Anyone with the new Macbook tried any games yet?

[mklnz]

Just wondering if any of you that already have one of these babies tried any gaming on it? How does the 9400M _really_ stack up?

I'm keen to find out the FPS for:

World of Warcraft
Half-life 2
Counter-strike source
Team Fortress 2

Mine is coming...the week after I think :)

[singaporesling]

Good question Mate! I just ordered a MBP but I came to these forums cause I was wondering the same thing, and about those games :D. I think they should run pretty well, not with maxed settings or anything, but CS:S should be able to manage a respectable 80-90 fps I would think, with medium settings and low shader.

[ohemetophobia]

Just wondering if any of you that already have one of these babies tried any gaming on it? How does the 9400M _really_ stack up?

I'm keen to find out the FPS for:

World of Warcraft
Half-life 2
Counter-strike source
Team Fortress 2

Mine is coming...the week after I think :)

Haven't received mine yet, but as soon as I do, I'll be trying out a variety of games (Call of Duty, WoW, etc). Based on the specs we have from Apple and the Geekbench results people have posted on here, I'd expect a considerable improvement from the previous model MacBooks, more comparable to the previous low-end MacBook Pro models. Still, if you're going to do some heavy gaming on a regular basis, I'd strongly suggest springing for more memory and/or a higher-end MacBook Pro model in order to perform at a level comparable with Windows "gaming notebooks."

[mklnz]

Yeah gaming isn't my top priority, I won't be gaming too much, mostly just WoW I think, but I have my desktop to do that.

I just want to know that if I do want to play some games, I can do so decently on low / medium at least. :)

[Shivetya]

I am mostly interested in comparing WOW on the 2.4 to my iMac (2.16 with 7600GT) to see if I can FINALLY replace my iMac with a laptop

[dcorban]

I played WoW fine on my 2.2Ghz late 2007 model Macbook.

[christiemp]

No. Anyone want to buy me a game for mac? I'll try it then ;) haha.

[ShadowPuppet]

This new Macbook is what I've been waiting for. Sure, I have a PC for games, but I want a 13-inch laptop that's able to play Starcraft 2 (and TF2). My friend's GMA X3100 Macbook's preformance was not good enough to play TF2 well, and SC2 was an unknown quantity. I have high hopes for the 9400 chipset.

[mknawabi]

I'm somehow skeptical that the new chip will make games like CS:S or TF:2 playable at relatively higher framerates. The relative 'newness' of the chip doesnt matter...what does matter is the number of pixel pipelines, shader pipelines, and GPU clock. These variables are extremely handicapped on lower-end GPUs, and the performance of the 9400M is probably very similar to the last-generation nVidia integrated mobile graphics chip.

[mattcube64]

I'm somehow skeptical that the new chip will make games like CS:S or TF:2 playable at relatively higher framerates. The relative 'newness' of the chip doesnt matter...what does matter is the number of pixel pipelines, shader pipelines, and GPU clock. These variables are extremely handicapped on lower-end GPUs, and the performance of the 9400M is probably very similar to the last-generation nVidia integrated mobile graphics chip.

However, you have to remember the MB's relatively low native res. Sure, running it on an external display with be quite a hit... but when playing games on the go, the 9400M should put out decent FPS in Source games at medium settings... I'd guess at least around 30-50 depending on the action.

[unchecked]

Gizmodo has posted a good comprehensive review of both the MBP and the MB here (http://gizmodo.com/5063492/macbook-and-macbook-pro-review).

From the performance showing Spore running on the MB, how does that work out relatively towards WoW, TF2 and the like?

[mknawabi]

However, you have to remember the MB's relatively low native res. Sure, running it on an external display with be quite a hit... but when playing games on the go, the 9400M should put out decent FPS in Source games at medium settings... I'd guess at least around 30-50 depending on the action.

I sure as heck hope so; I'm getting a macbook soon and want to make sure that it can at least run counter-strike source

[Skyldig]

If anyone is playing Warhammer Online and have the new MB, a test would be so nice... :D

[mklnz]

Come on where are the gamers at :P

Argh I won't be getting mine till the week after next week I think :o

[sfroom]

If anyone is playing Warhammer Online and have the new MB, a test would be so nice... :D

TUAW wrote an article answering your exact question!

