How long will the 750m be able to handle gaming?

[Essenar]

"Apple fans" saying MacBooks aren't for 'gaming' is almost as damaging to Apple's worth as a brand as any successful Windows counterparts.

MacBooks are for whatever the user wants to use them for. Plain and simple. If you want to use it for gaming, it's 'for gaming' along with every other task they're exceptionally good at.

The Retina MacBook Pro from 2012 bested almost every gaming laptop in its price range for performance and a lot of gamers use it because they are gamers AND designers/engineers and can't afford to have two systems.

I play Borderlands 2 on my MacBook Pro and it runs exceptionally well. It can handle PS2 emulation (So in essence it gives me a gaming aspect that Sony's very own PS3 can't). It can handle quite a few games at good graphics settings and it can definitely fill the 'gaming void' if needed. The 750m and Iris Pro based chipsets are at minimum 50% better.

 

[Wishbrah]

If you are happy playing a current gen game on medium setting, and getting 40-45 fps... then all the power to you. Next gen comes out and medium settings will net you half that. You want around 60 fps or better, because there are always spikes when you start to load more. Preferably on high settings or better. Last thing you want in a first person shooter is to be that guy that lost frames... cause you are the dead guy. I'm talking gamers here, not casual players that are happy that it runs ok.

In case you forgot... this thread is asking how long he can expect to play next gen games. It is not about how good can he run today and yesterdays games. I don't even consider running BF4 on medium, at 45 FPS good.

As for the rest... Are you trying to tell me that Windows runs better or at least the same on a Mac as it does on a PC?

How many "professional gamers" do you estimate are on this board? Or on a Mac at all?

 

[theycallmetc]

Let's try to put this in perspective. A lot of people are assuming that video game development, from a technical standpoint, evolves linearly, which is kinda wrong.

First, this past console generation was the limiting factor on PC graphics requirements. That's why half decent rigs could run games pretty well for the last couple of years, which isn't necessarily true during the whole lifespan of a console generation.

Right now, a GT650m/GT750m can run not so demanding 2-3 year old games maxed on 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 with 50-60+ frames per second easy. Demanding games from the past year or so, or slightly older but more demanding games like BF3, you're looking at either medium settings or lower resolutions like 1440x900 (or even 1280x800, I'm only talking about 16:10 ratios) if you want to keep those frames. For the next year, I don't expect things to change that much. BF4 isn't that much harder on a rig than BF3 from what I've seen, and a lot of upcoming non console exclusive titles don't look that impressive. I mean, look at Titanfall. It looks perfectly runnable.

But, give it a year and a half or more from the PS4/XBone release, as developers start really getting comfy developing for that hardware, and I bet there'll be a pretty nice spike in hardware requirements for PC games to run at full glory mode. That's when you'll really feel the age of the hardware. But again, it depends, maybe you don't care running stuff at low settings and resolutions. A lot of good PC ports tend to scale pretty well with hardware. Plus, we also have to see just what kind of advantage AMD starts racking up due to consoles using GCN (or if it has any advantage whatsoever).

Anyways, you buy a rMBP because it has a good (default) OS, a great screen, it packs some serious (CPU side) power, it's light and compact, and as a bonus, it can game decently. If your priorities are the exact inverse of that, you might be better served looking at Razer or other similar stuff.

 

[dusk007]

If you build a high end gamer PC today, you expect it to perform well at 4K resolutions or 3-5 times 1080p in a display wall. Highend PC not too long ago was just for standard resolutions. So game resource demand has slowed alot and it is not just the consoles. Many computer sold today are notebooks and if game developers want to sell their games they need to run half decent on all those computers. Therefore demand cannot grow as fast and the high end desktop is separated from the low end more by the kind of resolution it can handle.
If one continues to play at low res like 1440x900 the performance should do quite well for a while. Also the new consoles aren't all that much faster in raw power. Personally I really wish developers would focus more at improving stuff like AI, gameplay, game world aspects like the levolution of BF4 or just less inaccessible places (more open world) rather than just better looking screenshots.

What will definitely change with the new consoles is higher quality textures. At least now there are 2GB of VRAM. The 1GB of last gen was a joke for the cost of those notebooks in comparison to what a bit of GDDR5 memory costs.
For gaming at 4K those textures will be important and that is supposed to look spectacular compared to any other setting you change. In many cases setting a higher resolution offers more image quality than many settings that cost as much performance. In pure power a fairly affordable mainstream desktop GPU is way faster and you can swap it out after 2 years for a new one. The 750M will be a joke compared to a desktop in 2 years but still because desktop PCs aren't really sold that much and make an ever smaller part of the total gamer base, 750M will keep being "useful" for a while I think.

