# Why do Macs suck at gaming? plz help.



## spindacut (Feb 14, 2006)

I recently bought a macbook pro, top configuration and was excited about the fact that i would be able to run osx, and then switch to boot camp when i wanted to game a little. I must say that gaming on a MBP compared with gaming on my friends pc laptop with similar, if not seemingly worse specs is better!? How is this possible? Are there hardware pieces in a pc laptop that just make 3D gaming that much better for the dark side? Any help is apreciated....


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

My answer is because Macs aren't made for gaming. If you want to game, buy a PC or better yet, a console.


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

hi,

What are the specs of the lower spec PC's that you are comparing to? 

I would have guessed that the Intel Mac's are the same machine as any other PC of similar specs.

Wierd stuff man.

s.


----------



## Wako (Oct 11, 2006)

Probably because PEBCAK during windows install or drivers. I have the C2D iMac 2.0 128MB, and run BF2 with medium-high settings at 45ish fps. I used WoW at 60fps really stable.


----------



## i<3myiBookg4 (Mar 17, 2006)

mikef said:


> My answer is because Macs aren't made for gaming. If you want to game, buy a PC or better yet, a console.


Amen to that.


----------



## zen.state (Nov 29, 2005)

buying a mac for gaming is like buying an xbox for graphic design


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

mikef said:


> My answer is because Macs aren't made for gaming. If you want to game, buy a PC or better yet, a console.


I agree somewhat with that. However Certain bench marks, and reviews have suggested that the Mac does indeed have a future for gaming the problem is that developers do not optimize their apps for OS X. I will see if I can digg up that article...


----------



## iLabmAn (Jan 1, 2003)

My brother who works for Epic MegaGames in Texas says that if you really want to play games, buy a console.


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

... partly due to the fact that game manufacturers consider the market too small... in return, Apple knows most of us don't give a rat's bum for gaming on our Macs.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

spindacut said:


> I must say that gaming on a MBP compared with gaming on my friends pc laptop with similar, if not seemingly worse specs is better!? How is this possible? Are there hardware pieces in a pc laptop that just make 3D gaming that much better for the dark side? Any help is apreciated....


Without knowing what game or what your friend's specs are, it has been observed that the MBP tends to underperform on games when compared to similarly equipped PC.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html

The Doom 3 benchmark showed the Acer TravelMate outperforming an almost identically equipped MBP (note this was before the C2D came out).

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2006/04/24/macbook_pro_apple_bootcamp/3.html

This one isn't quite as even as the PC has an X1600XT in it but there is a substantial difference, more than there probably should be (also before the C2D came out).

Also, the ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 is a pretty average card for gaming and there are certainly more powerful ones available at reasonable prices these days.

Benchmarks



> How is this possible? Are there hardware pieces in a pc laptop that just make 3D gaming that much better for the dark side? Any help is apreciated


I've heard rumours that Apple underclocks the X1600 in the MBP. Can't confirm that though.

I don't know how big of a gamer you are or how long you plan to keep your MBP but it's future as a gaming platform is bleak. Newer games are going to challenge your GPU and DirectX 10 will eventually bury it altogether because the X1600 can't use it.

Even if your friend's PC outperforms your MBP, you should still be able to enjoy lots of games from the last couple of years without problem.


----------



## TeeC (Feb 5, 2005)

An Old Soul said:


> ... partly due to the fact that game manufacturers consider the market too small... in return, Apple knows most of us don't give a rat's bum for gaming on our Macs.


Crudely, but aptly put. Apples are designed to work at computing, not gaming.
TTFN,
TeeC


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

TeeC said:


> Crudely, but aptly put. Apples are designed to work at computing, not gaming.
> TTFN,
> TeeC



get a macintel, bootcamp, xp and game away


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> get a macintel, bootcamp, xp and game away


That's what the original poster did and is complaining about the performance to a similar PC laptop.

In a few comparision tests I saw, the MacBook Pro running Windows seemed to do pretty well compared to competitors. I don't have a link though to prove it.

I think it was on barefeats.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i notice the original poster didn't post the specs on his MBP

for gaming i think you'd need the 256 mb video card


i've been trying out windows gaming on my blackbook and realize i need a mbp with 256 card

still one box for both is such a deal


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> for gaming i think you'd need the 256 mb video card


You need a good 256 mb graphics card, an ATI Mobility Radeon x1600 is going to increasingly show it's age over the coming year because of it's GPU.

Don't get me wrong, you should be able to play this year's games with one using medium or lower settings it's just that when you think about how much power Oblivion took to run in 2006 and that the high profile games in 2007 will require even more, you can start to understand why it isn't a good card to pick up on a new system if you like gaming...especially considering the price you pay for a MBP.

