Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

manhorse

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 16, 2008
11
0
I recently purchased one of the new Macbooks. One aspect of this which I haven't seen a lot of people talk about is how it does in real world scenarios for us gamers. I installed Windows XP on the machine and installed some game demos for the newest games out as well as some I have which are within a year old. After doing some testing I've been quite surprised with how well the video card handles everything. I'm not going to sit here and post benchmarks and framerates (thats what the professional reviewers are for), but I wanted to see what other people thought.

I installed the new Tomb Raider Underworld Demo. I was expecting the video card to choke quickly, but to my surprise it handled everything really well. I ran the game at full settings and 2XX Anti-aliasing in the Macbook's native resolution. I did notice from frame rate drop when I played a scene that involved me floating in water, but it wasn't the to the point of being unplayable. Considering this is a brand new game with bleeding edge effects I think the shared video card proved quite capable. :)
 

CoreyMac

macrumors regular
Jul 10, 2008
214
0
Tomb Raider demo runs like crap (to me) on my macbook pro with the 8600 GT......it cant possibly run good on the mac
 

jav6454

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2007
22,303
6,257
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
I run VMware Fusion and virtualize Vista Home Premium. Try to play Rise of Nations and the graphics card does quite well. Also performance wise its very very very smooth. The only problem is that Vista will randomly crash at any point during the game and I have to force quit Fusion. Once it even made me Hard Reboot the whole Mac.
 

manhorse

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 16, 2008
11
0
picky much?

LOL, Really. I don't know what to tell ya. I've been throwing some games at mine and it seems to be holding up well. Maybe I just have terrible standards for what I consider decent gameplay. (Shrug)
 

CoreyMac

macrumors regular
Jul 10, 2008
214
0
picky much?

Picky? 30fps is acceptable on a console on a TELEVISION....but on a computer display 30fps is downright awful IMO. (Thats how slow it looked like it was when i was on the boat to start the demo, maybe even slower)

Picky? Maybe, if all I played was the occasional game....but when you've grown up playing Quake on the PC (1,2,3 & 4) multiplayer competitively....you can really start seeing where the differences in framerates lie.
 

Chase817

macrumors member
Jul 6, 2008
95
0
Picky? 30fps is acceptable on a console on a TELEVISION....but on a computer display 30fps is downright awful IMO. (Thats how slow it looked like it was when i was on the boat to start the demo, maybe even slower)

Picky? Maybe, if all I played was the occasional game....but when you've grown up playing Quake on the PC (1,2,3 & 4) multiplayer competitively....you can really start seeing where the differences in framerates lie.

how can you complain about 30 fps?? if i could even squeeze out 15 fps on a new game on my crappy gma 950, i'd be happy.
 

darienphoenix

macrumors member
Nov 12, 2008
38
0
The Source engine runs quite happily, I played TF2 on my AlBook under Bootcamp, with decently high settings, without problems.

TF2 is no Crysis, to be sure, but it's a hell of a lot better than the piss-poor excuse for graphical ability my BlackBook had.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.