 

[appleii.c]

It all depends on the type of games you play. Its a pretty decent machine, but you want hard core gaming (Ultra settings on every game), maybe you should look into a ps4, a pure gaming laptop, or a standalone PC... i hear the Mac Pros are pretty powerful . I had an early 2011 MBP with a radeon card and played many of the games I enjoy; The Dragon Age series, Diablo 3, Fifa... all played well. The only game I had a hard time playing (that I wanted to play) was the Witcher 2. I just got the new MBP with the 750m and look forward to at least 2 or 3 years of good gaming on it.

Check out notebook check to see what games will run on that card. Also, a side note, the site states that "The very rare GDDR5 version even beats the GTX 660M.". The 750M on the MBP is the DDR5 card.

Here are a couple of links for reference:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html

 

[Essenar]

Let's try to put this in perspective. A lot of people are assuming that video game development, from a technical standpoint, evolves linearly, which is kinda wrong.

First, this past console generation was the limiting factor on PC graphics requirements. That's why half decent rigs could run games pretty well for the last couple of years, which isn't necessarily true during the whole lifespan of a console generation.

Right now, a GT650m/GT750m can run not so demanding 2-3 year old games maxed on 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 with 50-60+ frames per second easy. Demanding games from the past year or so, or slightly older but more demanding games like BF3, you're looking at either medium settings or lower resolutions like 1440x900 (or even 1280x800, I'm only talking about 16:10 ratios) if you want to keep those frames. For the next year, I don't expect things to change that much. BF4 isn't that much harder on a rig than BF3 from what I've seen, and a lot of upcoming non console exclusive titles don't look that impressive. I mean, look at Titanfall. It looks perfectly runnable.

But, give it a year and a half or more from the PS4/XBone release, as developers start really getting comfy developing for that hardware, and I bet there'll be a pretty nice spike in hardware requirements for PC games to run at full glory mode. That's when you'll really feel the age of the hardware. But again, it depends, maybe you don't care running stuff at low settings and resolutions. A lot of good PC ports tend to scale pretty well with hardware. Plus, we also have to see just what kind of advantage AMD starts racking up due to consoles using GCN (or if it has any advantage whatsoever).

Anyways, you buy a rMBP because it has a good (default) OS, a great screen, it packs some serious (CPU side) power, it's light and compact, and as a bonus, it can game decently. If your priorities are the exact inverse of that, you might be better served looking at Razer or other similar stuff.

This is simply not the case at all and I'll tell you why:

API.

The API is the core reason for glaring differences between console and PC performance and graphics. Just look at Skyrim or Crysis 3. The game looks great on consoles and looks like a somewhat high level PC despite being made on the equivalent GPU of a 7800GTX. Why is that? Well it's because when you're developing for a single hardware specification you can play around with the API to produce great graphics based on the environment.

For example, on a desktop or Windows variant, it would make zero sense to write a game that downscales graphics in a large open area and then upscales them in small corridors. Direct X and most desktop gaming engines aren't built for that. The amount of customization just in graphics settings is already immense enough. But on a console? You can easily play around with draw distance, texture resolutions in specific areas, lighting to make the console focus on the graphics that the user is looking at, and not so much what's going on behind those graphics.

Developing on consoles over time, is more like learning how to make elaborate sand castles out of the same sand you've had. Whereas with desktops, you're just being given more sand. It's very different and before you make broad generalizations about PC gaming graphics, I implore you to look into the differences because you're very wrong about the progression of PC graphics.

 

[cirus]

The Retina MacBook Pro from 2012 bested almost every gaming laptop in its price range for performance and a lot of gamers use it because they are gamers AND designers/engineers and can't afford to have two systems.

I play Borderlands 2 on my MacBook Pro and it runs exceptionally well. It can handle PS2 emulation (So in essence it gives me a gaming aspect that Sony's very own PS3 can't). It can handle quite a few games at good graphics settings and it can definitely fill the 'gaming void' if needed. The 750m and Iris Pro based chipsets are at minimum 50% better.

You mean got completely destroyed. You can easily fit an i7 quad, 1080p screen, 7970m or 680m laptop with an SSD under $2000 at the time the rmbp came out. I don't know if you are talking about the 750m and iris Pro being 50% better but neither are anywhere close to that. 750m is 5-10% better at most and Iris pro is quite a bit slower than the 650m.

