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 Feb 12, 2013, 11:39 PM   #1
Gata
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
rMBP Gaming

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)
__________________
-HP w/ AMD Phenom II x4 810 2.66 GHZ, Nvidia Geforce GT 240, 750 GB HD, 8 GB DDR3, DVD-RW;
-i7 MBP w/ GT 330M, 4 GB RAM, 1400x900, and 5400 RPM HD
-16 GB Verizon iPhone 4
Gata is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 04:02 AM   #2
Latt
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gata View Post
(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.
Latt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 06:29 PM   #3
Gata
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
How does 1400x900 look under bootcamp, be it for gaming or anything else?

Better or worse than a normal 1400x900 display?
__________________
-HP w/ AMD Phenom II x4 810 2.66 GHZ, Nvidia Geforce GT 240, 750 GB HD, 8 GB DDR3, DVD-RW;
-i7 MBP w/ GT 330M, 4 GB RAM, 1400x900, and 5400 RPM HD
-16 GB Verizon iPhone 4
Gata is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 03:25 AM   #4
JuanGarcia
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gata View Post
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, its nice
JuanGarcia is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 03:52 AM   #5
RoastingPig
macrumors 65816
 
RoastingPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SoCal
Send a message via AIM to RoastingPig
its aight
__________________
Mac Pro 6 Core D700*, Retina 13 256gb/8gb 5000
RoastingPig is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 09:50 AM   #6
stueee123
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gata View Post
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
stueee123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 01:42 PM   #7
randomhkkid
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
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.
__________________
My blog for reviews and my thoughts : http://www.randomhkkid.blogspot.com
Macbook Retina 2.6ghz 512gb 8gb, Galaxy S II 1.6ghz
randomhkkid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2013, 05:25 PM   #8
adildacoolset
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Lusaka, Zambia(If you know where it is)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomhkkid View Post
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.
__________________
Last edited by adildacoolset; Tomorrow at 09:42 AM. Reason: grammar error
adildacoolset is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 08:21 AM   #9
randomhkkid
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
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)!!
randomhkkid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 10:18 AM   #10
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomhkkid View Post
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
__________________
-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 Feb 16, 2013, 03:55 PM   #11
Gata
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by stueee123 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomhkkid View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomhkkid View Post
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?
__________________
-HP w/ AMD Phenom II x4 810 2.66 GHZ, Nvidia Geforce GT 240, 750 GB HD, 8 GB DDR3, DVD-RW;
-i7 MBP w/ GT 330M, 4 GB RAM, 1400x900, and 5400 RPM HD
-16 GB Verizon iPhone 4
Gata is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 05:38 AM   #12
randomhkkid
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gata View Post
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 78C. 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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20130213_184819.jpg
Views:	86
Size:	767.1 KB
ID:	397432   Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-02-17 at 1.42.36 PM.png
Views:	157
Size:	223.6 KB
ID:	397433  
__________________
My blog for reviews and my thoughts : http://www.randomhkkid.blogspot.com
Macbook Retina 2.6ghz 512gb 8gb, Galaxy S II 1.6ghz

Last edited by randomhkkid; Feb 17, 2013 at 05:48 AM.
randomhkkid is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2013, 10:29 PM   #13
Leonavice
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gata View Post
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/
Leonavice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2013, 03:41 AM   #14
edddeduck
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gata View Post
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
edddeduck is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2013, 07:54 PM   #15
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomhkkid View Post
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.
__________________
-tb
MacBook Air 13" i5 osx10.7.5
HackPro 4.3GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX780GHz Edition, 3x SSD , win7+osx10.9.2
cluthz is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 12:45 PM   #16
UBS28
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by edddeduck View Post
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.
UBS28 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2013, 03:57 AM   #17
edddeduck
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by UBS28 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UBS28 View Post
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

Last edited by edddeduck; Mar 6, 2013 at 04:09 AM.
edddeduck is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2013, 01:28 PM   #18
henrikrox
macrumors 65816
 
henrikrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Steady 60fps with 1440x900 on high on the new tomb raider game, heavily overclocked though, loving the rmbp
__________________
15,4" rMBP, 2.7Ghz, 16GB RAM, Geforce GT650M, 512GB SSD.
henrikrox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2013, 02:12 AM   #19
UBS28
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by edddeduck View Post
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?
UBS28 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2013, 02:16 AM   #20
Macman45
macrumors G5
 
Macman45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Somewhere Back In The Long Ago
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.
__________________
Thats Not All Folks
Macman45 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2013, 05:02 AM   #21
edddeduck
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by UBS28 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edddeduck View Post
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
edddeduck is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2013, 03:38 AM   #22
UBS28
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by edddeduck View Post
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.

Last edited by UBS28; Mar 24, 2013 at 03:48 AM.
UBS28 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2013, 04:01 AM   #23
edddeduck
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by UBS28 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UBS28 View Post
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
edddeduck is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 06:09 AM   #24
randomhkkid
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by UBS28 View Post
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.
__________________
My blog for reviews and my thoughts : http://www.randomhkkid.blogspot.com
Macbook Retina 2.6ghz 512gb 8gb, Galaxy S II 1.6ghz
randomhkkid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 09:26 AM   #25
atomicparker
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ottawa, ON
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.
atomicparker is offline   1 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
Gaming on the rMBP ventuss MacBook Pro 2 Jan 28, 2014 01:13 AM
rmbp 13 light gaming? cesararjona MacBook Pro 17 Oct 28, 2013 07:37 PM
Resolved: Old rMBP w. discrete gfx card vs. new rMBP without for gaming Hapimp MacBook Pro 17 Oct 27, 2013 11:54 PM
Gaming on the rMBP rekhyt MacBook Pro 17 Mar 6, 2013 02:38 PM
Gaming resolution on rMBP FatGuy007 MacBook Pro 1 Aug 11, 2012 10:26 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 PM.

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

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