Windows: rMBP Gaming

[Gata]

How is it, overall?

I've seen a few benchmarks here and there but I was interested in seeing user feedback.

Right now I've got the 2010 MBP with the GT 330M, and I was wondering just how fast/well the retina macbook pro (2799 configuration) handles gaming.

I"m going to be playing stuff like Crysis1/2/3, Skyrim, Transformers: War for/Fall of Cybertron, Dead Space 3, TF2, Planetside 2, Tribes Ascend, and Arkham City on the Windows partition.

1) How does gaming at 1440x900 look on the retina display compared to a native 1400x900 resolution?
2) How well does it usually handle 1920x1200?
3) How good would you say it is overall?

Also, assuming money isn't an issue (so long as it stays below 3k), would you recommend going for the high-end normal MBP config with the extra storage space or the retina?

(also I plan on waiting another week or three for Apple to come out with the retina v2, but as there haven't really been any major hardware releases, it shouldn't be too different)

[Latt]

Originally Posted by Gata

(also I plan on waiting another week or three for Apple to come out with the retina v2, but as there haven't really been any major hardware releases, it shouldn't be too different)

Don't expect any new retina macbooks till june at the earliest. So either wait for longer or just go ahead and order it now.

[Gata]

How does 1400x900 look under bootcamp, be it for gaming or anything else?

Better or worse than a normal 1400x900 display?

[JuanGarcia]

Originally Posted by Gata

How does 1400x900 look under bootcamp, be it for gaming or anything else?

Better or worse than a normal 1400x900 display?

Depending for the distance, if you are located very very near from the screen you will realize the some pixels. For me, it´s nice

[RoastingPig]

its aight

[stueee123]

Originally Posted by Gata

How does 1400x900 look under bootcamp, be it for gaming or anything else?

Better or worse than a normal 1400x900 display?

When you're in a game you won't notice a difference, but in the Windows environment it does look a bit worse. Luckily you can change the desktop resolution to 2880x1880 and the zoom to 200% so it balances out. The only downside is that there are some really small buttons and some normal sized ones. Gaming is pretty good though, Crysis 2 runs nicely at 1680x1050 on high settings, Skyrim doesn't seem to be quite as well optimised but I can still get over 40 fps at high and 1680x1050

[randomhkkid]

Its a very capable gaming machine for instance i've got a thread of my results on the new 3dmark http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...t=3dmark+score. Gaming at 1440x900 looks exactly the same as the old non retina/normal macbook pro's. I usually leave windows in 1920x1200. However scaling at 200% and 2880x1800 looks pretty good just some things look kinda weird. Most games run great at 1980x1200 so far some of the games i've played at that res are Skyrim(High/ultra ~40-50fps), prototype 2 (Maxed out Vsync limit at 60fps constant), borderlands 2 (Everything high, physx med). More demanding games like the new need for speed or battlefield 3 will run at medium at 1920x1080 just fine but if you scale down to 1440p i can get battlefield 3 to run just fine at ultra ~40fps.

[adildacoolset]

Originally Posted by randomhkkid

Its a very capable gaming machine for instance i've got a thread of my results on the new 3dmark http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...t=3dmark+score. Gaming at 1440x900 looks exactly the same as the old non retina/normal macbook pro's. I usually leave windows in 1920x1200. However scaling at 200% and 2880x1800 looks pretty good just some things look kinda weird. Most games run great at 1980x1200 so far some of the games i've played at that res are Skyrim(High/ultra ~40-50fps), prototype 2 (Maxed out Vsync limit at 60fps constant), borderlands 2 (Everything high, physx med). More demanding games like the new need for speed or battlefield 3 will run at medium at 1920x1080 just fine but if you scale down to 1440p i can get battlefield 3 to run just fine at ultra ~40fps.

That's actually really good gaming performance. Considering a computer so thin and light, with a 7 hour battery life when you browse the net.

[randomhkkid]

To be honest it actually really surprised me when i bought it. Also it will also overclock well, theres a thread where one guy was hitting ~3100 on 3dmark 11which is 580m/670m territory. For reference the asus g series with a 660m gets around 2800 on the same benchmark (weighing in much heavier and about twice as thick)!!

[cluthz]

Originally Posted by randomhkkid

To be honest it actually really surprised me when i bought it. Also it will also overclock well, theres a thread where one guy was hitting ~3100 on 3dmark 11which is 580m/670m territory. For reference the asus g series with a 660m gets around 2800 on the same benchmark (weighing in much heavier and about twice as thick)!!

The benchmarks from official reviews I've seen puts the rMBP around 2.300-2.400 points. And around 14.000 in 3DMark06. This is quite ok for a laptop, but desktop wise this is 2006.
8800GTX scores about the same, if it's coupled with a recent CPU.

