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 Mar 24, 2013, 11:21 PM   #1
Sambo110
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Intel HD 4000 and Gaming

So I know the HD 4000 isn't great for gaming, but it can do it. My girlfriend wants to buy a Macbook, either this week or in 2 weeks if she goes for a 15" Retina. She isn't a gamer, but only because the only thing she has is an incredibly old Laptop that can barely run. She's interested in playing some games like WoW, Batman etc. So, how well does the HD 4000 actually run games at 1440x900 under OS X?

Also, I see that most games now don't support the HD 3000, will games in a year not support the HD 4000? Thanks for any advice!
__________________
rMBP 2.6 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD 10,8 ; 20" Aluminum iMac, 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD, 2400 HD, 10.8 ; iPod Touch 4G 32GB
Sambo110 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2013, 11:59 PM   #2
stueee123
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Your signature says you have the 15 inch rMBP, so just download gfxCardStatus, and set it to "integrated only". This will use only the HD 4000, and you can test it with that. Note, this won't work in Windows.
stueee123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2013, 03:06 AM   #3
Sambo110
Thread Starter
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by stueee123 View Post
Your signature says you have the 15 inch rMBP, so just download gfxCardStatus, and set it to "integrated only". This will use only the HD 4000, and you can test it with that. Note, this won't work in Windows.
Doesn't seem to work, at least from what I remember. If I ever forced a GPU, every game would crash.

Plus I don't have many games on my Mac. The only ones I have are Blizzard, Valve and a few Indie games.
__________________
rMBP 2.6 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD 10,8 ; 20" Aluminum iMac, 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD, 2400 HD, 10.8 ; iPod Touch 4G 32GB
Sambo110 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2013, 07:17 AM   #4
edddeduck
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sambo110 View Post
Doesn't seem to work, at least from what I remember. If I ever forced a GPU, every game would crash.

Plus I don't have many games on my Mac. The only ones I have are Blizzard, Valve and a few Indie games.
All Feral games work with the switcher as long as the game has HD3000/4000 support.

However you should not expect any modern game to play at native resolution on the HD4000. They will play find but native resolution in many cases is asking too much of the none gaming card.

Edwin
edddeduck is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2013, 07:35 AM   #5
MarcBook
macrumors 6502a
 
MarcBook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Jersey, Channel Islands
I honestly think that even for relatively basic graphics such as those in WoW, it's still a very, very good idea to go for the 15" model with the dedicated graphics. It'll definitely be worth the 2 week wait; it'll potentially save months (or even years) of frustration relying on the HD 4000.

The GeForce GT 650M is a great card, especially as it's hardware overclocked in the Retina models. It runs modern games at 1440 x 900 extremely well and even some in 2880 x 1880 (notably the League of Legends Mac client).
__________________
Early-2011 15.4" MacBook Pro, OS X Yosemite, 2.2GHz Core i7 quad, 1TB Crucial M550 SSD, 8GB RAM, AMD 6750M
iPhone 5s 32GB Space Grey
MarcBook is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2013, 08:34 AM   #6
Cougarcat
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
What MarcBook said. Or if she can wait, get the 13" haswell when it comes out this summer. Its integrated graphics are supposed to be a good step up (on par with the 650M.)
Cougarcat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2013, 02:48 PM   #7
stueee123
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougarcat View Post
What MarcBook said. Or if she can wait, get the 13" haswell when it comes out this summer. Its integrated graphics are supposed to be a good step up (on par with the 650M.)
The graphics in Haswell (HD 4600) won't be close to the 650m, apparently they're around 20% faster than the 4000, still way behind the 650m, but a good step forward.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.86106.0.html
stueee123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2013, 03:07 PM   #8
Cougarcat
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by stueee123 View Post
The graphics in Haswell (HD 4600) won't be close to the 650m, apparently they're around 20% faster than the 4000, still way behind the 650m, but a good step forward.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.86106.0.html
Are you sure?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6600/i...eforce-gt-650m
Cougarcat is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2013, 03:04 AM   #9
Sambo110
Thread Starter
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by edddeduck View Post
All Feral games work with the switcher as long as the game has HD3000/4000 support.

However you should not expect any modern game to play at native resolution on the HD4000. They will play find but native resolution in many cases is asking too much of the none gaming card.

