Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macbook Pro 15inch 2011 ATI 6750m Game Benchmarks
- Thread starter Quazimojo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm in the same boat as miscarriage. I have the core i7 iMac and I have an offer on the table to sell it, but I've never used a laptop as my "main" computer.
Do iLife stuff, etc but play a ton of World of Warcraft, (StarcraftII).
I also own on of the 24 inch Cinema displays so I'd be playing at 1920 x 1080
So yeah consider me "torn" on this as well lol
Do iLife stuff, etc but play a ton of World of Warcraft, (StarcraftII).
I also own on of the 24 inch Cinema displays so I'd be playing at 1920 x 1080
So yeah consider me "torn" on this as well lol
Yeah i wanted the lower res for the best frames when i am gaming and on a 15inch i am happy with 1440 but i know its not for everyone..
Very smart move on picking the lower res for gaming. I'm on 1680x1050 on a PC desktop still for gaming as moving up the resolution will require significantly more horsepower.
I believe the GPUs in the iMacs are not mobile parts. You can't compare a mobile class GPU to a desktop class GPU. The desktop 4850 will kill the fastest mobile GPU.
That being said, the 6750M in the new MacBook Pros are great. Depending on the types of games you're playing and the resolution you're playing at it may be enough.
Negative, it is a mobile part. With the Nehalem update in 2010, iMacs got desktop-class CPUs. The GPUs on the other hand remained mobile. The Radeon 5750 you see in the upper range iMac appears to be a special 5850 Mobility chip.
The iMac GPUs are a joke for any serious gaming given their ridiculously high resolution. And the 21-incher is limited in what you can get for the GPU, so its crippled badly too. At native resolution, it looks like the low-res 15" 2011 MBPs are the best for gaming, aside from some ridiculously pricey Mac Pro.
Hey thanks for confirming that. Apple didn't slap on the "M" behind their Radeon parts on the iMacs. They really should.
In that case, it shouldn't make much of a performance difference. Perhaps the MBPs will be perceived to be better because the native resolution is lower? Newer GDDR chips and more unified shaders?
It won't be that big of a difference (at the same resolution).
I found a video of one of the new 17" MBP's readily handling WoW on ultra.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlHx1ylAwaI
Thanks for so much information!
So what would you suggest? Staying at iMac + MBA? Or switching to MBP 15"?
So what would you suggest? Staying at iMac + MBA? Or switching to MBP 15"?
iMac 27" late 2009 has ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850.
Also, it has just 512MB, while the new MBP has 1GB.
So, I think that MBP wins.
Totally agree. My mistake on the misled belief of it being a desktop part.
Only if Apple actually wrote "ATI Mobility". Or added the M moniker behind the model number. Because they didn't, and it's totally confusing. Desktop CPU, HD, but notebook GPU and RAM? LOL WTF.
I will try to get a 3dmark06 run up later today when i have time and a few more benchmarks also..
I dont play Starcraft 2 nor FSX so i wont be able to help with those sorry..
The CPU score was not artificially inflated as we are not running an Nvidia GPU anymore so even if Physx were enabled it would have to all be run through software. The CPU scores on these new chips are just insane.
I really wanted to get Crysis and Vantage out there because these are good indicators of what to expect from the GPU and how well other games are going to run ..
I dont play Starcraft 2 nor FSX so i wont be able to help with those sorry..
The CPU score was not artificially inflated as we are not running an Nvidia GPU anymore so even if Physx were enabled it would have to all be run through software. The CPU scores on these new chips are just insane
.I really wanted to get Crysis and Vantage out there because these are good indicators of what to expect from the GPU and how well other games are going to run ..
not sure why you wouldn't sell and get the new MBP. You get portability and the fact you have a cinema display is good for the "desktop" feeling Plus the power of the new MBP's...
Was running Starcraft 2 with everything turned to high at 1440x900 last night and getting steady frames around 40fps. This was run in native OSX. I also turned it up to Ultra and it ran well enough to play. I just didn't see enough of a change in the graphics quality to warrant the fps drop. This was all on the 2.2ghz 15" i7 HD6750m model w/ 4 GB Ram.
I have not loaded up WoW yet but it is nice to see that the ultra settings run very well.
I have not loaded up WoW yet but it is nice to see that the ultra settings run very well.
Thanks for that; WoW is the game that I play the most so it's good to see it running. The 10% CPU usage is shocking... my current system sits at about 170
The iMac 5750 is stronger than the 6750, by a fair margin.
Also, the guy running it on ultra has shadows downgraded.
Shadows are far and away the most demanding part of WoW, so it's not overly impressive. I can run wow under OSX with EVERYTHING on ultra in 2560x1440 and get 30fps roughly. That turns into 40+ under windows.
Thats 2560x1440 res, remember, with shadows at ultra, water sun ect all ultra.
Also, the guy running it on ultra has shadows downgraded.
Shadows are far and away the most demanding part of WoW, so it's not overly impressive. I can run wow under OSX with EVERYTHING on ultra in 2560x1440 and get 30fps roughly. That turns into 40+ under windows.
Thats 2560x1440 res, remember, with shadows at ultra, water sun ect all ultra.
VRAM is just one of the thing to look at when you compare GPU. The 6750M won't be faster than the 4850M of the iMac.
Back in the 4800 Series days, the 4850M was the second fastest Mobile single GPU from ATI and was actually a down-clocked desktop 4850. The amount of memory and DX11 compatibility are actually the only things that the 6750M has over the 4850M.
