Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Ok...so... (MacBook vs. MacBook Pro benchmarks)

B

bluetorch18

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 25, 2006
155
0
I've seen MacBook videos running Half-Life-2 smooth as butter, but then when I look at some benchmarks for Unreal Tournament 2004, and a MacBook Pro scores a 63.1 for average frame rate and the MacBook scores a 17.6. Now how is this? I would love to save quite a few hundred bucks and opt for the MacBook(even though I really want to get Oblivion), but I would also like to have the ablitiy to play some decent games on it...what do ya'll think?
 
Having never played games on either of these machines, this is pure speculation, BUT...

It could be that the games are coded differently and HL2 is more efficient. It could also be that the machines you have seen video have MUCH more memory than the ones in the benchtests.

Those issues aside, the MBP will always play these games better due to its dedicated videocard, and if you're serious about gaming you should probably shell out the extra cash or prepare to be disappointed.
 
Uhhm, i think your confusing the Macbook and the Macbook Pro

Macbook has 32MB (i beleive) of Video ram (is it also integrated video?) i'm not sure so dont quote me, but its something similar, so it will obviously not play too many graphics intensive games very well. (seriously, it ran HL 2? Link PLEASE!)

The macbook PRO on the other hand, (what i have) has an X1600 Graphics Chip with either 128MB (lower Model) or 256MB (higher Model) vRam, so they play many graphics intensive games very well, things like BF2 HL2 the Sims 2 etc. run without a studder.

I'm guessing you made a typo when you said you'd like to opt for the macbook, you mean Macbook pro? i think your a little confused here:confused: ;)
 
Xander562 said:
Uhhm, i think your confusing the Macbook and the Macbook Pro

Macbook has 32MB (i beleive) of Video ram (is it also integrated video?) i'm not sure so dont quote me, but its something similar, so it will obviously not play too many graphics intensive games very well. (seriously, it ran HL 2? Link PLEASE!)

The macbook PRO on the other hand, (what i have) has an X1600 Graphics Chip with either 128MB (lower Model) or 256MB (higher Model) vRam, so they play many graphics intensive games very well, things like BF2 HL2 the Sims 2 etc. run without a studder.

I'm guessing you made a typo when you said you'd like to opt for the macbook, you mean Macbook pro? i think your a little confused here:confused: ;)
Click to expand...

No, he quite clearly said he would like to save a few hundred bucks and opt for the MacBook....as it is cheaper compared to the MacBook Pro.
 
macbook pro if you're serious about gaming. The macbook is fine for some light games, but don't let anyone kid you - the GMA950 is not going to handle even today's new games, let alone tomorrow's.
 
Having never played on a MB, I cant confirm its graphic capabilities, but I can say that the MBP does play HL2 at all high settings buttery smooth. It is possible the MB plays HL2 smooth enough, but at all low settings. Even with 2gb of RAM, the MB will never play HL2 on all high settings with an acceptable frame rate, simply because of its lack of dedicated video card.

Can anyone with a MB fill us in?
 
I've played the Call of Duty II demo on medium settings a few times on my Macbook and it runs pretty well, albeit, a little choppy in some places. It's definitely playable, but the Pro would probably provide a smoother more enjoyable experience - in my opinion. I don't know how similar C.O.D. is to Unreal/HL2, but I imagine the graphics demands are comparable.

Also, as you can see from my sig, I have 2GB of RAM installed. This helps a lot and if you're thinking about getting the Macbook, I would recommend the 2GB upgrade for games and/or Parallels.
 
mac4matt said:
I've played the Call of Duty II demo on medium settings a few times on my Macbook and it runs pretty well, albeit, a little choppy in some places. It's definitely playable, but the Pro would probably provide a smoother more enjoyable experience - in my opinion. I don't know how similar C.O.D. is to Unreal/HL2, but I imagine the graphics demands are comparable.

Also, as you can see from my sig, I have 2GB of RAM installed. This helps a lot and if you're thinking about getting the Macbook, I would recommend the 2GB upgrade for games and/or Parallels.
Click to expand...

COD2 plays smooth on almost all high settings on my MBP, however COD1 has to be played on medium graphics because it is not yet universal. My HL2 results may have been a bit skewed because my card was slightly OC'd back to its original 400/400, and not the 300/300 that it comes programed at (using ATItool)
 
All I can say on the subject is that, in bootcamp, Call of Duty and Warcraft III most definitely run perfectly. I'm gonna be getting a copy of halflife 2 as soon as possible (I'll return it if it runs horribly, but I want to try), so I'll try to remember to report on that when I can.

Also installing UT2004 for mac as I write this, so we'll see how that works out...
 
ok so I got UT2004 installed, and installed the patch, 3369.2 (which is a universal binary btw- that was probably why that benchaark had it going at such a low fps), and with resolution on full and most of my settings at medium I was getting 30-50 fps normally, with it dropping down to 20 occasionally during intense fights.

Of course I'm a bit pressed for time, so this was only during one deathmatch on Deck 17, so I don't know how it would be on one of the big outdoor maps. But it certainly seems fine to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back