Crysis and FSX on Macbook Pro?

[Hellseeker]

So... I'm thinking of getting a 15" 2.4GHz Macbook Pro. But the only reason I really "need" the medium model is because I'd like it to run some of my more demanding games such as Crysis and FSX. I'm not looking for a laptop that'll run it on all the highest settings, I'd just like to be able to take my games everywhere I go. Does anyone have any experience running one of those/both games on their Macbook? I'm pretty sure FSX should be able to run on the 128mb 8600gt, but Crysis requires at least 256mb, and I suppose it's more future-safe in the long run anyway? The computer I got now can almost handle Crysis on medium settings (18fps @ 1280 x 1024) and about the same on FSX. It's an Intel P4 3.2GHz @ 3.51GHz, nVidia GeForce 7900GT 256mb, 2GB DDR2 RAM and windows XP home Ed. Will the Macbook be able to squeeze some more frames out of Crysis and FSX, or is it about the same? I looked at the benchmark scores http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879 and the 256mb version scores at least twice as much as this one, so I was thinking maybe to sell this one and throw all my work on to the Macbook.

Yes, I know that macbooks are not gaming computers, but if it performs better than this old Fujitsu Siemens which has cost me a great deal of troubles (from both Microsoft's side and Fujitsu's side) I see no reason why not to use the Macbook for everything.

I'm planning to get a great gaming rig sometime next year that'll satisfy all my gaming needs. Then I won't really need the Macbook's gaming powers, and maybe it'll have been a bit of a waste getting the big one instead of waiting and spent the money on the PC. I know I'll still love the mobility of the Macbook tho, and I'll still be able to bring my games with me.



Wow... My threads always end up being even longer than my longest essays... And even more confusing - I apologize for that, I hope you got some of it.
Also... I know I've made it seem like I'm a total gaming freak... which I'm not. I'm a game lover, yes, but I am able to get out there and do something else, and I got plenty of other tasks for the Macbook, but the smaller ones will be able to handle them just fine.
So... Do you think I should spend the last few $ and the get 256mb rather than the 128mb and get some gaming satisfaction?

[chewietobbacca]

The 7950GT is a much better card than the MBP's so it probably won't be much better performing than the desktop you have now

Hell the 8800 Ultra still chokes under Crysis... it's just too intense of a game

[o-mores]

Forget about Crysis on 8600M GT. ;)

Remember that this is a mobile version, about 25% slower than a regular 8600GT card. Here are the specs >> http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_8600M.html

And a normal 8600GT card performs a little bit slower than a 7600GT card in games like FEAR, FarCry... >> http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=637&p=2

[Chone]

You'll be able to play Crysis just fine... just don't expect uber-settings.

If Crysis couldn't be played on a 8600 then Crytek would be alienating 90% of their target userbase... and I think they are a bit smarter than that, contrary to popular belief you don't need to play a game at max settings to enjoy it.

Crysis on your MBP will look great, just not the best it can be.

[Cudadown]

Youtube is filled with videos of Crysis running on all kinds of Mac variations. Looks very nice.

[Hellseeker]

Youtube is filled with videos of Crysis running on all kinds of Mac variations. Looks very nice.

Well, that's what I thought. But then when you read some of the comments, there are a few people who say they can't run it with a decent fps, so I thought I'd just throw this thread in here to check if it's true that you can run it. And it seems to be...
I don't need to run it at high settings - Just want it to be portable.
But... how can the 8600gt possibly be slower than the 7600? Makes me think of a bottleneck somewhere else. It's like making a bigger toaster that makes bigger toasts, but doesn't... I think it's got something to do with the 'bread' not being bigger than usual, if you know what I mean.

Anyways, Can't wait to get my macbook. :D

[Erasmus]

Well, that's what I thought. But then when you read some of the comments, there are a few people who say they can't run it with a decent fps, so I thought I'd just throw this thread in here to check if it's true that you can run it. And it seems to be...
I don't need to run it at high settings - Just want it to be portable.
But... how can the 8600gt possibly be slower than the 7600? Makes me think of a bottleneck somewhere else. It's like making a bigger toaster that makes bigger toasts, but doesn't... I think it's got something to do with the 'bread' not being bigger than usual, if you know what I mean.

