Mac Book Pro Benchmarks

Yeah basically I need to know how justifiable it is to spend the extra money for the 256 card, I really want to play Shadowrun, and someday move up to Vista as well as OSX leopard, but I need to know that 128mb will be enough (and if not I need to save for the 256 version)

That is all I'm waiting for now to make the final decision!!!! hehe I'm so impatient now

 

Over at MacRumors someone with a 128MB model was posting their experiences. They tried C&C3 at max settings and it handled it without a problem, and Oblivion at close to max settings with HDR and AA both on, and it ran ok for the most part, although choppy in some areas (understandable though since HDR + AA can really kill even powerful cards). I know they had gotten 7200 or so with 3DMark05 as well.

Someone else tried it out on the Mac side with the Prey demo, and they said it ran smoothly, although they noticed a hickup when a new enemy would appear and I guess it would be loaded into texture memory.

I think they also reported that Vista showed the total memory as around 800MB or so, with 128MB dedicated, so it seems like under Vista it will share system memory or something like that which might mean that the difference in dedicated VRAM might not make such a difference.

-Zadillo

 

Zadillo, are you saying that it might be a possibility the 128mb 8600GT would alot more RAM to itself in Vista?

I might have to load vista on this machine tonight in order to test that.

 

Yes, apparently they both do. I've seen people with both versions report that Vista reports extra shared video RAM as well as dedicated VRAM. I guess this is just how the card works in Vista or something.

I think this is true with the Asus G1S too.

If it works well though, it seems like it would possibly make the lack of dedicated VRAM not such a major deal (which could explain why the gaming performance even with the 128MB 8600M GT still works out OK).

 

you don't need someone to test this for you, just look up information as to normal video card performances vs. memory sizes. you'll find that 128mb was actually plenty of memory for 75% of high res games in this current generation, but for Direct X 10 games, 256mb will be a minimum for full quality on 80%+ of the games. 512MB will actually be a minimum for full quality on a few.

 

can anyone re-run the 3dmarks using the new bootcamp 1.3?

 

I'll be (hopefully) receiving my 2.4GHz/256MB 8600 MacBook Pro early next week. One of the first things I'll be doing is loading up Bootcamp and XP - I'm leary of Vista because of driver issues, but that will follow. I'll post my experiences. So far, from what I've seen on the new MBP 3DMark benchmarks, I'm very encouraged

 

this drives me insane.....why can't apple have more BTO options...

 

Part of their business model is having a small number of possible main "platforms", each of which can be customized in terms of things like RAM, hard drive, etc.

They just aren't in the business of offering a single starting point and having any possible combination of updates. It makes it easier for them to sell a small number of "standard" configs.

 

i know...i just don't like it....all my pc's up until my macbook pro were dell's, so i guess i got a little spoiled....and this time around i can't afford the most expensive one....its really making me take a closer look at the asus G1s because i don't really NEED os X...i just like it a lot....sigh...oh and yes i NEED windows and a good graphics processor as I do 3d cad work for a living....

 

Fair enough; for what it's worth, from the reports I've seen, even the new base model MBP seems to perform quite well..... but the Asus G1S looks like a very nice machine too.

I was definitely looking at the G1S as well, but I prefer the LED-backlit screen, weight and thickness of the new MBP.

 

That was me

I'm going to run it through the entire suite of benchies tomorrow at work and will report back!

 

Why not go for a Dell or Thinkpad with a dedicated graphics card? The NVS series is supposed to be 3d modeling software, no? Woudln't that fit your needs better than a card that's meant to run games and has drivers for that purpose? I have to say, though, the last time I spent this kind of money on a laptop (TiBook when it first came out, about $3k) I never regretted it (the computer still runs today and, though it can't play ANY of the latest games, it's still a great machine for basic tasks (email, word processing, etc.).

 

I ran a few things. I'm going to post this here just for initial information purposes. I believe I have a driver issue with Vista that I need to resolve. Here are my initial scores with the 128MB 8600M version:

3D Mark 2005 - 6477
3D Mark 2006 - 2859
PC Mark 2005 - 4899

Everything was run straight from the default settings of each app. I don't have the full versions to be able to switch resolutions and such. The resolution 3DM2006 used was 1280x800.

