Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Mac and PC Games

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:21 PM   #1
ee13lbp
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Skyrim hd4000

Has anyone tried skyrim with an hd4000 yet? YouTube suggests I should get 30-40 fps but has anyone played the entire campaign using the hd4000, and if so have you come into any slowdown, graphical glitches etc.?
ee13lbp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 05:10 AM   #2
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
Quote:
Originally Posted by ee13lbp View Post
Has anyone tried skyrim with an hd4000 yet? YouTube suggests I should get 30-40 fps but has anyone played the entire campaign using the hd4000, and if so have you come into any slowdown, graphical glitches etc.?
Form notebookcheck.net's laptop test:
__________________
-tb
MacBook Air 13" i5 osx10.7.5
HackPro 4.3GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX780GHz Edition, 3x SSD , win7+osx10.9.2
cluthz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 07:12 AM   #3
doh123
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
I've only tested it playing Skyrim in a Cider wrapper. Its not super fast but it is definitely fast enough to be playable with the right settings.
doh123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 08:54 AM   #4
ee13lbp
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cluthz View Post
Form notebookcheck.net's laptop test:
Image
How did they get those low frame rates? YouTube suggests that even the air can play skyrim at ultra (of cause, at 20fps) and on low the MacBook Pro gets a nice 50+ fps...

I'm guessing that this will slow down in some heavier sections of the game however, hence the thread...
__________________
Mac Mini i5 2.5Ghz | Macbook 2.0Ghz | iPhone 4 16Gb
ee13lbp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 10:36 AM   #5
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
Quote:
Originally Posted by ee13lbp View Post
How did they get those low frame rates? YouTube suggests that even the air can play skyrim at ultra (of cause, at 20fps) and on low the MacBook Pro gets a nice 50+ fps...

I'm guessing that this will slow down in some heavier sections of the game however, hence the thread...
I have a GTX285, which is around 50% faster than the GT650M:
http://barefeats.com/gam12.html

Skyrim on ultra runs 40-60FPS, with dips to around 35 when things gets insane.
I'm running on 1680x1050 res.
To be said Skyrim at ultra settings does even make high end cards sweat, and going a bit down on settings makes it run a lot better.

I did try Skyrim on my Intel HD3000 and it ran around 20 FPS on low/med 1280x800 res when nothing is going on, however, when things get rough I'm sure that it wouldn't keep 15 fps.

The Intel HD4000 is quite a bit beefier than the 3000 tho, so you might be able to get quite a bit better performance than that, and maybe skyrim has been more optimized, as I haven't tried it since shortly after release on my lappy.
__________________
-tb
MacBook Air 13" i5 osx10.7.5
HackPro 4.3GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX780GHz Edition, 3x SSD , win7+osx10.9.2
cluthz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 10:42 AM   #6
ee13lbp
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cluthz View Post
I have a GTX285, which is around 50% faster than the GT650M:
http://barefeats.com/gam12.html

Skyrim on ultra runs 40-60FPS, with dips to around 35 when things gets insane.
I'm running on 1680x1050 res.
To be said Skyrim at ultra settings does even make high end cards sweat, and going a bit down on settings makes it run a lot better.

I did try Skyrim on my Intel HD3000 and it ran around 20 FPS on low/med 1280x800 res when nothing is going on, however, when things get rough I'm sure that it wouldn't keep 15 fps.

The Intel HD4000 is quite a bit beefier than the 3000 tho, so you might be able to get quite a bit better performance than that, and maybe skyrim has been more optimized, as I haven't tried it since shortly after release on my lappy.
Ah thanks, that's pretty much what I wanted to know. As long as the frame rate won't dip any more than 10fps I think I'll make the jump
__________________
Mac Mini i5 2.5Ghz | Macbook 2.0Ghz | iPhone 4 16Gb
ee13lbp is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Mac and PC Games

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a way to avoid Hd4000 MacHaris Mac mini 25 Mar 23, 2014 01:30 PM
More RAM for HD4000 Galatian OS X Mavericks (10.9) 19 Dec 25, 2013 06:12 PM
HD4000 is faster with 10.8.3 Sean869 Mac mini 0 Mar 19, 2013 08:43 AM
5450 vs hd4000? snickerzz Mac mini 2 Dec 21, 2012 03:22 PM
Mini's HD4000 turtlez Buying Tips and Advice 3 Dec 21, 2012 08:24 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC