Bare Feats compares ALL MacBook graphics cards

[DarwinOSX]

Bare Feats did their usual great job benchmarking and comparing graphics cards from the Air to various MBP. Makes it very clear that the 6490M is no great shakes and if you really want to game you need to go for the 6750M.

http://www.barefeats.com/mbps04.html

 

[Usquebaugh]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wow, pretty crazy gap. Not that it wasn't suspected, but this makes it crystal clear where you have to put your money if you want to do any kind of modern gaming on a MacBook Pro.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Big difference between the 6490 and 6750. It looks like the Intel integrated graphics are on par with the 320M which is good since many feared it would be a big downgrade.

 

[NintendoFan]

Big difference between the 6490 and 6750. It looks like the Intel integrated graphics are on par with the 320M which is good since many feared it would be a big downgrade.

I think they technically are if you game in Windows according to Anandtech. But OS X performance is quite impressive.

 

[c1phr]

The results for the 330m are interesting. I kinda wished they listed the G-RAM amounts of each card, since there were two options for the 330m and that would likely change the results at the higher resolution.

The 6750 performed far better than I would have expected, but I'm almost a bit disappointed with the 6490 :/

 

[nebulos]

I kinda wished they listed the G-RAM amounts of each card, since there were two options for the 330m and that would likely change the results at the higher resolution.

they listed the machines, not just the GPUs; e.g., the 2010 2.66 had 512MB VRAM.

It looks like the Intel integrated graphics are on par with the 320M which is good since many feared it would be a big downgrade.

the CPU on the pro is also something like 2 or 3 times faster than the air (or 2010 pro in Anandtech's review), so its not like those fears were unfounded, but, yeah, it seems in practice, the new CPU + GPU combo does just as well.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

awesome!

ordered 2011 17"MBP cant wait

have my owc 120gb ready so this system will fly

cant wait to try shogun2 via bootacamp

 

[bubbacaster]

The 6490 vs. 6750 frame rates are mentioned a lot on these forums. The 6490, while considerably slower than the 6750 is still (by most ordinary mortal standards) no slouch. Who really needs more than 30 fps, other than hard-core gamers?

For most of us, higher frame-rates would give us nothing more than bragging rights. Better to spend the money on RAM, or faster disks, or software.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[DarwinOSX]

Who really needs more than 30 fps, other than hard-core gamers?

30 fps is the standard for television which has no variation. A 40 fps average is much better for computer games which have lots of variation, for example in intensive graphic scenes. The human eye can see as high as 60 fps. But in general its good to have the capability to have a very high frame rate for fluid animations and changes from one type of scene to another. For as much as the 2.0 ghz MBP costs the 6490m is pretty weak. A lot of people won't care because they aren't buying one to play games on but still. Faster vid cards with higher frame rates also provide a certain amount of future proofing unless you're like me and buy every new model that comes out.

 

[bubbacaster]

For as much as the 2.0 ghz MBP costs the 6490m is pretty weak.

Perhaps so. But I'm just a casual gamer. The 6490 seems fine with Call of Duty 2. I haven't noticed any hitches in the gameplay of that one. I'd be interested in trying it out with something more demanding of the GPU, as long as it didn't set me back more than about $20. Got any suggestions?

Re. weaknesses for what the MBPs cost: even weaker, IMHO, is 5400 RPM disk drives. I can understand some GPU limitations/trade-offs, given the heat dissipation issues in laptops. I see no justification for 5400 RPM drives.

 

[c1phr]

they listed the machines, not just the GPUs; e.g., the 2010 2.66 had 512MB VRAM.

Ah, thank you for that clarification, I hadn't realized the core actually depicted the GPU as well, I thought they were customized independently.

 

[AppleScruff1]

the CPU on the pro is also something like 2 or 3 times faster than the air (or 2010 pro in Anandtech's review), so its not like those fears were unfounded, but, yeah, it seems in practice, the new CPU + GPU combo does just as well.

I think it's great that the new graphics perform well. I really didn't think Apple would do something that was going to be a noticeable down grade.

 

[DustinT]

The 6490 vs. 6750 frame rates are mentioned a lot on these forums. The 6490, while considerably slower than the 6750 is still (by most ordinary mortal standards) no slouch. Who really needs more than 30 fps, other than hard-core gamers?

For most of us, higher frame-rates would give us nothing more than bragging rights. Better to spend the money on RAM, or faster disks, or software.

Or am I missing something here?

I just got a 2011 15" 2.0 yesterday to replace my 2011 i5 and one of the first things I did was to try out some Team Fortress and it performs just fine. I was able to run with the default settings (inc 2x AA) at 1920X1080p between 30-60 fps. It looked good and played fine. Would I like the power of the faster card? Not for $600! For that money I can build a whole entry level gaming pc that would be pretty close in performance to the other card and be a heck of a lot cheaper.

Its cool, I didn't buy my MBP because I wanted a high end gaming platform. I would have gone Asus for that one.

 

[DarwinOSX]

I see no justification for 5400 RPM drives.

Its because they are quieter and use less power. I don't really agree with it either but thats why Apple likes them.

 

[bubbacaster]

Its because they are quieter and use less power. I don't really agree with it either but thats why Apple likes them.

I may have lucked out then. I went for the 7200 RPM disk upgrade and have not noticed the noise that some posters have mentioned. Battery drain has not seemed excessive, but I have no way of comparing it with the battery efficiency of 5400 RPM drives.