15 inch or 13 inch for gaming?

[CAdavid]

I am trying to decide which laptop to get.

What is the difference between the 2 graphic cards? I heard one is dedicated. Does dedicated mean u can take it out or upgrade the graphics card? I was also thinking that the 15 inch might be good if I wanted to make sure my laptop could play new games 5 years down the road.

I want to play Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Torchlight 2, and Call of Duty 4.

I heard alot of people are fine with the 13 inch.

 

[ECUpirate44]

15 inch for the dedicated GPU. taking it out will void the warrantee.

 

[estrides]

If you want to do any type of gaming, here is the obligatory, dont get a mac. But if you want to just play those games, then I would recommend the 15". It will be noticeably faster with the dedicated GPU in comparison to the integrated one.

Also, dedicated means that it is its own entity and doesn't run off of the processor itself. You cant remove or upgrade either of them; the dedicated or integrated i mean.

Also, new laptops that you get today are outdated tomorrow. Don't buy anything with intentions of playing anything new 5 years down the road. 2 years at a maximum. It's just technology :/

 

[CAdavid]

If you want to do any type of gaming, here is the obligatory, dont get a mac. But if you want to just play those games, then I would recommend the 15". It will be noticeably faster with the dedicated GPU in comparison to the integrated one.

Also, dedicated means that it is its own entity and doesn't run off of the processor itself. You cant remove or upgrade either of them; the dedicated or integrated i mean.

Also, new laptops that you get today are outdated tomorrow. Don't buy anything with intentions of playing anything new 5 years down the road. 2 years at a maximum. It's just technology :/

Ok. So I could play new games up to 3 years at the max.

Yes my intentions is to get a Macbook Pro for those games and for photography work.

In theory, the 15 inch has a better chance of playing newer games at low vs. the 13 inch would not?

Diablo 3, Stacraft 2, and Left 4 Dead 2 are supposed to have a long life time, so thats what got me into them.

 

[FeaRThiS]

Dare I say it but windows machine for gaming

 

[charlieegan3]

Dare I say it but windows machine for gaming

He always has boot camp for that.

I would go with the high end 15" for the better GPU, will make you more future proof.

 

[cluthz]

The 15 inch is another world than the 13 inch.
We're talking anywhere form twice to five time as fast as the 13 inch, depending on the game.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5113/apple-15inch-macbook-pro-late-2011-review/2
http://barefeats.com/mini11_02.html

 

[Dr. McKay]

if i wanted to make sure my laptop could play new games 5 years down the road.

Have you been drinking ?

 

[Miharu]

Five years is like three forevers when it comes to computers. Don't get the 13" one because like said before, the 15" one has a real graphics card inside and not an integrated intel lame-o.

 

[CAdavid]

Cool. alright I will save up a little more money for the 15 inch.

 

[Krad3130]

15 inch FTW!!! Dedicated graphics all the way on this one...

 

[0000757]

Neither.

Buy/Build a gaming computer.

 

[estrides]

Yup save for the 15". It's all around a better laptop and has WAY better computing power!

 

[zap2]

For gaming, you need that dedicated graphic card, it's a no brainer.

Even with the more pixel you end up pushing, the dedicated card is worth it(and you can always scale the resolution down)

Intel's graphic solution just can't meet the demands of any serious gaming. (That said, I bought the quad Mini, and while I'd like a quad core CPU with a dedicated graph card, my needs rarely involve gaming)


Rarely do I suggest thing, but you might be better off with a PC when it comes to gaming(although admittedly, you're gaming needs seem light). And this had more to do with choices PC makers offer in laptops then software itself(Windows runs quite well on Apple's hardware, which isn't surprising)

 

[David085]

15" or 17"

 

[CAdavid]

So I have 4 choices. Obviously the priciest one is best.

But is the priciest 1 worth it?

Originally released April 2010
15.4-inch LED-backlit glossy widescreen display (1440 x 900 pixel)
4GB (2 x 2GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
500GB Serial ATA @ 5400 rpm
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR3 memory
$1,289.00



Refurbished MacBook Pro 2.0GHz quad-core Intel i7
Originally released February 2011
15.4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display, 1440-by-900 resolution
4GB (2 x 2GB) of 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
500GB Serial ATA @ 5400 rpm
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Intel HD Graphics 3000 and AMD Radeon HD 6490M
$1,359.00

Refurbished MacBook Pro 2.66GHz Intel Core i7
Originally released April 2010
15.4-inch LED-backlit glossy widescreen display (1440 x 900 pixel)
4GB (2 x 2GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
500GB Serial ATA @ 5400 rpm
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR3 memory
$1,499.00

Refurbished MacBook Pro 2.2GHz Quad-core Intel i7
Originally released October 2011
15.4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display, 1440-by-900 resolution
4GB (2 x 2GB) of 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
500GB Serial ATA @ 5400 rpm
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Intel HD Graphics 3000 and AMD Radeon HD 6750M
$1,529.00

 

[Erasmus]

So I have 4 choices. Obviously the priciest one is best.

