Gaming performance

[Nioxic]

Just a question about SC2..

if you run on lowest settings in native res.

How does it work "ingame" if you crash 2 200/200 armys together?

i've really only played it on my desktop powerhouse.. (which ofcourse works nicely ) But i'd love to know before i download those 7gb (i play only 2v2 so prefereably even test it in that if you could)

 

[peskaa]

I am a big fan of left 4 dead2. Could anyone who have tried that on the new air tell me if that game is playable at all?

It's playable. I've got it set to native resolution on my 13", medium textures, low everything else and no AA. However it looks pretty good with the textures at medium, and the FPS is high enough to avoid stuttering.

If you turn the whole lot up to medium you get frame drops during explosions etc, and it's not fantastic. My settings seem to be the best balance.

 

[Formul]

Just a question about SC2..

if you run on lowest settings in native res.

How does it work "ingame" if you crash 2 200/200 armys together?

i've really only played it on my desktop powerhouse.. (which ofcourse works nicely ) But i'd love to know before i download those 7gb (i play only 2v2 so prefereably even test it in that if you could)

tried a 30 min replay of TLO vs incontrol, several 200v200 engagements (or close to 200/200), the game runs smoothly most of the time, there is very little slowdown when all units are going on rampage ... shooting all around the map

20 min 2v2, about 350v350, a little slower in the final engagement, but very playable, no problem

both replays with full vision so usual game should be even smoother

 

[empezar]

I just tried out WoW on my 11" MBA with i7 cpu. It ran very nice! Completely playable

I come from a MBP 2,8 ghz (mid 2009), and the performance in WoW is very comparable indeed!

 

[Nioxic]

tried a 30 min replay of TLO vs incontrol, several 200v200 engagements (or close to 200/200), the game runs smoothly most of the time, there is very little slowdown when all units are going on rampage ... shooting all around the map

20 min 2v2, about 350v350, a little slower in the final engagement, but very playable, no problem

both replays with full vision so usual game should be even smoother

Thanks! Then ill try it out when i get my mba tomorrow its gonna be nice!
Still gonna take loooong time to dl :b

Oh btw. Any way to play heroes of might and magic on a mac? (wouldt install win7 if i can avoid it!)

 

[minnus]

if youre comfortable opening your laptop, you can apply as5 to the cpu and gpu. it dropped my temps under load by almost 10c.

I've been able to play everything I throw at my air from tf2 to crysis.

Are you running on the the new Airs? And do you have benchmarks?

10c is a pretty big deal - I have the i7 and its peaking at 95C, which is horrendous. If it will drop it to 85, that's 'acceptable'.

 

[ZBoater]

10c is a pretty big deal - I have the i7 and its peaking at 95C, which is horrendous. If it will drop it to 85, that's 'acceptable'.

I'm curious, what makes it acceptable or not? I thought 100C was the max "acceptable" temp based on the design spec from Intel. I am confused as to what does it matter 95 or 92 or 85?

Don't get me wrong, the cooler the better, I know. But the system is designed to work up to 100C. If it "peaks" at 95C, one has to assume there is some throttling already going on to prevent it from going further.

 

[Brandon0448]

With the integrated graphics in the new MBAs the CPU gets waaay hot. Im not very comfortable with my CPU hovering constantly a few degrees below its shut off point. Theres one thing that degrades processors and thats heat. When ever I play a game on my MBA I keep the setting pretty much to the lowest and limit the FPS to 30 if possible. Doing this I've managed to get my temps to around 80-85 celsius in games like WoW, Need for Speed MW and will soon test Starcraft 2.

 

[gloss]

I keep hearing conflicting posts on Civ5. I'm a big Civ fan, but would rather try out Civ4 if it's going to play better than Civ5. Nothing worse than a laggy game.

Any Civ4/5 players that can comment?

I haven't played Civ 4 yet, but Civ 5 is...playable. Only just. With everything at lowest settings, it's at maybe 15-20 FPS at a close in view and chugs pretty considerably when zoomed out.

