however.

at the end of the day, we all have different stanards. some people think 15 fps is gaming. others find 15 fps torture.

 

[EthanNixon]

this debate is probably over but i will add my 15 cents...

a game is like a work of art. its an team of artists expression of a particular theme. the way its meant to be played isnt at low settings. they dont place details like sweat dripping off character models just for the sake of doing it. its them painting a complete picture. a total immersion is what they want to give you. cant really do that on low settings.

however, the artists (developers) must get paid thus they must ensure their "art" is accessible to as many as possible. that is why there is the low setting. the low setting is what the game is meant to be played on however.

at the end of the day, we all have different stanards. some people think 15 fps is gaming. others find 15 fps torture.

That's an opinion, totally fine.

There is a reason why the most competitive game in the world looks like it was made with legos, Counter-Strike 1.6. A lot of people care about the gameplay more than visuals.

Some people prefer books over movies. Same thing, people prefer the imaginative experience with books over movies. With movies, you have all these artists and CGI effects that you are forced to watch. Same idea with games.

 

[edddeduck]

That's an opinion, totally fine.

There is a reason why the most competitive game in the world looks like it was made with legos, Counter-Strike 1.6. A lot of people care about the gameplay more than visuals.

Some people prefer books over movies. Same thing, people prefer the imaginative experience with books over movies. With movies, you have all these artists and CGI effects that you are forced to watch. Same idea with games.

I agree my motto is gameplay is king Graphics add greatly to the atmosphere but if you cannot enjoy the game on lower settings then the game is replying to much on graphical effects and not enough on gameplay.

I have had to play a game in dev for the last few weeks on low settings (no I am not saying what game right now) and it was lots of fun to play, yeah playing on the MacPro with everything on is more "Shiny" but the level of fun you have in online co-op does not change no matter the graphics options.

A bit like the second and third Matrix films... Amazing CGI but that was just distracting you from the paper thin plot and wooden acting give me something with real meat and plot (and then add awesome graphics )

Again that's only my opinion

Edwin

 

[acastic]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

That's an opinion, totally fine.

There is a reason why the most competitive game in the world looks like it was made with legos, Counter-Strike 1.6. A lot of people care about the gameplay more than visuals.

Some people prefer books over movies. Same thing, people prefer the imaginative experience with books over movies. With movies, you have all these artists and CGI effects that you are forced to watch. Same idea with games.

I agree my motto is gameplay is king Graphics add greatly to the atmosphere but if you cannot enjoy the game on lower settings then the game is replying to much on graphical effects and not enough on gameplay.

I have had to play a game in dev for the last few weeks on low settings (no I am not saying what game right now) and it was lots of fun to play, yeah playing on the MacPro with everything on is more "Shiny" but the level of fun you have in online co-op does not change no matter the graphics options.

A bit like the second and third Matrix films... Amazing CGI but that was just distracting you from the paper thin plot and wooden acting give me something with real meat and plot (and then add awesome graphics )

Again that's only my opinion

Edwin

Give us digital versions of Feral games to enjoy on our Airs!

 

[tomacintosh]

I've played Half-Life 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 (full detail @ 1366 x 768) on my fully loaded 11" and they run great! Was actually quite surprised. Have also had a go on EVE: Online which also ran really well. I reviewed the fully loaded model on my site, it does offer a decent step up in performance on the 1.4/2GB model

 

[edddeduck]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Give us digital versions of Feral games to enjoy on our Airs!

You ask and we will provide, LEGO Star Wars Saga has been announced that it will come with a digital download copy as well as retail in the coming weeks.

We plan on bringing more games in digital form, more details on that as soon as I can.

Edwin

 

[coochiekuta]

That's an opinion, totally fine.

There is a reason why the most competitive game in the world looks like it was made with legos, Counter-Strike 1.6. A lot of people care about the gameplay more than visuals.

Some people prefer books over movies. Same thing, people prefer the imaginative experience with books over movies. With movies, you have all these artists and CGI effects that you are forced to watch. Same idea with games.

??

we are not talking about comparing a visual piece of art (graphics) to an emotional piece of art (gameplay). what we are talking about is the SAME piece of art and how its author would like to present it.

if you really dont care about hl2 visuals then you should be able to play it at its lowest settings but you dont do you? the visuals are apart of the art, they are what forms the art TOGETHER with the rest of the pieces. you cannot separate them, or any one element, from the sum of the whole.

when you lose an element, such as having poor video or sound, you lose part of what they artist wanted to show you. you dont get the true picture, thus you dont get "how it was meant to be played" experience.

im not here to say you need to play a particular for your own enjoyment. i do know people are capable and able to enjoy things at less than...

