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

[rmbrown09]

I feel like a noob for asking this but

Does COD 4 on the mac that was ported perform worse than the Windows version??

I have the 2.53 15" i5 and was able to run medium to high settings on 1440x900 (no AA)

and get acceptable 40 - 60 FPS

does the windows version run better?

 

[Libertine Lush]

Does COD 4 on the mac that was ported perform worse than the Windows version?

I asked the same question here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/903133/

Most people said it gets higher frame rate on the same hardware on Windows.

 

[DesmoPilot]

I asked the same question here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/903133/

Most people said it gets higher frame rate on the same hardware on Windows.

Makes total sense considering OS X's drivers are horrible.

 

[therealseebs]

Anyone? I'm a few hours away from confirming my replacement. I really want the anti-glare screen but if there's a big drop in gaming performance, I'd consider sticking with the standard one.

I'd guess that it should be pretty livable. I'm using the 330M/512MB for WoW at 1920x1200 and it's fine.

 

[rmbrown09]

I asked the same question here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/903133/

Most people said it gets higher frame rate on the same hardware on Windows.

hmm well I just really am hoping the source engine port does at least AS well as the Windows counter part

 

[mikeo007]

hmm well I just really am hoping the source engine port does at least AS well as the Windows counter part

"As well" is the best case scenario. It certainly won't run better than it does on Windows. It wouldn't be a huge stretch to guess that not only performance will be lower on Mac, but also the quality of the graphics since the OSX version of steam will be using OpenGL.

 

[sth]

"As well" is the best case scenario. It certainly won't run better than it does on Windows. It wouldn't be a huge stretch to guess that not only performance will be lower on Mac, but also the quality of the graphics since the OSX version of steam will be using OpenGL.

I don't know about Games like L4D but at least HL2, Portal and TF2 don't use any technologies that couldn't be implemented using OpenGL.

 

[rmbrown09]

I don't know about Games like L4D but at least HL2, Portal and TF2 don't use any technologies that couldn't be implemented using OpenGL.

Open GL benches do better than DX I don't understand, on paper these ports should do better than Windows versions.

 

[mikeo007]

Open GL benches do better than DX I don't understand, on paper these ports should do better than Windows versions.

Problem one is that OGL and DX handle different effects differently, giving each an edge depending on the situation.

The other problem is that benchmarks are always done OGL Windows vs DX Windows. Mac does worse in a variety of situations (World of Warcraft OpenGL for example) meaning that even if OpenGL is optimal, it may still perform worse on Mac.

 

[Mattacrazy108]

Got my MBP 15 i5 2.4ghz with high res display.
Installed C&C 3 and Flight Simulator 10 in XP.
Ran C&C on Ultra high with full resolution at about 40FPS.
Flight Simulator ran on high, full res at 35FPS.
I'll post some more once I get GTA IV for PC and Steam for Mac comes out

Also ran Geekbench trial version on OS X. Got 3298 first time and was shocked but then relaised switchable graphics. Turned on the 330m and got 4250.

 

[rmbrown09]

I have been slightly disappointed with Cod4, obviously this game was ported by a team of professionals, but on my 2.53 i5, on 1440x900 I can only have a mix of medium and high, nothing on Extra and I still hang in the 40's.

Could there be something wrong? The copy isn't exactly legal, but I mean..

 

[0186279]

I have been slightly disappointed with Cod4, obviously this game was ported by a team of professionals, but on my 2.53 i5, on 1440x900 I can only have a mix of medium and high, nothing on Extra and I still hang in the 40's.

Could there be something wrong? The copy isn't exactly legal, but I mean..

med-high with fps in the 40s sounds solid to me for a mac....what were you expecting?

 

[puercaeli]

Finally someone who plays FS!

Got my MBP 15 i5 2.4ghz with high res display.
Installed C&C 3 and Flight Simulator 10 in XP.
Ran C&C on Ultra high with full resolution at about 40FPS.
Flight Simulator ran on high, full res at 35FPS.
I'll post some more once I get GTA IV for PC and Steam for Mac comes out

Also ran Geekbench trial version on OS X. Got 3298 first time and was shocked but then relaised switchable graphics. Turned on the 330m and got 4250.

