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

aznguyen316 said:
yeah doesn't look too good..

from what I take it, gamer = medium, advanced = high and hardcore = ultra. There isn't a "low" setting
Click to expand...

well, someone on youtube was playing the leaked beta of the single player. he was playing with a 5670 which after some checking, i deduced to be close to the 6750m in the MBP high end. the guy on youtube was playing on 720p on gamer settings. not too shabby. it didn't look half bad and i watched the video on my dad's high res screen macbook pro from 2010. it honestly didn't look bad and the guy was doing ok fps wise.

EDIT: here is a link to part 1 of his videos on crysis 2 if you guys are interested. this is the guy who has the setup w/ a 5670
 
Last edited:
2011-03-01 18:42:43 - Crysis2Demo
Frames: 9627 - Time: 300000ms - Avg: 32.090 - Min: 25 - Max: 43

900p, Gamer, Pier 17 level with 12 players
 
Last edited:
I have a bad CPU and still get 12.188 (1280x1024) with the 3870x2 so I was a bit disappointed with the 10k score of the high Pro ... But again, I hope newer games will benefit from the up to date 6750 :)

Aaaah... gamer is low ... okay, I'll try that, hopefully I get more FPS :p

Greetings
Julian
 
Last edited:
I added a couple quotes from other peoples benchmarks to the first post so they can be found in one spot ..

So if i see anyone else posting some benchmarks then i will add them as i find them ..
 
aznguyen316 said:
gamer = medium, advanced = high and hardcore = ultra. There isn't a "low" setting
Click to expand...

I just want to confirm that, now with "gamer" I get between 30-40 fps, just recorded a little video with my iPhone an FRAPS running but than I realized that the upper left corner (with the fps) is cut off :mad: :p

One more try next time! I wish a nice evening/morning/day ... (4 am here ;) )

Greetings
Julian

PS: It does indeed look quite nice even on gamer :rolleyes:
 
computertechno said:
Crysis 2 on Macbook Pro 15"

Macbook Pro 15" 2011 2.3ghz, Crysis 2 Demo, Advanced Settings, Gameplay
1680x1050 / check FPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31q1Q7jZPpY

Macbook Pro 15" 2011 2.3ghz, Crysis 2 Demo, Gamer Settings, Gameplay
1440x900 / check FPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9_dTw_MwII
Click to expand...

And again nobody mentions the Catalyst driver version. If they just used Boot Camp the old drivers will not max out the graphics card. Download Catalyst 11.2 and install it please. I am sure you'll get even more FPS then :)
 
computertechno said:
Crysis 2 on Macbook Pro 15"

Macbook Pro 15" 2011 2.3ghz, Crysis 2 Demo, Advanced Settings, Gameplay
1680x1050 / check FPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31q1Q7jZPpY

Macbook Pro 15" 2011 2.3ghz, Crysis 2 Demo, Gamer Settings, Gameplay
1440x900 / check FPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9_dTw_MwII
Click to expand...

This is nice! I plan to use my new MBP, which I am gonna get by the end of this month, with lightroom and other stuff, sometimes for L4D and other valve games, (my gaming rig with 460 GTX and the xbox 360 are there for the gaming) but if I can play crysis 2 on my laptop (and the future games based on cryengine 3) it is a great news indeed and a surplus :)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Haha I love people saying that 24 fps is enough for the human eye.

Try playing a game in 30fps then in 60fps. It's a huge difference.

What matters is the refreshrate of the screen. If its 60hz, there is no
Point in having a game run at 150fps. 60fps is the most the screen can show you.

Most gaming screens have 100hz now. And I promise you that you can see a difference between 60hz/fps to 100hz/fps aswell.

People should stop talking about stud they don't know anything about.
 
So my question is: If you were me and had a PS3 and a new Macbook Pro, which version of Dragon Age II would you get? Mac or PS3?
 
I had asked several pages ago if anyone had compared the performance of the high-end 15" model to an i5 iMac with a 4850. Now that I have my MacBook Pro in-hand, I've done this testing on my own. Here are the results:

i5 iMac (4850/8GB's of Ram): 11193 (at defaults)
15" i7 (6750/8GB's of Ram): 9653 (at defaults)

(Please note: the i5 iMac has upgraded drivers installed; the MacBook Pro does not)

While the MacBook Pro doesn't perform well enough for me to cannibalize the iMac, it's a fairly staggering result.

