MBP 13 Gaming?

Well since the 13-14 inch windows laptops I'm most interested in are not going to be available in Canada for at least another 2 months I am considering getting a MBP 13 inch. I like the form factor and really like the battery life these things seem to get. I have never really used a mac but am willing to learn the new OS (os doesn't really matter to me since most things I use are available on both windows and os x), only thing that is holding me back is lack of info on gaming performance. I know a MBP is not ideal for gaming but I have read a bit that it is fairly capable especially with the switch to the 320M. This is primarily going to be a school notebook for me but I really just want to know how well this can handle games like SC2, Sins of a Solar Empire, Company of Heroes and other similar title to get my RTS fix. I figured some of you guys in here probably have some experience with these games either through bootcamp or wine/wrappers and I just want to hear your opinions. Regardless this will be a big step up from my 4 year old compaq.

Thanks.

 

A Mac is powerful enough to run many games with great performance, but the real problem concerning gaming on a Mac is that there aren't many games that are ported over to the OS X operating system.

In you're situation you look like you're a heavy gamer so I'd stick with a PC laptop. Hold out for the Envy 14, which is due out later this month.

 

The Envy 14 was one of the laptops I was holding out for, but considering in Canada we don't even have the gen 2 Envy 15 much less the Envy 17 I doubt I will see a 14 in Canada in the next two months Same with the Acer 3820TG. As for heavy gaming, not a huge gamer anymore since school doesn't give me much time to do it and any FPS's are played on my 360. Really if this can play the RTS's I mentioned and maybe the odd RPG such as Fallout 3 I will be tickled pink.

 

The MBP 13" will serve you well for casual gaming. It clearly isn't a gaming notebook, but it can game.

Here are a few links about gaming on the MBP 13". Hope you find them useful.

YouTube - 2010 MacBook Pro Gaming Performance

YouTube - KadMac25's Channel

Cheers!

 

If you can somehow get it for less than the sticker, its not a bad computer.
It's just not worth what they usually want for it unless you REALLY want MacOS.

Students can usually have a nice chunk of the sticker reduced... the hardware in the MBP is worth about $500-600 US roughly. So if you can get it close to that, you will have done ok.

It has less than HALF the GPU potency of similarly priced (similar-generation) PC laptops.
This doesn't mean it cannot game... it just means you are sacrificing GPU potency for the ability to use MacOS. You can run windows and run whatever game you like... it will just be in lower res and with less details or at less frames per second.

No worries about "learning" macOS... they are so similar now it really is only a preference or "annoyance factor" with your less-favorite OS.

 

If you want to play on a MacBook, make sure to install Bootcamp and Windows 7, you'll have faster gaming than on OS X.

Mac OS X Steam Performance: Half Life 2 Episode 2, Still Slower than Windows - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

faster != better

 

Well actually, yes it does, but also better = better. Did you even read the article?

This is probably less of a "Windows versus OSX" thing than it is a "DirectX versus OpenGL" thing, but the fact is the gaming experience is in several ways greatly degraded on OSX.

 

faster can be better. but its not a given.

proof? the word "better" is completely subjective... it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.

to one person gaming with a higher frame rate is better... to another person playing with a lower frame rate but in OSX and being able to multitask to run their other OSX software at the same time is better.

"gaming experience" is also subjective.

 

I have the base model 2.4 320m 13" MacBook pro. I can play modern warfare 2 all on high with no problems what so ever. Even lfd2. Heat is not an issue also. But I game on windows 7 no problems at all and I feel like this MacBook runs windows 7 a lot better than a regular Notebook does thats my opinion tho.

On top of that, I could over clock the 320m 631/1250 using nvidia system tools 6.0.6 and achieve 5328 in 3dmark06. Stock clocks 450/950 4734. Using bootcamp drivers 196.82 of the bat after I installed windows. I wS really impressed with this 320m and its an integrated gpu.

 

Thanks for the info, think I am going to pull the trigger on one of these first thing once I get to school Time to look into bootcamp...

