MBP 13 Gaming?

The 310M will beat the snot out of the 320M IGP in any situation in which the memory bandwidth comes into play - high texture details, higher resolutions, and the addition of FSAA. At low resolutions - like the 1280x800 native resolution of the 13" MBP - and lower texture/model details, the faster core of the 320M will allow it to edge out the 310M, however.

Remember, there's a whole lot more to performance than just number of shader units. The 310M may only have 33% of the shader units, but it has much higher clock speeds, and 512MB of dedicated GDDR3 is going to run circles around shared system RAM where it counts.

And though the GPU is most critical to performance in games, the processor is a significant factor as well, especially in shoddy console ports like BC2 and GTA4. The Core i3/i5 in most other notebooks in the 13" MBP's price range absolutely smashes the Core 2 Duo, and the difference will only get more extreme as games become more and more multithreaded.

You can come up with bizarre definitions for "gaming experience" all you want, but if a game can't achieve a fluid framerate at decent settings, you can't have a good gaming experience. Trying to argue otherwise is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

 

You make valid points but the MBP's C2D out ran the U30JC's i3 in many tests for example.

And I think the gaming experience also has to do with the screen. The MBP offers the best screen in it's price and size range in my opinion. The U30JC's screen was a disappointment for me. You can have great graphics but if you don't have the right screen, what is the point? You know?

 

I am considering a 2010 MBP 13" and if so, I also plan to dual boot Win 7 via bootcamp. I have read that previous versions of the MBP (equipped with the previous versions of bootcamp) made the MBP run quite hot with greatly reduced battery life under windows 7. Additionally, I have read that the trackpad performed poorly under previous editions of bootcamp.

Can anyone tell me from experience that these issues are any better with the 13" 2010 MBP and the latest edition of bootcamp? I assume battery life is not as good under win 7 and bootcamp but just how much less? Under moderate use, does the MBP run hot to the touch (burn your lap) and do you have fan speed (and noise) issues?

Finally, has anyone tried the software found here: Welcome to powerplan7.com! (Power Plan Assistant and Trackpad++). These 2 utilities show some promise in fixing some of the above mentioned problems, but do they actually work?

 

I've never seen any benchmarks suggesting the Core 2 Duo in the 13" MBP outperforms the Core i3 in the U30Jc. All of the tests run here and elsewhere certainly tell the same story with regard to the two processor lines; in every imaginable scenario, the Core i3 tramples all over the Core 2 Duo, even with clock speed advantages to the latter.

As for the screen - yes, that is a factor. The viewing angles on the U30Jc's screen are abysmal, and light leakage is more pronounced, but color reproduction and brightness seem on par with the 2009 15" MBP I have around to compare them (though I haven't really done any scientific testing on the subject) - and there isn't any evidence to suggest the screen on the MBP has since changed. Sharpness would also be better on the U30Jc's screen, simply because it's a higher resolution - and with more games being optimized for widescreen, the wider aspect ratio is a consideration as well.

It's worth noting that price is a serious consideration, too - the U30Jc is less than $900, whereas the 13" MBP is $1200. A $300 difference isn't chump change, for two systems that by and large trade blows.

 

I've used both side by side. (I briefly had a U30JC before I returned it) No comparison the Macbook Pro is definitely better. Sharper colors and better quality.

And look here: Asus U30Jc-A1 Laptop reviews - CNET Reviews

The Macbook Pro (2010) outperformed the U30Jc in almost every test. And I think the $300 ($200 for me because I am a student) is worth it because the build quality is better, you get a better screen, a better looking machine, backlit keyboard, and even a better webcam.

 

Ooh right, that CNet review. Now that you mention it, I remember seeing that when I was shopping around before buying my U30. It's...special. All of their tests are done with Apple software - Quicktime for the "multitasking" test and iTunes for the encoding test. The MacBook is run on OSX for those tests. Seems fair. I mean, we all know how well Apple bothers to optimize the Windows versions of their software, right?

Their results are bizarre and totally incongruous with anyone else's reviews (this site's included), and, frankly, reality. Only 4 hours of video playback on the U30? That's just nonsense. They even have the Core 2 Duo in the MacBook outperforming a Core i5-M running at a higher clock speed - in the "multitasking" test of all things. They couldn't be bothered to Boot Camp the MacBook to get results for the whole one 3D test they did, or at least choose a game with an OSX version. They also get several specifications on the tested systems wrong - they list the MacBook as having dedicated video memory, for example, and the U30Jc as using a GMA 4500M. And then the editor calls the U30Jc "bulky and heavy" (yeah, that extra 0.1 of a pound really makes the difference) and criticizes it for "only" being $100 less than the MacBook. It's just all around bad reviewing. It'd be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that so many people probably take CNET seriously.

