Speculation: Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 on new Macbook

[i0Nic]

Hey guys, trying to decide between a new MB or MBP. Basically the macbook is perfect for my needs but I want to be able to play these two games when they come out. I know we can only speculate based on the few benchmarks that have been done on the macbook so far, and we don't know the system requirements for these games yet. But, how do you think these games will run on the macbook?

Blizzard has a history of developing games that can be played by relatively poor hardware. However if these games would have to be run at low settings at low resolution it might not be worth playing them on a macbook, and a MBP jump would be necessary.

So, how do you think these games will run on the new macbook?

 

[Eidorian]

The minimum requirements fall under the venerable nVidia 7 and ATI X1000 Series. I suspect the 7600GT and X1600 XT would be a good guess for what's considered a minimum range video card.

The MacBook's 9400M G falls in around this performance level (7300GT - X1600) as well but keep in mind that it's still using shared system RAM.

 

[i0Nic]

The minimum requirements fall under the venerable nVidia 7 and ATI X1000 Series. I suspect the 7600GT and X1600 XT would be a good guess for what's considered a minimum range video card.

The MacBook's 9400M G falls in around this performance level (7300GT - X1600) as well but keep in mind that it's still using shared system RAM.

Are these minimum specs speculation or have they been confirmed?
Would the MBP be much better for these games, if it's only going to be a bit better then I may as well just get the MB.

 

[Eidorian]

Are these minimum specs speculation or have they been confirmed?
Would the MBP be much better for these games, if it's only going to be a bit better then I may as well just get the MB.

The specifications are part speculation and part leaks.

The 9600M GT on the MacBook Pro is going to be a much better solution for these games. It does have dedicated video RAM and twice the shader cores.

It's no Mobility HD46xx but it's what we have today.

 

[Bechmann]

Those 2 games are exactly the games I want to play. Oh and also Football Manager of course.

When is Diablo 3 expected to be released?

I plan on buying an iMac that very instant

 

[iSpoody 1243]

doubt the macbook will run these games that good, but at least it should be able to "RUN" all the new games coming out for the next 3 years

 

[Dybbuk]

jesus i hope diablo 3 will run

 

[zacman]

I think Gizmodo has some videos of Spore running on the MacBook (pro). It runs ok, not perfect but definetly playable.

 

[Balty]

I think Gizmodo has some videos of Spore running on the MacBook (pro). It runs ok, not perfect but definetly playable.

Here, near the middle....

 

[Davidkoh]

http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html?lsrc=top_1


"We used Quake’s average-frames-per-second score; we tested at a resolution of 1,024 by 768 pixels at the Maximum setting with both audio and graphics enabled."

38.7 FPS is what they got, this with 2 GB of ram, 4 would prolly boost it some more.

 

[i0Nic]

http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html?lsrc=top_1


"We used Quake’s average-frames-per-second score; we tested at a resolution of 1,024 by 768 pixels at the Maximum setting with both audio and graphics enabled."

38.7 FPS is what they got, this with 2 GB of ram, 4 would prolly boost it some more.

That's not too bad, but Quake 4 is a 2.5 year old game. I think I'll get the MBP to be safe, since I won't be carrying it around too often I should be fine with size. Unless that extra bit of size and weight significantly makes the laptop feel a lot less portable, that's the risk taken. Either way there's a risk, either the laptop is too big with the MBP or not powerful enough for games with the MB.

 

[Davidkoh]

That's not too bad, but Quake 4 is a 2.5 year old game. I think I'll get the MBP to be safe, since I won't be carrying it around too often I should be fine with size. Unless that extra bit of size and weight significantly makes the laptop feel a lot less portable, that's the risk taken. Either way there's a risk, either the laptop is too big with the MBP or not powerful enough for games with the MB.