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/10/16/putting-the-macbook-through-the-paces-with-warhammer-online/

[wywern209]

i'm wondering how call of duty 4 for the mac will run

[CyberGeek]

I have the 2.4GHz MacBook and have so far had the chance to play both WoW and Spore on it. As a really quick summary: if you have an iMac or a MacBook Pro from around 2006 (the versions with an ATI Radeon x1600), the gaming performance is roughly equal. I should know, I'm typing on just such an iMac and have likewise played both WoW and Spore on it.

WoW is fully playable and runs at or near 60 fps at 1280x800 with medium visual settings. I run the game with generally medium-to-high settings (texture and model detail on high, draw distance about three-quarters to maximum (remember that they increased the max draw distance in 3.0), spell effects on medium, glow effect off, etc) and get about 30-60 fps. This is a drastic improvement over the older MacBook that I'm replacing, which had an Intel GMA 950 and would cry horribly even with all visual settings reduced to near-minimum.

Spore is likewise quite playable. I don't know exactly what framerate I'm getting, but it feels like it's in the 40-60 fps range, and I'm running it at 1280x800 with more or less medium graphics settings.

While I have yet to install Windows on my MacBook and subsequently try Source games like Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source or Team Fortress 2, given the similar performance to my iMac I feel comfortable saying you will probably be able to play the older Source games with settings pretty much maxed out, and the newer Source games (including TF2 and Half-Life 2: Episode 2) at medium settings.

I hope that helps some people out. This machine has been surprising me at just how good its gaming performance is.

[i0Nic]

I have the 2.4GHz MacBook and have so far had the chance to play both WoW and Spore on it. As a really quick summary: if you have an iMac or a MacBook Pro from around 2006 (the versions with an ATI Radeon x1600), the gaming performance is roughly equal. I should know, I'm typing on just such an iMac and have likewise played both WoW and Spore on it.

WoW is fully playable and runs at or near 60 fps at 1280x800 with medium visual settings. I run the game with generally medium-to-high settings (texture and model detail on high, draw distance about three-quarters to maximum (remember that they increased the max draw distance in 3.0), spell effects on medium, glow effect off, etc) and get about 30-60 fps. This is a drastic improvement over the older MacBook that I'm replacing, which had an Intel GMA 950 and would cry horribly even with all visual settings reduced to near-minimum.

Spore is likewise quite playable. I don't know exactly what framerate I'm getting, but it feels like it's in the 40-60 fps range, and I'm running it at 1280x800 with more or less medium graphics settings.

While I have yet to install Windows on my MacBook and subsequently try Source games like Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source or Team Fortress 2, given the similar performance to my iMac I feel comfortable saying you will probably be able to play the older Source games with settings pretty much maxed out, and the newer Source games (including TF2 and Half-Life 2: Episode 2) at medium settings.

I hope that helps some people out. This machine has been surprising me at just how good its gaming performance is.

Thanks for that., do you think the gfx performance will take a big hit when the macbook is run from an external display with a higher res? Not too familiar with current PC games, can you still lower the res below native res of the external display to that of normal macbook res so the performance is not hit, and if so, would it look very blurry?

[budkid]

I am a big Age of Empires fan. I will try it on my 2.0 Macbook when I get it.

[CyberGeek]

Thanks for that., do you think the gfx performance will take a big hit when the macbook is run from an external display with a higher res? Not too familiar with current PC games, can you still lower the res below native res of the external display to that of normal macbook res so the performance is not hit, and if so, would it look very blurry?

Increasing the resolution of a game will obviously lower its performance, the degree that performance will be degraded depends on the resolution and the game. With my iMac (recall that I've found it to have roughly equivalent gaming performance to my new MacBook) I've found that for many games, 1280x800 tends to be the sweet spot where I'm able to strike a good balance between graphics quality and performance. This is partly why I'm so excited about my new MacBook, since its native resolution is exactly that sweet spot.

Going higher than 1280x800 gets tricky on newer games (the newest games (as in games that came out in the last year) are often difficult to run even at 1280x800), and at least in my experience I've found that I often need to sacrifice too much visual quality to pull off a decent framerate at those higher resolutions.

