Gaming experiences on the C2D MacBook Pros?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by SilentCrs, Nov 2, 2006.

  1. SilentCrs macrumors regular

    Nov 2, 2006
    I recently ordered a 15" C2D MacBook Pro (256MB video card) to replace a Dell Inspiron rapidly breaking down. I do IT for a living. The last Mac I purchased was an iBook G4 (which the Inspiron replaced). I've been having my extended family purchase Macs over the last year so I wouldn't have to deal as much with supporting them.

    So, anyway, I've done my research and it seems like a pretty solid machine. My main issues with the last version was heat and the underclocked video card -- both seem to have been resolved.

    My last remaining issue: I use my computers for entertainment as well as VPNing into work. What have people's experiences been playing games, particularly in Bootcamp? How has World of Warcraft run (I'm sure someone out there has tried it)? At the default resolution, the 1600 should be able to keep up pretty well. Lastly, how has heat been while playing?

    I've seen the 3DMark05 scores and they look pretty good (not really up to boutique gaming laptop quality, but strong enough that games should run pretty well). When I get mine I'll benchmark with 3DMark05 Pro, because I don't think I've seen anything past trial version scores.
  2. rgates2000 macrumors newbie

    Oct 6, 2006
    Sammamish, WA
    I played WoW on my CoreDuo MBP and it was fine even at the highest resolution. So I imagine the C2D with a faster processor and a less underclocked GPU would be even better.
  3. e12a macrumors 68000


    Oct 28, 2006
    I play source on windows xp and it's set at the highest detail and a pretty good resolution by default. I havent used the net_graph tool yet but its definitely playable.
  4. ToastMaster macrumors regular


    Nov 10, 2005
    Tacoma, WA
    How's heat as gaming goes on the C2D MBPs? My Core Duo heats up like a frying pan during games.
  5. thenewguy macrumors regular

    Oct 25, 2006
    The heat problem has been fixed according to all reports.
  6. Clydefrog macrumors 6502a


    Feb 24, 2006
  7. iBorg20181 macrumors 6502


    Apr 5, 2006
    Minneapolis, MN
    Are you asking about WoW under Mac OS X? (since the game comes dual-platform, can't think of why you'd need to play under BootCamp?)

    I'll be loading it up this weekend on my MBP - I'll post results!


  8. EvryDayImShufln macrumors 65816


    Sep 18, 2006
    I've read (probably on this forum) that WoW runs about twice as well on bootcamp than it does on OS X. Does anybody know why this is? I'm talking about full graphics right now, bcz it runs pretty badly on my CD macbook pro 2.0ghz on full graphics in OS X.

    However, UT2004 runs perfectly everything high on it, so I'd say this is a decent gaming machine, and the new one should be significantly better.
  9. GraceMolloy macrumors regular


    Oct 28, 2006
    Same. (well, possibly Monday) I just hope some of the Mods work properly. Someone in the games forum said they're fine, so I'm pretty excited.
  10. SilentCrs thread starter macrumors regular

    Nov 2, 2006
    Because for better or for worse Wow in MacOS still runs 10-20% slower than on the Windows side. Supposedly Blizzard is going to enable all kinds of new optimizations for multi-threaded OpenGL in the next patch (the one right before the expansion).

    I imagine, however, it's still going to run faster Windows side. Not to mention I have a lot of other PC games that I'm going to want to play in Windows.

    I'll still try Wow on Mac of course. But everyone I've talked to says it runs better in Bootcamp.
  11. Machead III macrumors 6502

    Machead III

    Nov 4, 2002
    UK, France
    WoW runs particularly better in windows because WoW performance relies a lot on RAM, and Windows allots tons more to games than OS X does.
  12. SilentCrs thread starter macrumors regular

    Nov 2, 2006
    No offense, but RAM has nothing to do with anything. Mac OS X does a very good job allocating as much memory as a program needs (way better than Windows).

    The issue is that Mac OS X, up until a few months ago, was running a very old version of OpenGL. A newer version will be available in 10.5, and newer machines (e.g. the latest MacBook Pro) have the new OpenGL libraries -- even though they're running 10.4. Blizzard has said that's one part of the situation they needed fixed.

    The other is coming in an upcomming patch, where they plan to enable support for multithreaded OpenGL. That, combined with the new libraries, should boost FPS by as much as 25%.
  13. Bill Gates macrumors 68020

    Bill Gates

    Jun 21, 2006
    I'm surfing MR right now at a cool 33 degrees C. :)

    Edit: up to 38 degrees now. Still cool.
  14. Aelyrin macrumors member

    Oct 30, 2006
    Missoula, Montana
    Do you have a link to an article stating this? Sounds extremely interesting to me! I've been a WoWer since beta and have just made my changeover to a MAc with my first Mac being a Macbook Pro C2D 17in stock. I have been wondering why WoW wouldnt run as well in OSX as it does in Windows, this seems to answer my question!

    Anymore information would be excellent, supposedly the new patch is coming out in the next month or so... Do the new MMBPs have the new OpenGL stuff built in on them already? IF so, then basically on that patch day Mac users are going to see that big of a jump in FPS? Craziness!
  15. SilentCrs thread starter macrumors regular

    Nov 2, 2006
    There's an article here stating that the change will be made in the expansion: Blizzard has since said it will actually occur with the next patch (most recently on a post I made here): That patch should be out in December, before the January expansion release -- you won't need the expansion to get it.

    Almost Intel machines from about 10.4.8 on seem to have the new OpenGL libraries. You can often tell by the build numbers for 10.4.8 (there are different ones for those that have the libraries and those that don't).

    All indications are that the performance increases are dramatic. Testers from the expansion beta have touted 15-30 fps increases, or more, depending on the current scene. This is often enough to push people past 60 fps (sort of a threshold of smooth gameplay).

    It's still questionable if the Mac OS X client will perform up to DirectX standards (which is why I'll probably start playing with Bootcamp). But in December (when the patch is scheduled to be released) they should be a lot closer to each other in performance than they are now.
  16. Maximus434 macrumors regular

    Jan 11, 2006
    Performance reports of any other game than "WOW" would be greatly, GREATLY appreciated.
  17. adiosk8 macrumors regular

    Oct 20, 2006
    I play counter strike at 1440 x 900, everything on high. I only have a 128mb card and its great...but I do overclock with ati tool to 460/500
  18. SilentCrs thread starter macrumors regular

    Nov 2, 2006
    What's the heat like when you overclock? And battery life (if you play with a battery)?

    Also, I assume (if it's anything like my experiences overclocking with nVidia), that it's done through a utility and OS-dependent. I'm guessing when you go back to Mac OS X it goes back to the factory default.
  19. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Mar 30, 2004
    You mean there are other games besides WoW? ;)
  20. adiosk8 macrumors regular

    Oct 20, 2006
    you just use ATItool and you set the variables...super easy...the fans are constant with or without the overclocking...but it make a big difference for me.... I played counter strike for 1.5 hours last night and when I rebooted to osx I still had 44% of my battery left which surprised me.
  21. SilentCrs thread starter macrumors regular

    Nov 2, 2006
    That *is* rather impressive actually. My current Inspiron 9300 (the broken one) had a 6800 nVidia Go and would conk out right around 1.5 hours if I was gaming.

    Although, got to wonder if your remaining battery life is just OS X still calibrating/calculating. I noticed Windows XP took about 2 weeks to accurately show how much battery life I had left.

    But 2 hours or more would actually be very good.

Share This Page