Gaming Benchmarks For the New MacBook Pros

PC World takes a look at the performance of the new MacBook Pros compared to models from the middle of 2007. In addition to benchmarking software, they run comparisons on the Crysis demo and the World in Conflict demo. The results show improvement by a significant margin. Additional benchmarks are available at MacWorld. "Crysis shows a similar performance bump, though viewed practically, those numbers might look a little depressing. Crysis arrived in November 2007, but I'm fairly certain I won't be comfortably running it on a MacBook Pro until somewhere north of 2010. Drop the settings to 'medium,' however, and I can vouch that the average frame rate on the November MacBook Pro rested comfortably in the very playable middle 20s."

Comments

So?

[pdusen]

I don't think anyone questioned that the new Macbook Pros would probably perform better. The more relevant question is, are they priced competitively for their performance?

Re:So?

[babyrat]

I suppose you might be a troll - I am by no means an Apple faithful, but I do know the difference between american prices and australian prices.

So without going into all the specs in American dollars in America, the 2.5GHz 1730 with 4gb RAM and a nVidia 8700 with 256MB RAM is $2349 after the $458 "instant" savings.

The mac pro with 2,5 GHz processor, 4GB RAM, 320GB drive and nVidia 8600 with 512MB RAM is 2799.

More expensive yes...$2000 more, no.

Re:So?

[JonathanBoyd]

Making the difference, a not inconsiderable $750 - the Mac is a third more expensive than a Dell that gives twice the 3dmark performance. (this is what we're discussing remember).

If you're so insistent on discussing that Dell with the Macbook, then the Apple blows it out of the water on a price comparison, since the Dell was 4480 USD (MSRP) and is now about 3349 USD. I guess you didn't bother to read the article and see that it's the special SLI configuration with a pair of Mobile 8800M GTXs. If you're doing a price comparison with the cheaper M1730s then you'll need to find benchmarks for them since they use a different graphics set up e.g. these CNet benchmarks. I have'nt seen link yet for performance of the 17" MacBook Pros; only the new 15.4" ones.

Of course if you're going to make this comparison, then you have to acknowledge that the weight of the Dell (10.6 lbs, twice that of the Mac, along with twice the thickness) renders it unsuitable for mobile use and if you're factoring in sale prices, you need to take a look at Apple's refurb store a well. Compared to the 2099 USD Dell, the Mac has twice the level 2 cache, twice the VRAM and a faster processor. The Dell wireless is also inferior, supporting only g, compared to a/g/n for the Mac and Bluetooth (along with Firewire 800) is missing. Add these in as far as possible, bump the graphics from the single 8700 w/256 MB to the dual SLI version, ignore the sale discount since we could get that in the Apple refurb section and you find that the Dell is 2749 USD - 100 USD cheaper than the Mac, which is a negligible difference (less than 4%). The Dell will have higher framerates in games, but be far less portable (and lacking in Firewire 800) and chew your batteries up twice as fast (based on how long they last playing a DVD). It should also be remembered that the current 17" is quite old and wasn't updated when the other MacBook Pros were.

So, what exactly do you want to discuss?
* The very expensive custom Dell with the high benchmarks vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro?
* The cheaper dual SLI Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro?
* The non-SLI Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro?
* A Dell vs. an old 17" MacBook Pro, each with custom configuration to match each other's specs as closely as possible?
* A Dell on sale vs. a 17" MacBook Pro from the refurb store (i.e. on sale)?

So far you've picked a cheap Dell, on sale, given the benchmark for the most expensive one and compared it to a full price MacBook with extra stuff added to match the Dell's configuration without getting the Dell to also match the MacBook's. Now, is it just me, or does that seem a little like tilting the playing field ridiculously in favour of one side? We'll forget about you giving the Mac price in Australian dollars and assume that wasn't trolling.

If you compare full price products, specced to match each other, the Dell is slightly cheaper, better for gaming, but worse for high speed I/O and more of a movable desktop than a laptop i.e. gamers are better off with the Dell, but everyone else is probably better off with the Mac.

Need I remind you...

[kevind23]

Photoshop, as fun as CS4 may be, is not a game.

This just in

[poity]

Current iteration of product better than last. Stay tuned for in depth coverage...

For gaming? Absolutely not.

[SaDan]

But how many people are going to buy a Mac for games anyways?

Yes, I use a Mac every day. I also maintain an office of iMac and MacPro workstations as well as MacBook Pros. Yes, I even play Call of Duty 4 on a Mac sometimes.

No, I don't think they're gaming machines, no matter what anyone tells me. I also think running Windows on a Mac is just ignorant, and throwing away even more money.

fps in the mid 20s = playable?

[clragon]

Drop the settings to 'medium,' however, and I can vouch that the average frame rate on the November MacBook Pro rested comfortably in the very playable middle 20s

common now, does anyone seriously believe that a shooting game can be playable with fps in the mid 20s? If it's already stuttering a little when you are running around, add in a few NPCs/bullet sparks/explosions then the game wont be playable anymore

for most of the shooting games I play, I try to lower the settings until the fps is well above 30 so that I wont get stuttering frames when an intense firefight happens

Bullcrap, I get awesome FPS on my MacBook Pro

[kbrasee]

Spectre VR has never played this silky smoothly.

Re:Bullcrap, I get awesome FPS on my MacBook Pro

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

You should see the frame rate I get from nethack!

Price for performance falls way short

[Shivetya]

However your not buying just performance in a Mac book pro. Your buying the whole package. It is so very light, so thin, compared to similar machines. Of course it can run both OS X and Windows makes it worthwhile to me.

Yet I can't help but wonder why Apple keeps putting mediocre screens on the pro models. 1440x900? Say what? I have a five year old Dell with 1600x1200 on that same screen size. Glossy only is a killer for some as well. The screen is what stopped me from buying one. It simply is not up to the price point of the machine.

Throw in the fact that OS X cannot run 8gb on the machine and it makes you wonder.

As for the benchmarks, show me how it does at 1920x1200 driving an external monitor. I should be able to use this as a DTR at home with great functionality on the road. I don't care what it can do at its native resolution because the native resolution sucks.

When comparing what it can do, don't go just to Dell. Flip open any Sunday circular and see what sells for 1000-1200. There are machines out there for the price of a regular mac book (again priced higher than previous generations) that can whoop a pro in all benchmarks.

I like the machine. I just won't pay the exorbitant price for that lackluster screen. It should be a minimum of 1600x1200. I guess I will wait for the 17