In terms of blurriness, I've again found 1280x800 to be the sweet spot on a 1680x1050 display. Resolutions below it tend to be painfully blurry, and resolutions above it tend to hit diminishing returns until you reach native resolution, when everything suddenly snaps into clarity.

To summarize: I don't think I would recommend trying to play games on a higher-resolution external display unless you're either planning to stick to older games, or you're willing to accept a degree of blurriness by not running at native resolution.

[angemon89]

I've tried the 1080p video from Apple's HD gallery, and that plays fine. That's probably the most demand I will need from the graphics chip(as I don't play games on my computer) is to play HD videos.

[i0Nic]

Increasing the resolution of a game will obviously lower its performance, the degree that performance will be degraded depends on the resolution and the game. With my iMac (recall that I've found it to have roughly equivalent gaming performance to my new MacBook) I've found that for many games, 1280x800 tends to be the sweet spot where I'm able to strike a good balance between graphics quality and performance. This is partly why I'm so excited about my new MacBook, since its native resolution is exactly that sweet spot.

Going higher than 1280x800 gets tricky on newer games (the newest games (as in games that came out in the last year) are often difficult to run even at 1280x800), and at least in my experience I've found that I often need to sacrifice too much visual quality to pull off a decent framerate at those higher resolutions.

In terms of blurriness, I've again found 1280x800 to be the sweet spot on a 1680x1050 display. Resolutions below it tend to be painfully blurry, and resolutions above it tend to hit diminishing returns until you reach native resolution, when everything suddenly snaps into clarity.

To summarize: I don't think I would recommend trying to play games on a higher-resolution external display unless you're either planning to stick to older games, or you're willing to accept a degree of blurriness by not running at native resolution.

Thanks again, I guess I could play games in a window at native MacBook res on a bigger external display?

[Skyldig]

TUAW wrote an article answering your exact question!

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/10/16/putting-the-macbook-through-the-paces-with-warhammer-online/

Thank you. This new MB starts to look very nice.

[mklnz]

Thank you very much :)
Now I can have a peace of mind while I patiently wait for mine to arrive.

I have the 2.4GHz MacBook and have so far had the chance to play both WoW and Spore on it. As a really quick summary: if you have an iMac or a MacBook Pro from around 2006 (the versions with an ATI Radeon x1600), the gaming performance is roughly equal. I should know, I'm typing on just such an iMac and have likewise played both WoW and Spore on it.

WoW is fully playable and runs at or near 60 fps at 1280x800 with medium visual settings. I run the game with generally medium-to-high settings (texture and model detail on high, draw distance about three-quarters to maximum (remember that they increased the max draw distance in 3.0), spell effects on medium, glow effect off, etc) and get about 30-60 fps. This is a drastic improvement over the older MacBook that I'm replacing, which had an Intel GMA 950 and would cry horribly even with all visual settings reduced to near-minimum.

Spore is likewise quite playable. I don't know exactly what framerate I'm getting, but it feels like it's in the 40-60 fps range, and I'm running it at 1280x800 with more or less medium graphics settings.

While I have yet to install Windows on my MacBook and subsequently try Source games like Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source or Team Fortress 2, given the similar performance to my iMac I feel comfortable saying you will probably be able to play the older Source games with settings pretty much maxed out, and the newer Source games (including TF2 and Half-Life 2: Episode 2) at medium settings.

I hope that helps some people out. This machine has been surprising me at just how good its gaming performance is.

[gyumilly]

I've tried the 1080p video from Apple's HD gallery, and that plays fine. That's probably the most demand I will need from the graphics chip(as I don't play games on my computer) is to play HD videos.

Does that force MB's fan on? I haven't heard anyone hear fan as loud as previous MB.

[unixfool]

I'm somehow skeptical that the new chip will make games like CS:S or TF:2 playable at relatively higher framerates. The relative 'newness' of the chip doesnt matter...what does matter is the number of pixel pipelines, shader pipelines, and GPU clock. These variables are extremely handicapped on lower-end GPUs, and the performance of the 9400M is probably very similar to the last-generation nVidia integrated mobile graphics chip.