 

nothing to look into.. you just run Bootcamp assistant (already on your Mac in the Applications->Utilities folder) and it leads you through ho to install Windows as a dual boot.

 

Bootcamp is easy. All you need is a windows 7 and your install disk that came with your MacBook pro. The drivers are in there. You pop that CD after you install windows 7. Without installing the drivers your windows would look like and act like . Remember to format your bootcamp partition. It's pretty straight forward. I'll put it in more details when I get to work later on.

 

Have you ever considered the Alienware M11x? Not that I want to turn you away from the MBP 13 or any other Apple laptop. However, it seems like you're already used with Windows and you want to do moderate gaming on the go. A MBP could do the job, but a M11x (especially the new one with i5 or i7 core) would better serve you. It has a much better GPU (335m) than the MBP 13, the new core i7 is fantastic and it runs Windows 7 natively,out of the box. Sure, you could manage to install Windows 7 on the MBP via Bootcamp. But then, you would have to buy the license for it (around 200 $ extra for the retail DVD). Just my two cents...

 

I don't understand this at all. We're talking about how well a program runs on either platform.

Does anyone seriously want to argue that it can be better by having it run worse, so people can multitask?
That does not make sense to me at all.

 

you miss my point about... everyone defines the word "better" slightly different. I just gave an example

I'd rather play a game with low/medium graphical settings at a lower res, and around 30 FPS than playing at higher settings and around 40 FPS, if it means not having to install/run Windows on my computer, or boot into Windows losing my whole computer just for a game. Thats is much better to me, and I have just as much fun playing the game. What is "better" completely depends on the person playing it. I used to keep a Windows computer running for games... then I would dual boot my Mac... but now, its just not worth the hassle when the game is just as fun even if its 15 fps less... it ends up being a better gaming experience overall. I'm not trying to claim that will be true for everyone.

The OP didn't ask what way makes games run faster, but just asked for experience with gaming on Macs.

if you want to run pretty much any game at high frame rates with graphics settings pumped way up and at high resolutions... don't buy a Mac. If you want/need a Mac and also want to be able to play some games... thats a different story. If your already willing to make concessions as far as gaming performance (by buying a Mac), then you probably aren't a hard core gamer, and can live with medium or low type of settings rather than high. I know a lot of gamers that live for "maxing it out" do not understand a point of view like this, but just realize not everyone has the same priorities. To you "better" means higher settings and graphics with higher frame rates, just doesn't hold true for everyone

 

I believe doh123 doesn't want to run Windows at all. So for him, "better gaming experience" means directly jumping to the action without rebooting and having the possibility to instantly be back on the desktop or whatever else he was doing with OSX (using Exposé, for example). He consciously trades performance, graphic/visual quality or whatever to be able to run his games natively (or as natively as he can).
Others prefer dedicating some of their HDDs/SDDs and time to run games on Windows to probably benefit from higher performance, greater graphic/visual quality or whatever (and don't mind "loosing" OSX for those moments).
I think it's nice we have the option to choose and everyone can do whatever he or she wishes to.

Hope this helps understand things a bit more (or at least what I understand from the situation xD)!

 

Thanks again for all the input, the university store is all out of the mbp 13 until next thursday I was seriously considering the mx11, but as this is going to be my main machine for at least a year I think I would find the 11.6 inch screen a bit too cramped, also as I understand it the ulv i5 and i7 that are in the mx11 aren't all that more powerful than the ulv c2d they are replacing, could be wrong though haven't seen any new benchmarks yet.

 

get ur mbp pro now. wait for asus g53 for ur main squeeze. i love my macbook pro. i just restart on windows whenever i want and play my games. and i switch on osx for my daily business. its comfortable for me. i kind of wish i got the 15" but who gives a damm, 13" gets the job done and it aint hot like a grill when i play and i have all the eye candies on. thats just me.

