Macbook Pro and gaming

[choccyphilly]

Hi all, I've decided to get my first MBP for some office work, browsing etc however I'd also want to play games like elite dangerous, skyrim online, minecraft. Not sure if that's even something MBP would be able to handle - like I said I'm new to Apple environment.

What's the most demanding game on your MBP and what configuration would you recommend? I can't afford a top whack MBP... Looking to spend ?1400 max for either brand new or a refurb.

Thanks
Luke

 

[Algus]

MacBook Pro only has integrated graphics or cards that aren't really optimized for gaming. Expect low frame rates (20-35 FPS) and low visual settings. That said, MBPs pack enough hardware for the kinds of games I play and I (usually) don't care about visual settings.

The most visually demanding game I have played is probably The Old Republic, which I can get on around medium at 1080p with 30 FPS average. This is on my old Ivy Bridge Mac mini so 2015 MacBook Pro will probably have better results.

They're just not gaming machines, but gaming is certainly something you can do if you aren't really picky. I play mostly older and indie stuff (can't remember the last AAA game I bought new...Skyrim maybe?) so Macs meet my gaming needs just fine.

 

[eastbayrae]

You won't be playing Skyrim on any current MacBook. Even if you can get it to run it will be virtually unplayable. Buy a Razor Blade, similar quality as a MacBook.

 

[Closingracer]

You won't be playing Skyrim on any current MacBook. Even if you can get it to run it will be virtually unplayable. Buy a Razor Blade, similar quality as a MacBook.

Na you can run skyrim on the latest broadwell Intel iris graphics....low settings and it's playable around 40 fps. That's at least from what I've read around about this subject on various forums and etc

 

[nightridah]

I'm playing right now Dirt 3 and CoD: Modern Warfare 2. They run good but you will hear the fan working...

 

[mikeo007]

You'll either want a 15" Macbook Pro now, or wait for the next crop of 13" Macbook Pros.
All 15" Macbook Pros have a reasonable graphics card (Iris Pro on the low end, dedicated Radeon on the high end).
Current 13" (and most previous 13") have a poor graphics chip card.
The next 13" Macbook (assuming Apple releases one) will use a chipset with improved Iris graphics that will be substantially better than anything before it, roughly in line with the new Surface Book that Microsoft released with its NVidia graphics.

 

[Closingracer]

You'll either want a 15" Macbook Pro now, or wait for the next crop of 13" Macbook Pros.
All 15" Macbook Pros have a reasonable graphics card (Iris Pro on the low end, dedicated Radeon on the high end).
Current 13" (and most previous 13") have a poor graphics chip card.
The next 13" Macbook (assuming Apple releases one) will use a chipset with improved Iris graphics that will be substantially better than anything before it, roughly in line with the new Surface Book that Microsoft released with its NVidia graphics.

The 13 Intel iris graphics is far from "poor". They are better then the HD 6000 and those do fairly decent with some titles that aren't graphic intensive like the Witcher 3. Skyrim will work fine on HD 6000 and slightly better on iris 6100

 

[mikeo007]

The 13 Intel iris graphics is far from "poor". They are better then the HD 6000 and those do fairly decent with some titles that aren't graphic intensive like the Witcher 3. Skyrim will work fine on HD 6000 and slightly better on iris 6100

The 6000 and 6100 can not run Witcher 3 at a playable framerate.

I get that this whole thing is subjective, but 13-15 fps on the lowest possible graphics settings and lowest possible resolution is not "fairly decent".

The Broadwell Iris Pro graphics (6200) and the upcoming 540, 550, etc are leaps and bounds better than the 6000/6100. That eDRAM RAM makes a huge difference.

 

[Closingracer]

The 6000 and 6100 can not run Witcher 3 at a playable framerate.

I get that this whole thing is subjective, but 13-15 fps on the lowest possible graphics settings and lowest possible resolution is not "fairly decent".

The Broadwell Iris Pro graphics (6200) and the upcoming 540, 550, etc are leaps and bounds better than the 6000/6100. That eDRAM RAM makes a huge difference.

Did you even bother to read my post or just went straight to responding? I just said games that AREN'T graphic intensive like the Witcher 3.... Skyrim will run fine on the iris 6100 given your running Windows and older titles like wow will run fine


And the 540, and 550 aren't "leap and bounds" better.....ive used the surface pro 4 with the i5 model and it's not leaps and bounds better then the iris 6100 graphics even if you booted windows on your 13 Macbook Pro.

