Macbook Pro, how good is it for gaming?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by CasiLindberg, May 27, 2008.

  1. CasiLindberg macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #1
    I am just wondering exactly how good a macbook pro with these specs, would be at running games.

    2.4Ghz, 2Gb RAM, 256Mb VRAM (low end latest rev macbook pro)

    At what fps would games such as Call of Duty 4 and even crysis run at medium-high specs.

    Thanks
     
  2. ert3 macrumors 6502a

    ert3

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #2
    It handled crysis with dignity.

    Gears of war with little difficulty.

    Rainbow 6 Vegas with grace.

    and EVE-Online with reliability.

    nuff said
     
  3. Bobioden macrumors 68000

    Bobioden

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Location:
    Denver
    #3

    How did it handle it with DIGNITY, GRACE or RELIABILITY??

    How is that 'nuff said? You didn't say anything.
     
  4. Feng Shui macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    #4
    i have the 256mb graphic 15" penry MPB. it runs crysis on all high settings at 1000x700ish resolution with no problem. my only complaint is the noise and heat it makes
     
  5. ert3 macrumors 6502a

    ert3

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #5
    Dignity= very seldom did I get lag and considering how the computer that can play this game supposedly does not exist I think it did pretty well

    Grace= Looked like it did on my PS3 and felt like playing a normal console game.

    Reliability= no hangs no freezing and certainly no slow downs.
     
  6. Bobioden macrumors 68000

    Bobioden

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Location:
    Denver
    #6
    Now it makes sense.
     
  7. RITZFit macrumors 65816

    RITZFit

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    In my Corner
    #7
    My 2.33 w/ a 256 card handles games like splinter cell doble agent, rainbow 6 vegas, battle feild 2, and the sims2 on high and close to high settings just fine. A 2.4 should do nicely
     
  8. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #8
    I'd say for the casual/average gamer its more than good enough but for the hardcore gamer its not enough probably alienware or xps kind of deal.

    I only play COD4 sometimes and it runs cod4 via 23" ACD at 1920x1200 without any problems with all the settings at high.
     
  9. MacBookProJoe macrumors regular

    MacBookProJoe

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle, Warshington
    #9
    Come on. I have a 4.5 ghz quad core with three 8800 GTX's in SLI and four 10,000 RPM Raptors and nobody is getting really good frame rates in Crysis with everything cranked on high! Let alone a laptop with a 8600 GT.

    Color me doubtful.
     
  10. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #10
    Nice desktop!
     
  11. MacBookProJoe macrumors regular

    MacBookProJoe

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle, Warshington
    #11

    Thanks. That QX9650 Yorkfield OC's like a dream. She's a speed demon to be sure. Four Raptors raided together are aweful fast too.
     
  12. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #12
    I wish I even had the space for that; I'm running a media center slim case; so no can do.

    And my MBP overheated today while gaming and it crashed... :(
     
  13. anirban macrumors 6502a

    anirban

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #13

    Which Crysis are we talking about? Surely not the one by EA right?
     
  14. e12a macrumors 68000

    e12a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    #14
    There's only one crysis, and yes he's talking about the one EA made...for me it runs playable at a lower resolution at medium.

    its a decent gaming computer, but you can certainly get a better one in terms of performance for cheaper/same price.

    what it comes down to is: is there a "gaming"-capable computer thats made of aluminum and one inch thick?
     
  15. anirban macrumors 6502a

    anirban

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #15
    Yeah I know, I was just trying to be a little funny. Yes, I can get it to run decently, but with taking a serious hit in quality.
     
  16. Vertigo50 macrumors 65816

    Vertigo50

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    #16
    I've been playing Half-Life 2 (I know it's a few years old) on my Macbook Pro 2.4 (June 07 revision), and with default quality settings, I can run it at 1680x1050 on a 22" monitor, and get 71fps. I haven't even taken the time to see how high I can get the settings. It runs ultra-smooth, though.

    Still, keep in mind, it's a laptop, so if you're looking for something that's going to run the absolute newest games at full settings with 8x anti-aliasing, etc. then you probably need to buy a desktop gaming rig. But for me, it's a lot better gaming machine than my 2-3 year old PC was, and a LOT quieter.

    To the person complaining about the noise, yes the fans are a little bit noisy, but it's nothing compared to a gaming desktop. Mine sounded like a freaking jet taking off when it would start to heat up.

    Don't play games with it on your lap, though, unless you want second degree burns. :)
     
  17. kgeier82 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #17
    i find if i dont enable vsync in HL2, that my mbp and external 22" 1680x1050 HP w2207 both have horizontal sync lines. same issue with you?

    im running xp pro sp3, drivers from laptopvideo2go, and stock speeds.
     
  18. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Has anyone seen a big difference between the 512 and 256 Spec'd MBP's?

    I'm trying to see if the extra money is worth it, or if I would be better off with more RAM and getting photoshop too
     
  19. ert3 macrumors 6502a

    ert3

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #19
    Yes the extra ram is better because it will increase graphics performance. with the new photoshop actually taking advantage of your GPU 512 is the choice I would make.
     
  20. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    what about the fact the 8600M GT only having a 128 bit memory controller, doesn't that mean it can only address 256Mb of RAM?

    Also, I'm waiting until the supposed update, and im really hoping to see a 9600M! :D
     
  21. bigfatdummy macrumors newbie

    bigfatdummy

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    #21
    Handled Crysis? This has to be a joke. I've got a Quad Core Q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz, 4 GB Memory, Dual Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX (768MB), WD VelociRaptor 10000 RPM w/ 16MB Cache SATA 3.0 HD and my system doesnt run it as well as I would like.

    Crysis is a hog, period!
     
  22. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    OC that CPU!!! I it can easily reach 3-3.2Ghz, if not 3.4, yet your running it at stock?
     
  23. bigfatdummy macrumors newbie

    bigfatdummy

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    #23
    I will, I will...

    I went with the Q6600 for that exact reason. Im swapping out my case and power supply to an Evolution 830 to bump to 1000W PS. Once I toss in a liquid cooling system, I plan on pushing it to the limit.
     
  24. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #24
    No, it doesn't mean it can only address 256 megs of RAM. I don't know where you pulled that number out from.

    The 512mb version isn't worth the money IMO, at least not with the 15" MBP.

    The 1440x900 resolution is hardly what I'd consider a "high" resolution. The 128 bit memory interface does limit memory performance (the 9600 GT has a 256 bit interface), making that extra 256mb of memory an added cost for little benefit.

    Perhaps at higher resolutions, it would be worth the cash (like the 17" mbp). But for gaming performance, that 128 bit interface is crippling, and I was kind of suprised that Nvidia used it for the 8600 series.
     
  25. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    You can get it to 3Ghz on air, maybe even 3.4 if your lucky (G0 stepping though)

    Anyway, back onto topic.

    The 8600 GT is a good card, the mobile version is clocked lower than desktop, but its still a good card. My advice, wait a month or so, I reckon the update will be bringing a new GPU, and of course, get the best you can afford, stretch your limit £100 if it means getting the better model.
     

Share This Page