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

MBP 2.2 vs 2.4 In games

P

pdechavez

macrumors regular
Original poster
Dec 26, 2007
235
0
Hello all,

is there a huge performance difference here? How many in fps? because in canada its 1999 for 2.2 and 2699 for 2.4 which is a huge cost gap. I wanna play team fortress 2 and crysis at medium settings at 1280x800...will it be close to each other in performace? Thanx
 
TF2 plays beautifully on the 2.2ghz model on high settings at 1440x900.

Average fps is around 40-50, sometimes higher.

I think Crysis on medium would be pushing it for either MBP. Some folks get decent performance with shadows set to low, which basically turns them off. Shaders and shadows are the biggest performance hogs in that game, for sure.
 
i think the big kicker is the 256mb VRam as apposed to 128mb, i went for the 256 for gaming in windows
 
dedzombie said:
i think the big kicker is the 256mb VRam as apposed to 128mb, i went for the 256 for gaming in windows
Click to expand...

I think how much difference it makes really depends on the games you're playing. Crysis would definitely benefit from the added vram, I don't think it would help TF2 all that much.

The ideal scenario would be if when Apple updates the MBP line, they make 256mb of vram the standard and put 512mb in the mid-range MBP.

Wouldn't hurt to wait until the update (if you're not planning to wait it out already) and see what they do in that arena.
 
pdechavez said:
Hello all,

is there a huge performance difference here? How many in fps? because in canada its 1999 for 2.2 and 2699 for 2.4 which is a huge cost gap. I wanna play team fortress 2 and crysis at medium settings at 1280x800...will it be close to each other in performace? Thanx
Click to expand...

I have no real clue on the increase in CPU performance. The reason I got the 2.4 SR MBP 15' over 2.2 was the increased Vram.
 
Andrmgic said:
TF2 plays beautifully on the 2.2ghz model on high settings at 1440x900.

Average fps is around 40-50, sometimes higher.

I think Crysis on medium would be pushing it for either MBP. Some folks get decent performance with shadows set to low, which basically turns them off. Shaders and shadows are the biggest performance hogs in that game, for sure.
Click to expand...

thanx for ur help man, im just referring to crysis coz if tht runs average then im pretty much set. Im a heavy tf2 player and i'd just like to play crysis wen im out of the house. But in terms of GENERAL fps, how much we talking?
 
pdechavez said:
thanx for ur help man, im just referring to crysis coz if tht runs average then im pretty much set. Im a heavy tf2 player and i'd just like to play crysis wen im out of the house. But in terms of GENERAL fps, how much we talking?
Click to expand...

I don't dare to try to play crysis on a MBP...

Call of duty 4 has trouble for me unless I cut off shadows, and that is a much less demanding game than Crysis.

I'd check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dcXCdrnbbI

He usually goes through his settings, but he has shadows and shaders set to "low" if I recall.. just watch the vid, it should give you an idea. (He has the 2.4ghz model)
 
How do you check your FPS in TF2? I have the 2.4 model and I could check it for you before you make your decision. I doubt it'll make much difference - 256MB rather than 128MB just means you can use higher quality textures, but with TF2 you're too busy stabbing people in the back to notice :)
 
pulsewidth947 said:
How do you check your FPS in TF2? I have the 2.4 model and I could check it for you before you make your decision. I doubt it'll make much difference - 256MB rather than 128MB just means you can use higher quality textures, but with TF2 you're too busy stabbing people in the back to notice :)
Click to expand...

FRAPS FPS is a good one. dont use much resourses. it will tell ya.


as for the memory difference, you hardly even see an increase in performance, probably 5-10%.
 
no difference at all.

you can speculate the stats on paper all you want, but in real life, you are not going to notice the difference between 41 fps for the 256 mb vs. the 38 fps for the 128 mb.
 
So i'm curious....

When exactly is it of any use to get the higher end 15" MBP??

Gaming is an awesome way to push a Laptop's performance and if the difference between the 2 is negligible why would one bother with the extremely expensive 2.4 MBP??

I myself was planning on 2.4 because of games and videos but now.... I might as well go 2.2 with the 7200rpm HDD?
 
Wolvngelz said:
When exactly is it of any use to get the higher end 15" MBP??

Gaming is an awesome way to push a Laptop's performance and if the difference between the 2 is negligible why would one bother with the extremely expensive 2.4 MBP??

I myself was planning on 2.4 because of games and videos but now.... I might as well go 2.2 with the 7200rpm HDD?
Click to expand...

To be fair, Barefeats tests are from older games that aren't as demanding as current releases. As newer games come out, they will require more video memory to run decently. If you want a MBP that performs well now, a 2.2ghz will be adequate, but personally if they release a model that has 512mb of vram, I'm going to go for it.
 
Andrmgic said:
To be fair, Barefeats tests are from older games that aren't as demanding as current releases. As newer games come out, they will require more video memory to run decently. If you want a MBP that performs well now, a 2.2ghz will be adequate, but personally if they release a model that has 512mb of vram, I'm going to go for it.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation here, but next gen games will run about the same on the 2.2 vs the 2.4 since they are pretty much the same gen as well.

A 512mb of vram would probably perform better due to better technology, not just bigger numbers.
 
tomashi said:
Pure speculation here, but next gen games will run about the same on the 2.2 vs the 2.4 since they are pretty much the same gen as well.

A 512mb of vram would probably perform better due to better technology, not just bigger numbers.
Click to expand...

You are so mistaken to think that the vram on the same generation GPU won't make a difference. The barefeats test is totally outdated and misleading. Not only are the games they test pretty much ancient, even worse, OSX is NOT optimized for games so the difference in vrams has a minimal effect on FPS.
The same tests on XP using modern games (ie UT3, COD4 etc) show a huge difference in performance. Take 3DMark06 and run the test on the 128vram vs 256vram and you will see a huge difference in score, something like a 1000+ points.
There are many out there who probably based their decision on the barefeats tests! What a shame!
 
It is a huge price gap for small performance difference. I feel bad for People (including myself) who are waiting for the next MBP to get a good performance update but till now, still nothing. It'd suck more if the update is minimal like trackpad and 17"LED....sigh.
 
pdechavez said:
Hello all,

is there a huge performance difference here? How many in fps? because in canada its 1999 for 2.2 and 2699 for 2.4 which is a huge cost gap. I wanna play team fortress 2 and crysis at medium settings at 1280x800...will it be close to each other in performace? Thanx
Click to expand...

Company of Heroes works great on my SR MBP 2.2 under Vista.

Cheers,
 
sweet...great input guys, keep it up. there are loadza people from my college who are considering the 2.2 version since $600 extra for a small percentage boost isnt ideal for us college students...
 
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