Macbook Pro 9600 vs PS3 (Ha Ha?)

[BothBarsOn]

Hi all,

I'm buying a new MacBook Pro soon and was thinking of springing for a 15" model with a 9600m GPU. Can anybody with personal experience of both tell me how the 9600 would stack up against a PS3, which is my only other reference point? At native resolution (1400 x 900), what are we talking about - graphics that are 20% as good as a PS3? 50%? Not even worth equating? I haven't a clue (obviously).

I know this is a vague and wishy-washy question and these things aren't easily quantifiable. But I've never seen a MBP running games in Boot Camp and Youtube videos are too low-res to be trustworthy. If the 9600 was hilariously pathetic next to the PS3, I know I'd never use it and would have wasted a lot of cash. I'd really appreciate some advice!

[Scarlet Fever]

Honestly, even if the MBP played games as well as the PS3, I'd get the base 15" MBP with the integrated GPU and a PS3. In Australia, there is $400 difference between the 2.53 and the 2.66GHz MBPs, which goes a long way to the $499.95 retail price. You'll end up with a better gaming machine, and you get a blu-ray player to boot.

[BothBarsOn]

Sorry, I made a mess of my original post. I've already got a PS3 and am just looking to upgrade my laptop. I suppose my question is: "To someone who's used to a PS3, how would the MBP 9600m look?" I know it's not going to compare well, but would it laughably pathetic or just ... not great?

I'm afraid of spending all that extra money (over a 13", which is all I need for basic computing) to get a machine that, while being much better than its little brother, gaming-wise, is still fairly hopeless.

Sorry for the lack of clarity!

[Cabbit]

Sorry, I made a mess of my original post. I've already got a PS3 and am just looking to upgrade my laptop. I suppose my question is: "To someone who's used to a PS3, how would the MBP 9600m look?" I know it's not going to compare well, but would it laughably pathetic or just ... not great?

I'm afraid of spending all that extra money (over a 13", which is all I need for basic computing) to get a machine that, while being much better than its little brother, gaming-wise, is still fairly hopeless.

Sorry for the lack of clarity!

The 9600m is a faster GPU than that used in the PS3 so i would expect a better visual experience and faster performance.

[BothBarsOn]

BETTER than my PS3? Really? I'm stunned! That would be great news, actually.

[Cabbit]

What did you expect, the GPU's used in these gaming machines is very old hack compared to ATi and Nvideas twice yearly releases.

Games usually work a bit smoother on consoles due to the lower resolution(no 720p and 1080p are not high compared to what pc games can push out) and frame rate requirements.

[BothBarsOn]

I'm kind of in shock here. I thought you had go Alienware or similar to get console-like performance on a laptop. I have been looking at YouTube videos of the new MacBook Pros in action but the vids are so grainy, they're hard to judge.

[NeverhadaPC]

Civ 4 on my mac looks better than Call of Duty 5 on PS3...

I think you are comparing apples and bananas as ps3 graphic output depends a lot on the TV and the game itself (720p version of CoD4 vs. 1080p version of Gran Turismo).

I usually only run my mac in low graphics mode (to avoid melting my hands :) ) but I know when I load in Civ4, I get my eyes' worth with 9600.

[bartzilla]

BETTER than my PS3? Really? I'm stunned! That would be great news, actually.

Its not as easy as that. I do agree with babyjennifer that the 9600 based graphics have the potential to be better than those on a PS3, that doesn't mean they always are. The GPUs in a console might not be as modern as a PC (including Macs in that term here) GPU but its dedicated and optimised to what it is doing and the console doesn't have the same number of or type of background tasks that a PC has to contend with. Keep in mind also that games titles written for a PC (again, whether Mac OS or Windows) are written to a general level of performance on a wide range of machines and therefore won't always exercise every nook and cranny of your graphics device, whereas a PS3 game title is written to run on a PS3.

I think that games titles for a PC always have the potential to look and play much better than console games, but you can't really sit there comparing the graphics chips in them in that way.