Edwin
You're a developer, so can you explain how some games look the exact same at 1440x900 and 2880x1800, yet the performance doubles at the lower resolution? Valve games all look the exact same at those two resolutions, yet Blizzard games don't. It's quite strange.
__________________
rMBP 2.6 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD 10,8 ; 20" Aluminum iMac, 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD, 2400 HD, 10.8 ; iPod Touch 4G 32GB
Sambo110 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 06:17 PM   #10
glsillygili
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New York
Source games work fine on my Intel Graphics 3000
glsillygili is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2013, 11:54 PM   #11
arashb
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
My girlfriend has a 13" MBP with HD4000 and she plays CS:GO and TF2 happily, she does bootcamp to Windows though. I don't think she tried OS X for it.
arashb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2013, 04:36 AM   #12
edddeduck
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sambo110 View Post
You're a developer, so can you explain how some games look the exact same at 1440x900 and 2880x1800, yet the performance doubles at the lower resolution? Valve games all look the exact same at those two resolutions, yet Blizzard games don't. It's quite strange.
It's likely (I don't make either title you mention) down to the windowing mode used in the code.

You have two ways of drawing to the screen the "new" way and the "old" way. Apple are pushing everyone to move over the new way as it support fancy stuff like the notifications and achievement popups. The old way is on the way out and will slowly be phased out I guess.

When playing a game you have two resolutions:

The resolution your monitor (and OS) is running in this is in almost every case the native resolution of the monitor.
The resolution the game is running in, this is usually lower than your native screen resolution.

The "old" way

When the screen goes black and you enter full screen the game will tell the OS to lower it's resolution so it matches the resolution you selected to play the game in. This is the same as going into System Preferences and lowering it yourself. Everything gets bigger and more blurry but your Mac will only be drawing the smaller number of pixels for example 1024x768.

This means the graphics card has a lot less pixels to keep in memory and will run faster.

You can usually tell this mode as when you tab in and out of the game you might see OS X blue for a second or see some resizing really quickly.

The 'new' way

When the screen goes black and you enter full screen the OS does not change resolution and stays at native resolution. The game is rendered at the resolution you selected in the game onto an off screen buffer. Think of it as an image of a single frame of the game at the resolution you selected. This frame is then taken by the OS and scaled up to fit the screen resolution. Lowering the resolution means you have less calculations to do to create the final frame but that final frame is then scaled up to fit native resolution by the OS. This means the card has a little more overhead and will in some cases run a little slower.

This new way as the final frame is in a buffer allows the OS to overlay messages like notifications etc over the top of a game, use Expose etc

I don't know for sure in your case if this is part of the reason but how exactly you render the game does have an effect on the performance at various resolutions.

Edwin
edddeduck is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2013, 12:55 PM   #13
El Awesome
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zurich
If you care about gaming even just a tiny little bit, I would forget about the HD4000. It's good for daily use like checking emails or browsing the web or some simple office tasks, but nothing more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edddeduck View Post
It's likely (I don't make either title you mention) down to the windowing mode used in the code.

You have two ways of drawing to the screen the "new" way and the "old" way. Apple are pushing everyone to move over the new way as it support fancy stuff like the notifications and achievement popups. The old way is on the way out and will slowly be phased out I guess.

When playing a game you have two resolutions:

The resolution your monitor (and OS) is running in this is in almost every case the native resolution of the monitor.
The resolution the game is running in, this is usually lower than your native screen resolution.

The "old" way

When the screen goes black and you enter full screen the game will tell the OS to lower it's resolution so it matches the resolution you selected to play the game in. This is the same as going into System Preferences and lowering it yourself. Everything gets bigger and more blurry but your Mac will only be drawing the smaller number of pixels for example 1024x768.

This means the graphics card has a lot less pixels to keep in memory and will run faster.

You can usually tell this mode as when you tab in and out of the game you might see OS X blue for a second or see some resizing really quickly.

The 'new' way

When the screen goes black and you enter full screen the OS does not change resolution and stays at native resolution. The game is rendered at the resolution you selected in the game onto an off screen buffer. Think of it as an image of a single frame of the game at the resolution you selected. This frame is then taken by the OS and scaled up to fit the screen resolution. Lowering the resolution means you have less calculations to do to create the final frame but that final frame is then scaled up to fit native resolution by the OS. This means the card has a little more overhead and will in some cases run a little slower.

