Games run poorly on 2015 rmbp 13"

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by macguy360, Mar 15, 2015.

  1. macguy360 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    #1
    I have the $1399 model and while it is great for using fcpx and other productivity tasks, it is pretty bad at games. I tried playing WoW at native resolution and at fair graphics settings the fps was 22 in the starting blood elf area on average.

    If i dropped the settings to low and minimum and the fps went up. If you are wanting to game on the 2015 13" rmbp, you should be aware that the iris pro 6100 is still not quite up to par. I would suggest waiting for the refresh of the 15" models.
     
  2. ZBoater macrumors G3

    ZBoater

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Location:
    Sunny Florida
    #2
    Im confused. Your post title says "games", but in your post you only mention WoW. So is it WoW only that doesn't play nice with the rMBP or is it games in general?
     
  3. steveyo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    #3
    you bought the wrong laptop if your primary focus was for playing video games.

    The upcoming macbook pro 15" will likely not be very good at gaming either
     
  4. KenAFSPC macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    #4
    The Intel Iris Graphics 6100 in the 2015 13" rMBP is poorly suited for 3D games at higher resolutions. The 13" rMBP is not a laptop you buy to play games.

    Intel's next-generation Skylake CPUs, which should ship late this year or early next-year in volume (and ship in all rMBPs by mid-2016), will be Intel's first mobile processors that provide acceptable performance for high-resolution gaming. Skylake-based products will deliver up to 4 times the gaming (3D) performance of the Intel Iris Graphics 6100 in the 2015 13" rMBP.
     
  5. linkgx1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
  6. nanogirl21 macrumors 6502a

    nanogirl21

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Location:
    Midwest United States
    #6
    I play a MMORPG game called Second Life. It runs perfectly on a 2014 13" rMBP. My graphics are set to medium and looks very nice. I usually have iTunes and several Firefox windows open when I am playing. I can have the graphics turned all the way up and still not have any issues. The loading/rezzing time is super fast and I have zero feedback/lag. I can have physics, shadows, and terrain turned on without any issues either. On my Windows device this isn't even possible. Heck, I had to turn graphics down the low and then manually turn off features that's included in the low setting just for things to not be gray and choppy. The new graphic card in the new 13" is supposed to be better than the previous one. I have 8 GB ram (thinking of upping to 16 GB but I don't 100% think it is necessary). My laptop isn't primarily for MMORPG games, but it works just fine when I do want to play. Maybe you should reevaluate what is important to you and see if Apple computers are your best option for gaming if that is your primary focus.
     
  7. tylerwatt12 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    #7
    Was this in windows or OS X? Either way, turn off scaling, and run a lower resolution, and you should get much better frame rates

    In windows, make it 100% scaling, and run it at 1280x800 or 1440x900

    Or run retinaDisplayMenu and set it to 1280x800 or 1440x900 (non HiDPI)

    Only the fastest desktop cards can run games at native 2560x1600
     
  8. azure247 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    #8
    Never understood the thrill of playing games on a laptop.

    But the problem is you are trying to play games at retina resolution.

    Lower the res will solve your problem. Try 1920x1080
     
  9. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #9
    Your problem is gaming at native resolution. Never game at native resolution on a retina display. That goes for any laptop, even the 15" version with the GPU. Drop it down to 1440x900, and it'll run great.
     
  10. taelan28 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2014
    #10
    I tried Bioshock at max settings and it was chopperific at 5-10fps. I play LOL on occasion. It can handle max settings at native rez at 30fps quite well. I drop it down to 1050p or something like that and low graphics settings and I get a solid 60fps. They've changed LoL over time to be less graphically intensive, yet artistically better. Just slash the settings. A Retina resolution is NOT the resolution a laptop, or any modest PC should be playing.

    *Edit* Oh yea. Those modest LoL settings keeps the heat down and the fan lower. I've played TF2 at mid settings and I thought my Macbook was going to take off. It caused so much heat on my lets I started sweating and it actually caused some amount of burning pain.
     
