PDA

View Full Version : MacBook Gaming!


lewion
May 31, 2006, 09:28 AM
I've seen numerous topic's which actually clear out nothing.
What i want, and i know, i'm new and people start flaming now.. but!
Wow fps
HL2 fps
Doom3 fps
Quake4 (if it runs) fps
Enemy Territory fps
And Maybe oblivion, although it would be very low...

Bootcamp and osx please.. Because my games would probably be in windows...

Anyone who has a macbook and these games, please try it. Use lowest then mid and then highest settings to get a real benchmark..

I also want to know the exact difference between osx and gaming on windows on a macbook. I know i'm asking much. But right now i'm on a amd athlon xp 2400+ 2ghz Nvidia Gf fx 5700LE 1024Mb ddr 333. And i really want to know if the macbook is outperforming my system. That nvidia card is normally really low. And i would like to get things straigt before i buy a macbook. I hope and i really hope someone out there would respond to my questions, as i'm looking for a mac since ages and now i maybe buy one.

Thanks in advance.

LeWiOn

BlizzardBomb
May 31, 2006, 09:39 AM
If you plan on playing Doom 3, HL 2 and Quake 4, the MacBook isn't for you. It's just the way it is at the moment. :(

lewion
May 31, 2006, 09:56 AM
If you plan on playing Doom 3, HL 2 and Quake 4, the MacBook isn't for you. It's just the way it is at the moment. :(
No, i'm not grazy, although cs and hl2 would be nice, it's just to see the difference with my pc atm. I benchmarked Doom3 High quality 800*600 on my pc and it's running at a max of 15 fps. It's fast enough for me. i just want to know these things running on macbook with low - med - high settings so i can benchmark my pc and then see if mb is better...

Haoshiro
May 31, 2006, 09:57 AM
But that MacBook Pro has a real GPU, people who want to do that sort of gaming should really consider the Pro. :)

lewion
May 31, 2006, 09:59 AM
But that MacBook Pro has a real GPU, people who want to do that sort of gaming should really consider the Pro. :)

Oh dear, if i could get 2000 euro i would buy it.. But it's just to see the difference now. I'd probably wait till revision B macbook as it probably will have the gma 965 which is said to be much better...

Abulia
May 31, 2006, 10:43 AM
Yea, we really needed yet another thread on this.... :rolleyes:

MacRumorUser
May 31, 2006, 11:14 AM
Yea, we really needed yet another thread on this.... :rolleyes:


If you want HL2 results, look at the thread I started about gaming on the macbook.

There really is a lot of threads like this.

Basically all you need to know is

YES you can play most games on your macbook, Hlaflife at about 25fps with everything on HIGH, just over 30 on Medium.

WOW at about 20-25 on OS X and 22-30 on Bootcamp

If they seem acceptable to you, then your grand.
If your the type who never settles for anything below 60, look elsewhere.

lewion
May 31, 2006, 11:24 AM
If you want HL2 results, look at the thread I started about gaming on the macbook.

There really is a lot of threads like this.

Basically all you need to know is

YES you can play most games on your macbook, Hlaflife at about 25fps with everything on HIGH, just over 30 on Medium.

WOW at about 20-25 on OS X and 22-30 on Bootcamp

If they seem acceptable to you, then your grand.
If your the type who never settles for anything below 60, look elsewhere.

I want tests on the other games too.. as i don't own wow nor HL2.. And yes this is another thread.. but no other threath gives me what i need.. tons of people who post oh no yet another thread.. they just don't get it... i need support and i ask it.. And no no one has posted fps on doom 3 enemy territory and quake 4 so **** with the Oh no...

Oh and macrumoruser.. this was not for you... only the first too things.. Your thread helped me with some things.. and yours was the only one that cleared things a bit up.. but still not as i want it to be

MacRumorUser
May 31, 2006, 11:37 AM
Oh and macrumoruser.. this was not for you... only the first too things.. Your thread helped me with some things.. and yours was the only one that cleared things a bit up.. but still not as i want it to be

No bother :D I just think people are getting tired of macbook threads generally, not picking on you. You got to admit theres so so many.

I'd have given Doom 3 a go if it hadnt been for the pain in the arse crashing I had that day and windows being its usual self.

Quake 4 should in theory be better results than doom 3 because of the dual core patch meaning it gets extra boost from the extra processor.

