You might want to run Skryim at 1600x900 or 1680x1050 with higher res textures and I think this will be unlikely with the 6490M. If you can handle waiting for a few more months it could be worth it to see the recommended specs before committing to a new laptop or desktop.
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.
6490m gaming benchmarks
- Thread starter Alpha.K
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You might want to run Skryim at 1600x900 or 1680x1050 with higher res textures and I think this will be unlikely with the 6490M. If you can handle waiting for a few more months it could be worth it to see the recommended specs before committing to a new laptop or desktop.
My issue is I really need to replace my 4 year old POS Toshiba laptop. I'm thinking the high end is a sure thing but not so sure about the low end like you said. Either one will be great for school and casual use but I'll end up either A)getting the low end and just have Diablo 3 at lower settings and get Skyrim for 360 or B) get high end and be able to play both at respectable settings.
To be honest, I'm not sure even the high end 15" would be able to deliver decent frame rates for a game like Skryim at 1680x1050.
Going by the specs, I'd estimate it to be about 10% more powerful than the 9600M GT. The benchmarks for it should be pretty close to a Nvidia 130M.
This is strange to me too. I'm also choosing at the moment between 15" and 13" because my budget is limited. Hence I've asked in this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1102149/
for someone to show me FPS numbers(World of Warcraft,I do a little gaming) on the 13"/15"(6490M) and heating issues. Guess what!?..there is still nothing on the 15",not a soul. Could this model become the worst selling Macbook Pro ever?
My point is that nobody is willing to purchase this lower end model. My criticism goes to Apple:
Why did they made so much difference in GPU power?!
Never mind the VRAM numbers 256MB Vs 1024MB....look at the bus: 64 bit vs 128 bit, I mean I'm not complaining because my budget is tight......but come on...I know that I can buy the 13 higher end and buy myself a dissent gaming PC for the money difference to the 15" model(higher end). My point/question is:
Is it wrong to want a dissent 15" Macbook Pro for 1800 Euros,or you will have to spend another 400 Euros just for the word(dissent).
Cheers.
I geniunely wonder how difficult would it be for Apple to put 6730 into low end and keep all the GPUs in 15"/17" models within the same family?? And what is the point in putting GDDR5 for 6490 when the GPU is not even able to use that to its full capacity???
http://www.macworld.com/article/1578...enchmarks.html
Check it out, they tested every mac , playing COD4 .
HD6490M - 51 fps
Geforce Gt 330M - 63fps
HD6950M - 81 fps
So bad...i really want to get the 15'' inch, but the low end has a **** graphic card...
Check it out, they tested every mac , playing COD4 .
HD6490M - 51 fps
Geforce Gt 330M - 63fps
HD6950M - 81 fps
So bad...i really want to get the 15'' inch, but the low end has a **** graphic card...
Game wise the 6490 may not be the best but what really matters to me is the Cinebench gpu score under OSX. I trust the Cinebench score since it actually runs a 3D scene and it is made from the same people who create Cinema 4D so they kind of know what they are doing.
It has a score of 21 with the 6490 compared to 16 with the Nvidia 330. In fact the only thing that really beat it were the iMacs and the high end AMD video card in the 15" and 17".
This is one of those reasons why I say if you really want to game then an iMac is a better choice.
The 6490 while not a super fast card does seem to be better at certain things so I would not call it a total waste. In fact for professional work it seems to be a pretty big upgrade from the Intel 3000.
It has a score of 21 with the 6490 compared to 16 with the Nvidia 330. In fact the only thing that really beat it were the iMacs and the high end AMD video card in the 15" and 17".
This is one of those reasons why I say if you really want to game then an iMac is a better choice.
The 6490 while not a super fast card does seem to be better at certain things so I would not call it a total waste. In fact for professional work it seems to be a pretty big upgrade from the Intel 3000.
http://www.macworld.com/article/157893/2011/02/2011macbookpro_benchmarks.html
Your link isn't working
Your link isn't working
from everything i've read, 6490 is worse than last years 15" GPU. If the 6490 is getting the BEST fps of 51 on COD4 (a 3 year old game), expect even more crappy performance on the newer games like Black Ops or Battlefield 2/3.