I think you'll enjoy a Macbook Pro with a 9600... don't worry about the chip specs too much, just have fun!

[Sambo110]

I'm kind of in shock here. I thought you had go Alienware or similar to get console-like performance on a laptop. I have been looking at YouTube videos of the new MacBook Pros in action but the vids are so grainy, they're hard to judge.

Lol, really? Consoles really aren't that good compared to computers, sure they are great, but laptops/computers>consoles for graphics.

[BothBarsOn]

Honestly, this is like finding out the world is flat. I knew that *high-end* PCs and laptops were better but I had no idea that 9600 compared so well. And I'm delighted!

[Rampant.A.I.]

I'm kind of in shock here. I thought you had go Alienware or similar to get console-like performance on a laptop. I have been looking at YouTube videos of the new MacBook Pros in action but the vids are so grainy, they're hard to judge.

PC gamers and Mac-haters LOVE to spout this kind of misinformation without ever having actually played a game on a Mac, let alone actually used one for any length of time.

So, I don't blame you! If you hear something over and over again, even if it's just from Sony hyping the graphical capabilities of the PS3, you tend to believe it! ;)

[seb-opp]

why would you want to play games on a laptop if you have a PS3? Consoles are guaranteed to play their games well until the end of their life, while with a computer, they could be obsolete within a year. Save the money and get a cheaper MBP

[cluthz]

PS3 GPU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer%27

Specifications:

550 MHz on 90 nm process (shrunk to 65 nm in 2008[4])
Based on NV47 Chip (Nvidia GeForce 7800 Architecture)
300+ million transistors
Multi-way programmable parallel floating-point shader pipelines
Independent pixel/vertex shader architecture
24 parallel pixel-shader ALU pipes
5 ALU operations per pipeline, per cycle (2 vector4 , 2 scalar/dual/co-issue and fog ALU, 1 Texture ALU)[citation needed]
27 floating-point operations per pipeline, per cycle[citation needed]
8 parallel vertex pipelines
2 ALU operations per pipeline, per cycle (1 vector4 and 1 scalar, dual issue)[citation needed]
10 FLOPS per pipeline, per cycle[citation needed]
Programmable shader Floating Point Operations per Second: ~200 GFLOPs
The original marketing claimed 1.8 TFLOPs, this number is believed to include fixed functions such as texture interpolation.
24 texture filtering units (TF) and 8 vertex texture addressing units (TA)
24 filtered samples per clock
Maximum texel fillrate: 13.2 GigaTexels per second (24 textures * 550 MHz)
32 unfiltered texture samples per clock, ( 8 TA x 4 texture samples )
8 Render Output units / pixel rendering pipelines
Peak pixel fillrate (theoretical): 4.4 Gigapixel per second
Maximum Z sample rate: 8.8 GigaSamples per second (2 Z-samples * 8 ROPs * 550 MHz)
Maximum Dot product operations: 51 billion per second
128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with High dynamic range rendering (HDR)
256 MB GDDR3 RAM at 700 MHz
128-bit memory bus width
22.4 GB/s read and write bandwidth
Cell FlexIO bus interface
20 GB/s read to the Cell and XDR memory
15 GB/s write to the Cell and XDR memory
Support for OpenGL ES 2.0
Support for S3TC texture compression

[soldierblue]

Your Macbook Pro, no matter which model you get, will never be as good of a gaming machine as a PS3. I mean never.

I'm going to pretend nobody has said otherwise in this thread.

[H.isidorius]

Have a look at this site, they have checked the performance of the 9600M GT against a number of games.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9600M-GT.9449.0.html

Please keep in mind that the 9600M GT is a rather modest graphics chips, so choose which games you like and decide than whether you actually want to go the Apple route. Also you should be aware that the notebooks runs very hot when using graphics intensive apps. For example, I play CIV4 a lot, but just after +/- 20 minutes gameplay, the notebook runs noticable hotter and the fans are kicking in. (Do not mis understand, I love my MBP none the less, but it is not a top notch gaming system :D )

I just noticed an article on the front page referring to the possibility of new MBP's. I would wait to see what is comming..
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/01/resellers-offer-additional-details-on-mac-supply-constraints/

[Dagless]

The difference between them, whilst the 9600 may be faster in general, is that PS3 games are developed under the knowledge that the PS3 graphics chip won't change. It's optimisation. That's why a (technically low spec) current gen console can almost produce graphics on par with a PC. And why they cost a fraction of the price.