CS:S (which predates HL2) is a very old game compared with TF2. CS:S should play very well on the new Macbook. TF2 will give a new Macbook fits, I'm betting, as it is considered a demanding game. Even if you dial back the game settings, you're still more than likely to run into issues. I'm saying this because I have both games and TF2 gives my desktop fits. CS:S is a breeze. I've an older card in my desktop (GF 7200) but that card is a dedicated card that I can play COD4 (and TF2) on. I do have to dial back the graphics settings within COD4 and TF2 to get livable framerates, but my system runs hot even then...and this is a desktop with a dedicated (yet older) vidcard.

My suggestion is to borrow CS:S or TF2 and see for yourself, since that's the only way to find out...but I doubt it'll be much different with a Macbook.

[wywern209]

well i was surfing the net and found this (http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1224088545955.html) look in the bottom right hand side of the page for a screen shot of call of duty 4. it looks to be playing fine and notice the no. of fps in the top right hand corner of the pic. it says 33 fps.:):D
well then is someone off to go get a copy of CoD 4 for the macbook?:D if someone does have the game and the macbook, then post up a vid of it.

[neiltc13]

I know it's an old game but I tried Far Cry last night on my 2.0 MacBook and it ran flawlessly on Very High settings. I'm going to try some other games today but I was very impressed with Far Cry!

[neiltc13]

I just tried Unreal Tournament III and Team Fortress 2 on my 2.0GHz MacBook.

Unreal Tournament was playable at "3" in the texture and world detail settings but it was a lower framerate than I really like in a game. When I put both down to the minimum it became much more playable and dare I say it - the game actually had a pretty smooth framerate.

Team Fortress 2 was a different kettle of fish - I tried that at High for everything (except texture resolution, which I chose Very High for) and it was 100% playable, smooth framerates. No AA or AF. I'm impressed.

I'd definitely recommend this system as an occasional gaming rig. I myself do most of my gaming on consoles but there are still a couple of titles I like playing on PC. Seems that this is perfect for me.

[ShadowPuppet]

I just tried Unreal Tournament III and Team Fortress 2 on my 2.0GHz MacBook.

Unreal Tournament was playable at "3" in the texture and world detail settings but it was a lower framerate than I really like in a game. When I put both down to the minimum it became much more playable and dare I say it - the game actually had a pretty smooth framerate.

Team Fortress 2 was a different kettle of fish - I tried that at High for everything (except texture resolution, which I chose Very High for) and it was 100% playable, smooth framerates. No AA or AF. I'm impressed.

I'd definitely recommend this system as an occasional gaming rig. I myself do most of my gaming on consoles but there are still a couple of titles I like playing on PC. Seems that this is perfect for me.

That's a deal-maker for me. Thanks for the info! (My desktop has FW :p )

[boombass]

I'm a desktop PC user looking at getting my first notebook, and so the new Macbooks look very good to me - partly for OS X but also partly because I can run Windows on them. I am only a casual gamer on my PC (I find I'm gaming more on consoles these days) but it would be nice if I could play a few of my games on the go.

So with that in mind, could anyone make a guess how the following games would play on the new aluminum Macbook, under XP under Bootcamp?

1. Battlefield 2
2. Battlefield 2142
3. Civilization 4
4. Team Fortress
5. GTA:SA
6: how about GTA4 or Bully for the PC? :D

I've been reading about how well it plays games like Spore and WoW, but I don't play either of those and I'd like to know how they compare to the games I've listed above.

Thanks for your help!

[ChrisN]

I just tried Unreal Tournament III and Team Fortress 2 on my 2.0GHz MacBook.

Unreal Tournament was playable at "3" in the texture and world detail settings but it was a lower framerate than I really like in a game. When I put both down to the minimum it became much more playable and dare I say it - the game actually had a pretty smooth framerate.

Team Fortress 2 was a different kettle of fish - I tried that at High for everything (except texture resolution, which I chose Very High for) and it was 100% playable, smooth framerates. No AA or AF. I'm impressed.

I'd definitely recommend this system as an occasional gaming rig. I myself do most of my gaming on consoles but there are still a couple of titles I like playing on PC. Seems that this is perfect for me.

Thanks for the info man but can you give some frame rates because smooth for you can mean lower/higher than what I expect.

Thanks,
ChrisN

[PeterQC]

Team Fortress 2 was a different kettle of fish - I tried that at High for everything (except texture resolution, which I chose Very High for) and it was 100% playable, smooth framerates. No AA or AF. I'm impressed.

