18 replies to this topic

[IMG News]

MacWorld has released benchmarks of the new 13-inch MacBooks unveiled by Apple on Tuesday. The MacBook outperformed the fastest iBook G4 in all but one of their tests and was comparable to a 1.67GHz G4 PowerBook in other areas.

Major considerations in the tests include the lack of dedicated video RAM and the fact that certain applications like PhotoShop aren't yet Intel-native. Here's more detail from the article:

Also worth noting is the MacBook’s graphics system. These new portables use integrated Intel graphics that share the main memory, as opposed to the ATI Mobility Radeon graphics with dedicated memory found in the MacBook Pro models. You can see the advantage of having dedicated graphics memory in our Unreal Tournament test. The MacBook Pro tallies 63 frames per second, compared to a little less than 18 for the MacBook. The 1.67GHz PowerBook G4 tallied a score of 21.4 frames per second in that test. So if you’re a serious gamer, the MacBook is probably not the right system for you. Nevertheless, its performance in other processor-intensive applications is impressive, especially compared to the laptops it replaces.

Follow the link below to MacWorld's article which also shows the break down of the numerous tests.

Return to Full Article - InsideMacGames News

[Lemon Lime]

IMG News, on May 18th 2006, 07:40 AM, said:

MacWorld has released benchmarks of the new 13-inch MacBooks unveiled by Apple on Tuesday. The MacBook outperformed the fastest iBook G4 in all but one of their tests and was comparable to a 1.67GHz G4 PowerBook in other areas.
Major considerations in the tests include the lack of dedicated video RAM and the fact that certain applications like PhotoShop aren't yet Intel-native. Here's more detail from the article:<BR><BR><DIV CLASS="imgblockquote">Also worth noting is the MacBook’s graphics system. These new portables use integrated Intel graphics that share the main memory, as opposed to the ATI Mobility Radeon graphics with dedicated memory found in the MacBook Pro models. You can see the advantage of having dedicated graphics memory in our Unreal Tournament test. The MacBook Pro tallies 63 frames per second, compared to a little less than 18 for the MacBook. The 1.67GHz PowerBook G4 tallied a score of 21.4 frames per second in that test. So if you’re a serious gamer, the MacBook is probably not the right system for you. Nevertheless, its performance in other processor-intensive applications is impressive, especially compared to the laptops it replaces.</DIV><BR>Follow the link below to MacWorld's article which also shows the break down of the numerous tests.<BR><BR><P STYLE="text-align:center;font-weight:bold;font-size:11px;"><A HREF="/news/story.php?ArticleID=13420" TARGET="_blank">Return to Full Article</A> - InsideMacGames News</P>

beat me to by about half a second. same title too!

[nagromme]

18 fps with bots, and graphics at MAX settings? That's not bad for UT2004 on a bottom-end laptop!

Drop the detail below max and that could be very playable and fun!

My tests of UT04 on a Mac Mini Core Duo did not perform nearly that well (and yes it was the Universal version). I got lower fps than that at 640x480 with all detail settings at minumum. I wonder why?

Who wants to report on whether you can get UT04 to stay mostly over 30 fps on a MacBook? If there are settings that can achieve that for a lot of the maps, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the game.

"We used Unreal Tournament 2004’s Antalus Botmatch average-frames-per-second score; we tested at a resolution of 1,024 by 768 pixels at the Maximum setting with both audio and graphics enabled."

[gbafan]

I think those benchmarks just proved that old world Powerbook even with dedicated ATI Radeon cards can't compete in gaming.  The MacBook comes close to actually equally it in FPS and the MacBook Pro just smokes it.

Sad day for my PB =(

[Nookster]

There's your brand new Core Duo laptop narrowly besting an iBook with a 7 year old chip series and a two generations old mobility chip, if you game, even just a little, it's a complete neutering of the Core Duo.

That is truly miserable.

[gbafan]

Nookster, on May 18th 2006, 11:38 AM, said:

There's your brand new Core Duo laptop narrowly besting an iBook with a 7 year old chip series and a two generations old mobility chip, if you game, even just a little, it's a complete neutering of the Core Duo.

That is truly miserable.

Huh?  It's a Core Duo with integrated graphics.  Of course it's going to suck.  The sad part is that a Core Duo with integrated graphics BEATS a Mac laptop with a graphics card.  Ouch.

[bobbob]

gbafan, on May 18th 2006, 02:42 PM, said:

The sad part is that a Core Duo with integrated graphics BEATS a Mac laptop with a graphics card.  Ouch.

So it's only what, 2 generations behind? Ouch.

[Nookster]

gbafan, on May 18th 2006, 10:42 PM, said:

Huh?  It's a Core Duo with integrated graphics.  Of course it's going to suck.  The sad part is that a Core Duo with integrated graphics BEATS a Mac laptop with a graphics card.  Ouch.

The point here, is that it only just manages to top an iBook with not an X1xxx series, not even an Xxxx series, but a 9xxx series graphics card, plus a comparatively old and tired chip, which shows just how utterly crud the integrated chipsets truly are.

