Sidebar Sidebar
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

goldsaint said:
here is the 1 st part : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgnWCFOHumc
too tired for the rest (takes too long) gonna do it tomorrow.

Tell me what you think please.
Click to expand...

Where do I start....

You have multi GPU selected.. why?

No, radial, AA, MSAA, Shaders, SSAO, Motion Blur ECT...

Well thats a good start right there. Also, when you have explosions or moving objects, its obvious that the 330m gets pimp slapped and drops FPS.

Again, the 330m is a good card, and would get you by to next revision, but the new 11 is a fantastic update.

I fully agree that Apple is notorious for giving small bumps, but this time they did deliver.

This is without OC and Crysis 2 mod tool...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13sTJlYIM0k
 
goldsaint said:
here is the 1 st part : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgnWCFOHumc
too tired for the rest (takes too long) gonna do it tomorrow.

Tell me what you think please.
Click to expand...

First of all, you turn ALL the effects off..

Including shadows, SSAO, AA..etc every possible options you turn them off..

And the colors are just HORRIBLE to begin with.

This is definitely NOT very high, since Very High is just Extreme without AA.

Even with your Extremely Low graphic settings, you are NOT even close to the Fps that you claim.

Hell 6750 can handle Very High setting in game without any mod and run smooth like butter.

You sounds like you never actually own a MBP 2011 models with 6750..
 
goldsaint said:
here is the 1 st part : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgnWCFOHumc
too tired for the rest (takes too long) gonna do it tomorrow.

Tell me what you think please.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, this is not extraordinary considering you're playing with no shadows or AF. I can understand vsync or AA as those are commonly turned off for gamers. I'm not even a huge fan of shadows in many games, but if you've played Crysis 1, you'll understand shadows are nearly as important as shaders when it comes to the beauty of the game. Shadows are a must for CryEngine if you want to get the full graphical effect. Even then with that turned off and nearly everything else turned off, you'll peak at 42-43 and dips to 20's. It's good, but to compare it to the 6750 and I'll get much better FPS. Appreciate the video since I know it can be a pain in the ass with upload speeds.

One of my videos I had the cam off the fraps so I can't show FPS but I'll go ahead and load into Crysis 2 now, put it on similar settings (although I can't do 1440x900, only 1680x1050 or 1280x800) and I'll see how my FPS are without shadows etc on extrema via wasdie. Will post back to compare.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

aznguyen316... You from Arizona?

Anyways, you have offered several game vids on YouTube and want to thank you for that.

Also, have you tried the extreme overclocking techniques found here in the fourms?

I can wait to give them a spin. 15+ FPS gain!
 
Mavin, nope I'm originally from Kansas, but now currently a Florida resident, in Tampa for grad school. Thanks for the kind words, I enjoy making videos =)

I did a quick run through Crysis 2, went ahead and overclocked the AMD6750 for some "even footing" and since I don't have a 1440x900 screen I did native 1680x1050 and also 1280x1024 which is pretty close to 1440x900 in resolution pixels. Overclocked core to 820 and memory to 950 using MSI afterburner, no voltage tweaks.

Anyway, used the wadie settings set to goldsaint's video, where everything was at extreme unchecking a few boxes, no AF, no AA, no SSAO none of that. At native x1050 on the FDR bridge (where it's all dusty at first) and going through that it was around 35-50FPS. Never ever dipped below 35.

Next, I dropped the resolution down to 1280x1024 which is still more pixels than 1440x900, I was hitting 50FPS and got up to 70FPS. I expect at 1440x900 I would be getting very similar results. It ranged probably from 40-60 most of the time.

But to me, this is kind of pointless because turning off shadows and color gradient made the game look funky. It was like I was on the xbox 360. I have a 360 but chose to get it on PC so I could make use of the awesome Cryengine. I'll be going back to to playing with some of the other tweaks like HDR/Bloom on, SSAO, shadows, texture filtering, etc and really only turning off AA and motion blur. But yeah, 330m doesn't really compare, IMO to the 6750. Not bashing, but just throwing out my findings =)
 
Last edited:
Overclocking from stock 600 to 750 gives a huge fps boost in crysis 2 but after that the gains are minimal, not sure if this is because memory or cpu is bottlenecking. I'm getting 30-60 on high default settings 1680x1050.