What was the FPS?

If that's all real, then I'm SO happy that I waited for these new Macbooks. :D 'Gonna spent some bucks in steam when I get my beauty :D

[neiltc13]

Just tried it all again with Fraps running. UT3 is about 40fps dropping to 30fps in high action scenes. This is at 1280x800 with minimum world and texture detail but with that odd "amount to render" thing turned up full.

Team Fortress 2 is about 40fps in high action or outdoor scenes and is about 50-60fps indoors.

[neiltc13]

Benchmarks from 3DMark 06 of some of the Macs I've had over the years:

Aluminium MacBook
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 9400M
2183

iMac
2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, ATi Radeon X2600 XT 256MB
3853

Black MacBook
2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, Intel X3100
295

iMac
1.83GHz Core Duo, 1.5GB RAM, ATi Radeon X1600 128MB
1205

[TheSandman2236]

Check out my thread at the HardOCP Forums. I did a huge arrange of Gaming tests that I'm still working through.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1356923

[themightyspitz]

Team Fortress 2 was a different kettle of fish - I tried that at High for everything (except texture resolution, which I chose Very High for) and it was 100% playable, smooth framerates. No AA or AF. I'm impressed.


This is fantastic news! God bless NVIDIA!

[cherry su]

How about Super Smash Bros. in SixtyForce (http://www.sixtyforce.com/) (N64 Emulator)?

[PeterQC]

How about Super Smash Bros. in SixtyForce (http://www.sixtyforce.com/) (N64 Emulator)?

I'm pretty sure it totally can. was able to play this game on a 5 year old PC with a Nvidia GForce 400/400 MX which was low end card, 10 years ago xD

[heatmiser]

With an emulator, you can play pretty much any Sega Genesis game on any Macbook. Sonic the Hedgehog looks beautiful on a 13" screen.

[cherry su]

I'm pretty sure it totally can. was able to play this game on a 5 year old PC with a Nvidia GForce 400/400 MX which was low end card, 10 years ago xD

but it [Project64] failed miserably (10fps) on a 1.6GHz C2D, 2MB L2/2GB/GMA950 (ThinkPad X61s)…

btw i'm looking for ~60fps (max fps the eye can see before it doesn't matter), which is what my MBP (2.0GHz Core Duo, 2MB L2/2GB/256MB X1600) gets

[clamchowderz]

i went out the other day and picked up a copy of Call of Duty 4. I also have a brand new 2.4ghz 2gb Macbook.

well the game played fairly well, i haven't played a computer game since Counter-Strike way back when, but the graphics are amazing.

i have the settings on "optimal" though i can tell if i increase them it will slow the game down, even now, sometimes in heavy fire action the fps slows down.

again, it runs fine on optimal settings and looks like its going to be a great game:)

[i0Nic]

Can someone please run the aluminium macbook on an external display and post results when playing games? Also post the resolutions you tried and difference in frame rate, settings etc.

I'm trying to decide if playing starcraft 2 on a 24" monitor at full-screen will work, and what resolution I'd have to use or if I have to play in a window.

cheers.

[ajpprc]

Macworld ran both the new macbooks and the macbook pros through a bunch of games and compared frame rates to previous verions. Verdict: most of these games are very playable on the new macbook and perform much better than they did on the older macbook.

http://www.macworld.com/article/136251/2008/10/macbookgraphics.html?lsrc=rss_main

[gyumilly]

Benchmarks from 3DMark 06 of some of the Macs I've had over the years:

Aluminium MacBook
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 9400M
2183

iMac
2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, ATi Radeon X2600 XT 256MB
3853

Black MacBook
2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, Intel X3100
295

iMac
1.83GHz Core Duo, 1.5GB RAM, ATi Radeon X1600 128MB
1205

Thanks for the info. I too have 2.2 MB. 295, what a dagger. I thoguht you missed 1 in front of it at first. :o However, I'm getting a new MB 2.4. Can't wait!

[Beric]

Anyone tried Age of Empires III (Mac version)? I'm curious how it performs.