Mid range gaming laptop 2013 -> High end desktop 2006
High end gaming laptop 2013 -> High end desktop 2009/2010

[Gata]

Originally Posted by stueee123

When you're in a game you won't notice a difference, but in the Windows environment it does look a bit worse. Luckily you can change the desktop resolution to 2880x1880 and the zoom to 200% so it balances out. The only downside is that there are some really small buttons and some normal sized ones. Gaming is pretty good though, Crysis 2 runs nicely at 1680x1050 on high settings, Skyrim doesn't seem to be quite as well optimised but I can still get over 40 fps at high and 1680x1050

That sounds pretty good.

Originally Posted by randomhkkid

Its a very capable gaming machine for instance i've got a thread of my results on the new 3dmark http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...t=3dmark+score. Gaming at 1440x900 looks exactly the same as the old non retina/normal macbook pro's. I usually leave windows in 1920x1200. However scaling at 200% and 2880x1800 looks pretty good just some things look kinda weird. Most games run great at 1980x1200 so far some of the games i've played at that res are Skyrim(High/ultra ~40-50fps), prototype 2 (Maxed out Vsync limit at 60fps constant), borderlands 2 (Everything high, physx med). More demanding games like the new need for speed or battlefield 3 will run at medium at 1920x1080 just fine but if you scale down to 1440p i can get battlefield 3 to run just fine at ultra ~40fps.

I'm alright with 1440x900, so then this works.

Originally Posted by randomhkkid

To be honest it actually really surprised me when i bought it. Also it will also overclock well, theres a thread where one guy was hitting ~3100 on 3dmark 11which is 580m/670m territory. For reference the asus g series with a 660m gets around 2800 on the same benchmark (weighing in much heavier and about twice as thick)!!

I remember reading a thread where the OCer had to stop not because of a hardware limitation, but because the software wouldn't let him push the clocks higher. The rMBP was still at 90ish degrees celsius under load iirc.



Does the SSD make a huge difference in games?

[randomhkkid]

Originally Posted by Gata

That sounds pretty good.



I'm alright with 1440x900, so then this works.



I remember reading a thread where the OCer had to stop not because of a hardware limitation, but because the software wouldn't let him push the clocks higher. The rMBP was still at 90ish degrees celsius under load iirc.



Does the SSD make a huge difference in games?

The official review came out when kepler was still fairly new and the drivers have matured and performance improved since then. As for the temperatures the fans are really much better than the non retina macs as even at higher speed the noise they generate is much lower/percieved to be much less prominent. I use an app in windows called 'lubbos fan control' to keep the fans ~5000rpm and the temperatures on the gnu never go past 78ºC. while running fur mark which is a seriously unrealised amount of gpu load.


Its about as fast as a 7750 desktop according to Firestrike gnu score (1994 rMBP vs 2069 7750) which is great for gaming at 1440x900.
Keep in mind that iirc fire strike seems to favour AMD.

[Leonavice]

Originally Posted by Gata

I"m going to be playing stuff like Crysis1/2/3, Skyrim, Transformers: War for/Fall of Cybertron, Dead Space 3, TF2, Planetside 2, Tribes Ascend, and Arkham City on the Windows partition.

Arkham City is already on the OS X. You can play it natively without Windows.

http://support.feralinteractive.com/en/mac-games/bmac/

[edddeduck]

Originally Posted by Gata

Right now I've got the 2010 MBP with the GT 330M, and I was wondering just how fast/well the retina macbook pro (2799 configuration) handles gaming.

Compared to the 330M which especially on OS X is a very weak card the GT650M is vastly superior. It's a big leap.

Edwin

[cluthz]

Originally Posted by randomhkkid

Its about as fast as a 7750 desktop according to Firestrike gnu score (1994 rMBP vs 2069 7750) which is great for gaming at 1440x900.
Keep in mind that iirc fire strike seems to favour AMD.

This is not correct. GT640 desktop is the same chip as the 650M.
7750M hovever is around the 650M.

650M is a big leap over 330M as edddeduck points out. It's also fairly faster than the previous 6770M.
Comparing my 2009 GTX285 to my friends brand new 650M in games, both in OSX and windows, the GTX285 was from 30-50% faster in pretty much all tests we did.

Basically a 650M is comparable to a high end 2008 desktop card.

[UBS28]

Originally Posted by edddeduck

Compared to the 330M which especially on OS X is a very weak card the GT650M is vastly superior. It's a big leap.

Edwin

The rMBP can't max out WoW, People play WoW on high settings on the rMBP which is only 1 setting higher than what I use on my 15" 2010 MBP with the 330m.

For the 330m being described of a very weak card, the rMBP doesn't offer that much more performance in gaming. You're making it sound as if the rMBP runs everything maxed out while the 2010 15" macbook pro has to play on low settings and would still struggle which is false.

[edddeduck]

Originally Posted by UBS28

The rMBP can't max out WoW, People play WoW on high settings on the rMBP which is only 1 setting higher than what I use on my 15" 2010 MBP with the 330m.

Number of pixels rendered at native resolution on:

15" 2010 MBP = 1,296,000
15" 2010 MBPr = 5,184,000 (4x more)

So if you play on native resolution on both your 650M is already doing many times the work that the 330M has to do.