Personally I like the PC way of doing things. Some folk say that you need to buy a new graphics card every few months etc, which is very untrue. I've been using a 9400M Macbook and an x1600 iMac for games for years now (3 years in the iMacs case). A good card doesn't even have to be expensive. I played through Crysis this summer on a PC with a £60 graphics card; it was even the cheapest component in that computer!
No. If you're an addict and have to play the latest games at the best settings then you're going to need a new card ever 2-3 years (so long as you buy the utter best each time). A GTX285 or an Ati 4870 aren't new cards by any stretch of the imagination but they run everything, ever, still.

[dragonmantek]

I think that all modern graphics card would beat PS3 graphics, because in actuality, a macbook pro is doing a lot more than running a game.

if you were to take the GPU, rip out all of the other components and just do GPU vs GPU, the 9600m would win.

but that's just what i think, not know.

9600 if just more modern, and the ps3 is based on 7800, which is 2 generations behind.

[gavriels]

The posters claiming that the 9600M in the MacBook Pro is faster than the GPU in the PS3 are incorrect.

The two critical areas for GPU performance for modern applications are raw shader GFLOPS and the texture rate.

As per the above specs:

PS3 => ~200 GFLOPS, 13.2 GigaTexels/sec

And from here (http://www.gpureview.com/geforce-9600m-gt-card-596.html)

9600M => 120 GFLOPS, 8 GigaTexels/sec

On top of which, the PS3 has 6 SPU vector processing units which feed the GPU. And most PS3 titles write directly to the GPU, avoiding CPU driver overhead, another significant win. Not to mention the fact that Apple tends to underclock the notebook GPUs to reduce heat consumption.

In real-world performance, I would expect a MacBook Pro to get at most 40-50% of the performance of a PS3.

That said, it's not all about performance. You're never going to be able to take your PS3 with you to your hotel room like you can a MacBook Pro. You're never going to be able to play MMOs like EVE Online, City of Heroes, and Warhammer Online on your PS3. FPS and RTS games play much better with a mouse (or even a trackpad) than a controller. Etc. etc.

[dukebound85]

Your Macbook Pro, no matter which model you get, will never be as good of a gaming machine as a PS3. I mean never.

I'm going to pretend nobody has said otherwise in this thread.

this...

people fail to realize that games for pc, much less osx, arent making the most out of the gpu

the ps3 is eeking every bit out as THATS ITS SOLE PURPOSE FOR EXISTENCE

at this point, id still say the ps3 is a much better gaming machine, and better games imo with a better setting (couch with friends vs crunched over a keyboard)

[251920]

Have a look at this site, they have checked the performance of the 9600M GT against a number of games.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...GT.9449.0.html
I would not recommend this site, coz things like gta 4(on that site it said that it is not playable) run smoothly on even nvidia 9400mGT(low settings) and (med to high settings) when using the 9600mGT. And even in low settings the game looks similar if not better than on my xbox 360 and ps3.

[JackAxe]

I was figuring the 9600m(32 stream cores) would be similar to that of a PS3 or 360, as my previous GPU a 9600 GT(64 stream cores) didn't break a sweat with these console derived games.

dukebound85,

That's not true about PC gaming not taking full advantage of the GPU.

Under XP, a window can have 100% of the GPU's performance. Microsoft when they were for the PC, really made it game happy.

Any overhead that is inherent of the OS is extremely light on the PC side and has very little impact now days. It's definitely not noticeable with a modern CPUs, or any GPU that's in the 800 GT range -- so an outdated video card.

