black macbook capable of gaming?

is new black macbook capable of running games on it? coz before i thought of buying MBP but then i had issues wid bigger screen and weight(m using a 13 inch fujitsu siemens). althought the macbook(black) is heavier than my fujitsu, but still i cant bother to carry more than tht.

 

Are you telling me a white macbook is not capable of running games?

 

The color matters not, all Macbooks are the same other than default configurations. Yeah, I'm positive it can play Starcraft. Modern games, no. The IGP (X3100) is better than previous versions, but its no Crysis killer either. The M1330 would offer better gaming at a relative price and size, albeit not as much as an 8600 or even better, the 8800.

 

I will say what I have said in previous topics when it comes to gaming on a notebook - if you can't carry it, you don't deserve it. Gaming ntebooks typically take a big hit in portability so be prepared to make some sacrifices on weight and battery life to game. As far as modern games go, the X3100 in that thing will not cut it. If you play nothing but older games then you would be fine. The dell xps m1330 however has some muscles it can use to play slightly older games just fine. I'd vote for that for gaming over the macbook anyday. And also, while both the white and black macbooks have identical specs, the black books look cooler thus instantly granting you 5 additional fps in any game.

 

well, i jus thought tht may be its the top end model, so it must be capable enuf. anyway ill jus go for the black one then. used windows for ages now, so need a change. dun care bout gaming tht much...thanks for the info though. i appreciate it.

 

It's not. It's the exact same hardware as the white models (aside from a bigger default hard drive size).

The Macbook Pro isn't that much bigger, and is hardly a huge system. If you compare the sizes, they're really not much different (plus it's got LED backlighting which is a huge plus IMO, etc.)

If you want a subnotebook that CAN (sort of) play games, your best bet is probably Dell's XPS 1330, if you configure it with the Geforce 8400GS.

That's very low end by today's standards (the 8600GT is low end by today's standards, and it has literally over double the performance of the 8400), but it will run everything out there. I've seen Crysis running on it, although it's early in the game and everything's on minimum.

But anyway, Intel video and gaming do not mix.

 

Yeah, who needs Core 2 processors for modern games, like Crysis. jkjkjk

Edit:

My bad, didn't see "video" in your quote.

 

Integrated graphics in general and gaming do not mix. Nvidia 7150/6150, radeon 1250/1150/x200, all are pretty bad at gaming as well as intel's gma 950/900 and the X3100

 

Err...I guess I don't get the joke, but I'm talking about Intel's horrible video, not their CPUs.

 

Yeah, I know. It seemed funny when it came to mind. But nvm. I edited the post after seeing my mistake.

 

Yeah, its the same central hardware along the three models, the same X3100 integrated graphics and all are Penryn processors (different clock speeds, but not too much of a difference nowadays). I'd say they're okay, they'll play some older games, but don't expect anything surprisingly good.

 

These kind of answers are funny. I am pretty positive there are a whole bunch of 13-14inch notebooks that CANT RUN OS X but have better graphics.

 

Not sure why they're funny. If he/she values having a 13" laptop, they'd want to get the XPS 1330 or the like with an 8400. If they value OS X more, they need to get the Macbook Pro (which in either case has twice the graphics power of the 1330, and isn't really that much bigger).

 

hmm. well actually they are not all the same. Dont believe me check the site

 

That's incorrect. They're EXACTLY the same except for the default hard drive size.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

The black model is no better or worse than the white model.

NONE of these are appropriate for games. If you want a Mac that'll play games, you need a Macbook Pro.

And like I've said, the MBP really isn't much bigger or heavier than the Macbook. We're talking a whooping 0.4 pounds heavier, a bit over half an inch deeper, and a bit over an inch wider-that's it. I think that's worth having something that's what, 100x more powerful for gaming? 1000x? (On top of some other great bonuses like an LED backlight instead of UV spewing, mercury containing florescent.) And if you can't live with that, the XPS 1330 would be the other obvious choice, with the caveat that it's only half as powerful as the Macbook Pro, and it doesn't run OS X.

