Who says that Macbook (non pro) cannot play games? [Archive]

lewion

Jun 15, 2006, 02:10 PM

Here is the proof, it definitly reaches 40 fps with half life 2 and it looks fabulous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpSAf56v1S4
even at 1280-800 it runs fabulous... Video is 1024*768....

Now if this can play 40 fps in half life, it will get 30 fps in Battlefield 2 and even CS Source (same engine as hl2)...

Gma950 is just as good as the 5200 in earlier powerbooks and sometimes even as good as radeon 9700!!! yeah you read that correctly.. The video card of previous powerbook..

Now stop the whine about the games, it can run them!

Oh and use bootcamp.. gma950 works better with dx9 than it does with opengl

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2990&article=Apple+Bootcamp+versus+Parallels site where i got it!

DougTheImpaler

Jun 15, 2006, 02:25 PM

haven't we had enough of these threads? :(

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=204028
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=208061
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=202768
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=207176
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=207184
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=202495
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=204543

mark!

Jun 15, 2006, 02:30 PM

haven't we had enough of these threads? :(
argh I know!

Lewion:I don't think anyone said that they can't play games, but it is a fact that shared graphics is worse than dedicated graphics. People are probably just disappointed because, even though it is (just) okay, they would rather have a dedicated card (obviously). I don't know...but we have enough threads on this, yes?

Capt Underpants

Jun 15, 2006, 02:53 PM

Why are you beating a dead horse

lewion

Jun 15, 2006, 02:54 PM

argh I know!

Lewion:I don't think anyone said that they can't play games, but it is a fact that shared graphics is worse than dedicated graphics. People are probably just disappointed because, even though it is (just) okay, they would rather have a dedicated card (obviously). I don't know...but we have enough threads on this, yes?
No! and stop whining, a lot of people like me are waiting for numbers... Numerous threads there are, but none has interesting information... they all talk ******** which i do not appreciate.. the only nice person here seems macrumoruser... and iheartapple isa great person too.. these guys help me, but all those posts... screw them this is for people who are in the same camp as me... so i'd like to get you two posts removed and get fresh start with persons that are intresting
i do not want a discussion nor people sayin blabbla we had this already, why dyou post then!!!
Damn weird people

ChrisFromCanada

Jun 15, 2006, 02:54 PM

argh I know!

Lewion:but it is a fact that shared graphics is worse than dedicated graphics.

But I think the point Lewion is trying to make is that is not true. Lewion is saying that in some cases integrated graphics are better than dedicated. IMO the GMA 950 is better than the 5200 and the 9200. It is debatable if the GMA 950 beats the 9550 or the 9700 because we can't use either of the Mac versions of those cards in Windows.

chairguru22

Jun 15, 2006, 02:57 PM

that video was pretty cool. ill try it someday when i get my hands on a copy of windows..

lewion

Jun 15, 2006, 02:57 PM

But I think the point Lewion is trying to make is that is not true. Lewion is saying that in some cases integrated graphics is better than dedicated. IMO the GMA 950 is better than the 5200 and the 9200. It is debatable if the GMA 950 beats the 9550 or the 9700 because we can't use either of the Mac versions of those cards in Windows.
Thank you! + point for you!! :D Ifonly there were more people like you..

And i somewhere found numbers where the fps of the gma950 on macbook are better then 9700 o, powerbook.. it was a universal application fcourse i mean game.....

that video was pretty cool. ill try it someday when i get my hands on a copy of windows..
you do that.. but you got to know: this was with 2gig ram...

MacRumorUser

Jun 15, 2006, 03:03 PM

mark!

Jun 15, 2006, 03:14 PM

No! and stop whining, a lot of people like me are waiting for numbers... Numerous threads there are, but none has interesting information... they all talk ******** which i do not appreciate.. the only nice person here seems macrumoruser... and iheartapple isa great person too.. these guys help me, but all those posts... screw them this is for people who are in the same camp as me... so i'd like to get you two posts removed and get fresh start with persons that are intresting
i do not want a discussion nor people sayin blabbla we had this already, why dyou post then!!!
Damn weird people

okay. why don't you introduce some 'interesting' information into those threads (there are atleast 7), instead of starting another one.

x86

Jun 15, 2006, 03:32 PM

Thanks lewion. :) Great stuff.

