Should I buy a Macbook or Macbook Pro? (Games)

[Coldwater]

Thanks for all the advice folks.

The only game that is a "must-play" for me is Starcraft 2. Otherwise I play all my games on my Xbox 360.

I guess I should go MBP to be safe... or then again, maybe wait until SC2 is closer to release.

I wish Blizzard would just hurry up and come out with the system requirements already.

I can run Starcraft and Warcraft 3 on an old Pentium 2. Blizzard is going to optimize the HELL out of SC2 for the low end. The MB will do you fine.

 

[skypirate7]

I'm scared. Not being able to play Starcraft 2 (and at an enjoyable performance level) would be... a disaster.

 

[WildElf]

Now I can't interpret any of that... but what are your thoughts?

And thanks everyone for your advice thus far, I greatly appreciate it!!

Wow. I had no idea they were on record aiming that low. I take back what I said. You'll be sitting pretty with the new MacBook. PimentoLoaf and strikeinsilence make good points on the screen size, but you shouldn't need to worry about compatibility whatsoever.

To translate the quote, Radeon 9800/Geforce FX were cutting edge 6 years ago. GF 9000 series weren't released until THIS year. So, even though the 9400m isn't the beefiest card of that series, you've got a good 6 years of performance edge on their bare minimum target. Hell, from that, I'd think the old MacBooks will probably run splendidly.

So, even if they miss their target, I bet you'll be just fine.

 

[skypirate7]

Despite the fact that the graphics card has no memory?

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Despite the fact that the graphics card has no memory?

If you will be playing any new gen texture swapping games such as an FPS then you'll need it, no doubt.

RTS (starcraft 2), not so much. (Playable with minimal eye candy)

 

[Eddyisgreat]

To translate the quote, Radeon 9800/Geforce FX were cutting edge 6 years ago..

But besides DX10 capabilities, can't the R 9800/ and G FX 5950 mop the floor with a number of the next gen performance class cards (not the enthusiast class such as the 68xx's/78xx's/etc)

I remember when having a 9800 meant you were the hottest thing on the planet (lol)

 

[WildElf]

But besides DX10 capabilities, can't the R 9800/ and G FX 5950 mop the floor with a number of the next gen performance class cards (not the enthusiast class such as the 68xx's/78xx's/etc)

I seriously doubt it. The FX 5950 got 4000-5000 in 3DMark03 scores. I can't find any test runs on the 9400M yet, but nVidia claims a x5 improvement on 3DMark scores over the Intel Centrio 2. And the Intel chip would get 1500 in 3DMark03 (I'm not sure the resolution, but the FX numbers range is for 1024 to 1280 respectively, so I figure it's one of those) on an Acer Aspire.

So, if the x5 is accurate, you're looking at scores around 7500. It's not until the high end GF 7000 series, or mid range GF 8000 series do you see GeForces start to top that. 3Dmark isn't a good judge for games, but raw power, but it's a good overall picture.

The 9400 certainly isn't made for gamers (gamer cards tend to be $150-$250 and the best are getting around 14,000 in 3DMark06 scores). But it should top any card that's over 4 years old.

The real question, and cause for my initial dire concern isn't raw power, but specific shader support - this is what killed the old MacBook for Spore so recently, and has been the Achille's Heel for the integrated Intel chip in general for a long time. As far as resolution and speed, games are very forgiving. You can almost always turn down the resolution or graphics until you get something that you're happy with. Required shaders and other suport on the other hand, there's no way around it if your card doesn't support what the game requires.

Since Blizzard is aiming for compatibility with Radeon 9800's and GeForce FX's, 6 year old cards, then you won't have to worry about incompatibility on that scale, there's nothing on those cards that even the Intel integrated chip couldn't handle. The only question will be how many pretty options you won't be able to use, but it will probably be few enough to make it a pleasing experience.

 

[skypirate7]

Thanks for the info guys. I guess I'll have to wait a bit for more info from Blizzard...

 

[skypirate7]

So any additional info in terms of bench marking the graphics performance between the two?

Btw, I was considering the MBP with the 256 MB graphics card... the $2000 one, not the $2500 one.

2.4GHz
Intel Core 2 Duo
15-inch widescreen
2GB Memory
250GB hard drive1
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT with 256MB


I know people are wild about the higher-end MBP's performance, but what about the lower-end model?

 

[skypirate7]

Anyone know the performance differences between the 256 and 512 MB gfx card MBP's?

 

[Coldwater]

Woo hoo! I get a reason to dig up a post I made with all sorts of interesting graphs.

In short, you will see no difference.