I don't have a copy of that though i'm afraid (i bought it on the 360 and thought the game wasnt particularly good anyway)

I may and thats definetly only a 'may' re-install windows on my macbook again at some stage (when I'm bored and looking for somthing to do :) ) and if I have doom 3 off my neighbour I'll post results then.

:) by the way whats Enemy Territory? Is that the new Quake game ?

lewion
May 31, 2006, 12:05 PM
No bother :D I just think people are getting tired of macbook threads generally, not picking on you. You got to admit theres so so many.

I'd have given Doom 3 a go if it hadnt been for the pain in the arse crashing I had that day and windows being its usual self.

Quake 4 should in theory be better results than doom 3 because of the dual core patch meaning it gets extra boost from the extra processor.

I don't have a copy of that though i'm afraid (i bought it on the 360 and thought the game wasnt particularly good anyway)

I may and thats definetly only a 'may' re-install windows on my macbook again at some stage (when I'm bored and looking for somthing to do :) ) and if I have doom 3 off my neighbour I'll post results then.

:) by the way whats Enemy Territory? Is that the new Quake game ?

No, it's the old Online based multiplayer version of return to castle wolfenstein. But still very very popular. It's free, you should give it a go.. it's for mac too.. Oh and i would be really glad if you could run doom 3 at lowest mid and high settings to give me fps in all..
Also could you make a video of hl2 playing on a mac?? since i really don't know if 20-30fps is good.. eve 17 fps looks good on doom 3, it depends on the game i think.. Anyway i play doom 3 average 15fps and i'm feeling great with it.. Thanks in advance.. Oh and could you pm me your msn?? cuz i think it's easier to ask my question in a rapid way to you.. you're the only on who actually helped me a bit.

DougTheImpaler
May 31, 2006, 12:25 PM
If you're considering a MacBook and have a gaming PC, sell the PC and take that cash to step-up to the MBP. Best of both worlds.

lewion
May 31, 2006, 12:44 PM
If you're considering a MacBook and have a gaming PC, sell the PC and take that cash to step-up to the MBP. Best of both worlds.
No, it's about doing away my pc to get a macbook... otherwise i can't get 1000 euro together.. I'm just 17 and i don't have a job or something.. Get 40euro / month from my parents so....

Dont Hurt Me
May 31, 2006, 02:03 PM
Barefeats just did a nice comparison of Macbook and others and it aint very pretty, no matter what the Macbook pushers say Mac book isnt a gaming machine by any stretch. check herehttp://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

mkaake
May 31, 2006, 02:21 PM
Barefeats just did a nice comparison of Macbook and others and it aint very pretty, no matter what the Macbook pushers say Mac book isnt a gaming machine by any stretch. check herehttp://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

the macbook pushers?

I've read a couple of posts from people who have the macbook, and are playing games on it right now, enjoying it... but I don't think I've seen anyone claiming they can do something they can't, and trying to push them on anyone...

<edit> and I appreciate barefeats, but they were out to prove a point. turning settings up to max resolution and the highest settings possible for a configuration is not a way to find out if the machine can handle the games, it's a way to show people that integrated graphics < dedicated graphics, which we all know. as others on these forums have shown, while no one is a fan of integrated graphics, it does work for light gaming.

Dont Hurt Me
May 31, 2006, 02:27 PM
Go read a few titles of some of these threads and you will know what i mean, benches tell the story. Mac book is fine for cpu stuff but you want to run any modern games that Integrated graphics will expose itself. Barefeats has the proof.

mkaake
May 31, 2006, 02:38 PM
Go read a few titles of some of these threads and you will know what i mean, benches tell the story. Mac book is fine for cpu stuff but you want to run any modern games that Integrated graphics will expose itself. Barefeats has the proof.

and again. barefeats had an agenda. people here, posting their results don't. and here's what they keep saying: it's not a gaming machine, but it can handle playing the games if you don't want to do everything at the highest settings possible. no-one is trying to 'push' the macbook on anyone, they're trying to get rid of the notion that people are pushing (like yourself) that you can't play games on them at all, and they're nothing but a waste of money. some people find 30fps completely acceptable in a game, some are okay with not running at the full resolution their monitor is capable of. and plenty of people will continue to enjoy games on their macbook while you continue to cry foul play on apple's behalf.

iHeartTheApple
May 31, 2006, 02:41 PM
the macbook pushers?

I've read a couple of posts from people who have the macbook, and are playing games on it right now, enjoying it... but I don't think I've seen anyone claiming they can do something they can't, and trying to push them on anyone...

