MBP 2.2 vs 2.4 In games

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by pdechavez, Feb 4, 2008.

  1. pdechavez macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    #1
    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
     
  2. Andrmgic macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #2
    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.
     
  3. dedzombie macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #3
    i think the big kicker is the 256mb VRam as apposed to 128mb, i went for the 256 for gaming in windows
     
  4. Andrmgic macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #4
    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.
     
  5. compuguy1088 macrumors 6502a

    compuguy1088

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Location:
    In the Sub-Basement of Solitude
    #5
    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.
     
  6. pdechavez thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    #6
    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?
     
  7. Andrmgic macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #7
    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)
     
  8. skyrider007 macrumors 65816

    skyrider007

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Location:
    Bangkok
    #8
    i luv ma 2.4GHz MBP, i just use it for web browsing.
     
  9. slowpoke macrumors member

    slowpoke

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Location:
    Malaysia
    #9
    That... Kind of seems like a massive waste.
     
  10. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #10
    lol at least his web browsing experience would b amazingly fast :p
     
  11. pulsewidth947 macrumors 65816

    pulsewidth947

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Location:
    squarefrog.co.uk
    #11
    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 :)
     
  12. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #12
    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%.
     
  13. espressoroast macrumors member

    espressoroast

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    #13
  14. nzoMD macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego
    #14
    that article is the exact same thing that made me decide to go with the lowest 15"... but i'm waiting for an update :)
     
  15. gothamm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    #15
    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.
     
  16. tomashi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    #16
    Werd up. I bought the 2.2 after reading those benchmarks as well.
     
  17. Wolvngelz macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Location:
    Brunei + Melbourne
    #17
    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?
     
  18. Andrmgic macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #18
    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.
     
  19. pulsewidth947 macrumors 65816

    pulsewidth947

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Location:
    squarefrog.co.uk
    #19
    When you want a refurb with a 160GB hard drive :)
     
  20. tomashi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    #20
    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.
     
  21. prism macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    #21
    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!
     
  22. aiterum macrumors 6502

    aiterum

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Location:
    United States
    #22
    I'd like to see something like this based on some more recent games.
     
  23. pdechavez thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    #23
    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.
     
  24. panzer06 macrumors 68030

    panzer06

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location:
    Kilrath
    #24
    Company of Heroes works great on my SR MBP 2.2 under Vista.

    Cheers,
     
  25. pdechavez thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    #25
    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...
     

Share This Page