Trusting CNET to fairly review computers is like trusting GameSpot to fairly review video games. But I digress.

I really don't want to address my thoughts on build quality because I've been around here and /g/ both long enough to know that no amount of arguing or evidence will ever convince Mac fans that the aluminum unibody doesn't provide any real structural benefit over a polycarb body + metal cage design.

The screen I'll grant you, since while I still feel the resolution gap alone is enough to offset the difference between the two screens, your particular needs may be different. I prefer the added desktop real estate and overall sharpness because I don't do anything where the color reproduction or viewing angles matter. You might, though.

"Better looking" is obviously just subjective and arguing over it would be stupid even by this thread's lofty standard I'll just say I quite like the look of my U30Jc; I prefer the two-tone silver/black look to the uniform brushed aluminum of the MBP, but both are pretty sexy. (Truth be told, I actually really like the look of the white polycarb MB more than either.)

Backlit keyboard I'll give you. I'm a touch typist and don't really need it, but it would have been nice to have anyways.

The one picture I took for my review will likely be the only time I use the webcam, too, so again, I could not care less about it's quality. As I noted in my review though, yes, VGA was a terrible choice.

To play devil's advocate, while you didn't mention it, integrated Bluetooth would be the only major advantage the MBP has that I really care about. That's certainly not worth $300* to me, though, with unobtrusive USB BT dongles going for <$20 and the fact that I rarely use it anyways. In my case - and I'd wager, most cases outside of this particular subforum - the benefits don't outweigh the drawbacks, not by a long shot.

We could also get into the more obtuse differences between the two machines: trading the usually-useless Firewire port for another USB port, technically inferior but commonplace VGA+HDMI instead of MiniDP (which requires a $30 adapter for any monitor or TV on the planet except the 27" Apple one), safer and more versatile tray-load versus more convenient slot-load ODD, cheaper to replace/adapt standard barrel plug versus safer MagSafe plug, hardware wireless switch, removable versus integrated battery. I mean hell, there's days of pointless arguing to be had here.

TL;DR: Buy whatever you want and can afford. If the tradeoffs are worth it to you or you just really want OSX, then get the MBP. The two machines basically trade blows in every regard but CPU performance (which won't matter to most users anyways) and price.

(*Note on price: I also qualify for the educational discount BUT you can only get it if you buy at your school's retail store or through Apple, so you pay sales tax - 6.5% here. I got my U30Jc for $870 with free shipping and no sales tax, so the difference was still $300.)

 

so if someone doesn't agree with your opinion on an experience, they are just bizarre?

how "fluid" the frame rate need to be is subjective... what "decent settings" are is subjective... what those values need to be for you, won't always hold true, exact, or sometimes not even close, to what other people need them at.

I won't confuse you with any facts since your mind seems to be made up... I'm pretty sure I'm not the one with fingers in the ears.

Remember when people say something in Windows on a Mac performs poorly, that is in comparison to how it works in OSX. The trackpad does perform worse in Win7 than in OSX, but even then its still MUCH better than most every other touchpad out there. Win7 will have reduced battery life though

to make it feel very hot, and make the fan audible easily to most people, you'd have to hit into the heavy use area, not moderate. the 13"er runs very cool relatively. If you push it maxed for a long time with bad airflow, the fan can get up to 6000 rpm and you can usually hear it. But that doesn't happen during normal use. Even when pushing it maxed out, mine usually only has to get the fan up to around 5000 to keep it under 80ºC

so you assume that dong the opposite is fair... take and run Windows with barely working unoptimized drivers on a Mac and running Windows software... and thats fair? They chose software that could run on both OSes so they can test the whole machines and compare them. Machines include their OSes.

there is much more to a case than structural benefits.

so physical computer looks is subjective, but how games look and run is not?

 

"Decent settings" is relative, I suppose, though I'd say that most people could agree that on LCDs, "native resolution" is a solid minimum requirement to avoid massive IQ reduction. I think if you'd ever seen your average modern game running at its minimum settings, you could agree that those were hardly "decent," either.

As for fluidity, 30 frames per second has been the accepted standard for playability for eons. There is a mountain of evidence that 30 FPS is the point at which a video game seems fluid to the human eye. Console games are engineered to maintain 30 frames per second. Many benchmarks rate your system on its ability to maintain 30 FPS in a given test. Many games even cap at 30 FPS, and others will dynamically adjust settings to attempt to maintain 30 FPS. Arguing that a game played at less than 30 FPS could still constitute a "good experience" is literally arguing against the entire industry.