This new way as the final frame is in a buffer allows the OS to overlay messages like notifications etc over the top of a game, use Expose etc

I don't know for sure in your case if this is part of the reason but how exactly you render the game does have an effect on the performance at various resolutions.

Edwin
Fantastically explained!
__________________
Hackintosh 3.5Ghz i7 3770k, 32 GB RAM, eVGA GTX 680 2048 MB SuperClocked, Samsung 830 128GB SSD
MacBook Pro Late '08 2.8 Ghz C2D, 4GB RAM, Nvidia 9400M & 9600M GT
El Awesome is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2013, 01:21 PM   #14
gregorsamsa
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: (Metamorphosing near) Staffs, 51st State.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Awesome View Post
If you care about gaming even just a tiny little bit, I would forget about the HD4000. It's good for daily use like checking emails or browsing the web or some simple office tasks, but nothing more.
Hmmm. IMO, saying something similar but with a slightly different emphasis, seems no less appropriate. That is, if you care about gaming just a little bit, most likely the HD 4000 will be fine for most games at low-to-medium FPS.

Kindly note, the HD 4000 wouldn't be fine at all for my needs. Also, I'm not trying to be contrary here for its own sake, but hopefully just adding a bit of balance.
gregorsamsa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2013, 01:14 AM   #15
Sambo110
Thread Starter
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by edddeduck View Post
It's likely (I don't make either title you mention) down to the windowing mode used in the code.

You have two ways of drawing to the screen the "new" way and the "old" way. Apple are pushing everyone to move over the new way as it support fancy stuff like the notifications and achievement popups. The old way is on the way out and will slowly be phased out I guess.

When playing a game you have two resolutions:

The resolution your monitor (and OS) is running in this is in almost every case the native resolution of the monitor.
The resolution the game is running in, this is usually lower than your native screen resolution.

The "old" way

When the screen goes black and you enter full screen the game will tell the OS to lower it's resolution so it matches the resolution you selected to play the game in. This is the same as going into System Preferences and lowering it yourself. Everything gets bigger and more blurry but your Mac will only be drawing the smaller number of pixels for example 1024x768.

This means the graphics card has a lot less pixels to keep in memory and will run faster.

You can usually tell this mode as when you tab in and out of the game you might see OS X blue for a second or see some resizing really quickly.

The 'new' way

When the screen goes black and you enter full screen the OS does not change resolution and stays at native resolution. The game is rendered at the resolution you selected in the game onto an off screen buffer. Think of it as an image of a single frame of the game at the resolution you selected. This frame is then taken by the OS and scaled up to fit the screen resolution. Lowering the resolution means you have less calculations to do to create the final frame but that final frame is then scaled up to fit native resolution by the OS. This means the card has a little more overhead and will in some cases run a little slower.

This new way as the final frame is in a buffer allows the OS to overlay messages like notifications etc over the top of a game, use Expose etc

I don't know for sure in your case if this is part of the reason but how exactly you render the game does have an effect on the performance at various resolutions.

Edwin
Makes sense. The weird thing is, Valve games look amazing at 1440x900, yet Blizzard games look blurry at the same resolution. I prefer the old way of doing it in that case
__________________
rMBP 2.6 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD 10,8 ; 20" Aluminum iMac, 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD, 2400 HD, 10.8 ; iPod Touch 4G 32GB
Sambo110 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2013, 05:21 AM   #16
dylin
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: California
Well didnt read the entire thread, but noticed that she wants to play WoW. and so far i have my 2012 13" macbook pro connected to a external monitor.

I play it at 1920 by 1080 and have majority of the settings set to high, except shadows, and i just cap the FPS to 30 as to keep the temps down so the CPU/GPU dont have to work with so many calculations. Runs well and runs relatively cool.

temps are at 55 celcius and the fans dont really go higher than 2200 rpm.