Subjective testing was a little more sobering. I played the Dragon Age 2 demo on high settings on both machines. Both were running at native resolution; the iMac was playable, but far from smooth -- as was the MacBook Pro. Which means anyone aspiring to use their new MacBook Pro with a 27" Cinema Display will find themselves (like I have) slightly disappointed with performance. That's not to say it's a disappointingly performing machine -- only that anyone who may be thinking of replacing their older iMac (and is a casual gamer) might want to consider holding on to it.

I'm upgrading from an '09 C2D MacBook Pro myself. While it's still a serviceable machine, the new unit has far exceeded my expectations, in nearly every way (contrary to what's been said above). My only gripe, if I have one, is that I'm now slightly torn as to which machine to do the majority of my work on.
 
Superhero360 said:
And again nobody mentions the Catalyst driver version. If they just used Boot Camp the old drivers will not max out the graphics card. Download Catalyst 11.2 and install it please. I am sure you'll get even more FPS then :)
Click to expand...

I tried. Catalyst 11.2 says that it wont support the hardware. it is from 2/15/2011... we might need to wait for the next one.
 
Commonmind said:
I had asked several pages ago if anyone had compared the performance of the high-end 15" model to an i5 iMac with a 4850. Now that I have my MacBook Pro in-hand, I've done this testing on my own. Here are the results:

i5 iMac (4850/8GB's of Ram): 11193 (at defaults)
15" i7 (6750/8GB's of Ram): 9653 (at defaults)

(Please note: the i5 iMac has upgraded drivers installed; the MacBook Pro does not)

While the MacBook Pro doesn't perform well enough for me to cannibalize the iMac, it's a fairly staggering result.

Subjective testing was a little more sobering. I played the Dragon Age 2 demo on high settings on both machines. Both were running at native resolution; the iMac was playable, but far from smooth -- as was the MacBook Pro. Which means anyone aspiring to use their new MacBook Pro with a 27" Cinema Display will find themselves (like I have) slightly disappointed with performance. That's not to say it's a disappointingly performing machine -- only that anyone who may be thinking of replacing their older iMac (and is a casual gamer) might want to consider holding on to it.

I'm upgrading from an '09 C2D MacBook Pro myself. While it's still a serviceable machine, the new unit has far exceeded my expectations, in nearly every way (contrary to what's been said above). My only gripe, if I have one, is that I'm now slightly torn as to which machine to do the majority of my work on.
Click to expand...

Quick question if you don't mind. I'm looking at picking up the same MBP myself and I do game a little bit in between of studying session to blow off steam. Did you run your Dragon Age 2 demo on a 900p screen or a 1050p screen? I'm so torn between regular and Hi-Res! lol
 
3ormorewolves said:
So my question is: If you were me and had a PS3 and a new Macbook Pro, which version of Dragon Age II would you get? Mac or PS3?
Click to expand...


unless you want to carry it around with you, get the PS3. i almost bought it a few weeks ago when EA had a crazy sale and was going to buy the PS3 over the x-box version
 
Alucard Crux said:
Quick question if you don't mind. I'm looking at picking up the same MBP myself and I do game a little bit in between of studying session to blow off steam. Did you run your Dragon Age 2 demo on a 900p screen or a 1050p screen? I'm so torn between regular and Hi-Res! lol
Click to expand...

I'm sorry; I should've clarified. This was on the higher resolution display, running at native res. Of course it's a matter of taste, but comparing my old MacBook Pro alongside the new, I have a difficult time understanding how I lived without even those few extra pixels.
 
Commonmind said:
I had asked several pages ago if anyone had compared the performance of the high-end 15" model to an i5 iMac with a 4850. Now that I have my MacBook Pro in-hand, I've done this testing on my own. Here are the results:

i5 iMac (4850/8GB's of Ram): 11193 (at defaults)
15" i7 (6750/8GB's of Ram): 9653 (at defaults)

(Please note: the i5 iMac has upgraded drivers installed; the MacBook Pro does not)

While the MacBook Pro doesn't perform well enough for me to cannibalize the iMac, it's a fairly staggering result.

Subjective testing was a little more sobering. I played the Dragon Age 2 demo on high settings on both machines. Both were running at native resolution; the iMac was playable, but far from smooth -- as was the MacBook Pro. Which means anyone aspiring to use their new MacBook Pro with a 27" Cinema Display will find themselves (like I have) slightly disappointed with performance. That's not to say it's a disappointingly performing machine -- only that anyone who may be thinking of replacing their older iMac (and is a casual gamer) might want to consider holding on to it.