I am looking forward to doing same on my MBP when it comes...
by the way were you using any add-ons like PMDG etc when you got that fps? just curious

 

[mikeo007]

I have been slightly disappointed with Cod4, obviously this game was ported by a team of professionals, but on my 2.53 i5, on 1440x900 I can only have a mix of medium and high, nothing on Extra and I still hang in the 40's.

Could there be something wrong? The copy isn't exactly legal, but I mean..

Bootlegs will strain the processor a bit more, but it shouldn't effect the FPS very much. If you have a windows install running in bootcamp, i'd suggest "acquiring" a copy of CoD4 for windows and comparing. I'd think that your FPS would improve a bit.

 

[rmbrown09]

I think the lesson here is, if you are going to be gaming on your MBP, get the i7, not because it has an i7, but because it has the extra 256 of vram.

I can only turn 3 settings to high and the rest have to be normal, FPS will stay just about the same the whole time, but If I set more than 3 to high or even one to extra, FPS goes to 2 -3. Tell tale signs that there is not enough Vram.

I bet on the 512 model you could pump everything to high on 1440x900

Anyone done this? Mac Side

 

[Tex-Twil]

Here is my 3D Mark 06 with my new MBP. Strangley I have 700 more that with the High Res mbp with same specs.

Which software are you using to overclock ?

 

[Libertine Lush]

I bet on the 512 model you could pump everything to high on 1440x900

Anyone done this? Mac Side

My Mac copy of the game arrived couple days ago. MBP i7 just yesterday. How do you display the frame rate in game?

 

[rmbrown09]

My Mac copy of the game arrived couple days ago. MBP i7 just yesterday. How do you display the frame rate in game?

bring up your console with the ~ button

/cg_draw fps 1 or something like that, should show you.

Make sure you tell what settings you are using.

 

[Libertine Lush]

bring up your console with the ~ button

/cg_draw fps 1 or something like that, should show you.

Bare with me; I'm completely unfamiliar with computer gaming.

I looked up what you said, since I didn't fully understand it, and found this:

"Show framerate so you can see how your PC is performing.
\cg_drawFPS 1 (choices are 0,1,2,or 3 where 0 = off)
- At a minimum, you need to try to be above 60FPS so that you have not visual choppiness. Reduce textures, shadows, lighting etc. to get above 60 if possible: "

What's the difference in typing a 1, 2, or 3?

I'm too busy to try the game much at the moment, so I'll followup with more helpful info at a later point, here and in my COD4 thread, but for now I'll just say that with the game's automatic "optimal settings," and with AA manually upped to 2x and res upped to native res (1680x1050), it runs smoothly. Course smoothly is subjective and vague, so I'll try out the frame rate thing soon.

EDIT: I just tried it. Entering 2 or 3 merely gives more technical info I don't understand and I assume you're not asking for. So assuming "\cg_drawFPS 1" is all you need, what frame rate info is most meaningful: the frame rate range in parenthese or the the single frame that comes after it?

 

[rmbrown09]

Bare with me; I'm completely unfamiliar with computer gaming.

I looked up what you said, since I didn't fully understand it, and found this:

"Show framerate so you can see how your PC is performing.
\cg_drawFPS 1 (choices are 0,1,2,or 3 where 0 = off)
- At a minimum, you need to try to be above 60FPS so that you have not visual choppiness. Reduce textures, shadows, lighting etc. to get above 60 if possible: "

What's the difference in typing a 1, 2, or 3?

I'm too busy to try the game much at the moment, so I'll followup with more helpful info at a later point, here and in my COD4 thread, but for now I'll just say that with the game's automatic "optimal settings," and with AA manually upped to 2x and res upped to native res (1680x1050), it runs smoothly. Course smoothly is subjective and vague, so I'll try out the frame rate thing soon.