Told you half life 2 worked grand :D Just wish my macbook optical drive hadnt packed up on me :o Now I have to wait for my new black replacement and I've got 2gig's sitting here waiting for it :D

What was wrong with your original? I feel your pain because I have to send mine out for repair tomorrow...

lewion

Jun 15, 2006, 03:33 PM

okay. why don't you introduce some 'interesting' information into those threads (there are atleast 7), instead of starting another one.
Do i look like i need your comment??
Jesus stop whining and go read some other posts!

mark!

Jun 15, 2006, 03:39 PM

Do i look like i need your comment??

hmm idk i cant see you.

MacRumorUser

Jun 15, 2006, 03:49 PM

What was wrong with your original? I feel your pain because I have to send mine out for repair tomorrow...

The superdrive was always dicy on me, but it got to the point where it just wouldnt read ANY media what so ever. So it had to go back.

Apple offered to replace with exactly same spec machine, but as I'd already bought 2 pieces of 1gb in the mean time, I decided instead of spending the extra on the ram upgrade to 1gb with apple, i'll spend that difference on a black macbook. Just self indulgence :)

Just hope the new one is grand.

lewion

Jun 16, 2006, 07:17 AM

hmm idk i cant see you.
well then!
Stop whining then i do what i think is good for all those people out there, btw this is news 40fps with hl2 on macbook is news, it should come on frontpage....

7on

Jun 16, 2006, 07:37 AM

yeah, I didn't like HL2 so much, I may pick up 1 for $10 though.

Oh yeah, Windows uses 200+MB of RAM for the video card while MacOSX uses 80MB (16 for system OS stuff and 64 extra). That is why games may work faster under Windows.

skipsandwichdx

Jun 16, 2006, 07:48 AM

Sweet, you get 40fps standing around a little area doing nothing. Benchmark?

srobert

Jun 16, 2006, 08:12 AM

…the only nice person here seems macrumoruser... and iheartapple isa great person too

Somehow I find that disgracious for the other 65132+ members.

Jesus stop whining and go read some other posts

[Inigo's voice]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/inigo's voice]

;)

Seriously. a calm and polite response to the criticism would have done more to establish the legitimacy of this thread than an irritated tantrum. Just a thought. Let's all try to play nice.

ijimk

Jun 16, 2006, 08:44 AM

how does it handle World of Warcraft? :confused:

JackSYi

Jun 16, 2006, 08:49 AM

how does it handle World of Warcraft? :confused:

With My Black MacBook with 2GB of RAM, it runs usually around 30fps but dips to anywhere between 10-16fps. Its definitely playable, I just wish that more RAM can be allotted to the graphics card.

MacRumorUser

Jun 16, 2006, 09:23 AM

Somehow I find that disgracious for the other 65132+ members.

Hey I'm not complaining, I'm the good guy :)

Just other threads were hijacked by people with too much ego and not enough room to post, so it looked kind of bad. Especially for a forum newcomer.

But yeah most of mac rumors forum users are sound bunch of fellows, just the one or two bad pennies that give everyone a bad name. :)

lewion

Jun 16, 2006, 10:53 AM

Somehow I find that disgracious for the other 65132+ members.

[Inigo's voice]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/inigo's voice]

;)

Seriously. a calm and polite response to the criticism would have done more to establish the legitimacy of this thread than an irritated tantrum. Just a thought. Let's all try to play nice.

I shall try and use another word then for people who are complaining about my posts :D, and seriously.. the only two people of good help are macrumoruser and iheartapple... there are a lot of good fellows out there, but i'm just new.. the only thing i'm intrested in is macbook and gaming... so... not that it neeeds to run good games, just things like doom hl2 and wow, those in particulary... and yes other things too.. but not a game like Oblivion.. it doesn't have a chance of being playable..

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 16, 2006, 11:10 AM

Sweet, you get 40fps standing around a little area doing nothing. Benchmark?
Thats funny, that what iam hearing. I suggest going into action.:)

MacRumorUser

Jun 16, 2006, 11:14 AM

Thats funny, that what iam hearing. I suggest going into action.:)

:rolleyes: Wondered how long it would take before the trolls arrived. And you wonder why lewion thought badly of the whole community.

