Gaming on the new macbooks

Marky123321

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 3, 2007
5
0
Hey all,

How do games run on the mac, I mean performance wise? I've seen they sell games such as Quake 4, or jedi academy. How do they run? Is there a website where there are benchmarks to view?

Im not looking to play mighty powerful games, but it'd be nice to have the option to :)

Im thinking of getting the 2GHZ, 2GB RAM Macbook

Marky
 

cmaier

macrumors P6
Jul 25, 2007
16,106
12,399
California
Hey all,

How do games run on the mac, I mean performance wise? I've seen they sell games such as Quake 4, or jedi academy. How do they run? Is there a website where there are benchmarks to view?

Im not looking to play mighty powerful games, but it'd be nice to have the option to :)

Im thinking of getting the 2GHZ, 2GB RAM Macbook

Marky
The macbooks use integrated graphics, which is pretty weak. The games you mentioned should be playable,with decent framerates, as they are somewhat old.

A MBP would be much better for games.
 
Comment

naraic

macrumors member
Oct 30, 2006
54
0
No.
You'll have to wait a while yet, but if you're looking to dual boot it and play the games via XP, or Vista, i'm sure they'll be other benchmarks available for other systems using X3100, just make sure they use the same processor and RAM as well.
And why bump your thread after only waiting 2hrs?? Are you in that much of a rush?
 
Comment

chicagdan

macrumors 6502a
Jan 3, 2002
723
0
Chicago, IL
Bump! Does anyone have any benchmarks for games on the macbook? Also I've been looking for some good reviews on macbooks only (not mbp), if you see one, please link :)
A 3DMark03 test for the X3100 yields a score of around 1700 points ; in contrast, the 950 scored 170. Using this score as a benchmark, the X3100 is a tad below the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 (1800 points) and NVIDIA GeForce Go 7600 (1900 points)

Naturally, onboard graphics will always be worse than dedicated graphics cards, but X3100 is a quantum leap over previous Intel onboard chips. And bear in mind that video playback has always been quite good in Intel dedicated chips, gaming has been the conspicuous lag.
 
Comment

thies

macrumors regular
Jul 22, 2002
202
0
you might also want to keep an eye on the worldofwarcraft mac technical forum. given their rather big userbase some reports should pop up there as well sooner or later giving you some comparisons.
 
Comment

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
A 3DMark03 test for the X3100 yields a score of around 1700 points ; in contrast, the 950 scored 170. Using this score as a benchmark, the X3100 is a tad below the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 (1800 points) and NVIDIA GeForce Go 7600 (1900 points)

Naturally, onboard graphics will always be worse than dedicated graphics cards, but X3100 is a quantum leap over previous Intel onboard chips. And bear in mind that video playback has always been quite good in Intel dedicated chips, gaming has been the conspicuous lag.
And a 3dmark06 test puts it much further below the X1600. Come to think of it, notebookcheck's 3dmark03 results are as far away as their 06 results in my link which is why you have to take these benchmarks with a grain of salt. Its no where near as good a card as the X1600.
 
Comment

naraic

macrumors member
Oct 30, 2006
54
0
Please don't bump your thread.

I'll do an array of benchmarks when I get my MacBook.
Yay, can't wait for this. I'm seriously thinking about getting one too, but the Dell M1330 with the nVidia 8400m GS is quite tempting, since i can get both at arount the same price with similar specs... How much RAM are you getting with your MacBook?
 
Comment

Xcolored

macrumors member
Oct 31, 2007
31
0
Has anyone happened to have tested C&C3 on them yet? Run good? At all? Kind of curious.
I've tested C&C3 on both MB and MBP. On a MB, it runs okay, some lag, and really uses all of your computer (fans spin very fast, computer starts to get warm, etc.)

On a MBP, it works amazingly, with better graphics, and the MBP handles it well (fans medium speed, stays normal temperature for a long time).

Either way, MB isn't bad for gaming, but if you are going to be serious about gaming at all MBP is better. However, for the occasional game, a MB would be perfectly fine.

Zack
 
Comment

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,085
288
Indianapolis
Yay, can't wait for this. I'm seriously thinking about getting one too, but the Dell M1330 with the nVidia 8400m GS is quite tempting, since i can get both at arount the same price with similar specs... How much RAM are you getting with your MacBook?
1 GB

I've tested C&C3 on both MB and MBP. On a MB, it runs okay, some lag, and really uses all of your computer (fans spin very fast, computer starts to get warm, etc.)

On a MBP, it works amazingly, with better graphics, and the MBP handles it well (fans medium speed, stays normal temperature for a long time).

Either way, MB isn't bad for gaming, but if you are going to be serious about gaming at all MBP is better. However, for the occasional game, a MB would be perfectly fine.

Zack
Lag != low frames per second
 
Comment

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,085
288
Indianapolis
Yay, can't wait for this. I'm seriously thinking about getting one too, but the Dell M1330 with the nVidia 8400m GS is quite tempting, since i can get both at arount the same price with similar specs... How much RAM are you getting with your MacBook?
1 GB

I've tested C&C3 on both MB and MBP. On a MB, it runs okay, some lag, and really uses all of your computer (fans spin very fast, computer starts to get warm, etc.)