Consider that you could get a similarly equipped XPS M1710 with a 256 mb Nvidia GeForce GO 7900 GTX for about $210 more than the baseline MBP and $300 less than the mid-range MBP, from a gaming perspective it makes a lot of sense.

Better yet, wait for a laptop that can handle Directx 10, which is still down the road a bit.


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

Zoziw, for the most part you have it right.

However, the X1600 is _considerably_ under-clocked in the MBPs (with the exception of the 17" model, which has a variable clock speed, kind of like Intel SpeedStep). Apple did this in order to make battery life more reasonable, and to keep the fans from running constantly.

In Windows, you can clock the card back up to its factory specifications, and then the MBP should be much more comparable. My Rev. A MBP was clocked over 25% less than its iMac equivalent.

You can change this by using a third party utility called ATI-Tool, specifically 0.25 Beta 14 (anything newer will NOT recognize the card properly). But before you click that link, * this program gives you the power to render your Mac unusable, and Apple will NOT cover it under warranty. * Now that we got that out of the way, I would not suggest clocking the card above 450 MHz (Core and Mem). I personally wouldn't clock mine much over 400, because I don't need it higher than that. Experiment in a "safe zone", and if you see any artifacts or signs of trouble, go back to the original settings immediately. And if you bust your Mac, I'm not responsible .


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> However, the X1600 is considerably under-clocked in the MBPs


I've heard that before but could never confirm it. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i've been trying out windows gaming on my blackbook and realize i need a mbp with 256 card


Er.... you didn't know that _before_ you bought the MacBook? Black doesn't make it faster ya know 

See how the Intel-Mini sucks at gaming (even the PPC-Mini is faster)
http://www.barefeats.com/mincd.html

MacBook versus MacBook Pro:
http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd8.html

Gets beaten by G4 Powerbook:
http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

MacBook C2D tests (still sucks):
http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd8.html

But come on, MacSpectrum, you MUST have known this. You know Macs.

Pertinent to the OP, Windows and OS X benchmarks on the same MacBook Pro:
http://www.barefeats.com/bootcamp.html


----------



## spindacut (Feb 14, 2006)

well my friend has an acer i think similar to the one in the comparison tests. I think his processor is just a little slower and might only be a core duo only, without the 2. has 2gb ram, x1600 256mb card, basically similar across the board, I'm not the best with figuring out hardware, but to me it shouldn't make that much difference, but it does, and it's annoying. I have been a mac fan forever, ad it just rubs it in my face when I am running similar if not a little bit better hardware on paper and getting smoked in the 3d department even in games like WOW...i mean is the only advntage of having a mac these days style? with a loss in performance? I mean you can boot osx on pc now anyways...xeightsix...and at a more affordable price. Still debating, have a few more days to return....help save this confused little boy from going to the other side of the tracks.....


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I think you should well document the differences in order to assume that claim.

What's the system bus on the Acer? What kind of RAM? How fast is the HD? We're talking about throughput.. not similar 'Specs.' on paper. Sure, you could have 1GB of PC 2700 SDRAM.. but 1GB of DDR2 is going to wallop the hell out of it.

Don't judge a (Mac)Book by its cover. 


(edited: forgot piece of information! )


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> i mean is the only advntage of having a mac these days style? with a loss in performance?


Macs have lots of advantages (security, stability, various kinds of editing, etc...) they just don't have the advantage when it comes to gaming.

Depending on how the game is coded your graphics card can make more of a difference than your processor, even between a CD and C2D. As I mentioned on the first page and AppleAuthority mentioned as well, the X1600 on the MBP has been underclocked so you are going to take a hit there.



> Still debating, have a few more days to return....help save this confused little boy from going to the other side of the tracks.....


If you are into gaming your best bet is a PC that has been designed with that in mind. If gaming is secondary, a Mac might be the way to go.

An other alternative would be to keep the Mac and pick up a console, all of which should be widely available in the next couple of weeks.

As I mentioned before, something to keep in mind is that Vista is out at the end of the month and represents the dawn of DirectX 10. A Nvidia GeForce Go 7900 GTX is a nice graphics card that blows away most, but the hardware wasn't designed for DirectX 10 and will never work with DirectX 10.

I might have less disposable income than you, but if I were looking to drop $2,000+ on a gaming laptop, I'd wait a couple of months for the DX10 cards to start showing up. A DirectX 9.c card would probably make it into late 2008, but a decent DX10 card could last quite a bit longer.

Consider that my Nvidia GeForce3 Ti200, that I purchased in 2001, got me through Doom3 on slightly better than minimum settings and can still run WoW at medium settings with little problem.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

spindacut said:


> is the only advntage of having a mac these days style? with a loss in performance?