So if she is just going to play at 1440 bt 900. i dont think there would be any problem at all.
__________________
2012 Macbook Pro:Core i5/8GB RAM/256GB SSD iPhone 5s 32GB Motivation for Everyday Living
dylin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2013, 12:14 PM   #17
Donut4000
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
HL2 in a VM with HD4000

I have a 13" cMBP at the moment, so have the HD4000. I am playing through the Half Life 2 series, and have set them to native resolution (1280x800), and am able to ramp the settings all the way up to high or very high. I should add that I have SSD and 16gb of RAM. I run this all through Parallels 8, and am pretty amazed that the games run so well - really smooth gameplay. I don't know the FPS, but suffice to say, it is high enough not to notice stuttering other than occasionally when there are scene changes, and then only momentarily. I should also add that I performed the VRAM hack from over in the Mountain Lion forum, increasing the allocation to 1gb. This >seems< to have reduced graphical tearing and judders I was getting from before the hack - everything as I say seems pretty smooth. Naturally, things would improve even more if I set things up via Bootcamp - but that seems too much hassle compared to the functioning setup I have here, which was originally for running Windows only university software. The fact I can run HL2 from a VM is pretty cool. No such luck with Far Cry2 though....>much< more hardware demanding....
Hope this illuminates in some way...
Donut4000 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2013, 02:50 PM   #18
Sambo110
Thread Starter
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
She ended up just buying the 15" Retina... probably the best long term decision!
__________________
rMBP 2.6 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD 10,8 ; 20" Aluminum iMac, 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD, 2400 HD, 10.8 ; iPod Touch 4G 32GB
Sambo110 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2013, 07:26 PM   #19
Jethryn Freyman
macrumors 68020
 
Jethryn Freyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut4000 View Post
I have a 13" cMBP at the moment, so have the HD4000. I am playing through the Half Life 2 series, and have set them to native resolution (1280x800), and am able to ramp the settings all the way up to high or very high. I should add that I have SSD and 16gb of RAM. I run this all through Parallels 8, and am pretty amazed that the games run so well - really smooth gameplay. I don't know the FPS, but suffice to say, it is high enough not to notice stuttering other than occasionally when there are scene changes, and then only momentarily. I should also add that I performed the VRAM hack from over in the Mountain Lion forum, increasing the allocation to 1gb. This >seems< to have reduced graphical tearing and judders I was getting from before the hack - everything as I say seems pretty smooth. Naturally, things would improve even more if I set things up via Bootcamp - but that seems too much hassle compared to the functioning setup I have here, which was originally for running Windows only university software. The fact I can run HL2 from a VM is pretty cool. No such luck with Far Cry2 though....>much< more hardware demanding....
Hope this illuminates in some way...
Interesting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sambo110 View Post
She ended up just buying the 15" Retina... probably the best long term decision!
Yup agreed there mate
__________________
michaelanthonyralph.com/wordpress - Late 2011 15" Macbook Pro - 2.4GHz quad - 16GB RAM - Radeon 6770M 1024MB - 1TB - 10.9.4
Jethryn Freyman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2013, 10:42 AM   #20
arctic
macrumors 6502a
 
arctic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by stueee123 View Post
The graphics in Haswell (HD 4600) won't be close to the 650m, apparently they're around 20% faster than the 4000, still way behind the 650m, but a good step forward.
[/url]
What makes you think Apple will be utilizing HD 4600? It's very likely we'll be seeing HD 5000 for the MBA and HD 5100 for the 13" rMBP Haswell models.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6926/i...e-gets-a-brand
arctic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2013, 03:49 AM   #21
edddeduck
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctic View Post
What makes you think Apple will be utilizing HD 4600? It's very likely we'll be seeing HD 5000 for the MBA and HD 5100 for the 13" rMBP Haswell models.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6926/i...e-gets-a-brand
Complete shot in the dark with no evidence but I would assume the HD5000 series will be used based on Apple's previous choices, hopefully the higher end models

Edwin
edddeduck 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
Intel HD 4000 laggy in Windows 7 (NOT gaming) keogh Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac 8 Feb 27, 2013 10:53 AM
Gaming performance of HD 4000 vs 650m jvpython MacBook Pro 22 Sep 23, 2012 11:48 PM
13" MBA w/4GB RAM and HD 4000 - ok for casual gaming? keelio MacBook Air 51 Aug 15, 2012 12:47 AM
Intel 4000 nlr iMac 17 Jul 17, 2012 06:49 PM
Intel HD 3000 vs. 4000 TheGoodOldDays Buying Tips and Advice 4 Jun 9, 2012 07:40 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 AM.

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

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