<<New Poll>>Refresh|Updated MacBook Pro Gaming Benchmarks (Videos / Pics!)

How Do You Think The New MacBook Pro Games?


  • Total voters
    181

rmbrown09

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2010
942
0
Seattle
Please post what you have, be it a statistical 3dmark06 test, average of your FPS in a certain game, video stress test, whatever. Let's get out there what these things can do so that those who are unsure (myself) can decide what system is for them.

Steam for Mac should be here ASAP and then we could really see, however it is not available yet ;/ Thanks guys.



Edit: here is a YouTube Modern Warfare 2 on a 15" low end i5. (runs pretty well considering it's the low end)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZOOuLDTcas

Bad Company 2 Here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Gqh2uu9ik

Call of Duty World At War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM6WPZQI2CQ

Crysis (Kinda)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_TtaAUgfok

Punk ass kid reviews the 15" 2.53 and plays some Crysis Wars (skip to 8:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao84oWkrvwU

StarCraft II pic
(average 40 FPS on low end i5 {All High, 1440x900)


Bad Company 2
1280x800
4xAF
2XAA
Medium Settings
(Again low end i5)
30 - 60 FPS (but mainly 30's)
 

Jarcrew

macrumors 6502
Mar 16, 2007
339
8
Cardiff, Wales
I'll be interested to see the numbers in here once Steam is out.

Do we know anything extra about Steam, incidentally? Is it still coming out in "April"? Because - without meaning any disrespect to Valve - Team Fortress 2's first demo at E3 was in 1999. And it was released in 2007. And people have been vying for HL2E3 for the better part of, what, four or five years now? They're not a company that's been bothered by release dates or promises in the past.
 

jjahshik32

macrumors 603
Sep 4, 2006
5,259
1
All I can say is that on the 15" 2.8GHz mbp with the 9600m gt card, the game mass effect 2 was pretty bad in the fps department (turned off all the 4 graphics options) and I just tested it out on my i7 mbp which ran considerably faster.

I still turned off all the 4 options under the gpu menu and now 95% of the game play is fluid with hardly any frames dropping. The only time it shows a little bit of frame drop is when there are 4+ enemy battles and now its more than playable!

Next I'll be testing out bioshock 2, the 9600m gt card ran that very poorly and I'm sure that the 330m will allow me to play it without much drop in the frames.
 

rmbrown09

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2010
942
0
Seattle
All I can say is that on the 15" 2.8GHz mbp with the 9600m gt card, the game mass effect 2 was pretty bad in the fps department (turned off all the 4 graphics options) and I just tested it out on my i7 mbp which ran considerably faster.

I still turned off all the 4 options under the gpu menu and now 95% of the game play is fluid with hardly any frames dropping. The only time it shows a little bit of frame drop is when there are 4+ enemy battles and now its more than playable!

Next I'll be testing out bioshock 2, the 9600m gt card ran that very poorly and I'm sure that the 330m will allow me to play it without much drop in the frames.
Good to know, still can't find and 330m benches besides notebook checks, but who knows what processor they are using in that test.

Obviously CSS, HL2, Portal, and many other good oldies being ported will be able to go Max max max settings (on 1440x900, most likely on 16xx too)
 

vasuba

macrumors member
Apr 13, 2010
85
0
All I can say is that on the 15" 2.8GHz mbp with the 9600m gt card, the game mass effect 2 was pretty bad in the fps department (turned off all the 4 graphics options) and I just tested it out on my i7 mbp which ran considerably faster.

I still turned off all the 4 options under the gpu menu and now 95% of the game play is fluid with hardly any frames dropping. The only time it shows a little bit of frame drop is when there are 4+ enemy battles and now its more than playable!

Next I'll be testing out bioshock 2, the 9600m gt card ran that very poorly and I'm sure that the 330m will allow me to play it without much drop in the frames.
Thinks its safe to say we will be seeing pretty similar results. Just realized the benchmarks being passed around already are the 1GB model of the 330M and that is a Medium Setting if lucky GPU.

The 256 has no shot in hell of being worth a damn and the 512 is gonna be just slightly better than the 256 so their cutting corners GPU wise is gonna be alot more apparent
 

Cali3350

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2009
249
0
I have a Sony Vaio CW with a 330M (512mb). What benchmarks do you mostly want to see? Ill see if I can set something up.
 

rmbrown09

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2010
942
0
Seattle
I have a Sony Vaio CW with a 330M (512mb). What benchmarks do you mostly want to see? Ill see if I can set something up.
Anything you have honestly, also can you list your full specs so we can gauge how exact of a comparison we are looking at.

Also with Steam coming to mac, open GL 4 just coming out, we don't know how these games will run on the OSx side. Css might gain 5 FPS, drop 10, who knows. But it still should give us an idea.
 

Cali3350

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2009
249
0
Anything you have honestly, also can you list your full specs so we can gauge how exact of a comparison we are looking at.