<edit> and I appreciate barefeats, but they were out to prove a point. turning settings up to max resolution and the highest settings possible for a configuration is not a way to find out if the machine can handle the games, it's a way to show people that integrated graphics < dedicated graphics, which we all know. as others on these forums have shown, while no one is a fan of integrated graphics, it does work for light gaming.

Agreed. Once again...I and others are playing games on our MacBooks right now. I've posted my results so far on my thread regarding my stock MB and WoW performance and *for me* it runs perfectly fine. That's without maxed out ram and hdd speed. Great, so the MBP destroys my MB for games...that's fine, but the MBP is also almost double the price...and depending on the model, it can be more than double. I don't understand why people are so on about shooting down MacBooks and their owners who *actually* know what it can do...rather than base their claims off of benchmarks.

I respect what barefeats is trying to do, too. I just think that people need to understand what the data is telling them. Most people don't have a clue about frame rates. They see two numbers...and the MB number is always the lesser of the two. To them, that means the MB is inadequate.

I can actually verify that I get right about 16-18fps in Ironforge at primetime, just as barefeats reports. Even though I get a drop in frame rate ever so often, if I'm the worst I see is 16-18 in a location with hundreds of players, then I'm happy as a clam! Because this adds up to me seeing mid-20's to low 30's while questing/grinding/farming...and that's just dandy for me.

Again, I'll post back on the performance changes when I install the new 2GB RAM and 7200rpm HDD.

PS Sorry for getting all worked up...:o I just can't stand when people tell me that what I'm *actually* experiencing, right here, right now, in the flesh is not true...:rolleyes:

Rickay726
May 31, 2006, 02:54 PM
yeah mac book isnt just for gaming, ur better off going with a windows gaming computer instead of using bootcamp and windows.

lewion
May 31, 2006, 04:16 PM
yeah mac book isnt just for gaming, ur better off going with a windows gaming computer instead of using bootcamp and windows.
No, that would be out of option.. it's about having a mac and having games like et and hl2 to run at an acceptable 25-30fps...
i'm asking no more. But you guys seem to ******** everything.
I want details! not some lazy ass saying oh no it wouldn't be good for gaming, oh no and as for barefeats, it's not a real time benchmark he's doing, everything maxed, well my gaming computer runs maxed games at only 5-7 fps so **** him! i want low -mid -high configs and details on fps in all so i can ****in look at my own pc and then find out if it's better, if you don't get it, go **** yourself.

Ps: this was to you and the other asses who don't give me right answers

hands up for macrumoruser!! he's the only good person in this world! and iheartapple is a good guy too..

I'm not a hardcore gamer and i never will be, so i don't need hardcore looks at 150+ fps when your eyes can only get 30 fps !

Enough said now, and i want answers.
If ya don't have answers don't post!

Oh yeah, sorry for my language but i'm getting really pissed of at these noobs not getting my questions!

paddy
May 31, 2006, 04:22 PM
Oh yeah, sorry for my language but i'm getting really pissed of at these noobs not getting my questions!

Your title says your a newbie. :rolleyes:

lewion
May 31, 2006, 04:24 PM
Your title says your a newbie. :rolleyes:
I'm new here, but i'm not a noob... i shall see this as sarcasm and i won't be pissed of at you k
actually i'm already sliding the forums like a month but i just registered today.. i'm sick of don't getting answers

Xephian
May 31, 2006, 04:29 PM
I might post some benchmarks on various games on my MB once I get my 2GB RAM some time today. 512MB isn't enough for anything. I'll try Doom 3, Far Cry, BF1942, F.E.A.R., and Halo.

Dont Hurt Me
May 31, 2006, 04:35 PM
If Apple offered a $50 option for a "real" Gpu all this would be nil but instead Apple plays the move up game rather then allowing you to get what you want. Im convinced with a real GPU Macbook would be fantastic! instead it gets crippled so Apple may move you into a probook. Thats sales crap from years gone by,GM use to try that crap:rolleyes: this is 2006. There isnt any reason not to have a $50 option for christ sake. So here we are, you must buy the laptop with the free integrated graphics....or must buy a loaded laptop with some stuff you dont need.

Emperor
May 31, 2006, 06:03 PM
Heres the video running Doom3 on the macbook it looks alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC5ST9VHcnk

lewion
Jun 1, 2006, 12:51 AM
I might post some benchmarks on various games on my MB once I get my 2GB RAM some time today. 512MB isn't enough for anything. I'll try Doom 3, Far Cry, BF1942, F.E.A.R., and Halo.
Xephian, that would be cool, but if you do so, can you play them thrue Bootcamp too??? Thanks in advance...
Emperor, i've already seen that, but still thank you!!!