 

Nope

There are 3 MacBook models. And the 1st model has slower percessor, less ram, a cd writer & less hdd.

The 2nd model has same config as black model but a lesser disk space.

 

I know that. I'm comparing the upper two models-and for gaming they're not going to do any better than the cheapest model.

 

Not to further push this off-topic, but you can configure the upper white MacBook to have the exact same specs as the black MacBook, and it will be $100 cheaper.

 

the black paint job should improve gaming performance. id say the blackness increases performance by 3x.

 

But wait! It depends on the game! Games with title screens with white backgrounds actually run 2x faster on the white Macbook!

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568

you should have a look at that, the 8600GT is far from "low-end". More like mid-range if anything

 

It's low end. Has been since the official launch of the 9600GT. That and the 8800GT (and the Radeon 3870) now define mid range.

That list is extremely out of date, listing a number of cards as "high end" that are actually low end now.

 

for mobile graphics, the 8600m gt is midrange. for desktop computers, its low end. there are better cards for the price for desktops.

 

If you want to qualify it as "mid range by laptop standards" then okay, but it's low end in any absolute sense. There aren't separate laptop programs that laptops get to run-they're running the same stuff as desktops. Certainly when you're making a purchasing decision you need to look at it's real-world power, not how it compares to a single class of computer.

 

8800 as midrange?? I think you should redefine your standards, considering the ONLY 15" available right now with it is the M15x.

 

actually, in the ABSOLUTE sense, the 8600m gt is the high end. its the newest generation of graphics, its just as good as all of the newest consoles, and leagues faster than anything intel offers.

the REAL graphics market is a lot wider than you make it out to be.

if you restrict your sight to 8600 and up, then its the low end. in the ABSOLUTE sense, its at least mid range, or high end.

 

Irrelevant. It would still be low end if not a single laptop on Earth used an 8800/9600GT part.

Leagues faster than anything Intel offers is irrelevant. How it compares to the consoles is irrelevant. All that matters is by both price and performance it's now a low end part.

I'm not making it out to be anything. I'm well aware there's a vast trough of garbage at the bottom end. The 8600GT is the best of all that-by dozens or maybe hundreds of times in some cases, but it's still low end.

No it's not. Low end isn't defined by how many total parts are out there (and in that case where would we cut it off?) but rather how it compares to modern high end parts in both price and performance. There could be 15 million different low end parts and it would still be a low end part even if it's the best of them.

 

I really disagree with your logic. By your standards, every car on the road is pitifully low-end, because there exist super-cars for races and such. I think you need to take a more holistic view of the gaming and graphics field - sure, there are very intensive games pushing the envelope, and there are beefy, expensive cards meant to pair up well with those games, but the VAST majority of games can be played exceptionally well by the 8600M GT, which, I would say, makes it a solid, mid-range card in today's world. And, really, all these tags are very relative to the buyer. If someone just wants to play older games like Warcraft III and SimCity or something, the 8600M GT is, in fact, incredibly overpowered for their needs.

 

My logic is just reality. Everything you mention is completely irrelevant to how the GPU gets classified. It doesn't begin to compare with mid-range parts, so it's not mid range.

By the logic I'm seeing here EVERY card on the market would be "high end", because where does one draw the line? EVERYTHING is high end compared to older cards. EVERYTHING is high end compared to Intel video.

There seems to be some confusion here because you're comparing cards only to other notebook cards, which is completely irrelevant for an overall comparison because "notebook" isn't a platform, it's just one type of computer. There's no "notebook" OS, nor "notebook" applications and games, hence their hardware needs to be compared to ALL PC hardware, not just notebook hardware.

A notebook GPU gets outdated at EXACTLY the same time as a desktop GPU. They have the EXACT same usable period so to speak. Hence calling one "mid range" when the other is low end is just wrong.

Yes, you can add the qualifier "by notebook standards" if you'd like, but someone shopping for a notebook needs to look at the hardware compared to the entire PC market, not just against notebooks. Their 8600GT isn't going to run anything more than a desktop 8600GT, and no amount of relabeling it will change that.