Anyways, Can't wait to get my macbook. :D

I have Crysis running on my 2.2GHz MBP, and it runs OK (it's not 100% smooth but its easily playable) but only on the absolute minimum graphics. Well, OK, Objects on High (I hate seeing plants and rocks "appear" as I walk forward, they could have at least faded them in) and Physics also on high. 1024x640 res. Earlier in the game Medium shaders is OK, but is totally unplayable later in the game (as soon as you get into ice)

Although I have just downloaded new drivers, I should give it another shot. And apparently Crytek are going to release a patch that will hopefully increase performance at some point (hopefully soon).

All in all, Crysis is really fun, I/you'll just have to wait until your next computer to play it on high quality.

Anyone with a 2.4 want to come here and give there opinion?

I say go the 2.2, and use the $500 or whatever saving to justify buying your next MBP six months earlier.

[Hellseeker]

Maybe I should tell you that I'm going to upgrade the ram to 4gb no matter which model I choose... Would that make a noticeable increase in gaming performance for the 2.2GHz model, or is the VRAM everything?

[admiraldennis]

Maybe I should tell you that I'm going to upgrade the ram to 4gb no matter which model I choose... Would that make a noticeable increase in gaming performance for the 2.2GHz model, or is the VRAM everything?

That won't have any affect on games (even crysis doesn't use anywhere near 2GB of RAM at a time), but it will certainly help with virtualization and running lots of big applications simultaneously.

A good amount of VRAM is needed but hardly everything -- the power of the GPU is certainly more important than VRAM.

[Hellseeker]

well, I can't really change the gpu :p so vram will have to be my only option

[Eraserhead]

An 8600GT runs Crysis Fine on Medium/Low Settings, so it'll run on low settings on an MBP.

[Hellseeker]

How big do you think the difference would be between the 256mb and 128mb? Like, the small one will run it at low, will the 256mb run it on med? I know there a lots of different settings, I got the game already, but you know, in general...

[Freyqq]

So... I'm thinking of getting a 15" 2.4GHz Macbook Pro. But the only reason I really "need" the medium model is because I'd like it to run some of my more demanding games such as Crysis and FSX. I'm not looking for a laptop that'll run it on all the highest settings, I'd just like to be able to take my games everywhere I go. Does anyone have any experience running one of those/both games on their Macbook? I'm pretty sure FSX should be able to run on the 128mb 8600gt, but Crysis requires at least 256mb, and I suppose it's more future-safe in the long run anyway? The computer I got now can almost handle Crysis on medium settings (18fps @ 1280 x 1024) and about the same on FSX. It's an Intel P4 3.2GHz @ 3.51GHz, nVidia GeForce 7900GT 256mb, 2GB DDR2 RAM and windows XP home Ed. Will the Macbook be able to squeeze some more frames out of Crysis and FSX, or is it about the same? I looked at the benchmark scores http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879 and the 256mb version scores at least twice as much as this one, so I was thinking maybe to sell this one and throw all my work on to the Macbook.

Yes, I know that macbooks are not gaming computers, but if it performs better than this old Fujitsu Siemens which has cost me a great deal of troubles (from both Microsoft's side and Fujitsu's side) I see no reason why not to use the Macbook for everything.

I'm planning to get a great gaming rig sometime next year that'll satisfy all my gaming needs. Then I won't really need the Macbook's gaming powers, and maybe it'll have been a bit of a waste getting the big one instead of waiting and spent the money on the PC. I know I'll still love the mobility of the Macbook tho, and I'll still be able to bring my games with me.



Wow... My threads always end up being even longer than my longest essays... And even more confusing - I apologize for that, I hope you got some of it.
Also... I know I've made it seem like I'm a total gaming freak... which I'm not. I'm a game lover, yes, but I am able to get out there and do something else, and I got plenty of other tasks for the Macbook, but the smaller ones will be able to handle them just fine.
So... Do you think I should spend the last few $ and the get 256mb rather than the 128mb and get some gaming satisfaction?