That said, the time between turns is as fast as my i7 SLI desktop, so it's really only the graphics that suffer. It's definitely a workable solution, but not ideal.

I'd go back to Civ IV, but I'd miss the hexes and new combat engine too much.

 

[ZBoater]

Im about to start my second Civ4 game and I got my Civ fix. That game is awesome.

 

[minnus]

I'm curious, what makes it acceptable or not? I thought 100C was the max "acceptable" temp based on the design spec from Intel. I am confused as to what does it matter 95 or 92 or 85?

Don't get me wrong, the cooler the better, I know. But the system is designed to work up to 100C. If it "peaks" at 95C, one has to assume there is some throttling already going on to prevent it from going further.

Heat reduces the life of components (especially the ones around the CPU) - and it flirts way too closely with 100C. I had an M11x (which I sold for this) with an i5. Overclocked to a little over 2.2GHz a thread (2 cores - 4 threads), it never exceeded 75C on full load. On this MBA with 1.8GHz a thread, full load, it is 20C higher.

All my other the other i7s I have overclocked also stayed a comfortable sub-80 on full load. It was/is extremely shocking to see 95C on a stock-clocked system. I imagine a lot of things can be done to make this processor run cooler and more efficiently. As it is now, I am debating if I should return it.

 

[ZBoater]

Heat reduces the life of components (especially the ones around the CPU) - and it flirts way too closely with 100C. I had an M11x (which I sold for this) with an i5. Overclocked to a little over 2.2GHz a thread (2 cores - 4 threads), it never exceeded 75C on full load. On this MBA with 1.8GHz a thread, full load, it is 20C higher.

All my other the other i7s I have overclocked also stayed a comfortable sub-80 on full load. It was/is extremely shocking to see 95C on a stock-clocked system. I imagine a lot of things can be done to make this processor run cooler and more efficiently. As it is now, I am debating if I should return it.

An M11x is a PC gaming laptop. You are comparing Apples and Oranges. As a PC gamer myself, I understand all about heat and over clocking and voltage. And I spurned Apple for years for not letting me tinker with the innards of their computers.

Now I am older and wiser (and lazier) and I just want a laptop that works. The Apple model is completely different. It is not designed for the tinkerer or the over clocker or the person who obsesses over temperatures and SSD performance and things like that. It either works, or it doesn't. There is no over clocking or customizing or tinkering not sanctioned by Apple anyway.

It is entirely possible that an Apple laptop be defective to the point that the processor overheats. I mean, I've seen weirder things happen. But if the systems is operating within the manufacturer's spec, and you are not comfortable with that, returning it is the only viable option. Opening the thing up, putting thermal grease, under clocking, changing voltage (if even possible) is a PC guy's game. And a fun game at that. Apple is just not built for that. Apple is built for the rest of the world who just wants their computers to work. IMHO.

 

[ksgant]

Are the MacBook Pro's more suited for gaming though? They have the same processors, right? But I'm guessing their bigger size and probably bigger fans inside allow for better air-flow through the machine.

That's just a guess. Or are the Pro's and Air's pretty much the same?

 

[ZBoater]

Are the MacBook Pro's more suited for gaming though? They have the same processors, right? But I'm guessing their bigger size and probably bigger fans inside allow for better air-flow through the machine.

That's just a guess. Or are the Pro's and Air's pretty much the same?

If you want a gaming laptop, Apple is not who you should be looking at. IMHO.

 

[ksgant]

If you want a gaming laptop, Apple is not who you should be looking at. IMHO.

Cool...don't want a gaming laptop. I want to know if a Macbook Pro is better at playing games due to blah blah blah....yeah, pretty much what I asked above.

As a side note, and I'm not picking on ZBoater here, but here lately I've noticed people don't actually address anyone's actual question anymore. They deflect. It's not just on MacRumors either. I see it all over the place. For instance:

"What's the best Pad Thai restaurants in Chicago?" Answer: "Don't eat that stuff, have hot dogs over at ____"

"How are the new plasma TV's?" Answer: "Don't get a plasma, get one of those LED TV's".