 

Whether you think it is low end or not, a laptop with an 8600m gt will still beat the majority of computers in the world, as well as most with video cards. Most people don't custom build PCs, and most store bought PCs have terrible graphics. As for against other cards, the 8600m gt is between the current high end, and quite a few lower performing cards. I call it midranged. I would label card ranges by there performance in the latest games. If your card works well at mid to high settings, call it midranged, regardless of it's generation.

 

A laptop with a Geforce 8400GS will also beat most computers on Earth. Again, that's irrelevant.

And how is something that's 1/2 to 1/3 a midrange card midrange?

The generation isn't relevant.

Again, it's performance and price versus the current market is what sets what it should be considered.

 

So then wolfpup what do you consider "high-end" if the best card currently available is what you consider "mid-range"? Keep in mind we are all talking about notebook graphics here. Also keep in mind that high end graphics on a mac are the 8600gt for notebooks. The reality of it all is that yes, the 8600gt is not low-end. It also offers great performance for the dollar and can play crysis at medium settings. I consider that a mid-range card.

 

Legitimate tech sites (ie Andandtech and the like) are not going to agree with your labeling, and you would need to explain why a GPU that can be had for $65, which has 1/3 to 1/2 the performance of a midrange $150 part qualifies as mid range.

Low end doesn't mean it's bad, it's just what it is given today's market.

 

That's not what I asked, I asked what do you consider high end. And again, a notebook gpu.

 

The only GPU available in notebooks that might still be considered high end is the 8800GTX, which is basically an 8800GT. Technically it's "low end of the high end", although price-wise it's mid-range now and I think most people would just label it "mid range".

Certainly nothing lower qualifies as high-end. The mobile 8800GTS is basically a 9600GT. Fantastic card, but it's mid-range now.

This is nothing new-until the launch of the 8800 series for notebooks, we went over a year without a high end part for notebooks.

 

I'm pretty sure nobody would call the 8800 GTX midranged, not even the mobile version. I'm pretty sure that the 8800gtx would be near the top of a list of benchmarks of recent video cards. the 8600m gt would be somewhere in the middle. I call that midranged.

 

You can call it whatever you want, that doesn't make it correct.

The mobile 8800GTX is basically an 8800GT-that's now basically a midrange part, or arguably a "low end high end" part. But yeah, that's the only current mobile part that remotely qualifies as high end.

It's also irrelevant what Nvidia calls a card, or what numbers they put on it. We look at performance, not what a company wants to sell something as. In GENERAL the lower numbered cards start out as low end, middle numbered cards start out as mid-range, and high numbered as high-end, but not always. ATi's x1600 wasn't a mid-range part even when it launched. The 8600GT has been out for about a year and has been replaced at the mid-range by newer GPUs, both intentionally by ATi and Nvidia, and unintentionally by formerly high end cards selling for actually less than what the 8600GT's theoretical MSRP is. This cycle has happened year after year.

The 8600GT doesn't get to qualify as mid-range just because some of you want it to be. Nor is it's performance somehow worse just because it's no longer a mid-range part.

 

I honestly still just don't understand how you can call a card that can run Crysis at medium settings "low range." I'm not aware of any game that the 8600M GT can simply not handle. But either way, all we're doing here is arguing semantics - no matter what you classify the cards as, their performance doesn't change. Maybe we should just quote benchmark scores instead of giving these labels - even though those don't necessarily relate directly to in-game performance, either.

 

What it runs Crysis at is irrelevant.

Again, irrelevant.

If you're talking about Donut Mark, that too is irrelevant True enough it's technically just semantics, but you're not doing anyone any favors by claiming the 8600GT is mid range when they're trying to make a purchasing decision. IMO they should know and understand what they're buying, it's likely useful life, etc.

 

honestly, i think the majority of us agree on a simpler semantics set. never in my life will i ever classify anything as "mid low end of the high end".

second, i think we have a fundamental disagreement about notebooks being compared to desktops. they really are not one in the same. they are two different beasts, and the market for notebook graphics has a completely different price range / performance. the 8600m gt probably costs about $150, maybe more. the 8800m gtx (which is equivalent in performance to the 8800 gt you said) costs something like $500 if im not mistaken?