 

I think so too. Look, why can't we all just be a bit more objective? I personally use a PC, but I concede that Macs have beautiful screens and slim profile that are nicer than my notebook, whereas our Mac fans give it a rest and agree that playing modern 3D games on a 320M / 330M does not compare to max resolution, max settings, and max AA on an HD 5850/5870 or GTX260M/285M. If we stand back and watch ourselves being brainwashed to the point where we say "playing games at low FPS, low settings and low resolution is a better experience than high fps high settings and high resolution, to hell with whoever doesn't agree", we will realize that Apple's marketing department is about on par with North Korean leadership who tell their subjects that starving is good for them because that gives them "self reliance", disregarding the fact that they are two unconnected points.

 

Wow you are over-zealously trying to the defend the U30Jc so bad.. I find CNet's review very accurate. The U30Jc is way too bulky compared to the MBP and the performance is very lacking. And the Quicktime and iTunes programs they used were made for the respective OS's. Quicktime and iTunes come in version for Windows as well as OS X...I hope you know...

Just bad engineering on Asus's part. That is why I returned it in a heart beat. It just isn't worth the $899. If it was $500 I would consider it but no thanks now.

And the $30 adapter can be bought on eBay or a third party vendor for $5 tops.

 

If all I was doing was gaming on the go I would have picked up a mx11 awhile ago, but unfortunately first I am a student then a gamer. From the couple of other engineers who I know that switched over, they love their macs and one guy's old 2008 15 mbp seem to be holding up and playing tf2 decently. If I could easily get my hands on an Acer 3820TG or a HP Envy 14 I would, but I can't, also not really into picking up a desktop replacement to lug around with me, and the last time I made a gaming rig it never got used so it wasn't worth the money. In the end I want a solid work productivity laptop that is nice for some casual gaming and movie watching on the go. My university store does accept returns so I think I am just going to pick up a mbp 13 and see if it meets these requirements, else I'm on the hunt again. Not going to lie the itouch dealie for students is a bit of a draw too since I would love one to mess around with one and try my hand at app development.

Thanks again for all the info both for and against and I will let you all know how the mbp works for me.

Although I must admit to some misgivings still since I know I can get a better spec'd windows notebook for a similar price, are there any other 13-14inch laptops with a half decent gpu and battery life? Only other one I found that I could get in Canada was the Lenovo Y460. Le sigh, wish I had the money to throw at a sony z, meets all my requirements perfectly, but at about 1000.00 too much :S

 

There's this illusive N82Jv from Asus that was announced in January, promised in Feb, and STILL ISN'T OUT. Sheesh. Very disappointing from Asus. But it seems like it's a good fit for you though, GT 335M with switchable graphics should last ... probably as long as the MBP 13 on battery (it has an 8 cell), weighs a bit more though, 5.2lb, but is 14". USB 3.0, i7-620M, etc, expected to be something like $1100 CAD. It'll come out in June or July, supposedly. But if you want to game at all, a GT 335M will serve you well.

 

That was another one I was watching but got tired of waiting for, seems like a unicorn here in NA since it has almost perfect specs for a 14 inch laptop. I did at one point consider the msi-gx640 but I figured it would be too big with too little battery life, plus it seems they are now out of production.

I am leaning more towards having two machines, get the mbp now for school use and in a year or so when I can afford it either build a new desktop (my old one has a funny mobo that does not play nice with xp sp3 and for some reason can't install win7, damn asus board...) or pick up a notebook like the gx640 (easier to move than a whole desktop).

 

Well, underclocking the video card gives 3+ hours, but I'll say one thing: if that 3. something hours isn't enough, then don't bother using it as a ... portable machine. The machine itself is nice and light, 5.9lb, but the power adapter is a monstrous creation. It's not out of production, they are done with the GX640-098US model and now are at the GX640-260US model, which has a slightly faster CPU and the same price.

 

If you find 0.1" of thickness and 0.1lb of additional weight to be the difference between "WAY TOO BULKY OMG" and "WOW SO THIN AND LIGHT" then I don't know what to say. Carrying textbooks, or tools, or, you know, bouquets of flowers must be very traumatizing for you.

It's no secret that the Windows versions of iTunes and Quicktime are shoddy, bloated ports that run like complete dogs, that aren't even properly multi-threaded to boot (nothing like using iTunes to batch-convert audio files on my desktop and having it take forever while watching my CPU sit at ~60% usage because LOL ONE THREAD). There are plenty of true cross-platform applications like VLC and Cinebench that would make for much better comparisons.