  11. Troneas macrumors 65816

    Troneas

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Location:
    At the alternatives section.
    #11
    I'm afraid Apple did not have games in mind when they designed these, chewey.
     
  12. ZBoater macrumors G3

    ZBoater

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Location:
    Sunny Florida
    #12
    I play games on my MBA just fine. The rez advice is good. Playing games on a MacBook is just fine. Most of them anyway.
     
  13. geoelectric macrumors 6502

    geoelectric

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    #13
    What's the basis for the 4x estimate?

    I'm looking at architectural specs, such as here and elsewhere:

    http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-p...features-72-execution-units-128-mb-edram-llc/

    http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...ions-of-intel-skylakes-graphics-cores-emerge/

    Note that the gt4e is only for the quad cores. The dual cores have a gt3e. gt3e without onboard RAM == Intel Iris 6100. gt3e with onboard RAM == Intel Iris Pro 5200.

    In other words, it looks an awful lot like the GPU is going to be the same or very similar for the rMBP 13", unless you think they're going to bump up to the same integrated GPU+RAM as the current rMBP 15".
     
  14. Mr. Retrofire macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl/en
    #14
    iThought™ that it is obvious, that Macs are not game consoles. Not!?
     
  15. KenAFSPC, Mar 15, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2015

    KenAFSPC macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    #15
    I was thinking the Iris 6100 had 24 EUs and I was accounting for the jump to 72 EUs plus architectural improvements, eDRAM, higher clock speeds, and superior memory bandwidth (DDR4).

    The 45W SKL-H quad-core configuration for mobile is available with GT4e and DDR4. If the next-generation 13" rMBP ships with SKL-U, and those SKUs are correct, and there's no GT4e or DDR4, then we'll be lucky to get a 25% improvement.
     
  16. magbarn, Mar 15, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2015

    magbarn macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #16
    If you haven't done so already set up bootcamp as Wow usually runs quite a bit faster in windows vs osx. Detail settings are also important along with resolution. Put it this way, it takes around 150-200+ watts for a high end desktop card like a geforce 970 or an AMD 290x to drive the resolution of the rMBP let alone an integrated GPU with a measly 28 watt power budget. Another big restriction is the piss poor memory bandwidth of DDR3/4 that an integrated GPU like the Iris 6100 vs GDDR5 found on high end desktop graphics cards. I call shens on Intel's claims (if what the poster above said is true) that Skylake GPU is going to be 4x faster.

    In short, get a Xbox one or PS4 or a dedicated gaming laptop/desktop if you want to game.

    I say the minority of modern 2014/2015 games at low 720p resolution with the majority of quality settings turned down. The Iris GPU is fine for playing graphical easy games that are 3 years old plus. Try a recent game like Shadow of Mordor, Battlefield 4, and Dragon Age Inquisition with decent settings/resolution (>720p) on a 6100 and enjoy the 15 fps slide show.
     
  17. inhalexhale1 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Location:
    Ridgewood, NJ
    #17
    That's not the right question or attitude. Macs can be fine for casual gaming, at decent settings.

    The better question is why would you buy THAT Mac for gaming at such high resolutions.

    OP you're best bet is getting the low end 15" pro and using an external GPU via thunderbolt for games. Of course, that is if you HAVE to use a MacBook but want great gaming performance at home. You could also buy the one with a dedicated GPU, but still don't expect native resolution and max settings.

    A much cheaper option is a maxed 27" iMac. Non-retina, otherwise you'll complain when you can't game at 5k on ultra #
     
  18. sebott macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Location:
    Poland
    #18
    Wanted to create a new thread, but I will use this one: anyone tried Dota 2 on 2015 Macbook Pro? It's the only game I play and I'd like to know how MBPr 13 handles it (under OSX).
     
  19. slenpree macrumors 6502a

    slenpree

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    the problem is that the games are too demanding for the graphics they produce. If they were wrote more efficiently...
     