On a MBP, it works amazingly, with better graphics, and the MBP handles it well (fans medium speed, stays normal temperature for a long time).

Either way, MB isn't bad for gaming, but if you are going to be serious about gaming at all MBP is better. However, for the occasional game, a MB would be perfectly fine.

Zack
Lag != low frames per second
 
Comment

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,085
288
Indianapolis
Yay, can't wait for this. I'm seriously thinking about getting one too, but the Dell M1330 with the nVidia 8400m GS is quite tempting, since i can get both at arount the same price with similar specs... How much RAM are you getting with your MacBook?
1 GB

I've tested C&C3 on both MB and MBP. On a MB, it runs okay, some lag, and really uses all of your computer (fans spin very fast, computer starts to get warm, etc.)

On a MBP, it works amazingly, with better graphics, and the MBP handles it well (fans medium speed, stays normal temperature for a long time).

Either way, MB isn't bad for gaming, but if you are going to be serious about gaming at all MBP is better. However, for the occasional game, a MB would be perfectly fine.

Zack
Lag != low frames per second
 
Comment

Marky123321

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 3, 2007
5
0
No.
You'll have to wait a while yet, but if you're looking to dual boot it and play the games via XP, or Vista, i'm sure they'll be other benchmarks available for other systems using X3100, just make sure they use the same processor and RAM as well.
And why bump your thread after only waiting 2hrs?? Are you in that much of a rush?
I bumped after 25hrs =\

Please don't bump your thread.

I'll do an array of benchmarks when I get my MacBook.
Would you prefer me to make a whole new thread just to get some benchmarks =\ Seems silly...
Nevertheless, I appreciate your time in making the benchmarks, I'll keep a look out :)

Don't buy a MacBook to play games on. You will be disappointed.
I mentioned in my original post, Im not looking for a macbook primarily to play games, it's just that it would be nice to have the option to play a few games if I have any spare time...
 
Comment

cmaier

macrumors P6
Jul 25, 2007
16,106
12,399
California
I bumped after 25hrs =\



Would you prefer me to make a whole new thread just to get some benchmarks =\ Seems silly...
Nevertheless, I appreciate your time in making the benchmarks, I'll keep a look out :)



I mentioned in my original post, Im not looking for a macbook primarily to play games, it's just that it would be nice to have the option to play a few games if I have any spare time...
I've owned many computers with integrated graphics and have yet to see pne that could play any serious games more than a year after i bought it.
 
Comment

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
I bumped after 25hrs =\



Would you prefer me to make a whole new thread just to get some benchmarks =\ Seems silly...
Nevertheless, I appreciate your time in making the benchmarks, I'll keep a look out :)



I mentioned in my original post, Im not looking for a macbook primarily to play games, it's just that it would be nice to have the option to play a few games if I have any spare time...
Bumping, regardless of the motives is against the rules. Just don't do it.
 
Comment

unwinded

macrumors regular
Jul 31, 2007
163
0
A 3DMark03 test for the X3100 yields a score of around 1700 points ; in contrast, the 950 scored 170. Using this score as a benchmark, the X3100 is a tad below the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 (1800 points) and NVIDIA GeForce Go 7600 (1900 points)

Naturally, onboard graphics will always be worse than dedicated graphics cards, but X3100 is a quantum leap over previous Intel onboard chips. And bear in mind that video playback has always been quite good in Intel dedicated chips, gaming has been the conspicuous lag.
X3100 is not a quantum leap over the GMA 950 by any means. That 3DMark03 score is a mistake. My personal 3DMark03 score is around 1200 with the GMA 950. The score for X3100 is also a mistake, it gets around 1900. Here is a better link from that same website that compares all the mobile GPUs on the market. As you can see, performance is nowhere near that of the Radeon X1600 at 3708 points. Regardless, 3DMark03 is an old benchmarking application.

Yes the X3100 is better than the GMA 950, but it isn't a LOT better like everybody around here has built it up to be. If you want to play the latest games, get an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3. As stated many times, the Intel integrated chipsets can play older games and casual games just fine. For example, the Mac versions of Lego Star Wars II and WOW run at playable framerates on even the GMA 950.

The X3100 > GMA 950 just in the same way that the GMA 950 > GMA 900 before it, but if you plan to game go elsewhere. On the windows side of things, Intel doesn't even have finalized drivers that support Hardware T&L. They've had beta drivers available for over a year that produce no notable improvements and many rendering errors. I don't know why everybody thought Hardware T&L would solve any problems with Intel integrated graphics gaming. ATI and Nvidia have had 'em for years on their integrated solutions and they aren't any better performance wise than Intel (but they have better drivers with less rendering errors). Early reviews are stating that the Apple drivers for the X3100 are currently poor, although Apple has a page posted stating that they are working on the issues.
 
Comment

macdim

macrumors 6502
Oct 16, 2007
355
0
Canada
...ATI and Nvidia have had 'em for years on their integrated solutions and they aren't any better performance wise than Intel ...
I think that just HAVING hardware T&L allows some games to run, since some refuse to even initialize if it isn't detected in the hardware. The games may not be playable, but that's another story.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.