Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mid 09 2.8 c2d Vs. i7 Hi-Res Gaming, equal or better?

0

0186279

Cancelled
Original poster
After reading through the entire gaming benchmark thread I still have yet to conclude whether the new i7 in hi res is better, worse, or equal to the 2.8 for gaming?

Sorry to beat a dead horse! I just haven't seen a very good comparison of the two yet.
 
The GT 330M is better than the 9600M GT, but the higher resolution display decrease the advantage you would have gotten if the resolutions were the same.
 
alphaod said:
The GT 330M is better than the 9600M GT, but the higher resolution display decrease the advantage you would have gotten if the resolutions were the same.
Click to expand...

So I'll get roughly the same performance? Hm, I was happy with the 9600 performance, so I guess its worth the AG screen. How much of a decrease are we talking? A few fps?
 
I can't compare to 9600 GT... BUT I have the i7 with standard glossy 1440 x 900 and played under bootcamp Assassin's Creed II and GTA: EFLC. I wouldn't go any further with resolution as AC was fine with occasionally hiccups and GTA is around 30 fps at medium settings. Those games are NOW, think about TOMORROW's games 😉
 
dr4g0n said:
I can't compare to 9600 GT... BUT I have the i7 with standard glossy 1440 x 900 and played under bootcamp Assassin's Creed II and GTA: EFLC. I wouldn't go any further with resolution as AC was fine with occasionally hiccups and GTA is around 30 fps at medium settings. Those games are NOW, think about TOMORROW's games 😉
Click to expand...

Hmm and that is standard res, my main concern and reason for posting is the high resolution, getting a bit worried 🙁
 
Extra resolution doesn't affect gaming performance all that much at all. Higher resolution in general doesn't hog up gpu bandwidth as much as say higher textures or anti-aliasing does. Higher resolution combined with lots of AA will tax the gpu a bit, but not too much.

The 330 will beat out the 9600 any day, regardless of upped resolution.
 
TMRaven said:
Extra resolution doesn't affect gaming performance all that much at all. Higher resolution in general doesn't hog up gpu bandwidth as much as say higher textures or anti-aliasing does. Higher resolution combined with lots of AA will tax the gpu a bit, but not too much.

The 330 will beat out the 9600 any day, regardless of upped resolution.
Click to expand...

Can someone confirm this?
 
lizard77 said:
Can someone confirm this?
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree,
I have a new MBP with the 330, and even going from 1680 to 1050 on the MBPs screen to 1920 1200 on my LED cinema display the fps drop by about 3-4 FPS negliable, in quake 4 they dont drop at all.
 
Get the 2.8. Save some money, the 330m is not worth it AT ALL for the price increase, especially the first i series processors that apple is providing us with that are only dual core. The 9600m gt is shipped from apple with underclocked speeds than nvidia's settings for the chip itself and it is fairly easy to clock it back to original settings through bootcamp, which I assume you would want to use for gaming. I even have my 9600m gt running at 9700 speeds with fans on full blast, and the card rarely reaches 85C =]

sources: satisfied 2.8 15 c2d owner

you can even oc the cpu to 3.15+ stable... faster than the 3.06 c2d that was most expensive.

Sadly, if you go for the i5 or up it will be a minimum of a $400-500 increase.
 
johnalan said:
I absolutely agree,
I have a new MBP with the 330, and even going from 1680 to 1050 on the MBPs screen to 1920 1200 on my LED cinema display the fps drop by about 3-4 FPS negliable, in quake 4 they dont drop at all.
Click to expand...

good news! i will have mine by thursday and will definitely put some videos up after testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back