"Do the newer Xbox 360's still have the overheating problems?" Answer: "Don't get an Xbox, get a PS3".

We see this all the time. Why can't people just answer the question at hand?

 

[minnus]

An M11x is a PC gaming laptop. You are comparing Apples and Oranges. As a PC gamer myself, I understand all about heat and over clocking and voltage. And I spurned Apple for years for not letting me tinker with the innards of their computers.

Now I am older and wiser (and lazier) and I just want a laptop that works. The Apple model is completely different. It is not designed for the tinkerer or the over clocker or the person who obsesses over temperatures and SSD performance and things like that. It either works, or it doesn't. There is no over clocking or customizing or tinkering not sanctioned by Apple anyway.

It is entirely possible that an Apple laptop be defective to the point that the processor overheats. I mean, I've seen weirder things happen. But if the systems is operating within the manufacturer's spec, and you are not comfortable with that, returning it is the only viable option. Opening the thing up, putting thermal grease, under clocking, changing voltage (if even possible) is a PC guy's game. And a fun game at that. Apple is just not built for that. Apple is built for the rest of the world who just wants their computers to work. IMHO.

No - I am comparing PROCESSORS, and implementation of the processors. Your 'just works' example is silly - my components all just 'work.' As a consumer, I want them to work in the most efficient manner possible. I am simply contributing to the observation that it is very UNNATURAL for a CPU to be running at 95C on full load. I'm sorry if my observations brought out your Apple fanaticism to the max.

 

[gloss]

No - I am comparing PROCESSORS, and implementation of the processors. Your 'just works' example is silly - my components all just 'work.' As a consumer, I want them to work in the most efficient manner possible. I am simply contributing to the observation that it is very UNNATURAL for a CPU to be running at 95C on full load. I'm sorry if my observations brought out your Apple fanaticism to the max.

Pretty sure the more recent Intel CPUs have a higher maximum operating temperature than some of the older chipsets. My first-gen i7 will hit 100C before the controller starts throttling back the clock speed to reduce temperature.

Methinks you should relax a little.

 

[jsolares]

An M11x is a PC gaming laptop. You are comparing Apples and Oranges. As a PC gamer myself, I understand all about heat and over clocking and voltage. And I spurned Apple for years for not letting me tinker with the innards of their computers.

Now I am older and wiser (and lazier) and I just want a laptop that works. The Apple model is completely different. It is not designed for the tinkerer or the over clocker or the person who obsesses over temperatures and SSD performance and things like that. It either works, or it doesn't. There is no over clocking or customizing or tinkering not sanctioned by Apple anyway.

It is entirely possible that an Apple laptop be defective to the point that the processor overheats. I mean, I've seen weirder things happen. But if the systems is operating within the manufacturer's spec, and you are not comfortable with that, returning it is the only viable option. Opening the thing up, putting thermal grease, under clocking, changing voltage (if even possible) is a PC guy's game. And a fun game at that. Apple is just not built for that. Apple is built for the rest of the world who just wants their computers to work. IMHO.

I would expect a gaming laptop to get hotter than an ultra portable, granted the hottest part in the case/keyboard doesn't seem to be dangerously hot, it just starts getting warmer and warmer and the upper left part gets hotter (near the ESC key) the underside never got "hot"

 

[heanwi]

Are the MacBook Pro's more suited for gaming though? They have the same processors, right? But I'm guessing their bigger size and probably bigger fans inside allow for better air-flow through the machine.

That's just a guess. Or are the Pro's and Air's pretty much the same?

Alot better. The MBP has a quad core CPU, but the most important thing is the dedicated GPU.
I´m going from a late 2008 MBP to a MBA 13". Hope I won´t miss the MBP too much, atleast I don´t play much games on my laptop.