I have the 2.2 ghz 128 mb 8600GT MBP. I got a 7100 on a 3dmark05.

game benchmarks (all native resolution of 1440x900 unless noted):

oblivion = 50+ fps mid-high settings
tiberium wars = ~20 fps high settings
quake wars = 30ish fps medium settings
crysis demo = 15-20fps - medium settings (goes low, medium, high, ultra..so looks not to great) only at 1024x768.

[Freyqq]

Maybe I should tell you that I'm going to upgrade the ram to 4gb no matter which model I choose... Would that make a noticeable increase in gaming performance for the 2.2GHz model, or is the VRAM everything?

i upped my ram from 2 to 4 gig the other day

first off, in OSX it can use all 4 gigs - in vista 32 bit it can only see 3 gigs of it

second, I saw no noticeable increase in FPS. Evidently 2 gigs was enough and was not a bottleneck.

[Hellseeker]

I think I'm going for the 256mb version then. Might as well just pay the extra money and get a more future-safe computer than the 128mb.

EDIT: By the way... Did you people, who tried Crysis on their MBP, run it in DX9 or DX10 mode?

[prisoner54]

I think I'm going for the 256mb version then. Might as well just pay the extra money and get a more future-safe computer than the 128mb.

EDIT: By the way... Did you people, who tried Crysis on their MBP, run it in DX9 or DX10 mode?

interesting predicament - i am in exactly the same position. actually i just got rid of my 5 month-old aluminium iMac, with 256MB Radeon 2600 card, mostly because i need a more mobile computing solution. but one of my personal benchmarks was Crysis because i played the demo and got some *very* playable framerates on the iMac - i was positively surprised. seemed like a great game, and i will buy the full one shortly. in the meantime i played Half Life Episode 2 and it looked *beautiful*. but i have just got rid of the iMac and am about to buy a MacBook Pro with 256MB VRAM - thinking actually that the Nvidia card should play the game even better (the Radeon in the iMac is actually the lower-end version of the card so it was impressive to get playable framerates on the demo at all).

guess i'll find out later today, when i walk home and unpack the MBP, but even if it only plays Crysis on lowest detail settings, the game becomes so immersive that it doesn't matter too much. and Orange Box will still run really well - Portal is one of the most memorable games i've ever played!

good luck with your mission, my friend...

[prisoner54]

I think I'm going for the 256mb version then. Might as well just pay the extra money and get a more future-safe computer than the 128mb.

EDIT: By the way... Did you people, who tried Crysis on their MBP, run it in DX9 or DX10 mode?

oh, one last thing: there is a thread on Computerandvideogames.com that explains how to get HIGH detail settings through DirectX 9 on Windows XP. apparently DirectX 10 on Vista looks a bit better than the newly activated High settings on DirectX 9, but not much... but the High setting is disabled purely to give Vista people the illusion of something better... so activating High gives you the best of both worlds! i'm gonna try that out soon.

[ewoh24]

Do you have the exact link to the forum you're referring to on Computerandvideogames.com? I'd like to check that out.

I'd like to throw my two cents in regarding FSX on laptops...I run it on my Gateway with a 1.6 Core Duo, 1.25GB RAM and 7600GT and I get 12-20 fps on medium settings which is comparable to my desktop PC (Dual 2.8 P4, 7900GT, 2GB RAM). I was pretty shocked by that so even though FSX is well known as a system wrecker, and it runs fairly well on the above, I don't see why it would have any issue running well on ANY of the MBPs.

[barijazz]

I saw a rating on crysis by "play digital" (you can find them on itunes) and she was using a macbook pro with an 8600, I can't remember what she said about the game but check out the podcast.

[Hellseeker]

God I love these forums... Thank you so much everyone!

[ReanimationLP]

Wacky. I have the X1950 Pro, but a hair slower P4, and I get around 25-40 FPS on Crysis at Medium, same resolution.

Unless a ton of baddies pop up, then it drops down to below 20.