Catalyst AI is forced ON for apple 11.2 drivers, going to try a registry tweak to turn it off, probably make crysis 2 run even better.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

aznguyen316..

Not to hijack this thread, but looking through your YouTube videos, you had a glassy MBP 2011 in Feb, but you have been posting in April with an AntiGlare.

Did you switch out to AG? What are your thoughts with games and video in the dark Vs Glassy?

Thanks again.

Chill everyone, just making an observation. This is not intended to be a G Vs AG war. Just want to know one users impression.

After looking closer, it was a 13".
 
Maven1975 said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

aznguyen316..

Not to hijack this thread, but looking through your YouTube videos, you had a glassy MBP 2011 in Feb, but you have been posting in April with an AntiGlare.

Did you switch out to AG? What are your thoughts with games and video in the dark Vs Glassy?

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Sup guy, yeah it was a 13" but I definitely prefer the AG screen overall. But if you're just talking about playing in the dark, I don't think there's a big difference between the two as there's no glare and both colors are pretty much the same to me. I compared two 15" in store side by side for a long time and didn't notice much of a color difference. I wanted hi-res for sure and I went for AG because reflections are a pain in the butt. If I was going to spend the money, why not another $100 (since I was getting hi-res) for the AG. I make use of it more than I think I would. My desk is near a window, so there is always minor glare during the day. When I take my MBP on to campus, the Union is brightly lit via glass windows everywhere, but I had no problems working with my brightness still turned down to save on battery.

To keep it on gaming, games use a lot of blacks and that's when reflections are most noticeable to me. Don't have an issue there!
 
for those looking for metro 2033 benches, there is one in this thread. it seems to run okay on medium settings with 1xAA and 4xAF at a res on 1440x900. So i would wager it might run okay at 1680x1050 if the AA and AF were turned off.

EDIT: forgot to mention that dx11 was on. so i suppose of dx11 was off, it would run nice on the high-res.

EDIT2: i did some research and watched some vids on how the gtx260m did with metro 2033. since it doesn't support dx11, i can't comment on that. it seems to run well on FHD w/ 4xaf and some AA on dx9 mode. I don't think dx10 would have a large effect so i think it should run decently given that dx11 is turned off.:) happy gaming ppl!
 
Last edited:
Please explain to me...

Can SOMEONE explain to me why on my 2011 Macbook Pro:

1) Using Bootcamp, I run Starcraft 2 on Medium and low graphics settings (see attached picture file for exact settings), plugged in, and the computer still stutters during the medium AND large battles, almost to the point where it is impossible to micro

  • I am running on 1680x1050 resolution. No external displays.
  • I installed the catalyst 11.3 and 11.4 drivers recently before uninstalling them and opting for the latest boot camp drivers.
  • It seems like everyone else in this thread has got Starcraft 2 to run at much better graphical settings than I have without this stuttering frame rate issue during the huge battles.

2) How people are getting the 1440x900 resolution option on bootcamp when they have a 1680x1050 monitor? Or are they running the game in Mac OSX?

Please help...I'm pretty sure right now the game ran smoother on my 2010 Macbook Pro with the 330M...how I love nVidia drivers...at least they updated monthly and were officially supported by Apple's Boot Camp program.

Thanks so much in advance.

