Apple ’s MacBook looks to be a achiever on many social movement — affordability , Core Duo power , widescreen display , DVI output , and much more . But one purpose decision has gotten more attention than any other part of the raw laptop computer — the usage of an integrated chipset for the motorcar ’s graphics .
rather of a separate card with consecrate RAM for artwork , the MacBook ’s integrated Intel GMA 950 graphic flake rest on the motherboard , and “ borrows ” graphic chock up from the system . Because of this , there have been questions about how well — or not well — the MacBooks would be able to recreate game .
Since I ’ve had an Intel Core Duo mini since that background debuted earlier this year , I have some experience with the mix graphics chipset — the miniskirt use the same let in with the MacBook . And while the mini is understandably no gaming power plant , you’re able to have a good gaming experience on such a machine . You just ca n’t do so on the latest and majuscule titles in the Mac gaming world . Though it has a much firm central processor than the mini ’s , the MacBook is in much the same boat , at least based on my initial tests .
Quake 3 was tested at 1,024-by-768 resolution, with sound enabled, and all texture and graphics options at their default settings. The standard demo was used, with timedemo set to ‘1’ for maximum throughput speed.Note:These figures are not official Macworld benchmarks, just my results.
Apple ’s 13 - inch MacBooks
If you ’re looking to play Sims 2 , Quake 4 , Doom 3 , or the upcoming Civilization IV on your Mac , the MacBook isnotthe machine for you . You will not have a pleasant experience playing anything that relies on accelerated graphics . Macworldhas prove this to be the grammatical case with the gambling benchmark resultant role for both the mini and the MacBook .
But if you do n’t mind live on a little bit in the past , you could still recover a lot of fairly entertaining game to play — assuming you ’ve play one very authoritative requirement — retentiveness .
Must … have … RAM!
If you want to fiddle old 3 - D game on your MacBook ( or Core Duo mini , for that matter ) , then more RAM is a must . As a demonstration , I first try out theunofficial Universal binary tone ending of Quake 3with 512 MB of RAM in the MacBook . I start the tests at 1,024 - by-768 solving , with the graphics timber options all set to their “ average ” values . compare to what I saw when I antecedently tested the Core Duo mini with 2 GB of RAM , the outcome were quite disappointing :
After upgrading the MacBook to 2 GB of RAM , I re - execute the same bench mark , and was surprised again , this meter in a good way :
As you may see , having more RAM available for the graphics chipset made a huge dispute in performance — intimately double the frame pace , and slightly quick ( thanks to the increase CPU speed ) than the miniskirt . So where does this diminish in the kingdom of Quake 3 execution on machine I ’ve tested of late ? Certainly fast enough to be very playable :
Unofficial Quake 3 Benchmarks
RESULTS IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERFORMANCE
Quake 3 was essay at 1,024 - by-768 resolution , with speech sound enable , and all texture and graphics choice at their nonpayment setting . The standard demonstration was used , with timedemo put to ‘ 1 ’ for maximum throughput amphetamine . promissory note : These figures are not official Macworld benchmarks , just my resultant role .
As you could see , the MacBook plow Quake 3 sound than does my PowerBook G4 , despite that machine ’s disjoined video placard . Similar results would be expected for other game based on the Quake 3 engine . Even if there ’s not a Universal version of the program uncommitted , you ’ll still get decent results in Rosetta for Quake3 - based games . For case , running the Quake3 demonstration in Rosetta still produced a very playable figure rate—82fps on the MacBook with 2 GB of RAM .
So what else can you play?
As noted , game base on the Quake 3 locomotive will process quite well , with or without Universal versions . I tested Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy , and both were playable in Rosetta . Using genus Beta of the Universal interlingual rendition , both games were quite fast , easily outpacing my PowerBook . The Universal version of X - Plane make well , too , render around 25fps at 1,024 - by-768 firmness of purpose , with lots of nice visuals . Railroad Tycoon 3 ( in Rosetta ) seemed to play all right , though I did n’t have the 200 hours necessary for a full test !
sound back before Quake3 , there ’s a raw Universal reading ofQuake IIthat play really well — take note that you ’ll need the full retail version of Quake II to use the Universal version .
If you require to goreallyretro , MacMAMEworks well for playing those games of your misspent spring chicken — or your parent ’ misspent spring chicken , as the case may be . You may wish to use the software system renderer rather of OpenGL ( in the Options section of the contour ) , as it seemed smoother to me in several of the biz .
Finally , many of today ’s “ fooling ” games scarper just all right on the MacBook . I tested cosmopolitan versions of Cro - Mag Rally , Kickin ’ Soccer , Apeiron , and Aqua Mines , and they all worked fine . MacUpdate’sUniversal Binarypage can be filtered to show just games , and it ’s a great fashion to keep up with what ’s coming out for the Intel Macs . Most of the game you ’ll see there will run just fine on the MacBook , as they do n’t require a bleeding - edge 3 - D card .
At the bottom end of the playable scale is Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 ( turn tail in Rosetta ) . I was seeing anywhere from 10 to 20 shape per instant , with the average closer to 13fps . It ’s not necessarily the smoothest experience , but it ’s playable .
What can’t you play?
As bring up , anything necessitate accelerate 3 - D nontextual matter is proceed to be out , even if the app is Universal . Beyond that , I constitute that Rosetta was n’t kind to many sr. game . Leading off in the unplayable category , Kelly Slater ’s Pro Surfer under Rosetta was basically glacial — it might have been getting around two flesh a 2d , even at 640 - by-480 ( there ’s no systema skeletale rate video display available ) . I had interchangeable results with MTX Mototrax ( Rosetta ) , though it was a bit quicker , but still not playable .
Finally , I prove Call of Duty under Rosetta , which was one of my favorite plot of years past . The grooming grounds were encouraging — soma charge per unit varied from 40 to 60 . Training , though , hap during a gracious sunny good afternoon . The first deputation occurs during a tempestuous night , which see frame rates plummet into the 12 to 15 range . Not very playable as is , but a Universal version is in the works , which should result in high-pitched frame pace .
In researching these games ’ Universal status , I foundthis utilitarian scout , which list the Universal status for many popular games . There are link to Universal version , as well as to discussion on each biz . If you ’re curious about a major secret plan ’s status , it ’s deserving a visit . ( And , of course , Macworldhas a Universal software page that tracks the condition of assorted applications , include biz . )
The last word
If you were reckon of buying a MacBook to extend earthquake 4 or Doom 3 , you ’d well keep shop . You might be able to get an “ OK ” frame rate from these games by thin out the projection screen resolution and dropping image character and details to their inviolable lowest configurations . But by doing this , you ’re giving up much of the reason for want to run these plot anyway — their astonishing ocular environments .
If you ’re a die - hard gamer , I ’d say buy an XBox360 or Playstation2 for your gaming needs — they’re a heck of a luck cheaper , and you’re able to see some awe-inspiring visuals if you ’ve got a large high-pitched definition television set . If you ’re a die - hard gamer who absolutelymustdo their gaming on a Mac , then I ’d advocate nothing less than the 15 - inch MacBook Pro , but even that might be a flake underpowered for some of today ’s hooey . For the best Mac play experience , you desire whatever Apple ’s currently selling as their top - of - the - line machine . Today , that ’d be the Quad 2.5GHz PowerPC G5 ; it ’ll be some form of extremist Intel - based machine presently enough .
But if you only toy the occasional game , and you do n’t ask the recent and greatest , the MacBook will in all likelihood fit your need just fine , as long as you give the machine enough RAM ( 1 GB should provide enough memory for any given biz and its artwork needs ) , and realize its limitations .
