The Bottom Line
The MacBook Pro, 15” & 17”
The MacBook Pro we tested was the start of the range model: 2.2 GHz Core 2 duo, 128 MB of video memory and a 15” screen. There is a fast version, which offers a 2.4 GHz (pr 2.6) and a 256 MB graphic card. This should be the option favoured by gamers because a great portion of the 2008 game releases will be limited by the 128 MB on the one we tested. The 17” on the other hand is less suitable to games: the graphic card is identical (in its 256 MB version) but the resolution of the screen increases (1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1200). If you want to play, we recommend the 15” version.
The iMacs : 20” & 24”
The iMac we tested was the highest model in its range and therefore the fastest. The range is composed of another three models, including one that we advise against for gaming. In the 24”, the cheapest model, if you add 1GB of RAM something quite interesting happens. The difference of power on the processor (it uses a 2.4 GHz Core 2Duo) is not important and the graphics card stays the same as our test model. On the other hand, if you prefer a 20” iMac, only the high range model is noteworthy. The resolution is inferior to that of the 24”, but the configuration is similar. It should then be usable by gamers. We advise against the start of the range 20” model. The reason for this being that the graphics card (Radeon HD 2400 XT Mobility) is much too weak for gamers.
The Mac Pro
Finally, there is the Mac Pro. As we explained at the beginning of the article it is very expensive and not well suited to games. The basic graphics card is a poor Geforce 7300 GT and the options only offers two powerful cards. The first, sold at €1600, is a professional graphics card (of the Geforce 7 family), the Quadro FX4500. The second, available for €250, is an ATI Radeon X1900 XT. It is an old generation card which, although powerful, lacks the functionality of more recent cards. While waiting for the next update, which should offer more recent graphic cards, it is impossible for us to recommend this machine to gamers. As we have previously seen, apart from the MacBook (but that was predictable), a Mac can in fact be used for gaming. It won’t be amazing but it will be usable. This is especially true of the 15”MacBook Pro. Then you have to make up your mind whether to go with Mac OS X or Windows…
Mac OS X: Simplicity
The advantage of playing in Mac OS X is in its simplicity. You copy the contents of the disc onto your hard drive and play (Simple as). You don’t need to restart, change drives, etc. It is good quality and quick. On the downside it does cut away a huge selection of games and sometimes the performances are not great (especially with recent games).
Windows: The Advantages
On Windows the gamers will be at home. But they’ll be presented with the mixed bag of never ending installs (especially with the majority of Macs’ optical drives), driver problems, but also rather high performances and of course a much bigger range of games. Oh and you will have to restart you’re machine a great deal.
The Fairweather fan versus the hardcore fan:
Actually, in the end the choice is pretty simple. If you want to have fun with your Mac from time to time, relaxing a little with Mac OS X is the solution. If you play games often, that Dune 2, Moto Racer or Indiana Jones and the last crusade are good memories to you, Windows is of course the solution. But then in this case, you’ve got to ask the question: Why a Mac?
Latest Miscellaneous News
- 09/02 – Google Could be Planning a Retail Store in Dublin
- 08/02 – Anonymous Hacks Syrian President; His Password Was 12345
- 08/02 – Motorola's Motoluxe to Hit UK End of February
- 08/02 – TomTom, UK Insurance Company Team Up for Cheaper Policies
- 08/02 – Microsoft and UK Protection Firm Create Child-safe Browser
The Bottom Line (corrected): Macs = No good for games (maybe battleships and doom II)
Do you mean ultimate? (as far as I'm aware there is no "ultra" version of vista) and was it ultimate 64bit or 32bit?
A very weak and uninformed review. The MacBook and MacBookPro are not designed for gaming, but for media and business use. So why test them? The IMacs that can play games very well, Just search in Youtube.com for "Imac crysis" and watch the videos. Why did they use Vista? everyone knows that it creates a huge performance hit for games, that why Mac Gamers who use boot camp use Windows XP. The bottom of the range MacPro was excluded? why? because it might have shown a result that the authors didn't like? it only costs $2299. Not $3000 and comes with the HD2600 XT card not the 7300 mentioned in the article. I guess the article was written some ago before 10.5.1/2 as both updates have enhanced features that benefit gaming and in bootcamp you can put any Windows graphics card in. I guess that Pierre already had his conclusion and wrote an article to back it up. Very poor composition, certainly not constructive journalism! Why not find someone who knows about Mac's to write an article on getting the best out of gaming on a mac, just pop along to http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=125 there are lots of people there who could tell you differently. Overall a disappointing article for its lack of accurate information and depth.
Pretty bad review....
There is a 256 version of the MacBook Pro, which if you are a gamer would be the one you go for...
You CAN scale the res on all those machines, and even have the apps autoswitch them, so I don't understand your comment that the Mac cannot do resolution scaling so you had to go with full res...
While I agree you should not be buying a Mac if what you want is gaming, this article was just uninformed....
Good points above - a proper review should use the latest machines.
I still found the review very interesting because it directly compares the performance with Parallels and VMWare to OS X native and Windows native. One of the big selling points of Parallels (which I bought) is that it emulates accelerated 3D graphics in Windows. And this review shows that this is just marketing hot air as that 3D acceleration makes the difference between 5 FPS and 1 FPS, 5 times as fast in marketing speak, still completely unusable in the real world.
So, big thanks for making the effort!
PS: I am not a native english speaker myself but the english in this article is pretty hard to understand in places. I am sure you'd find english-speaking volunteers to edit / proof read this...
Face it, the MAC is a far better computer because it has support for a far better operating system. Windows is just BS, as you will see quite easily for yourself if you actually use the computer and don't just play games. Life is short folks, do yourself a favor and give it a try. Be warned though, it's very true, once you go Mac you don't go back.
But some readers jump to conclusions (e.g. "Bottomline, Macs are no good for games"--geez did you read this at all?), and even the writers of this article have many misconceptions--it is obvious you are out of your element a bit. But I applaud your efforts nonetheless, don't get me wrong.
Windows is basically 'owned' now by OS X, OS X has Windows running in a window, or available at the touch of a button. And there are plenty of instances of "It is even faster, generally, than on Windows."
Thanks for pointing out that even WINDOWS runs better on Mac! Which it does. And, you don't have to rely on Windows horrible and almost complete lack of security.
Macs suck
What we wanted was a more direct comparison between hardware and OS. Macs use PC hardware now so the comparison should be much easier. I suspect Tom is being paid, forced or coerced into not showing us this important comparison. Macs suck but I suspect their OS is far less addled than vista.
Are They Any Good For Gaming? The reveiw is flawed in some ways yes, but the definitive answer is that if you want to play the latest and best games, why get a mac?
I had a mac, and I'll never go back...to mac that is. I can buy 3 pc laptops with similar internal hardware for the price of a mac nowadays. Macs are to computers what Starbucks is to coffee. The folks that drink it can come up with all kinds of reasons why they are right to pay 3 times as much for their 'super special' coffee. More power too ya, but seriously, macworld...wake up. Macs just can't compete.
Compete to what Gryphyn, compete to what?