With my Core 2 Quad(2.66 Ghz), under task manager, I can see that most games only really need about two of my cores. Either they're maxing out my first core, then the second is being nibbled on, or they distribute the load to all for of my cores for about 25% of each core. That's quite a bit of resources left for the OS, which idles at 0% might I add.

My PC is about mid-range by today's standards(Q9450+ GTX275($199)) and it can push games at a way higher detail level, a way higher resolution, and way higher frame rate than any current console can eek out. PCs always improve, where as consoles spike in their performance, then plateau off -- which is nothing new. It's almost 2010, not 2005/6, so that's lots of improving on the PC's part. So any extra eek a PS3 can mustard is more or less it just trying to keep up with lower end PCs.

Gaming covers many fronts, not just consoling it up on the TV. To assume that there is only one way to game and it's the best way, is being somewhat narrow minded, as we all have our preferences.

Some of us don't like playing PC derived games on a console, as their controls are too slow and rather limiting, but it goes both ways as other games are best played hunched over a gamepad on the couch in front of the TV.

Anyways, to all their own.

[BothBarsOn]

Thanks for all these replies, everyone. I'm learning a lot!

[Dagless]

at this point, id still say the ps3 is a much better gaming machine, and better games imo with a better setting (couch with friends vs crunched over a keyboard)

You're saying the PS3 is better than the whole PC gaming industry? A few hundred games versus literally millions, with countless more free games and access to emulators. You can hook a PC up to a TV, use any kind of controller, play games from 1990-present day, play without discs, use any brand of communication software.

A possible argument is which is the best between a PS3 and 360 but the PC is a megalith, a standard that is impossible to even aim at since it's been going so long and is already so much ahead of current gen consoles.

[ayeying]

I would not recommend this site, coz things like gta 4(on that site it said that it is not playable) run smoothly on even nvidia 9400mGT(low settings) and (med to high settings) when using the 9600mGT. And even in low settings the game looks similar if not better than on my xbox 360 and ps3.

How does your GTA4 run in 9400? There's only 9600GT being used in boot camp.

[Jack Flash]

The 9600M GT will not produce the same gaming experience as the PS3. Mid range desktop PC parts can easily outstrip the PS3 and Xbox 360, but the MacBook Pro won't.

[JackAxe]

It only has to push 1280x720 at a low detail level at about 20 - 30fps to perform in the same range as the consoles, which that GPU can more than manage.

The MBPro's Core 2 proc is more than fast enough to feed that GPU.

[MagicWok]

The 9600m is a faster GPU than that used in the PS3 so i would expect a better visual experience and faster performance.

So much wrong with that sentence. :rolleyes:

PS3 will never lose out to a MBP I'm afraid. They are totally different beasts, with different tasks meant for each.

I'd love it if my 17" MBP was as good as a PS3 for gaming, but under no allusion that it ever would be. Even if I stick an SSD and 8GB in there. My Mac Pro in my sig won't even reach near a PS3 for gaming visual quality.

On the other side, the PS3 would just stink and multi-taksing, and DTP programs that I run on my MBP/Mac Pro.

[monkey86]

macbook pro or ps3? thats a redundant question - the ps3 is built for games the mbp is a laptop computer - you will never get close to anything like the resolution or gmaeplay speed on a mbp - its not built solely for games like the ps3.

the graphics card in a laptop is better if its dedicated so i would go for the 15" 9600 but the ps3 is leagues ahead in gameplay.

[JackAxe]

So much wrong with that sentence. :rolleyes:

PS3 will never lose out to a MBP I'm afraid. They are totally different beasts, with different tasks meant for each.

I'd love it if my 17" MBP was as good as a PS3 for gaming, but under no allusion that it ever would be. Even if I stick an SSD and 8GB in there. My Mac Pro in my sig won't even reach near a PS3 for gaming visual quality.

On the other side, the PS3 would just stink and multi-taksing, and DTP programs that I run on my MBP/Mac Pro.

You're really giving the PS3 way too much credit. Even a 3 year old PC with a 8800 GT trumps a PS3 on all fronts.

[JackAxe]

the graphics card in a laptop is better if its dedicated so i would go for the 15" 9600 but the ps3 is leagues ahead in gameplay.