People who have used Macs long enough know that cosmetics are NOT the only reason. Mac OS X is a better designed OS, which results in not only a better performing operating system but also better designed applications.



> I mean you can boot osx on pc now anyways...xeightsix...and at a more affordable price. Still debating, have a few more days to return....help save this confused little boy from going to the other side of the tracks.....


Running OS X on a garden variety PC means trying to MAKE it work and PRAYING that an OS update from Apple doesn't break it. In other words, it's A HASSLE. If you want A HASSLE computing experience, go Windows or Linux. If, however, you want a system that just works and keeps on working (way more often than Windows), get a Mac.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> Er.... you didn't know that _before_ you bought the MacBook? Black doesn't make it faster ya know
> But come on, MacSpectrum, you MUST have known this. You know Macs.
> 
> Pertinent to the OP, Windows and OS X benchmarks on the same MacBook Pro:
> http://www.barefeats.com/bootcamp.html


1. i didn't think i was going to be out of my house this long and would have my gaming PC back

2. i wanted to try out the blackbook

3. i can always trade up

4. now i have first hand knowledge of macbooks


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

Hold on a second.

Windows is an entirely different beast than OS X, and there are many variables at hand, such as RAM which Vexel already noted. You can't compare two machines even if they have similar specs, because each for different situations. It does not make them inferior to the other.

The MacBook Pro was designed to be a portable Mac Pro, offering the power needed to satisfy that realm of users. That realm of users are designers working on the native OS X, not gamers running upon an unsupported Windows. Thus, the MacBook Pro delivers the goods, better than its competitors. By no means does "style" outweigh performance.

That said, you need to look at all the facts. Have you tried clocking your Mac to the level of the Acer? I doubt the Acer is underclocked, because PC manufacturers don't worry about things like battery life, and heat. That Acer is probably not 1 inch thin closed, unlike the MBP. You must put these things into consideration.

Also, the state of Windows is always a big variable. Double check you don't have some crap running in the background bogging down your system.


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread but having a dedicated API such as Direct X definitely helps out game developers.


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

I am still looking for that article! I have over 120 days of history to look over  I could of sworn I saw an article that did benchmarks and was discussing the Mac and games. It did state that Macs have a future for gaming and also stated that the reason why some games under perform on the Mac is because they are not optimized for OS X.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Macs do not suck at Gaming...

Game Makers suck at releasing games for the Mac.

Games are harder to come by but many major titles are released on Mac.

I find most Mac released games are worth buying, while on average Most PC games are hardly worth readng the box instore. It is a matter of relative numbers.

Emulation is fun and nostalgic, but if you must have the latest releases, buy a console. It is way cheaper tham replacing a mac every 12 months


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

AppleAuthority said:


> because PC manufacturers don't worry about things like battery life, and heat.


You're kidding, right? What an ignorant statement!



> Also, the state of Windows is always a big variable. Double check you don't have some crap running in the background bogging down your system.


I know the state of all my Windows machines at any given time.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Who uses a laptop for gaming? Laptops and desktops, while similar in specs (generally) the laptop can't perform as nicely as a desktop. My Mac G5 games BEAUTIFULLY! It's the lack of titles that sucks.

As for as Bootcamp, I've heard a lot of people talk about how impressed they were with Mac desktops in terms of performance under Windows, so I would say that whatever issues one would have with a laptop should reconsider their rig.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Who uses a laptop for gaming?


Never could figure that one out myself...


----------



## Jet_Star (May 20, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> Who uses a laptop for gaming?


It's for when you go over to your buddy's place and have a LAN party I suppose.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Jet_Star said:


> It's for when you go over to your buddy's place and have a LAN party I suppose.


Meh, that's what the internet is for!  Hence, millions spent on desktops to game. No one wants to leave their game lair for anything, even food.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

Jet_Star said:


> It's for when you go over to your buddy's place and have a LAN party I suppose.


Hahahaha... thankfully my friends don't know what a LAN party is


----------



## spindacut (Feb 14, 2006)

yea, basically would be for taking gaming on the go, and don't wanna sacrifice too much performance of our desktop machines...good if you travel a lot as well, specially if you are a gaming addict


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

An Old Soul said:


> ... partly due to the fact that game manufacturers consider the market too small... in return, Apple knows most of us don't give a rat's bum for gaming on our Macs.


Tell that to all the Mac people I meet on UT2004 servers. Tell that to Epic, who will most certainly create UT2007 for the Mac.

Apple may not care about gaming, but alot of people game on their Macs.

As for a laptop not being a gaming machine... ummm... are you kidding... who uses a laptop for gaming... and console games will never be as good as computer games especially for custom maps, modding, etc...


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

I guess you gotta be a gamer to get it, because it all goes over my head...

I'll continue playing my Xbox and computing on my notebook.


----------