 

I actually own both. I have a last gen MBP 13 with a 2.53 C2D along with a M11x R1 with a 1.73 C2D. Beside the fact I love Snow Leopard, the touchpad is second to none and the display is a bit better (contrast, viewing angles), the MBP 13 doesn't have any much appeal compared to the M11x. Actually, I find the M11x to currently be my favorite laptop. I own an Alienware M15x, M11x and a MBP 13 with 9400m. The 11.6 inch display, we get used to it very quickly. Footprint of the M11x is easier to commute on the train or on any flight. I agree that the CULV i7 in the new M11x might not be that much better than the 2.4 GHz from the current MBP 13, but the M11x still has the raw GPU power and it runs Windows 7 out of the box. As I said, I own both. With the latest Synaptics touchpad drivers, the M11x touchpad (multitouch) is quite capable too. Personnally, I would go with a M11x. You will get much more raw gaming power for about the same price, all in a very capable package.

 

while the GPU in the M11x is faster... remember that the IGP in the current Macbook Pro is just about twice as fast as your 9400M.... which narrows the gap a ton.

 

Agree. Then, it all comes down to the OP interest in the Mac OS or the interest in Apple computers. He wants something small, with a strong battery life and capable for gaming. He's open to learn a new OS. The M11x would be stronger than a MBP 13 with a 320m,gaming wise. Both brands (Apple and Alienware) are strong in their field (Mac vs PC).

 

I agree.. if someone wants something really small and very good for its size at gaming.. with gaming the main priority, then the M11x it is.. I considered getting one when I got my new 2010 13" MBP as well. But I do a lot more than just game, and still like OSX a lot more than Linux for non-server use (I wouldn't be using Windows as the main OS)... so I stuck with the Mac. Its gaming performance is better than I thought I could see out of an IGP, I usually just run games at very low settings and don't worry about it, but this one can do a lot more for now.

 

I'm a 13" MBP owner so call me on being biased if you wish, but I would never consider an M11x as they seem to be literally falling apart.

 

Actually, both are falling apart. I had my MBP trackpad RMA'd because of quality control issues. My M11x never got any issue so far.

 

@_@ I just could never get over how slow the ULV processors are on the M11x compared to the Macbook's regular processors.

 

hmm i still posit that the m11x build quality is far below that of a macbook pro or even the the macbook. the rest of you agree??

 

My macbook creaks and feels a lot less solidly built than the m11x I have. My m11x on the other hand never creaks and feels very solid. If you havent actually had first hand experience with one then I wouldnt go round making statements like that.
In terms of heat output the macbook also gets a lot hotter and has a much more noisy cooling system! I dont know how much has changed between my model and the current ones but the m11x is certainly not poorly built.

 

lol... yeah the really old casing they used in the Macbooks when they offered them in Black wasn't that great. They've changed a lot since then. But the 13" Macbook Pro that its being compared to is nothing even remotely like an old Macbook Black.

 

Don't forget that the M11x is a vastly popular machine, and as such there are going to be more people with problems than normal. Remember for every person that complains on the internet, there could be hundreds or even thousands of content people with no reason to voice their non-existent problems.

It's all down to personal preference at the end of the day, really. The M11x has a massive edge in GPU (and hence gaming) power, is slightly smaller (although also thicker), has very nice lighting, and has vastly superior cooling, as well as a slight edge in price. On the other hand, the MBP 13" has a faster processor (although this makes little difference in most games), a vastly superior screen, and is thinner, as well as offering better build quality.

The processor thing isn't really worth taking the MBP 13" for, though. The M11x's ULV can be overclocked to 1.73GHz through a BIOS option, producing little extra heat and using little extra power, and without voiding the warranty, as compared to the processors in the MBP 13" around 2.4GHz. It's not likely to make much of a difference in gaming unless it's a CPU reliant game.

 

Surely a 2010 M11x will have less creaks than a 2006 Macbook. I think you gotta compare 2010 to 2010 for a valid comparison.