Also with Steam coming to mac, open GL 4 just coming out, we don't know how these games will run on the OSx side. Css might gain 5 FPS, drop 10, who knows. But it still should give us an idea.
Well in terms of subjective benchmarks I can say this:

Stock clocked it can run games like Modern Warfare 2 okish. It lags pretty noticeablly when a lot is going on (this is on a 1600*900 display).
Overclocked it runs Modern Warfare 2 pretty perfectly at high settings at that res (keep in mind if you get the 256mb model you WILL have to turn down textures).

I believe it gets 225fps overclocked in the CS:S benchmark with max settings at 1600*900 4xaa 16xaf.

I have it overclocked from 450/600 to 690/1000.
 

rmbrown09

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2010
942
0
Seattle
Well in terms of subjective benchmarks I can say this:

Stock clocked it can run games like Modern Warfare 2 okish. It lags pretty noticeablly when a lot is going on (this is on a 1600*900 display).
Overclocked it runs Modern Warfare 2 pretty perfectly at high settings at that res (keep in mind if you get the 256mb model you WILL have to turn down textures).

I believe it gets 225fps overclocked in the CS:S benchmark with max settings at 1600*900 4xaa 16xaf.

I have it overclocked from 450/600 to 690/1000.
um.....225fps?? I can't imagine you gain 200 ish FPS??

the human eye can't see past 58 fps, and all laptop monitors have a refresh (hertz) rate of 60. so even if you get 4,00000 fps, you will never get over 60 fps since your monitor won't do it. and you won't see over 58 still.

ummm. so what fps are you getting stock clocked?
 

Cali3350

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2009
249
0
um.....225fps?? I can't imagine you gain 200 ish FPS??

the human eye can't see past 58 fps, and all laptop monitors have a refresh (hertz) rate of 60. so even if you get 4,00000 fps, you will never get over 60 fps since your monitor won't do it. and you won't see over 58 still.

ummm. so what fps are you getting stock clocked?
No, thats not true. The monitor wont display over 60fps, yes, but the graphics card has no inherent limit on how quickly it can generate images.

Stock clocked I believe I get around 165.
 

murdercitydevil

macrumors 68000
Feb 23, 2010
1,561
0
california
Well in terms of subjective benchmarks I can say this:

Stock clocked it can run games like Modern Warfare 2 okish. It lags pretty noticeablly when a lot is going on (this is on a 1600*900 display).
Overclocked it runs Modern Warfare 2 pretty perfectly at high settings at that res (keep in mind if you get the 256mb model you WILL have to turn down textures).

I believe it gets 225fps overclocked in the CS:S benchmark with max settings at 1600*900 4xaa 16xaf.

I have it overclocked from 450/600 to 690/1000.
might be a dumb question, but - how does one go about hardware overclocks on os x? Is it possible to flash the card bios in bootcamp, for instance, since obviously any software-level OC would be disabled once booted into OS X.
 

Jarcrew

macrumors 6502
Mar 16, 2007
339
8
Cardiff, Wales
Yeah, but - with maybe the exception of Braid (that old processor hog) - I'm not that fussed about anything that isn't Valve (only games worth playing on the PC these days, for me).
 

rmbrown09

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 25, 2010
942
0
Seattle
No, thats not true. The monitor wont display over 60fps, yes, but the graphics card has no inherent limit on how quickly it can generate images.

Stock clocked I believe I get around 165.
165 means crank it up. haha you wan't to go until you can average just over 65 ish, to avoid seeing any drop at all in intense situations.

I'm kinda a new mac guy, came from the hardcore gaming PC world. Still have those optimization habits though, for instance my current 2.8 is undervolted perfectly, even though it does almost nothing.
 

Cali3350

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2009
249
0
might be a dumb question, but - how does one go about hardware overclocks on os x? Is it possible to flash the card bios in bootcamp, for instance, since obviously any software-level OC would be disabled once booted into OS X.
A BIOS overclock would be the only way. If you want to run games (and therefore feel the need to overclock) I highly recommend BootCamp. You will get better gaming performance. In Windows there are many ways to software overclock.
 

edt123

macrumors newbie
Apr 13, 2010
1
0
All I can say is that on the 15" 2.8GHz mbp with the 9600m gt card, the game mass effect 2 was pretty bad in the fps department (turned off all the 4 graphics options) and I just tested it out on my i7 mbp which ran considerably faster.

I still turned off all the 4 options under the gpu menu and now 95% of the game play is fluid with hardly any frames dropping. The only time it shows a little bit of frame drop is when there are 4+ enemy battles and now its more than playable!

Next I'll be testing out bioshock 2, the 9600m gt card ran that very poorly and I'm sure that the 330m will allow me to play it without much drop in the frames.
About to order the core i7 macbook pro, but still can't find too much info on how bootcamp works under the new macbooks. jjahshik32, do you have windows 7 installed? If so, does the video card switch between the nvidia and intel integrated. Since apple is not using optimus, apple probably needs some driver to enable the graphic switch under windows.

Thanks.
 

vasuba

macrumors member
Apr 13, 2010
85
0
see above, and also, we don't know what specs they have running. they might only have a 2.4 duo or something.
They do list the specs.

They managed 38 FPS average with all Setting son medium at 720P for Crysis with
Intel Core i5 520M 2.4GHz and 4GB of ram

Problem though is the 1GB variant being used.