Dont hurt me you have had nothing constructive to add to any of the gaming on macbook threads EVER, and insist the macbook is not for gaming. GREAT WEVE HEARD YOU... A million times already.... Don't you think it's time to simply GET OVER IT! and leave those that can and are gaming on their macbooks alone? :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 16, 2006, 11:27 AM

MacRumorUser

Jun 16, 2006, 11:29 AM

Integrated graphics are what they are....go to barefeats but I would feel very sorry for someone thinking they will be able to do some newer stuff only to find they cant. Benches do tell. Macbook may be fine for older games and iLife but newer stuff wont run very well. Its a great little cpu machine just not a very good graphics system. Look here for 1 examplehttp://www.barefeats.com/kak4c.html

WOW. Exaclty the same as you've posted in EVERY MacBook thread.... WE GET IT! Now if you dont mind we were having a nice discussion before the macbook troll decided to rear his head. Seriously, please just drop it. Weve heard what you have to say, but our first hand experience is a much better judge than someone reading an article elsewhere.

For the sanity of all macbook gamers who are currently playing and want to discuss things, just leave it be... We've heard you and we accept your opinion, but the constant posting of the same thing grows oh so wearisome.

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 16, 2006, 11:39 AM

You could go to insidemacgames also;) Sorry to intrude , please continue on how terrific gaming is on GMA950.:)

MacRumorUser

Jun 16, 2006, 11:51 AM

^ :rolleyes:

Anyway back on topic.

Call of Duty 2 seems to work on the macbook surprisingly well also. Well done Aspyr.

http://www.yankidank.com/article.php?story=20060603003053414

There's a video on youtube of teh macbook running it and it looks well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6tK31NVUmA&search=call%20of%20duty%202%20macbook

skipsandwichdx

Jun 16, 2006, 12:02 PM

I don't have a problem with people wanting to game on the integrated graphics. However, I think it's a little misleading to claim 40fps (and call it "front page news") when the measurement was taken while just walking around in an empty, simple area. Notice how it gets very slow when the barrel explodes?

Benchmarks are much more accurate because they're a standard.

MacRumorUser

Jun 16, 2006, 12:51 PM

mark!

Jun 16, 2006, 12:57 PM

Who said it was front page news? :confused:

mr lewion. or whatever

well then!
Stop whining then i do what i think is good for all those people out there, btw this is news 40fps with hl2 on macbook is news, it should come on frontpage....

DougTheImpaler

Jun 16, 2006, 12:59 PM

Thank you! + point for you!! :D Ifonly there were more people like you..

And i somewhere found numbers where the fps of the gma950 on macbook are better then 9700 o, powerbook.. it was a universal application fcourse i mean game.....
That's what happens when you replace a ****** CPU (G4) with a good one (Core Duo). That test is null and void.

lewion

Jun 17, 2006, 04:58 AM

That's what happens when you replace a ****** CPU (G4) with a good one (Core Duo). That test is null and void.
it proves that macbook is better as G4 powerbook.... That's the point i'm trying to make..

Anyway back on topic.

Call of Duty 2 seems to work on the macbook surprisingly well also. Well done Aspyr.

http://www.yankidank.com/article.php...60603003053414

There's a video on youtube of teh macbook running it and it looks well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6tK3...%202%20macbook

wow dude, thanks for this... never thought it would run good... even at medium settings above 30 fps.. what would that be on low ??
Really i like this.. more and more good info seems to come.. hl2 soom3 and cod2 playable at good fps :D

jvan

Jul 24, 2006, 08:01 PM

hey, is there a driver for the integrated graphics for the macbook when on windows cuz i'm trying to play maplestory, and it's missing some drivers...

Mackilroy

Jul 24, 2006, 08:05 PM

Did you follow Apple's instructions with Boot Camp? You should've burned a CD full of drivers, including one for the GMA950.

jvan

Jul 24, 2006, 08:07 PM

i'm using parallels, so i don't have it burned... is there a place where i can download it?

killr_b

Jul 24, 2006, 09:17 PM

Just other threads were hijacked by people with too much ego and not enough room to post, so it looked kind of bad. Especially for a forum newcomer.

I hear that. All I wanted to know for months now is how wow and aoe3 play on a macbook. So I went to my friends house and we installed boot camp, xp and aoe3 on his black macbook. Only $230:eek:

Aoe3 works great... don't know about frames, but smooth. Best to turn down shadows and lighting effects. Obviously...
We played at 1280x720(i think... x800?) anyway, full screen res.