I'm upgrading from an '09 C2D MacBook Pro myself. While it's still a serviceable machine, the new unit has far exceeded my expectations, in nearly every way (contrary to what's been said above). My only gripe, if I have one, is that I'm now slightly torn as to which machine to do the majority of my work on.
Click to expand...

doesn't the iMac push a higher resolution so it needs more power?

it's also hard to keep up with graphics cards these days since everyone uses the same generation number even if the chip is really a previous generation one as is with the 6490. and to make it worse with yield management AMD and Nvidia are always disabling different features that affect performance. this is why some older cards run rings around the newer ones
 
henrikrox said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Haha I love people saying that 24 fps is enough for the human eye.

Try playing a game in 30fps then in 60fps. It's a huge difference.

What matters is the refreshrate of the screen. If its 60hz, there is no
Point in having a game run at 150fps. 60fps is the most the screen can show you.
Most gaming screens have 100hz now. And I promise you that you can see a difference betwee60hz/fps to 100hz/fps aswell.
Click to expand...

that may be but 24-30 fps is most definitely playable. 60 is better but I'm happy with 24-30 fps.

People should stop talking about stud they don't know anything about.[/QUOTE]
 
alent1234 said:
doesn't the iMac push a higher resolution so it needs more power?

it's also hard to keep up with graphics cards these days since everyone uses the same generation number even if the chip is really a previous generation one as is with the 6490. and to make it worse with yield management AMD and Nvidia are always disabling different features that affect performance. this is why some older cards run rings around the newer ones
Click to expand...

That's what I was implying when I said that at its native resolution the MacBook Pro was giving similar performance to the iMac at its native resolution, and that anyone wondering if they might be able to game on a 2560x1440/1600 display would be disappointed -- in other words, the MacBook Pro would be struggling to keep up at the iMac's resolution.

As a self-contained machine, the MacBook Pro is fantastic -- it's just not a solid plug-and-Cinema-dis-play replacement for those casual gamers looking to cannibalize their iMacs (like I might've done had the performance been more on par with the 4850).

And it's definitely a confusing market. I started building custom PC's about the time Voodoo launched its first iteration of cards. I became a big player in the overclocking arena and spent oodles of time pushing old P4 1.6a's and Ti 300/500's to their max, building liquid cooling systems when buying a reservoir was a difficult process, given the limited manufacturers and retailers available. Work and personal life pulled me away from the hobby a few years ago, and I was on enthusiast blackout for quite some time. Ironically it is much easier to do the things I used to do with jumpers, volt mods and prayers, but the market is also much more confusing -- as a result I find no urge to get back into it.
 
Commonmind said:
That's what I was implying when I said that at its native resolution the MacBook Pro was giving similar performance to the iMac at its native resolution, and that anyone wondering if they might be able to game on a 2560x1440/1600 display would be disappointed -- in other words, the MacBook Pro would be struggling to keep up at the iMac's resolution.

As a self-contained machine, the MacBook Pro is fantastic -- it's just not a solid plug-and-Cinema-dis-play replacement for those casual gamers looking to cannibalize their iMacs (like I might've done had the performance been more on par with the 4850).

And it's definitely a confusing market. I started building custom PC's about the time Voodoo launched its first iteration of cards. I became a big player in the overclocking arena and spent oodles of time pushing old P4 1.6a's and Ti 300/500's to their max, building liquid cooling systems when buying a reservoir was a difficult process, given the limited manufacturers and retailers available. Work and personal life pulled me away from the hobby a few years ago, and I was on enthusiast blackout for quite some time. Ironically it is much easier to do the things I used to do with jumpers, volt mods and prayers, but the market is also much more confusing -- as a result I find no urge to get back into it.
Click to expand...

Honestly, i never expected the new MBP to do any decent gaming at that high resolution. If it cna game at 1680x1050, that is amazing in itself. Reason being that even SLI rigs struggle at times to play at 2560x1600.
 
Commonmind said:
I'm sorry; I should've clarified. This was on the higher resolution display, running at native res. Of course it's a matter of taste, but comparing my old MacBook Pro alongside the new, I have a difficult time understanding how I lived without even those few extra pixels.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is and I would definitely enjoy the extra screen real estate. But, I guess I'll stick with 900p and just slap on an external when I need the extra pixels.

Thanks for the info!
 
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