WoW performance on 11" MBA?

[Shivetya]

I wonder what resolution WOW picked, 800x600? 30fps ain't all that bad for on the road play, but 9fps at the screen's native rez is pretty abysmal. I wonder if 2g more memory would help.

 

[limeybast]

I wonder what resolution WOW picked, 800x600? 30fps ain't all that bad for on the road play, but 9fps at the screen's native rez is pretty abysmal. I wonder if 2g more memory would help.

Also need to know if they did any of the work arounds needed for 4.0.1 on Macs right now. 9 fps at native with the current problems sounds plausible but its suspiciously low otherwise.

My old 17" MBP with the 8600M had no trouble driving the 30" ACD and its very hard to believe that the 320M can't perform acceptably at 1366x768.

 

[justin216]

The article was contrary to the graphs, if you read all of the review.

The first chart (30 fps) was done at the native resolution with the "recommended" graphics settings. The second one (9 fps) was done on native resolution, but with everything cranked up to Ultra. They actually say this in the review, but the title on the graph doesn't match it.

I can confirm, the 11.6", on medium-low settings with native resolution, hovers around 30-40fps. With more memory (4GB), it may get a little higher and/or allow you to use more medium-high settings with the same type of framerates.

 

[SteveSparks]

Ok, I know this is a bad idea to begin with.. But I was wondering how well the new 11" MBA can handle World of Warcraft? The CPU sure isn't very good for gaming, but the 320M should, in theory, be able to run the game pretty decent.

I'm wondering since I travel a lot and looking at 11" MBA (1.6/4Gb) for meetings / light working, but being able to play a bit during the evenings would be awesome. Any WoW addict out there that has tried it on a MBA yet and can comment on the performance?

I ran WOW 4.0.1 on my Air all weekend. It worked great. I had the graphics setup on a mixture of good an fair. I was using a 2GB/64G Air.

There were 2 instances of lag when I zoned but that might have been more network related since I was playing at Starbucks.

 

[lasuther]

I would recommend picking up the 13" MBA which is the same price as a loaded 11" MBA. You get a faster processer, 1440x900 screen resolution, an SD card, and other small improvements.

 

[Stingray454]

I would recommend picking up the 13" MBA which is the same price as a loaded 11" MBA. You get a faster processer, 1440x900 screen resolution, an SD card, and other small improvements.

Not sure I agree. Sure, it's faster, but from the tests I've seen the 1.8 in the 13" is very slightly faster than the 1.6 in the 11". Factor in that when gaming (which this thread is about, so I guess that's what people are most interested in here), the GPU is usually much heavier utilized than the CPU. The higher resolution of the 13" means more graphics to render, which would make the 13" spend a little more time rendering given they use the same GPU.

Granted, the memory is a little bit faster on the 13", but until I see some FPS comparisons between the two that says otherwise I'd like to think they are not that far apart. I'd say the choice is mostly a question of what size you prefer and if you need the SD slot.

 

[stylinexpat]

Yea, thats the one. What is it with the scottish/english accent, it makes everyone seem more sophisticated

Isn't that why Apple has those with an accent introducing their new products.

 

[lasuther]

Not sure I agree. Sure, it's faster, but from the tests I've seen the 1.8 in the 13" is very slightly faster than the 1.6 in the 11". Factor in that when gaming (which this thread is about, so I guess that's what people are most interested in here), the GPU is usually much heavier utilized than the CPU. The higher resolution of the 13" means more graphics to render, which would make the 13" spend a little more time rendering given they use the same GPU.

The 1.6GHz 11" and 1.86GHz 13" are the same price. You can always turn down the resolution on the 13". But you'll never be able to increase the resolution on the 11", or increase the processor power. Not to mention the SD card reader that the 13" has. Plus, WoW is just going to look better on a 13" compared to the 11". I see no benefit to the 11" for playing WoW. The 9 oz of weight savings just isn't worth it.

 

[limeybast]

The 1.6GHz 11" and 1.86GHz 13" are the same price. You can always turn down the resolution on the 13". But you'll never be able to increase the resolution on the 11", or increase the processor power. Not to mention the SD card reader that the 13" has. Plus, WoW is just going to look better on a 13" compared to the 11". I see no benefit to the 11" for playing WoW. The 9 oz of weight savings just isn't worth it.

Its more for the "Oooh, the 11.6 would suit me perfectly, now if it can just play WoW as well..."

Anybody into some serious gaming isn't going to use either MBA when performance is critical. I'm sure a lot of us have gaming desktops at home for just that purpose.

But when traveling it sure is nice to have a light, powerful machine that can *also* perform acceptably for light gaming.

 

[darksolusion]

bogus!

I think that benchmark presented at laptopmag is fulla !@$t.

why? because everyone seen this video CoD4 MW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTAOFC21M9Q

i always go to this website for benchmark of graphics and performance reviews because they go SUPER in depth...unlike laptopmag bogus...
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html
anyway....this website benchmarks all notebook graphic cards... and EVERY Card's CoD4 MW's FPS was lower than WoW.

we can assume CoD4 MW is more intensive game than WoW. so from that youtube video we know we can play MW smoothly, it can handle WoW no problem (granted that you dont play in Ultra)

another reason is cause i had the first gen unibody macbook with 2.0ghz 4g ram and 9400m 1280x800. I constantly got atleast 30 fps in dalaran with mix settings.
WoW is a more graphic intensive game, so 11.6 MBA with 4 ram + 1.6ghz processor can definitely push more than 9 fps at 1366x768 with mix settings.

laptopmag = fulla ****. unless that 9 fps came from ultra settings with native resolution fine. But very unprofessional on their end to be using ULTRA settings on a machine like this. Notebook Check. <- awesome reviews.

ps. another ******** is that the 1215n (which i had for 2 weeks then i sold it) did 37 fps?? and was better than the air?! seriously? all specs on air > 1215n by far.

1215n
1.8 dual core ATOM 2gb ram ion2 (16 shaders @ 475 mhz 512 shared ram)

definately didnt get 37 fps wen i played wow. nothing close even with drivers updated.

air
1.4/1.6 c2d (much more powerful than atom) 2gb ram n320m (48!! shades @ 450mhz 256 shared ram)

 

[Maven1975]

WoW under OSX blows. Windows/Bootcamp plays WoW extremely better.

I am waiting for the 11" 1.6 4GB video of COD MW2!