Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Can't run COD4 on latest i5 Mbp

TheLonelyIsland

TheLonelyIsland

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 25, 2009
43
1
I'm On A Boat.
This is very weird, COD4 (Multiplayer) ran smoothly on my older 2.4/4GB ram 9600MGT, but now i got the newest i5 with the 330M card and i cannot run it smoothly on the same setting! It's very laggy and i know it's not my internet connection. I thought i could not run it on the highest setting but it just won't even move!
 
TheLonelyIsland said:
This is very weird, COD4 (Multiplayer) ran smoothly on my older 2.4/4GB ram 9600MGT, but now i got the newest i5 with the 330M card and i cannot run it smoothly on the same setting! It's very laggy and i know it's not my internet connection. I thought i could not run it on the highest setting but it just won't even move!
Click to expand...

thats strange.

osx or windows version?
 
You sure the discrete graphics are running? Maybe they don't get activated because of some bug or setting?
 
TheLonelyIsland said:
This is very weird, COD4 (Multiplayer) ran smoothly on my older 2.4/4GB ram 9600MGT
Click to expand...

I'm interested in getting the Mac version of this game for a new MBP I just ordered, and so I'm curious if you were able to run it with all settings maxed (and at what resolution) on your older MBP, so I may have a sense of what to expect if I do buy the game. Thanks.

Sorry, can't help you with your question. Not tech-savvy enough.
 
15" and settings are all on high without anti aliasing because it cannot handle it both on the 9600 and on the 330M.
Just checked and i get 12 - 20 FPS. If i turn off anti aliasing i get about 25 FPS.
 
TheLonelyIsland said:
15" and settings are all on high without anti aliasing because it cannot handle it both on the 9600 and on the 330M.
Just checked and i get 12 - 20 FPS. If i turn off anti aliasing i get about 25 FPS.
Click to expand...

man that's terrible, for 17" 1080p i can understand but 15" is much lower res, i am not sure if it's the game/driver or just the hardware not being good enough.

Will test it out once i get mine next week, have a copy cod that i will try after installing bootcamp windows 7.
 
I do too, and it's so weird... I booted into Windows 7 and tried out Modern Warfare 2, and it ran at full resolutions with all textures maxed and everything on, at 45 FPS. Something is wrong with Mac or the game. Although OpenGL is notorious for being slower than DirectX, Modern Warfare 2 is a more demanding game than Modern Warfare, and the difference between OpenGL and DirectX should not make such a large difference. Have you tried running any other game in Mac, just to make sure that the problem is with the game and not your game or driver support?
 
w00t951 said:
I do too, and it's so weird... I booted into Windows 7 and tried out Modern Warfare 2, and it ran at full resolutions with all textures maxed and everything on, at 45 FPS. Something is wrong with Mac or the game. Although OpenGL is notorious for being slower than DirectX, Modern Warfare 2 is a more demanding game than Modern Warfare, and the difference between OpenGL and DirectX should not make such a large difference. Have you tried running any other game in Mac, just to make sure that the problem is with the game and not your game or driver support?
Click to expand...

No i don't have anything other then that lol, thank god i have a PS3 Slim for real gaming.
 
w00t951 said:
I do too, and it's so weird... I booted into Windows 7 and tried out Modern Warfare 2, and it ran at full resolutions with all textures maxed and everything on, at 45 FPS. Something is wrong with Mac or the game. Although OpenGL is notorious for being slower than DirectX, Modern Warfare 2 is a more demanding game than Modern Warfare, and the difference between OpenGL and DirectX should not make such a large difference. Have you tried running any other game in Mac, just to make sure that the problem is with the game and not your game or driver support?
Click to expand...

ok so the problem is just running a MAC version on osx. Good! why would anyone buy mac games anyway...it's a linux kernel. Just bootcamp windows 7 and you good to go....
 
gagaliya said:
intel ssd, 40sec flat ;)
Click to expand...

If you're a casual gamer, or your rarely game like me, you'd rather not have to buy Windows 7 and an SSD, which amounts to several hundreds of dollars--and an SSD that's big enough for my needs, 512GB, costs too much ($1400). And I think I'll prefer the convenience, and laziness as with the other poster, of using the Mac version.
 
I DO have an SSD, but while booting into Windows 7, I get this awfully long black screen with a blinking cursor. It's not a hardware problem, just a driver issue or something, as Boot Camp does not officially support 64 bit Windows.
 
w00t951 said:
I DO have an SSD, but while booting into Windows 7, I get this awfully long black screen with a blinking cursor. It's not a hardware problem, just a driver issue or something, as Boot Camp does not officially support 64 bit Windows.
Click to expand...

Do all 64bit Windows Bootcampers suffer from this issue? Or just in combo with a particular SSD model?
 
Weird, Macworld posted they got different results:
In our graphics tests, we found that the MacBook Pro’s new Nvidia GeForce GT330M graphics were able to display an average of about 19 percent more frames per second (69.1) in our Call of Duty tests than the Nvidia GeForce GT 9600M graphics in the 2.66GHz and 2.8GHz 2009 Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros (58.2). I thought that bumping up the resolution from 1024-by-768 (the resolution we use on all Mac systems as part of Speedmark 6) to the 15-inch MacBook Pro’s native 1440-by-900 resolution might show a bigger difference, but it stayed pretty much the same at 19.6 percent faster on the new MacBook Pros.
Click to expand...
They did use COD4, although they only write Call of Duty in the text, but the test info says COD4.

edit: link http://www.macworld.com/article/150146/2010/04/15inch_macbookpro_corei5i7.html
 
TheLonelyIsland said:
Wow i wish i got the same results, i used 1920x1080 res though..
Click to expand...

Did your old MBP have 256mb VRAM or 512?
1920x1080 could be needing more than 256MB VRAM and thus have to load textures from normal RAM, compared to a 512MB which could store everything in VRAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back