MBP 13 (2011) Gaming Question

[mussbus999]

I am looking to buy the MBP 13 that was just released for college. I'd use it mostly for student work but every once in awhile I'd like to play a game of Team Fortress 2 or Counter Strike:Source with some of my friends.

Anyone that has the MBP willing to see if these games run well? I've been trying to find videos that show the games in action but haven't come across a lot.

Thanks!

 

[ZombieZakk]

i play team fortress 2 in OSX not bootcamp and it ran ok at native resolution there was some lag but only in big firefights. but i turned it down to the next resolution and played fine without lag. Havent tried counterstrike on it yet though as i dont own a mac copy.

SC2 also plays ok on medium no real lag but runs flawless on low or tweaked medium settings.

 

[maverick86]

i play team fortress 2 in OSX not bootcamp and it ran ok at native resolution there was some lag but only in big firefights. but i turned it down to the next resolution and played fine without lag. Havent tried counterstrike on it yet though as i dont own a mac copy.

SC2 also plays ok on medium no real lag but runs flawless on low or tweaked medium settings.

What tweaked medium settings did you find work best for SC2?

 

[ZombieZakk]

i turned down or off the character pictures because its only a cool effect turn down shadings and such but make sure you dont play in native resolution it lagged way too much but 1152x720 worked great.

basically i only left terrain effects and character model on medium everything else i dont care about. but if you lower the resolution one more step down then you can probably play on full medium.

This thing is certainly not a gaming rig but you can play a lot of stuff on medium to low settings. L4d2, TF2, SC2 i have played with no problem dont really game much on the comp thats what my xbox 360 is for lol but its nice to have the option.

 

[Looon]

All low settings it might be playable, depending on your definition of playable.

 

[mikeo007]

CS:Source runs fine under bootcamp, native res, med-high settings. TF2 should be similar...these games run on a pretty old game engine, so modern GPUs, even crappy ones like the Intel integrated, should run them without major issues.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I am looking to buy the MBP 13 that was just released for college. I'd use it mostly for student work but every once in awhile I'd like to play a game of Team Fortress 2 or Counter Strike:Source with some of my friends.

Anyone that has the MBP willing to see if these games run well? I've been trying to find videos that show the games in action but haven't come across a lot.

Thanks!

The Source engine games should run passably on the Intel HD 3000 that is in the just-released 13" MacBook Pro. The GeForce 320M in last generation's 13" MacBook Pro will run them faster, but performance shouldn't be drastically worse. I'd go into an Apple Store and download Steam and try it out. I did that with StarCraft II on the previous generation 13" MacBook Pro's to gauge the performace of the 320M and the Apple Store people are generally cool with it.

 

[zenio]

Gaming? Save a ton of money, get a PC

 

[maverick86]

This thing is certainly not a gaming rig but you can play a lot of stuff on medium to low settings. L4d2, TF2, SC2 i have played with no problem dont really game much on the comp thats what my xbox 360 is for lol but its nice to have the option.

That's pretty much my situation. Gaming isn't a top priority by any means (360 is the primary) but it's nice having an alternative for some stuff when don't have access to the 360.

 

[Evan_11]

Bioshock

Has anyone tried Bioshock on the 2011 13" MBP? On the App Store page it says not compatible with Intel integrated graphics...

That and Star Wars: KOTR which as the same disclaimer.

 

[tigress666]

Has anyone tried Bioshock on the 2011 13" MBP? On the App Store page it says not compatible with Intel integrated graphics...

That and Star Wars: KOTR which as the same disclaimer.

To be fair it says Intel GMA (which was the crappy ass graphics card they had in my 2007 MB. It wouldn't even play the games out when it was new. And I know Sims 3 actually puts on the box that it is not compatible with that card. Now I can really make fun of it cause two games actually list it as outright not compatible. Usually you see them listing minimum specs, not naming cards that don't work). Not sure that covers the current Intel graphics cards (they say it has to have at least a 128MB graphics card, does the 320 mine has cover that?).

