OS Neutral The Next Mac and Gaming

[saturnotaku]

quick search produced a group in the $1000-$2600 price range: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2020688,00.asp
A question would be which one of these have dedicated vs integrated graphics and how does the MBP performance compare?

They all have discreet GPUs with switchable graphics, just like Macs do within OS X. So light-duty tasks utilize the Intel GPU, while the NVIDIA one (which all the models you linked to above have) for gaming and other intensive applications.

While the GeForce GTX 860M is technically a "last-generation" GPU, it's still plenty powerful, far more so than the M370X. Go to this website and do a Find (cmd/ctrl+f) for "M370X", then again for the above NVIDIA GPUs and see where they all rank. It's not even close to being a contest.

I wouldn't consider a notebook with the 860M unless you can score one for well under $1,000. The 960M is great if you're price-conscious - the Lenovo Y50 is a terrific value. However, if you can stretch your budget a bit, the 970M really hits the sweet spot for gaming performance while being able to comfortably run in highly portable notebooks (the Razer Blade is a prime example, though its cost is in MacBook Pro territory). While the 980M is an absolute beast, it commands a very stiff price premium and is typically only found in thick, heavy notebooks that require equally thick and heavy power supplies.

 

[Huntn]

Thanks for help guys! After I check this out, I'll report back. Is a new MBP, the $2500 model with the 2GB card more powerful than my 2011 model or has it been the equivalent of being nerfed?

 

[Fl0r!an]

I wouldn't buy a "real" PC gaming laptop either. Most of them are really big & heavy, have a ridiculously short battery life and will usually die after just a few years of heavy usage due to bad cooling. End even if they don't, due to their non-upgradability they'll be obsolete either way.
All GPUs in your link are faster than the M370X, some of the notebooks only have dual core though. The 860M will be slightly faster than the M370X (maybe 20%) while the high-end monster 980M would even outperform your desktop card. Personally I wouldn't want to have a 100W TDP card in my notebook though.

The '15 rMBP will definitely be faster than your current MBP, have a look at barefeats, they might have made a comparison.

 

[flr]

I've got a 13" rMBP and build an eGPU with a GTX 970 to be able to game on my machine. But price wise this makes no sense. You shouldn't by a PC gaming laptop, MacBook or iMac for gaming. It would be cheaper to build or buy a desktop gaming PC. My eGPU even ended up more expensive than a dedicated gaming PC.

 

[Huntn]

I wouldn't buy a "real" PC gaming laptop either. Most of them are really big & heavy, have a ridiculously short battery life and will usually die after just a few years of heavy usage due to bad cooling. End even if they don't, due to their non-upgradability they'll be obsolete either way.
All GPUs in your link are faster than the M370X, some of the notebooks only have dual core though. The 860M will be slightly faster than the M370X (maybe 20%) while the high-end monster 980M would even outperform your desktop card. Personally I wouldn't want to have a 100W TDP card in my notebook though.

The '15 rMBP will definitely be faster than your current MBP, have a look at barefeats, they might have made a comparison.

As my current MBR is still hanging in there for the games I'm interested in, this is a hopeful statement. Thanks, I'll check them out! Regarding gaming PC laptops, my son has had this exact experience with them crapping out. The most recent one had the CPU melting paste issue within 2 years of being new. My MBP is still a champ at 4 years, (knock on wood).

I've got a 13" rMBP and build an eGPU with a GTX 970 to be able to game on my machine. But price wise this makes no sense. You shouldn't by a PC gaming laptop, MacBook or iMac for gaming. It would be cheaper to build or buy a desktop gaming PC. My eGPU even ended up more expensive than a dedicated gaming PC.

I agree except my scenario was mobility, MacOS, plus gaming all on one computer.

And I admit that with a reduced frequency of traveling, spending those lonely nights in hotel rooms, there's much less need or justification to spend $2500 to add the serious gaming option. There's a good chance my next Mac will be a lesser Air or the Middle MBP. Without researching this, is it safe to say the middle MBP will have better performance than the Air?

 

[saturnotaku]

I wouldn't buy a "real" PC gaming laptop either. Most of them are really big & heavy, have a ridiculously short battery life and will usually die after just a few years of heavy usage due to bad cooling. End even if they don't, due to their non-upgradability they'll be obsolete either way.

To address the first part of your post, yes, if you get a notebook with the GTX 980M, it will be big and heavy. However, models such as the Razer Blade and MSI GS60/70 have roughly the same form factor as the rMBP but blow it out of the water in terms of gaming performance.

To address the second part of your post, Intel's Haswell and Broadwell mobile CPUs and NVIDIA's Maxwell mobile GPUs are cooler and more power efficient than ever. I would worry far more about the OP's 2011 Sandy Bridge MBP dying from overheating than any modern gaming notebook, regardless of its form factor.

I've got a 13" rMBP and build an eGPU with a GTX 970 to be able to game on my machine. But price wise this makes no sense. You shouldn't by a PC gaming laptop, MacBook or iMac for gaming. It would be cheaper to build or buy a desktop gaming PC. My eGPU even ended up more expensive than a dedicated gaming PC.