Consider: If a site used only Microsoft software to benchmark the MBP against a PC running Windows and showed the Windows PC to be unrealistically faster, try and tell me you wouldn't be the first to cry foul. Or if a site used exclusively Intel-programmed CPU benchmarks to compare Intel and AMD CPUs, or an AMD-programmed GPU benchmark to compare AMD and nVidia GPUs, would that inspire confidence in their credibility? Using software from Vendor A to benchmark Vendor A's product against Vendor B's is just a terrible, terrible reviewing practice, it's that simple.

I have a desktop with a Core 2 Duo (a substantially faster one than the one in the MBP, no less). My T61 has a Core 2 Duo. I've dealt with dozens of C2D-based systems over the past few years. I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Core i3 in the U30Jc is faster than any of them in general multitasking and fully-multithreaded applications. There are gazillions of benchmarks around the internet that show that. On the "nah brah Core 2 is faster" camp you have yourself and that CNET editor. On the side of <s>reality</s> Core iN being faster we have Anand, Ars, Tom's, X-Bit, NBR, LegitReviews...well, pretty much the entirety of the tech press.

You're right though, I suppose I do tend to get passionate when people try to pass off their empirically false opinions on performance as fact.


LOOK AT THAT MBP BLAZE PAST ALL THOSE CORE i3s! OHWAIT

 

because someones experience... their likes and dislikes and enjoyment can not be rated objectively in in way to compare to other people in a meaningful enough way. Just like one person can totally hate a specific game, and another person love it.

does not compare how? is not as good? thats not an objective measure.

I don't think Apple marketing, or anyone on this forum, has ever made such a claim.

One of the main points I've been trying to make, is ... what is important in gaming... and what experience you get out of, will vary widely from person to person. Making blanket statements that 1 certain way that happens to meet your likes is the only right way... is just wrong. Just as an example... high resolution might be important to you and one of the top on the list for you to have a good experience, but to someone else it might be on the bottom, cuz it doesn't matter as much. Things not even on your list could be near the top of importance on another persons list...

 

I don't think anyone would deny that gaming on a macbook sucks, that aside, it can run a couple games to suit a real casual gamer. And it has a lot of features for reasons to buy one. But gaming is, not, never going to be one of them.

Plus for $800 you can get a desktop to max out most games, and just hook it up to your HD TV.

 

I give up. Doh123 here wants to discuss my claim that HD 5870 gives better gaming performance than 320M. Never mind. I have never met a gamer that says resolution, settings, and fps are "not on their list of important things". Other than, well, friends for whom gaming involves a game or two of solitaire, in which case.. correct, the 5870 gives no advantages over the 320M. Sheesh. If someone says 1 is bigger than 2 because in their world it JUST IS then how do you convince him otherwise? I'm out of the debate for good . At least he's the only poster among all that I've ever seen to make that claim, while all other responses so far on this thread have been coherent, so the foundations of the gaming market's not shaking yet.

Really? You think so? I thought so too. But today I learned that there are exceptions to everything

 

Performance is a better word to use... people have been saying gaming experience. "Performance" can be a lot less subjective. I just like details. You say "this is better for games" is like saying "Macs are better than PCs" ... its not an absolute truth that holds for everyone. A person considering a MBP and wants to know about gaming has to take into account what they really want, what they like, what they can settle for, and what major points someone who criticizes it over really affects them.

A list of important things... would be ranked from most to least, maybe with a few getting equal scores. Saying resolution, settings and fps, is not as important as some other things, doesn't mean they are not important. you have to weight the +'s and -'s and how they affect you personally.

I'm sorry if you haven't understood what I've been saying... but it is more "coherent" to hear opinions that mesh with your own, as its easier to understand.

 

Please then find me an opinion in this thread that agrees with yours.

Look, I'm not here to argue about the use of specific words here, and "performance" and "experience" mean pretty much the same thing to me, as it would to most people. I said, if you don't believe me on that, we could make a poll and find out:

"Would you agree that higher performance video cards deliver a better overall gaming experience?"
"__ Yes"
"__ No"

Then again, you tell me polls are useless.

On the other hand, you've been putting down things like settings/fps/resolution in favor of... being able to switch to another program while gaming? That's also possible with well programmed games on any platform, and to be honest, I'm not sure how high people would rate the necessity of .. being able to tab out.. :S

 

Experience and Performance are different. Performance is talking about something the computer is doing, things that can be measured. Experience is referring to you, and what you are experiencing and learning and taking in... which will be affected by your perceptions to a much higher degree than performance of a computer.