Oh, and I'd expect if the 2010 MBP 13" can handle it, the 2011 can (it seems from what I've been reading the graphics capability is only slightly less. Certainly not big enough to warrant going with the much slower processor if you were trying to pick between the two. I'd take the 2011 with the loading Firefox much faster - I tested it in the Apple store - over mine if I were picking today. I'm not though and already made my choice. And I love my computer . I just wouldn't mind it actually being significantly faster over my 2007 which the 2011 actually is. But that's ok cause by the time I'm ready to upgrade computers the next time it is gaurenteed it will be significantly faster unlike this last time I upgraded and it will probably have a better graphics card than either the 2010 or 2011 has *grin*).

 

[maverick86]

Has anyone been able to get Civ 5 to work on the base 13" MBP (without missing text glitches or anything like that)? To me it doesn't matter how low the settings have to be to get the game to work as long as things appear as they should and it runs at a reasonable speed.

 

[altecXP]

A few sites list the 320m MacBooks being easily better than the x3000 in games. Thats why I bought a refurb 2.66 C2D. better in games, same battery, and enough CPU for everything i do.

 

[Ieo]

All low settings it might be playable, depending on your definition of playable.

You're drinking too much Koolaid....It rots the teeth you know.

I just got done playing L4D 2 via steam with a friend on a mixture of low and medium settings and everything was just fine. NO, it wasn't spectacular/perfect, but it was fine. Nothing more than a tiny hiccup once in a great while.

It's definitely not an ideal gaming platform, but for people like me (and from the sound of it, the OP) who just play a quick game on steam once in a while or a little starcraft II on low/med between classes, it's just fine. Sure as hell beats paying another $500+ for a 15" that would be just that much more you have to lug around campus and balance on tiny lecture hall desks. Plus, the HUGE leaps in CPU power (Vs incremental C2D bumps like the last few years) help out big time when I need to run a virtual windows environment.

 

[djxavier]

CS:S @ 1920 x 1080

FWIW I play CS:S at medium to high settings on my external 24" at 1920 x 1080 with my 2011 MBP 13". It runs great.

Playing at the MBP's native res gets me about 70-80 fps

Its funny but I get more fps in OSX than boot camp / win 7. CS:S seems to stutter in boot camp. Drivers maybe?

 

[ZombieZakk]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

FWIW I play CS:S at medium to high settings on my external 24" at 1920 x 1080 with my 2011 MBP 13". It runs great.

Playing at the MBP's native res gets me about 70-80 fps

Its funny but I get more fps in OSX than boot camp / win 7. CS:S seems to stutter in boot camp. Drivers maybe?

You hit the nail on the head. Most people who game on macs do it through bootcamp and the windows drivers for the 3000hd suck! But is osx its actually not bad for an integrated. Osx has much better drivers for the 3000

 

[Looon]

You're drinking too much Koolaid....It rots the teeth you know.

I just got done playing L4D 2 via steam with a friend on a mixture of low and medium settings and everything was just fine. NO, it wasn't spectacular/perfect, but it was fine. Nothing more than a tiny hiccup once in a great while.

It's definitely not an ideal gaming platform, but for people like me (and from the sound of it, the OP) who just play a quick game on steam once in a while or a little starcraft II on low/med between classes, it's just fine. Sure as hell beats paying another $500+ for a 15" that would be just that much more you have to lug around campus and balance on tiny lecture hall desks. Plus, the HUGE leaps in CPU power (Vs incremental C2D bumps like the last few years) help out big time when I need to run a virtual windows environment.

Why are you attacking me? All I said is that it would be playable, but everyone's idea of what is acceptable differs. Especially when you're talking about a $1200 laptop

 

[ZombieZakk]

Why are you attacking me? All I said is that it would be playable, but everyone's idea of what is acceptable differs. Especially when you're talking about a $1200 laptop

He wasnt attacking you but there are a lot of people like yourself no offense who do not own the machine and just have read what others are saying about the 3000hd.

While the 320m was stronger, the 3000 isnt all that bad for integrated graphics. Especially on OSX there have been numerous tests showing that the 3000 provided 30-40 fps on games such as L4D2, TF2 in medium settings. The biggest issue is a a lot of people who game on macs use bootcamp and the 3000 sucks with windows drivers thats why its getting poor reviews now while i agree that it would be nice to have discrete graphics, or even the 320m still macs are not gaming machines. With the 3000 you will be able to play most games in medium to low pending the game.