[w00tini]

I bootcamped and loaded up Steam. Checked out TF2 and it looked great in an empty server. i'm going to test it out with a full tilt 32 man pl server tonight and will report back

[JJBagoose]

Just another happy game player here. (well not totally happy). I bought my MacBook 2.0ghz on Sunday and rushed over to BestBuy and bought Spore.

Spore runs great on my machine with high settings. Every once in a while there will be a hiccup but in general I am extremely pleased..... with the new MacBook.

On another note, I hate Electronic Arts. I cannot register my game online to use the online Spore content. I then call EA to resolve the issue and the tech support person doesn't even understand how Spore works. (never used) After getting nowhere he eventually puts me on hold for 10 minutes. I hang up and try to call back and they are CLOSED! The jerk put me on hold and then left for the day.
</End Rant>

[EricJD]

I just tried Unreal Tournament III and Team Fortress 2 on my 2.0GHz MacBook.

Unreal Tournament was playable at "3" in the texture and world detail settings but it was a lower framerate than I really like in a game. When I put both down to the minimum it became much more playable and dare I say it - the game actually had a pretty smooth framerate.

Team Fortress 2 was a different kettle of fish - I tried that at High for everything (except texture resolution, which I chose Very High for) and it was 100% playable, smooth framerates. No AA or AF. I'm impressed.

I'd definitely recommend this system as an occasional gaming rig. I myself do most of my gaming on consoles but there are still a couple of titles I like playing on PC. Seems that this is perfect for me.
Awesome, thanks for the quick tests :) I'm very much like you; I play most games on my Xbox 360 but there are a few PC titles that I would like to play as well. The new MacBook will be perfect for me as well :rolleyes: I'm glad I waited.

[cherry su]

Benchmarks from 3DMark 06 of some of the Macs I've had over the years:

Aluminium MacBook
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 9400M
2183

iMac
2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, ATi Radeon X2600 XT 256MB
3853

Black MacBook
2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, Intel X3100
295

iMac
1.83GHz Core Duo, 1.5GB RAM, ATi Radeon X1600 128MB
1205

Wow the 9400M's score is higher than the X1600's score :eek: I guess my MBP is getting old after all

[wywern209]

hmm, has anyone tryed this game on windows?CRYSIS :D try that? hmm maybe i'll give u guys a tip. have u looked at this?http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=584353

[CaMSpoon]

Wow I'm so glad I found this forum. Just saved 400 dollars by checking out that link ajpprc posted. Thanks so much man.
How I saved 400 dollars?
Well was going to get the 2.4 ghz version but its not worth it for 1 frame more!. Im Just a light gammer looking to play some halflife 2 mods, starcraft 2 and diablo 3. Looks like the new macbook can do the job very well.
Cant wait to pick mine up from apple store this friday. Gonna be first time apple owner.

[uncleSmurf]

Wow I'm so glad I found this forum. Just saved 400 dollars by checking out that link ajpprc posted. Thanks so much man.
How I saved 400 dollars?
Well was going to get the 2.4 ghz version but its not worth it for 1 frame more!. Im Just a light gammer looking to play some halflife 2 mods, starcraft 2 and diablo 3. Looks like the new macbook can do the job very well.
Cant wait to pick mine up from apple store this friday. Gonna be first time apple owner.

I agree, can't justify the 1600 tag when there are pc's that can be had with more goodies. I was going to buy a 2.0 model today but dang best buy sold out of them all and they refuse to put any on display and the apple store is 2 hours away both drections. bah.

[pcguru83]

Loaded up the Mac version of Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy this evening on my 2.0GHz Macbook. It ran flawlessly!

This Nvidia 9400 is very impressive for an integrated chip.

[ElHobbit]

Benchmarks from 3DMark 06 of some of the Macs I've had over the years:

Aluminium MacBook
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 9400M
2183

iMac
2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, ATi Radeon X2600 XT 256MB
3853

Black MacBook
2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, Intel X3100
295

iMac
1.83GHz Core Duo, 1.5GB RAM, ATi Radeon X1600 128MB
1205

Score higher than my Nividia 7600GS dedicated graphic card of my PC XD

[ajpprc]

Wow I'm so glad I found this forum. Just saved 400 dollars by checking out that link ajpprc posted. Thanks so much man.
How I saved 400 dollars?
Well was going to get the 2.4 ghz version but its not worth it for 1 frame more!. Im Just a light gammer looking to play some halflife 2 mods, starcraft 2 and diablo 3. Looks like the new macbook can do the job very well.
Cant wait to pick mine up from apple store this friday. Gonna be first time apple owner.