As you can see from the link, the MBP only got 58.9 in that 2.5 year old game Despite being old it is still high demanding. I would guess the MBP is around twice as fast in many games though. Still don't think Diablo 3 would require it, but that's just me

 

[i0Nic]

As you can see from the link, the MBP only got 58.9 in that 2.5 year old game Despite being old it is still high demanding. I would guess the MBP is around twice as fast in many games though. Still don't think Diablo 3 would require it, but that's just me

Are you saying that it would be better to stick with the macbook? The main games for me are WoW (macbook runs it perfectly) and then starcraft 2 and diablo 3, anything else is a bonus. However who knows what game will come out in a year or two, but then again in a year or two the MBP probably won't run it either. I have an xbox for my general gaming. I'm so indecisive on it, if only Apple made a 13" with the dedicated video card I would pick that instantly.

 

[Davidkoh]

Are you saying that it would be better to stick with the macbook? The main games for me are WoW (macbook runs it perfectly) and then starcraft 2 and diablo 3, anything else is a bonus. However who knows what game will come out in a year or two, but then again in a year or two the MBP probably won't run it either. I have an xbox for my general gaming. I'm so indecisive on it, if only Apple made a 13" with the dedicated video card I would pick that instantly.

If you are gonna game on it I suggest you take the MBP. I take the MB just because I wanna play demanding games like once per month tops. Otherwise its the older ones I play. If you feel you put time into gaming and you arent sure on the demands on starcraft 2 and diablo 3 take the pro.

For me I rather have the portability because I rarely game anyhow. It's all in how often you move it compared to how often you game.

 

[i0Nic]

If you are gonna game on it I suggest you take the MBP. I take the MB just because I wanna play demanding games like once per month tops. Otherwise its the older ones I play. If you feel you put time into gaming and you arent sure on the demands on starcraft 2 and diablo 3 take the pro.

For me I rather have the portability because I rarely game anyhow. It's all in how often you move it compared to how often you game.

I guess you're right. 70% of the time it will be sitting at my desk, sometimes I'll move it to the bed or in front of the TV and once in a while I might take it to work or a friend's house. So.. I don't really need anything ultra-portable. I just kinda like the smaller form-factor though, I've grown used to it. Practically though, it shouldn't make much difference if I had a slightly bigger notebook.

I guess I've pretty much answered the question myself, I just want someone to tell me that those 2 games will run very well and I don't need the macbook pro!

 

[Davidkoh]

I guess you're right. 70% of the time it will be sitting at my desk, sometimes I'll move it to the bed or in front of the TV and once in a while I might take it to work or a friend's house. So.. I don't really need anything ultra-portable. I just kinda like the smaller form-factor though, I've grown used to it. Practically though, it shouldn't make much difference if I had a slightly bigger notebook.

I guess I've pretty much answered the question myself, I just want someone to tell me that those 2 games will run very well and I don't need the macbook pro!

The problem is we wont know how well the MB can handle em until they are released. I think it will handle em if you pull the settings down a bit, but thats just speculations from my end

 

[i0Nic]

This review states that the Macbook gets a score of 4064 in Cinebench’s OpenGL test, while the MBP doesn't get a whole lot more with a score of 4666. The previous black macbook scored 1980. Maybe there's not a huge difference.

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/apple-macbook-2008.aspx?page=3

 

[Aelyrin]

Just bought the new 2.4GHZ MB with 4 gigs of ram.

I am upgrading from a 2.33ghz MBP, x1600 video, 2 gigs of ram (17"). My first impressions have been the following:

1. Fast boot time (2-3x faster than my MBP after cloning from my old to the new.

2. Application startup time dramtically increased.

3. Trackpad is a dream to use once you get better with it

4. Better battery life

The one that most of you are probably wondering about:

5. Running spore on both machines, graphics were comparable, I think the macbook outstrips my older machine by a bit. Spore is extremely playable at the default settings it chose, I havent messed with them much, so I am sure I can make it run better.

All in all, I am very happy.

Few other things to note:

Heating issue compared to my MBP and my wifes white macbook 1.83ghz is 1000% better. No heating problems unless you are running spore in your lap with the vents blocked by blankets.

Screen brightness is much better.

Reflection while sitting outside and working is very bad.

