15 inch or 13 inch for gaming?

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by CAdavid, Apr 23, 2012.

  1. CAdavid macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    #1
    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.
     
  2. ECUpirate44 macrumors 603

    ECUpirate44

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Location:
    NC
    #2
    15 inch for the dedicated GPU. taking it out will void the warrantee.
     
  3. estrides macrumors regular

    estrides

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    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    Also, new laptops that you get today are outdated tomorrow.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 :/
     
  4. CAdavid thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    #4
    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.
     
  5. FeaRThiS macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
  6. charlieegan3 macrumors 68020

    charlieegan3

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Location:
    U.K
    #6
    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.
     
  7. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #7
  8. Dr. McKay macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Location:
    Belgium, Europe
    #8
    Have you been drinking ? :D
     
  9. Miharu macrumors 6502

    Miharu

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Location:
    Finland
    #9
    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.
     
  10. CAdavid thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    #10
    Cool. alright I will save up a little more money for the 15 inch.
     
  11. Krad3130 macrumors regular

    Krad3130

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Location:
    Winter Park, FL
    #11
    15 inch FTW!!! Dedicated graphics all the way on this one...
     
  12. chrf097 macrumors 68040

    chrf097

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
  13. estrides macrumors regular

    estrides

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Location:
    New York
    #13
    Yup save for the 15". It's all around a better laptop and has WAY better computing power!
     
  14. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #14
    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)
     
  15. CAdavid thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    #16
    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
     
  16. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #17
    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.
     
  17. CAdavid thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    #18
    what about the 6450?
     
  18. cluthz, Apr 27, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2012

    cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #19
  19. Json81 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    #20
    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.
     
  20. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #21
    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.
     
  21. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #22
    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)
    [​IMG]
    Mass Effect 3 (416)
    [​IMG]
    Kingdoms of amalur (293mb, but indoors, expect close to 500 outdoors)
    [​IMG]
    Skyrim, with HD city textures for whiterun (unofficial) (450mb)
    [​IMG]
    DX:HR (dx9, SSAO normal, rest maxed) 383 MB
    [​IMG]

    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..)
     
  22. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #23
    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.
     
  23. CAdavid thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    #24
    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.
     
  24. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #25
    I do agree with you, but the 6750M with 512 vs 1024mb is not that great.
     

Share This Page