So if you wanted to know if Aoe3 was worth it... Hell Yes.

Integrated graphics are what they are....go to barefeats but I would feel very sorry for someone thinking they will be able to do some newer stuff only to find they cant. Benches do tell. Macbook may be fine for older games and iLife but newer stuff wont run very well. Its a great little cpu machine just not a very good graphics system. Look here for 1 examplehttp://www.barefeats.com/kak4c.html

And I see you aren't affraid to show off your lameness. Have you tried to play a game on a Macbook? No? Planing on it? No? What do you want?

'Cause, the new integrated graphics b**ch the old dedicated... hmm, the world turns. Why not post some specs about your awsome gaming mac in your sig. Oh, wait... do you even have a mac?

eXan

Jul 24, 2006, 09:31 PM

Vlade

Jul 24, 2006, 11:02 PM

Hehe this thread is funny...

Sure todays integrated graphics are getting as good as the pro graphics cards two years ago and the budget graphics cards from last year. And if you want to play the current games they are fine, but what a few people are saying is that todays integrated graphics get blown away by todays dedicated graphics, and a macbook isn't going to play the next generation of games.

And lewion, if you don't want to hear people whining and posting comments that dispute what you are saying, then why are you posting on a forum? If you expect everyone to agree with you then you are in the wrong place.

GFLPraxis

Jul 24, 2006, 11:30 PM

I'm not trying to sound stupid, but how do Q3-based games (like Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy) run on Macbooks with 1 gig RAM? (Rosetta of course)

Thanks :o

No way GMA950 beats 9700. MB might show better framerates than PowerBook, but thats just becasue CPU is much stonger, so basically if you put 9700 or even 9550 in MB it would be faster than GMA.

Don't know about Rosetta, but Jedi Academy runs on an old Dell I have in the room here that has an older Intel Integrated card at high settings. Of course, this is Windows and native, but still. Even my old 900 MHz Celeron system with a Geforce 2 can run JKA at medium settings.

eXan

Jul 25, 2006, 12:08 AM

Don't know about Rosetta, but Jedi Academy runs on an old Dell I have in the room here that has an older Intel Integrated card at high settings. Of course, this is Windows and native, but still. Even my old 900 MHz Celeron system with a Geforce 2 can run JKA at medium settings.

Thanks for the reply, but still does anybody knows how this game runs on MB in OSX? :o

King Wali

Jul 25, 2006, 01:51 AM

CS:S 40 fps? I can't even get 10! >:A

JackSYi

Jul 25, 2006, 02:12 AM

eXan

Jul 25, 2006, 06:04 AM

I just installed Windows XP Pro with Boot Camp on my 2.0 MacBook with 2 GB of RAM. The game performances on Windows is incredible. Half-Life 2, Unreal Tournament 2004, Halo, etc... runs beautifully on it (I downloaded demos). I don't know why Apple is bottlenecking the memory to the GMA 945, when its potential is so much more.

Because OSX uses much more system RAM than Windose does, so letting GMA950 take 224 MB of standard 512 would slow this machine even more especially in Rosetta. Since most people buying computers dont bother upgrading standard RAM, this is a major problem.

Oh BTW, its not the amount of "VRAM" that slows GMA 950 under OSX, but poor drivers that are far better written for Windows.

Oh and its GMA950 not GMA945 ;)

dextertangocci

Jul 25, 2006, 08:34 AM

Exactly. The MB runs even new games well. I play Quake 4, Doom 3 and other 3D games on my 2Ghz MB without a roblem on medium to high settings.

MacBoobsPro

Jul 25, 2006, 09:03 AM

Why are you beating a dead horse

Apparently it still keeps twitching :rolleyes:

MacBoobsPro

Jul 25, 2006, 09:05 AM

CS:S 40 fps? I can't even get 10! >:A

Pardon my ignorance but what is CS:S? :confused:

jdechko

Jul 25, 2006, 09:30 AM

CounterStrike: Source... basically it's standard, old CounterStrike running on the Source (HL2) game engine, which has much better physics and graphics and such.

Mackilroy

Jul 25, 2006, 10:24 AM

i'm using parallels, so i don't have it burned... is there a place where i can download it?

Ah… see, there's your whole problem. Parallels is a virtualization program, and you can't virtualize a GPU, which gives Parallels very poor graphics performance. If you're looking to play games, get Boot Camp, which can be downloaded from here (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/).