 

My MBP 13 build quality is a little bit better than my M11x. I believe that comes from the unibody (one piece) aluminium design. Apart from that, both systems have their crop of quality control issues. I had my MBP glass touchpad replaced once (it broke after 4 months) and I'm about to get it replaced one more time. I guess that's a matter of luck. As a matter of fact, the M11x is superior than the current MBP 13 for gaming. That's a simple fact no one can deny. Now, does that make the M11x a superior subnotebook? Not necessarily. The MBP 13 runs Snow Leopard, which is in my opinion the greatest OS, gaming aside. Also, my MBP 13 has a better display. The M11x display is o.k. but viewing angles are pretty bad compared to my MBP. Still, the M11x remains my favorite laptop whenever travelling.

 

uh oh...

yes I can deny that.

define what you mean by "superior" and maybe I can agree to it... but you might have different opinions on that. its still subjective, so not really good to claim that no one can deny that... its not a fact.

 

Raw 3DMarks 06 count. Raw framerates under Windows 7 using the latest Nvidia and DirectX drivers. Those are figures.

 

so your saying your definition of "Superior" is having higher frame rates?

so it would be...

"As a matter of fact, the M11x can achieve higher frame rates than the current MBP 13 in games. That's a simple fact no one can deny"

that sounds pretty accurate. I'm not sure I'd define superior the same way, but it is pretty much a given your going to pull higher frame rates almost all the time, with equal graphics settings.

I just don't think being vague and making gross generalizations help people very much... I very much like the little details.

 

I speak from RTS experience when I say you'll want something more powerful. I recently switched from a 15" MBP to the Alienware in my sig because I was doing more gaming, and my MBP (2.5Ghz C2D and 512MB 8600M GT) wasn't powerful enough for me.

 

I have actually. They are on display at Best Buy. As others have said I was referring to the current crop of unibody MacBooks.

I'm not just referring to the feel of the notebook's sturdiness either. There are countless people in the Alienware forums of this very website complaining about M11x quality including hinges breaking (big one), Fan "always on", fan vibration, and just poor attention to detail in general.
While Apple has problems like any other OEM there just isn't this same level of complaint regarding quality. Additionally, once a tech comes to fix your Dell/Alienware they have a reputation for breaking the notebooks more than actually repairing them. There are numerous threads on this too. Keep in mind this is coming from a once loyal XPS customer.

 

riddle me this gentlemen

I basically gave up playing games (I used to own 150 PC games and all handhelds and consoles) recently... but there are just a short list of PC games I can't go with out. Currently I have the 17" MBP but I don't feel I need all this power in OSX, as for gaming,I was wondering if the low res of the 13" would balance out the worse graphics/cpu. Basically the only games I want to play:

Mass Effect Series
Fallout Series
Mafia Series
Left 4 Dead Series
Possibly CoD WAW

Do you think I can max out or 75% max out these games?

 

Mass Effect 2 would be iffy, but with all those games why not just invest in a desktop PC? For the same price as a macbook you could get a pretty great setup, assuming that you would keep the 17inch macbook (really goo 17inch notebook) or buy a 13inch macbook for portability too.

 

Do we want a vote on whether or not people agree that higher frame rates at higher settings = better experience in video game?
Because the results (very obvious) will certainly indicate what the general public figures what they meaning they want to associate with a phrase, and as far as using languages goes, anything means what the majority of people want it to mean.

 

Don't the M11x have really awful displays? I don't really see why they wen't with a 11" display. The Chassis is almost as big as most 13", they could have just thinned the bezel a little and fit in a better 13" screen and the machine would have been great.

But this seems kind of silly, a Macbook Pro is more of a general thin and light portable workhorse while the M11x is very FPS game centric machine. I can't even say PC game centric since the low voltage cpus really hurt the performance of cpu centric titles (MMOs and RTS the two staples of the PC gamer)

 

No. It is a lower resolution (1920x1200 takes a hell of a lot more rendering) but the GPU is also far worse. The 320M is powerful for an integrated GPU, but " for an integrated GPU" are the key words. Even a weak, low-end dedicated GPU will be superior, and the 330M will be significantly more powerful.

You can still play games at lower resolutions on the 15"/17" MBP, change the settings. But I do think you'll need a 330M to max out some of those, and something a LOT more powerful to max out all of them.

