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

MBP, and Crysis (i know.. but please read)

T

t19880821

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 1, 2008
117
0
I had a Dell XPS M1530, which ended up breaking, once again proving Dell's outstanding lack of quality control. Instead of getting another one, I'm thinking about buying a MBP, since I need a laptop for school and I know how our MB never showed any problems for the past year that we've had it.

So I'm buying a laptop for three things: Schoolwork (which is just simple word processing, checking my e-mail, internet assignments, and a few graphic design here and there), Gaming (not seriously, but enough to where i do care about performance and newer releases), and Reliability. "Reliability" being a key word, I'm seriously looking at purchasing a Macbook Pro.

Here's my point. I have always believed that if it could handle gaming, it could handle anything. With Crysis being the most demanding game out there today, how would this MBP perform?

- 2.5GHz Intel C2D
- 2GB RAM
- 512MB GeForce 8600m GT

Exactly what kind of processor do MBPs use? Is it a T9300? Also, what kind of performance boost would I expect if I were to opt for 4GB RAM instead? And is it 512MB GDDR2 or GDDR3? If I opted to go for the 256MB card, what kind of performance decrease should I expect? Vista or XP, and how big of a difference because I am leaning more towards Vista?

I have searched the web for an answer but I've found mixed responses, not to mention they don't have the specs that I'm getting. Also, please avoid responding with "Well, it's going to be playable" or "On Med-High settings" or "On Low settings." I prefer an answer from someone that has played Crysis on their MBP, or if they haven't then just answers for my other questions.
 
They use the faster memory (DDR3?) in the MBP. I can play Crysis on my 2.4 Ghz previous revision MBP's Vista partition. Haven't done a frame count and I assume it is fairly slow, but the game is playable even at full resolution. My understanding is that the increased video memory will only have a benefit if driving large and or multiple screens.

But if you really want game performance, why not get a desktop PC.
 
quasinormal said:
They use the faster memory (DDR3?) in the MBP. I can play Crysis on my 2.4 Ghz previous revision MBP's Vista partition. Haven't done a frame count and I assume it is fairly slow, but the game is playable even at full resolution. My understanding is that the increased video memory will only have a benefit if driving large and or multiple screens.

But if you really want game performance, why not get a desktop PC.
Click to expand...

Because I need a laptop for school. Maybe I gave the wrong impression. Having good game performance would be nice, but it's not what I'm aiming for. I'm interested in the MBP because we haven't had any problems with this Macbook that we've had for a year, so I expect the same from a MBP. The reliability and overall performance is what I desire, the ability to handle demanding games is a plus but not so important. It's just curiosity.
 
The current MBP uses DDR2, not DDR3. With the model coming out, we don't know yet. THe new chipset coming out might support both. That said, DDR2 is dirt cheap now.
 
savvos said:
The current MBP uses DDR2, not DDR3. With the model coming out, we don't know yet. THe new chipset coming out might support both. That said, DDR2 is dirt cheap now.
Click to expand...

Uhh, I think he's referring to the graphics memory, not standard memory. The current MBP Geforce 8600M GT uses 512MB GDDR3, NOT DDR2.

Crysis should probably run fine on it. I've run Crysis on a desktop 7800GT with 256MB VRAM, and it ran fine on medium settings at 1680 x 1050. Hovered anywhere from 20fps - 30fps. Definitely playable. I'm assuming the 8600M GT will run similarly, if not better, since it has even more memory.
 
Thanks for all the replies guys.

About a few minutes after starting this thread, I learned about the new MBP that was supposed to be coming out soon. I know that Apple never downgraded any of their hardware, so thankfully that means we can expect something better than the 8600m GT, and if they don't improve it at least they'll be equal.
 
t19880821 said:
I had a Dell XPS M1530, which ended up breaking, once again proving Dell's outstanding lack of quality control. Instead of getting another one, I'm thinking about buying a MBP, since I need a laptop for school and I know how our MB never showed any problems for the past year that we've had it.

So I'm buying a laptop for three things: Schoolwork (which is just simple word processing, checking my e-mail, internet assignments, and a few graphic design here and there), Gaming (not seriously, but enough to where i do care about performance and newer releases), and Reliability. "Reliability" being a key word, I'm seriously looking at purchasing a Macbook Pro.

Here's my point. I have always believed that if it could handle gaming, it could handle anything. With Crysis being the most demanding game out there today, how would this MBP perform?

- 2.5GHz Intel C2D
- 2GB RAM
- 512MB GeForce 8600m GT

Exactly what kind of processor do MBPs use? Is it a T9300? Also, what kind of performance boost would I expect if I were to opt for 4GB RAM instead? And is it 512MB GDDR2 or GDDR3? If I opted to go for the 256MB card, what kind of performance decrease should I expect? Vista or XP, and how big of a difference because I am leaning more towards Vista?

I have searched the web for an answer but I've found mixed responses, not to mention they don't have the specs that I'm getting. Also, please avoid responding with "Well, it's going to be playable" or "On Med-High settings" or "On Low settings." I prefer an answer from someone that has played Crysis on their MBP, or if they haven't then just answers for my other questions.
Click to expand...