Check out notebook check to see what games will run on that card. Also, a side note, the site states that "The very rare GDDR5 version even beats the GTX 660M.". The 750M on the MBP is the DDR5 card.

Here are a couple of links for reference:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html

If you look at clockspeeds the 660m runs at boost of 950/1250 on core/memory. Apple has disabled the boost on the 750m in the 2013 rmbp 15 and so it only runs at 967/1250. The two perform basically identically.

The API is the core reason for glaring differences between console and PC performance and graphics. Just look at Skyrim or Crysis 3. The game looks great on consoles and looks like a somewhat high level PC despite being made on the equivalent GPU of a 7800GTX. Why is that? Well it's because when you're developing for a single hardware specification you can play around with the API to produce great graphics based on the environment.

For example, on a desktop or Windows variant, it would make zero sense to write a game that downscales graphics in a large open area and then upscales them in small corridors. Direct X and most desktop gaming engines aren't built for that. The amount of customization just in graphics settings is already immense enough. But on a console? You can easily play around with draw distance, texture resolutions in specific areas, lighting to make the console focus on the graphics that the user is looking at, and not so much what's going on behind those graphics.

Developing on consoles over time, is more like learning how to make elaborate sand castles out of the same sand you've had. Whereas with desktops, you're just being given more sand. It's very different and before you make broad generalizations about PC gaming graphics, I implore you to look into the differences because you're very wrong about the progression of PC graphics.

Skyrim runs just as well on a low level PC as a console. Console quality is basically 720p medium for skyrim and that runs on even a crap gpu. Don't forget that even as a console port certain qualities such as draw distance are higher on the pc version.

Even HD 4000 with its crappy release drivers brings more than 40 fps at 768p.

 

[appleii.c]

If you look at clockspeeds the 660m runs at boost of 950/1250 on core/memory. Apple has disabled the boost on the 750m in the 2013 rmbp 15 and so it only runs at 967/1250. The two perform basically identically.

Are you saying the 750m in the new MBP runs almost identical to the 660M? If so, I'll be OK with that. I'm not what you would call a "hard core gamer", I don't need to play Crysis 3 at ultra settings, but I do occasionally enjoy playing fairly demanding games. I think the MBP has a very good balance between being a developer machine, Graphics/photo editing machine and a decent gaming book.

 

[johnnylarue]

It all depends on the type of games you play. Its a pretty decent machine, but you want hard core gaming (Ultra settings on every game), maybe you should look into a ps4, a pure gaming laptop, or a standalone PC... i hear the Mac Pros are pretty powerful . I had an early 2011 MBP with a radeon card and played many of the games I enjoy; The Dragon Age series, Diablo 3, Fifa... all played well. The only game I had a hard time playing (that I wanted to play) was the Witcher 2. I just got the new MBP with the 750m and look forward to at least 2 or 3 years of good gaming on it.

The Witcher 2 is actually one of the few PC games I'd really like to check out. Have you given it a try on your new MBP yet?

 

[Orr]

my 750m ran WoW all day yesterday

so i would say at least 18 hours

Thread complete. Turn off the lights, lock it on the way out.

Game, set, match.

 

[appleii.c]

The Witcher 2 is actually one of the few PC games I'd really like to check out. Have you given it a try on your new MBP yet?

Not yet, I'll give it a shot tonight or tomorrow and let you know. I have the Mac ported version bought from the AppStore, not sure if that makes a difference.

 

[jondunford]

i always cringe when i hear the words "pro gamer"

it just sounds pathetic

 

[johnnylarue]

Not yet, I'll give it a shot tonight or tomorrow and let you know. I have the Mac ported version bought from the AppStore, not sure if that makes a difference.

That's probably the version I'd get too, for the record. I'm not planning to install Windows on my machine. I figure limiting my selection to OSX games will cut down on my ability to waste ALL of my time on games when I should be getting work done.

Witcher 2 is a fairly huge game (20+ GB), but I should think the 750M would be able to handle it okay given its age...

 

[Scott7975]

How many "professional gamers" do you estimate are on this board? Or on a Mac at all?

The thread is "How long will the 750m be able to handle gaming?" The OP is asking how long it will still work for next gen games. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Current games, meaning games launching now, run so so at medium settings. So so meaning sub 60 fps. I don't care if you are a "professional" gamer or not, and that's not the term I would use, sub 60 fps sucks. Once you are under load you will spike down and cause hitching. Hitching sucks for any game player. You want at least 60 fps no matter what kind of gamer you are.