And for people who keep saying "why did you buy a mac to play games", why did apple put a p.o.s. gpu in a refresh that is really good. The gap between the low-end 15" and high-end 15" is the most stupid thing ever. (GPU wise)
And for people who keep saying "why did you buy a mac to play games", why did apple put a p.o.s. gpu in a refresh that is really good. The gap between the low-end 15" and high-end 15" is the most stupid thing ever. (GPU wise)
That was at 1024-by-768 with 4X anti-aliasing.
At native (1680 x 1050) with all detail settings maxed, it should be significantly lower fps.
Why are you getting a macbookpro to play games with in the first place?
The difference you save between the low end 15 and the high end 15 can probably get you a pc desktop with a card that rapes all the mbps
Are you planning on playing D3 at Starbucks?
Thank you. Sanity Check, Aisle Four!
Why are you getting a macbookpro to play games with in the first place?
The difference you save between the low end 15 and the high end 15 can probably get you a pc desktop with a card that rapes all the mbps
Are you planning on playing D3 at Starbucks?
A great quote lol, It's Mega Drive and Star Wars Jedi Academy for me, i'm sure this MBP will handle that
I've yet to see any gaming benchmarks actually done on this GPU, apart from one at the Macworld link, surely someone has bought this model and have tried it out already?
Because gamers do not understand the tradeoffs that must be made to try to shoehorn desktop performance into a laptop of this size, weight and battery life. They want it all but reality says they cannot have it all.
I may ask why such a desire to buy a MBP when they plan on running Windows most of the time? Since most of the hardware is the same I'm not sure why the desire to buy a MBP when they could buy a PC laptop. Lets face it PC laptops with awesome video cards are cheaper and you can upgrade twice as fast due to the lower cost. You can spend the same amount every 3 years by either buying 1 MBP or 2 PC laptops one every 1.5 years. This way you always will be on the cutting edge of laptop graphics.
MBP's are not designed with Windows running under bootcamp so people can play games. It's first priority is OSX and running Apple applications. The 6490 according to the Cinebench test is better then the Intel 3000 and the Nvidia 320 and 330. In fact it looks like it is a lot better under OSX. For those of us who mainly use a MBP for work the 6490 seems like a decent middle road gpu. It gives enough extra performance for running gpu related pro applications.
I still stand by the rule that if you want to game buy/build a PC desktop. gpu requirements change way too often to be tied to a single gpu for a long period of time. Heck go to Best Buy and buy one of their crappy $300.00 machines and put in your own video card. The price difference between the 13" and 15" MBP would get you a PC desktop that eats any MBP for breakfast.
I may ask why such a desire to buy a MBP when they plan on running Windows most of the time? Since most of the hardware is the same I'm not sure why the desire to buy a MBP when they could buy a PC laptop. Lets face it PC laptops with awesome video cards are cheaper and you can upgrade twice as fast due to the lower cost. You can spend the same amount every 3 years by either buying 1 MBP or 2 PC laptops one every 1.5 years. This way you always will be on the cutting edge of laptop graphics.
MBP's are not designed with Windows running under bootcamp so people can play games. It's first priority is OSX and running Apple applications. The 6490 according to the Cinebench test is better then the Intel 3000 and the Nvidia 320 and 330. In fact it looks like it is a lot better under OSX. For those of us who mainly use a MBP for work the 6490 seems like a decent middle road gpu. It gives enough extra performance for running gpu related pro applications.
I still stand by the rule that if you want to game buy/build a PC desktop. gpu requirements change way too often to be tied to a single gpu for a long period of time. Heck go to Best Buy and buy one of their crappy $300.00 machines and put in your own video card. The price difference between the 13" and 15" MBP would get you a PC desktop that eats any MBP for breakfast.
smetvid, very true. I just observed the benchmark for better FPS in OpenCL in OSX over the 330m in the cinebench graphical OpenGL test. This is very good news. I also noticed gaming within OSX the Intel HD3000 was doing a better job than the 320m although 320m was better in bootcamp. Either way glad to see the 6490m winning out over the 330m in some category lol.
Since WoW/SC2 uses OpenGL in OSX that's great news for me. Thanks for pointing that out!
Since WoW/SC2 uses OpenGL in OSX that's great news for me. Thanks for pointing that out!
