2.4 ghz macbook pro CS:S performance

first, i took the battery out to keep it away from the heat.

then i ran the CS:S video stress test- set all the options to the maximum (including the shadow option that isnt set at max at default)

1440x900 screen resolution

i set the aa to 2x and aniso to 4x.

the average frames per second were 112.

ponder at the glory of the new mbp (this is the one w/ 256megs of vram).

any other games you would like me to benchmark? please say so and i will

 

what resolution?

 

yeah i edited my post above-

 

112fps at max settings? That's kind of hard to believe, but then again I've been out of the gaming scene for a while. Are you sure you were running under DX9?

 

i can record a video of the screen output and put it on youtube if someone shows me how.

but that is the truth. i can run other benchmarks / resolutions if you people want me to.

this was done under bootcamp 1.3, xp sp2, not vista.

 

Could you run 3dMark? Thanks.

 

yeah i moved to a new, more clearly titled thread. check there.

 

for comparison I ran CS:S stress test and got 139.79 fps @ 1024x768 and 111.98 @ 1280x1024 on my 2.2ghz 128mb

 

turbo, why dont you run the same test the same way for comparison sake?

1440x900- all options set to max 2x anti aliasing and 4x aniso?

 

lol, I am now...I just went back and re read what he had. just a sec.

 

Yes, please do

Also, is it possible for one of you boys to try the new Lost Planet DX10 demo on Vista? I'm really interested in hearing what you get on that puppy...

 

I don't have 1440 by 900???

I'm on XP

 

Can anyone with the new MBP post a pic of cpuz?

 

77.06fps @ 1280x1024 with 2x anti aliasing and 4x aniso. I am pretty new to this benchmarking stuff so I dont know how to adjust anything on the video card and I can't download any updates

here is CPUz

 

Thanks rep fo you.

 

sorry- there is no print screen button on the macbook pro. how do i print a screenshot?

 

how did you get 1440x900??

 

use fn + F11

 

the aspect ratio setting is covered up in your picture. you need to CHANGE that from 4:3 to 16:10. make sure all the games you run in the future are set to 16:10 on the macbook pro screen if possible- even if you are running them in lower resolutions.

4:3 is regular dimensions. 16:10 is widescreen. if you run the game full screen in 4:3 the image will be stretched.

 

here is cpu-z

 

Ok, well that works a little better!

88.98fps @ 1440x900

masterchef341 have you had any problems updating xp? I dont know what update it is but I keep getting the blue screen of death after I update

 

none. i used a retail copy of xp pro sp2. i used my legit key. no problems whatsoever. try a reinstall. seriously.

 

Hmmm.....so the 2.4 is about 25% faster than the 2.2 model in this real game test.

 

112/89 = 1.258.

excellent mathematics.

keep in mind that is in the source engine. other engines will perform differently. plus the clocks might be different for whatever reason.

 

Like many others I am about to buy a new MBP (first Mac for me) and am torn between the 2.2 and 2.4. The ONLY reason I would consider the 2.4 is for better game performance. I am not a heavy gamer (used to be but then kids and life happened) but I travel a lot and would like a relatively good gaming platform when I do decide to play some game. I'm not that concerned about future-proofing it, I expect to sell it and upgrade in about 18 months. And the $500 difference could easily be used to pay for a gaming desktop if I wanted.

So long as the 2.2 does reasonably well on modern games (don't care if it's top quality just not terrible) I may go for that.

 

well the 2.2 is going to do REALLY well in source based games.

thats all i know so far.

my 2.4 also runs FEAR amazingly. with all details and shadows set to max, with anti aliasing and aniso filtering and all. i would assume the 2.2 can at least do the same without the aniso / anti aliasing. that is a pretty conservative bet.

 

do you have World of Warcraft?

 

no. but everything can run WoW.

 

I'd love to see an Oblivion test, since that seems to be THE game that brings the latest hardware to its knees...

 

wow, This seems even better than the G1s.. And I heard that the video card is slightly underclocked?

I'm getting one of these soon, will be the first mac for me although I already know how to use the OS and all.. which would be better to bootcamp? Vista or XP? I have a retail XP disc so yeah... Not sure which one I should get.

Do I upgrade the video card to the latest drivers before installing bootcamp? or will the drivers in the mac os be different from the drivers in bootcamp?

 

first- stick with xp for now.

second- boot camp takes care of all the drivers. hacked up drivers on the g1s (there are no nvidia 8600m gt windows xp drivers) probably account for the better performance on the mbp.

g1s owners are getting their drivers through laptopvideo2go.com- they are desktop drivers hacked to allow them to install on the mobile cards.

we get real life drivers courtesy of apple/nvidia

hah - is the mac a BETTER PC?

