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.
My New MBP (Look Here if Considering One, or if you're a gamer)
- Thread starter Kaeonadai
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Disregard this comparison! SupCom should never ever be justified running on one setup based on results achieved on a single core setup. That game absolutely destroys EVERY single core setup you may have. If you play online with a single core, you are limited to the smallest of maps and the lowest of unit numbers. That game even brings early era dual cores to their knees. To think that a single core run's it reasonably well is ridiculous. You're missing about 99% of the game when you play it on a single core setup. (sorry, love my supcom)
From what I can see it looks like the mobile Penryns are comparable to the first Conroes (but don't quote me on that). Those setups ran SupCom pretty well in medium sized maps (20x20) with max unit numbers and 6-8 players. As a result however, I am doubting the MBP will be able to keep up in the massive games that require the high end desktop dual cores (40x40 and 80x80 maps with 6-8 players).
I play SupCom right now on a Athlon X2 running at 2.3GHz, and this thing starts crawling in 6-8 player games on 20x20 maps (later in the game). I am really looking forward to the MBP because it should be able to play those medium sized games smoothly, right through the end.
Run the "Boot Camp Assistant" under the utilities folder. That will run you through all the steps necessary to get windows up and running.
What resolution did you run Crysis at high at? I'm getting Crysis soon, and I'm curious.
for those of you running bootcamp with windows xp, are you using the home or professional edition? and why?
For all you people asking about sc2, I think that the new mbp will run it fine. I was one of the lucky people who went to blizzcon and I played sc2 several times. It really did not seem that graphically challenging at all, I would imagine games like CoD4 are a lot more graphically intensive than sc2 will be, except maybe when there are 200 zerglings on screen.
BTW if you loved sc then you'll definitely love sc2 since it's basically the same game with more units and better graphics.
BTW if you loved sc then you'll definitely love sc2 since it's basically the same game with more units and better graphics.
Well, I got a 2.5 Penryn MBP last week (4GB, 7200rpm, 512MB VRAM), and it can no way run COD4 (bootcamp, XP2, latest 169.09 NVIDIA drivers) as the OP said. It stutters constantly, even at lower resolutions and settings.
How does the MBP handle non-native resolutions? I was told that the DPI is so high in the 17" Hi-Res model that it actually looks OK at non-native. This sounds like rubbish to me though.
Also, anyone tried using Flight Simulator X or X-Plane (8 or 9) on the hi res MBP? How does it fare?
If worse comes to worse and it turns out the 8600M can't drive that big resolution, then I might just get an extern 20" monitor or 720P HDTV, which it should find easier.
Also, anyone tried using Flight Simulator X or X-Plane (8 or 9) on the hi res MBP? How does it fare?
If worse comes to worse and it turns out the 8600M can't drive that big resolution, then I might just get an extern 20" monitor or 720P HDTV, which it should find easier.
OP, I have to chime in with Mark here...how did you run COD4 on those settings especially on 1920x1200 and with anti-aliasing??? I have a 2.5 GHz Penryn MBP, 15'', with 512 VRAM on Vista, and I have to run it at 1280x800 and turn AA off for the game to become playable. It runs 30-40 on average and it even dips down to 20 when I encounter a lot of smoke.
Do you know how many fps you're getting? Have you benchmarked your MBP yet? And what drivers are you using?
He's exaggerating, you cant. While the 17" is probally clocked abit higher than the 15" it should no where near that considerable. I own the new 15" 2.5gh penryn model, Window XP with the latest drivers (laptop2go) and on team fortress i get 30~50fps normal play on 1440 x 900, that with 2xAA + full graphic settings turned on, 4AA would drop it down to like 20~35ish, anything above 1440 reso would obviously bring it damn even further!, i think he's just really estatic with his laptop so he's going overboard - heck i love my new mbp (its my first) but there no way in hell a 8600m gt GPU can output these game that well with those settings.
It's my understanding from a few different benchmarks out there that XP consistently gives better FPS performance than Vista. Plus there is an unofficial way to get DX10 in XP, just do a google search for "DX10 XP". I'm not sure if it works in Boot Camp, although I can't see why it wouldn't.
Another reason might be that a Vista install takes up much more HD space than a XP one. I run Parallels with both Windows Vista and XP. My XP install is 3.3 gigs while my Vista install is a whopping 15.2 gigs, and that's with no other programs installed. For someone trying to maximize their Boot Camp partition for gaming, it doesn't really make sense to waste almost 12 gigs on an OS.