Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

khai · 06:09 AM

anyone have this model MBP 2.16GHz, 1GB RAM, ATI X1600 128MB VRAM? Play BF2? i wanna to know how well it plays? Any feedback? I'm thinking of buying this and add additional 1GB RAM to it. Any suggesstion?

zac4mac · Apr 18, 2007, 07:26 AM

BF2 is pretty tough on a video card - Get the 256MB

I was playing HL2 on a CD 2.0 GHz w/ 256 MB X1600 and it was very sweet. Had to sell it a few months ago, tomorrow its replacement arrives.

C2D 2.33/15" matte/256MB-X1600/120GB 5400rpm HDD/2GB RAM = 1999.00 refurb

Z

markponcelet · Apr 18, 2007, 03:50 PM

Well, I have the same model, except that I went for the 256MB vram option, and I'm playing BF2142.

I can say this with certainty: get the stronger video card. While I haven't played BF2 on either my 17" MBP or my 17" Rev. D powerbook (which has 128 MB, it's really amazing how much of a difference the 256 card makes for all other programs. It's worthwhile.

Hot, though.

khai · Apr 18, 2007, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by zac4mac

BF2 is pretty tough on a video card - Get the 256MB

I was playing HL2 on a CD 2.0 GHz w/ 256 MB X1600 and it was very sweet. Had to sell it a few months ago, tomorrow its replacement arrives.

C2D 2.33/15" matte/256MB-X1600/120GB 5400rpm HDD/2GB RAM = 1999.00 refurb

Z

Btw, you bought refurb isit reliable? Does it have any defects?

khai · Apr 18, 2007, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by markponcelet

Well, I have the same model, except that I went for the 256MB vram option, and I'm playing BF2142.

I can say this with certainty: get the stronger video card. While I haven't played BF2 on either my 17" MBP or my 17" Rev. D powerbook (which has 128 MB, it's really amazing how much of a difference the 256 card makes for all other programs. It's worthwhile.

Hot, though.

Hi. can you try on your 17" MBP? can are you able to give me 3dmark score for both of your machine? 15" and 17" MBP? Thanks

khai · Apr 22, 2007, 06:07 AM

Have 1 more doubt, if i'm going to play HD content in macbook pro. example a 720P movie, will it play smoothly? Does it required a high end graphics card to play HD content or just fast machine will be fine?

hldan · Apr 23, 2007, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by khai

Have 1 more doubt, if i'm going to play HD content in macbook pro. example a 720P movie, will it play smoothly? Does it required a high end graphics card to play HD content or just fast machine will be fine?

The Mac mini 1.66 CD plays all HD content perfectly.

Thraxes · Apr 24, 2007, 04:37 PM

HD is no problem for the MBP, have dozens of 1080p test clips with different codecs and all run fine.

markponcelet · Apr 24, 2007, 07:46 PM

Sorry -- I'm in the middle of reinstalling everything on my 17" MBP. It will take a long time before I reinstall BF2142. Perhaps you can google for the results? I seem to remember that 3dMark allows a person to publish their results. (I may even have published my results in a post in one of these forums somewhere.)

On a related note, I am almost positive that the current Macbook Pros don't have quite the resolution required to show HD content in true HD resolution. Isn't there a rumor out there that the next hardware refresh is going to give the 17" Macbook Pros the screen resolution necessary to display true high definition?

Might want to tune into places like Macrumors.com before you buy a new laptop.

khai · Apr 24, 2007, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by markponcelet

Sorry -- I'm in the middle of reinstalling everything on my 17" MBP. It will take a long time before I reinstall BF2142. Perhaps you can google for the results? I seem to remember that 3dMark allows a person to publish their results. (I may even have published my results in a post in one of these forums somewhere.)

On a related note, I am almost positive that the current Macbook Pros don't have quite the resolution required to show HD content in true HD resolution. Isn't there a rumor out there that the next hardware refresh is going to give the 17" Macbook Pros the screen resolution necessary to display true high definition?

Might want to tune into places like Macrumors.com before you buy a new laptop.

Hihi, nvm can you able to do a benchmark for your 17" MBP? will like to know the result and whats your spects. thanks.

highstakes · Apr 25, 2007, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by khai

Have 1 more doubt, if i'm going to play HD content in macbook pro. example a 720P movie, will it play smoothly? Does it required a high end graphics card to play HD content or just fast machine will be fine?

It plays perfectly. Pretty sure all of Apple's lineup will play HD movies just fine.

heedlix · Apr 25, 2007, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by markponcelet

On a related note, I am almost positive that the current Macbook Pros don't have quite the resolution required to show HD content in true HD resolution. Isn't there a rumor out there that the next hardware refresh is going to give the 17" Macbook Pros the screen resolution necessary to display true high definition?