  20. Barna Biro, Mar 16, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2015

    Barna Biro macrumors 6502a

    Barna Biro

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Location:
    Luzern, Switzerland
    #20
    In case you're not planning on playing games on the go then take a look at: http://www.villageinstruments.com/tiki-index.php?page=ViDock I've been using ViDock for the past 1.5 years and it's really decent. I have a GTX 760 in the case ( connected to my late 2012 13" rMBP ) and I can run all the games I play on very high / extreme settings with more than decent FPS ( I also used to play some WoW, D3, SC2, Dota 2, Heroes of the Storm, Battlefield 4, etc. ).

    That being said, it of course has some cons too: you can't really carry it around and you'll also need a Thunderbolt adapter so that you can hook it up to your notebook; you'll not get 100% GPU power / performance due to how the entire setup works, but it sure beats the integrated GPU; the entire setup could get on the expensive side ( except if you already own a decent GPU that you can shove into the ViDock; I can understand that many people wouldn't want to spend another nice amount of money on 3rd party hardware so that they can run some games decently on a not so cheap notebook ); starting it up properly can be tricky at first, but you'll get used to it ( in essence - at least in my case - i need to plug the adapter in right after I choose the OS to boot into and the screen goes black - NOTE: I've only really used it under bootcamp, Windows 7 / 8.1; not sure about OSX to be honest, but I'd anyway only run games under Windows because OSX versions are rarely well-optimized ); if your Thunderbolt port is kinda loose, then small movements could disconnect the eGPU from the notebook... this will usually result into a system crash and you'll have to restart ( performing the same actions as at the very first boot - otherwise you'd end up running the integrated GPU after the restart ).

    PS: WoW saw quite a non-trivial update with the most recent expansion; I'm especially referring to the higher definition graphics that were added, this also implies that the system requirements for the game have been upped quite a bit... because of the increased rendering requirements, the most recent version of the game is no longer very playable / pleasant on systems that don't have a decent / dedicated GPU ( not saying the 6100 isn't "decent", but we can all agree that it wasn't designed for gaming ).

    It would make life much easier if Intel would allow manufacturers to market stuff like this: https://www.change.org/p/intel-allo...-allow-the-sale-of-affordable-egpu-enclosures but who knows when will this happen ( if ever )...

    [​IMG]

    I was initially hoping to get the T004 Silverstone but then it became clear that I might need to wait until the end of time... that's when I decided to give ViDock a shot and also because I didn't feel like going for a "do it yourself" eGPU solution - buying all the individual components from N sources and putting the entire thing together from scratch.
     
  21. geoelectric macrumors 6502

    geoelectric

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    #21
    Actually, WoW's system requirements didn't really go up. They optimized the engine when they bumped the quality. Any given quality setting takes around the same power but looks a fair bit better.
     
  22. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #22
    Your demands are very unrealistic. You can't expect retina Macs to be competent gaming machines at their native resolutions. But I am actually really impressed that 6100 can do 22 fps @WoW at native resolution! It means that it should manage close to 60fps at 1280x800 (resolution you are supposed to be using). This is an incredible progress in integrated GPUs.
     
  23. danistyping macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #23
    I'm happy with it so far...obviously not running most games at a ridiculous 2560 x 1600....that is way too many pixels for an integrated card to push. You will get great clarity at a lower setting.

    Sim City - 1080p, all settings medium, AA off, super smooth

    Diablo 3 - 1080p, settings med/hi, aa off, only slight lags when the screen is loaded with enemies
     
  24. tusctodd macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    #24
    Hook it up to an external video card via the thunderbolt2 port and it can run almost ALL games at native resolution, max video settings and 60fps.
     
  25. linkgx1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    #25
    How is that not the right question or attitude? Because someone tells the truth about gaming on Macs?

    Gaming on a Mac is like buying a Windows phone and expecting to have a great app experience compared to the iPhone.

    At the end of the day, Macs have their expertise and it's not games. A Windows device is FAR superior as a gaming machine. Even then, laptops are sketchy choices for games anyways. Casual games maybe, but getting past that gets really expensive fast.
     

Share This Page