MACBOOK faster than MACBOOK PRO

[MRU]

EDIT: LET ME CLEAR THIS UP!!! This is not a bash at the MacBookPro as the thread title would have you believe. Its to stop the bloody whingers going on and on about how rubbish the MacBook is.

The results below or with a macbook 2 against a 1.83 macbookpro. Basically it beats it in most departments, but of course had that been a 2ghz macbookpro results for test would be even....

But it shows that the MacBook is a very capable laptop and extremely competative with laptops of the same price.

Hope that clears up the missunderstanding...........

--------------



This was already posted admid another post as a subfix, but it deserves its own thread.

Look at these results and stop slagging off the macbook because of intel GMA950. It's as much a pro machine as you want it to be


http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook.ars/5

One last observation I really wanted to make were my impressions concerning running a popular game in Windows XP on the MacBook's hardware. Many people are critical of this machine's apparent lack of ability to run state-of-the-art games. While these people are technically correct (see benchmarks later on), there's a whole class of games out there that can be fully enjoyed.

One game that I've been dying to try out for a while is an MMORPG called EVE Online. I've run across several people online who were concerned about whether or not the MacBook would be able to play this game efficiently. I downloaded the client from the EVE website and signed up for a 14-day trial and got started. Having never played the game on a souped-up PC, I can't really give a comparative analysis of the speed of the game. However, I did play through the entire tutorial and ran a few "missions" and I'm confident when I say that playing EVE online with the default settings looks beautiful and turned out to be pretty darn awesome.

I notice no stuttering and only a few delays which I believe could be attributed to the game downloading content from servers as I progressed through the game. I found the game pretty enjoyable—it reminded me of a little of playing TradeWars 2002 on a BBS back in the day—and I think that casual gamers will find that the MacBook will be able to adequately run somewhat new and enjoyable 3D Windows-only games. From discussions with people more knowledgable than I, I'm also confident you should be able to play games like Second Life, The Sims 2, and World of Warcraft with tweaks the graphics options. If you were hoping to be able to play taxing games like Oblivion and Half-Life 2, you're going to be out of luck, and you'd be better off waiting for Apple's Intel workstation offerings or just buying a dedicated gaming machine.

 

[Josias]

Extreme! Remeber though, that the 1.83 MBP has now 2.0 GHz, so they are the same now. It has been proven though, that the MacBook has graphics inferior in any type of performance to the MBP's total powner X1600!

 

[shadowmoses]

This is really cool, shows that so many people slagging off the intergrated graphics are wrong....also makes a purchase of a MBP seem pretty dim unless you really need the extra screen size,

ShadOW

 

[QCassidy352]

This is really cool, shows that so many people slagging off the intergrated graphics are wrong....

LOL are you kidding me? Perhaps you've seen these benchmarks.

I'll give you the short version: the macbook barely beats the ibook G4 and actually LOSES to a G4 powerbook playing UT2004. The intel imac and MBP have about 3x the FPS of the macbook and the G4s (depending on exactly which one you're talking about).

Integrated graphics are complete and total ****. Any machine with 2.0 core duo should absolutely tear a single processor G4 apart. After all, that's why we went to intel, right? Instead, much lower clocked single processor G4s are running roughly equal in gaming because even the outdated card in the G4 ibook is leaps and bounds better than the GMA950.

xbench graphics scores mean nothing in terms of real world games performance.

 

[xyian]

"Well, that's just like, your opinion, man."

LOL are you kidding me? Perhaps you've seen these benchmarks.

xbench graphics scores mean nothing in terms of real world games performance.

 

[rjgonzales]

"Well, that's just like, your opinion, man."

i love that movie

 

[odedia]

Extreme! Remeber though, that the 1.83 MBP has now 2.0 GHz, so they are the same now. It has been proven though, that the MacBook has graphics inferior in any type of performance to the MBP's total powner X1600!

The X1600 is underclocked on the MBP. So it makes sense that it would be about the speed of the GMA950.

Oded S.

 

[telecomm]

The X1600 is underclocked on the MBP. So it makes sense that it would be about the speed of the GMA950.

Oded S.

Uhhh.... except that it's not. See the benchmarks posted above.

 

[andiwm2003]

........................................
Integrated graphics are complete and total ****. Any machine with 2.0 core duo should absolutely tear a single processor G4 apart. .............................

i'm getting tired of this. could you please put a qualifier on statements like this? like: Integrated graphics are complete and total **** for 3d games.

games are completely useless (although they are fun for some people). nobody really needs them (although of course many want them). therefore they are not the only standard to judge a machines performance.

the 950 is fine for everthing that's not 3d with the added benefit of creating less heat and costing next to nothing.

so your statement is correct if limited to 3d games. for the rest of the applications it's not correct.

 

[macenforcer]

i'm getting tired of this. could you please put a qualifier on statements like this? like: Integrated graphics are complete and total **** for 3d games.

games are completely useless (although they are fun for some people). nobody really needs them (although of course many want them). therefore they are not the only standard to judge a machines performance.

the 950 is fine for everthing that's not 3d with the added benefit of creating less heat and costing next to nothing.

so your statement is correct if limited to 3d games. for the rest of the applications it's not correct.

FINALLY! Thank you. Games should only be played on Xbox 360. This macbook ROCKS!

 

[decksnap]

i'm getting tired of this. could you please put a qualifier on statements like this? like: Integrated graphics are complete and total **** for 3d games.

games are completely useless (although they are fun for some people). nobody really needs them (although of course many want them). therefore they are not the only standard to judge a machines performance.

the 950 is fine for everthing that's not 3d with the added benefit of creating less heat and costing next to nothing.

so your statement is correct if limited to 3d games. for the rest of the applications it's not correct.

