[macdummy]

i am so interested in buying a new macbook, the only 2 things that bug me are the lack of dedicated graphics as well as the glossy screen.

the glossy screen i guess i can live with, but i was really hoping that the macbook wouldve been an above average gaming machine. the question is, with the gma 950, is it at least a DECENT gaming machine? i was so looking forward to playing civ4 and battlefield.

does anyone have any tech/specs with how well this integrated chip performs in games?

[breakbeat46]

no way you'd be able to play those games at a decent frame rate.

[erniesthings]

I don't play many games on my current ibook for that very reason. I kind of was hoping for some graphics capable of decent game play.

I'm not talking bleeding edge or anything. But half the Macbook Pro is usually what is available on the consumer options.

To bad.

[Horsepoo!!!]

You get what you pay for...if the bottom of the line laptop played games well, nobody would be buying MacBook Pros.

[Dork.]

I was looking forward to the MacBook because of the small form factor. I'm disappointed there's not a model with dedicated graphics. I would have been willing to pay extra for it!

Civ IV is rumored to tax video cards in all the areas that the GMA950 is weak in. So, I think that you definitely won't get even average performance out of it. But Civ 4 is still not out yet, and since the integrated graphics are now in two of Apple's more popular lines, maybe they'll try and do some special optimizations for it, if possible.

[breakbeat46]

Civ4 on my PC takes up alot of system resources. alot. but then again, most modern games do.

[Helmling]

I've played Civ 4 on two PC laptops. One had a dedicated 64 Mb card and the other had the Intel graphics. They're both fine...at first. The 64 card remains playable, though with the graphics on low, but the Intel chipset means that large map games become unbearably slow in the late game.

If you want to Civ, go Pro.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Helmling

If you want to Civ, go Pro.

That's the thing, I want to play Civ on a 12"/13" laptop. My options are to get a MB and tolerate the slowness, buy a used 12" PB, or wait until better graphics come in a 13" package (maybe a 13" MBP?)

[erniesthings]

What about unreal 2k4.

Not cutting edge any more but still fun to play.

Will the MacBook choke on this also?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Realistically, the MacBooks are a good deal. They're much faster than the G4 iBooks they're replacing. Faster processor and faster video (the GMA 950 is faster than what the iBook had.) So nobody's losing. Everyone's gaining. Maybe not as much as one would have liked but...no one's losing that's for sure.

I'd be surprised if someone could find a PC laptop at that price point that *could* run Civ4.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Realistically, the MacBooks are a good deal. They're much faster than the G4 iBooks they're replacing. Faster processor and faster video (the GMA 950 is faster than what the iBook had.) So nobody's losing. Everyone's gaining. Maybe not as much as one would have liked but...no one's losing that's for sure.

I'd be surprised if someone could find a PC laptop at that price point that *could* run Civ4.

I'm not disputing any of this. They are a great deal, and I may still buy one. Still, the difference between the MBP graphics and the MB graphics seems pretty wide to me, and I'm disappointed that there's no middle ground. Especially since it's not a given that those in the market for a 13" laptop are looking for entry-level machines.

[P]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Realistically, the MacBooks are a good deal. They're much faster than the G4 iBooks they're replacing. Faster processor and faster video (the GMA 950 is faster than what the iBook had.) So nobody's losing. Everyone's gaining. Maybe not as much as one would have liked but...no one's losing that's for sure.

The GMA 950 is not faster than the Radeon 9200 over the board. Some things are faster, some are slower - mainly because the GMA 950 STILL doesn't have a dedicated T&L unit. General desktop work will be faster. Gaming, such as the suggested Battlefield and UT, will be slower.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by P

The GMA 950 is not faster than the Radeon 9200 over the board. Some things are faster, some are slower - mainly because the GMA 950 STILL doesn't have a dedicated T&L unit. General desktop work will be faster. Gaming, such as the suggested Battlefield and UT, will be slower.

The iBooks have a Radeon 9550 Mobility chip not a Radeon 9200. But I would agree that the Radeon 9550 is definitely faster than the Intel Integrated Graphics.

But then what gamer would buy a low-end laptop. If your a gamer you would buy the high-end laptop because it has the best graphics and you can't replace the graphics circuitry so you'll want to get the best you can get.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by P

The GMA 950 is not faster than the Radeon 9200 over the board. Some things are faster, some are slower - mainly because the GMA 950 STILL doesn't have a dedicated T&L unit. General desktop work will be faster. Gaming, such as the suggested Battlefield and UT, will be slower.