I personally wouldn't like being tethered to a desktop to play games. It's not uncommon for me to bring my MBP to a friend's place to play a game. I also like playing games while sitting on the couch in the living room. Can't do that with a desktop. The 6750M is sufficient for my wants and needs anyway. Besides, most gamers who bother to buy a Mac probably only play games on their Windows partition. I do all of my web browsing, email and other day to day tasks in OS X. Windows is mostly reserved for Windows only software. I even play WoW in OS X, since it's one of the few games for OS X. Then you also have the factor in the things the MBP gives you that PC's won't such as the nice trackpad with gestures, great screen and it's only 1" thick to boot. You also get Apple's great service for if something goes wrong. No dealing with a foreigner on the phone. Just make an appointment for the local Apple store. The MBP offers a lot to the gamer who wants a more well rounded machine than an Alienware or Asus.
Is there really no one, who has the base 15 inch model with the 4690, waiting for day's to see some actual benchmark's! Can someone PLEASE put on some benchmarks before i make my decision, Everyone is saying the 6490 totally sucks ass, But no single one of those guys have proof. and it seems strong to me that apple are total dumbasses putting a less powerfull videocard in a 1800$ machine than a year ago.
i think whats happening is that people are checking forums and seeing the mass hysteria on the lesser gpu unit for the lower end 15 and people are just shelling out the money for the new 1 gig unit
Yeah i guess so, But people are talking about 400$ is like a pack of cigarette's, well i can do a whole lotta things with it. Next to that, its 400 euro for me. That's a lot more than $
My low-end 15 is on the way, BTO.
For me, the high-res screen and the anti-glare were much more important than getting another 10-15 fps is a game that will already run more slowly than it would on my $600 PC desktop machine.
It's absurd how people are shilling out all this extra money for something that will not even matter come next year.
GPUs will double in speed again, and the difference between the 64 and the 67 will be so irrelevant to next year's batch of games that it won't even be talked about anymore.
I mean, would you pay 100 dollars extra to go from an nvidia 5400 ultra to an ati 9600gt? The 9600 is probably 30% faster, at least.
Oh wait. Sorry, that was a GPU from 5 years ago.
The one I had when I bought Half Life 2.
Seriously, guys. You're missing the forest for the trees.
For me, the high-res screen and the anti-glare were much more important than getting another 10-15 fps is a game that will already run more slowly than it would on my $600 PC desktop machine.
It's absurd how people are shilling out all this extra money for something that will not even matter come next year.
GPUs will double in speed again, and the difference between the 64 and the 67 will be so irrelevant to next year's batch of games that it won't even be talked about anymore.
I mean, would you pay 100 dollars extra to go from an nvidia 5400 ultra to an ati 9600gt? The 9600 is probably 30% faster, at least.
Oh wait. Sorry, that was a GPU from 5 years ago.
The one I had when I bought Half Life 2.
Seriously, guys. You're missing the forest for the trees.
black ops is a 5 year old game engine with a newer story. it runs fine on slower GPU's
My low end 15" arrives on Friday...
While I wasn't sure whether to get the high end or low end, it came down to money. I was originally going to get the 13" but decided to get the 15" for the quad core.
The only gaming I do is World of Warcraft and I do that now with my 3 year old iMac with all the settings at low. So my standards are probably a little too low. Either way, I'm happy with what I bought.
While I wasn't sure whether to get the high end or low end, it came down to money. I was originally going to get the 13" but decided to get the 15" for the quad core.
The only gaming I do is World of Warcraft and I do that now with my 3 year old iMac with all the settings at low. So my standards are probably a little too low.
Either way, I'm happy with what I bought.
Could someone please post some results for SCII?
That's my main game these days.
I am running Low settings @ 1440x900 but getting a solid 50 fps on my early 2008. I would love to be able to play on High settings.
That's my main game these days.
I am running Low settings @ 1440x900 but getting a solid 50 fps on my early 2008. I would love to be able to play on High settings.
Wow. Complete ignorance. Please do some research on Black Ops and it's (lack of) optimizations. It is one of the most CPU-bound games in recent memory (and not for good reasons).
CoD:MW2 performs leagues better than CoD:BlOps. Treyarch really messed up the console port to PC.
Back on topic: I do not agree with the assessment that the card in your laptop this year will be irrelevant next year. You have to buy for what you need. If you want to game a bit and game pretty decently then it can be worth it to some to upgrade to the better GPU. It's pretty simple.
Like some of the others have said I think people are either doing a wait and see or have bought the base 15" as a BTO so they do not have it yet. The 13" and higher end machines typical are bought as is so we hear more about them right now. There are also the hardcore gamers that just went for the highend gpu right away knowing that there would be a difference and they wanted the best they could get right now.