 

Almost 5k in 3dmark06 isn't exactly "weak". That's like low end of midrange tier.

 

3dmark06 is a VERY poor test of gaming performance as it is far more heavily influenced by the CPU than the GPU.

That's 5k 3DMark06 compared to about 11-12k that my gaming monster gets. Does that mean my M17 only performs 2-3 times as well in games? No, it performs many times better.

 

votes do not matter. Truth isn't defined by peoples beliefs. At one time most of the people in the world thought it was flat... that didn't make it true.

a gaming "experience" is exactly that.. an experience. An experience is highly (to almost completely) subjective. 2 people can have the same experience and see things differently and have totally different outcomes.

even if 99.9% of the people in the world define a better gaming experience as having higher frame rates with better graphics, that still means there is some that do not think that. Its easy to disprove something, you only need 1 case. If someone says A = B and shows 100000000000000000000 cases where its true as proof, I only have to find 1 case where its not true to totally make their statement false. You can make statements generally including percents. But that's all more on other topics of logic and statistics and other such things, not for gaming on MBP 13"ers

thats not true...
in almost every way a 320 IGP can beat a Dedicated 310m. Even not couting that one since it can be close and depend what your running... your statement infers that ANY weak low end GPU is better. So something like a Geforce FX5200 64mb would be better? not even close.

Many to most currently selling in new machines discrete GPUs are better in performance for gaming than the IGP 320m, but not all, and it also depends on the situation, and the person involved.

 

actually guys Im seriously not interested in anything but a macbook, and I maxed out all the games nicely on my 17" (yes some barely made it but still), but yeah your probably right the 720pish res is not enough to make up for the lose of dedicated graphics. (btw i am just talking 2xaa/af

 

You are just being contrary now for no reason whatsoever ...

My two cents:

I've been gaming on my macbook pro (or equivalent) for about 8 years now, and its usually been a disappointment. Games for the most part do not run well / as well on the Mac OS, and it is a bit annoying bootcamping to windows when I want to play things.

Also, I know I am in a minority here, but I have had continual build quality / hardware issues with my macbook pro (current and past models) as I push them hard when gaming. I've had every component break on me (some multiple times) on multiple computers, and have had apple replace computers for free due to the amount of hardware components breaking (learned my lesson after my first laptop about buying their apple care plan ... ). The heat is also pretty horrible when doing heavy gaming. I should also mention that I never overclock anything, and I do my gaming in cool, well-ventilated environments (except one time when I was playing WoW a few years ago in an un-airconditioned room and had parts of the motherboard melt on me).

That said, my macbooks have been great for school work / actual work, and they are great if you are interested in light gaming and don't mind paying a higher price for getting to use OSX.

 

Irrelevant argument. The Earth being not flat is a statement of the physical world in our known space-time model. On the other hand, "gaming experience" is a subjective matter, where the descriptions associated with it are not quantitatively defined but rather by general consensus. People define better gaming experience as higher FPS and higher settings. It is the number one rule in business: the customer's view is always correct. Furthermore, the "customer" is defined by the largest potential buyer's group. Taking your example, if 99.9% of customers view one thing as being better, then attempting to appeal to 0.1% results in failure. Apple would never advertise their MBPs as "providing a superior gaming experience", because they know this also. They work to appeal to other aspects.

Being the odd one out does not make you correct, although you are entitled to your own opinion. I may also say that having a lower battery life contributes to a better experience because it reminds me that I should take breaks from my work, but the vast majority of people will disagree, and such a statement will fall.

 

on OS X Team Fortress 2 is not in very good shape - barely playable on lowest possible settings @ lowest res.

Half Life 2 Episode 1 is playable however, haven't installed left 4 dead 2/left 4 dead 1 yet

Torchlight plays flawlessly without vertical sync at highest settings.

 

HL2 is 6 years old. And even 6 years ago it wasn't demanding, because it was one of the best optimized 3D games ever made.

Torchlight requires a GeForce 2 series video card with 800MHz Pentium line CPU.