I'd be surprised if the GMA 950 was slower than the Radeon 9200 even with no dedicated T&L unit. Do you have any benchmarks of the Radeon 9200?

edit: whoa...never mind, I just saw some benchmarks and the GMA 950 is indeed much slower than the Radeon 9200.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Interestingly, Macworld seems to indicate that the new MacBooks are 2 fps faster in UT2k4 than on the old iBook.

Can someone do some benchmarks so we can verify this or am I asking too much?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Interestingly, Macworld seems to indicate that the new MacBooks are 2 fps faster in UT2k4 than on the old iBook.

Yeah, but the Macworld benchmarks suggest it's probably basically unplayable on both systems, so the comparison may be moot here.

Originally Posted by Leonard

But then what gamer would buy a low-end laptop. If your a gamer you would buy the high-end laptop because it has the best graphics and you can't replace the graphics circuitry so you'll want to get the best you can get.

Gamer ≠ Hard core gamer geek with unlimited funds.

[roosta]

what about non universal games? those that require rosetta, like dungeonsiege, homeworld 2, call of duty 1, return to castle wolfenstein, halo (the list goes on)

will these even play?

[CharlesS]

You've gotta be kidding me. Even Civilization requires high-end graphics to run now?

The world has gone to hell.

Somebody make a Classic emulator for the Intel Macs that actually works right (unlike SheepShaver) so that Civ II can run on them, please!

[Big Mac]

I don't see how people can support Apple's choice of integrated graphics across the board for the MacBooks based on the notion that dedicated graphics would cannibalize MacBookPro sales. The iBook had dedicated graphics, and it did not destroy PowerBook sales. No, Apple's just being cheap here; Apple's just being another PC maker with this choice. it's a lowest common denominator feature. I'd rather hack OS X to run on a PC laptop than buy crappy integrated graphics.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I don't see how people can support Apple's choice of integrated graphics across the board for the MacBooks based on the notion that dedicated graphics would cannibalize MacBookPro sales. The iBook had dedicated graphics, and it did not destroy PowerBook sales.

Huh? In the late-G4 era (feels funny saying that) I remember a lot of complaining about the PowerBooks' performance not being distinguishable enough from the iBooks'. Many threads here asking for buying advice concluded, "Just buy an iBook."

[P]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

You've gotta be kidding me. Even Civilization requires high-end graphics to run now?

The world has gone to hell.

You noticed this NOW?



The quality of the coding in the Civ games has gone down recently, partially due to the people they lost when Big Huge Games was founded. Note that Colonization required a fairly powerful machine when it was released as well. I doubt that Civ IV really needs to run this slowly.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Somebody make a Classic emulator for the Intel Macs that actually works right (unlike SheepShaver) so that Civ II can run on them, please!

You can probably find the Wintel version of Civ II somwhere and run it under Boot Camp.

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by roosta

what about non universal games? those that require rosetta, like dungeonsiege, homeworld 2, call of duty 1, return to castle wolfenstein, halo (the list goes on)

will these even play?

Yes they will. Granted, they won't be as speedy as they would be Universal (which kinda sucks, since the video is already dragging the game down), but they will technically run. Playable, however... I guess it depends on the game.

Oh, and I recently (i.e. less than a week ago) emailed MacSoft, and they claim that they are still working on a Universal patch for Halo. I just wouldn't count on patches for the older games you listed.

[Eug Wanker]

The Civilization IV requirements are out:

System Requirements:

Operating System: Mac OS X 10.3.9 or later
CPU Processor: PowerPC G5 or Intel chipset
CPU Speed: 1.8 GHz or faster
Memory: 512 MB or higher
Hard Disk Space: 3.5 GB free disk space
Video Card (ATI): Radeon 9600 or better
Video Card (NVidia): GeForce FX 5200 or better
Video Memory (VRam): 64 MB or higher
Multiplayer: Internet (TCP/IP) and LAN (TCP/IP) play supported. Internet play requires broadband connection.
Media Required: DVD Drive
*Supported Video cards: NVIDIA GeForce 5200, 6600, 6800, 7800 ATI Radeon 9600, 9650, 9700, 9800, X600, X800, X850, X1600

Recommended System Requirements:

Operating System: Mac OS X 10.4.6 or later
CPU Processor: PowerPC G5 or Intel chipset
CPU Speed: 2.0 GHz or faster
Video RAM: 128 MB

[Dork.]