I just ran crysis on my current gen macbook pro with 256 MB VRAM. On low settings but full resolution (which still looks freaking amazing) and I was averaging about 40 frames per second. I was running Vista but I got some tweaked graphics card drivers that really help. The ones that apple provides are not optimized for gaming.

on medium settings average FPS was about 25 - 30. But when you get in a fire fight it can't quite cut it ya know.

On a game like crysis though, the more memory is going to help a ton! I'm sure with the 512 you'll be able to play it on medium settings and it will be very playable. I'm pretty sure that's why mine crapped out on me on the medium settings. Too many textures to load, I just don't have enough memory...:)
 
Well I would wait until they come out w/the new generation of MBs and MBPs, (sometime in September) just to see what the difference is. My guess is that they will prolly be upgrading the processor speed and the graphics card.
 
SHADO said:
Well I would wait until they come out w/the new generation of MBs and MBPs, (sometime in September) just to see what the difference is. My guess is that they will prolly be upgrading the processor speed and the graphics card.
Click to expand...

Good advice here , wait the week or two and see if they upgrade the GPU in the Macbook Pro's , the 8600 is the current weak point in them for gaming
 
Consultant said:
Barefeats.com have benchmarks.

Other threads might have already covered it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=crysis+macbook+pro+site:forums.macrumors.com&as_qdr=all&meta=

Have Crysis, have not played it yet, but FarCry is similar and very playable. TF2 addictive...
Click to expand...

er.... yeah don't mean to burst your bubble but try playing Crysis vs. Far Cry and tell me they are similar graphics wise. Far Cry ran fairly well on my old 128mb 9800pro...

Crysis above low on 1024x768 used to crush my mbp, and realistically, while it IS a good game, the eye candy is what makes it a GREAT game, so if you aren't gonna get the sweet candy, why worry about it so much?

Besides, Crysis Warhead is coming out pretty quick and looks BETTER than Crysis with less demanding specs. Worry about that :)
 
Seems like you are going to anyway but just to press the point, you really want to wait for the next revision to the MBP. The chances of a new graphics card are pretty high.
I have Crysis, and have played al the way through multiple times on a 2.2 SR MBP. The one with the 128MB VRAM. It only barely cuts it in the later levels (read: last level), as in you can see each frame come up (10-15 fps probably), but considering I have finished it multiple times on the hardest difficulty, it is still playable. However, I haven't yet mentioned what quality I run it yet: Absolute minimum. Everything except a few irrelevant options on low, and on like the smallest widescreen resolution the 15" MBP can do. Obviously, with a GPU with more VRAM, it will run better. However, I doubt whether the 512 MB VRAM would offer that much of a performance gain over the 256MB. (Mine is 128, and the min system reqs call for a 256).
Clearly, a 9600 or 3600 will run the game far better, and although it is unlikely (but possible) a 3800 will run it far, far better. You really want to wait for the September/October (Montevina) update.
 
Setting the resolution at 1440x900 and advanced settings to medium settings (except shader and shadows, which are at low).. i average 40fps. Max fps was 60, min 25. During firefights, it went from 40 to 30.

Using 174.93 drivers, OC'd ~600/800, with temps never going above 75c
 
t19880821 said:
Setting the resolution at 1440x900 and advanced settings to medium settings (except shader and shadows, which are at low).. i average 40fps. Max fps was 60, min 25. During firefights, it went from 40 to 30.

Using 174.93 drivers, OC'd ~600/800, with temps never going above 75c
Click to expand...

You know, setting shaders to low makes most of the other settings irrelevant. Try going medium shaders and volumetrics, low to both, and one of each, and see what happens. First level, when you're running to Aztec, and Jester's got his light on.
 
t19880821 said:
I had a Dell XPS M1530, which ended up breaking, once again proving Dell's outstanding lack of quality control. Instead of getting another one, I'm thinking about buying a MBP, since I need a laptop for school and I know how our MB never showed any problems for the past year that we've had it.

So I'm buying a laptop for three things: Schoolwork (which is just simple word processing, checking my e-mail, internet assignments, and a few graphic design here and there), Gaming (not seriously, but enough to where i do care about performance and newer releases), and Reliability. "Reliability" being a key word, I'm seriously looking at purchasing a Macbook Pro.

Here's my point. I have always believed that if it could handle gaming, it could handle anything. With Crysis being the most demanding game out there today, how would this MBP perform?

- 2.5GHz Intel C2D
- 2GB RAM
- 512MB GeForce 8600m GT

Exactly what kind of processor do MBPs use? Is it a T9300? Also, what kind of performance boost would I expect if I were to opt for 4GB RAM instead? And is it 512MB GDDR2 or GDDR3? If I opted to go for the 256MB card, what kind of performance decrease should I expect? Vista or XP, and how big of a difference because I am leaning more towards Vista?

I have searched the web for an answer but I've found mixed responses, not to mention they don't have the specs that I'm getting. Also, please avoid responding with "Well, it's going to be playable" or "On Med-High settings" or "On Low settings." I prefer an answer from someone that has played Crysis on their MBP, or if they haven't then just answers for my other questions.
Click to expand...


I've played crysis on my mbp and it's playable and enjoyable. I didn't get the mbp expecting it to be much on the gaming end, but it handles world of warcraft very well (native and bootcamp) and games like COD (bootcamp) and crysis (bootcamp) well. Like you it's my main machine and I want the 'option' to play some games.
 
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