Might want to tune into places like Macrumors.com before you buy a new laptop.

Not sure what you mean by "true HD resolution". There are the usual standard resolutions (480p, 720p, 1080i or p). They are ALL "HD." And while my 12" Powerbook can play 480p, there are too many frames that are too large for it to play 720 or 1080. On a laptop screen, I would challenge ANYONE to point out the differences between 480 and 720. But so far, no laptop is going to have the muscle for 1080. Nor is it necessary.

nrojas2 · 03:43 AM

I have a 2.0GHz MBP Core Duo with a gig of ram and the 128 MB ATI and I can say I'm please with the performance for gaming while playing on XP. I play BF2 a lot and play on the highest resolution (somewhere along the lines of 1024 x 768ish?) and is not sluggish one bit. Granted I've also tried Advanced Warfighter and Supreme Commander and could barely play the too. Also Call of Duty 2 for OSX, and that's flawless with everything maxed out at 1440 x 900. Looking towards the future, tho, of course 256 MB is going to go farther than 128, but if you're going to be playing "older" games like BF2 and what not, I don't think it would make a huge difference. If you want to keep on pace with all the new releases, if even possible these days, I'ld strongly consider going with the 256. After all, its soldered into the motherboard in the MBPs, so after-market replacement is kind of out of the question.

Onto the topic of the HD rendering/viewing, you CAN have an image of 720p or 1080p on your MBP, or anything that can handle the video for that matter. The only difference is that it will be scaled down to allow to fit on your screen. For example, ever watch a DVD while serfing the web or checking email and shrink the window smaller so you can watch at the same time? The resolution is the same at around 480i, the image is just scaled down. Same idea if you take TV shows from iTunes store, slap them on an iPOD, and hook it up to an HDTV. The TV's native resolution is 1080i, and the TV show is 640 x 480. Its not displayed only on 640 x 480 pixels on your big TV, is it? Get the idea? BUT when the picture is altered, stretched or shrunk, you do lose the "true HD" of it, technically. So the quality is there, but the resolution would be a little off.

Also, there are laptops with HD DVD and Blu-ray drives in them that have native 1080 resolutions, some a little higher due to 16:10 laptop ratios. My brother just bought a decked out Sony VAIO with a Blu-ray drive; the display is 17" with the native resolution of about 1920 x 1200. I think Dell and HP both have similar HD DVD models. A little overkill in my opinion, but if the shoe fits. Also if the price points fits, ~$3000.

Simon · Apr 26, 2007, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by markponcelet

On a related note, I am almost positive that the current Macbook Pros don't have quite the resolution required to show HD content in true HD resolution. Isn't there a rumor out there that the next hardware refresh is going to give the 17" Macbook Pros the screen resolution necessary to display true high definition?.

Originally Posted by heedlix

On a laptop screen, I would challenge ANYONE to point out the differences between 480 and 720. But so far, no laptop is going to have the muscle for 1080. Nor is it necessary.

I think you're mistaken there.

My 2.33 GHz 15" MBP plays 1080p trailers just fine on an external 30" ACD. For example this h.264 1080p trailer runs at its full 30 fps w/o dropped frames and uses about 50% of my total CPU.

And just because the notebook's internal screen doesn't display all the pixels of a HD flick doesn't mean it's not sensible to have the necessary resources. Where I work we have a lot of portable Macs and when we are at our desks or at an experiment we often hook em up to a large external screen. My ACD has no problem displaying the entire 1080 resolution, so why shouldn't my MBP have the power to decode it? Fortunately it does.

khai · Apr 26, 2007, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by nrojas2

I have a 2.0GHz MBP Core Duo with a gig of ram and the 128 MB ATI and I can say I'm please with the performance for gaming while playing on XP. I play BF2 a lot and play on the highest resolution (somewhere along the lines of 1024 x 768ish?) and is not sluggish one bit. Granted I've also tried Advanced Warfighter and Supreme Commander and could barely play the too. Also Call of Duty 2 for OSX, and that's flawless with everything maxed out at 1440 x 900. Looking towards the future, tho, of course 256 MB is going to go farther than 128, but if you're going to be playing "older" games like BF2 and what not, I don't think it would make a huge difference. If you want to keep on pace with all the new releases, if even possible these days, I'ld strongly consider going with the 256. After all, its soldered into the motherboard in the MBPs, so after-market replacement is kind of out of the question.

Onto the topic of the HD rendering/viewing, you CAN have an image of 720p or 1080p on your MBP, or anything that can handle the video for that matter. The only difference is that it will be scaled down to allow to fit on your screen. For example, ever watch a DVD while serfing the web or checking email and shrink the window smaller so you can watch at the same time? The resolution is the same at around 480i, the image is just scaled down. Same idea if you take TV shows from iTunes store, slap them on an iPOD, and hook it up to an HDTV. The TV's native resolution is 1080i, and the TV show is 640 x 480. Its not displayed only on 640 x 480 pixels on your big TV, is it? Get the idea? BUT when the picture is altered, stretched or shrunk, you do lose the "true HD" of it, technically. So the quality is there, but the resolution would be a little off.