No problem, I pretty much have the same reaction as you. When I do upgrade I'll be going for the $1299 version of the macbook as I don't care about the backlit keyboard and all the benchmarks I've seen show only a minor bump with the 2.4 ghz processor. I'll throw 4gb of RAM at the sucker and it should be able to handle all the games I want to play on it.

[pw1388]

I played CS:S on my macbook and the avg fps was around 70, while for TF2 the fps goes from 40 - 25fps depending how many ppl are in one room and how many ppl are shooting.

[wonza]

I played CS:S on my macbook and the avg fps was around 70, while for TF2 the fps goes from 40 - 25fps depending how many ppl are in one room and how many ppl are shooting.

That sounds ace! what were the settings for this?

[pw1388]

That sounds ace! what were the settings for this?

most of the setting was on High. It was default set to it. Also i change the resolution to match the native resolution. I was surprised when I was playing the games with such high fps. lol. The only thing is if your in the game and there is a lot of object u will notice a slight lag but that's only for TF2.

[mattcube64]

That sounds ace! what were the settings for this?

+1

If those are HIGH settings, that's *VERY* impressive! I wouldn't mind turning down some of the settings to achieve constant 30+ FPS.

[BryanSanDiego]

Hello,

My name is Bryan I have recently been reading allot of post on Mac Rumors and noticed allot of questions on the New Aspyr Media COD4 OSX version I posted a screencast at this link:

http://imacedu.com/#software

This video demonstrates Game play of COD4 on OSX not BootCamp and the FPS that runs with settings given. Please email me if you have any questions or would like me to help in any way I can.

[neiltc13]

Hello,

My name is Bryan I have recently been reading allot of post on Mac Rumors and noticed allot of questions on the New Aspyr Media COD4 OSX version I posted a screencast at this link:

http://imacedu.com/#software

This video demonstrates Game play of COD4 on OSX not BootCamp and the FPS that runs with settings given. Please email me if you have any questions or would like me to help in any way I can.

I'm sure there are some people out there who will appreciate your video but this is a topic about gaming on MacBook, not MacBook Pro. There is a separate forum here for MacBook Pro posts.

[panzaman]

I installed Vista 32 in bootcamp and played STALKER shadow of chernobil, it ran great at the standard settings, very smooth, graphics looked great. I am impressed with this little gem.

[ChrisN]

I played CS:S on my macbook and the avg fps was around 70, while for TF2 the fps goes from 40 - 25fps depending how many ppl are in one room and how many ppl are shooting.

wow thats awesome, can you try cod 4 demo?

[MacsBestFriend]

Anyone test Mars Rover on dashboard???:p

[wywern209]

hmm, since tf2 runs so well, i would sayt hat co4 would run rly well. i would guess around medium settings maybe lows
who knows, maybe it can ace CoD4

[pw1388]

video of game play.
CS:S with boot speed from restart. CSS part wont start untill 2:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rt_upSdZwc

TF2: Video test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8MYo23r6sM

[acfusion29]

wow thats awesome, can you try cod 4 demo?

COD4 ran between 30-40FPS. I posted that info in the games forum.

[CaMSpoon]

pw1388 thanks so much for those videos. Its very impressive the performance with this macbooks video card. Still planning to make the trip to mac store this friday and right now I'm looking at the new macbook 2.0ghz or refurbished macbook pro last gen which are pretty much same price. Hard choice but I guess which ever decision I make it wont be wrong.

[youcheater]

is there a dramatic increase from my old ati x600 to my new 2.4 alubook?

ps maplestory works great :D

[pw1388]

I am dling COD4 Demo right now. Ill make another video on the performance of that game with bootcamp vista.

[pw1388]

Here is the list of games i have. If u want me to demo one of them on the macbook pls request.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pw1388/games

[ChrisN]

Can you try TF2, CSS and DOD S?

Thanks

[sangosimo]

those are all source engine games. All he would need to test is HL2:ep2 and all the other steam games would be faster then that.

