I'd like to see this magical $1,000 Toshiba that is better than the MBP at gaming.
The MBP plays all modern games fine, usually at high settings. For its size and thin-ness it's amazingly powerful.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MBP Gaming
- Thread starter bubble27
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd like to see this magical $1,000 Toshiba that is better than the MBP at gaming.
The MBP plays all modern games fine, usually at high settings. For its size and thin-ness it's amazingly powerful.
What is "fine" anyway? That it's smooth as butter, or with the occasional stutter? I am toying around with the demo a bit on my MBP with 2GB RAM and 256MB Video, and to get a smooth performance, I really need to lower down the settings, a lot.
Just finished Half-Life 2 Episode Two by the way. What a gorgeous game, plays great, looks fantastic en the immersion is one of the best.
Just finished Half-Life 2 Episode Two by the way. What a gorgeous game, plays great, looks fantastic en the immersion is one of the best.
What I don't understand is how your MBP (which has a nice proc. and a nice graphics card, but the overall thing is that they're made with mobility in mind - losing overall power) plays Crysis on High at 1600x1200, but high-end SLi systems with Quad-Cores and 4GB on RAM struggle to play it on high.
Just confused.
I don't, don't like tweaking things that aren't meant to be tweaked with.
If my fans start to blow during gaming in Windows, I like to believe they need to blow because of the heat. The last thing I would like is an averheated MacBook.
If my fans start to blow during gaming in Windows, I like to believe they need to blow because of the heat. The last thing I would like is an averheated MacBook.
i just played PES 2008 via Bootcamp on my 2.4GHz, 4 Gig ram MBP
and to my surprise, it runs so smooth that my PC looked like getting owned my my MBP
even my P4 3.06Ghz, 2 gig ram and with ATi X1900 256 cant match the smoothness produced by my MBP
MBP rocks man
and to my surprise, it runs so smooth that my PC looked like getting owned my my MBP
even my P4 3.06Ghz, 2 gig ram and with ATi X1900 256 cant match the smoothness produced by my MBP
MBP rocks man
I'd like to see this magical $1,000 Toshiba that is better than the MBP at gaming.
The MBP plays all modern games fine, usually at high settings. For its size and thin-ness it's amazingly powerful.
http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/pdet.to?poid=394293&coid=-33936
Sorry, i meant Pounds...£1000! Not dollars.
Im really wanna know why Mac cant have that same graphics card! If it costs too much they can add it as an option and whoever wants to pay then ok.
If they did MBP would be UNTOUCHABLE!
The Dominating laptop of all!
Thats the only thing it lacks really...
That system requires a 180W power power adapter. That is a far cry from the MBP's 85W adapter. 8600M GT in SLI really is a waste. It would be better to get the 8800M GT than to do the SLI route. Why? Mac OS X has no idea what SLI is so you are going get no benefit in OS X to having it.
Besides all it is is two of the same card that is already in the MBP, complete with the same amount of RAM.
No really....its 512mb of video ram whereas MBPs have 256mb as their top range.
Pretty much double!
Im just saying that if your gona buy MBP with full spec its gona cost me 1600£ (student discount
) and like 2k odd without the discount. They should include these small details to top up their competitionNo really....its 512mb of video ram whereas MBPs have 256mb as their top range.
Pretty much double!
Im just saying that if your gona buy MBP with full spec its gona cost me 1600£ (student discount
No, SLI GPU's means the RAM is halved. So each card sees 256MB of RAM just like the card the MBP has now. And power draw is doubled. Apple has enough problems keeping the MBP cool as it is, if they were to add a better GPU it would be either the 8700M or 8800M. They won't do SLI as OS X has no idea what that is.
I am addicted to COD4 on my 2.4 17" MBP. I play it running windows on bootcamp in a clamshell mode using my 24" external screen. It looks great. I also play PES 2008 as well, (Also in windows) and that is fine except for the fact that I cannot figure out how to get the game to use a wide screen res so it stretches everything.
As far as running games in Windows, or running them on OSX. I love OSX for everything in life... only gameing not so much. THe reason is that the GPU drivers released by Nvidea are not updated as often as the PC drivers. Also I just dont think that they are optimized as well as the DX drvers on a pc. I wish it wasn;t the case, but every game I have ever played on my OSX, runs better with the PC version running windows via Bootcamp.
B
As far as running games in Windows, or running them on OSX. I love OSX for everything in life... only gameing not so much. THe reason is that the GPU drivers released by Nvidea are not updated as often as the PC drivers. Also I just dont think that they are optimized as well as the DX drvers on a pc. I wish it wasn;t the case, but every game I have ever played on my OSX, runs better with the PC version running windows via Bootcamp.
B
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)
That toshiba laptop STARTS at 9.4 pounds and sucks up 180 W. Obviously the MBP will become fat and power-hungry like that if it had two video chips. I value portability and battery life, but also game sometimes, so the MBP creates the perfect compromise for me.
That toshiba laptop STARTS at 9.4 pounds and sucks up 180 W. Obviously the MBP will become fat and power-hungry like that if it had two video chips. I value portability and battery life, but also game sometimes, so the MBP creates the perfect compromise for me.
Nothing to be confused about. Mac users are just on crack. Plenty of players who claim that the Macbook (not Pro) plays a game like Guild Wars great!
why do I find this VERY hard to believe?
I say this because Crysis puts a helluva hurtin' on even a well equipped desktop computer much less a laptop with a video card that's only considered "so so" in laptop gaming terms.
Wow this is great news! I was expecting that the gaming i could expect from a macbook pro would be as crappy as a macbook! (of course I realised the graphics card is much better!)
Hopefully be getting one in a couple of weeks (after MWSF)
Thanks for all the info guys!
Hopefully be getting one in a couple of weeks (after MWSF)
Thanks for all the info guys!
Well as it is Christmas still, and for those of you who suggest that we mac users are on Crack. I have been using macs for years, so here we go a you tube link to a small video link, I made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIvrRLmU0mM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIvrRLmU0mM
If I'm not mistaken, the 17" video card is clocked a wee-bit higher. So... the 17" will probably get a tiny bit higher (~3) FPS than then the 15" at the same resolution.
I may be wrong...
nice one
did know what MBP it is?
the 2.4 or 2.6?
though 2.4 will have a tiny bit difference with 2.6
Video Card upgrade
I read on Gamespot that they performed a benchmark test of the various video cards and the one that scored highest was the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX SLI. This also was significantly higher than the GeForce 8600M GT which is in all the MBP's. Are these differences negligable and or is it possible to upgrade the the 8800? Is this also what the "rumors" are speculating will arrise from MWSF in Jan?
Thanks
I read on Gamespot that they performed a benchmark test of the various video cards and the one that scored highest was the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX SLI. This also was significantly higher than the GeForce 8600M GT which is in all the MBP's. Are these differences negligable and or is it possible to upgrade the the 8800? Is this also what the "rumors" are speculating will arrise from MWSF in Jan?
Thanks