Anyhow, if current games run like that then next year games will run like that on low settings if you are lucky. 2 years from now you wont be running Battlefield 6.


"Or on Mac at all".... Hence my other posts that indicate that if you are a gamer you shouldn't be looking at a Mac for your gaming needs.

 

[Scott7975]

Let's try to put this in perspective. A lot of people are assuming that video game development, from a technical standpoint, evolves linearly, which is kinda wrong.

First, this past console generation was the limiting factor on PC graphics requirements. That's why half decent rigs could run games pretty well for the last couple of years, which isn't necessarily true during the whole lifespan of a console generation.

Right now, a GT650m/GT750m can run not so demanding 2-3 year old games maxed on 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 with 50-60+ frames per second easy. Demanding games from the past year or so, or slightly older but more demanding games like BF3, you're looking at either medium settings or lower resolutions like 1440x900 (or even 1280x800, I'm only talking about 16:10 ratios) if you want to keep those frames. For the next year, I don't expect things to change that much. BF4 isn't that much harder on a rig than BF3 from what I've seen, and a lot of upcoming non console exclusive titles don't look that impressive. I mean, look at Titanfall. It looks perfectly runnable.

But, give it a year and a half or more from the PS4/XBone release, as developers start really getting comfy developing for that hardware, and I bet there'll be a pretty nice spike in hardware requirements for PC games to run at full glory mode. That's when you'll really feel the age of the hardware. But again, it depends, maybe you don't care running stuff at low settings and resolutions. A lot of good PC ports tend to scale pretty well with hardware. Plus, we also have to see just what kind of advantage AMD starts racking up due to consoles using GCN (or if it has any advantage whatsoever).

Anyways, you buy a rMBP because it has a good (default) OS, a great screen, it packs some serious (CPU side) power, it's light and compact, and as a bonus, it can game decently. If your priorities are the exact inverse of that, you might be better served looking at Razer or other similar stuff.

PC gaming and Console gaming are two different breeds. One has nothing to do with the advance of the other. They may be the same games but they are not built the same. Developers only have to worry about 1 set of hardware when developing for console. PC developers have to worry about many, many, many configurations.

Graphics are pushed harder on PCs then they are on Consoles. This is why there are generally different resolution and graphics settings. Low/med/ high/ultra... etc. Consoles are locked to 720p; PC's are not.

As time goes on developers push boundaries of what they can do to the hardware. A lot of companies put out ultra settings that wont work on todays cards but will probably work on next years cards.

----------

"Apple fans" saying MacBooks aren't for 'gaming' is almost as damaging to Apple's worth as a brand as any successful Windows counterparts.

MacBooks are for whatever the user wants to use them for. Plain and simple. If you want to use it for gaming, it's 'for gaming' along with every other task they're exceptionally good at.

The Retina MacBook Pro from 2012 bested almost every gaming laptop in its price range for performance and a lot of gamers use it because they are gamers AND designers/engineers and can't afford to have two systems.

I play Borderlands 2 on my MacBook Pro and it runs exceptionally well. It can handle PS2 emulation (So in essence it gives me a gaming aspect that Sony's very own PS3 can't). It can handle quite a few games at good graphics settings and it can definitely fill the 'gaming void' if needed. The 750m and Iris Pro based chipsets are at minimum 50% better.

You have to be joking. There is no way the bolded happened. I can name 4 better brands for performance/price off the top of my head. Talking outside of build quality and OS... I'm talking raw power.

 

[johnnylarue]

You want at least 60 fps no matter what kind of gamer you are.

A bunch of my favourite PS3 games routinely dip into 30FPS territory. I think your insistence on the 60FPS requirement might be indicative of an online-gaming/shooter bias. I find games plenty playable in the 40FPS range, and don't mind occasional dips into the 30s.

But, in spite of my 30 years of experience, I still don't consider myself a "pro" gamer so your mileage may vary.

 

[Scott7975]

A bunch of my favourite PS3 games routinely dip into 30FPS territory. I think your insistence on the 60FPS requirement might be indicative of an online-gaming/shooter bias. I find games plenty playable in the 40FPS range, and don't mind occasional dips into the 30s.

But, in spite of my 30 years of experience, I still don't consider myself a "pro" gamer so your mileage may vary.

Yes, I am mostly talking about online games like fps, rts, mmos... etc. That hitch can and will be the difference of life and death.