[Eug Wanker]

http://barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

[Madferret]

It's really too bad that apple chose to make the iBook mimic the mac mini and the powerbook mimic the iMac. Seems kinda stupid to me.... and the worst part is the intel integrated total HORSESHIT video that comes with the macbook is all you get. No options. No upgrading. EVER. As far as I'm concerned that's a dead system already. No point in getting something with a videocard that drastically far out of date.... I mean, if a 9200 outperforms it, that's just sad. 9200s were fast like.. what... 3-4 years ago? That's centuries in computer time.

[SeSawaya]

I just updated my UT2004 to universal on my macbook. I have 2 gigs of ram also. I was getting 54 FPS average on it. Lowest ever was 32, highest I saw was 100+. ALL settings where maxed out on the game that i could find. Playing bots on several standard maps.

I'm happy, although not a hard core gamer by any strech of the imagination. Sure beats my iMac G5.

My 2¢

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by SeSawaya

I just updated my UT2004 to universal on my macbook. I have 2 gigs of ram also. I was getting 54 FPS average on it. Lowest ever was 32, highest I saw was 100+. ALL settings where maxed out on the game that i could find. Playing bots on several standard maps.

I'm happy, although not a hard core gamer by any strech of the imagination. Sure beats my iMac G5.

Which iMac G5? I would have been surprised if it beat the Radeon 9600 iMac or Radeon X600 Pro iMac, but I wouldn't be that surprised if it beat the GeForce FX 5200 U iMac.

[SeSawaya]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Which iMac G5? I would have been surprised if it beat the Radeon 9600 iMac or Radeon X600 Pro iMac, but I wouldn't be that surprised if it beat the GeForce FX 5200 U iMac.

1.9 ghz G5 with 1 gig of ram.

I should mention I have the 2 ghz macbook.

with 2 gigs of ram, this thing is awesome. When I got it out of the box with 512 I was surprised at how horribly slow it was. Big step up from my 1.33 ghz ibook I sold 2 weeks ago.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by SeSawaya

1.9 ghz G5 with 1 gig of ram.

That's the one with the X600? Wow, impressive. How much of a performance increase are you getting on your MacBook?

Still, there's this:



I'm gonna load my Windows UT2003 on my MacBook and see what the performance is like. Too bad I suck at that game. I loved Unreal Tournament, but never really got into UT2003 so much, and thus never really got any good at it.

P.S. Can UT2003 be upgraded with updates to UT2004?

[SeSawaya]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

That's the one with the X600? Wow, impressive. How much of a performance increase are you getting on your MacBook?

I'm gonna load my Windows UT2003 on my MacBook and see what the performance is like. Too bad I suck at that game. I loved Unreal Tournament, but never really got into UT2003 so much, and thus never really got any good at it.

P.S. Can UT2003 be upgraded with updates to UT2004?

I dont think so, I'm pretty sure you'd have to buy the game (again). I havent run it in a while on my iMac, but it never ran this smooth. I'll try to do some comparisons later.

[Eug Wanker]

Dammit! UT2003 won't launch. I've installed the latest 2225 patch too. Any ideas anyone?

[macintologist]

Just get UT2k4 it's waaay better tan 2003

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Just get UT2k4 it's waaay better tan 2003

Perhaps, but if I buy a new game it will probably be for my Xbox 360. Since I already have UT2003 for Windows, I'd just like to see it working on my MacBook.

Plus, as I understand it, UT2004 uses the same engine as UT2003. If I have something odd about my install that is screwing up UT2003, it's possible the same thing might screw up UT2004.

I have ruled out my right-click utility and I believe my anti-virus already, and I don't have that much else installed (except for .NET), but it's enough to make me worry about jumping in with UT2004, even though I know it has been shown to work on MacBooks already.

[Grrr]

Originally Posted by SeSawaya

I just updated my UT2004 to universal on my macbook. I have 2 gigs of ram also. I was getting 54 FPS average on it. Lowest ever was 32, highest I saw was 100+. ALL settings where maxed out on the game that i could find. Playing bots on several standard maps.

I'm happy, although not a hard core gamer by any strech of the imagination. Sure beats my iMac G5.