And if you want to play the current games they are fine, but what a few people are saying is that todays integrated graphics get blown away by todays dedicated graphics, and a macbook isn't going to play the next generation of games.

And those of us who have MacBooks understand that. It's the people who keep insisting the GMA950 is only good for solitaire that don't know we understand that. Only a complete idiot would think that the 950 is better than a dedicated graphics chip, and none of the MacBook owners are anywhere near disputing that. If you're going to tell us something, tell us something that isn't blindingly obvious.

jvan

Jul 25, 2006, 11:18 PM

so is anyone playing games under parallels> i really would want ot run bootcamp, but i only have sp1 cd

eXan

Jul 25, 2006, 11:26 PM

so is anyone playing games under parallels> i really would want ot run bootcamp, but i only have sp1 cd

Nobody plays games under Parallels, because Parallels doesnt support 3D graphics.

jvan

Jul 25, 2006, 11:29 PM

Nobody plays games under Parallels, because Parallels doesnt support 3D graphics.

oh i see. thanks

Mackilroy

Jul 26, 2006, 07:56 AM

He's right. You want to play Windows games on a Mac, you're going to have to find a way to get an SP2 disc. If you've got any Windows-using friends you could slipstream your disc, but that's a little more complicated than just buying a SP2.

supremedesigner

Jul 26, 2006, 08:21 AM

No! and stop whining, a lot of people like me are waiting for numbers... Numerous threads there are, but none has interesting information... they all talk ******** which i do not appreciate.. the only nice person here seems macrumoruser... and iheartapple isa great person too.. these guys help me, but all those posts... screw them this is for people who are in the same camp as me... so i'd like to get you two posts removed and get fresh start with persons that are intresting
i do not want a discussion nor people sayin blabbla we had this already, why dyou post then!!!
Damn weird people

LOL "damn weird people" That's a funny quote you got. Why don't you or anyone in this thread make a website and list everything that run well on mb, mbp, imac and mac mini, etc. etc.! from low setting to high setting and how many rams, ghz, etc.

benpatient

Jul 26, 2006, 12:15 PM

Wondered how long it would take before the trolls arrived. And you wonder why lewion thought badly of the whole community.

Dont hurt me you have had nothing constructive to add to any of the gaming on macbook threads EVER, and insist the macbook is not for gaming. GREAT WEVE HEARD YOU... A million times already.... Don't you think it's time to simply GET OVER IT! and leave those that can and are gaming on their macbooks alone?

you'll notice that this thread is titled "Who says that Macbook cannot play games?"

Did the thread starter really just want to be "left alone" with his macbook? No, he wanted to have an argument with the people who find the experience of the integrated GMA graphics to be less-than-impressive. He started the argument with the thread title. If you want to YELL AT SOMEONE, yell at him. He might as well be the guy with a fat mom who comes into a room and says "Who in here thinks my mom is fat?!?!?!"

Surprise, surprise, some people told him how it was.

Yes, there are fatter moms, but his mom is, none-the-less, a real porker in her own right.

(of course when i say "your mom is fat" i mean "your graphics suck."

the GMA 950 is nothing close to a 9700 (not that a 9700 is relevant to any conversation that's taken place since 2003). It might be comparable to a 9600 non-pro with shared memory. peaking at 40fps isn't the same thing as "getting 40 fps." My old computer "peaked" at 100 or more fps in HL2, but averaged less than 40fps in all but the most cramped and empty of hallways. To match that feat in a modern machine with an OS that renders everything to screen with the graphics chip is embarrassing. Get real.

benpatient

Jul 26, 2006, 12:21 PM

Capt Underpants

Jul 26, 2006, 12:29 PM

Thank you for posting those benchmarks, benpatient. I'm sure some will argue that those frames are playable, but really they aren't. The GMA 950 isn't up to par when it comes to gaming, period.

xPismo

Jul 26, 2006, 12:41 PM

...might as well be the guy with a fat mom who comes into a room and says "Who in here thinks my mom is fat?!?!?!"

Surprise, surprise, some people told him how it was.

Yes, there are fatter moms, but his mom is, none-the-less, a real porker in her own right.

(of course when i say "your mom is fat" i mean "your graphics suck."

post of the thread award nomination. :D Yes the MB can play games, and if you want more power, get the MBP. Yay!

