Jump to content


3D Game benchmarks for the MacBook Pro 2.6 "2008"


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#41 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 16 March 2008 - 11:30 AM

Unless there's an easy way to benchmark COD4 Demo, I say we all benchmark UT3 Demo under Windows XP. Here's a link to download the demo:
http://www.fileplane...promotions/ut3/

And that we all use this tool for benchmarking Suspense Flyby at 1440x900 best settings:
http://downloads.gur...ad.php?det=1816
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#42 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 16 March 2008 - 12:49 PM

I'm a bit behind on the drivers and Windows because I'm waiting on the new MacBook Pro to install XP SP3 RC2 and Forceware 174.31 (the latest stable release).
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#43 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 16 March 2008 - 02:34 PM

you need to go to www.laptopvideo2go.com and get the drivers and modified .inf file from there which will let you install. Laptop drivers dont get released very often, but the drivers for the desktop ones are compatible and offer the same gains. For some reason NV doesnt include laptop cards in the .Inf files, and I honestly dont know why. Theres no damage or harm done, just better performance and compatibility (cant play as far as im aware, you cant really play crysis on Apple's drivers, and Bioshock was much better with the latest drivers installed).

EDIT:
apparently 174.31 already supports the 8600M GT in its original inf file... ill find out soon if this is true
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#44 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 16 March 2008 - 04:37 PM

While we are tossing around ideas for Windows games to use to stress MacBook Pros (and Mac Pros), one Apple engineer suggested testing with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. Any thoughts on that?

Though I have Crisis, I'm curious if it's more CPU intensive than GPU. I say that because in recent tests by Anandtech and others with 2, 3, and 4 GPUs using Crossfire and SLI, Crisis only benefited from 2 GPUs while all other games tested benefited from up to 4.

In those tests, COD4 was the most responsive to all 4 GPUs. UT3 came in second place as it was fully responsive to 3 and saw partial gains with the 4th.
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#45 Hansi

Hansi

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Steam ID:hansroberth
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 16 March 2008 - 04:42 PM

I can do COD4 and UT3 Beta Demo, we just need to consolidate on which settings.

#46 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 16 March 2008 - 05:51 PM

My thoughts on using Enemy Territory as a benchmark are the same as my thoughts on every other Doom 3-powered game.  That is: don't.   ATI/nVidia's drivers for OpenGL vary wildly.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#47 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 16 March 2008 - 05:56 PM

hmmm. 174.31 made me blue screen on launch... im back to 169.01 (old old old i know)... even so, with that driver, my prelim look at UT3 (retail version and QS' benchmark test on Suspense flyby) gave me 21FpS at 1440x900 textures 3, graphics 5. 22FpS at 1440x900 texture 3, graphics 3. and 28FpS at 1280x800 textures 3 graphics 5...

with newer drivers id expect the odd extra frame here and there.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#48 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:27 PM

View Postteflon, on March 16th 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

hmmm. 174.31 made me blue screen on launch... im back to 169.01 (old old old i know)... even so, with that driver, my prelim look at UT3 (retail version and QS' benchmark test on Suspense flyby) gave me 21FpS at 1440x900 textures 3, graphics 5. 22FpS at 1440x900 texture 3, graphics 3. and 28FpS at 1280x800 textures 3 graphics 5...

with newer drivers id expect the odd extra frame here and there.

I downloaded the 174.31 driver and tried to install it on a fresh install of Windows XP 32 bit. It gave an error saying "no drivers for this computer" or something like that. Where did you get the 169.01 driver?

As for UT3, I will try testing at the same settings as you did tonight once I get a Windows system that works and drivers that work. Meanwhile, for perspective, my Mac Pro with the Radeon HD 3870 X2 OC gets 145 fps on Suspense Flyby at 1920x1200 texture 5, graphics 5. ;-)
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#49 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:42 PM

Nevermind. I found the 169.xx drivers on the laptopvideo site you referenced above.

They list 169.09 as the latest for XP 32 on this page:
http://www.laptopvid....com/drivers/xp

Is that what I should try next?
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#50 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 16 March 2008 - 07:09 PM

You didn't do your previous installation correctly.  I just tried it on my system, and didn't have a problem.  Just follow the steps--if 174.31 didn't work for you, then 169.09 shouldn't either.  Of course, as a precaution, I wipe out my previous drivers because Apple's Boot Camp drivers never seem to be uninstalled correctly.  That might be the difference, but I doubt it.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#51 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 16 March 2008 - 07:44 PM

View PostQuicksilver, on March 16th 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

You didn't do your previous installation correctly.  I just tried it on my system, and didn't have a problem.  Just follow the steps--if 174.31 didn't work for you, then 169.09 shouldn't either.  Of course, as a precaution, I wipe out my previous drivers because Apple's Boot Camp drivers never seem to be uninstalled correctly.  That might be the difference, but I doubt it.

Under Vista 64 on the Mac Pro, I just downloaded the drivers from nVidia and install them. No problemo.