[Andrmgic]

Would anyone mind downloading the demo of "The Witcher"? I'm curious as to how it would run on the new alu macbook :)

[pw1388]

Can you try TF2, CSS and DOD S?

Thanks

Here if u read up
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6479599&postcount=67

[bluesTank]

Someone try out crysis and then let me know. I am interested to see that one!

[Spiffey]

You might be interested to see the benchmarks posted on the UK Macworld site, which compares the new and old Macbook and Macbook Pro running Doom 3, Quake 4, Unreal Tournament 2004 and Call of Duty 4 at different resolutions. The results given are surprising, particularly as even the base model unibody Macbook completely decimates a 20" iMac 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo with discrete ATI Radeon HD 2400XT with 128Mb VRAM.

EDIT: I can't quite believe that an integrated graphics chip is better than the discrete ATI Radeon X1600 in my C2D Macbook Pro; but the results speak for themselves. It looks like I'm going to have to save up for a new laptop … ;)

Check it out here! (http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=2868)

[pw1388]

Crysis on a 2.4ghz macbook
Part 1 Loading up and settings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHR7a7YlNC0

Part 2 The gameplay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL04m5jMDp4


Call of duty 4: Gameplay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaBKZOBHpB0

[arm2820]

can anyone tell me why i can't get steam to work on the new macbook? I'm running it through crossover, but it won't let me purchase any games. When I click on the purchase button nothing happens. I've deleted it then reinstalled it and the same thing happens. All I wanna do is play the original half life and it won't let me.

[Zodi]

Crysis on a 2.4ghz macbook
Part 1 Loading up and settings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHR7a7YlNC0

Part 2 The gameplay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL04m5jMDp4


Call of duty 4: Gameplay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaBKZOBHpB0


Thanks for this - CoD looks playable after you turned off AA.

[mosx]

Even though I still firmly believe Apple should be using dedicated graphics and not integrated, I have to admit I'm impressed with the performance.

It's definitely a step in the right direction. It is a good performer, though still behind the GeForce 8400M GS and 9300M GS.

I wouldn't put too much hope in 3DMark scores either. 3DMark is highly inaccurate and very easily manipulated. ATI and nVidia have both been found guilty of manipulating the results via driver tweaks.

But this is a good solid performer. A huge step up from Intel. But, again, Apple needs to be using dedicated GPUs. Not integrated.

I would be curious to see, in person, how well it runs UT3, GRID, and HL2 EP2. If it can run those even at low/mid settings then it should be able to push GTA4 at low/mid settings.

[paetrick]

But my question is why everyone is playing under Vista? On my PC machine I always boot up XP when I'm going to play as I get muuch better performance when in XP. (of course there's games which only runs under Vista but if it's not, GO XP) I must say that I can be 20-30% better performance in XP depending on which game you are playing.

[PresentACat]

But my question is why everyone is playing under Vista? On my PC machine I always boot up XP when I'm going to play as I get muuch better performance when in XP. (of course there's games which only runs under Vista but if it's not, GO XP) I must say that I can be 20-30% better performance in XP depending on which game you are playing.

Perhaps, but I must say I find Vista to be a far far far superior OS than XP, so I will certainly install Vista instead of XP in bootcamp (assuming I can't be bothered to buy both, and who can?) and hence Vista is what I will run my games on.

I realise Vista hogs more system resources than XP, but that is a natural side effect of adding more features, though I will admit MS have a habit of adding unreasonable bloat.

[mosx]

But my question is why everyone is playing under Vista? On my PC machine I always boot up XP when I'm going to play as I get muuch better performance when in XP. (of course there's games which only runs under Vista but if it's not, GO XP) I must say that I can be 20-30% better performance in XP depending on which game you are playing.

Well, I see you have an ATI card in your PC.

My experience with ATI is that, even though people always claim ATI have finally gotten the drivers up to par, the drivers have always been terrible and held the hardware back.

So I don't know about ATI, but on the nvidia side, Vista's performance equaled XP many months ago. SP1 and updated nvidia drivers basically took Vista up to the same level as and, in some cases, even surpassed XP.

Thankfully, Apple went with nvidia IGPs for the MacBook and stuck with nvidia for the MacBook Pro, so theres no reason for anyone to install XP thinking they'll get a performance boost. It'll be exactly the same on both OSes.