You CANNOT buy a $150 notebook gpu that is will outperform an 8600m gt. I understand that you can do this with a desktop, and that is all well and good. I also understand that your opinion is that gaming desktops and mobile oriented laptops should be compared directly towards one another. It is true that they run the same hardware and software, but the reality is that laptops are not going to have the same performance as desktops. The total volume of my laptops is 2.25 liters in volume and it has a maximum power budget of 85 watts. It also weighs less than 2.5 kg. An average gaming desktop might have a volume around 70 Liters, a power budget of 700 watts, and might weigh about 20 kg.

But here is the crux of my argument: I think that because of mobility being the main concern with laptop owners, they are actually content to run games at lower resolutions and medium settings. If I had a gaming desktop, I would make sure to run everything in high resolution with maxed out settings. I had a gaming desktop about 4-5 years ago and I ran every brand new game with 4x aa 16x af in 1600x1200 and it still couldn't slow down my hardware (rainbow six: ravenshield, anyone?). It was exciting for a while but the effect wore off. Now i actually run some games in WINE at like a 30% performance hit even with lower settings than in xp just because it is convenient. I think most laptop buyers consider the convenience of a laptop over the gaming performance it provides, EVEN if they get one with gpu. I think that desktop users who buy a $150+ gpu expect a much higher degree of visual gaming quality and at a higher resolution compared to laptop users. Even though I play most games at 1440x900, I would seriously still be content playing them at 1280x800, 1024x640, 800x500. I think most mobile gamers would agree with that, whereas most desktop gamers would laugh/scoff/chuckle at the thought. That separates laptop users and desktop users into two different categories and two different markets. Your desktop card for $150 doesn't change the laptop market one way or another. The 8600m gt is still midrange for laptops.

And, for the record, I never said the 8600GT was midrange.

And everything you said was irrelevant!

No more on this from me.

 

This thread is really quite off topic, but in my opinion the 8800m GTX is a high end card in the Geforce 8 mobile series graphics cards, like the 6800m GT was the high end in the Geforce 6 mobile series etc.

Although currently its performance might not rival the latest true high end range, such as the HD3870X2 or the Geforce 9800GX2, it does not mean the card has become a mid range card itself. It can only be said that it is currently comparable to the mid range of the newer series.

Therefore, the 8600m GT is not a low range card, it is a medium high range card for the Geforce 8 mobile series (the 8600GS is mid range). However, its performance is relatively 'low end' when compared to the much newer Geforce 9600GT or 9800GXT/GX2.

Still, apart from the ATI Mobility HD3000 series, there is currently no real successor to the Geforce 8 series when it comes to mobile graphics cards. Therefore I believe that at this current moment in time, the Geforce 8600m GT securely holds its position as a medium high range mobile GPU.

May I suggest that if you all wish to continue this discussion, for me to have it moved to Gaming section or the Off Topic section. I am certain both more knowledgeable and more interested people will be able to join the debate on those boards, especially after a change in title.
Of course, you may continue this discussion here as long as nothing abusive or insulting is posted.

 

They are when it comes to software. They have to run the exact same programs desktops do, hence it's illogical to classify their hardware differently.

Yes, that's a reality. That in no way justifies classifying the hardware in some other way, because it's a reality that they have to run the exact same software.

What someone is willing to play something at on one computer versus another is irrelevant.

Perhaps "midrange for laptops", but that's irrelevant if you need to make a purchase decision and need to know it's performance.

Again, they run the same software, they must be compared on the same basis. Someone's belief or perception does not change reality, and is not a valid argument for why they should be compared separately. The only hypothetical reason I can see off hand is if notebooks began using non-compatible hardware and split off into a separate software market. That's something that's extremely unlikely to happen.

 

The name of a card does not determine it's performance.