On the MacBook Pro under Windows XP 32, do I run the Boot Camp driver disk first like I used to? And which version? 1.4?
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#52 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 16 March 2008 - 07:54 PM

Sorry. Brain fade. I remember now. I run the Boot Camp driver app off the Leopard install disk.
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#53 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 16 March 2008 - 09:19 PM

View Postteflon, on March 16th 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

im back to 169.01 (old old old i know)... even so, with that driver, my prelim look at UT3 (retail version and QS' benchmark test on Suspense flyby) gave me 21FpS at 1440x900 textures 3, graphics 5. 22FpS at 1440x900 texture 3, graphics 3. and 28FpS at 1280x800 textures 3 graphics 5...

I installed Windows XP 32 and the Boot Camp driver installer that came with the 2008 MacBook Pro 2.6GHz. I'm in the process of downloading the UT3 Demo (6 hours so far).

Meanwhile, I installed the Retail version of UT3 (no 1.1 or 1.2 patch yet). I get the following for Suspense Flyby...
42 fps for 1280x800, textures 3, levels 5
40 fps for 1280x800, textures 5, levels 5
35 fps for 1440x900, textures 3, levels 3
33 fps for 1440x900, textures 3, levels 5
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#54 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 16 March 2008 - 11:30 PM

After installation of patch 1.1 and 1.2, here's the latest results for UT3 running under Windows XP 32 on our "2008" MacBook Pro 2.6GHz (15"):

43.7 fps for 1280x800, textures 3, levels 3
41.6 fps for 1280x800, textures 3, levels 5
41.4 fps for 1280x800, textures 5, levels 5
36.5 fps for 1440x900, textures 3, levels 3
34.8 fps for 1440x900, textures 3, levels 5
34.5 fps for 1440x900, textures 5, levels 5

I finally got the DEMO downloaded. I'll report back on those numbers tomorrow.
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#55 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 17 March 2008 - 02:29 AM

OKOK, every time QS posts something (well, most of the time), my "hate" sensor gets tripped. I mean, I know you're a hardware editor and you probably know your business, but I am a ETQW player, and it runs like a dream under WinXP. Not that it will run fine under OSX, I have no clue (it probably won't), but as far as Bootcamp (under a X1600 and Tiger (BootCamp 1.3 I think?)) is concerned, it runs well, no driver mayhem.


What kind of test would you like from ETQW, Rob?


EDIT: btw, on the old Macbook Pro, ETQW runs in the medium-high settings with a *very* smooth framerate. Even with 32 players running around, flying/driving vehicles, while shooting rockets from all sides.
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#56 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 17 March 2008 - 05:55 AM

i think the point is that the Doom3 engine is very very old, and runs on OGL, which admittedly sucks in comparison to DX at the moment (a crying shame I think). It doesnt really matter how smooth the gameplay is or the actual framerate, but it does matter that the tests are as current as possible. For this reason, we need to move on to CoD4 and UE3, and when it comes out Idtech5. Crysis isnt currently viable cos its such a beast of an engine that only the 8800GT and up can really handle it.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#57 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 17 March 2008 - 06:29 AM

Yes but ETQW is current, and it looks great. What more do you need?
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#58 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 17 March 2008 - 06:36 AM

View Postteflon, on March 17th 2008, 04:55 AM, said:

i think the point is that the Doom3 engine is very very old, and runs on OGL, which admittedly sucks in comparison to DX at the moment (a crying shame I think). It doesnt really matter how smooth the gameplay is or the actual framerate, but it does matter that the tests are as current as possible. For this reason, we need to move on to CoD4 and UE3, and when it comes out Idtech5. Crysis isnt currently viable cos its such a beast of an engine that only the 8800GT and up can really handle it.

I agree about using COD and UT3. In the "IMG community" MBP comparison, we can use both COD and UT3 since demos are available for both -- so no $$$ investment by testers.

I also agree about not using Crysis even though it's new. The guys at NASA had use a Super Computer to run it at maximum settings and get decent frame rates. And then it crashed after 10 min. Seriously.

I've benchmarked with Crysis on the Mac Pro 3.2 running Vista 64 and various GPUs. The fastest was the GeForce 8800 GTX which got 39 fps at 1280x800 High and 46 fps at 1920x1200 Medium on the Flyby Benchmark (Island).
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#59 rob_ART

rob_ART

    Bare Feats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 17 March 2008 - 07:20 AM

I'm using the UT3 Benchmark Tool to run the UT Demo on the 2008 Mac Pro. However, I had to rename UT3Demo to UT3 to get the Tool to "Run" the Suspense Fyby.

And instead of clicking "Result" in the tool, you must go to the MyDocuments\My Games\Unreal Tournament 3 Demo\UTGame\Stats folder to view the text document with the results.

The Benchmark Tool lets you select 5 for texture and level details but it's only running at a maximum of 3 -- which makes me wonder if the UTDemo is really a valid way to stress the MBP's GPU.

Lastly, FYI, I'm selecting no sound, full screen, and DX10 when I run UT3 or UT3 Demo using the Benchmark Tool.
rob-ART morgan
mad scientist
BareFeats.com

#60 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 17 March 2008 - 08:03 AM

as weve seen, theres only one or two FpS change between level detail 3 and 5, so I think its still valid.
and selecting DX10 while in XP wont actually show you anything new, cos itll stil run in the DX9 pathway.

and returning to the ETQW argument,it may be pretty, but I dont feel that it stresses the machines enough, and as I said already, ETQW is the last D3 engine game. The engine has no future relevance in the industry, Crytek, UE3 and CoD4 do, however.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor