[Fendersrule]

Well, I spent alot of today getting some benches for those who are wondering how the MacBook Pro 2.2GHz 128MB fares in gaming. I Included some benches on my other Macs to help everyone get an Idea of comparison.

Apparatus:

Apple Cinema HD 23" 1920 x 1200

MacBook Pro 2.2Ghz
7200RPM HDD
128MB 8600m GT
2GB of Ram
OSX 10.4.10
Windows XP Professional

PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz
Raided SATA Drives
256MB Geforce 6800 Ultra
5GB of Ram
OSX 10.4.10

iMac 20" 2.16GHz 1650 x 1050
Radeon X1600
7200RPM SATA
2GB of Ram
OSX 10.4.10

Let's Begin:

OSX:
All tests were run with the MBP plugged in. Performance was set to "Maximum".

Doom 3: No AF, Shadows On, "High" Quality.

G5- Doom 3 "High" @ 1280 x 800: 38.5
MBP- Doom 3 "High" @ 1440 x 900: 52
MBP- Doom 3 "High" @ 1920 x 1200: 31
G5- Doom 3 "High" @ 1920 x 1200: 38

I re-ran the Doom 3 benchmark for the MacBook Pro again and got significantly lower scores than mentioned above. Inside the console, it was setting the my video ram to 256MB, which is allocating more than what it has! I spent some time in the .config file trying to fix it, but no avail. It probably needs a simply re-install. Anyhow, those are the correct scores from yesterday with the correct ram allocated.

This is by far, the most innacurate benchmark. Everyone by now knows that the Doom 3 port for MOSX sucks balls. I would recommend running this game in Windows XP for 2-3x the framerate. I would provide proof here, but I loaned my PC version to my friend. I will update this with XP Doom 3 benchmarks. Conclusion: In OSX, Your MBP will wail in 1440 x 900. If you want to power a 1920 x 1200 display, you should do this in Windows XP. The G5 shows it's strength here IN OSX, only because of it's 256MB Video Ram at higher resolutions.

Halo: Advanced Pixel Shaders

MBP- Halo @ 1440 x 900: 52.39
iMac 20"- Halo @ 1650 x 1050: 38.46
MBP- Halo @ 1920 x 1200: 47.40
G5- Halo @ 1920 x 1200: 44.28

Halo runs like a champ in OSX anyway you put it. There still quite some improvement to come for Intel optimizations in my opinion. Will Microsoft/Bungie ever do this? Likely not. But it just goes to show how much Intel Machines may have a grasp on PPC for gaming. You can run this on your MBP at any resolution and be extremely happy.

Windows XP:
Bootcamp 1.4 was used. Drivers were 163.44's with the modded INF file to keep GPU's running at Apple's maximum settings. If you do not do this, then you will get various benchmarks. This is the most accurate way of testing performance.

Halflife 2: 2x AF. No FSAA. Reflect ALL

MBP- Halflife 2 @ 1440 x 900: 161.41
MBP- Halflife 2 @ 1920 x 1200: 99.73
MBP- Halflife 2: Lost Coast @ 1440 x 900: 77.62

Your 2.2GHz MBP will loath valve games. No questions asked.

3dMark 2006: Unregistered. Stock settings.

MBP-3DMark 2006:2950

This is about right for having 128MB of video ram. This is actually a very good score, especially for a laptop. Another sites are stating higher scores, such as "3500", which is probably the 256MB MBP. Either way, both scores are in the same "realm". One review site had a "4600" score, and I doubt that highly.

"Seat of the pants feel games": These games I was unable to get an official benchmark, but I will be able to tell you my opinion on how great they run in Windows XP.

MBP- Dues Ex: Invisible War @ 1440 x 900: Prestine performance with all options jacked up. Enjoy
MBP- Dues Ex: Invisible War @ 1920 x 1200: Extremely playable. Anywhere from 25-70 fps, depending on the map.

Dues Ex: Invisible War does not support dual cores. So my opinion of this performance is to be taken in with the fact that I only used one core for this game. Extremely playable and fun at any resolution. 1920 x 1200 will be significantly less, but still very playable and enjoyable.

MBP- Far Cry @ 1440 x 900: Prestine, amazing performance with all options loaded.
MBP- Far Cry @ 1920 x 1200: Amazing performance with "high" settings. Leave the AF and FSAA off for glossy screen rates!

Far Cry is simply amazing on the 2.2Ghz MBP. You will have no issues with any resolution you run it at. Jack all the options as well. You might want to go easy on the AF and FSAA at super high resolutions.

MBP- Condemned @ 1920 x 1200: NO AF, NO FSAA, performance is lacking. Choppy. Stay away from this Resolution
MBP- Condemned @ 1440 x 900: NO AF, NO FSAA, Performance is great. 25-55 seat-of-the-pants depending on the area. Fun and enjoyable.