Which is why it's now a low end card. Saying it's "mid range for the 8x00 series" is irrelevant, because it dosen't exist in a world with only 8x00 cards. As far as that goes, the 8600GT was actually a pretty huge disapointment when it launched (although I think a lot of that was just because people were expecting something more like the 9600GT to be what the 8600GT was).

Perhaps, but again, since the GPU has to run the same software as desktop systems, it can only reasonably be labeled based on the PC market's performance as a whole.

 

technically, my laptop runs different software than your desktop (i use osx). that means that my gpu should only be compared to other computers that run osx. the choices are the hd 2600 pro, and some midrange nvidia 7 series cards (oops- i mean ultraduper low super bottom end). that pretty much makes my card supermax high end i think. it is the highest (or about the highest) level of gpu available in osx at the moment. there might actually be some high end 7 series desktop cards out there for osx, but my card is still close in performance to those. (err. medium-rare semi low end)

disagree wholeheartedly. i think the market is separate. also, the comment is irrelevant.

i think that "midrange for laptops" is a crucial statement if you need to make a purchase decision. plus, irrelevance is irrelevant.

irrelevant.

super irrelevant?

ultra-duperrelvant.

 

If you're only going to run OS X on it, then yes, it's a somewhat different maket...although largely the system requirements are the same (or often higher for ports).

How is the market separate?

The rest of your comments are irrational.

 

Wolfpup your whole argument is irrelevant. Call the card whatever you want but it's performance is what it is. Maybe you have a fantasy card in your laptop that's better than an 8800gtx but for the rest of us in reality it's the best of the best so we call it as such. The 8600gt is still higher up there than the vast majority of video cards in laptops. The 8400, 8600GS, HD2400, X2300, go7400, go7600, these are all fairly well used cards in laptops. The vast majority out there will have one of these cards if it has a dedicated card at all. The 8600gt has performance greater than all of them. It is beaten by the 8700gt, 7900gtx/gs, 7950gtx, 8800gts/gtx. those cards are all still in use by laptops (well maybe not the 7900gs/gtx so much) and are al better than the 8600gt. So yeah, that's mid-range in my book. ANd ince the 8800gtx is the best of the best, well that would make it high-end in anyone's book.

Now let's take the "argument" a step further. Desktop video cards. At the high-end you have the 8800 series - Ultra, GTX, GTS(G92), and GT. The 9-series 9800GX2, GTX, and 9600GT. You then have ATI offering the 3870x2 and 3870 for high end as well. out of the 100 or so different types of cards being produced out there I only listed 9 cards. These cards are the best of the best both in games and on benchmarks. If you compare the 8800gtx to an 8800gt, you are still putting it above 90% of all desktop cards out there. I'd actually think with proper drivers and overclocking you could get it into the top 5 on the high end charts, the 3870, 8800gt/gts, 9800gtx (basically its an 8800gts), and possibly even the 9600gt. So top 5 cards avaiable on the market. No, that is NOT mid-range by any standards. You must have only one card in your high end category.

 

the OS requirements, you mean? Its comparable to windows xp or win2k for the OS being a hog i guess. vista is a different discussion entirely.

let me put it this way. lets compare a semi truck which has 600 hp and a toyota tundra, which has 190 hp. after all, they drive on the same roads, and and they both carrying loads.

but it just doesn't make sense to compare the two. one is going to be right for you, one is not. there is something fundamentally wrong about comparing the power of a semi truck to a toyota tundra. sure, the semi can lift a much heavier load and is more powerful, but the tundra has other practical benefits. you would never be able to convince anyone in the market for a small vehicle to buy a semi truck because the semi truck is more powerful than the toyota tundra. nor would you be able to convince someone who absolutely needed the biggest baddest load carrying transport vehicle possible to get a tundra over a semi.

one fits what you need, the other does not. it just matter how much greater power you can get for a vehicle, someone who needs a small vehicle isn't going to buy the semi. and the fact that semi trucks and toyotas are both load carrying motor vehicles and that they both drive on the same road doesn't affect the toyota buyer, either. his truck isn't "less good" because there are semi's on the road. he really doesn't care about the semi, and doesn't even consider that he could be getting a better and faster load carrying capacity / trip dollar. this guy selected the truck over the semi for more than one reason.

