World of Warcraft. Macbook PRO Santa Rosa nvidia 8600GT

[jblodgett]

I wasn't aware. I thought the Imac uses the same type of graphic card as MBP. In that case yeah, I can understand why the huge difference in performance.

If you notice, the newly release MBP comes with the 8600M graphics card.
M stands for Mobile.

The chipset on the mobile card has been scaled back for battery conservation and heat expansion purposes. So while they could have the same numbers - the two cards are being treated very differently by the two computers.

The iMac's card may be set to operate at 650Mhz. (I am making those numbers up- I have no idea.) That generates a lot of heat and uses a lot of power. Therefore, the MBP card may be set to operate at 300Mhz. Much less heat and much less power. Keeps the battery lasting longer and keeps your legs from burning up when you use it. And- because the graphic's chip is toned down some, those heat/energy savings come at the price of some graphics power.

 

[Xelnaga15]

so i did some tests and i dunno if you would believe me unless i SSd it lol but ... check it out ... max EVERYTHING except AA

So yeah thats the max i can get im in Shatt but im in a building (note this was the max i could catch on SS ive seen it spike as high as 150+)

in **** standing still with tons of people in bank varried from 22-40 fps (rarly 22) now riding around i got about 22-26fps flying out it droped to 17 once but I think it was just a hicup for the flight out stayed around 22-30 fps once out of the city frames seriously pickedup to 40+ flying around I then went questing with a party and did the ring of blood the frames rarely hit <49 durring the fight the average was about 58 and the peak durrign fight was about 67 let me know if you want me to test something specifically

 

[Pookieinc]

Can someone play some other games? Hows HL:2 or Far Cry or FEAR on the new MBP's? I'm very curious. Thanks!

 

[Eidorian]

Company of Heroes...

 

[Mac.Jnr]

If you could test how the following games run.
CS: Source, Test Drive and Rainbow Six: Vegas

Thank you, you don't really need to do all of them just CS: Source results would make me content.

Thank you!

 

[miller218]

iMac FPS

I wasn't aware. I thought the Imac uses the same type of graphic card as MBP. In that case yeah, I can understand why the huge difference in performance.

I think the video chip in the 17s and the 20s have the same chip as the (now old ) MPBs (X1600 mobile), but the 24 comes with either a 7300 or 7600 Nvidia chip. Being the new MBP has a 8600 Nvidia chip, one would think it's faster, at least until the updated iMacs come out (soon, one would think)

 

[Swarmlord]

Dumb question, but I know that WoW was designed with Mac in mind (universal binary), so can you run the same install discs? I'm just wondering if I'll have to buy another copy of WoW, even though I own it on the PC.

Nope. If you already have an account, you can install it on your Mac as well as your PC. You can only log into your account on one computer at a time anyway.

 

[Kasper Winding]

Nope. If you already have an account, you can install it on your Mac as well as your PC. You can only log into your account on one computer at a time anyway.

Sorry to say but it is possible to log in to 2 accounts at the same time. Been doing it for a long time, when i Twink my friends char when he is at work.

 

[Veldek]

I think the video chip in the 17s and the 20s have the same chip as the (now old ) MPBs (X1600 mobile), but the 24 comes with either a 7300 or 7600 Nvidia chip. Being the new MBP has a 8600 Nvidia chip, one would think it's faster, at least until the updated iMacs come out (soon, one would think)

I saw benchmarks where the iMac still beats the new MBPs.

Sorry to say but it is possible to log in to 2 accounts at the same time. Been doing it for a long time, when i Twink my friends char when he is at work.

He never said you couldn't...

 

[eXan]

I saw benchmarks where the iMac still beats the new MBPs.

Maybe that was a 24" iMac with 7600 GT?

 

[CyberPrey]

He never said you couldn't.....

Kasper Winding:
What he stated is that you can not log into the SAME account TWICE.. a/k/a you can not log into the same account on two different computers at the same time.

anyone can log into world of warcraft with as many accounts as they please.

and.. on a personal note, if your friend can't play his own character.. thats pretty sad... Considering WoW is probably the easiest MMO in existance....

 

[martianrobot]

Thanks in advance and sorry for my spelling (I'm from Europe and english is not my "born language").

I'm from Europe too and English is my born language. I shouldn't worry about your spelling, it was very good... in fact most English people can't write as well as you did. These days most of them write like this:

HI M8 GR8 2 C U YES2DY NEWAY OPE U R STLL CUMIN 2 PUB 2NITE WOTEVA

All I have to say to that is:

SHKSPR WUD TRN IN IS GRV

Regards from martianrobot,
English English (as opposed to American English)

 

[FleurDuMal]

I saw benchmarks where the iMac still beats the new MBPs.

Despite that (and, btw, there are some people on different forums who dispute those results after doing their own comparisons) I'd still suggest the MBP is more future proof for gaming. With the 24" iMac you're stuck at playing games at 1920x1200 unless you're willing to switch down and play at non-native resolutions. With the 15" MBP you can play at 1440x900. I would think that the 8600M GT is better at driving 1440x900 than the 7600GT is at driving 1920x1200, and as such the MBP will be able to play games adequately for longer than the 24" iMac.