The arguments started over "better" and "faster" though, when I said faster does not equal better. I might have been too vague and it upset some people who strive for the fastest performance they can and faster really is better to them. I simply meant, faster does not ALWAYS mean better, because "better" is an opinion. To many responding here, faster might always equal better, but if it doesn't hold true for all possibilities, then its generally not true. Being generally not true, doesn't mean that its never true in any situations, just thats its not true in all situations.

for someone making a buying decision based on what they actually need and want, what a bunch of other people like or want will not always be the same, so polls can mislead people, sometimes badly.

tabbing out into Windows is of course possible... but I have no want to run Windows for anything I do not need to. I'd have to install and start maintaining Windows software and all kinds of stuff thats such a major headache over just running a game right on OSX with 10 or 15 FPS lower (though usually still over 30). Booting into Windows basically makes me lose all my software while gaming, or have to replace it... its easier to just have a totally separate computer, or just not play the game. I have thousands of games I an play at great performance for me, so its not worth worrying about a few. Being forced to use Windows for simple things like a IM or web browser (or more) is highly irritating. Yes if its a game you really really really want to play and cannot live without, and Windows is the only way you can get it to run at a performance level that is acceptable to you, then Windows is the best bet to use.. you just have to live with any negatives that come with it. I'm a gamer, but I'd rather go without some games, than mess with the negatives of having to dual boot and run Windows. Of course your milage may very since all the +s and -s are different to you.

 

Point is, Apple has beaten everyone in the 13 inch category with the Macbook in gaming. The Macbook Pro outguns the Asus pretty bad.

 

False. At first I thought your post was sarcastic, but closer inspection showed you were serious. The 2 year old LG P310 with the 9600M GT does better than that. The U30Jc was never meant to be a gaming system.
The 13" Acer 3820 demolishes even the 17" MBP never mind some puny little 13" MBP.
The Sony Vaio Z is also far superior.
Hell my old Sony Vaio S360 from 5 years ago had a Radeon Mobility 9700 which was the same card found in Dell's XPS systems. It was also 13" and weighed 3.95lb with 4.5 hours of battery life.

The list goes on.

In the last maybe 4-5 years the only time Apple came up with a notebook with a decent video card for its size was the 8600M GT in the 15". And that ended up suffering from the same problem as everyone else, AKA premature frying.

 

The Acer is a horrible gaming device. The Sony Vaio Z isn't even in the same pricing category so why are you including it?
The S360 is a horrible machine compared to even the Macbooks of 2006. I don't know if you are trying to sarcastic or anything but your post really comes off that way.

 

Do you have any proof of usage or first hand experience other than throwing baseless adjectives like "horrible" around? By all accounts the Acer is very well built with aluminum finish and long, long battery life, the Sony Vaio S360 is also completely metal with a very solid chassis built in 2005 yet with great engineering that allows them to fit a then-highend video card into such a small frame. At that time the highest ATI model was the Mobility Radeon 9800, which makes the 9700 the equivalent of the 5730/5830 of today. I fail to see how that is "horrible".

I mentioned the Vaio Z because you said that Apple has the 13" notebook segment beat in terms of gaming performance with its pitiful integrated graphics. You didn't specify a price or a price range, you just said 13". I believe the Z is a 13" notebook, unless I'm frightfully mistaken.
Conveniently, you also disregard the LG I brought up.

Please stay out of the conversation if you got nothing other than arguments based on vacuum. You and doh123 both have the same logical flaws that are common tricks in debate and law cases. It's called giving infallible arguments. Your argument has no factual substance and hence cannot be proven or disproven.

And yet online sites and magazine publishers make millions by writing reviews that try to accurately represent what most people would look for, because when one faces the task of choosing a product, they do try to look for what others think first. This is a .. rather basic phenomenon given that people (most) have more similarities than differences when judging a product, especially those that belong to the same subgroup, such as the group of gamers. People also look at product ratings on such sites as Newegg to get a feel for whether a product is successful or not. If it were really like the way you seem to make it out to be, nobody would be able to really go out and find something that is suitable to them without buying every product on the market and trying it out themselves.

Once again, let me try to give you an example. I claim that the monster of a machine by Clevo, the 10lb D900F gives the best mobile computing experience, far more so than anything Apple can deliver, because of the following:

- 30 minutes battery life. I mean, we should all take breaks when working, and the machine in this case gives us a very legitimate excuse for taking one. Helps with worker morale and general quality of life.
- Huge power draw when plugged in. Now, how are we to stimulate today's sagging commodity and resources market without using energy? We are after all improving an entire industry here. A definite plus.
- 12lb weight. Now this is just icings on the cake. What better than a notebook that allows me to get my workout on the way home from work and save me the trips to the gym?

All these nice mobile features wrapped in one. Don't you agree? Of course you don't. They're ludicrous! 99.9% of users will find the above "advantages" to be complete crap. But then, I hope from this you can also see how I view your claims that fps/settings/resolution are negligible aspects of computer games.