In long:

I want everyone to take a look at this article showing the differences of two identical systems with a 7800GT with 256 in one and with 512 in the other.
http://www.pureoverclock.com/article33.html
First off, we need to see the difference between the 7800 GT and the 8600M GT. The 7800GT has a core clock relatively similar to the later released 8600M (note I am not using the 9600M as reliable performance numbers are not available at this time, take note that Apple also UNDERCLOCKED the 8600M, so if they do the same with the 9600M GT you will get even less performance then reported.) but it also has the ever important 256 bit bus width.

Here are your results:



And yes, I did leave out the charts that didn't support my point.
And remember, those WITH performance gains show so because of the bus width, IMO. It's just that this was the best I can find to directly compare two identical systems with only the card beings swapped out.

Even with those advantages, even WITH the 256 bit bus width, you only see gains up around 2048x1536 with max settings, and the framerate on most games was not playable anyway. To top it off, the article notes that even with a massive 100MB dump to the system memory, performance didn't take a noticeable hit till afterward. What does that tell me?

1) Even with the 256-bit interface, clock speed is a major factor when it comes to VRAM utilization.
2) Dumping to system memory isn't going to ruin your numbers until you get above 100MB.
3) The TYPE of memory used (512MB of GDDR2 vs 256 of GDDR3) has an even bigger effect on the card.
4) In order to see the benefits, your other hardware (CPU, RAM, etc) must exceed what a notebook can provide (without bursting into flames )

With that in mind, I can honestly tell you that the extra RAM in the 9600 will do next to nothing thanks to the bus width and the clock speed. (This is slightly dependent on Apple's habit of underclocking but I'd stand to say you wouldn't see a boost even if they didn't.) To answer you directly: Unless you are looking at a higher clocked card coupled with a fast CPU and good RAM, the extra memory will give you next to nothing (<1%). It simply shifts the bottleneck.

 

[richard13]

Woo hoo! I get a reason to dig up a post I made with all sorts of interesting graphs.

In short, you will see no difference.

In long:

So, you're using an article written over 2 1/2 years ago about video technology that isn't even relevant anymore as the basis for your comparison here? And, it seems like you only like to quote the article where it fits your logic. The Quake 4 tests show a clear and tangible difference in framerate.

I do agree with some of your points but your summation that there's no difference between 256MB and 512MB VRAM is really just an opinion, not fact.

I think the only real way to measure the performance difference would be to pit the MBP 2.4 vs 2.53 (and possibly the 2.8 too) in a benchmark shootout. At least then we'd have some actual proof.

 

[mcorleone]

Running Bootcamp Windows vs. a regular Windows PC.

I have a new Macbook Pro coming later this week. Now its somewhere over the Pacific shipped from Shanghai. I do plan on playing some games on it but its not a top priority. I have all 3 major consoles (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii) but I'd like to see what it can do. My question is does running Bootcamp with Window XP or Vista make PC based games run more slowly than say a similarly equipped Widows based laptop? It would make sense since it actually is running an emulated verion of Windows. If it would than I may not bother.

This will be my first ever Mac.

 

[Jatku]

I have a new Macbook Pro coming later this week. Now its somewhere over the Pacific shipped from Shanghai. I do plan on playing some games on it but its not a top priority. I have all 3 major consoles (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii) but I'd like to see what it can do. My question is does running Bootcamp with Window XP or Vista make PC based games run more slowly than say a similarly equipped Widows based laptop? It would make sense since it actually is running an emulated verion of Windows. If it would than I may not bother.

This will be my first ever Mac.

From what I understand, Bootcamp does not emulate Windows. It's running like any other PC. If you run Parallels, it is emulated because it's run within the OSX environment.

Just a quick OT question, which do you prefer, 360 or PS3?

I would say go for the upgrade to the MBP, if you have money to spare, in case you end up changing your mind and want to run the games like Crysis. I ended up deciding to order a few games even though I don't really play games just as my order shipped, luckily I'm getting the MBP anyway.

 

[mcorleone]

Hmm, OK, thats something to consider down the road. The Macbook Pro I ordered is top of the line; 2.8ghz, 4M RAM, 320G 7200 rpm HD. So it sounds like it can handle most of what is dished out today. For the record, I have a friend in Chicago who bought a Dell PC last year with specs not this high and he says Crysis runs fine on it.

As for the OT question, I prefer the 360 for console gaming since it has a much larger library and the achievement system which has been in place from the beginning unlike Sony's "too little, too late" trophy system.

 

[skypirate7]

I'm getting a bit overwhelmed in the technical details.


What I'd like to see is the Macbook vs the MBP 256 vs the MBP 512. The price differential between each is significant so I'd like to know exactly what I'm paying for, performance-wise.

And of course, thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far.

