Crysis and FSX on Macbook Pro?

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by Hellseeker, Dec 25, 2007.

  1. Hellseeker macrumors member

    Hellseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #1
    So... I'm thinking of getting a 15" 2.4GHz Macbook Pro. But the only reason I really "need" the medium model is because I'd like it to run some of my more demanding games such as Crysis and FSX. I'm not looking for a laptop that'll run it on all the highest settings, I'd just like to be able to take my games everywhere I go. Does anyone have any experience running one of those/both games on their Macbook? I'm pretty sure FSX should be able to run on the 128mb 8600gt, but Crysis requires at least 256mb, and I suppose it's more future-safe in the long run anyway? The computer I got now can almost handle Crysis on medium settings (18fps @ 1280 x 1024) and about the same on FSX. It's an Intel P4 3.2GHz @ 3.51GHz, nVidia GeForce 7900GT 256mb, 2GB DDR2 RAM and windows XP home Ed. Will the Macbook be able to squeeze some more frames out of Crysis and FSX, or is it about the same? I looked at the benchmark scores http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879 and the 256mb version scores at least twice as much as this one, so I was thinking maybe to sell this one and throw all my work on to the Macbook.

    Yes, I know that macbooks are not gaming computers, but if it performs better than this old Fujitsu Siemens which has cost me a great deal of troubles (from both Microsoft's side and Fujitsu's side) I see no reason why not to use the Macbook for everything.

    I'm planning to get a great gaming rig sometime next year that'll satisfy all my gaming needs. Then I won't really need the Macbook's gaming powers, and maybe it'll have been a bit of a waste getting the big one instead of waiting and spent the money on the PC. I know I'll still love the mobility of the Macbook tho, and I'll still be able to bring my games with me.



    Wow... My threads always end up being even longer than my longest essays... And even more confusing - I apologize for that, I hope you got some of it.
    Also... I know I've made it seem like I'm a total gaming freak... which I'm not. I'm a game lover, yes, but I am able to get out there and do something else, and I got plenty of other tasks for the Macbook, but the smaller ones will be able to handle them just fine.
    So... Do you think I should spend the last few $ and the get 256mb rather than the 128mb and get some gaming satisfaction?
     
  2. chewietobbacca macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    #2
    The 7950GT is a much better card than the MBP's so it probably won't be much better performing than the desktop you have now

    Hell the 8800 Ultra still chokes under Crysis... it's just too intense of a game
     
  3. o-mores macrumors newbie

    o-mores

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Iasi, Romania
    #3
  4. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #4
    You'll be able to play Crysis just fine... just don't expect uber-settings.

    If Crysis couldn't be played on a 8600 then Crytek would be alienating 90% of their target userbase... and I think they are a bit smarter than that, contrary to popular belief you don't need to play a game at max settings to enjoy it.

    Crysis on your MBP will look great, just not the best it can be.
     
  5. Cudadown macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    #5
    Youtube is filled with videos of Crysis running on all kinds of Mac variations. Looks very nice.
     
  6. Hellseeker thread starter macrumors member

    Hellseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #6
    Well, that's what I thought. But then when you read some of the comments, there are a few people who say they can't run it with a decent fps, so I thought I'd just throw this thread in here to check if it's true that you can run it. And it seems to be...
    I don't need to run it at high settings - Just want it to be portable.
    But... how can the 8600gt possibly be slower than the 7600? Makes me think of a bottleneck somewhere else. It's like making a bigger toaster that makes bigger toasts, but doesn't... I think it's got something to do with the 'bread' not being bigger than usual, if you know what I mean.

    Anyways, Can't wait to get my macbook. :D
     
  7. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #7
    I have Crysis running on my 2.2GHz MBP, and it runs OK (it's not 100% smooth but its easily playable) but only on the absolute minimum graphics. Well, OK, Objects on High (I hate seeing plants and rocks "appear" as I walk forward, they could have at least faded them in) and Physics also on high. 1024x640 res. Earlier in the game Medium shaders is OK, but is totally unplayable later in the game (as soon as you get into ice)

    Although I have just downloaded new drivers, I should give it another shot. And apparently Crytek are going to release a patch that will hopefully increase performance at some point (hopefully soon).

    All in all, Crysis is really fun, I/you'll just have to wait until your next computer to play it on high quality.

    Anyone with a 2.4 want to come here and give there opinion?

    I say go the 2.2, and use the $500 or whatever saving to justify buying your next MBP six months earlier.
     
  8. Hellseeker thread starter macrumors member

    Hellseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #8
    Maybe I should tell you that I'm going to upgrade the ram to 4gb no matter which model I choose... Would that make a noticeable increase in gaming performance for the 2.2GHz model, or is the VRAM everything?
     
  9. admiraldennis macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #9
    That won't have any affect on games (even crysis doesn't use anywhere near 2GB of RAM at a time), but it will certainly help with virtualization and running lots of big applications simultaneously.