Lastly, there are very few games with enough eyecandy (of the sorts like Dirt2 and Crysis) that can be run at anywhere near 30FPS on any Mac, nevermind the least capable model. Sure, typing "games" into the search engine for Apple software brings up "thousands" of hits, but...

 

Your argument is quite flawed. The Sony and Acer machines are just poor devices that can't compete with the Macbook. Not even the Macbooks of 2006.

And yes I didn't mention price but it should be a given as anyone who is a "good" debater would realize you don't compare Apples to Oranges.

MBP >>>>> Asus, Acer, Sony by A LOT. (Like the distance from Earth to the moon)

 

Interesting that you'd be telling me about rules of debate. Considering your arguments so far have consisted such comments rivaling "NO MY DADDY IS TOUGHER THAN YOURS BECAUSE HE IS!!!!!" for stupidity... I can't mathematically disprove your proposed inequality that "MBP >>>>> Asus, Acer, Sony by A LOT". However, I will try something similar. I propose that a $200 clearance netbook >>>> any MBP by A LOT. Now, who wins? Whoever yells louder I guess

Don't get me wrong here, I like Macs quite a lot too. Very nice devices. I certainly see Apple's attention to small details, as can be seen in my iPod Touch also. The engineering team at Apple deserves a big pat on the back. They obviously have a clear mind: they know what makes a good product, QUALITATIVELY and QUANTITATIVELY. Every design is scrutinized both internally and against external competitors to make sure it stands up to competition. Now, how their marketing team has turned a certain segment of the population into zombies that would buy a cardboard box for $5000 if it said "Apple" on it using logic similar to your "MBP >>>>> Asus, Acer, Sony by A LOT" because perhaps it has fairy dust sprinkled on it and sparkles under the moon.. .that's beyond me.

 

I am sorry you feel that way but adhominem attacks benefit no one. Maybe you should refer back to the topic at hand which is that the Macbook Pro, by a wide margin out performs the Asus, Sony, and Acer's in its price range.

It isn't even close. Gaming on the Apple's screen alone is a big incentive.

 

Now there's actually something we can talk about. I agree, the screen is excellent. So there are definitely tradeoffs, and whereas the MBP might be lacking in the raw graphics processing power, it might make up for it somewhat using the display. Whether or not it is close depends on the circumstances. I have a GX640, the screen's kind of dim, and I don't enjoy playing games on it. But, I like to take it outside with me to do work on the go, and come home to plug it into an external monitor to play. Its HD5850 drives even Crysis at maximum settings and high resolution. So for me, the screen doesn't matter too much.

As for the price point. In your earlier case, you most clearly did not state price. Defining debate parameters and constraints as you go along is very bad. I was merely targeting your earlier assertion that MBP 13 > any 13" notebooks out there. If you specified a price range, I would most definitely not have brought up a $1900 notebook.

See what happens when you actually focus a debate on something worth debating? You see, it produces more intelligent discussions than "A is better than B because.. because it IS!!"

 

Although your not fully understanding, you're starting to get my point... what is "good" and "bad" about a computer does have factual substance, but its unique from person to person. Yes we can make general claims about the populations from samples, but if you want the best personal experience for yourself, its not the best idea to just stick to what the average says, and make sure your getting something right.

of course... but a poll and a review is not the same thing. Things start to fall into a normal distribution, yes... but if your wants and needs are say two standard deviations from the mean, why would you want to just go with the mean... thats considered a significant difference.

general data feedback on happiness of a product purchase, along with actual thoughts about why (like Newegg feedback and egg ratings). I never said this information wasn't useful in learning about how a product will fit into your wants/needs... quite the contrary, this is the type of data you need to help make informed decisions. Just don't think an item is fantastic because it has 5 eggs, when it might not fit your needs... I'm saying be more informed than just taking someone else's word for it, or going with what a bunch of other people have thought was the best... actually find out why and how it relates to you personally.

if those claims are important to you... and you are the one buying and using the thing, then that can be the best thing to get. It does NOT matter if 50 billion people in the world find it ludicrous.. its not about them, its about you!

I said that fps/settings/resolution is negligible aspects of computer gaming for me... I never said it would hold true for anyone else, just that don't assume what is good for 1 person is good for everyone.

 

I know, I know. But the fact is the OP asked whether the MBP is sufficient for playing his RTS games like SC2, which happens to be moderately demanding. So, since I am not gifted in the mind reading department and thus cannot say for certain that the OP belongs in the 2 standard deviations above the mean (2% of the population), I have concluded that it is statistically more likely that he shares a similar opinion with the average group. Therefore, I recommended that there are better alternatives. It does not rule out however that the OP thinks exactly the way you do also. Yet, as we ARE lacking such detailed information... a best guess still IS the best guess.