All that of course is mere speculation. It might not be right, but I get the impression that it is more than likely to be the case.

 

[martianrobot]

8600GT slower than 7600GT for current games

As regards 7600GT vs 8600GT (either desktop or mobile versions) ... lots of benchmarking has been done in the PC world and the 8600GT only performs as well as, or worse than (sometimes much worse than), the 7600GT, with only a few titles it slightly outperforms it.

There is a lot of derisory hoo-haa about these new GPUs, and fans of the midrange nVidia GT family (started with the 6600GT, followed succesfully on by the 7600GT) are very disappointed. The 8600GT *might* play future (Windows) DX10 games better than the 7600GT, but by the time any DX10 games are released the 8600GT will probably be old hat and too slow.

I was looking to upgrade my media centre/gaming PC with an 8600GT, but after reading the reviews my trusty well loved 7600GT is staying well put.

I've been considering getting a 24" iMac for creative/work usage, and would definitely go for the 7600GT version just in case I wanted to whack some games on. But after reading the rumours, I was going to hold out for the incremental update that will so obviously be coming. I've predicted the X1600 and 7600GT in the iMacs will be replaced by 8500GT (20") & 8600GT/S(24"), plus the usual CPU, memory and hard drive boosts, but there won't be a redesign yet (Hoorah! The chinny white iMac rules the gorgeous design roost and always will!).

Still, the 8600m GT is better than the Mobility X1600 - a good choice for the MacBook Pro methinks. I just hope they work out how to get the full desktop version of it in the iMac case without crippling it or fobbing us off with the monbile variant!

I'll just have to wait and see what next week brings, but I'm still looking at a 24" iMac with a 7600GT

 

[martianrobot]

Can someone play some other games? Hows HL:2 or Far Cry or FEAR on the new MBP's? I'm very curious. Thanks!

HL:2 should play fine, but then it did on the X1600. Don't forget HL:2 is almost 3 years old - so it is hardly a cutting edge gaming benchmark anymore (even though it is the best game in the world ever).

HL:2 is always very good scaling to a system. It was the first thing I did on my 20" iMac when BootCamp was released, and it ran smooth as butter even at 1680x1050 (though I had to turn FSAA off when near water for some reason). Hell, it even runs pretty good on my MacBook, with most settings up high and full 1280x800 resolution!

Far Cry should be quite a bit better on the new MBP as I think it's more optimised for nVidia. Not sure about FEAR, but probably will get a boost.

What I'm more concerend about is Oblivion performance - that ran like a dog on my X1600 iMAc, but runs great on my 7600GT enabled PC.

 

[Wallace86]

Despite that (and, btw, there are some people on different forums who dispute those results after doing their own comparisons) I'd still suggest the MBP is more future proof for gaming. With the 24" iMac you're stuck at playing games at 1920x1200 unless you're willing to switch down and play at non-native resolutions. With the 15" MBP you can play at 1440x900. I would think that the 8600M GT is better at driving 1440x900 than the 7600GT is at driving 1920x1200, and as such the MBP will be able to play games adequately for longer than the 24" iMac.

All that of course is mere speculation. It might not be right, but I get the impression that it is more than likely to be the case.

so are you saying that the 15" is actually better than the 17" due to its lower resolution? i want to play games but i was thinking that the 15" would possibly be to small....would the high (not the upgraded super high) resolution of the 17" screens be to much for alot of games (like fps)???

 

[FleurDuMal]

so are you saying that the 15" is actually better than the 17" due to its lower resolution? i want to play games but i was thinking that the 15" would possibly be to small....would the high (not the upgraded super high) resolution of the 17" screens be to much for alot of games (like fps)???

I'm just using the low resolution = easier to drive (and vice-versa) rule of thumb to suggest that getting the system with the most powerful GPU doesn't always mean you're getting a better machine for gaming. How big the gap is between driving a 1440x900 monitor and a 1600x1050 (or whatever it is) monitor, I don't know. I'd wait around for a few benchmarks before taking the plunge.

 

[martianrobot]

With the 24" iMac you're stuck at playing games at 1920x1200 unless you're willing to switch down and play at non-native resolutions. With the 15" MBP you can play at 1440x900. I would think that the 8600M GT is better at driving 1440x900 than the 7600GT is at driving 1920x1200, and as such the MBP will be able to play games adequately for longer than the 24" iMac.

True, playing games at a lower resolution helps speed them up, so if your screen has a lot of pixels on it, the graphics chip has to work harder, unless you drop the screen resolution. I don't think anybody would try to play any games at 1920x1200 resolution with anything but the most very recent high-spec graphics cards, and downscaling to a lower screen res in a game doesn't necessarily look bad, depending on the game (though that is something I miss big fugly CRTs for).

