Macbook Pro 13 2011 Modern Warfare 3

Hi! Some of you might be wondering how MW3 runs on the MBP13....I tried it earlier today and it runs quite smooth with these settings :

Texture Tettings - Extra
Image Quality - High
AA - Off
Shadows - Off

My MBP 13 is the baseline model with a 2.3GHz i5 and an HD3000.

Here is some of my gameplay of MW3 :

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 Gameplay - YouTube

 

Wait, you get that sort of results without a dedicated GPU? Really? Wow, wouldn't have expected that.

 

Macbook Pro 13 Inch Model, late 2010 - October ish...

Mac OS X Version 10.6.8

Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

Memory 4GB 1067 MHz DDR3

Chipset Model: NVIDIA GeForce 320M
Type: GPU
Bus: PCI
VRAM (Total): 256 MB
Vendor: NVIDIA (0x10de)


With the use of Windows XP via Bootcamp do you think i could RUN MW3 Smoothly? And be able to play online ?

 

Thanks for the heads up... I am installing it on my t500 right now and will probably use the same settings until I get my 15" macbook pro.

What rez are you playing at?

Thanks!

 

My t500 ran it with about 50 frames per second with:

Res: 1280x720
Texture - Auto
Image Quality - High
Spectacular lighting: On
AA - Off
Shadows - Off
Mip: On

I am gonna play with the settings more tomorrow. Seems to be easier to run than black ops so far.

 

Waow, are you sure guys? I'm impressed, especially because i'm thinking to buy a 13"MBP soon (this week or next week, or a Samsung Chronos).

If you have sparetime, is it possible to get a screenshot?

 

MW3 is built for $400 hardware from 2005.

 

My sense of how resource-intensive the MW games are is probably distorted by the OSX port of Modern Warfare 1 I have, which was barely playable on my 2008 MBP 15. Never tried the Windows version of the game, and it sounds like it was just a bad port, not a resource-intensive game.

 

When it first came out, Modern Warfare wasn't like Crysis but it still required somewhat hefty specs to get it looking good at higher resolutions. Things have changed over time as the same engine keeps getting used over and over again. I am not complaining because I think it still looks good (especially MW3). The OS X port was pretty sloppy though as even some netbooks can run the Windows version. My nettop with a dual-core Atom and Nvidia ION graphics can play the first Modern Warfare at 640X480 and even 1024X768 with some tweaking.

Either way, I am not surprised that the Intel HD3000 is producing these types of results on a game using an older graphical engine. Infinity Ward (and a handful of other studios) have optimized the code so much between the last Modern Warfare (and even Call of Duty) game that it is providing a pretty good experience at 60fps even on consoles.

 

Playing with the settings some, I got even better results... I think you macbook users can bump up your settings some more...

My t500 ran it with about 45-60 frames per second with:

Res: 1440x900
Texture - Auto
Image Quality - High
Spectacular lighting: On
AA - 2x
Shadows - Off
Mip: On

Looks much cleaner and better than black ops and MW2.. Shadows is really the only thing I can't handle.

 

I think it's great that they have that sort of mentality; same with Blizzard. Honestly, from watching videos, MW3 doesn't look all that worse detail-wise than Battlefield 3, but the hardware requirements are in different universes. Not everyone who wants to play the recent games wants to have to buy a Sager or a desktop gaming rig in order to do so, and I applaud games like MW3 and SC2 that can run on just about any modern machine.

 

I agree. Modern warefare 3 to me looks just as good, and I think because of the color palets, it may look more gritty and realistic and less cartoonish than bf3.

However, thats just the surface of things. MW3 can do this because it doesn't have the things you dont see in screenshots, like the fully destructible environments and vehicle warfare.... That adds a whole new dimension of system requirements in itself.

 

I am thoroughly impressed, I wouldn't have thought that you would be able to record on top of those settings!

 

From Bad Company 2 and BC2: Vietnam, I hate the vehicles. How did DICE manage to make vehicles both unrealistic and imbalanced (a player with a vehicle annihilates a player on foot, every single time)? You think they'd have either gone after realism in how the vehicles behave, or gone after good game balance, but they went after neither. I much, much, MUCH prefer how helicopters were handled in Modern Warfare 2 to how they were handled in BC2.

The destructible environments are cool, though, I'll say that much.

 

@modstorm What controller are you using to play or what are your keys set up as on your MBP

 

Too bad this is not video from the MBP. I would be interested in seeing that footage. I find it hard to believe that the HD3000 could pump out that sort of FPS .

 

This.

It's great that it runs decently on a macbook pro, but I'm certainly neither surprised nor impressed.

Also, since this video isn't from the macbook, this is a major facepalm

 

Lol! The gameplay video is on a PC!! I thought from the thread that it was being played on the MBP pro 13!!

 

lol I'm sorry, but why would you show off a PC while praising the MBP? FAIL, take the link down before someone spends money on a game they can't play.

 

MW3 is built that it is ridiculously easy to run. My adamo ran MW1 BARELY playable in lowest settings 600p.

 

To be fair, it's closer to 550usd HW from 2005 (remember, MS lost a LOT of money on initial units, all the way till 2008, they were still losing money per unit), and HW that was far ahead of it's time, too.

 

I was always suspicious about the game looking that good with no dedicated GPU, regardless of whether it's a console port. This entire thread is an epic fail since the video was not from his MBP 13, but he implied it was.

 

Yeah. SC2 on my HD3000 looks like crap, even if run at the same settings vs a HD6630m. Texture filters, I'd guess.