Benchmarks? - 2011 15" HiRes/AntiGlare Macbook Pro 2.3Ghz 750G HDD, 4G Mem

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by SteveSparks, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. SteveSparks macrumors 6502a


    Jan 22, 2008
    St. Louis, MO.
    I know you can purchase the "high-end" 15 Macbook Pro from the Apple Store and have been reading and searching for benchmarks on this system.

    Anyone have links that can post them to this thread?

    1. Gaming Benchmarks for this specific configuration?
    a. In General?
    b. Running Wow?
    c. Gaming using an external monitor

    2. Performance of this system as compared to
    a. (2009) 27" iMac i7 Quad Core / 8G / 1TB
    b. (2010) Maxed out 15" Macbook Pro?

    Questions are:

    1. How would this compare to the iMac?
    2. How well would this system run games like SCII, Wow on an external display?
    3. Do you think the upgrade from 2.2 to 2.3 is worth the cost considering the cache and speed increase?
    4. If you need to run a game at a lower resolution with the Hi-Res display does the FPS suffer becuase of the display?

    Any other comments?

  2. Commonmind macrumors member

    Feb 1, 2009
    There are a few threads answering some of your questions further down the page. Specifically, the thread found here.

    My iMac configuration is slightly different than your own. I'm running an '09 i5/8GB/4850. My new MacBook Pro is the 15" with the 6750/8GB ram and the higher resolution display.

    In general, things are good. The iMac scores roughly 11k in 3DMark 06, the MacBook Pro about 9k -- a huge step forward when compared to my '09 MacBook Pro (which was the highest end model at the time), and respectably close to the iMac's performance.

    WoW runs fantastic at full detail, with all the bells and whistles.

    Unfortunately I've had no reason to connect my previous MacBook Pro's to external monitors (save the old 24" Cinema Display I used to use as a dock, which came with its own wiring), so I never felt the urge to pick up an extra Mini DisplayPort cable. However, given the power of this machine I recently ordered one, and will report its performance on the 27" display as soon as it comes in.

    I don't think the upgrade to 2.3 is worth it, to be frank, but that's a matter of preference. I would much prefer (and I did) putting the money into extra ram or an SSD (aftermarket, if you don't mind doing the work yourself).

    As for your last question, I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Running a game at a lower resolution than a display's native resolution never hinders performance -- quite the opposite, in fact.
  3. SteveSparks thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jan 22, 2008
    St. Louis, MO.
    Thanks for all the answers to my questions.

    I have been reading various threads here and on some other notbook sites and between all the banter about this game or that game, I've have not seen the clarity that will help me with a purchase decision.

    I will restate the last question:

    If you have a hi-res display:

    1. Will running it in a lower resolution help performance of most games?
    2. Have you ever seen a time when running in the lower resolution hurt performance of the game?
    3. Adding a little to the question: Does it usually look ok?

    Wow on my iMac is sweet. I can run two accounts in windowed more and not notice any lag etc. I would like to do the same thing on the new 15" Macbook Pro while connected to an external display, It would likely be using a good performing 23 to 27" display.

    Anyone attempted this with one of the new systems?

    I was cosidering the 15" Macbook Pro HiRes/Anti Glare i7 2.3 / 750G / 4G system becuase you can purchase this system from the Apple store and not have to get it BTO etc and wait for the shipping etc.

    I don't think I'll get 8G right away, but that is cheap enough to get later. I would likely spend some $$ on an SSD in about 6-8 months after I save some more cash after this purchase.

    I have been moving around from city to city over the past year and plan to keep doing various projects etc where I will travel and I would like to have a good Mac performer that is portable. I've considered the 17" but all the bags etc that I own are 15" bags and when you travel the extra space and weight even 1lb can count.

    I do want the antiglare display at the 17" version the price is getting a bit above what I wanted to carry with me.

    Considering I am consolidating systems, would you get the 2.3 verse the 2.2?

    I would love the new systems to out perform the iMac but I know it is not really reaonable considering size and space issues.

    Thanks again for the comments.

    Anyone else have some thoughts on this subject?
  4. Commonmind, Mar 2, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011

    Commonmind macrumors member

    Feb 1, 2009
    I still wouldn't consider the 2.3 upgrade worth the investment. Or, since money might not be an issue (which would truncate the subjective idea of worth entirely), I wouldn't consider it a "necessary" investment.

    To directly answer your questions. Yes, running in a lower resolution generally helps performance. The more demanding the game, the better that performance bump tends to scale as the resolution is lowered. I've personally never heard of a time when running at a lower resolution hinders performance, and have enough experience to tell you that if this were to ever happen, there is something seriously wrong with either 1) the game or 2) the video card drivers. Of course native resolution always looks best, but stepping below that by a few degrees doesn't look terrible by any means. On my iMac, I tend to play demanding games at 1920x1080, and find it a pleasing experience (Dead Space 2 and Darksiders look fantastic at this resolution). The same thing might go for 1440x900 on the high-res display.

    While I have never run two WoW accounts simultaneously (and kudos to you for being that motivated about Warcraft) I have run other MMO's (Lineage 2, for instance) with up to three clients, without a hitch on the iMac -- the MacBook Pro has had similar performance. While WoW may be a more recent title given some of the engine upgrades, L2 was always a relatively demanding game and I would assume your experience with WoW might not be terribly far off.

    Size is a preferential thing, of course, but I much prefer the portability of the 15" model. I've considered the 17" each year (as I often upgrade every year) and always come away happily with the 15" model. That, and my wife reminds me that the 17" won't fit into our precious Crumpler bag.
  5. NickZac macrumors 68000


    Dec 11, 2010
    The 2.3 is well worth it IMO. Just goofing around with mine put me in the top 10 on the first go. As people have told me, it crunches numbers much better which I presume is due to the larger cache.

    However, if you get it, buy a SSD or you aren't getting your moneys worth.
  6. codymac macrumors 6502

    Jun 12, 2009
    If you're into Geekbench results, 64-bit Geekbench shows mine hitting 11432. Compare that with my i7 930 Hackintosh overclocked to 4.0 scoring 12355.

    For a laptop, it flies.
  7. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020


    Oct 1, 2008
    Tampa, FL
    1) Almost always lower resolution can/will help performance of a game. This is the case with even the standard glossy resolution.

    2) No, I haven't found lower resolution to hurt actual performance, but it at times hurts image quality, or sharpness, but not frame rate performance.

    I play Crysis 2 on my external HDTV at 720p and it runs fantastic. Since it's native res to the tv, it looks great, play it on max setting with AA turned off. I also play on my laptop screen at native res 1680x1050 and even though my FPS drops to about 20-25FPS I can play at same settings. It looks even nicer on the MBP's screen though, a bit sharper I think cuz of the higher res. I don't have a preference of either I guess. I also tried Crysis 2 on the MBP screen at 1280x800 and it looks pretty much the same as native resolution. Crysis 2 like the first, scales extremely well on the resolution as opposed to some games, where it looks pretty terrible. Here's my crysis 2 video at 1280x800 and briefly at 1680x1050. I also have a vid of Crysis 2 on my external samsung HDTV if you care.
    1) on the MBP screen
    2) Samsung HDTV @ 720p

    I play WoW, only have run 5-man dungeons since I got my machine and it runs perfect. Everything is set to High across the board I think with ultra view distance. And I think I also turn off sunshafts. I cap my fps at 30 and call it a day. Hardly ever see it drop below that, except in valley of strength during peak hours in Org. Usually stays static at 30fps. Never felt any sort of lag. I don't really raid, except BH 10 man. But WoW runs great.

    I need to make a short youtube video on WoW actually. Maybe I'll do that tonight.

    As far as SC2. Also runs great on highs at native res. Haven't played external. Your questions regarding external, what resolution on the external monitor do you want to play at? Anyway I made a 4v4 vid of SC2 on my 15" MBP if you wanna check it w/ frame rate commentary.


    I don't think the 2.3 is worth the jump from 2.2, but in terms of CPU only 2.0 to 2.2 is worth it. I, like you are thinking, got the 2.3 AG model because I could walk into the Apple Store and pick it up without waiting for a BTO. Was nice b/c my first one had a dead pixel. Went back in and swapped it, took 10 minutes, bam. So I guess that was nice.

Share This Page