Your gameplady comment is subjective, what if one doesn't like gaming on gamepad? Also, even if that's not the case, there's nothing stopping any modern comp from plugging into a TV -- nVidia's control panel has quite a few options for setting this up -- and all GFW titles must support a gamepad -- 360 pad or clone to be exact.

I personally prefer inputs that don't hinder my reaction, let alone my options, so I prefer the gameplay a PC offers. ;)

[superspiffy]

I have an early 2008 MacBook Pro with the 8600m gt. I can tell you that it cannot even remotely compare to my Xbox 360 (let alone a PS3). There are games that run decently on it and there are games that run horribly. You can play most modern PC games like TF2, COD 4, Left4Dead, etc but often you have to sacrifice graphics settings, resolution, etc just to get it playable. And playability to me, is at least around 20-30 fps. Would you be happy playing a shooter on 25 fps with mediocre graphics?

I know the new MBPs have the 9600m gt, but that card is barely an improvement over mines. Maybe it'll be ok (at best) for games now, but what about the games coming out next year or in two years? On the other hand, the PS3 or Xbox 360 is guaranteed to play every single game that will ever be released for them as good as the games that were released for them since their launch day.

If you absolutely want a PC gaming rig, you can probably build/buy one for well under a 1000. It does churn slightly better graphics than the consoles but if you look up PC vs Xbox 360 vs PS3 comparison game shots, the differences are always minimal with the PC's graphics edging slightly. Keep in mind you probably have to update the gfx card every year or two to keep running new games on high.

So is the MBP a good gaming machine? No. (There are better/cheaper alternatives) Is it a decent one? Maybe. If you're fine with the graphical limitations: med settings, med res, mediocre fps... sure. Maybe you're on the go, or at a friend's house and you wanna LAN party Left4Dead, then go for it. (I do that.)

But even using it with this purpose, keep in mind that there are more powerful laptops designed from the ground up to be gaming machines, like Alienware, which are priced the same if not cheaper than MBPs. But gaming is not the focus of a MBP anyway. It's OS X. It's Final Cut Pro. It's Photoshop. It's ease of use. It's built quality. It's aesthetics. etc... But if you want to game on the side, it sure as hell can do that too, but it shouldn't be the main reason why you bought it in the first place.

[edddeduck]

I know the new MBPs have the 9600m gt, but that card is barely an improvement over mines.

Having to use both cards for testing and games development there is a performance leap between them, you will notice it in every game as you can run higher settings with better frame rates.

Neither card will make a MacBookPro Laptop (in Windows or Mac) out perform a dedicated console though.

If you absolutely want a PC gaming rig, you can probably build/buy one for well under a 1000.

If you want one that will definitely be a step up from a console you might want to stretch that budget a little :) Consoles are starting to get to the age where a good PC has better graphics but this is only starting to be the case and to get there you need some very nice hardware, the longer the consoles exist the more the PC will jump ahead.

Remember the end of the XBox and PS2 generation, the PC was way out in front but when the xbox and PS2 were released they had amazing graphics compared to most PCs. The same will happen again, one the PC's have a huge lead new consoles come out the cycle starts again.

Edwin

Feral

[BothBarsOn]

Thanks again for all the replies. Highly informative.

[Dagless]

the ps3 is leagues ahead in gameplay.

Wrong. But I think you got your words mixed up. Gameplay isn't related to graphics or GPU power.

I can tell you that it cannot even remotely compare to my Xbox 360 (let alone a PS3).

This implies the PS3 has better graphics than an Xbox 360. FYI the Xbox 360 has the better graphics card (CPU; PS3. GPU; Xbox).

[Jack Flash]

You're really giving the PS3 way too much credit. Even a 3 year old PC with a 8800 GT trumps a PS3 on all fronts.

And that 3 year old PC with an 8800 GT trumps the MacBook Pro on all fronts, especially the GPU.

[superspiffy]

Verdict: Don't buy a laptop with the primary intention of playing demanding games.

