Bare Feats compares ALL MacBook graphics cards

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by DarwinOSX, Mar 25, 2011.

  1. DarwinOSX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #1
    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
     
  2. Usquebaugh macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    #2
    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.
     
  3. AppleScruff1 macrumors G3

    AppleScruff1

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    #3
    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.
     
  4. NintendoFan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #4
    I think they technically are if you game in Windows according to Anandtech. But OS X performance is quite impressive.
     
  5. c1phr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    #5
    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 :/
     
  6. nebulos, Mar 25, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2011

    nebulos macrumors 6502a

    nebulos

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    #6
    they listed the machines, not just the GPUs; e.g., the 2010 2.66 had 512MB VRAM.


    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.
     
  7. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #7
    awesome!

    ordered 2011 17"MBP cant wait

    have my owc 120gb ready so this system will fly

    cant wait to try shogun2 via bootacamp :D
     
  8. bubbacaster macrumors newbie

    bubbacaster

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    #8
    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?
     
  9. DarwinOSX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #9
    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.
     
  10. bubbacaster macrumors newbie

    bubbacaster

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    #10
    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? :rolleyes:

    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.
     
  11. c1phr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    #11
    Ah, thank you for that clarification, I hadn't realized the core actually depicted the GPU as well, I thought they were customized independently.
     
  12. AppleScruff1 macrumors G3

    AppleScruff1

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    #12
    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.
     
  13. DustinT macrumors 68000

    DustinT

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #13
    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.
     
  14. DarwinOSX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #14
    Its because they are quieter and use less power. I don't really agree with it either but thats why Apple likes them.
     
  15. bubbacaster macrumors newbie

    bubbacaster

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    #15
    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.
     

Share This Page