 

I am not making up debate parameters or restraints as we go. I thought and assumed there was some common sense not to compare apples to oranges. Sorry I was wrong. They just don't make debaters like they used to...What a shame.

It is kind of ridiculous that a Sony Z was compared to the MBP when the Sony Z is $500+ more. Next time I will clearly state the parameters seeing there is some ignorance.

 

of course there are "better" computers out there solely for gaming... that would fit for more than 98% of the population. Its not about ONLY gaming.

SC2 actually runs pretty dang good on the 320m to me, but of course it comes down to what you find is "good"

 

People confuse adequate for good.

Saying the Macbook is good at gaming because it runs your old games "good enough" is like saying the Lexus RX is a good racing car because its "fast enough" for your daily commute. While a similarly priced Lotus Elise S (build for performance) would destroy it on the track. People asking for advice on how well a Lexus RX would preform on the track wouldn't want to be mislead...

The macbook is an all around/form factor PC. Yes the 330m macbooks will run a couple games as good as a $750 PC gaming laptop. But no where near as good as comparable luxury Gaming/Professional laptops.

Obviously the Macbook has other traits that make people buy it over these monster gaming rigs but gamin is NOT one of them. Plus the 13inch macbook is like the ugly sister of macbooks (didn't get the i core, no high res screen) and is out classed by most laptops in class performance wise.

The 15inch and 17inch macbooks offers style, form factor, and battery life matched by few. But don't lie to other people that is a "good" gaming machine, its decent.. at best.

 

I give up... people can't understand the differences in opinions and facts or know the English language. Go around telling everyone whatever you want and make your decisions for them... I mean heck, your opinions are more important to them than just giving them the info and letting them make their own opinions... they might be stupid.

 

Still waiting to get my hands on the mbp, supposedly the store has them physically, but still needs to process them, hopefully tomorrow I can get it.

I do realize this laptop won't blow games out of the water, not expecting it too, but I figure it will serve me well enough until I free up an extra 350 to throw an i3 530 + mobo + 4gb of decent ram into my old desktop, already have a half decent gpu in it and I know the desktop i3's can be oc'd pretty high and stay stable. Should be good enough to cover my gaming needs, and then I have a good portable work computer (which is a higher priority atm) too with the mbp, win/win for me.

 

Mac Gamers are a strange thing. They have been kicked around like dogs forever, by both Apple fans and non-Apple fans.


I think the Macbook Pro's big gaming thing is the crazy battery life under OSX. Many of the other gaming notebooks in the category don't have a battery to match that of MBP13... Or the screen... or the build quality.

It's just a shame that so few games run on OSX.

Blizzard does the trick. If you are a WoW gamer, it's great, as that game will take much of your gaming time. With Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2, going to run great on OSX, you know that OSX will get the biggest PC game of 2010, and of 2011(if D3 gets released then).

Steam support right now is skimpy. Portal, HL2, TF2, all runs mushy. We don't really know what is doing this. Is it OpenGL, Rushed porting, lack of drivers. Is it Valve or Apples fault? I guess only time will tell if it gets more optimized, but it's certainly true, that Steam and most things in it, are very "gaaahhh".


I think, Boot Camp is adequette for when you play a Single Player game once in a while, but I find it very very annoying for multiplayer games like MMOs, Online FPS, freeware games, indie titles, smaller games that you play for shorter sessions but perhaps play for years...

I'm a big gamer, that's why Boot Camp while it worked flawlessly. Boot camp ran Windows Vista better than any PC I had ever owned, which was ironic. But as I was a big gamer, it became annoying constantly having to dual boot. In the beginning it was find, but I grew tired of it!



Some people have their perks with the competition;

Envy 14; To big,
Acer 3820; Build quality not up to their "standards"
M11x; ULV processor
Sony Vaio; Twice as expenssive as a MBP13

 

Has anyone tried Dragon Age: Origins on the MBP 13" (through Boot Camp)?
It's hard to find precise data about the performance of that game on the Core2Duo/320M combo this notebook has.
I was hoping to get some evidence as to how it runs on native resolution (1280x800), all settings on high, framebuffer effects on and no AA.
If anyone can chip in about it, I'd appreciate it a lot.

Thanks in advance!