Atleast... not until the day when you can upgrade the gfx card in it. ;)

[Jack Flash]

It only has to push 1280x720 at a low detail level at about 20 - 30fps to perform in the same range as the consoles, which that GPU can more than manage.

The MBPro's Core 2 proc is more than fast enough to feed that GPU.

It needs to be doing 60 fps at a medium detail level to match the consoles, while running at resolutions ranging from 1024x600 to 1280x720.

The MacBook Pro can't keep up with a PS3 or Xbox 360. Don't mislead the OP.

[superspiffy]

It only has to push 1280x720 at a low detail level at about 20 - 30fps to perform in the same range as the consoles, which that GPU can more than manage.

The MBPro's Core 2 proc is more than fast enough to feed that GPU.

You're making it seem like the MacBook Pro is the benchmark by which the PS3 and Xbox 360 can be measured against. Where do you get your information?

[JackAxe]

It needs to be doing 60 fps at a medium detail level to match the consoles, while running at resolutions ranging from 1024x600 to 1280x720.

The MacBook Pro can't keep up with a PS3 or Xbox 360. Don't mislead the OP.

Oh really. Is this kind of along the lines that USB 2.0 can theoretically transfer 480 mbps...

Anyways, you might want to check out these videos of the PS3 and 360's average framerate on higher detailed games, so nothing dated like COD4, which runs blitzkrieg on most PCs:

RE5;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nzv31uHLY

Tomb Rader Underworld;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69P0TPY_-s&feature=related

Red Faction Gorilla;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTMHB4kUfuM&feature=related

GTAIV -- even has a PC reference(Runs at 1120x630 on the PS3 btw);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0RS1vaHkdk&feature=related

Farcry 2;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHJQXwSILVk&feature=related

Considering most console games lack anti-aliasing, or choose a low-ball setting like 2x, or that their texture level is quite limited compared to a PC, and that most console games don't even turn on vsync, there's no way you're seeing medium detail on a console, more like low with a touch of medium.

And no disagreement on your comment about a 8800 GT trumping a MBPro, as even my last GPU a 9600 GT could do so, and it's about 13% slower than the mentioned GPU. But, the 9600m GT in the MBPro is still a good performer, a noticeable step up from the previous mobile GPUs from nVidia.

[JackAxe]

You're making it seem like the MacBook Pro is the benchmark by which the PS3 and Xbox 360 can be measured against. Where do you get your information?

I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion?

[Jack Flash]

Oh really. Is this kind of along the lines that USB 2.0 can theoretically transfer 480 mbps...

Anyways, you might want to check out these videos of the PS3 and 360's average framerate on higher detailed games, so nothing dated like COD4, which runs blitzkrieg on most PCs:

RE5;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nzv31uHLY

Tomb Rader Underworld;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69P0TPY_-s&feature=related

Red Faction Gorilla;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTMHB4kUfuM&feature=related

GTAIV -- even has a PC reference(Runs at 1120x630 on the PS3 btw);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0RS1vaHkdk&feature=related

Farcry 2;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHJQXwSILVk&feature=related

Considering most console games lack anti-aliasing, or choose a low-ball setting like 2x, or that their texture level is quite limited compared to a PC, and that most console games don't even turn on vsync, there's no way you're seeing medium detail on a console, more like low with a touch of medium.

And no disagreement on your comment about a 8800 GT trumping a MBPro, as even my last GPU a 9600 GT could do so, and it's about 13% slower than the mentioned GPU. But, the 9600m GT in the MBPro is still a good performer, a noticeable step up from the previous mobile GPUs from nVidia.

Without 9600M GT benchmarks it's hard to make a good comparison. But touché about the framerates of the consoles, in those specific titles. You also have to consider that the seating distance from the displayed image can make a factor in perception of overall image quality. Low vs Medium vs High textures matter much more when you're 12" from the screen than they do when you're 12'.

But yes, I agree, PC gaming does and always will produce better results with current hardware. Look at my signature again to see if we're on the same page. (For the record, I use 'lowball' antialiasing settings on my PC)

I still believe that a console is superior for games than is a MacBook Pro.