EDIT: I just tried it. Entering 2 or 3 merely gives more technical info I don't understand and I assume you're not asking for. So assuming "\cg_drawFPS 1" is all you need, what frame rate info is most meaningful: the frame rate range in parenthese or the the single frame that comes after it?

assuming you choose the option 1, that way there should be only two numbers, I want the FPS, or the top number (at least on cg_drawfps 1)

 

[Libertine Lush]

assuming you choose the option 1, that way there should be only two numbers, I want the FPS, or the top number (at least on cg_drawfps 1)

In a multiplayer map with no weather effects, like rain, and very little shubbery, I got mostly 4x-5xfps in scenarios of action. That is using the game's automatic optimal settings, but then manually upping res to 1680x1050 and maxing out all 3 texture types. In areas with less activity or indoors, it would go up to 90fps.

Is the 1280x800 setting the next lower setting that would be appropriate for MBP owners to try if they want to get 60fps, since the other res settings above that are not 16:10?

 

[0186279]

In a multiplayer map with no weather effects, like rain, and very little shubbery, I got mostly 4x-5xfps in scenarios of action. That is using the game's automatic optimal settings, but then manually upping res to 1680x1050 and maxing out all 3 texture types. In areas with less activity or indoors, it would go up to 90fps.

Is the 1280x800 setting the next lower setting that would be appropriate for MBP owners to try if they want to get 60fps, since the other res settings above that are not 16:10?

Wait, you got higher fps on a higher resolution?

 

[rmbrown09]

In a multiplayer map with no weather effects, like rain, and very little shubbery, I got mostly 4x-5xfps in scenarios of action. That is using the game's automatic optimal settings, but then manually upping res to 1680x1050 and maxing out all 3 texture types. In areas with less activity or indoors, it would go up to 90fps.

Is the 1280x800 setting the next lower setting that would be appropriate for MBP owners to try if they want to get 60fps, since the other res settings above that are not 16:10?

timeout, you are on the 512 mb card and playing cod 4 on the mac side yes?

and you got 90's on the HS screen with max texture qualities?!?! omfg if that is true.

I can run med and high on 1440x900 and get 30's in action, 60's everywhere else.

that extra 256 then allows for a res bump and max settings? damn

or you are on the windows side or I missed something

 

[Libertine Lush]

Wait, you got higher fps on a higher resolution?

I tried lower resolutions as well. 1024x768, which was what the game chose by default, and 1280x800, the only other 16:10 res I saw (that wasn't lower than the default res). Both these lower res settings get higher res than 1680x1050, as you would expect.

timeout, you are on the 512 mb card and playing cod 4 on the mac side yes?

and you got 90's on the HS screen with max texture qualities?!?! omfg if that is true.

I can run med and high on 1440x900 and get 30's in action, 60's everywhere else.

that extra 256 then allows for a res bump and max settings? damn

15", i7, 512MB, Hi-Res and Mac version of COD4. 90fps was mostly only inside buildings. But when I lowered the res to either 1024x786 or 1200x800, one or both (I forget) of those were able to get 90fps more regularily, not just indoors.

One interesting I noticed, and this is the case with a couple of the resolutions I tried: whether I allow for the default "Automatic" setting for textures or "Manual," wherein I max all 3 out, I saw no difference in frame rate.

Is your MBP a standard res one? I wanted to try lowering res to 1440x900 to see if it could do 60fps in action areas, but it's not an available setting for me. Although with 1680x1050 getting fps in the 40s and 50s, I think I'd rather say with the higher res, since so far I don't seem to be able to see much difference with 60fps. And it looks stunning at this res.

 

[rmbrown09]

Lots of stuff

OK so basically this is the situation;

I, with my i5 256 can play 1440x900 with 2/3 texture settings at high, and one at medium. I get 30's and 40's outside, 60's inside.

You can play 16xx res, with max settings{i7} (though I am not sure if you were applying the "Extra" option or "High")

Here is one difference though, I am running the 1.5 version, and you most likely are on 1.7, the patch difference includes some GPU optimizations especially for AA and stuff.
So that could account for some of it.