With a cheap bottom rung (but current) x300 stuffed in, the MacBook would not only destroy the iBook for gaming, it would be a cute little widescreen all-rounder for a spot of WOW, (or HL2, or BF2) on the go.

As witnessed by anyone who has one, a Core Duo with a dedicated card (not even a top of the line one), is a capable games machine (more-so in a Windows environment), and that is what makes this truly miserable.

At least the 15" MBP is only a fraction heavier, I guess.

bobbob, on May 18th 2006, 10:59 PM, said:

Ouch.

That's what I was thinking. And many others, I'll bet.

[nagromme]

Computers with integrated graphics aren't suitable for most non-casual gaming, but ARE suitable for many other tasks. "Ouch"... for serious gamers like us. Just like "ouch" with any other low-end laptop. And yet a great deal for many other people.

Hard to believe there's much to discuss about that, considering Apple's low-end use of Intel graphics--like any other computer maker--was known months ago

[bobbob]

nagromme, on May 18th 2006, 06:21 PM, said:

Hard to believe there's much to discuss about that

Apple made fun of those other low-end POS boxes before, now they're just making more low-end POS boxes. Point of sale is fine, I guess, but for a gaming site for gamers it's just not going to get any praises.

[Will Reed]

bobbob, on May 19th 2006, 03:06 PM, said:

Apple made fun of those other low-end POS boxes before, now they're just making more low-end POS boxes. Point of sale is fine, I guess, but for a gaming site for gamers it's just not going to get any praises.

Has anyone tried the new macbooks with half life 2? It's probably a bit soon but yeah I think if it ran hl 2 well it would be worth it.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

I don't think it should be any surprise that an intel graphics chip would perform sub-par with games. I just think it's kind of sad that here we are in 2006 and a graphics chip with decent 3D performance is still a commodity even in 2 year old games like UT2004. I'm also tired of people trying to justify it.  Those intel chips don't even accelerate T&L it's almost like regressing to pre Geforce days. Maybe in 5 or so more years there will be a integrated graphics chip that can play games from 2004 and above with decent performance. =pppp

[Ben]

Actually, it should be just a few more months for an integrated graphics chip that handles 2004 games... Intel's next generation will at least do T&L.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

Ben, on May 19th 2006, 05:56 AM, said:

Actually, it should be just a few more months for an integrated graphics chip that handles 2004 games... Intel's next generation will at least do T&L.

Is that a fact? They say the 950 does it but it only does it on the CPU, to me that's the same as not doing it as that is how it worked before hardware T&L was invented. There where some chips in the past that did everything on the CPU, they where nicknamed 3D Decelerators.

[bobbob]

Ben, on May 19th 2006, 04:56 AM, said:

Actually, it should be just a few more months for an integrated graphics chip that handles 2004 games

Or you could get a 6150 now. Intel's chips just suck.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

bobbob, on May 19th 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

Or you could get a 6150 now. Intel's chips just suck.

Get a 6150 for a Macbook\Mac mini? =p I am not talking about add-in boards. And in case you wonder  I don't think you could upgrade to a hypothetical better anything I was just talking about a future system that might have it integrated. A future mac mini or MacBook GPU. It may or may not  but it just seems to me that chips like that (intel) lag behind regular chips (ATI, nvidia) by a number of years in terms of performance.

I  just read about intel's DX10 chip.. I wouldn't be surprised if it is going to do a number of things on the CPU.

[bobbob]

Smoke_Tetsu, on May 19th 2006, 11:37 AM, said:

I am not talking about add-in boards

No, you completely missed the fact that there are other integrated graphics chips out there, and that Intel's are worse than most.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

bobbob, on May 19th 2006, 01:44 PM, said:

No, you completely missed the fact that there are other integrated graphics chips out there, and that Intel's are worse than most.

But that's a moot point because you can't swap them out. And that was my point more than it being an add-in board or not (sheesh). You can't just run out and buy a different chip and replace a Intel GMA950 with it. Sure a manufacturer can put a 6150 on the motherboard but is apple going to in a MacBook or Mac Mini? Probably not.. and it still counts as a discrete GPU how many people call the GPU's in the iMac and Macbook pro integrated graphics? Anyway all I was saying was that the chips they are currently using in the low end and most likely will use for quite some time are way behind the other chips in terms of performance can you not agree with me on that? If you read what I said correctly you will see that I never said that intel chips are good in any way. Show me where I did.

Although I don't think they should put mega blazing chips in the low end I just think that they should at least be able to play 2 year old games (like UT2004) at decent speeds. The 965 may be able to but at this point I doubt it. Maybe you are confusing me for that other guy, look at the name of the person who is posting.

[bobbob]

Smoke_Tetsu, on May 19th 2006, 02:23 PM, said:

it still counts as a discrete GPU

No more discreet than the 950. I was just saying that Apple didn't have to wait for Intel until they could get an integrated chip to run 2 year old games well. ATI has another chip for Intel, if you wanted to pick nits.

I'm disappointed that Apple has no option for upgrading, as well. Lots of PC laptops in this space have a ~$125 upgrade to an X1300 or so. You'd get have your cake and eat it too, if you could choose to pay more for that.