I do like seeing video evidence of what people are playing on the MB, so this thread was interesting to me. Now if we could just strip the info from the last ~7 threads and make one summary thread....

Mackilroy

Jul 26, 2006, 03:17 PM

About those benchmarks…

They don't tell us much. How much RAM does the computer have? What kind of computer is it? FSB? Show me more and I'll be more inclined to believe you.

Capt Underpants

Jul 26, 2006, 03:21 PM

About those benchmarks…

They don't tell us much. How much RAM does the computer have? What kind of computer is it? FSB? Show me more and I'll be more inclined to believe you.

They were running a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB RAM.

This paragraph from their conclusion pretty much seals the deal: "For those who truly do not need or care about 3D, integrated graphics are fine. People who are nostalgic about Quake III and earlier 3D games will also be satisfied. If just running something with 3D is important, these solutions will get the job done. But integrated performance has still not reached a level where we can recommend it to anyone who wants to play the current generation titles."

So if you want to game with today's games, don't use the GMA 950. The Macbook uses the GMA 950, and it sucks at playing today's games. Makes sense to me.

JackSYi

Jul 26, 2006, 03:24 PM

Exactly. The MB runs even new games well. I play Quake 4, Doom 3 and other 3D games on my 2Ghz MB without a roblem on medium to high settings.

I really hope Apple will let the graphics card to use more RAM.

benpatient

Jul 26, 2006, 04:59 PM

They don't tell us much. How much RAM does the computer have? What kind of computer is it? FSB? Show me more and I'll be more inclined to believe you.

when a 16mb turbocache card triples the GMA950's performance at 800x600 in Far Cry and HL2, you don't even need to know what kind of machine it's running on to know that it is pitiful.

but, as has been posted, it was run on this machine:

Intel D945GTP
3.6GHz Pentium 4
1GB 533MHz DDR2 3:3: 3:12
Seagate 7200.7 120GB HD
and
ASUS P5RD1-V Deluxe
3.6GHz Pentium 4
1GB 400MHz DDR 2:2:2:8
Seagate 7200.7 120GB HD

killr_b

Jul 26, 2006, 05:17 PM

you'll notice that this thread is titled "Who says that Macbook cannot play games?"
/
No, he wanted to have an argument with the people who find the experience of the integrated GMA graphics to be less-than-impressive.

No, he wanted to talk with others who have actually played the games on their macbooks. Not loosers who look at a spec. sheet and read "integrated" and think "screw that crap."
I was blown away by how good the GMA950 actually is, especially under windows xp.

/Freelance video professional.
//Neighbor is a pc game programmer.
///We agree on the 950 after checkin it out for ourselves.

killr_b

Jul 26, 2006, 05:26 PM

here, for posterity, is the gma 950 vs other modern "sucky" graphics cards. These are the bottom of last year's generation of cards...they have shared RAM and barely any processing power compared to mid-range solutions from the year before.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/945g%20graphics_05230550547/7508.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/945g%20graphics_05230550547/7505.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/945g%20graphics_05230550547/7506.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/945g%20graphics_05230550547/7507.png

Gee... I can't help but notice all the charts say "highest quality" at the top.
I'm sure everyone playing games on a Macbook is bright enough to put the settings on a more medium level.
Lighting can slow down a game (gunfire) because all the shading is done by the GPU, but the CPU processes alot of the physics and modling.
Macbooks have a tight CPU. Good for 3d.
Integrated GPU, alright at 3d, bad at lighting... even though it supports the new pixle shader 3... go figure right.

benpatient

Jul 26, 2006, 05:26 PM

I'm sure it runs circles around your 7800GT.

killr_b

Jul 26, 2006, 05:31 PM

Thank you for posting those benchmarks, benpatient. I'm sure some will argue that those frames are playable, but really they aren't. The GMA 950 isn't up to par when it comes to gaming, period.

And I can tell by the computers listed in your sig. that you totaly have a Macbook and game on it- NOT.

What makes you think you know about a) everyone elses apreciation of 15-20 fps and b) what the par is?
If I'm at home playing aoe3 I don't care how fast your computer is, as long as I can have fun playing my game it doesn't matter at 20 frames/ sec. and that it slows down a little durring intense battle.

killr_b

Jul 26, 2006, 05:36 PM

I'm sure it runs circles around your 7800GT.

WTF is IT?
What are you trying to say.