Also, there are laptops with HD DVD and Blu-ray drives in them that have native 1080 resolutions, some a little higher due to 16:10 laptop ratios. My brother just bought a decked out Sony VAIO with a Blu-ray drive; the display is 17" with the native resolution of about 1920 x 1200. I think Dell and HP both have similar HD DVD models. A little overkill in my opinion, but if the shoe fits. Also if the price points fits, ~$3000.

Hi, may i know what settings you set for your BF2? how whats your fps?

kmnader · Apr 26, 2007, 10:41 AM

FWIW, I have the 2.16ghz with 256VRAM ATi X1600. I'm glad I went with the 256 VRAM. Two of my friends have comparable HP laptops with 128VRAM although with Nvidia graphics cards and I always get much better fps when running the same games then they do. IMHO though the X1600 is over a year old and I wish that Apple would update the laptop line with more options for graphics card. It's the one thing that just annoys me about Apple. However, the X1600 is probably still one of the best "thin" graphics cards u can get in a laptop and I suspect the reason there isn't a better option is because of heat issues. In other words the better mobile graphic cards u see in laptops are usually in like those thick brick laptops. Well, back to your question - I think its worth it for the 256 option if your gaming or plan on doing a lot of gaming. Im pretty happy with my MBP overall - it's not a stellar gaming laptop by any means but it's adequate. All the current Mac gaming titles I pretty much can run without any problems. Some of the newer PC games though I have to turn the settings down a bit for smooth gameplay as they really put a strain on the X1600. I've play BF2 on my laptop and it ran great with moderate graphics options. I don't own 2142 so I can't comment on that one.

Kadman · Apr 26, 2007, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by heedlix

Not sure what you mean by "true HD resolution". There are the usual standard resolutions (480p, 720p, 1080i or p). They are ALL "HD." And while my 12" Powerbook can play 480p, there are too many frames that are too large for it to play 720 or 1080. On a laptop screen, I would challenge ANYONE to point out the differences between 480 and 720. But so far, no laptop is going to have the muscle for 1080. Nor is it necessary.

By definition, 480p is ED, not HD. The difference between 480 and 720 is easily noticed on a laptop, or any other display. Many modern laptops can handle 1080 just fine, and there is certainly content that can benefit from it. It's odd that you sound so sure about these things, but they are very wrong.

Jim Paradise · May 4, 2007, 04:39 PM

How were you guys able to get the 256 card on the 2.16 MBP? I can't find such an option on Apple's online store.

mduell · May 4, 2007, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise

How were you guys able to get the 256 card on the 2.16 MBP? I can't find such an option on Apple's online store.

2.16 used to be the top model, so it had the 256MB card.
Try checking the refurb store ('Special Deals').

Jim Paradise · May 4, 2007, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

2.16 used to be the top model, so it had the 256MB card.
Try checking the refurb store ('Special Deals').

That's what I figured, but was hoping that I perhaps missed something on Apple's site. Thanks.

Simon · May 5, 2007, 03:37 AM

Also, the 2.16 GHz models with 256 MBVRAM are CDs, while the current 2.16 GHz models with 128 MB VRAM are C2Ds. And although they nominally have the same GPU, it's clocked faster on the latter (less underclocking on the C2D models).

RogueSqdn · May 5, 2007, 05:52 AM

I haven't gotten my MBP yet, but I've got an underclocking question. Suppose I run WinXP in BootCamp for my games. Will the card still be underclocked? If I use the ATI Catalyst Control Center to overclock the card in WinXP, will it return to it's Apple-underclocked speed when I boot OS X?

Jim Paradise · May 5, 2007, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Also, the 2.16 GHz models with 256 MBVRAM are CDs, while the current 2.16 GHz models with 128 MB VRAM are C2Ds. And although they nominally have the same GPU, it's clocked faster on the latter (less underclocking on the C2D models).

Thanks. This is some good info.

I haven't been keeping up with some of the minor hardware differences since the switch to the Intel platform.

khai · May 12, 2007, 03:30 AM

thanks for all of your reply, was waiting for new refresh upgrade for apple products, anyone have any news regarding new refresh upgrade for macbook pro or macbook?

Simon · May 12, 2007, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by khai

thanks for all of your reply, was waiting for new refresh upgrade for apple products, anyone have any news regarding new refresh upgrade for macbook pro or macbook?

Rumors are all over the place right now. Some say new portables as early as Tuesday, others point towards WWDC. There are several threads on what updates to expect.