(macbook pro of course)I have the dual core i5 sandy bridge,4GB of ram 206GB of hard drive space and the crappy intel HD 3000 will the GPU destroy performance or can I play this on medium settings (in boot camp)
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.
Skyrim:are the specs good?
- Thread starter macbook pro i5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. There are no titles that benefit from +4GB of RAM (save possibly a 16 player turn 600 Civilization 5 game on a extra large map).
RAM requirements for games stagnated years ago.
Ok my dads laptop windows 7 home premium64bit has quad core i7 1.6 GHZs 4 GB of ram and a Nvidia GPU which is a Nvidia geforce GTX 580 is THAT good enough for sky rim high settings or not
haha, well that laptop has one of the best mobile GPU's available. Yes you can play at highest settings
Well it might a tiny bit. Increasing RAM to 8GB will change the available shared memory from the Intel HD 3000 from 384 to 512 MB. minimal benefit in performance.
haha, well that laptop has one of the best mobile GPU's available. Yes you can play at highest settings
Well it might a tiny bit. Increasing RAM to 8GB will change the available shared memory from the Intel HD 3000 from 384 to 512 MB. minimal benefit in performance.
good because I forced him to upgrade the GPU
good because I forced him to upgrade the GPU
Hes wrong; there is no benefit in performance. However, playing on the baseline 2011 13 inch I can play on medium settings at 1200 by 756 or whatever and have no lag.
So there's that.
There is actually specific cases where a lot of RAM does help with a game, but that's when you run multi-clienting like MMO's. For example, you can have an EVE Online client take up 2 GB. When you run 2 accounts, that would be 4 GB, etc. And of course there are video cards that use the system RAM in place of dedicated, but when a game uses enough RAM to make a difference, it's usually at a setting way to high for that on motherboard GPU anyway.
BTW, I think that "video card" is built into the Intel CPU. So it will definately chew up some of your RAM, can't say how much though.
Last edited:
Wow, I just checked the Macbook Pro line. What a marketing inspired rip-off. The 13 inch is the only one without a dedicated GPU. And it's still called a "Pro". You would assume Pro means it's geared for "professional" graphics work and would assume you need a dedicated GPU. But they left it out of the 13 inch and still sell you it as a "Macbook Pro".
Wow, I just checked the Macbook Pro line. What a marketing inspired rip-off. The 13 inch is the only one without a dedicated GPU. And it's still called a "Pro". You would assume Pro means it's geared for "professional" graphics work and would assume you need a dedicated GPU. But they left it out of the 13 inch and still sell you it as a "Macbook Pro".
Not all "Pro" people need a GPU... just because you assume its for graphics work doesn't mean your right... and assuming all types of graphics work needs a GPU is also not right.
If your doing graphics that need a good GPU, I'd be more worried about the 13" 1280x800 screen.
Either way, they shouldn't have put the Pro in the name to classify it with the others. They should call it the Macbook. Or Macbook Junior to be more precise, because that's what it is. Or even iBook would have been better. But of course $1,200 for a "Junior" would kinda turn ppl off from buying it.
Last edited:
dude it has what I need for college the specs are fine(barely)for my Xcode projects I don't need to waste my money on the 15 inch if the 13 inch is perfectly fine
Well the MBP13" shares the same(almost identical) design with the 15" and 17" so I guess it makes sense to call it Macbook Pro. Seriously, does it really matter what they are called? I didn't buy my MBA for it's name. However the name does make a perfect description of what it is hahaa.
skyrim runs amazing on a high end i5 2011 imac with 1gb graphics, getting around 50-35 frames per second with a 2560x1440 res texture quality high and everything else low, the graphics are amazing, but use a free program called GAMEBOOSTER on windows 7 bootcamp, you will get more performance from a single click.
Just wanted to chime in and say I broke down and gave Skyrim a try on my 2011 13" MBP and I can run it on Medium settings, High textures, Low shadows, no AA/AF, FXAA on and its definitely playable. Probably will have to tweak the settings some more but the 3000 HD is definitely capable of giving you a great Skyrim experience.
I mainly play on 360 but even on lower settings it looks better. Plus, you get the benefit of upcoming mods. Great game on either system.
I mainly play on 360 but even on lower settings it looks better. Plus, you get the benefit of upcoming mods. Great game on either system.
do u think it is pushable to high settings with nothing running and fans blasted to 6200rpm?
Nope, not with the Intel 3000 HD. FPS will be so low there is no point. Honestly, the low-medium settings look really good, definitely compared to console.
I am using 8GB RAM in my MBP.
Plays extremely well on my 2010 13" Air at 1280x800, medium settings and 2x AA. This is my favorite game! I am thinking about deleting The Witcher 2 off my HD because the performance sucks compared to Skyrim.