 

[Arni99]

Are the MacBook Pro's more suited for gaming though? They have the same processors, right? But I'm guessing their bigger size and probably bigger fans inside allow for better air-flow through the machine.

That's just a guess. Or are the Pro's and Air's pretty much the same?

Yes the 15"/17" MBPs are more suited for gaming as they use i7 QUAD-cores with 4 real + 4 virtual cores (hyperthreading). Furthermore a dedicated GPU AMD 6750 with 1 GB GDDR5 makes a huge difference compared to the INTEL HD3000 of the Macbook Air.
The MBA-CPU is a DUAL core with 2 real + 2 virtual cores (hyperthreading).

 

[minnus]

Pretty sure the more recent Intel CPUs have a higher maximum operating temperature than some of the older chipsets. My first-gen i7 will hit 100C before the controller starts throttling back the clock speed to reduce temperature.

Methinks you should relax a little.

I'm sorry if I 'freaked' out a little - I thought reasonable points were being discussed till ZBoater went on a tangent about ... Apple.

If you read my posts, all my references point to the newest chipsets (Sandy Bridge and Nehalem), but yes, I agree with you. The iX chips have a much higher max operating temp than previous chips. My discomfort stems from the fact that here I had a chip of the same architecture (Second-Gen i5; aka Sandy Bridge) running at higher speeds maintaining noticeably lower temperatures. Does that make sense? A faster running chip is running 20C cooler than a slower chip of the same architecture? 10C, sure - I can attribute it to smaller heatsink, but something is amiss.

Doing some simple googling, it seems that for previous models of Airs (or laptops / pre-assembled computers in general), the application of thermal paste/compound/grease were too excessive and resulted in insulating instead of conducting heat. By replacing the thermal paste, drastic improvements can be immediately seen. Going back to why I even started commenting on this thread - johnadams2007 seems to have done exactly this, and I am interested in what he has to say.

 

[ZBoater]

No - I am comparing PROCESSORS, and implementation of the processors. Your 'just works' example is silly - my components all just 'work.' As a consumer, I want them to work in the most efficient manner possible. I am simply contributing to the observation that it is very UNNATURAL for a CPU to be running at 95C on full load. I'm sorry if my observations brought out your Apple fanaticism to the max.

Hahahahaha! My Apple fanaticism? Would you believe me if I told you around here they call me Mr. Windows?

It is not unnatural for the CPU to run at 95C. Unnatural would be 120C. Anything under 100C is within spec. These posts make it seem like there is a design defect that causes the processors to run hotter than "normal". There isn't. They run just fine.

And you have to admit you and I are not normal "consumers". Most consumers don't care about "efficient" working of their CPU. They just want it to work. Period. Whether its 70C or 95C most people don't really care. Its the techies like you and me that care. And Apple products are not designed with you and me in mind.

----------

Cool...don't want a gaming laptop. I want to know if a Macbook Pro is better at playing games due to blah blah blah....yeah, pretty much what I asked above ... We see this all the time. Why can't people just answer the question at hand?

Well now, I'll answer your question. If you don't like the answer I will refund your money. Hey, wait a minute...

Of course the MBP is better than the Air at games. Games are graphics and processor intensive applications, and the MBP can be built with a much more capable combination of processor/GPU/memory. If gaming is your primary concern, and the MBA and MBP are your only two choices, then I'd recommend the MBP. No ifs, ands, or butts about.

 

[KnightWRX]

Has anyone bothered to try Dragon Age 2 or Dragon Age Origins under OS X on the 2010 Air ?

So no one can tell me ? I'd hate to spend 30$ on the game and have it unplayable.

 

[FAsnakes]

Battlefield - Bad Company 2 on low settings i get 30 / 35 FPS..
Actually, kinda nice!

 

[onthecouchagain]

The Air heats up like crazy (we're talking 88-90 C) when playing SC2 on the lowest settings. The bottom near the upper left corner (where the esc keys and surrounding area are) gets really hot. The keys themselves get really heated too.

It's disappointing.