 

hhaha

Thanks, cant wait to get mine... so exciting

 

No joke, although the G1S has e-sata and hdmi. My problem with the G1S is that it looks goofy. The screen has a huge top and bottem bezel, at least in photos. It looks like a 4:3 propotioned case, almost square. It is thick.

I went with the 2.4Ghz MBP...and absolutely love it. Right now its showing 4.:50hrs battery life on a full charge. Amazing. The LED backlit screen is simply stunning. I'll never go back to a non-LED panel. It is that good.

 

The g1s isn't really that big. A little smaller in footprint than my widescreen Dell 8600 which, while substantial, isn't terribly inconvenient to carry around all day in a good laptop backpack. Also, isn't esata about as obscure as Firewire 800, right now? And how useful is HDMI?

Finally, what kinda screen did you get? Glossy or matte? I can't stand glossy screens like on HP computers (classroom lighting makes them unbearable for me). Do you like the MBP? I don't remember how annoying the Macbook glossy was, but I guess it couldn't have been that bad if it's not something that I can recall.

 

I was thinking of that too

Which screen would be better to get?

 

well the apple store's strange lighting makes the glossy look bad, but, being inside, i haven't seen glare or reflections so far.

except for reflections on solid black. but the black is so rich it doesnt matter.

the colors pop out at you. its wonderful.

just for reference, i went into the store knowing exactly what i wanted, with a bad impression of glossy screens because of HP and Dell and the like.

my mind was changed in store.

 

Yes, I'd also love to see some Oblivion benches. And Stalker as well, please

 

I got glossy and have had zero problems with glare. I prefer the more vibrant colors and the screen seems sharper to me. Others say the matter screen has no glare and better color reproduction. Mostly it is personal preference; there is no Right Answer.

I spent a long time at the Apple store looking at the two screens before I made up my mind.

One thing, the LED display is simply amazing, matte or glossy.

 

the matte screen most definitely does not have better color reproduction.

it WILL have less glare depending on lighting- but the glossy screen certainly has better color reproduction.

now you might make the argument that the matte screen will have more accurate color reproduction in the sense that most people have matte screens on their desktops (or laptops before 200? when they started glossing them) - so if you are producing high quality photography or what not- the colors on a matte screen will be closer to the colors the intended recipient will see.

 

Hmm k

I'm just going to pick a glossy...

Thanks for the help pplz

 

I thought that matte screens were supposed to have more accurate reproduction in tha the color one sees is closer to whatever standard graphics artists use for colors, whereas the glossy screens make the colors look more vibrant than they really are and thus presents one with a distorted image. Kind of like...matte screen would be a girl without make up (how she really looks) vs glossy = a girl with make up (pretty, but not accurately represented).

 

well. i did say "better". i guess your comparison is mostly right.

but accuracy of color is only valid when you consider intent. that is why i said what i said.

 

Well I'll just go into the shop to buy one, I guess I can see the difference there.

 

yah that is the best way to go about it. also, while in the store, bear in mind that i have seen no glare at all after about a week of usage in various lighting conditions. i haven't taken it outside yet.

the apple store has some really odd lighting. just try to compare colors and keep in mind that glare wont be nearly the issue it is in the store. in some situations though- intense light on sreen- you might have to reposition yourself. tht has yet to happen to me.

 

Masterchef congrats on opening the greatest thread I could find these days !
I would also want to see some comparing scores between 128Mb and 256Mb GDDR in 3dMark and Oblivion, if possible !

 

That would be awesome... thanks guys for the CS:S benchmarks...

 

this thing about glossy vs matte

i am under the impression that both are basically the same 6bit TN panels. one with a gloss coating one with a matte coating

basically they'll be neck and neck at colour reproduction. the glossy covering is simply saturating the displayed colours to make them look more vibrant and deep. thats all it does.

i guess you could say the matte screen will be a little truer to life. but honestly neither are 8bit panels so i would consider neither to be that good at colour reproduction. for a pro model thats pretty rubbish, but then again there arent many, if any, 8bit laptop panels due to size/power restrictions

 

I think this 8bit deal is the subject of pending litigation. From what I've read, there aren't any 15.4" or smaller 8bit panels. Anywho, I think everyone understands that the underlying panel is the same and that the only difference is the top coating. My concern isn't color reproduction or perception of vividness, it's the glare. I take class notes on a laptop and there are always bright, fluorescent lights above. I also don't want to see the people behind me!

 

Yeah same

I would be using it at school and outside etc... Don't want those glares


Just take something like perhaps... the sony PSP outside, You can hardly see the screen, its like a mirror..

 

I will try to see if any of my friends have that game, if so I will try to benchmark Oblivion on the 128mb