When you play solo player games a hitch down into 30 is nothing. When you are playing multiplayer games hitching can get more severe as the game is trying to load multiple peoples actions. Ive played MMOs while getting 100fps and dipped down into a hitching laggy 20. It all depends on the load.

 

[Freyqq]

The Witcher 2 is actually one of the few PC games I'd really like to check out. Have you given it a try on your new MBP yet?

on my 15" with 750M, I get about 30 fps on medium with high textures in windows.

 

[appleii.c]

The thread is "How long will the 750m be able to handle gaming?" The OP is asking how long it will still work for next gen games. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Current games, meaning games launching now, run so so at medium settings. So so meaning sub 60 fps. I don't care if you are a "professional" gamer or not, and that's not the term I would use, sub 60 fps sucks. Once you are under load you will spike down and cause hitching. Hitching sucks for any game player. You want at least 60 fps no matter what kind of gamer you are.

Anyhow, if current games run like that then next year games will run like that on low settings if you are lucky. 2 years from now you wont be running Battlefield 6.


"Or on Mac at all".... Hence my other posts that indicate that if you are a gamer you shouldn't be looking at a Mac for your gaming needs.

To be fair, if you are looking for upwards of 60fps on all heavy games on a laptop, you will be disappointed unless you go with a pure gaming laptop. Most laptops are going to be "outdated" in a couple of years anyway. Looking at a $2,400 Alienware laptop with a GTX 770M will give you about 62fps for battlefield 4 at high settings, and about 27fps on ultra settings. Get a game like Company of Heros 2 and you are looking at ~47fps on MED settings, nevermind high or ultra (according to notebookcheck.net). I think the MBP is fine if you are going to be gaming occasionally, not your primary use.

 

[Scott7975]

To be fair, if you are looking for upwards of 60fps on all heavy games on a laptop, you will be disappointed unless you go with a pure gaming laptop. Most laptops are going to be "outdated" in a couple of years anyway. Looking at a $2,400 Alienware laptop with a GTX 770M will give you about 62fps for battlefield 4 at high settings, and about 27fps on ultra settings. Get a game like Company of Heros 2 and you are looking at ~47fps on MED settings, nevermind high or ultra (according to notebookcheck.net). I think the MBP is fine if you are going to be gaming occasionally, not your primary use.

I don't disagree with anything you say here really. It has been what I been saying all along.. if gaming is your objective then you are looking at the wrong laptop. For the same price you can get an alienware with 770's in sli or a single 780. In either case not only are those among the best cards on the market... they are also upgradeable down the road.

What you say about low fps on ultra settings was my point. Developers design games for the future and push the limits of what the current gen can handle. If it handles at these settings now then next year the 750m will be outright junk. If you are ok with low settings and past games then you are fine.. That's not what the OP was asking. He was asking about the future. If BF4 gets 62fps on high settings, on a 770m... its only going to be terrible on a 750m. A 770m will smoke a 750m all day. That's a current gen game. Battlefield 5 will be near unplayable.

 

[johnnylarue]

on my 15" with 750M, I get about 30 fps on medium with high textures in windows.

Thanks, Freyqq.

Those numbers aren't super, but it definitely sounds playable at settings that aren't too hard on the eyes.

I wonder if performance in OSX would be any different? I know PC game ports often get toned down a bit graphically for OSX...

 

[Freyqq]

Thanks, Freyqq.

Those numbers aren't super, but it definitely sounds playable at settings that aren't too hard on the eyes.

I wonder if performance in OSX would be any different? I know PC game ports often get toned down a bit graphically for OSX...

It's already a terribly inefficiently coded game. I don't even want to think about it in OSX.

 

[goMac]

At Retuna res, you'll be compatible with modern games for about two minutes.

Turn down the res, and my laptops usually seem to work for a year or two well with new games. The PS4 and XBox One will keep games at a certain performance profile for a bit. The RMBP specs are at least somewhat competitive with those consoles.

 

[Mansali]

So it would be better for me to get a base 15 inch model and get a ps4 on the side.

That way I can do light gaming on the macbook pro while doing all the next gen gaming on the ps4?

Also out of curiosity, do games look better on Iris Pro or the ps3? Lets take Bioshock Infinite as an example.

 

[koban4max]

If I were to get a macbook pro with the 750m, how long should I expect it to keep up with the latest games? I wanna keep this laptop long term.

after reading the whole thread filled with posts...I'll say one thing: It's your money...do what you want with it.