It's unfortunate that there is a disproportionate amount of people on this board whose priority is games...

but thank you. So sick of hearing about the graphics card.

 

[MRU]

It's unfortunate that there is a disproportionate amount of people on this board whose priority is games...

but thank you. So sick of hearing about the graphics card.

Agreed. Feck Games, look at the other bench results... For getting the job done the macbook rocks.

all the people grumbling over integrated & games, could you all just gather together in the corner and SOD OFF!

There's more to life than poxy doom 3

 

[jacobj]

XBench is the most useless benchamarking tool I have enver had the misfortune to be exposed to. If a review uses it then the review must be ignored.

 

[telecomm]

... There's more to life than poxy doom 3

...Which wouldn't run very well on a MacBook

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

LOL are you kidding me? Perhaps you've seen these benchmarks.

I'll give you the short version: the macbook barely beats the ibook G4 and actually LOSES to a G4 powerbook playing UT2004. The intel imac and MBP have about 3x the FPS of the macbook and the G4s (depending on exactly which one you're talking about).

Integrated graphics are complete and total ****. Any machine with 2.0 core duo should absolutely tear a single processor G4 apart. After all, that's why we went to intel, right? Instead, much lower clocked single processor G4s are running roughly equal in gaming because even the outdated card in the G4 ibook is leaps and bounds better than the GMA950.

xbench graphics scores mean nothing in terms of real world games performance.

Good post, you also can read about the cheapo Intel graphics at Inside Mac Gaming they also did a review and mind you non of these guys are even using new games but old ones like UTK4. Start throwing HL2 or Doom3 on those integrated graphics and folks will be crying that they have integrated graphics, then try throwing a new game on it like F.E.A.R. or some of the titles coming out this summer and those folks will be screaming. Integrated graphics is Apples way of making sure you will want another machine in a year or so.

 

[iKwick7]

"Well, that's just like, your opinion, man."

Fantastic quote!

 

[decksnap]

Integrated graphics is Apples way of making sure you will want another machine in a year or so.

Apple does not assume, like you gamers do, that the majority of their target market is gamers. And they are correct. The system they put together gives the average user the biggest bang for the buck.

 

[MRU]

Good post, you also can read about the cheapo Intel graphics at Inside Mac Gaming they also did a review and mind you non of these guys are even using new games but old ones like UTK4. Start throwing HL2 or Doom3 on those integrated graphics and folks will be crying that they have integrated graphics, then try throwing a new game on it like F.E.A.R. or some of the titles coming out this summer and those folks will be screaming. Integrated graphics is Apples way of making sure you will want another machine in a year or so.

Lets face it if it wasnt for bootcamp, there would be no HL2, FEAR etc....

MAC Gaming remains unaffected.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apple does not assume, like you gamers do, that the majority of their target market is gamers. And they are correct. The system they put together gives the average user the biggest bang for the buck.

Sorry but there just isnt any Bang! in any Integrated graphics machine, please continue the spin.

 

[Eric5h5]

FINALLY! Thank you. Games should only be played on Xbox 360. This macbook ROCKS!

That's a very narrow and unhelpful view. Maybe you don't, but lots of people want to play games on their computer. If Apple used a real graphics card (even a relatively low-end one), the gamers would be happier, and it wouldn't negatively affect non-gamers in any way. Nobody could seriously think that cutting out part of their market for no good reason (other than some shmoozing with Intel) is a good idea, surely?

--Eric

 

[ManchesterTrix]

That's a very narrow and unhelpful view. Maybe you don't, but lots of people want to play games on their computer. If Apple used a real graphics card (even a relatively low-end one), the gamers would be happier, and it wouldn't negatively affect non-gamers in any way. Nobody could seriously think that cutting out part of their market for no good reason (other than some shmoozing with Intel) is a good idea, surely?

--Eric

Expense, more heat, less battery life. There's machines with solid GPUs for those that need them and machines without for those who have no need. Perhaps there is a product gap by not offering a 13.3" machine with a GPU but hell there's a product gap with the lack of a sub-notebook. Apple has always had gaps.

 

[atari1356]

This was already posted admid another post as a subfix, but it deserves its own thread.

and as was already pointed out in that other thread, the reason the MacBook is faster in some tests is because it's the 2GHz model, and they tested it against a 1.83GHz MacBook Pro.

Your thread title is very misleading...

 

[Core Trio]

The X1600 is underclocked on the MBP. So it makes sense that it would be about the speed of the GMA950.

Oded S.

I really dont think the X1600 is underclocked THAT much, just enough to reduce heat, if it was never found out by someone actually seeing the numbers I'm sure 99% of people would never even notice it was underclocked to begin with.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

I really dont think the X1600 is underclocked THAT much, just enough to reduce heat, if it was never found out by someone actually seeing the numbers I'm sure 99% of people would never even notice it was underclocked to begin with.

I know how much some hate to hear about games, but I did notice the underclocking when playing Oblivion. It was very unresponsive until I bumped up the clock and memory. It was also noticeable in Inventor. But you're right, the underclocked x1600 is still heads and shoulders above the GMA.

 

[dukebound85]

oh boy how did anyone ever live with their mac before intel since you know they couldn't play hardley any games. i think it's funny that once intel and THEN bootcamp, people all of the sudden judge a system on its gaming capability. quite funny on how this mindset has changed so quickly