My 2¢

That really surprises me a lot. It seems to go against what previous tests have shown.. I run UT2004 on my 1st gen G5 iMac (20" 1.8ghz). And it certainly runs UT well enough on medium'ish settings (but full screen res). Anywhere between 20-65fps or more depending on the map.. It has 1gb of ram, and a 64mb dedicated graphics chips wotsit..
I recently got my mits on a bog standard MacBook.. dual 1.83ghz intel. Standard 512mb of ram.. Installed UT2004 on it along with all the required updates. And at best it was getting 10-25fps.. But was usually at around the 10-15fps mark. Which to me, isn't playable. And that was on pretty low settings too.
So does adding an extra 1.5gb of ram really make such a massive difference to UT2004? I realise it needs more ram than 512mb, but still, I expected the MacBooks graphics setup to be the bigger bottleneck here.
I'll most likely chuck out one of the 256mb chips, and replace it with a 1gb chip, bring the total to a more reasonable 1.25gb or so. Will be interesting to see what difference it makes.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Grrr

So does adding an extra 1.5gb of ram really make such a massive difference to UT2004? I realise it needs more ram than 512mb, but still, I expected the MacBooks graphics setup to be the bigger bottleneck here.
I'll most likely chuck out one of the 256mb chips, and replace it with a 1gb chip, bring the total to a more reasonable 1.25gb or so. Will be interesting to see what difference it makes.

I wouldn't be surprised if it made things worse.

If you're going to upgrade the RAM and play games, the best way to do it is to upgrade the RAM as a pair, since the GPU is very dependent system memory bandwidth.

For applications that don't make much use of the GPU though, paired memory is likely not anywhere near as important.

[Eug Wanker]

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/revi...php?lsrc=mwrss

UT2004:

15" CD 1.83 MBP: 52.3 fps
15" CD 1.83 MBP: 51.5 fps
17" CD 2.16 MBP: 63.1 fps
12" G4 1.50 PB: 21.7 fps
15" G4 1.67 PB: 21.4 fps
13" CD 1.83 MB: 17.8 fps
13" CD 2.00 MB: 17.6 fps
14" G4 1.42 iB: 14.1 fps

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

http://barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

We temporarily pulled our results for the 3D Game and Core Image test results.

We are convinced we have an "under achieving" 13" MacBook. Our remote mad scientists with MacBooks are reporting significantly higher frame rates than we got.

Whatever the cause for the slower performance, we are in the process of re-running all the 3D Games and iMaginator on a different 13" MacBook.

Thanks for your patience. We want to get it right.

[Grrr]

This is all very weird.. I didn't get the MacBook for gaming, but I was just curious to try it, to see what it could do. And it didn't perform very well, which was what I expected to be honest, given the graphics spec.
I honestly don't understand how any MacBook could average 50fps or even get over 100fps on a game like UT2004. And given that the MacBook i've been playing with isn't really for games use, im reluctant to spend money on the full 2gb of ram for it, when its intended use is mostly an internet browsing machine. Perhaps i'll go for 2 X 512mb chips (1gb total) instead, as a reasonable, but ram matched compromise.
Call me a sceptic, but im not convinced by this 50-100fps stuff?? But of course i'd like to be proved wrong, and see how it is done..

[Dork.]

If Apple rolled out a secret "Uncripple the GMA950's 64 MB limit when people have more RAM installed" update, would that explain the frame rate bump?

After all, with the limit in place, MacBook-owning gamers might be forced to run all their games in XP (where no such limit exists), which I'm sure wasn't Apple's plan when they put the limit in place....

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Dork.

If Apple rolled out a secret "Uncripple the GMA950's 64 MB limit when people have more RAM installed" update, would that explain the frame rate bump?

After all, with the limit in place, MacBook-owning gamers might be forced to run all their games in XP (where no such limit exists), which I'm sure wasn't Apple's plan when they put the limit in place....

I don't know for sure, but I would have guessed that 64 MB is sufficient for UT2004 at 1024x768, so bumping the video memory probably wouldn't really help.

For other games and for higher resolutions it would matter though. It would also matter for some non-gaming 3D applications too.

Actually, I can get a Mac mini with a 23" Cinema Display to stutter a bit in Exposé after about 9 or 10 Safari windows are open. I suspect it wouldn't stutter if the GPU were given 128 MB.