the guy's first decision will be to choose what kind of vehicle he wants. does he need a truck or a semi? it will be the type of question he can think about and answer on his own. THEN he will look at different types of trucks and determine which one is the best for him and for his budget.

its the same thing with computers. the first choice is a pretty obvious one: do i need a desktop or a laptop?

after you make that qualification, then you start to look at your options. but the fact that there is a 9800gx2 isn't going to make you need a desktop all of a sudden. if you legitimately needed a laptop in the first place, the introduction of the 9800gx2 doesn't matter one way or another to you. maybe as a desktop man the reverse will make more sense. shoe is on the other foot: you bought a desktop. its not portable, but "portability" wasn't something you were looking for in a computer. so what if you were offered something that was even MORE portable? lets say you were looking at a macbook pro or a dell xps m1530. you said, "no, i want something faster." so then i offer you a (nonexistent) macbook air with an 8600m gs. its almost as fast, but much smaller. you still aren't going to change your mind. you didn't care about portability in the first place. more of it still isn't going to sway you, because you value performance first. you want high gaming quality. you chose a desktop. since the desktop vs laptop is the first decision, a prospective buyer would not compare performance between desktops and laptops. since you have a different priority of values, you belong to a different market segment than laptop buyers.

i hope that makes it clear. i know it was long.

 

Which I've said repeatedly. How does that make my argument irrelevant?

The best of the best for a single GPU is currently a 9800GTX.

True, but that has nothing at all to do with a card's performance, nor its classification.

Irrelevant. This argument would be scoffed at by tech sites. Mid range cards typically have somewhere in the neighborhood of half the performance of high end cards, and retail for around $120ish-200ish dollars. By either measure the 8600GT is not mid range.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with how a piece of hardware is classified. Just because one person may be using one particular computer for a different use than they'd use another computer does not somehow make the components in the computer they won't push as hard higher end. They're still the same components, still classified in the same way.

 

so what if i had the most powerful truck in the world?

you would say that its pointless to classify the most powerful truck because there are other vehicles like semi's that are on the same road that have way more power.

they both have engines that are measured in horsepower.

its useful to compare the truck against other trucks and not-so-useful to compare it against semi's.

i would say the most powerful truck has a high end engine. you would say that its low end because more powerful engines exist. i think you overlooked something important. the truck is not competing against the semi. even though they both are similar in that they share the same road, the semi has a lot more space and takes a lot more gas to power its engine. the truck doesn't want to give up its mobility for that. you could have a high end truck engine and a high end semi engine.

to you, no engine is "high end" unless it is also in the heaviest class.

and similarly, no gpu is "high end" unless it is in the biggest, bulkiest form factor. my gpu is about the size of a quarter. yours is about as big as your face. in the "quarter size" division, its medium-approaching-high-ish end. i don't care that it runs the same games.

but, since you won't give in, i concede. in the grand scheme of things, the 8600m gt is low end. very low end.

but you know what? so is a 9800gx2. because in the grand scheme of things, there are render farms that have tons of graphics cards. hollywood productions that do CGI use 100 GPU's at a time or more to crank out frames faster. really, only these massive render farms can be considered the "high end". your card can't even come close to the power of these massive render farms, it doesn't even matter if you have quad sli 9800gx2s. they still win. by a LOT. so unless you have 100 GPU's rendering simultaneously, you can't be a part of the high end. of course, their render farm is probably bigger than your house, but it doesn't matter. THAT is high end, and nothing else is, period. and YOU can't be a part of the "high end" unless you own a 6-figure-priced render farm.

 

Wolfpup, would you care to provide any sort of quantitative measure for how you sort out your classification system? You declared everything I threw out (ability to run most graphics-intensive game on the market at a certain setting, ability to run all games on the market) as irrelevant, for some reason, but you also declared that performance is all that matters. So what, exactly, do you use to measure performance? And what, then, are your cut-offs for your various qualifications?