 

[nope7308]

I'm getting a bit overwhelmed in the technical details.


What I'd like to see is the Macbook vs the MBP 256 vs the MBP 512. The price differential between each is significant so I'd like to know exactly what I'm paying for, performance-wise.

And of course, thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far.

I'm no techy, but here is the rough breakdown (for the MBP):

For $500 you get...
- Slight processor bump
- Double cache
- Double RAM
- Double vRAM
- Bigger HD

Once you bring the HD and RAM up to par, the difference is about $250. If you factor in the edu discount, that number drops to about $200 (depending on currency).

So, once you equal the RAM and HD, you're really paying for:
- Slight processor bump
- Double cache
- Double vRAM

If you want to know the benefits of those upgrades, just use the 'forum search' and you'll find plenty. At the end of the day, whether or not it's worth the extra $200 really depends on your needs/preferences. Unfortunately, your decision is not going to get any easier

 

[Coldwater]

So, you're using an article written over 2 1/2 years ago about video technology that isn't even relevant anymore as the basis for your comparison here? And, it seems like you only like to quote the article where it fits your logic. The Quake 4 tests show a clear and tangible difference in framerate.

I do agree with some of your points but your summation that there's no difference between 256MB and 512MB VRAM is really just an opinion, not fact.

I think the only real way to measure the performance difference would be to pit the MBP 2.4 vs 2.53 (and possibly the 2.8 too) in a benchmark shootout. At least then we'd have some actual proof.

How is the video technology "not relevant"? The last time I checked, graphics cards still have a memory interface. Both cards are comparatively clocked. The non "relevant" video card, as you put it, has double the bus width of the current 9600M, and even in that case those "clear and tangible" framerate differences amount to nil; could you point out the difference when playing a game between 130 and 118 FPS? I'm pretty sure anything over 80 will be unnoticeable, and where it would count (at 2048 x 1536) you get what, 3FPS?

The point of that post was to show that, even with double the bus width, doubling the ram has no where near the effect that you would be lead to believe. I firmly believe that a 128-bit card like the 9600M will take next to no advantage of the extra memory.

Even if you did get the performance gains as listed above, does 3FPS at those highest settings warrant an extra $500? I'll let you decide.

And for the record I was never arguing 256MB against 512MB of RAM, but those amounts with a 128-bit card vs a 256-bit. There is no doubt that a 256-bit card can and will take more advantage of the RAM, but I highly doubt a 128-bit card will.

 

[cluthz]

But if you buy a MB today, there's a very real chance that it won't be up to running SCII at all.

rbarris from blizzard posted on this forum that they probably will support SCII on nvidia 7300 and ati x1600, so it will definitively run on 9400!

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5476654#post5476654

 

[skypirate7]

Alright, I think I'm going to pull the trigger on a new MBP with the 256 graphics card. I'll probably go try it at the Mall of America first, then I'll buy it online.

With my Northwest Airlines discount, comes to $1839 with free shipping. Seems reasonable.

 

[richard13]

How is the video technology "not relevant"? The last time I checked, graphics cards still have a memory interface. Both cards are comparatively clocked. The non "relevant" video card, as you put it, has double the bus width of the current 9600M, and even in that case those "clear and tangible" framerate differences amount to nil; could you point out the difference when playing a game between 130 and 118 FPS? I'm pretty sure anything over 80 will be unnoticeable, and where it would count (at 2048 x 1536) you get what, 3FPS?

The point of that post was to show that, even with double the bus width, doubling the ram has no where near the effect that you would be lead to believe. I firmly believe that a 128-bit card like the 9600M will take next to no advantage of the extra memory.

Even if you did get the performance gains as listed above, does 3FPS at those highest settings warrant an extra $500? I'll let you decide.

And for the record I was never arguing 256MB against 512MB of RAM, but those amounts with a 128-bit card vs a 256-bit. There is no doubt that a 256-bit card can and will take more advantage of the RAM, but I highly doubt a 128-bit card will.

The point I was trying to make is that graphics technology has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 2-3 years. nVidia has put out 3 full generations in that time. Comparing specs of graphics cards of those of yesterday with today isn't exactly the same. Regarding the Quake 4 spec, if it scales, yes it makes a difference. If it didn't, why bother running the benchmark?

As far as your 128-bit vs 256-bit argument is concerned, you do have a point. Like I said, I agree with a lot of what you said but you aren't looking at the whole picture. To oversimplify, we have the cars on the road (RAM), and the highway (bus) what's being left out is the speed limit (clock). There are lots of other variables to consider like efficiency of design, transistor count, shader engines, etc. So, while the 128-bit bus is a factor it is not solely the reason for graphics being fast or not, nor is it for how efficiently VRAM is used.