The 6750M should be a bit faster than the 5670 (aka 5730M) found in the current iMac which isn't bad at all for a notebook of this thinness. I'm actually surprised they managed to fit a quad-core and this GPU in the enclosure !
All right, thx for this statement. I think I'll stay with my iMac + MBA Combo... :-/
gt330m vs 6750 hd
ok guys, for those who got the new one with the 6750, how does it compare with the gt330 from the mid-2010 i7 15" macbook pro.
here is my exp with the gt330, i copy/paste what i wrote on another forum :
Thx God i found this forum !
i am a very very serious starcraft 2 geek and i own a macbook pro mid-2010 with the core i7 2.66GHz and the GT330M 512Mb GDDR3.
My goal with this machine is to test Starcraft 2 and get the best out of it graphics wise and also by performance.
My post will greatly help you decide if you should get the mid 2010 or the new 2011 quad core, as i am on the same boat with you guys, cause obviously my main concern is this :
GT330M vs 6750M = How do they really compare ?
First off, i want to point that all the tests i red on barefeet mac, geekbench etc are not really accurate for gamers like us because they use stock drivers and do not improve machine perf with latest windows 7 updates, drivers, backgrounds services etc.
My machine is running Bootcamp windows 7 64bit ultimate edition and has 4Gb of Ram (3.86Gb usable). i get an overall score of 5.9 in Windows exp index.
Details :
1- processor : 6.9
2- memory : 5.9
3- graphics : 6.5
4- gaming graphics : 6.5
5- primary hdd : 5.9
With apple stock drivers i had 6.3 in Both graphics, But i downloaded the drivers from Laptopvideo.com aka 267.05 which gave me outstanding results.
Plus i overclocked the GT330 with Nvidia inspector to :
GPU Clock : 650 (original is 500)
Memory : 900 (original 790)
Shader : 1430 (original 1100)
My fans and heat dont go up 73 degrees which is BEST.
Now the FPS in Starcraft 2 :
if i put all in medium i get 90-130 FPS in 4v4, Desert Strike Games
High, i get 70-90
ultra, i get 55-60
During gigantic battles, i get a steady 30-36 FPS.
Of course, keep in mind that the internet connection of other players can reduce greatly the fps during gameplay... thats a fact i learnt.
Now i gave you all my tests, and i want to know the same with the Radeon 6750 to really know if its worth it or not.
The other day i was testing an Acer gaming laptop with a geforce gtx460 and Starcraft 2 gave a powerful 70FPS out of the box with Stock drivers ! i hate acer laptop cause they are poorly made, but performance wise they seem to be very good. If the new 2011 macbook pro can achieve the same 70 fps ootb, i will go for it.
Waiting for your results guys
ok guys, for those who got the new one with the 6750, how does it compare with the gt330 from the mid-2010 i7 15" macbook pro.
here is my exp with the gt330, i copy/paste what i wrote on another forum :
Thx God i found this forum !
i am a very very serious starcraft 2 geek and i own a macbook pro mid-2010 with the core i7 2.66GHz and the GT330M 512Mb GDDR3.
My goal with this machine is to test Starcraft 2 and get the best out of it graphics wise and also by performance.
My post will greatly help you decide if you should get the mid 2010 or the new 2011 quad core, as i am on the same boat with you guys, cause obviously my main concern is this :
GT330M vs 6750M = How do they really compare ?
First off, i want to point that all the tests i red on barefeet mac, geekbench etc are not really accurate for gamers like us because they use stock drivers and do not improve machine perf with latest windows 7 updates, drivers, backgrounds services etc.
My machine is running Bootcamp windows 7 64bit ultimate edition and has 4Gb of Ram (3.86Gb usable). i get an overall score of 5.9 in Windows exp index.
Details :
1- processor : 6.9
2- memory : 5.9
3- graphics : 6.5
4- gaming graphics : 6.5
5- primary hdd : 5.9
With apple stock drivers i had 6.3 in Both graphics, But i downloaded the drivers from Laptopvideo.com aka 267.05 which gave me outstanding results.
Plus i overclocked the GT330 with Nvidia inspector to :
GPU Clock : 650 (original is 500)
Memory : 900 (original 790)
Shader : 1430 (original 1100)
My fans and heat dont go up 73 degrees which is BEST.
Now the FPS in Starcraft 2 :
if i put all in medium i get 90-130 FPS in 4v4, Desert Strike Games
High, i get 70-90
ultra, i get 55-60
During gigantic battles, i get a steady 30-36 FPS.
Of course, keep in mind that the internet connection of other players can reduce greatly the fps during gameplay... thats a fact i learnt.
Now i gave you all my tests, and i want to know the same with the Radeon 6750 to really know if its worth it or not.
The other day i was testing an Acer gaming laptop with a geforce gtx460 and Starcraft 2 gave a powerful 70FPS out of the box with Stock drivers ! i hate acer laptop cause they are poorly made, but performance wise they seem to be very good. If the new 2011 macbook pro can achieve the same 70 fps ootb, i will go for it.
Waiting for your results guys
The problem with the video is that he is in relatively unpopulated areas, so of course the framerate is high. I would like to see the fps in a 25 man raid boss encounter, or a BG where there is lots of fighting going on around the player, or Org in trade district during prime time. I'd bet the frame rates would be significantly lower.