Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How long will the 750m be able to handle gaming?
- Thread starter Mansali
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know but just curious on a side note. Because I see Nvidia updating their stuff every so often. So wouldn't that make the 750 pretty obsolete in a couple of years?
Based on my experience with the 15" 2010 MBP with the 330m, you can play games like Skyrim and Crysis 2 on it. Crysis 3 even runs on the 330m. But you have to adjust the resolution and settings which is not how the game was meaned to be played in my opinion.
Just get a PS4 or a XBOX One imo since games will be designed for these machines, thus it should run the latest games for a very long time. Or get a PC desktop that can be upgraded cheaply for many years to come, but this route is more expansive than a gaming console.
They are quite capable and more and more people are playing games on Macs these days, just look at the posts in these forums.
This is a rebrand year. Considering the minimum cost required to get a 750m unit which is a rebrand of the gpu used in the prior mbp, it seems like a bad buy. NVidia doesn't do major updates every year, so if you want to maximize it, you might be best off buying on a better year. It's possible that Apple will phase out discrete gpus from the macbook pro line in another year or two, but if that happens those aren't likely to be slower than the 750m.
At the rate we're going, forever. Games haven't moved much in a while. I mean, look at the Xbox One and PS4, still outputting games at 720p.
No, just no. [insert head shaking gif] This is blatantly not true. And comparing console gaming to PC gaming is just not a valid point. And to top it off, there are PS4 and Xbox One games that will be at 1080p and 60fps.
Is it not, or is it? It used to not be a valid argument when consoles used obscure architectures, but now that they're using standard x86 hardware (and common Windows 8 kernel in the case of the Xbox One)it's pretty hard not to compare. Especially when they've spent all this time developing the dedicated gaming kernel that's supposed to be oh so much better than a bloated desktop OS. Sounds like they're getting lazy in the name of profits.
Ah, right. They said this at launch for the 360 as well as the PS3. Nearly a decade later and we're still trudging along at 720p. BF3 runs maxed at 2560x1440 on windows on the six year old Mac Pro in my signature, they can't get x86 hardware to run a game at 1080p/acceptable framerate in 2013?
That's a shame.
Last edited:
It's still not a valid argument. Consoles are designed to be cheap to make and always be the same. They a very good at this and it allows devs to have to do a lot less testing and do way better optimizing. Developing on the same hardware is a huge boost after a couple years.
The devs get to decide if 1080p and 60fps is worth the power over a better AI, shaders, polygon count etc. For current gen it wasn't for most devs. We'll see how many go for it on next gen. When I said they are game that run at 1080p and 60fps on next gen I wasn't saying that's what Sony and Microsoft said, there are third part devs that have said their game runs at 1080p and 60fps on next gen.
You literally said that at the rate we're going the 750m will work for playing the latest games forever! This has such a lack of knowledge of how tech has advanced for decades and just how it works, I don't know what to say.
The 750m is a bad upgrade point if you're looking at gaming performance, period. It's a rebadge year for Nvidia, and in this case the 750m is a rebadged over clocked 650m. Apple was already using basically the same thing last year (over clocked 650m chips), so the performance gains are minimal. Benchmarks right now are showing around a 5% difference in performance between the two. Had Apple used stock 650m chips last year the difference would be more significant, but they didn't.
Basically, you'll get the same gaming performance from a refurbished 2012/early 2013 model, which is what I'd recommend if battery life isn't a top priority (the Haswell rMBPs are getting better battery life than advertised according to many users, myself included).
While people will say "you'll never buy if you wait for next year," which can be true, there are better upgrade points than others depending on usage. If you were looking for battery life, faster wifi, or faster storage the late 2013 could be a great choice. For any other usage case a refurbished model is probably a better choice, or waiting for the new generation of NV GPUs next year if you're serious about keeping up with the upcoming console generation.
Basically, you'll get the same gaming performance from a refurbished 2012/early 2013 model, which is what I'd recommend if battery life isn't a top priority (the Haswell rMBPs are getting better battery life than advertised according to many users, myself included).
While people will say "you'll never buy if you wait for next year," which can be true, there are better upgrade points than others depending on usage. If you were looking for battery life, faster wifi, or faster storage the late 2013 could be a great choice. For any other usage case a refurbished model is probably a better choice, or waiting for the new generation of NV GPUs next year if you're serious about keeping up with the upcoming console generation.
You literally took what I said literally. Obviously tech advances will always continue, but whether that applies to how much effort is being put into the gaming side of things is a whole different point.
We're getting less hardware and innovation than we've ever gotten for the same money we've always paid. I'll argue with my wallet.
Yes, I literally took what you said literally, as you seem to stand by it and I didn't see any clues that it was sarcastic.
So you think there's a chance as tech as advances games could just stop advancing? If your "less hardware and innovation" has anything to do with next gen consoles, again like I said it's not a fair comparison for consoles or PCs.
If playing the latest games is your concern, you don't want a MacBook. They simply are not designed to play next gen.
As long as you're not expecting high end performance (max out settings/resolution) than it's a decent card. You'll be able to play things at a mid-low (or maybe high) depending on the age of the game.
Example you can most likely play max out on older games such as Portal but don't expect the same results for something like say Battlefield 4.
Example you can most likely play max out on older games such as Portal but don't expect the same results for something like say Battlefield 4.
Its not the fact that its a laptop. Its the fact that it doesn't have the best GPU while also having to run windows from bootcamp. The OP is talking about keeping up with the latest games. Games a couple years from now will run like ass at the lowest settings.
The 750m is a current low-middle class card from NVidia.
Expect current engined games to get at least 30fps on Medium @ 720p.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html
If you want to be on cutting edge (1080p, full AA, ultra detail) you need a 780m (or even sli in games like Metro:Last Light).
Personally, I have a few favorite games that still run beautifully on my Late2009 iMac (4850m). (Fallout 3, New Vegas, Homeworld 2, Supreme Commander)
Running windows from Bootcamp shouldn't have anything to do with issues with any gaming. Your booting into it, not running OSX and Windows simultaneously. Though Im sure Apple could make the experience better without making the fans kick on all the time.