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

World of Warcraft ?

SamTheeGeek

SamTheeGeek

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 12, 2010
571
51
United Kingdom
Hey Guys ,

I got one quick question ,

Which on of those computers would handle WoW better ?


1st, Sony Vaio F i7 Quad Core 820M - Nvidia 330M 1GB - Windows 7 64bit - 8GB RAM 1333 Mhz

2nd, Macbook Pro i7 Dual Core - Nvidia 330M 512MB - Snow Leopard - 8GB 1067 Mhz


Now its pretty obvious that the sony is much better spec wise but does the mac as an operating system handle WoW better ?

thank you
 
In all honestly there both about the same. It all comes down to what you want, OSX or Windows? Personally I would take Mac over PC any day but that's up to you.

Right now I'm away from home with my MacBook Air and can play WoW on low settings pretty well and I've got 1.6 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo w/2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
 
microcolt said:
In all honestly there both about the same. It all comes down to what you want, OSX or Windows? Personally I would take Mac over PC any day but that's up to you.

Right now I'm away from home with my MacBook Air and can play WoW on low settings pretty well and I've got 1.6 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo w/2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
Click to expand...


I Got both , i do love my mac more but my question is still who handles WoW better ? in higher setting graphix
 
In the end, its World of Warcraft, one of the least graphically demanding games on the market. It was built on technology from 2001-2003. Either of the computers you listed would be complete overkill (not saying that you shouldn't get either of them). Computers from 2005 can run WoW on max settings with no lag whatsoever. As long as you've got 4gb of RAM and a dedicated graphics card you are golden.
 
Really, get what you prefer. Performance would be about the same, some people say better under OS X, some say better under Windows, but it would run great on both of them.
 
Sambo110 said:
Really, get what you prefer. Performance would be about the same, some people say better under OS X, some say better under Windows, but it would run great on both of them.
Click to expand...


yea i got both laptops honestly hehe , but i still didnt play em on em , ( dont have the time at the moment )

but i thought OS X handles wow better .

thank you :)
 
Well, I would say you would get better frame rates on the Sony, but you will get more than acceptable frame rates on the Macbook, so just install it on whichever one you use the most.
 
I had the same exact Sony Vaio you're talking about in this thread, and I highly recommend that you get the MacBook Pro instead.

My gripes about that Sony Vaio:

- it gets very hot and loud while in games.
- battery life is terrible, I think it stated 3.5, but 1.5 is more realistic.
- 1920x1080 resolution on that 16" screen just doesn't work unless you're watching a blueray movie, it's hard to read text unless you're right in front of it. Personally, I found it made my eyes hurt.
- games and applications started slowly, once you were in that game or app it ran smooth, but starting them up to begin with was slow for some reason.
- comes with a lot of bloatware.
- it had a virus on it within 24 hours, that or the security software best buy gave me thought the bloatware was spyware or viruses.
- you don't get actual windows 7 disks, you get a "one-time" opportunity to make backup DVD's (I believe it makes 2 single layer or 1 DL dvd.)
- if you get it, be on the lookout for dead pixels "strips".

- Forgot to add, I don't believe it is an LED screen either. Someone at Best Buy told me that it was, but I couldn't verify this anywhere. As far as I could find out, it's just an LCD. The MBP screen is WAY brighter and far more clear. The Vaio's screen didn't get very bright at all, it's most obvious with black, as it looks gray. The screen viewing angle is horrible, you have to be looking "straight- dead on".
 
tkingart said:
- you don't get actual windows 7 disks, you get a "one-time" opportunity to make backup DVD's (I believe it makes 2 single layer or 1 DL dvd.)
Click to expand...

This has always been my number one gripe with PC hardware from big name manufacturers, you get crappy "restore disks" with tons of bloatware on it. I'm sure it's to save you money, wait, to save the manufacturer money. My last PC was a custom built and I got real Operating disks. For this discussion, I would pick the MBP.
 
Wow

I have been getting more crashes under Windows 7 64 bit than I get under OSX snow leopard so I have been playing the Mac.
 
ozreth said:
In the end, its World of Warcraft, one of the least graphically demanding games on the market. It was built on technology from 2001-2003. Either of the computers you listed would be complete overkill (not saying that you shouldn't get either of them). Computers from 2005 can run WoW on max settings with no lag whatsoever. As long as you've got 4gb of RAM and a dedicated graphics card you are golden.
Click to expand...


You obviously are an A) WoW-Hater or B) Haven't played WoW since 2005.
Every expansion pack they have retooled some of the graphics and effects upping the graphics requirements. Trust me a computer from 2005 will struggle with WoW on anything other than the lowest settings now and it will be more with the next expansion pack. So please... Peddle you FUD elsewhere. :)
 
Sam Abul said:
Hey Guys ,

I got one quick question ,

Which on of those computers would handle WoW better ?


1st, Sony Vaio F i7 Quad Core 820M - Nvidia 330M 1GB - Windows 7 64bit - 8GB RAM 1333 Mhz

2nd, Macbook Pro i7 Dual Core - Nvidia 330M 512MB - Snow Leopard - 8GB 1067 Mhz


Now its pretty obvious that the sony is much better spec wise but does the mac as an operating system handle WoW better ?

thank you
Click to expand...

The Sony should handle it better but, in all honesty, you would never be able to tell the difference while playing WoW.
 
embleau said:
You obviously are an A) WoW-Hater or B) Haven't played WoW since 2005.
Every expansion pack they have retooled some of the graphics and effects upping the graphics requirements. Trust me a computer from 2005 will struggle with WoW on anything other than the lowest settings now and it will be more with the next expansion pack. So please... Peddle you FUD elsewhere. :)
Click to expand...

He's probably the second of the two choices. WoW has changed considerably over the years and requires a good computer to get the most out of it. That said, I believe that either of the computers listed would be able to run it well at max settings.
 
embleau said:
You obviously are an A) WoW-Hater or B) Haven't played WoW since 2005.
Every expansion pack they have retooled some of the graphics and effects upping the graphics requirements. Trust me a computer from 2005 will struggle with WoW on anything other than the lowest settings now and it will be more with the next expansion pack. So please... Peddle you FUD elsewhere. :)
Click to expand...

I am not a WoW hater, in fact I love(d) WoW. I played from the day of release in 2004 up until sometime in 2008. I know about all of the minor enhancements with the expansions. I do think that Cataclysm will be a big leap for the graphics but everything else was minor. If your computer from 2005 has 4gb of good ram, a 512mb graphics card and a decent processor (many people had this setup in 2005) then you can play on high settings.

Anyways, the point is that the computers the OP is talking about can run almost any game on the market on high to super high settings ha.
 
WoW is faster in windows, no discussion at all...
But' the MBP runs wow very well anyway, so it is no problem.
 
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