9400m vs 9600 gt Macbook pro, Starcraft2

So I'm planning on telling my brother to pull the trigger on a 15 inch macbook pro in the states, since its cheaper than in Canada, but I'm wondering, will the 9400m suffice for starcraft 2? i realized that i would want at least one game that I could take on the road with me.
Its either the:
2.53 ghz, 4 gig ram, 9400m $1699 MBP with integrated battery

OR
2.4 ghz, 2 gig ram, 9400m + 9600gt MBP with removable battery, refurb, which is $1299.

What do you guys think?

ps. I'd prefer running SC2 in OSX, and not in windows

 

if he'll go windows, then i suggest going for the $1699 one because it has better battery life, will heat less in windows and will play starcraft fine..

 

I'd got with the 15 inch MBP if he plans on running in OS X. I would think the 9600m GT would be better since it looks to be a fairly graphics game from the trailers. Plus I always like bigger screens/resolutions if possible for RTS games.

 

I'm so confused as to what to do

I'm going with 15 inch 100%

 

Oh I missed the 15" inch part, thought you were comparing two different screen prices too.

Well for me I like the ability to be able to change my battery when it dies on my own. Then again having longer battery life overall is pretty sweet in itself.

Processor difference is really small, doubt you'd notice. You can put 4gig of ram in the 2.4ghz for cheap.

But it's up to you, as only you know whats right. But IMO the 9600M GT is the best choice for any recent/soon to be released game. My 9400m is good for Team Fortress 2 and such games. Hoping it will play SC 2 but I won't be surprised if it runs only so so on my 9400m.

Buddy sitting next to me has the new 2.66 15" MBP and 9600m GT runs most games at native resolution. He should have no problem playing SC 2, which he plans on doing.

Getting long but trying to give you my personal ups and downs.

Good luck!

 

Processor I don't mind, I just really needed the extra battery life, but I want to be able to play starcraft 2 cuz I know I'm gonna get addicted to it.

 

What quality do you want to play at? 9400M will play SC2 ok at everything low quality on WXGA resolution. 9600M GT will play SC2 at everything on med-high quality (at least) on WXGA+ resolution.

 

I think SC2 will be more intense than it's given credit. Go with the 9600, no doubt.

 

That's what I would think after watching a few trailers. I just don't have the money for the 9600gt version even with the university discount applied.

 

Sorry for the doublepost...

Found the "official" system requirements that's been released by Blizz/AMD. Love how it's using Havok, DOWN WITH PHYSX

StarCraftWire.net Recommended Specs:

* CPU: Athlon X2 / Core 2 Duo
* Memory: 2 GB RAM
* Graphics Card: Geforce 8600 GT
* Hard Disk Space: 7 GB

I'm guessing since it requires a desktop 8600 gt, a mobile 9600gt wont be able to run it that well right?

 

thats what I have been hearing as well, 9600m should be okay for low to medium settings and the 9400 should stutter like mad

 

Well Blizzard.com sent me to their official starcraft2 site here


Like I thought blizzard has released no such info on the requirements, only "What are the system requirements for StarCraft II?

We'll have more details on specific system requirements closer to the release date."


So until I see them say it and the requirements seems all guesses and predictions.

Seems as laptops are becoming more and more popular, you think blizzard would shut out so many users who don't have equal to an 8600gt desktop card with crappy gameplay?

 

anyways, if you want battery life, then 9400m, else 9600m...keep in mind that the 9400m scores ~2200 3dmark06 and the 8600m scores ~3300 3dmark06...

 

Not true. Your average notebook with a 9600M GT performs better than my 8600 GTS in my desktop. Hell, my 3650 outperforms it only just.

 

In the first place why does the OP want a Macbook? A Asus G51 or a more buisness like Sager NP8662 owns a macbook and is cheaper...

 

Because he prefers mac? He wants to run the game in OSX, not windows. He just wants to play 1 game, getting a gaming notebook is a waste.

 

Dunnno about a waste as it might well be cheaper than the macbook but it certainly might not be a suitable buy if he only wants to play 1 game.

 

the price might not be a waste, but all that power would be

 

Side note, anyone know when SC2 is coming out?

 

Forget about playing Starcraft 2. One game should not justify your purchase of a laptop.