 

if fps/settings/resolution are neglibible to you in terms of gaming, you are not so much trying to get the best out of a gaming experience, but settling for what you can get because other, non-gaming (as in, not directly applicable to playing the game) aspects are more important to you. you can argue the semantics of what is "good gaming" all you want, but can you really say with a straight face that most gamers look at "alt tabbing out of games" or "ability to play the game at the lowest settings" when buying a gaming machine?

if someone doesn't agree with his opinion, which i'm sure you can admit, is the opinion of the majority of hardcore gamers, then yes, they are bizarre. that is pretty much the definition of "bizarre" (strikingly out of the ordinary).

I'm not trying to flame you, i just don't really understand your defensiveness over the MBP13.

 

I am trying to get the best out of a gaming experience... but what is "best" to me is not the same as what is best to you...

only if you make many assumptions

I'm not defending any product. I'm saying its better to inform people who need to know about gaming on machines in a way that they can come to the determinations they need to come to on their own, and not be swayed, or just follow someone else's opinion.

when people ask something like "How does Computer X run game Y" saying... "it sucks, its just not good enough, you need something else" ... is not helping educate the person to become an informed buyer. Also assuming that everyone has the same wants and needs and want something identical out of gaming as any other gamers... is just a very narrow view of things.

 

I was seriously considering the MBP13 solely for its gaming potential (with the very good build quality as a bonus) but then I would be solely running windows and the battery life seems significantly worse compared to OS X. I really like the unibody enclosure, screen quality and backlit keyboard on the MBP.

Another option I was considering was the Acer 3820T. I don't see how you can say straight off that 'The Acer is a horrible gaming device'. If we are talking solely about gaming, the MBP can't even be compared to the Acer in terms of gaming experience. The 5650 in the Acer is arguably slightly better than even the GT335M.

Sure, 'build quality' and 'looks' and other subjective means of comparison may be able to be used to say the MBP is better, but we're talking about gaming here. What are you talking about?

 

why not alienware 11x ?

 

Let's please just let this thread die in peace. It's just trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls at this point. "Gaming experience" is completely subjective beyond the "30 FPS @ native resolution" minimum that 95% of us could agree on. The same goes for aesthetics, which operating system you prefer, etc.

 

Not so fast!
You want a peaceful death? Then give me the data!
Or else...

If anyone can chip in about it, I'd appreciate it a lot.

Thanks in advance!

 

There a video floating around of someone playing Mass Effect 2 on their 13" MBP at 1280x800 with High settings/no AA (not sure about framebuffer effects?) and it seemed pretty fluid. Since DA:O is based on the same engine, I'd assume it would be as well.

This benchmark over at Anandtech seems to suggest otherwise, however, as the more powerful discrete HD 3670 + P8600 combo could barely maintain 30 FPS average at minimum detail. Perhaps the resolution makes that much of a difference, however.

 

I believe you are referring to this video: YouTube - 2010 MacBook Pro Gaming Performance.
It seems fluid enough, yes. But I always thought (maybe a misconception of mine) Dragon Age was a bit more demanding. Specially since it likes three cores so much.

By the way, the creator of that video is registered on these forums as "smelly cat". I already PMed him asking him about it but have yet to receive the info. He's probably busy.

Thanks for the help, anyway! You may go in peace xD.

 

You make a very valid point. The resolution difference is very small (1366x768 has only 2,45% more pixels than 1280x800) and I think it wouldn't fully explain the jump from low to high settings. I'm probably missing something but can't identify what it is. Maybe is doesn't scale that well? Drivers? Overheating and/or throttling? The CPU is the same...

 

lowlymarine, lol if i didn't know any better i'd think you were accusing me of lying. truth is the real gameplay is actually even smoother than what the video suggested. not the other way around. when youtube converted my video to web format some frames were dropped during the encoding process. the source file on my hard drive is noticeably smoother.

arondel, yeah sorry i haven't gotten back to you about a dragon age gameplay vid. i ended up having to go to taiwan for a funeral not long after i posted my first vid running ME2. the kicker is that anyone who is taiwanese knows our funeral processions are 49 days long (and yes i'm ok; i've never even met the person we're mourning).

Since coming here I've been reduced to mostly surfing the web in wifi hotspots with my ipod touch wherever i can. For the life of me I cannot find a single place here in taiwan that actually sells legit games lol. if you are still interested i will try to post a dragon age gameplay vid when i can, but it may not be any time soon.

 

Glad to hear you're doing fine.
I'm still interested in seeing a video of the game, but don't worry about it. I supposed you hadn't found the time (although I didn't imagine this would be the situation) and it's alright. It's nice to find someone who's willing to help but I wouldn't want it to be felt like a burden or obligation at all.

Thanks for posting and hope everything goes well .

 

I know this isn't totally relevant, but DA:O plays perfectly at high settings on my macbook pro (in my sig).