OP already has already stated (repeatedly in this thread) that he has a gaming desktop.

Without researching this, is it safe to say the middle MBP will have better performance than the Air?

Any MacBook Pro will outperform the Air.

 

[Fl0r!an]

To address the first part of your post, yes, if you get a notebook with the GTX 980M, it will be big and heavy. However, models such as the Razer Blade and MSI GS60/70 have roughly the same form factor as the rMBP but blow it out of the water in terms of gaming performance.

Yeah, but MSI has chosen to compromise cooling performance in favor of a slim form factor. The GS60 will reach almost 80°C at the bottom case, that's just insane. The MacBooks also run hot, but the M370X doesn't have such a high TDP (I think it's ~50W vs. ~100W), so I'd expect it to be better balanced in terms of performance vs. cooling/battery life.
We'll see in a few years how many of those MSI toasters will have survived.

I'd totally agree with you regarding Maxwell however, these GPUs are far more energy efficient than everything AMD has to offer, so they would have been an extremely wise choice for the rMBP. Sadly Apple chose to save a few $ instead of building a better MacBook.

 

[saturnotaku]

The dGPU on a gaming notebook isn't going to be running when on battery unless the system has SLI/Crossfire or otherwise doesn't support any form of GPU switching. As such, those systems are capable of battery life in the 5+ hour range. Yes, that's still short of what a MacBook Pro can do, but given how much more power its competitors are otherwise, it's a tradeoff I personally would be willing to make.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

I forgot to hit reply...

@Huntn

It doesn't seem worth going back and forth over. You've got a solution you like which has and continues to serve you well. So who cares what somebody else prefers or why? It's irrelevant.

Somebody could tell me how my choices are wrong too given their own preferences but frankly I don't care about that. I get to pick what is cool with me and they get to pick what is cool with them. It's all good. I don't know why people do this stuff over and over honestly. Why bother? Nobody has to justify what is cool with them for anybody else.

As to your original question, the same simple rule always applies buying any computer you plan to play games on seriously at all: get the best you can afford at the time, paying particular attention to the GPU but also the other components of course. It's really just that simple. The better you get, the longer it will last. I don't know what else there really is to think about. In your case, I don't know why you'd even consider an iMac when you have said mobility is a requirement or at the least highly important. Doesn't that instantly rule the iMac out? Again though in keeping with what I just said, do whatever you like. I don't think other people can help there beyond giving information about comparative power which is readily available by search anyway such as xGPU vs xGPU as a search term, etc.

I just noticed in post #30 above you are now thinking of a lesser model Macbook given that you do not travel as much anymore. In that case, I think you really just need to decide what level of gaming you want to be able to do then, keeping in mind how long you hope to own the new system and spend accordingly. I don't know how anyone can really answer that for you. You're the one who has to make the call about what kind of games you want to play say, two years into owning the thing, etc. and what it is personally worth or not worth to you.

 

[deadwulfe]

I too have a 2011 MBP and was considering an upgrade. I know a MBP is not a great gaming solution, but I want 1 computer, not 2. So, I'm sticking to the MBP line.

However, I've decided to wait until next year, for the next update; hopefully a better graphics chip and some USB-C ports. Also, since I'm enrolled in some courses, I'll probably wait for the back to school deal on top of the student pricing discount. That plus Barclay's 0% financing for 18 months makes it hard to keep what I have for longer than that.

 

[flr]

If you used a Retina display you will never want to go back. So the 13" rMBP is in my opinion the best solution. You even end up with enough money to buy a gaming PC with a 4K monitor if you want. I've received my Dell P2415Q 4K monitor today and it works flawlessly with the Late 2013 version of the 13" rMBP at 52Hz (using SwitchResX). Going Retina all the way

 

[Huntn]

I forgot to hit reply...

@Huntn

It doesn't seem worth going back and forth over. You've got a solution you like which has and continues to serve you well. So who cares what somebody else prefers or why? It's irrelevant.

Somebody could tell me how my choices are wrong too given their own preferences but frankly I don't care about that. I get to pick what is cool with me and they get to pick what is cool with them. It's all good. I don't know why people do this stuff over and over honestly. Why bother? Nobody has to justify what is cool with them for anybody else.

As to your original question, the same simple rule always applies buying any computer you plan to play games on seriously at all: get the best you can afford at the time, paying particular attention to the GPU but also the other components of course. It's really just that simple. The better you get, the longer it will last. I don't know what else there really is to think about. In your case, I don't know why you'd even consider an iMac when you have said mobility is a requirement or at the least highly important. Doesn't that instantly rule the iMac out? Again though in keeping with what I just said, do whatever you like. I don't think other people can help there beyond giving information about comparative power which is readily available by search anyway such as xGPU vs xGPU as a search term, etc.

I just noticed in post #30 above you are now thinking of a lesser model Macbook given that you do not travel as much anymore. In that case, I think you really just need to decide what level of gaming you want to be able to do then, keeping in mind how long you hope to own the new system and spend accordingly. I don't know how anyone can really answer that for you. You're the one who has to make the call about what kind of games you want to play say, two years into owning the thing, etc. and what it is personally worth or not worth to you.

