New MBP 2.53ghz Gaming First Impressions and Benchmarks

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by masse, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. masse macrumors 6502a

    masse

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Location:
    MA/GA
    #1
    Alright, so I got xp installed and got a chance to download some game demos etc. to test performance. I am not a gamer, and I did not buy this machine for its gaming ability....although I have dabbled in some first person shooters in the past. Yixian, this one's for you bro.

    I started a thread earlier today stating that in OSX I couldn't tell much difference between the 9600GT and the 9400. This is true, but only with the call of duty pre-release demo which really broke my heart with how slow it ran. It was similar to my AMD athalon 2800, 1 gigabyte of ram, and Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb ran the demo. Should a brand new laptop (with a decent graphics card) really perform as poorly as a has been state of the art gaming machine (from 2003)?

    Luckily 1) OSX is bad for gaming. 2) COD2 demo , and others tested in OSX are not at all optimized for intel processors or new machines. Enjoy my initial thoughts.

    In OSX:

    COD2 demo - clearly not optimized. Runs the same with the 9400 and 9600. Very slow and unplayable on high settings. Again. this is just the pre-release demo bull. I'd throw this out but it would contradict my previous thread.

    UT2004 demo - Ran fast, but not blazing fast. Averaged 40-60 frames on deathmatch dm_Rankin with everything on high in 1152 resolution. Not super impressive. ** this is also not optimized for intel machines so poor framerates are expected.

    Halo demo - This was the first demo that actually ran extremely smooth in 1440x900 and highest everything. This is a game that didn't exactly run perfectly on my old gaming rig so it was the first glimpse of hope for the 9600GT.
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    In windows XP pro:

    Half Life 2 stress test- Averaged 170 frames per second with highest settings, 1152 resolution (this was the highest available), 4x AA, 8x AF

    CS Source- Same settings as stress test. Played Dust 2 with HDR lighting and it ran without a hiccup at well over 100 frames. Simply the smoothest gameplay I've ever experienced (although I haven't gamed in some time).

    Here's the kicker...

    Crysis demo: 1024 resolution, all settings high, ~20 frames, playable and VERY impressive looking. I turned a few of the settings to medium (shadows and physics) and the framerate shot up. Everything looked just as good as it had before, but at a very playable 40-50 frames per second. I will try some other resolutions and post more results later as well as some screenshots.


    Conclusion: Gaming performance in OSX is not very impressive, but in windows this thing really flies. I can't imagine what a little overclocking might do....but I'll leave that to someone else as I am very happy with the gaming performance of this machine. Will be trying UT3 sometime tomorrow.

    Enjoy!
     
  2. Macbook noob macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    #2
    Just a tidbit of information. UT2004 was made in, well obviously 2004 or was it 2003? well the point is that it wasn't made for intel machines or the new gear they come with. This means that the performance of the new 9600 card can't be judged on this outdated under optimized game. I do have to say though that your write up was very interesting and informational. I should add that I was running TF2 on my new MBP 15.4inch 2.53 GHZ machine with maxed settings, except anastrophic filtering, and it ran very well although i did not have frame rates enabled to see how well exactly :(
     
  3. masse thread starter macrumors 6502a

    masse

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Location:
    MA/GA
    #3
    Very true, I'm sure it will run much much much faster in windows. Figured since I tried it in OSX I'd at least put some info on it. Really just wanted to get some idea of performance before installing windows. Wasn't really helpful. Thanks for the input.
     
  4. Tex-Twil macrumors 68020

    Tex-Twil

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Location:
    Europe
    #4
    Thanks for that benchs. I'm looking forward to testing it myself ;)
     
  5. hyeg35 macrumors newbie

    hyeg35

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
  6. Tex-Twil macrumors 68020

    Tex-Twil

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Location:
    Europe
    #6
    I guess it was in Bootcamp.The results in vmware would be much lower.
     
  7. TheCakeIsALie macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #7
    To OP: how hot does the machine run when you game (say, for 30 minutes)? If possible could you provide peak CPU/GPU/HDD/Chipset temperature and also how hot it feels like? Thanks.
     