EDIT: I just read Goldsaint's post on the previous page. While I cannot say that I've gotten those high of frame rates on Starcraft II with the 330M, I can say that the frame rates I am getting with the 6750M are MUCH lower than the 330M on similar settings, with both cards NOT overclocked. goldsaint may be right. however. From what I've seen, the 6750M might actually be WORSE for gaming on bootcamp.

goldsaint said:
i cant believe the results of the test i have made te past month between a macbook pro 2010 vs 2011. if you remember, i posted here a while ago and i for test purposes i bought a macbook pro 2011 that i sent back to Apple 2 weeks ago. i keep my 2010 machine with the gt330m.

lets see some fps :

1) starcraft 2 (1440x900, all in ultra, no vsync)
gt330 : 60-90 fps (depends of maps, numbers of players etc)
6750 : 40-78fps (wierd isnt it)

in OSX, 6750 is much better than the gt330m thats for sure and users from 2010 to 2011 macbook pro will immediately notice. thats not due 100% to te new hardware, it seems ati has the best driver support on osx than windows and vice versa for gt330 : best under win7, worst performance in osx.

worth spending money for a new model ?
answer is no if you are going to use win7 for gaming, envoding and video editing. BUT, if you chose OSX to do all of that, i highly recommand the 2011 model.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • SC2 graphics settings.PNG
    SC2 graphics settings.PNG
    112.6 KB · Views: 113
Last edited:
^ I haven't tried playing SC2 in Bootcamp only b/c it plays so well in OSX at high settings. It doesn't drop much and never to any unbearable levels. Ultra is not necessary for me so I haven't bothered installing on my Windows partition. So I can't help you there. If you experience the same issues within OSX then maybe there's something going on. But at this point I feel it's a driver issue in Windows.

As for the resolution, most people are probably playing 1440x900 because that's their native res. It's more common than 1680x1050, and if someone with the hi-res scales down, often it's to 1280x800 to keep the 16:10 aspect ratio. I don't think anyone with the hi-res is playing at 1440x900
 
superkrups20056 said:
Can SOMEONE explain to me why on my 2011 Macbook Pro:

1) Using Bootcamp, I run Starcraft 2 on Medium and low graphics settings (see attached picture file for exact settings), plugged in, and the computer still stutters during the medium AND large battles, almost to the point where it is impossible to micro

  • I am running on 1680x1050 resolution. No external displays.
  • I installed the catalyst 11.3 and 11.4 drivers recently before uninstalling them and opting for the latest boot camp drivers.
  • It seems like everyone else in this thread has got Starcraft 2 to run at much better graphical settings than I have without this stuttering frame rate issue during the huge battles.

2) How people are getting the 1440x900 resolution option on bootcamp when they have a 1680x1050 monitor? Or are they running the game in Mac OSX?

Please help...I'm pretty sure right now the game ran smoother on my 2010 Macbook Pro with the 330M...how I love nVidia drivers...at least they updated monthly and were officially supported by Apple's Boot Camp program.

Thanks so much in advance.

EDIT: I just read Goldsaint's post on the previous page. While I cannot say that I've gotten those high of frame rates on Starcraft II with the 330M, I can say that the frame rates I am getting with the 6750M are MUCH lower than the 330M on similar settings, with both cards NOT overclocked. goldsaint may be right. however. From what I've seen, the 6750M might actually be WORSE for gaming on bootcamp.
Click to expand...
yea, something is wrong. I don't know what, but something is up. those numbers should look much better than that.
 
Necriss said:
Umm do these identify the card as 6750M or still saying its 6600/6700 series...
If its the latter I don't suggest using them.
Click to expand...

That is correct, that is how it suppose to show..

With 6970 or 6950 on desktop it will say 6900 series.

Since its the same cheap for both 6600 and 6700, the information is correct, nothing wrong with it.

I am running it now and I can run SC2 on ultra setting without a problem.
 
11.4 Drivers didn't do much for me.

adrian1480 said:
yea, something is wrong. I don't know what, but something is up. those numbers should look much better than that.
Click to expand...

I installed the 11.4 drivers you specified for Windows 64 bit, and they didn't change a thing on the Boot Camp side :( The laptop still gets around 20-22 FPS on all high settings and 27-30 FPS on medium settings when the drones first start mining at the beginning of Starcraft II. Of course, when the battles start occuring, these numbers plunge dramatically. My 330M on my 2010 Macbook Pro did much, much better with Starcraft II.

  • I am getting these FPS numbers by hitting Ctrl + Alt + F in Starcraft II.
  • What is the chance of my graphics card being defective?
  • If it is defective, how do I convince the Genius Bar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back