Not that games are all about graphics, anyway.

[JackAxe]

I found a video of a guy playing RE5 on a HP notebook with a 9600m GT. He's only running the game at 960x600, with some settings off, others on high, but it does a good job handling it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwpq8UEoGYc

Just a start I guess, but really not specific enough. :O

Yeah, I sit really close to my monitor, so generally max out the aliasing, which has not been an issue with these newer games optimized for consoles.

Screen tearing actually bothers me the most about gaming, that's why I always mention vsync. :o

For me it's the game type that determines weather or not I prefer gaming on a console or a PC, this is why I'm not completely sold on any console being a better gaming machine than even a MBPro. My best experiences have been on comps and it's always where I fall back after I've had my fill of what's new on the console front.

And I completely agree on the graphic comment. My favorite games to date are quite horrendous looking by today's standards. It's just fun to talk about this stuff online sometimes, well more often than not. :]

[monkey86]

Red Faction Gorilla;

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH that is epic ;)

its Guerilla (like the freedom fighter - not the animal) although that would be a pretty fun game.

[monkey86]

Your gameplady comment is subjective, what if one doesn't like gaming on gamepad?

what the op was asking is how comparable the graphics chips were not about gamepads - i dont play games on a ps3 I use 360 and pc for gaming. Mac's were built for music, design and creation so thats what i use them for. The right tool for the right job.

[Dagless]

It needs to be doing 60 fps at a medium detail level to match the consoles, while running at resolutions ranging from 1024x600 to 1280x720.

The MacBook Pro can't keep up with a PS3 or Xbox 360. Don't mislead the OP.

This implies that all console games run at 60fps. Games like GTA run at 25-30fps and thats on a sub 720p resolution on the PS3.

The only 1080p 60fps game I can think of (GT5P) looks terrible when you pause the game and see how low quality the textures are, there is no AA either and they cover up their sins using bloom. High poly count though.

[Jack Flash]

This implies that all console games run at 60fps. Games like GTA run at 25-30fps and thats on a sub 720p resolution on the PS3.

The only 1080p 60fps game I can think of (GT5P) looks terrible when you pause the game and see how low quality the textures are, there is no AA either and they cover up their sins using bloom. High poly count though.

But can the MacBook Pro produce better results? (Especially considering how much closer to the screen you are when on your laptop)

My (educated) guess is no.

And honestly, why are you pausing the game to look at the textures. To me that's ridiculous.

[whooleytoo]

This implies that all console games run at 60fps. Games like GTA run at 25-30fps and thats on a sub 720p resolution on the PS3.

And several games drop even lower. Oblivion on the 360 is one of the worst offenders, and I was just playing Operation Anchorage last night on PS3, and the framerate was about 5fps (at best) for me at the start of the second quest.

[Dagless]

GTAIV was the same for me. Some parts just dragged, they were only short 5-10 second long moments but they hit sub-10fps. I know these consoles aren't brilliant compared to a modern PC but to increase graphic effects to compete against the PC and suffer such framerate problems (and resolution inconsistencies) is a bad idea.


And honestly, why are you pausing the game to look at the textures. To me that's ridiculous.

Um, because I was making a point? Follow on from what I said - if you lower the texture quality you'll be able to play most games on a MBP at higher resolutions than 1080p. Once you drop textures you free up plenty of RAM and can allow the GPU to process bloom and postprocessing effects.

[Jack Flash]

Um, because I was making a point? Follow on from what I said - if you lower the texture quality you'll be able to play most games on a MBP at higher resolutions than 1080p. Once you drop textures you free up plenty of RAM and can allow the GPU to process bloom and postprocessing effects.

Show me the benchmarks. I have no reason to believe the MacBook Pro can outperform the Xbox 360 or PS3.

[Dagless]

Show me the benchmarks. I have no reason to believe the MacBook Pro can outperform the Xbox 360 or PS3.

Wait, you don't know that by turning down textures you free up more available video RAM, free up buffer so you're able to increase resolution and framerate?