Either Macbook Pro will be insufficient to enjoy this game. All we know is that it supports a desktop 8600 and an Intel Core 2 Duo. Whether it's a 2.0 GHz core (very unlikely) or something higher (more likely) is unknown. We have no positive idea whether the game will even run on OSX (which the OP prefers and wants).

The second argument about battery life should've just closed down the discussion on gaming. No matter the amount of batteries you carry, any gaming will suck your power dry faster than you think.

Overall, this proposition reminds me of a young child, they want something just for the sake of having it. They don't think it over.

In this case you should think it over and not base your purchase on Starcraft 2.

edit: Also, for the specs you're receiving, $1600 isn't worth it for a Macbook Pro. There's a more powerful, better priced M15x around the corner. That or an Asus/Sager, both cheaper, better and portable.

 

It's not a waste if his primary need/want is OS X.

"Either Macbook Pro will be insufficient to enjoy this game"

How on earth would you know this? If a midrange card can't handle it well wouldn't be many people buying.

Also, blizzard has already said that mac and pc versions will be made at the same time. Which has been done since Diablo 2 was released.

So until we know the games requirements we can only say the 9600m GT will run it better than 9400m buy a decent amount.

 

I think he meant that either macbook pro would be sufficient to enjoy the game...

anyway, the cheaper refurb one is a much better value than the more expensive one with the worse graphics card...

 

SC2 minimum requirements are currently speculation. Even Blizzard won't know until the final code is complete. Given Blizzard's track record, I would have to say it will most likely play fine with low detail on an Intel GMA 4500. Blizzard won't ignore the significant gaming base of integrated laptop GPU's.

 

Blizzard always makes its games for both mac and pc and also the 9600M GT should own the game at mid-range resolutions 1280-1050 and lower.

 

I have a big gaming desktop, I just want to be able to play that one game on the road because I know FOR SURE it's going to be the next big thing, and I know all my friends will be playing it, so LAN parties would be amazing.

I was thinking that either won't be powerful enough as I know that the 9600 gt mobile is a variant of the 8600gt and is only a tiny bit more powerful, and Nvidia laptop graphics cards are nowhere near as powerful as their brother desktop cards. The reason I want a mac and not a gaming laptop is because as you can see in my sig, I have a more than capable enough desktop for gaming purposes which I hope to upgrade to a 5870 soon enough. The mac is thin, light and somewhat powerful compared to other 15 portables. Plus I love being able to control fans within it, as I hate system heat.

Blizzard already stated that it will cater to the Apple crowd, and since WC3 is on the verge of dying I need something else to play. The reason I'm getting the one with the 9400m and integrated battery is because I have a ridiculous schedule on tuesdays, with one class spanning the ~3 hour mark, and I hate having to find plugs in a huge lecture hall

 

Ummm... SC2 will have no LAN, comfirmed.

 

Well I meant playing on BNET while being next to each other

 

You are aware Unibodies are one of the HOTTER running systems when gaming?, when you activate the 9600 thi system temp climbs like mad.

 

This sucks. Why would they do this? Oh well I have to add this game to the not to buy list that also includes MW2 thanks to their nonsense also.

 

I don't mind... BNET is the way to go!!!

It's only gonna get hot while gaming, otherwise I just set my fans to high while doing work and it keeps it cool

 

i play call of duty 4 pretty regularly on the 9600 GT unibody. it doesn't get THAT hot, but i wouldn't want it on my lap or anything...

definitely set up some desk space if you want to play a game, with either GPU.

 

Garena is the name of the problem.

Garena, Hamachi, etc...

People that play on these servers, they won't have a B.net Account with Lvl and Icon,etc...

But they will be able to play (some/most people) without paying for the game.


OP: if you don't mind playing on mid graphics, I think that 9600M GT will be fine with SC2.

or you can wait until next year, and see those HP envy,etc.

 

Haven't there been rumours flying around that SC2 will be CPU-intensive, given the number of units on the screen at one time?

And what reasons do people have to think that SC2 will be graphically intensive. Anyone who has seen SC2 knows that it doesn't make use of very advanced effects; in fact, SC2 doesn't focus on graphical goodies at all.

Example video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9YXVpi_mKQ