 

[sangosimo]

blizz develops games for everyone, and a rts and rpg games aren't as fps sensitive as shooter games. These game will be playable. I think the best thing about these games is that they will probably run naively in osx.

 

[Eidorian]

blizz develops games for everyone, and a rts and rpg games aren't as fps sensitive as shooter games. These game will be playable. I think the best thing about these games is that they will probably run naively in osx.

- Company of Heroes
- Supreme Commander
- Oblivion

 

[i0Nic]

- Company of Heroes
- Supreme Commander
- Oblivion

Right those games are pretty graphics intensive. However I have my xbox 360 games for that, just trying to determine if starcraft 2 will run decently.

In Australia it's about $1000 difference between the base macbook and the base macbook pro, and $550 difference between the 2.4ghz mb and base mbp. It's a big price jump just to be able to play a few games casually which is why I'm trying to get as much info as I can. cheers guys.

 

[Fredd-E]

i0Nic, you're in the same boat as me... i'm also undecided.

But I've set my mind to waiting until all of the following criteria have been fullfilled;

1. Torq 1.5 is final (for my dj'ing purposes)
2. Starcraft 2 is released (i guess at least another 4 months of waiting)
3. Snow Leopard comes shipped with new macbooks (any due date?)
4. Revision B of the new macbooks (pro) is out

And I'm more in favour of a 15" MBP because discrete graphics will allow me to give more juicy details in Starcraft and still be able to have decent fps. FPS is a big thing in a fast rts like starcraft. laggy = bad, very bad in a rts game!

My girlfriend, on the other hand, ordered herself a brand new Macbook 2.4Ghz with 4GB of ram. I'll definitely try Starcraft 2 on her machine. Just for comparison.

 

[i0Nic]

i0Nic, you're in the same boat as me... i'm also undecided.

But I've set my mind to waiting until all of the following criteria have been fullfilled;

1. Torq 1.5 is final (for my dj'ing purposes)
2. Starcraft 2 is released (i guess at least another 4 months of waiting)
3. Snow Leopard comes shipped with new macbooks (any due date?)
4. Revision B of the new macbooks (pro) is out

And I'm more in favour of a 15" MBP because discrete graphics will allow me to give more juicy details in Starcraft and still be able to have decent fps. FPS is a big thing in a fast rts like starcraft. laggy = bad, very bad in a rts game!

My girlfriend, on the other hand, ordered herself a brand new Macbook 2.4Ghz with 4GB of ram. I'll definitely try Starcraft 2 on her machine. Just for comparison.

I wish I could wait but I need a new computer asap. Are you mostly concerned about the difference in price between the macbook and MBP or the difference in size/weight? For me it's a mix of both, however I won't be carrying the macbook around with me very often so I'll probably drop the extra coin for the MBP and be satisfied in knowing I can run those games with ease.

 

[Aniki]

9400M should be more than enough for starcraft 2. Heck the gma x3100 might run it on lower settings.

Diablo 3 is a different story. Won't run on ANY intel integrated chips. I'm pretty sure the 9400M would work, since it can run fallout 3, but I don't know about highest settings.

 

[Fredd-E]

I wish I could wait but I need a new computer asap. Are you mostly concerned about the difference in price between the macbook and MBP or the difference in size/weight? For me it's a mix of both, however I won't be carrying the macbook around with me very often so I'll probably drop the extra coin for the MBP and be satisfied in knowing I can run those games with ease.

Thing is I don't need a laptop right now. So I can wait for a while indeed.

And I'm not concerned about anything really... I'm having a luxury problem I suppose. If I were you and money isn't your enemy then I'd go for the MBP. You'll get medium-high graphics on the upcoming Starcraft 2 for sure (knowing Blizzard and their will to make games playable for a lot of people) and it's also nicer to have bigger resolution! Also when you don't intend to carry the laptop that much around (just like me) then you don't need the portability of a 13 incher that much.

So to recap, if you have the money and you need it now: go for the MBP; you won't regret it in the long run (games wise) and a bigger screen resolution is definitely worth it imo.