Originally Posted by UBS28

For the 330m being described of a very weak card, the rMBP doesn't offer that much more performance in gaming. You're making it sound as if the rMBP runs everything maxed out while the 2010 15" macbook pro has to play on low settings and would still struggle which is false.

The difference on more modern games like F1 2012 is very large. The 650M can play with high settings the 330M runs with closer to minimum settings. WoW is not really a high performance game in terms of graphics so it is not that representative.

I am basing my comment on OS X (not Windows) but when booted into OS X the 330M card has in my experience been a lot slower and harder to deal with. The 650M on the other hand is the most powerful graphics card shipped in an Apple laptop.

I would say the 330M is the card I always make sure gets extra testing as it will be the card that needs more attention to meet it's performance targets.

EDIT: Did a quick check on the specs based on released data:

330M is around 180 gflops
650M is around 650 gflops

gflops is not everything when it comes to performance but it is a fairly big indicator.

Edwin

[henrikrox]

Steady 60fps with 1440x900 on high on the new tomb raider game, heavily overclocked though, loving the rmbp

[UBS28]

Originally Posted by edddeduck

Number of pixels rendered at native resolution on:

15" 2010 MBP = 1,296,000
15" 2010 MBPr = 5,184,000 (4x more)

So if you play on native resolution on both your 650M is already doing many times the work that the 330M has to do.



The difference on more modern games like F1 2012 is very large. The 650M can play with high settings the 330M runs with closer to minimum settings. WoW is not really a high performance game in terms of graphics so it is not that representative.

I am basing my comment on OS X (not Windows) but when booted into OS X the 330M card has in my experience been a lot slower and harder to deal with. The 650M on the other hand is the most powerful graphics card shipped in an Apple laptop.

I would say the 330M is the card I always make sure gets extra testing as it will be the card that needs more attention to meet it's performance targets.

EDIT: Did a quick check on the specs based on released data:

330M is around 180 gflops
650M is around 650 gflops

gflops is not everything when it comes to performance but it is a fairly big indicator.

Edwin

I get 38 fps on high settings at 1680 x 1050 on the 330m. Where did you get that information from that F1 2012 only runs on minimum settings?

[Macman45]

I have a brand new maxed out 13" rMBP...I didn't buy it for games, and my rule with them is one game per work tool...I installed Doom3 thinking it would struggle...jacked it up to the max and it flies...Very impressed, but as I said not a machine for games...My major gaming investment is a simulation )( X-Plane) which is on my iMac.

I haven't tried any other games on my new retina though, but the HD 4000 seems more capable than I thought.

[edddeduck]

Originally Posted by UBS28

I get 38 fps on high settings at 1680 x 1050 on the 330m. Where are you getting this information that F1 2012 only runs on minimum settings. Or are you just making this up?

I get this information from having access to the Macs at work and also by being one of the development team at Feral who worked on F1 2012.

My comments are OS X related not Windows. I suspect you are talking about Windows not OS X.

Originally Posted by edddeduck

I am basing my comment on OS X (not Windows) but when booted into OS X the 330M card has in my experience been a lot slower and harder to deal with. The 650M on the other hand is the most powerful graphics card shipped in an Apple laptop.

I would say the 330M is the card I always make sure gets extra testing as it will be the card that needs more attention to meet it's performance targets.

Edwin

[UBS28]

Originally Posted by edddeduck

I get this information from having access to the Macs at work and also by being one of the development team at Feral who worked on F1 2012.

My comments are OS X related not Windows. I suspect you are talking about Windows not OS X.



Edwin

I don't have F1 2012 on OS X. But if F1 2012 only runs on minimum on OS X, I don't think it's a problem related to the 330m because the Windows version doesn't need to be run on minimum.

Probably Crysis 3 would run terrible on the 330m where the 650m could get some descent performance I suspect.

[edddeduck]

Originally Posted by UBS28

I don't have F1 2012 on OS X. But if F1 2012 only runs on minimum on OS X, I don't think it's a problem related to the 330m

Well I know it's the 330M drivers that are causing the problem, I don't need to think it. Spent enough time investigating the performance issues on the 330M across various games to know it can be a problem child from time to time on OS X. Other cards are fine but the 330M drivers mean you don't get the full performance of the card when booted into OS X in some circumstances.

Originally Posted by UBS28

because the Windows version doesn't need to be run on minimum.

The issue is with the 330M drivers on the Mac, it's not the hardware. As I said it might run great on Windows but on the Mac the drivers are not as good.

Edwin

[randomhkkid]

Originally Posted by UBS28

I don't have F1 2012 on OS X. But if F1 2012 only runs on minimum on OS X, I don't think it's a problem related to the 330m because the Windows version doesn't need to be run on minimum.

Probably Crysis 3 would run terrible on the 330m where the 650m could get some descent performance I suspect.

I'm able to play crysis 3 at 1440x900 at high at a stable 40~50fps on mine.

[atomicparker]

I really hope they have a 2GB video ram option on the new retinas...1GB for that many pixels just isn't enough in my opinion.