[Neo.cmg]

I haven't played any demanding games on my new MacBook 2.0 fitted with 2GB of RAM, but I did pick up Civilization Complete this weekend. It is still in need of a Universal Binary patch, which is forthcoming from Aspyr. Anyway, asides from the app taking 3-4 bounces in the dock to launch, there is nothing that would otherwise distinguish it as a being under emulation. The game runs just as I remember the original port running on an older PowerPC-native G4 PowerMac. I do remember the ability to change a citizen of a town into a specialist such as an entertainer or scientist, which could be used to help in cities undergoing anarchy or civil disorder; though, I couldn't find this feature in the new port while playing this past weekend.

I also played, or looked at playing The Sims 2. Running the universal binary patch--the Sims 2.0 Rev D. updater--caused my Macbook to freeze. I could still move the mouse pointer, but everything else became unresponsive. I had this same problem recur while trying to unrar a .rar archive using UnRarX, which is still a PowerPC-native app. So, I switched to RarExpander and was able to complete that task. Anyway, to my point. The Sims 2 ran alright under emulation--definitely playable--though moving the camera with a trackpad could take some getting use to. It would have been nice to see how the universal app faired.

[Dork.]

I happened to be looking up some MacBook information today, and found this:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303718

Mac OS X may make additional main memory available to the graphics processor for texture use beyond the base 80 MB amount mentioned above, depending on the application being used. The most common types of applications that request more system memory to be used as graphics memory are 3D and graphics-intense applications.

Does this mean there's no 64 MB limit anymore? Or am I not understanding things correctly....

[Eug Wanker]

We temporarily pulled our results for the 3D Game and Core Image test results.

We are convinced we have an "under achieving" 13" MacBook. Our remote mad scientists with MacBooks are reporting significantly higher frame rates than we got.

Whatever the cause for the slower performance, we are in the process of re-running all the 3D Games and iMaginator on a different 13" MacBook.

Thanks for your patience. We want to get it right.

It seems the second round of the same GPU related benches yielded similar results:









IMPORTANT NOTE: The first 13" MacBook we tested had a very low performing Core Duo CPU for some reason. We replaced it with another 13" MacBook and reran the tests pictured below. There was gain in the UT2004 results but it's still much slower than the MacBook Pros (and PowerBook).

Originally Posted by Dork.

I happened to be looking up some MacBook information today, and found this:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303718

Does this mean there's no 64 MB limit anymore? Or am I not understanding things correctly....

Interesting...

[lookmark]

Definitely some useful benchmarks from BF, though I wish he'd throw in the MacBook's predecessor, the iBook, in for comparison instead of -- or in addition to -- the 15" PB, as MacWorld did. That would make more sense.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by lookmark

Definitely some useful benchmarks from BF, though I wish he'd throw in the MacBook's predecessor, the iBook, in for comparison instead of -- or in addition to -- the 15" PB, as MacWorld did. That would make more sense.

"We removed the iBook G4/1.42 results until we can retest it to verify its numbers."

[lookmark]

Ah, missed that. Thanks.

[weremichael]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The Civilization IV requirements are out:

System Requirements:

Operating System: Mac OS X 10.3.9 or later
CPU Processor: PowerPC G5 or Intel chipset
CPU Speed: 1.8 GHz or faster
Memory: 512 MB or higher
Hard Disk Space: 3.5 GB free disk space
Video Card (ATI): Radeon 9600 or better
Video Card (NVidia): GeForce FX 5200 or better
Video Memory (VRam): 64 MB or higher
Multiplayer: Internet (TCP/IP) and LAN (TCP/IP) play supported. Internet play requires broadband connection.
Media Required: DVD Drive
*Supported Video cards: NVIDIA GeForce 5200, 6600, 6800, 7800 ATI Radeon 9600, 9650, 9700, 9800, X600, X800, X850, X1600

Recommended System Requirements:

Operating System: Mac OS X 10.4.6 or later
CPU Processor: PowerPC G5 or Intel chipset
CPU Speed: 2.0 GHz or faster
Video RAM: 128 MB

Wow, they really want us to upgrade to an a/v editing machine to play Civ 4?? It's always smart to alienate your consumer by making the most recent computer (macbook) mostly incapable of playing a Strategy Game. Glad I have an xbox 360 to game on. Sadly my wife will be bummed as she was looking to play this game on our current macs.

Michael

[Eug Wanker]

Well, you should blame Apple for the crappy GPU in the MacBook, not the game makers.

[weremichael]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, you should blame Apple for the crappy GPU in the MacBook, not the game makers.

I blame both of them. Sloppy coding on the game makers and cheap intergrated GPU on Steve-O.