To be honest, playing games on a monitor that size can't be good for you, unless you sit back a bit. I used to be a sit-at-my-desk PC gamer, but now that I've relegated my PC to being a mediacentre/gaming PC plugged into a 26" LCD TV running at 1280x720, I sit on my sofa 8ft away and use an Xbox 360 controller. Nothing to stop a 24" iMac user doing the same .... well, unless they don't have a sofa 8ft away in their trendy media/design studio that is

 

[Wallace86]

ohh...thanx for the rply. for those of you with 15" displays, do you find them to be "big enough" for enjoying games and dvds, or do u ever wish you would have got a 17" instead..

 

[Wallace86]

martianrobot, can you use a 360 controller on a MBP? also, do you think a 17" is to big / to high resolution for gaming and such? (im new pleas don make funn of me!!)

 

[martianrobot]

martianrobot, can you use a 360 controller on a MBP? also, do you think a 17" is to big / to high resolution for gaming and such? (im new pleas don make funn of me!!)

I can't see any reason why you couldn't use a wired Xbox 360 gamepad on a MacBook Pro or iMac as the pad uses a standard USB port. You might have problems if playing games in OSX rather than BootCamp'd Windows, as Microsoft probably only provide drivers for Windows. I think the wireless 360 controller will work if you buy a special receiver made for Windows by Microsoft, but it might involve more configuration, and less time playing as you wait for the batteries to recharge

However, surprisingly few PC games support the Xbox 360 gamepad out of the box, and you often end up having to use a third party app to make it the emulate the keyboard and mouse. I use Pinnacle Profiler for most games, apart from the newer Tomb Raider games which support it straight up, and very well too!

Pinnacle's not free but only US$20, and you can download 'official' and user created gaming profiles for free, most of which work quite well, though some need some tweaking for personal tastes. Or you can creat your own.

I'm currently playing Half-Life 2 Episode One, Oblivion, Prey, Tomb Raider Anniversary, Deus Ex 2 and STALKER using the gamepad. It took some getting used to and some games, such as fast FPS, are a bit more work than a keyboard and mouse. But after a few months I actually find it weird and awkward going back to them, and the Xbox 360 gamepad is a very comfortable ergonomic design which helps reduce my achy 'mouse-wrist'.

As regards your MBP 17" gaming resolution question, and it's hard to say without having one in front of me (Yes please! Anybody want to swap a one month old white 13" MacBook for one?), but I think it would be able to cope with most older and current games at 1680x1050, as long as you have some settings turned down, and are running games in Windows XP under BootCamp, and arent expecting blistering framerates to PWN everybody in CT:S. Some games you might need to reduce the resolution though.

However, I really don't think the extra price of the 17" MacBook Pro is worth it and unless you are a graphics/editing guy on the move, you probably don't need that extra resolution. Also, the 17" doesn't look *that much* bigger than the 15" when side by side, so you probably won't feel let down by how good DVDs and games will look on the 15". To be honest, the 15" are overpriced as it is, and I would definitely not bother with the 'midrange' MBP as it's only got a slightly higher spec for a much larger amount of cash.

I would suggest getting a 15", and if you need the extra resolution occasionally, why not get a nice external monitor? Not one of those overpriced Apple jobbies though. I picked up a nice 20" widesceen one running at 1680x1050 for UK£112 (US£220?) the other day, to plug my MacBook into when I need a bit of extra space for GimpShop, Final Cut Express or Garageband.

PS: Why would I make fun of you? You haven't done or said anything to offend or annoy! I'm a newbie too BTW, well, to this forum anyway.

 

[SilentCrs]

so i did some tests and i dunno if you would believe me unless i SSd it lol but ... check it out ... max EVERYTHING except AA

So yeah thats the max i can get im in Shatt but im in a building (note this was the max i could catch on SS ive seen it spike as high as 150+)

in **** standing still with tons of people in bank varried from 22-40 fps (rarly 22) now riding around i got about 22-26fps flying out it droped to 17 once but I think it was just a hicup for the flight out stayed around 22-30 fps once out of the city frames seriously pickedup to 40+ flying around I then went questing with a party and did the ring of blood the frames rarely hit <49 durring the fight the average was about 58 and the peak durrign fight was about 67 let me know if you want me to test something specifically

Turn off full screen glow. It's a major performance hog and it looks horrible anyway. You should get better numbers.

 

[Willis]

HI M8 GR8 2 C U YES2DY NEWAY OPE U R STLL CUMIN 2 PUB 2NITE WOTEVA

All I have to say to that is:

SHKSPR WUD TRN IN IS GRV

Regards from martianrobot,
English English (as opposed to American English)

Took me a while to understand 'SHKSPR WUD TRN IN IS GRV'.. I was like

For those who havent got a clue, Shakespeare would turn in his grave

 

[martianrobot]

Took me a while to understand 'SHKSPR WUD TRN IN IS GRV'.. I was like

For those who havent got a clue, Shakespeare would turn in his grave

WEL DUN M8, 5* 4 UR EFUT

 

[insertcoin]

Turn off full screen glow. It's a major performance hog and it looks horrible anyway. You should get better numbers.

i don't know if this is also true for macs, but you could also try to turn off hardware cursor and smooth mouse. that gave me a great performance boost.