But is the priciest 1 worth it?

Yes.

$250 for an extra 2 CPU cores, and a graphics card that's likely around twice as powerful as the 330M.

6750M is the way to go. Especially as you can easily overclock it for another 20% higher framerate.

 

[CAdavid]

Yes.

$250 for an extra 2 CPU cores, and a graphics card that's likely around twice as powerful as the 330M.

6750M is the way to go. Especially as you can easily overclock it for another 20% higher framerate.

what about the 6450?

 

[cluthz]

what about the 6450?

The MBP had a 6490M which is on par with the 330M,
in some games 330M will win, in others the 6490M, but this is ±10-20%
In SC2 the 6490M will be better, because it has a faster CPU and SC2 loves CPU.
In the other games, not so much.

The 6750M is usually almost 50-100% faster.

Benchmarks here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8

 

[Json81]

MBP is at end of lifecycle.
If you can, wait until the updated modells arrive.
Hopefully we'll see a geforce 660m which would be a huge improvement over todays cards.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Just remember that getting a computer with a 512mb graphics card is on the low end of what's necessary. Dare I say it, but if you want to game on a mac, you should ideally get a high-end 15", or a PC. There just isn't a portable mac for less than $2000 that is going to last more than a season for gaming.

 

[cluthz]

Just remember that getting a computer with a 512mb graphics card is on the low end of what's necessary. Dare I say it, but if you want to game on a mac, you should ideally get a high-end 15", or a PC. There just isn't a portable mac for less than $2000 that is going to last more than a season for gaming.

The VRAM is not usually the issue.
Most games need high settings with AA to push 500MB,
skyrim (before the HQ packet at maximum settings (max AA and FXAA) at 1680x1050 are pushing 600MB on my system, at high settings with medium AA and FXAA it reaches 430MB.

NOTE: pictures are compressed to about 200K to make the load faster,
so don't complain "that is does not look like high settings"

Here are some pics from windows:
Borderlands max settings 465mb (not a crowded scene tho, going up with about 100 more some places)

Mass Effect 3 (416)

Kingdoms of amalur (293mb, but indoors, expect close to 500 outdoors)

Skyrim, with HD city textures for whiterun (unofficial) (450mb)

DX:HR (dx9, SSAO normal, rest maxed) 383 MB

There are some games that requires more, but they are usually held back by the speed of the GPU, not the amount of VRAM.

(The witcher 2 eats about 900MB, swtor the same..)

I have a GTX285 (which is roughly twice as fast as the 6770M), very few games are playable that actually uses 1GB.. (then you turn down settings and VRAM reqs go down too..)

 

[thejadedmonkey]

The VRAM is not usually the issue.
Most games need high settings with AA to push 500MB,
skyrim (before the HQ packet at maximum settings (max AA and FXAA) at 1680x1050 are pushing 600MB on my system, at high settings with medium AA and FXAA it reaches 430MB.

I'm not saying that you can't game on the low end 15", but rather that we're already seeing games that require 512mb minimum. In a year from now, I can see 512 really crippling what your computer can do.

 

[CAdavid]

MBP is at end of lifecycle.
If you can, wait until the updated modells arrive.
Hopefully we'll see a geforce 660m which would be a huge improvement over todays cards.

I heard Apple's next plan was to release the gap between Macbook Air and Macbook Pro.

And besides, if I waited for a new laptop they would just up the prices on whatever is new. Something better than todays 15 inch would cost like $1700.

But I will definately go for that top notch 15 inch. So I have the 512 mb

I expect the $1530 Mac to play games up to 2-3 years from now. I am fine with that though. I have a friend who had a laptop 5 yrs old that could play Starcraft 2, and Skyrim. So it's possible some games on low that far in advance will work. And SC2 and Diablo 3 have a long lifecycle since the games are so big the projects take long to make the next one in the series. D2 and SC2 had 10 yr cycles. Guild Wars had 6 yrs.

 

[cluthz]

I'm not saying that you can't game on the low end 15", but rather that we're already seeing games that require 512mb minimum. In a year from now, I can see 512 really crippling what your computer can do.

I do agree with you, but the 6750M with 512 vs 1024mb is not that great.