    A good amount of VRAM is needed but hardly everything -- the power of the GPU is certainly more important than VRAM.
     
  10. Hellseeker thread starter macrumors member

    Hellseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #10
    well, I can't really change the gpu :p so vram will have to be my only option
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    An 8600GT runs Crysis Fine on Medium/Low Settings, so it'll run on low settings on an MBP.
     
  12. Hellseeker thread starter macrumors member

    Hellseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #12
    How big do you think the difference would be between the 256mb and 128mb? Like, the small one will run it at low, will the 256mb run it on med? I know there a lots of different settings, I got the game already, but you know, in general...
     
  13. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #13
    I have the 2.2 ghz 128 mb 8600GT MBP. I got a 7100 on a 3dmark05.

    game benchmarks (all native resolution of 1440x900 unless noted):

    oblivion = 50+ fps mid-high settings
    tiberium wars = ~20 fps high settings
    quake wars = 30ish fps medium settings
    crysis demo = 15-20fps - medium settings (goes low, medium, high, ultra..so looks not to great) only at 1024x768.
     
  14. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #14
    i upped my ram from 2 to 4 gig the other day

    first off, in OSX it can use all 4 gigs - in vista 32 bit it can only see 3 gigs of it

    second, I saw no noticeable increase in FPS. Evidently 2 gigs was enough and was not a bottleneck.
     
  15. Hellseeker thread starter macrumors member

    Hellseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #15
    I think I'm going for the 256mb version then. Might as well just pay the extra money and get a more future-safe computer than the 128mb.

    EDIT: By the way... Did you people, who tried Crysis on their MBP, run it in DX9 or DX10 mode?
     
  16. prisoner54 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #16
    interesting predicament - i am in exactly the same position. actually i just got rid of my 5 month-old aluminium iMac, with 256MB Radeon 2600 card, mostly because i need a more mobile computing solution. but one of my personal benchmarks was Crysis because i played the demo and got some *very* playable framerates on the iMac - i was positively surprised. seemed like a great game, and i will buy the full one shortly. in the meantime i played Half Life Episode 2 and it looked *beautiful*. but i have just got rid of the iMac and am about to buy a MacBook Pro with 256MB VRAM - thinking actually that the Nvidia card should play the game even better (the Radeon in the iMac is actually the lower-end version of the card so it was impressive to get playable framerates on the demo at all).

    guess i'll find out later today, when i walk home and unpack the MBP, but even if it only plays Crysis on lowest detail settings, the game becomes so immersive that it doesn't matter too much. and Orange Box will still run really well - Portal is one of the most memorable games i've ever played!

    good luck with your mission, my friend...
     
  17. prisoner54 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #17
    oh, one last thing: there is a thread on Computerandvideogames.com that explains how to get HIGH detail settings through DirectX 9 on Windows XP. apparently DirectX 10 on Vista looks a bit better than the newly activated High settings on DirectX 9, but not much... but the High setting is disabled purely to give Vista people the illusion of something better... so activating High gives you the best of both worlds! i'm gonna try that out soon.
     
  18. ewoh24 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    #18
    Do you have the exact link to the forum you're referring to on Computerandvideogames.com? I'd like to check that out.

    I'd like to throw my two cents in regarding FSX on laptops...I run it on my Gateway with a 1.6 Core Duo, 1.25GB RAM and 7600GT and I get 12-20 fps on medium settings which is comparable to my desktop PC (Dual 2.8 P4, 7900GT, 2GB RAM). I was pretty shocked by that so even though FSX is well known as a system wrecker, and it runs fairly well on the above, I don't see why it would have any issue running well on ANY of the MBPs.
     
  19. barijazz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #19
    I saw a rating on crysis by "play digital" (you can find them on itunes) and she was using a macbook pro with an 8600, I can't remember what she said about the game but check out the podcast.
     
  20. Hellseeker thread starter macrumors member

    Hellseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #20
    God I love these forums... Thank you so much everyone!
     
  21. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #21
    Wacky. I have the X1950 Pro, but a hair slower P4, and I get around 25-40 FPS on Crysis at Medium, same resolution.

    Unless a ton of baddies pop up, then it drops down to below 20.

    Of course, my processor is overclocked, so a wider bus, then I am using an Intel 875P mainboard (workstation-class chipset/board)
     
  22. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #22
    VRAM doesnt matter, what does matter is the speed of the VRAM communicating to the GPU, as well as the power and speed of the GPU.
     
  23. Hellseeker thread starter macrumors member

    Hellseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #23
    So there's no major difference in gaming performance on the 256mb and the 128mb?
     
  24. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #24
  25. Hellseeker thread starter macrumors member

    Hellseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #25
    Wow... that's not much of a difference - average 5%. However, I don't understand why the 17" has better benchmarks than the 15", when it's the same specs?
     

Share This Page