Condemned is a game that could have been better optimized. It has absolutely no patches available. Play this one at 1440 x 900 with no FSAA and AF, and you will be good to go. The game is dark anyways. Darker than Doom 3, so you don't need the extra junk. Your flashlight will be on the entire time, no joke.

Final Thoughts:

Is the 256MB Upgrade Worth it?
Depends. If you have the money, go for it. If not, relax. The 256 doesn't score too much higher. If you love running FSAA at 1920 x 1200 (God knows why someone would do this), then get a 256MB upgrade for $500 It's one of those things, where in a few years, you are going to have more to worry about than your video ram for games, and that's the way it always works out in the past.

Is the 2.4Ghz MacBookPro worth it?
For $500 extra? No. Just my opinion. For $300? Yes.

Does a 2.2GHz MBP 128MB run games well?
In OSX? Yes. In Windows XP? Yes, especially if we are talking about Direct X 9.0C and anything previous.

Will a 2.2GHz MBP 128MB see anymore major optimizations?
Sure, but don't expect miracles.

Is installing Bootcamp 1.4 enough without any other drivers or modifications?
For me, it wasn't. I was getting variating performance. At times, my 3dMark06 scores were 2300. Other times, it saw 2500. Only one time with some easy .inf work, is when it finally pumped out it's full performance at nearly 3000 3dmarks. My Lost Coast benchmark saw 55-67FPS before. Now it sees a steady 78FPS. I recommend updating the drivers through laptopvideo2go.com. Inside the .INF file, you can choose to not have the PERFORMANCE 3D settings throttle. Changing this will give you constant 3D Performance, but will lower you battery life when unplugged when gaming. The Core will still ramp back down, but your 3DGaming will see a constant MHz. Before finding this out, I was about to send this laptop back to Apple. This is the way it should be. If you paid for a certain performance, you should get it, especially when you need it.

In comparison terms, what does it equate for a PC desktop?
The MBP 2.2GHz is comparable to 2.2 C2D Desktop with a 7600GS. Which means, it's not the "ultimate" gaming rig, but for a laptop, it's something to talk about, definitely.

The MBP, any model, is an excellant gaming computer (arguably, it is Apple's best gaming rig besides the MacPro), especially with DX 9.0. How does it fare in DX 10? Results are still to come.

[Arath]

Excellent post, very nice to see this, though I recently purchased a stock 2.4Ghz, 15'4" yesterday so I guess I will just have to comform with my 256vRam. However I was curious as to which .ini file you were refering to when you talk about modifying it and what exact effects does this have on clock speeds of the GPU? A guide to a link or perhaps an explanation would be great. Ive only ever tweaked with a .ini file in a beta test I am in when the company was trying to find a workaround to get better performance (most of it was a question of changing the resolution, shadders, etc). Anyways I dont want to "spoil" my MBP just yet as I am enjoying OSX so much, but I am definately interested in the future to play games like HL2 & Bioshock.

Again great write up ^___^

[Fendersrule]

The "How To" Guide on disableing throttleing DURING gameplay can be seen here:

http://www.laptopvid...showtopic=14643

[the Battle Cat]

Sure I'll pin this for you, but keep in mind it will expire when the next generation of hardware ships.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

Fendersrule, on August 31st 2007, 05:13 AM, said:

Your 2.2GHz MBP will loath valve games. No questions asked.

?

Seems the performance was good, what was the problem?

[teflon]

i think (hope) he meant they will loath how little challenge they pose...

i found in HL2 that the performance was stellar at maximum settings until you return to the city and have a bunch of people following you round. that level plain sucked for performance, going down to around 20Fps compared to the 60-70 I was getting before.

the modded INF file might help this some, so ill give that a go.

[PoliSciGuy]

hi,

it would be really great to hear how company of heroes runs on the MBP 2.2 ghz. can you do a little test of this for us (me)?

regards,

polisciguy

[Tecneecs]

Nice piece Fender.
Thanks for the info.
I'm thinking of getting a mbp.
Should I get the 4gigs?
Or will getting a faster set of chips better the performance??
[I noticed they come with 667mhz while bus is 800]

[Huntn]

With the latest beta Nvidia drivers I'm getting about 29 fps running the Crysis Demo at 800x600 on my MPB. Soon I'll have 4 GB of RAM and will report back any significant improvements.

[tman]

Huntn, on November 5th 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

With the latest beta Nvidia drivers I'm getting about 29 fps running the Crysis Demo at 800x600 on my MPB. Soon I'll have 4 GB of RAM and will report back any significant improvements.

I'm ordering a new MBP in the next day or so. The extra 2GB of RAM (4 total) is expensive- about $700.00 from Apple. How much will it help for gaming? It's probably less expensive from a 3rd party but is it difficult to install? (I'm technically challenged).