I've noticed that in many cases when I'm traveling, the hotels have sucky WiFi that can't support any kind of serious multiplayer action anyway. Infrequently I visit friends or family (out of town) who have a network and my current hardware is wonderful for those rare occasions. When this hardware dies, most likely I'm going to go to a lesser MacBookPro. I'm peeved that the bottom 15" MBP is $2000. It's all most as if I'm going to spend that much, I should pay the extra $500 and get the dedicated graphics card.

I'm wondering with the next step down, the 13" MBP, how good that will be for casual gaming, or if I could play a game like World of Tanks on it? (WoT definitely won't play on a MacBookAir.) When looking at this tier of laptops, I wonder how much significant difference there is between the 2.7Ghz, $1300 model, the $1500 model, and the $1800 2.9 Ghz model? They all use integrated graphics and 8GB memory, and the more you pay, the more flash storage you get. I imagine the gaming performance differences is minimal between these 3 machines.

Anyone have a good source of benchmarks for these computers?

Thanks for your thoughts and help!

 

[saturnotaku]

I do believe I already called this to your attention, but a refurbished rMBP 15 with the GeForce 750M GPU will thoroughly outclass any brand new 13-inch or Iris Pro 15-inch model while costing the same or less. The only thing you don't get with a refurb is the fancy white box. Otherwise, those machines come with all the same stuff and carry the same warranty as new, and they can also be extended with AppleCare.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

I've noticed that in many cases when I'm traveling, the hotels have sucky WiFi that can't support any kind of serious multiplayer action anyway. Infrequently I visit friends or family (out of town) who have a network and my current hardware is wonderful for those rare occasions. When this hardware dies, most likely I'm going to go to a lesser MacBookPro. I'm peeved that the bottom 15" MBP is $2000. It's all most as if I'm going to spend that much, I should pay the extra $500 and get the dedicated graphics card.

I'm wondering with the next step down, the 13" MBP, how good that will be for casual gaming, or if I could play a game like World of Tanks on it? (WoT definitely won't play on a MacBookAir.) When looking at this tier of laptops, I wonder how much significant difference there is between the 2.7Ghz, $1300 model, the $1500 model, and the $1800 2.9 Ghz model? They all use integrated graphics and 8GB memory, and the more you pay, the more flash storage you get. I imagine the gaming performance differences is minimal between these 3 machines.

Anyone have a good source of benchmarks for these computers?

Thanks for your thoughts and help!

Maybe you have already checked this but do they all meet the minimum system requirements for the games you want to play, such as World of Tanks, particularly the GPUs in them? I imagine the rest is probably alright. I would also be wary of cases where the minimum requirements are just barely met.

 

[Huntn]

Maybe you have already checked this but do they all meet the minimum system requirements for the games you want to play, such as World of Tanks, particularly the GPUs in them? I imagine the rest is probably alright. I would also be wary of cases where the minimum requirements are just barely met.

Here's the minimum WoT Specs. My concern is highlighted.
: Operating system: Windows XP / Vista / 7 / 8
Processor: 2.2 GHz supporting SSE2
RAM: 1.5 GB for Windows XP, 2 GB for Windows Vista / 7
Video Card: GeForce 6800 / ATI X1800 with 256 MB RAM & compatible with DirectX9.0c
Sound: Compatible with DirectX9.0c
Hard drive space: 16 GB
Internet Speed: 256 Kbps

The Middle MBP:
2.7GHz or 2.9GHz dual‑core Intel Core i5 or 3.1GHz dual‑core Intel Core i7 processor
Turbo Boost up to 3.4GHz
Intel Iris Graphics 6100

I'll have to research integrated graphics performance. Even if the middle MBP is inadequate for WoT, I'll probably just find something else to do when those situations arise. I would spend it, except I can't justify that much for infrequent gaming.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

Here's the minimum WoT Specs. My concern is highlighted.
: Operating system: Windows XP / Vista / 7 / 8
Processor: 2.2 GHz supporting SSE2
RAM: 1.5 GB for Windows XP, 2 GB for Windows Vista / 7
Video Card: GeForce 6800 / ATI X1800 with 256 MB RAM & compatible with DirectX9.0c
Sound: Compatible with DirectX9.0c
Hard drive space: 16 GB
Internet Speed: 256 Kbps

The Middle MBP:
2.7GHz or 2.9GHz dual‑core Intel Core i5 or 3.1GHz dual‑core Intel Core i7 processor
Turbo Boost up to 3.4GHz
Intel Iris Graphics 6100

I'll have to research integrated graphics performance. Even if the middle MBP is inadequate for WoT, I'll probably just find something else to do when those situations arise. I would spend it, except I can't justify that much for infrequent gaming.

Yeah. In a way, I can understand the temptation but on the other hand it is a lot of money when on those occasions maybe you could come up with a couple games that play well on lesser hardware and are still fun for while away on trips. If you like them, older classics could be great for times like that and don't require much in the way of hardware.