 

[mikeo007]

Did you even bother to read my post or just went straight to responding? I just said games that AREN'T graphic intensive like the Witcher 3.... Skyrim will run fine on the iris 6100 given your running Windows and older titles like wow will run fine


And the 540, and 550 aren't "leap and bounds" better.....ive used the surface pro 4 with the i5 model and it's not leaps and bounds better then the iris 6100 graphics even if you booted windows on your 13 Macbook Pro.

I read your post as saying games like the witcher 3 aren't graphics intensive, my bad.
Point still remains, running a game over 4 years old like skyrim, with low graphics settings, that wasn't a graphics hog even when it was released, is not impressive. The 540 is roughly twice as fast as the 6000 and 6100 for gaming performance, and it's not even the high end Iris graphics part for Skylake.

Your point was that the 6000/6100 were far from poor, and I my statement was that current and most past 13" macbooks have poor graphics chips. I was comparing with the graphics available in the 15" models and the upcoming Skylake models. Both of those would be considered decent at best. The 13" chips have always been considerably slower than the 15", which makes them poor by comparison.

Want it quantified?
Notebook check ranks the Iris 540/550 and the 6000/6100 class 3 (low-mid)
The 550 is the top card on the list, the 6000 is just a couple spots from the bottom.
It's comparatively poor, even if it's good enough for you.

Hell, I'm still playing some games on a 320m and it's good enough for me, but it's quantitatively poor, regardless of my opinion.

 

[Closingracer]

I read your post as saying games like the witcher 3 aren't graphics intensive, my bad.
Point still remains, running a game over 4 years old like skyrim, with low graphics settings, that wasn't a graphics hog even when it was released, is not impressive. The 540 is roughly twice as fast as the 6000 and 6100 for gaming performance, and it's not even the high end Iris graphics part for Skylake.

Your point was that the 6000/6100 were far from poor, and I my statement was that current and most past 13" macbooks have poor graphics chips. I was comparing with the graphics available in the 15" models and the upcoming Skylake models. Both of those would be considered decent, not great by any stretch.

Want it quantified?
Notebook check ranks the Iris 540/550 and the 6000/6100 class 3 (low-mid)
The 550 is the top card on the list, the 6000 is just a couple spots from the bottom.
It's comparatively poor, even if it's good enough for you.

Hell, I'm still playing some games on a 320m and it's good enough for me, but it's quantitatively poor, regardless of my opinion.

The iris graphics in the 13 inch isn't "poor" relative to Intel graphics goes.... They are still bad in general but for light gaming they should run most games fine in low settings that isn't the Witcher 3 or the like. I have a gaming laptop with 8gb of ram, Intel i7-4710MQ with Intel HD 4600 and a nvidia 970m and I ran a few games on the HD 4600 and at low it ran the Sims 4 fine among other games in my library. Granted it is on Windows and if you want to game on your Macbook you should run Windows. As far as the 15 inch goes it also runs a haswell chip like my gaming laptop and has a better gpu inside compared to my integrated one the Intel iris pro 6000 or whatever the number is and should do fairly better in Windows then my HD 4600.

 

[Highrisedrifter]

As an Elite Dangerous and Skyrim Online (The Elder Scrolls Online, to give it its correct name) player, the Mac isn't ideal.

You will get a far better frame rate and graphics quality from a comparatively priced Windows PC. Trust me, i'm in exactly this boat at the moment.

Something like this (plucked out of the air after about a minute's search on Google) will do you far better for gaming than a MacBook will - 9S7-16H512-668 | MSI GS60 Broadwell i7-5700hq 16GB 1GB+128GB SSD Nvidia GTX 970M 3GB 15.6" 4k Window - Laptops Direct

I am getting an MSI Gaming laptop when I go back to the USA as the one I want isn't available in the UK yet.

 

[Closingracer]

As an Elite Dangerous and Skyrim Online (The Elder Scrolls Online, to give it its correct name) player, the Mac isn't ideal.

You will get a far better frame rate and graphics quality from a comparatively priced Windows PC. Trust me, i'm in exactly this boat at the moment.

Something like this (plucked out of the air after about a minute's search on Google) will do you far better for gaming than a MacBook will - 9S7-16H512-668 | MSI GS60 Broadwell i7-5700hq 16GB 1GB+128GB SSD Nvidia GTX 970M 3GB 15.6" 4k Window - Laptops Direct

I am getting an MSI Gaming laptop when I go back to the USA as the one I want isn't available in the UK yet.

If your gaming macs aren't ideal period..... I have a gaming laptop for my games. I play some light gaming on my Macbook Pro and it does the job with low settings