Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Gaming, Hardware, Software, Odds and ends, Apple
New MacBook Pro benchmarked within Boot Camp
The good news is that the MacBook Pro is faster than ever, and graphics have significantly improved. And trust us, any improvement over the old chips is a step in the right direction.
The bad news is that in a practical situation (like playing the Crysis demo, which is actually about a year old at this point), a MacBook Pro in Boot Camp at the highest settings isn't actually playable, and the 15 fps you might squeeze out of it on a good day still can't compare to the 50 fps you can get out of even average video cards in a Windows PC. If the graphics are turned down, it's a different story -- we've seen a new MBP run games well in Boot Camp already, so it'll play, but Apple still has a ways to go to be competitive with brand new games.
But let's keep this all in perspective -- it's very good news when you compare the new MacBook Pros to the old ones. Apple is at least realizing that 3D performance needs an upgrade in their units. Maybe next time around they can bring some software updates into the mix as well, and we can start to see some real competition in high-end performance.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Chris said 10:12AM on 11-19-2008
I'm curious how Dell's XPS laptops compare when it comes to running games.
Reply
mcg said 10:11AM on 11-19-2008
Wait a minute! Are they claiming that a laptop can't do 3D nearly as fast as a desktop?
Snore.
And in other news, the sun came up today.
Reply
LD said 10:34AM on 11-19-2008
Yeah, I didn't quite get that comparison either. Guess what? MacBooks aren't as fast as Mac Pros with quad Xeons either.
Patriks7 said 4:18PM on 11-19-2008
Seriously? And I thought that my 2007 MacBook was definitely better than a Mac Pro as it has a screen :\
Wilson said 10:28AM on 11-19-2008
Since these are new, powerful graphics chips, is this more a function
of the software or the OS not exploiting the chip's power? Meaning,
could this be improved through software updates?
Reply
Keil Miller said 10:29AM on 11-19-2008
Maybe they should be testing games on the mac platform. Duh-
Reply
mungler said 10:37AM on 11-19-2008
er... yes, and how does it compare to other windows notebooks?
this is the dumbest thing i've read in a long time. you're artificially making it seem like the new MBPs are 'bad for gaming', but are unfairly comparing them to desktop-class gfx cards.
compare them to other notebooks for a REAL comparison.
Reply
robb said 6:43PM on 11-19-2008
More specifically, compare them to other notebooks that don't weigh 15 pounds and get half an hour of battery life.
Aron T said 10:40AM on 11-19-2008
Mike, if you decide to unload your G4 call me.
Reply
James said 12:49PM on 11-19-2008
I'm in the same position, I've got a 12" PB and I want a new Mac Book Pro, care to make an offer?
SPOCKo said 11:10AM on 12-11-2008
Hey if any one wants a iBook G4 let me know i have on with a great battery and some cosmetic damage but a new DC onboard and ac adaptor
Aron T said 11:26AM on 12-11-2008
Would you be giving this iBook away? If so, color me interested!
Ray Merkler said 12:18PM on 11-19-2008
How are the switchable graphics chipsets handled in XP/Vista? I haven't installed Windows on my new MBP yet.
Reply
Hello, Anam Cara said 10:44AM on 11-19-2008
This "benchmark" test was ill-conceived. Of course a notebook computer would fare poorly against a desktop-class computer with a real graphics card. In other news, auto publications have found that a BMW 3 series is slower on an off-road course than a Jeep Wrangler 4x4.
Also, how well would a Sony VIAO laptop fare running Crysis at full rez? Come on.
Reply
Jon said 11:06AM on 11-19-2008
I'd like to see them compared to Alienware laptops, as these are designed specifically for gaming.
Reply
Doug McIntosh said 2:06PM on 11-19-2008
You mean like the Area-51 m15x, which, although it has a faster GPU nVidia 9800M GT as opposed to the nVidia 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro, nonetheless has a MUCH slower Front-Side Bus (800MHz, as opposed to 1066MHz on the MBP) and a RIDICULOUSLY slower Memory Bus (667MHz as opposed to 1066MHz on the MBP)?
Heck, NOWHERE is the CPU clock speed even LISTED for the m15x!
Somehow, I think that the Alienware may not be faster, but in fact, slower, and particularly on things that are NOT GPU-intensive, but might be computationally or memory-bandwidth intensive, such as crunching large datasets, or video transcoding, audio FX stuff, etc.
I think that Apple has created a much more "well-rounded" performance platform than Alienware, who seems totally focused on graphics performance.
Jon said 2:27PM on 11-19-2008
Yes, but this is a test of GRAPHICS performance.
kah said 11:46AM on 11-19-2008
A 9600 is not a "shiny new graphics chip." It's an low-end card that is basically a rebranding of the 8000 series. There have already been articles with gaming benchmarks in things like Spore. That's about what you can expect to play with a Mac laptop. Nothing wrong with that either - it's the best card we've had in a portable yet.
Why do we keep doing useless 3D benches on Macs? This article gets republished in some form every time a new Mac is release, and the results are all exactly the same. There are plenty of great games you can play on a Mac. Crysis is not one of them. And we knew that a long time ago.
Reply
mcg said 11:57AM on 11-19-2008
Fair point, but do note that this is a Windows benchmark.
Still, the 9600M GT is a 120Gflop chip, while NVidia's own notebook offerings top out at 420Gflops (9800M GTX). There's no way you're going to get that kind of performance, however, with a reasonable battery life.
Jake said 11:57AM on 11-19-2008
I don't seem to have a problem playing Fallout 3, Crysis, or Left 4 Dead on my new MacBook Pro.
Reply