 

[edddeduck]

??

we are not talking about comparing a visual piece of art (graphics) to an emotional piece of art (gameplay). what we are talking about is the SAME piece of art and how its author would like to present it.

if you really dont care about hl2 visuals then you should be able to play it at its lowest settings but you dont do you? the visuals are apart of the art, they are what forms the art TOGETHER with the rest of the pieces. you cannot separate them, or any one element, from the sum of the whole.

when you lose an element, such as having poor video or sound, you lose part of what they artist wanted to show you. you dont get the true picture, thus you dont get "how it was meant to be played" experience.

im not here to say you need to play a particular for your own enjoyment. i do know people are capable and able to enjoy things at less than...

I agree that lower settings will take something away from the experience but from my viewpoint you design a game to give a great experience to as many people as possible this means thinking about how different settings might effect that experience. I don't think it is "how it is meant to be played" and more like "the best experience will be using" a subtle difference but I know when I look at low settings on a game we do think about how it will impact the experience and how we can negate this effect as much as possible.

As you said in closing some people swear you cannot enjoy a game unless you are at native resolution and max settings, I don't personally agree with that but everyone has their own views.

Edwin

 

[EthanNixon]

??

we are not talking about comparing a visual piece of art (graphics) to an emotional piece of art (gameplay). what we are talking about is the SAME piece of art and how its author would like to present it.

if you really dont care about hl2 visuals then you should be able to play it at its lowest settings but you dont do you? the visuals are apart of the art, they are what forms the art TOGETHER with the rest of the pieces. you cannot separate them, or any one element, from the sum of the whole.

when you lose an element, such as having poor video or sound, you lose part of what they artist wanted to show you. you dont get the true picture, thus you dont get "how it was meant to be played" experience.

im not here to say you need to play a particular for your own enjoyment. i do know people are capable and able to enjoy things at less than...

Really? There are A LOT of people who don't play games for the visuals. I play games STRICTLY for competitive reasons. I play Counter-Strike: Source competitively at 640x480 with every single graphical command to the lowest it goes. I've made an FPS config that more than a thousand people use, which has commands people don't even know what they do. If you have ever meant ANYONE who plays games competitively, they will tell you the first thing that is important, usability/stability of the game. They would rather have 120FPS constant and have their game look like legos, then have their game dip to 100FPS and see the amazing textures in the ground. CS:S is the ONLY game I play on the computer. Any other game I play on a friend's console, and if they had the option to put graphics on low I would.

You are judging people.

 

[RollTide]

Really? There are A LOT of people who don't play games for the visuals. I play games STRICTLY for competitive reasons. I play Counter-Strike: Source competitively at 640x480 with every single graphical command to the lowest it goes. I've made an FPS config that more than a thousand people use, which has commands people don't even know what they do. If you have ever meant ANYONE who plays games competitively, they will tell you the first thing that is important, usability/stability of the game. They would rather have 120FPS constant and have their game look like legos, then have their game dip to 100FPS and see the amazing textures in the ground. CS:S is the ONLY game I play on the computer. Any other game I play on a friend's console, and if they had the option to put graphics on low I would.

You are judging people.

You wouldn't happen to be from Tulsa would you... I know a guy there that makes money playing CS, well he did anyway.

 

[EthanNixon]

You wouldn't happen to be from Tulsa would you... I know a guy there that makes money playing CS, well he did anyway.

Nope. I have made plenty of money through Counter-Strike, but it takes up way too much time to do that. Practices would be 6-8 hours a day, 3-4 days a week. Once I started college I couldn't dedicate that much time to a video game. I still play competitively though, just not making money playing. I still do tournaments and host them in New Jersey as well.

 

[Huntn]

As I recall the original Air was lacking for games something to do with integrated graphics. Hopefully the new Air is better.

 

[jouster]

I don't get it. why do people want to know this low power macbook for gaming? if you want to play games, get macbook pro, or PC laptop if you want to play everywhere. this argument is pointless. I don't think that you just want to play simple puzzle game, or acade right? here people mentioned serious RPG, strategy, shooting game. then macbook air is not for doing well. I don't want to set my game video setting as lower to play. I want to set everything max. I don't want to see ****** graphic during playing game. do you? it's just not OK to run games. there are much more issues.

I think it's nothing more than feeling that the MBA fits most criteria for a purchase and being curious as to whether some gaming will also be a possibility.

I doubt anyone is targeting it as a specific gaming purchase.

 

[edddeduck]

Bottom line in terms of games as long as you have an external DVD drive to install and verify your copy the Air should be able to play all Feral games (as I know them pretty well) including complex ones like BioShock using reasonably high settings. We have an online purchase option coming soon which removes the need for DVDs making playing games on the Air even easier.

The Air is not designed for high end gaming but you should be able to have fun with it as long as you realise maximum resolution and all settings on max is not going to be possible on the newer games.

Edwin

UPDATE: Now that we have announced it I can also say I have played Borderlands GOTY on a MacBookAir (4GB) and it played very well and I would consider medium settings when playing on the Air. Borderlands uses the Unreal3 Engine so it pretty much one of the most complex Mac games right now.

 

[acastic]

Bottom line in terms of games as long as you have an external DVD drive to install and verify your copy the Air should be able to play all Feral games (as I know them pretty well) including complex ones like BioShock using reasonably high settings. We have an online purchase option coming soon which removes the need for DVDs making playing games on the Air even easier.

The Air is not designed for high end gaming but you should be able to have fun with it as long as you realise maximum resolution and all settings on max is not going to be possible on the newer games.

Edwin

UPDATE: Now that we have announced it I can also say I have played Borderlands GOTY on a MacBookAir (4GB) and it played very well and I would consider medium settings when playing on the Air. Borderlands uses the Unreal3 Engine so it pretty much one of the most complex Mac games right now.

You just made my day

 

[chachawpi]

Why would you use a 4:3 resolution (640x480) on a 16:10 or 16:9 display? I used to use that resolution in Quake back in the day on my CRT, but the resolution fit the display.

 

[EthanNixon]

Why would you use a 4:3 resolution (640x480) on a 16:10 or 16:9 display? I used to use that resolution in Quake back in the day on my CRT, but the resolution fit the display.

If you're talking to me, I guess you missed where I said this would be for competitive reasons...

 

[chachawpi]

If you're talking to me, I guess you missed where I said this would be for competitive reasons...

Can you explain what you mean? Wouldn't 800x500 make more sense for a 16:10 display and, by extension, 800x450 for a 16:9 display? People used to play CS, Quake, etc on 4:3 monitors back in the 90s so the 4:3 resolution of 640x480 made sense.

I don't see how having images more stretched horizontally than vertically gives any competitive edge. It sounds like conjecture to me.

 

[DaSal]

Can you explain what you mean? Wouldn't 800x500 make more sense for a 16:10 display and, by extension, 800x450 for a 16:9 display? People used to play CS, Quake, etc on 4:3 monitors back in the 90s so the 4:3 resolution of 640x480 made sense.

I don't see how having images more stretched horizontally than vertically gives any competitive edge. It sounds like conjecture to me.

Not to mention that a higher resolution does give a competitive edge. Higher resolution = more accurate crosshair. Heck at 640x480 the crosshair would basically be a blob on even 17" monitors. And the other players would be blobs. Would make it a little difficult to accurately shoot other players, especially if they're off in the distance.

 

[EthanNixon]

Can you explain what you mean? Wouldn't 800x500 make more sense for a 16:10 display and, by extension, 800x450 for a 16:9 display? People used to play CS, Quake, etc on 4:3 monitors back in the 90s so the 4:3 resolution of 640x480 made sense.

I don't see how having images more stretched horizontally than vertically gives any competitive edge. It sounds like conjecture to me.

640x480 is the lowest resolution any game supports. I would be using an external display if I were to ever play competitively, primarily the BenQ XL24 120Hz monitor I am being sent for review.

640x480 would yield the best frame rates at all times, and give the smoothest gameplay as well.

 

[chachawpi]

That does seem like a pretty sweet monitor - perhaps the first LCD worth gaming on. I held on to my Mitsubishi DiamondPro 2060U - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/comparison,497-8.html - until just a couple years ago when I got burned out from gaming.

Going from that running at 120Hz and trying to play on an LCD at 60 Hz with input lag and ghosting would almost give me motion sickness. I was able to pump that to 1280x1024 at 120Hz in Quake 3. I'm sure any semi modern computer could keep a consistent 100/120 FPS in Half Life. At the really low resolutions it's all CPU bound, so the 11" MBA would probably fail.

If that monitor is the real deal I might finally jump into Quake Live competitively. I can't handle the CS/CoD style games - though I did play CS back in beta many years ago. Quake > *