I'm going to work on (what I believe is) my driver problem and try again. I expect scores lower than a 256MB version, but not almost half.

 

thats actually what i've been thinking about doing, i just don't want to...I try to stay away from the graphics cards designed for 3d cad work because they don't game very well and the gaming cards run my pro apps just fine...plus they are easier to sell when i'm ready to upgrade...

 

Hey stgben, is there any way we could get you to load the Lost Planet DX10 demo and get us a benchmark on the performance test?

Thanks...

 

...Why? You didn't find Extremetech's benchmarks disappointing enough??

 

I read the article on the Extremetech page... but they use 8800 GTX video cards Vs. the new Radeon card in their tests (Unless you are talking about a difference article...).

I am not interested in how well those high-end cards can run Lost Planet. I want to buy a MBP, so I want to know how well a MBP is going to run Lost Planet.

 

I was actually talking more about the disappointment in the DX10 version of the lost planet demo. You know, it looking exactly the same as its DX9 counter except running at 60% its framerate. Maybe you should reread that article as it sounds like you skipped over some crucial pages.

 

New stuff on 17" from Barefeats, compared to 15"
http://www.barefeats.com/santarosa.html

 

barefeats uses osx as testing ground which renders the whole review useless to me.

 

I didn't miss anything. I don't really care if I play it in DX10 or DX9. I just want to play it, and therefore, I want to know if I will be able to play it on the MBP. Can't a man ask for a benchmark around here?

 

Hmmm, then I guess this is why I was mislead by your intent:

I have no means to disagree with your request to see a benchmark as I too would be interested but specifically from the DX9 version. You know, so it's useful, and not like just another 3DMark.

 

The FZ from Sony is pretty close to those dimensions, but is lacking in the gfx department of things...

 

I don't know that I'd describe the FZ as that close....... it gets as thick as 1.4", weights 5.75 pounds compared to 5.4 pounds, etc.

Either way, the FZ isn't a laptop I'd compare it to, as it's a much cheaper consumer-grade laptop, for the most part (but very well built from what I've seen).

It's not like Sony couldn't make a machine very much like the MBP if they wanted to; it seems like their focus as far as premium machines goes has been put more into the ultraportable stuff like the T series, the SZ series, the G series, the U series, etc.

Personally I'd love to see them make a premium 15" full powered machine though.

The thickness is generally the kicker. .4" doesn't seem like much, but at these total thicknesses, it becomes more noticeable. Same reason the Sony C series seems so much thicker and bulkier than the SZ series.

-Zadillo

 

Out of curiosity, what notebooks would you compare the MBP to? I'm looking to get a notebook very soon and the MBP is really tempting at the moment.

 

I guess it would depend............ at the moment it's sort of unique in terms of its combination of specs (which put it closer to something like the Asus G1S) and form factor and LED-backlit screen (the form factor at least is perhaps most comparable to some of the thin HP business notebooks, etc.).

 

All of this information is really staggering to someone who has used a PC his entire life.

I am looking for a laptop and the range I was looking for was 15.4 inches and under 6 pounds, while still being capable of playing games like Oblivion. Have I found it?

I REALLY want to avoid OSX, and I really would like to use Vista. Is it worth it to get the MBP and run vista, and is this supported at all? I feel a little overwhelmed by the idea of it.

 

I think MBPs r the only 15.4 inch laptops under 6 pounds. You can't have it all, gotta compensate one for another. size, weight, performance.

 

i'd say give OS X a try still. A lot of people i know personally went and bought macs with the same idea, and then started using windows less and less until finally they didn't really use it at all

 

well I guess my problem is im heading off to school at the college, with intentions of possibly transferring to the business school, which requires a PC. I wonder if its not just worth it to take the extra size (one pound or so) and get the Asus G1S.

 

Orrrrr....just install Vista on the Mac

 

hence the dilemma.

 

I understand. I am in the same boat...it sucks!

Josh

 

Short of a few HUGE gaming laptops with desktop processors and SLi setups, I don't think you're going to be running Oblivion with all the eye-candy on. The Macbook should run it decently, though. If you want a 15.4" laptop UNDER 6 lbs, this is pretty much your only option. Also, since it seems that you want to run games, I'd skip Vista and dual-boot WinXP through boot camp.