Of course, my processor is overclocked, so a wider bus, then I am using an Intel 875P mainboard (workstation-class chipset/board)

[ReanimationLP]

That won't have any affect on games (even crysis doesn't use anywhere near 2GB of RAM at a time), but it will certainly help with virtualization and running lots of big applications simultaneously.

A good amount of VRAM is needed but hardly everything -- the power of the GPU is certainly more important than VRAM.

VRAM doesnt matter, what does matter is the speed of the VRAM communicating to the GPU, as well as the power and speed of the GPU.

[Hellseeker]

VRAM doesnt matter, what does matter is the speed of the VRAM communicating to the GPU, as well as the power and speed of the GPU.
So there's no major difference in gaming performance on the 256mb and the 128mb?

[Freyqq]

So there's no major difference in gaming performance on the 256mb and the 128mb?

http://www.barefeats.com/rosa03.html

[Hellseeker]

Wow... that's not much of a difference - average 5%. However, I don't understand why the 17" has better benchmarks than the 15", when it's the same specs?

[Freyqq]

Wow... that's not much of a difference - average 5%. However, I don't understand why the 17" has better benchmarks than the 15", when it's the same specs?

in the 15" there is less space so it is underclocked to reduce heat
in the 17" it is not underclocked

the underclock is marginal though

[Hellseeker]

Oh, right. Didn't think of that.

Well, I've been doing some more research (because I'm cheap and will do anything to save the money and go for the small version) and it seems like Crysis is quite tweakable... so, with my gigantic brainpower, I have come to this conclusion: Since XP/Vista runs natively on the Intel based system, all the performance tweaks and such should work on the macbook, too. Right?

[Freyqq]

Oh, right. Didn't think of that.

Well, I've been doing some more research (because I'm cheap and will do anything to save the money and go for the small version) and it seems like Crysis is quite tweakable... so, with my gigantic brainpower, I have come to this conclusion: Since XP/Vista runs natively on the Intel based system, all the performance tweaks and such should work on the macbook, too. Right?

good luck running crysis on an intel GPU

lmao..

http://www.barefeats.com/mbook2.html

if you got it running on low at a playable fps i would be impressed

[MacRumorUser]

^ He meant on his macbook PRO

Read his first opening thread. Or even the title of this thread...... and see where it says 'Thread Starter' under his name.

So there's no need to post a 'I scoff at you' post ;)

[Hellseeker]

Umm.. yeah... still talking about the MBP... I won't be getting the MB, it's simply too expensive for what you get. By Intel based system, I meant the Intel processor, not the gma 950

[prisoner54]

folks,

sorry to take so long to get back with this, but HERE (http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/005814.html) is the article i posted about earlier. how to get 'very high' settings on XP.

will try this shortly (i.e. tonight) on my shiny 3 day-old MBP... ;)

[prisoner54]

Installed it at 2am this morning, played the first few checkpoints in both 'High' and 'Medium' settings. Not a huge difference visually between the two, but framerates significantly better on 'Medium' - definitely playable, and still looks gorgeous.

In fact, this is enough confirmation that my bittorrented copy of the game will be replaced by a bona fide version from amazon.

The bump-mapping and textures of rocks etc looked pretty good, even on 'Medium', and i can only guess what the whole thing looks like on 'Very High' - it will be a slideshow, but oh, what a beautiful one!

[Spliff]

Which MBP do you own? 2.2, 2.4, 2.6?

[Hellseeker]

Which MBP do you own? 2.2, 2.4, 2.6?

Look in his signature ;)

I agree Prisoner, it would almost be worth lagging your way through it just to get the Very High graphics... Too bad it'll be another year before I'm getting a PC that will be able to run it smoothly on high :mad:

[chewietobbacca]

The game honestly looks great even w/ just high settings. And pick and choose which settings you use - some like postprocessing and shadows take up a lot more GPU resources than other settings. Textures are primarly affected by RAM so high textures can be affected by lack of it.

I can run it at 1920 x 1080 with most settings very high or high on my PC and it looks gorgeous, but even at lower settings it still looks quite good! The upper settings IMO are for immersiveness more than anything else