Mackilroy

Jul 26, 2006, 09:10 PM

They were running a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB RAM.

This paragraph from their conclusion pretty much seals the deal: "For those who truly do not need or care about 3D, integrated graphics are fine. People who are nostalgic about Quake III and earlier 3D games will also be satisfied. If just running something with 3D is important, these solutions will get the job done. But integrated performance has still not reached a level where we can recommend it to anyone who wants to play the current generation titles."

So if you want to game with today's games, don't use the GMA 950. The Macbook uses the GMA 950, and it sucks at playing today's games. Makes sense to me.

The thing is, it's not the MacBook users who are trying to play 'the latest games.' We're playing 2, 3-year old games, and we're running them decently. It's the people who keep insisting, in spite of the fact we've already heard them, understand them, and agree with them, that the GMA 950 isn't good for today's games. We're not saying that – YOU are (note: I'm not referring to you specifically, just the trolls who keep insisting to us that we're trying to play the latest games).

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 26, 2006, 09:17 PM

Thank you for posting those benchmarks, benpatient. I'm sure some will argue that those frames are playable, but really they aren't. The GMA 950 isn't up to par when it comes to gaming, period.The bottom line ,but Apple and everyone else gets these for near nothing so everyone is pushing them. My old Geforce3 from 4 years ago can still outperform these guys but they are cheap.

benpatient

Jul 27, 2006, 03:10 PM

I think it's great that you're able to finally run 2-3 year old games on a low-end Apple laptop. For the longest time, even that wasn't possible.

The problem is, of course, that Apple is selling these things as being capable of playing the latest games. They are also charging in accordance with this claim.

as for the benchmarks being with the settings at "highest" or "high" quality, of course they are set to those settings....THEY'RE RUNNING 800x600 RESOLUTION!

If you run those games in DX7 compatibility mode with low-res textures and no lighting effects, then guess what....you're not playing a modern game, you're playing a DX7 game with modern content. Shooters are hard to play at 800x600. The precision is console-like at that resolution.

iPoster

Jul 27, 2006, 04:34 PM

OK, so Integrated Graphics != Independent GPU.

Now, how much of an upgrade (from a gaming perspective) would a MacBook be over my iMac G4 (points to sig). My assumption is at least a moderate upgrade. Keep in mind I have a PC for playing heavy duty FPS and such...I would love to go Mac only, but don't have the $$ to afford a Pro mac to get decent gaming ability. (and the Mac game selection is lacking still)

benpatient

Jul 28, 2006, 11:52 AM

quite an upgrade just for the processor itself...

not much of a graphics upgrade, but if you're ok with that, then should be fine.

one thing to consider is that a pro mac with an intel processor would be able to run boot camp, and would be able to take a new graphics card, and would probably be perfectly capable of being your only machine...you just will have to wait for them to be announced/released, and in the mean time, save your money so you can afford one.

Capt Underpants

Jul 28, 2006, 12:38 PM

And I can tell by the computers listed in your sig. that you totaly have a Macbook and game on it- NOT.

What makes you think you know about a) everyone elses apreciation of 15-20 fps and b) what the par is?
If I'm at home playing aoe3 I don't care how fast your computer is, as long as I can have fun playing my game it doesn't matter at 20 frames/ sec. and that it slows down a little durring intense battle.

The typical par for computer games is that the framerate never drops below 30 FPS.

Phatpat

Jul 28, 2006, 01:29 PM

Wow, a little hostility here, but I'll weigh in.

I have a Macbook. I play the occasional video game. Integrated Graphics is good for much more than Solitaire. Plus, part of my rationality, if the only reason you are buying the MBP is for the graphics chip (and that's really all that's holding it back), you can get a fairly good console and portable setup for $800-900, the difference between the low end MB and the low end MBP. An Xbox 360, Dell 2007FPW, and DS Lite would be well within that range.

Capt Underpants

Jul 28, 2006, 01:51 PM

Mackilroy

Jul 28, 2006, 06:24 PM

Many hardcore gamers would not consider a console or portable, as the games they play most (FPS's, MMORPG's) play better on PC's.

Not anymore. The X360 is as powerful as the best gaming PCs (and don't give me that junk that PCs are better – if the X360 can support smooth frame rates with Unreal Engine 3 then it blows away practically all PCs). Granted, you can upgrade your PC, and not a 360, but that gets expensive.