 

Count me in your boat too. I have been crawling the web for reviews and articles to try and make my mind up

 

If my 2.33 Ghz C2D Macbook Pro with 256 MB GPU defaults at 1024x768 with high settings, I really believe the newer Macbook Pros will do decently, although not Gaming Guru perfect with Oblivion, so much so that I am in the process of selling my MPB to get the upgraded MBP, but with the 2.4 Ghz CPU just to be sure. Looks like even though Barefeats deals in OSX the 15" 2.4 Ghz is besting the 17" 2.33 Ghz by 10 to 15 extra framerates/sec. I figure the margin will be even greater in Bootcamp. If I had 10 to 15 more FPS on my 2.33 I probably would keep it.

Anyway hopefully the transaction will be completed and I hope to be comparing Oblivion framerates between my 2.33 and the new 2.4 Ghz MBP by the beginning of next week if the deal goes thru, but it will be a Windows XP comparison.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/Flight3.jpg
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/Flight2.jpg

 

I'm a software developer for a living and have recently got rid of my two PC laptop's configured for different development platforms. I've purchased a MBP upgraded the HDD to 160gb 7200rpm and installed 4gb RAM. I've got Vista installed via Boot Camp which I access in OS X (via VM Fusion) and also boot directly into when needed. I've also created virtual disks for Windows 2003 and Debian.

I have to say all four operating systems run superbly. The MBP is actually running Vista more reliably than my old Dell.

I've even switched much of my Java development projects to OS X!

Seriously I'd highly recommend the MBP as a multi OS platform.

 

Can someone comment on the heat situation with the MBP? I live in a hot country (Singapore) and have always had issues with heat even in airconditioned rooms + cooling pad + undervolting. My current Acer is a nightmare in this regard and gaming is impossible in any but the lowest CPU settings.

Thanks.

 

Don't get the MBP, it will give you the same problems. Rather, you might want to check out the Lenovo Thinkpad T61. It boasts being one of the coolest running notebooks out and has a decent low/mid GPU.

 

Not sure if this helps anyone, but I was able to get 4422 in 3dmark06 on my 15 inch running at 1280X1040. I had the gpu overclocked to 601/675 and the temp peaked at 80.

 

Everything helps. Thanks!

Josh

 

Can I take advantage of the educational discount if I'm only a senior in high school? I'm seriously considering the MBP to dual boot vista, and it seems like it has everything that I need. What do you guys get for battery life, is 4 hours just word processing, etc. accurate?

 

The educational discount is only available to college students.

You might look at buying through MacMall:

http://www.macmall.com/macmall/families/macbookpro/?WTReferer=http://www.macmall.com/&wt.mc_id=16722

You can get $150 back by mail-in rebate, and it's also tax-free, so it will most likely end up being a better deal even than the educational discount.

They also have a nice discount on Parallels to make it only like $10, which is nice so you can also run Windows apps inside of OS X, in addition to using Boot Camp.

-Zadillo

 

Thank you SO MUCH for that link. I can get Vista Ultimate and Parallels with the higher end 15" MBP for $2585 - $150 Rebate. That's amazing, I think that I just found my notebook.

 

If you sell the free Nano, the education deal should be better but it will really depend on your state's tax rate. Amen to NH being next door!

 

Yeah, a bit better.

It's not really relevant in this case since he is a high school student and thus not eligible for the student discount (available only to college students).

 

Did you see, Bear Feats have comparison of all 3 models of MBP.
Seems like 128MB version is just a few frames away from 256MB version.
So in reality with a bit of overclocking 128MB might be the best value for money.

http://www.barefeats.com/rosa03.html

 

So have we come to a consensus on whether or not the extra VRAM is worth the extra price? The barefeats article shows that it doesn't make that big of a difference in real usage, yet I've heard a lot of arguments for springing for the extra ram. I have had a heck of a time coming to my own decision on this so I'm hoping for an easy out heh.

Thanks

 

Again, all of those tests were done under OS X, and frankly, with games that wouldn't see as much of a difference anyway.

I think the main consensus though is that for most current games, at resolutions below 1440x900, there isn't too much performance difference. When you do start running games at the MBP's native res of 1440x900 though, the differences between 128MB of VRAM and 256MB of VRAM become much more noticeable.