I also did a search for the 9600M (albeit PC version) and it turns out it can run Crysis in medium-high settings, and Warhead at high settings. That's quite impressive, they've had to rebuild the Crysis engine (CryEngine 3) for consoles because they couldn't handle it well enough.
Doesn't the 9600 also have better specs than the PS3's 3 year old GPU?

[JackAxe]

what the op was asking is how comparable the graphics chips were not about gamepads - i dont play games on a ps3 I use 360 and pc for gaming. Mac's were built for music, design and creation so thats what i use them for. The right tool for the right job.

I agree with you, as I don't view any Mac as an ideal gaming platform in the same way as I won't buy a workstation PC with a Quadro FX to game on. Gaming is why I have a consumer PC that I pieced together.

I was remarking more on your gameplay comment, which for me really depends on the game and the input. Therefore I'd still take a MBPro, or even the mentioned workstation PC over a PS3, as they supports a mouse, which developers actually support, which for me is the right tool for majority of games I like.

[Jack Flash]

Wait, you don't know that by turning down textures you free up more available video RAM, free up buffer so you're able to increase resolution and framerate?

I also did a search for the 9600M (albeit PC version) and it turns out it can run Crysis in medium-high settings, and Warhead at high settings. That's quite impressive, they've had to rebuild the Crysis engine (CryEngine 3) for consoles because they couldn't handle it well enough.
Doesn't the 9600 also have better specs than the PS3's 3 year old GPU?

Trying to deflect with an insult? I don't understand your agenda.

http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp09.html

I have no reason to believe that the MacBook Pro can outperform the current gen gaming consoles. Really, that's it. My experience with a similarly specced laptop (2.26 GHz P8400, 256MB 8600M GT) is non-fluid gameplay.

[soldierblue]

I mean, if we're talking Crysis here, I've benched alot of cards with this game.

HD2900 - Playable on a medium/high combo, not playable on high.
8800GT - Playable on a medium/high combo, not playable on high.
2x 8800GT - Barely playable on high.
GTX280 - Playable on high.
GTX285 - Playable on high.
GTX295 - Playable on high, not playable on very high.
HD5870 - Playable on very high.

I'm calling playable anything above 35fps or so.

A 9600M (which we need to realize in not a fast card by any means) will not run this game on a medium/high combo. It just wont.

[lewdvig]

Wait, you don't know that by turning down textures you free up more available video RAM, free up buffer so you're able to increase resolution and framerate?

I also did a search for the 9600M (albeit PC version) and it turns out it can run Crysis in medium-high settings, and Warhead at high settings. That's quite impressive, they've had to rebuild the Crysis engine (CryEngine 3) for consoles because they couldn't handle it well enough.
Doesn't the 9600 also have better specs than the PS3's 3 year old GPU?

First of all you would actually need a steady stream of games to compare the two platforms: Advantage PS3 - not even close.

Looking at hardware, the 9600m might be a bit better than the 7800 in the PS3 - but most of the heavy lifting is done by the PS3's SPUs. There is no linear comparison possible. Uncharted or Ratchet and Clank looks better than any game on the Mac - even CoD4 on a Nehalem based Mac Pro is match. Just my opinion, but I would wager 9/10 people on the street would agree with me.

[lewdvig]

I mean, if we're talking Crysis here, I've benched alot of cards with this game.

HD2900 - Playable on a medium/high combo, not playable on high.
8800GT - Playable on a medium/high combo, not playable on high.
2x 8800GT - Barely playable on high.
GTX280 - Playable on high.
GTX285 - Playable on high.
GTX295 - Playable on high, not playable on very high.
HD5870 - Playable on very high.

I'm calling playable anything above 35fps or so.

A 9600M (which we need to realize in not a fast card by any means) will not run this game on a medium/high combo. It just wont.

And you have about 10,000 people who have done the same test and can back you up 100%. A 9600m is a crippled 9600. The 9600 is a card I would never put in a desktop.

I only have one because Apple forced me to buy it. A Mobility 4670 would be way nicer.