There was also a video of running doom, ut, nfsmw and so on on the macbook, although i've not been able to find it anymore..

People start to respond the way people like me need it! thanks for the posts atm.. if only they all where like this :rolleyes:

yoda13
Jun 1, 2006, 01:51 AM
I realize you are frustrated, but cussing at people and demanding things aren't the best way to get results.

shadowmoses
Jun 1, 2006, 04:08 AM
Just to add the the playable games via Boot Camp I have been playing Football Manager 2006 and it works great blazingly fast speeds, I know its not the most graphically demanding game but to have it run nicely again without the need for a PC is a god's send,

SHadoW

lewion
Jun 1, 2006, 05:56 AM
Just to add the the playable games via Boot Camp I have been playing Football Manager 2006 and it works great blazingly fast speeds, I know its not the most graphically demanding game but to have it run nicely again without the need for a PC is a god's send,

SHadoW
Fps??? Like to know that... hehe, well why actually do you play a text based game??

FleurDuMal
Jun 1, 2006, 06:11 AM
Just to add the the playable games via Boot Camp I have been playing Football Manager 2006 and it works great blazingly fast speeds, I know its not the most graphically demanding game but to have it run nicely again without the need for a PC is a god's send,

SHadoW

Thats good, as that is one of my favourite games (which I already own, but for PC).

lewion
Jun 1, 2006, 06:37 AM
I still like everyone to see at my first post in this topic... cuz i really want to make the comparison between gma950 and fx5700le
thx in advance...

colocolo
Jun 1, 2006, 09:57 AM
Lewion, I totally understand you.

I hope people would actually read the title and make posts that have a point instead of bashing the MacBook. I sometimes have to wonder how difficult is for people reading comprehension.

I commend Macrumoruser and iheartheapple for being the only ones providing useful information at the moment.

I know this post isn't useful, but wanted you to know that you are not alone in you line of thought.


PS: dont bash football manager!

lewion
Jun 1, 2006, 10:32 AM
Lewion, I totally understand you.

I hope people would actually read the title and make posts that have a point instead of bashing the MacBook. I sometimes have to wonder how difficult is for people reading comprehension.

I commend Macrumoruser and iheartheapple for being the only ones providing useful information at the moment.

I know this post isn't useful, but wanted you to know that you are not alone in you line of thought.


PS: dont bash football manager!
Thanks, i already knew that, but thanks for your understandig.. if only there where more people like us..

milo
Jun 1, 2006, 11:07 AM
Go read a few titles of some of these threads and you will know what i mean, benches tell the story. Mac book is fine for cpu stuff but you want to run any modern games that Integrated graphics will expose itself. Barefeats has the proof.

So why didn't barefeats do any tests with graphics at the lowest settings for these games? People want to know if the games are playable at all, some of us are fine with the lowest settings.

Also, any benchmarks (or even reports) on Sims 2? That's one I'm very curious about.

lewion
Jun 1, 2006, 11:42 AM
So why didn't barefeats do any tests with graphics at the lowest settings for these games? People want to know if the games are playable at all, some of us are fine with the lowest settings.

Also, any benchmarks (or even reports) on Sims 2? That's one I'm very curious about.
Not yet seen, but i don know that it plays well, since it's very cpu-bound.. Should be one of the games that i'll be playing if macbook rev b will be with intel gma965 :p
And doom 3 hl2 etc off course :d

MacRumorUser
Jun 1, 2006, 12:11 PM
Not yet seen, but i don know that it plays well, since it's very cpu-bound.. Should be one of the games that i'll be playing if macbook rev b will be with intel gma965 :p
And doom 3 hl2 etc off course :d

Sims 2 (pc) runs very well, I already covered that in my macbook thread. Its not the type of game you can benchmark FPS with, but it was v.smooth for me at 1024x768 high settings - though bootcamp.

dextertangocci
Jun 1, 2006, 12:42 PM
Sims 2 (pc) runs very well, I already covered that in my macbook thread. Its not the type of game you can benchmark FPS with, but it was v.smooth for me at 1024x768 high settings - though bootcamp.

Is Sims 2 universal yet? Because wouldn't it be slow on OSX if it was running through Rosetta?