  8. moclippa macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #8
    Half Life 2 did that well on the stress test? Wow, thats good news for macbook pro owners waiting for Left 4 Dead! The crysis specs seem quite nice, but I really want to see how Crysis Warhead works, since its engine is meant to be optimized a lot better.

    Has anyone seen benchmarks for the 2.8 and SSD versions? every set of specs I've seen has only done 2.53 with 7200rpm disk.
     
  9. cg165 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    #9
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

    Thank you very much for posting this! I ordered my 2.53 mbp the day of the keynote and it should be here Thursday if it ever leaves china lol. This is great news to me... I've had hl2 ep1&2 for a few years now but didn't want to play them on my old desktop with reduced settings. I also look forward to playing crysis.

    Oh, does anyone know if I can expect similar results under vista? I've got vista ultimate 64 bit so I'm curious about the differences.

    Thanks again for testing that stuff... It's amazing to me this is on a laptop, damn it's hard to believe!
     
  10. Hydroxs macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa
    #10
    Can you post a 3dmark06 score? Run it at 1280x1024.
     
  11. Steve686 macrumors 68020

    Steve686

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Location:
    US>FL>Miami/Dade>Sunny Isles Beach>Condo
    #11
    On my 2.4, all temperatures hovered in the 150F range except for the HDD which was around 110F.
     
  12. cogmission macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #12
    It's obvious that those demos were not Universal Binaries - and so were running in Rosetta which would explain the performance similarities between the old systems and your new one.

    Programs don't inherently run faster by virtue of them running in Windows (sheesh if anything they would be much slower, except maybe for the 3D code being expressly written for DX9/10 etc)
     
  13. palebluedot macrumors 6502a

    palebluedot

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    #13
    Take these OS X reviews with a grain of salt. he was using demos for poor games that never performed well. Try to game in OS X with COD4, WoW, and Enemy territory: quake wars and then report! :p
     
  14. Chic0 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    UK
  15. bmcgrath macrumors 65816

    bmcgrath

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #15
    Question:

    In HL2 was 1440x900 not available? It is on my 2.2 MBP with the 8600. Just curious
     
  16. Chic0 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    That's the resolution they used ........

    "We tested HL2:E2 in the exact same manner as Portal—1440x900, highest quality settings, varying anti-aliasing settings."
     
  17. bmcgrath macrumors 65816

    bmcgrath

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #17
    That was directed for the OP :)
     
  18. Chic0 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Whoops!
    *insert embarassed face smiley here*
     
  19. bmcgrath macrumors 65816

    bmcgrath

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #19
    Tis ok! I prob shoulda been a bit more clear myself :)
     
  20. masse thread starter macrumors 6502a

    masse

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Location:
    MA/GA
    #20
    yeah I had to switch the aspect ratio (duh).

    I ran DOD:source in 1440x900 with 4xAA and 4xAF perfectly smooth.


    Also, I got around to UT3 and man this game runs so fast,

    Didn't do a proper benchmark, but it is very playable on deathmatch with 1152 and highest settings. 1024 with some lower settings provides better performance. I started this thread to give people a qualitative analysis of things. I don't have much time to run benchmarks and temperature test my machine. It does get fairly warm, but nothing more than my powerbook did when watching a youtube video.

    It cools down within 2 minutes and the fans shut off.
     
  21. Piarco macrumors 68030

    Piarco

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    Londinium
    #21
    Thanks for the info & updates masse, I'm putting together a list of games for my new MBP. I'm going for the base model, but I suspect I'll only drop a few frames over the 2.53ghz model.
    I'll be sticking to Windows as the gaming side of things via boot camp, but may install one or two on the OSX side for "quick fixes" :D
     
  22. masse thread starter macrumors 6502a

    masse

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Location:
    MA/GA
    #22
    3dmark 06 gave me a 6020 score with torrents running in the background. Not bad. Would probably be higher if I ran the test again properly.
     
  23. Hydroxs macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa
    #23
    Did you ran it at 1280x1024? The average score is around 5k
     

Share This Page