MacRumorUser
Jun 1, 2006, 12:48 PM
Is Sims 2 universal yet? Because wouldn't it be slow on OSX if it was running through Rosetta?

I think it is or will be soon, I dont have mac version to try hence why I used pc version.

milo
Jun 1, 2006, 01:02 PM
Is Sims 2 universal yet? Because wouldn't it be slow on OSX if it was running through Rosetta?

A universal version has been released. I'd like to hear a report of how it runs on these machines.

7on
Jun 1, 2006, 04:51 PM
I want to see half-life 2 playing @ 640x480 all settings low or off. Let's see that frame rate :D

lewion
Jun 2, 2006, 02:44 AM
I want to see half-life 2 playing @ 640x480 all settings low or off. Let's see that frame rate :D
And pushed to direct X 7 on bootcamp...
add this in the half life starter:
-dxlevel 70
That'll do it....
If you wanna try, use mat_dxlevel 60 in console... that will push the game to directx 6... And i think it will get fps till 50+... everything on low and pushed to older hardware should make it work like a charm :p

7on
Jun 2, 2006, 09:51 AM
And pushed to direct X 7 on bootcamp...
add this in the half life starter:
-dxlevel 70
That'll do it....
If you wanna try, use mat_dxlevel 60 in console... that will push the game to directx 6... And i think it will get fps till 50+... everything on low and pushed to older hardware should make it work like a charm :p

haha, great! :D

lewion
Jun 3, 2006, 05:47 AM
haha, great! :D
Did you try it??

Xephian
Jun 3, 2006, 10:10 AM
Did you try it??
I've tried CS:S on DX5, everything low, and got ~10 fps...

MacRumorUser
Jun 3, 2006, 10:32 AM
On DX 5? What does that prove and what computer? :confused:

lewion
Jun 3, 2006, 11:05 AM
I've tried CS:S on DX5, everything low, and got ~10 fps...
Uhm that really cannot be.. you have to set everything low though.. Lowest is dx 6 btw.. you cannot do 5..it just takes 9 then...

x704
Jun 3, 2006, 11:31 AM
I don't have a Macbook or a intel Mac for that matter.. But I was thinking, why not goto an apple store and try out the coupleafew games you want to play if you get one. I have heard of people doing stuff like that before at an apple store (playing games on the display models). That's just what I would do.

Xephian
Jun 3, 2006, 08:45 PM
Uhm that really cannot be.. you have to set everything low though.. Lowest is dx 6 btw.. you cannot do 5..it just takes 9 then...
Then DX6. Even tried DX8, little difference between 8 and 7; probably because I'd get 6-10FPS most of the time anyway. Even as low as 2FPS. Everything was on low, I've tried manually configuring the config.cfg with almost everything disabled or extremely low.

On DX 5? What does that prove and what computer? :confused:
The MacBook obviously. It's in the sig.

lewion
Jun 4, 2006, 03:24 AM
Then DX6. Even tried DX8, little difference between 8 and 7; probably because I'd get 6-10FPS most of the time anyway. Even as low as 2FPS. Everything was on low, I've tried manually configuring the config.cfg with almost everything disabled or extremely low.


The MacBook obviously. It's in the sig.
really strange..
Macrumoruse got 20-25 fps with hl2... so that's cs included.. this game even works with a tnt2 card, i can't see the problem.. why do you get ~10 when he gets ~22??

Xephian
Jun 4, 2006, 10:17 AM
really strange..
Macrumoruse got 20-25 fps with hl2... so that's cs included.. this game even works with a tnt2 card, i can't see the problem.. why do you get ~10 when he gets ~22??
I have no idea.

I've read around the steam forums and someone else had problems with his GMA 9250. He made the game look worse than Doom 1 and he still only got ~10FPS. Must be something with the Source engine.

CS 1.6 ran great. BF1942 did also.

lewion
Jun 5, 2006, 01:38 PM
I have no idea.

I've read around the steam forums and someone else had problems with his GMA 9250. He made the game look worse than Doom 1 and he still only got ~10FPS. Must be something with the Source engine.

CS 1.6 ran great. BF1942 did also.
uhu, must be something with that.. i hope they'll fix it somehow..

MacRumorUser
Jun 5, 2006, 01:44 PM
Must be somthing with source. I never tried CS but it's surprising that there's such a huge difference between HL2 and CS:Source on the same machine. Hopefully an update will find its way onto steam.

Reminds you of why we left windows :)