|
On September 20 2009 07:07 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2009 05:13 ghermination wrote:On September 20 2009 04:13 finkr wrote:On July 13 2009 07:04 Rob Air Guitar wrote:
I have a Macbook Pro 2.1 ghz with a 1.5gb RAm and a radeon x 1600 vram 128mb. Don't think it's gonna run it some how. Unfortunately I have to get a mac but they haven't released the new chipset yet. Darn. I wonder if the 512mb graphics card in the newer machines will run it at a reasonable quality? What's the new chipset. I'm also wondering whether the new 13" Macbook pro's can run Starcraft 2. They have GeForce 9400M. Is this enough to run Starcraft2 / Diablo 3? the 9400m is pretty weak. I would be surprised if it handles hl2 well. Don't waste your money buying macbooks, get a desktop pc. Telling people who use Macs to not waste money and just get a desktop PC doesn't solve their problem if they want or need the better UI that OSX provides or use one for professional reasons (eg: I'm an Industrial Designer). The correct response would be, either go Mac Pro/iMac or get a desktop PC.
This must be a troll.
|
Well mac aren't really meant to run games esp mac pros
mac pros are render farms nearly server like meant for strong music and graphics editing and production it's why companies like BlackMagic make non compressing media tuner cards more for mac then for a PC
Really one really shouldn't ask if they can run it on their mac because it's frankly not too much intended for that use.
|
|
|
Again my point wasn't the mac can't run games it's just it not a focus of their intended market. Which means discussing about price for performance for macs in games is just as pointless as talking about price and performance for high end render work for windows instead of a proper unix-like os meaning a mac pro or some sort of server rack set up.
|
|
|
LOLOLOL.
GT130, just by the name you can tell it is quite a bit slower than the rebranded 9800gtx+, the gt250. It has performance around the range of an 8500GT (read: BAD) And a 512mb 4870 for about $300? LOL. On newegg a 1gb 4870 can be had for about $129.99
|
You know it's bullshit when they advertise "The fastest MAC graphics ever." 4870 is nice and all but that's the best it's pulling on their pseudo BTX bullshit of their mobo they better put them in crossfire, because mac pros are usually hooked up to nice monitors nice big ones too but there is no crossfire or sli when it comes to a mac
Also 6.6x faster then
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB GDDR3 (previous generation)
That is not that fast the ATI 2000's design was pure shit for it's time the G80 G92 designs from nvidia just raped ATI until they could pull a respectable cards with the 3000's. Which is even more proven by the fact the GT120 rapes that stupid card which is a non gaming /light gaming marketed card from nvidia and is a re branded GeForce 9500 GT which is a crippled 8800GT.
It's sad that they don't list actual numbers in fps.
Mac pros serve an important purpose to the tech community.
Quality cheap gaming is not one of them.
Personally i'd love a 8k 12k-14k render farm mac pro if i had the money or job for it shove a nice blackmagic pro card in there and make some really nice video and audio rips and edits. It's Mac Pro for a reason it's not professional gaming it's professional video and audio work they are not a server rack a bit more then just 1 but i mean they practically are.
It's funny because the fastest MAC card is the Nvidia GTX285 which is not sold with that
|
uh they specifically state that it will game. As a purpose
|
Just ccurious, has sc2 engine/graphics made any big improvments since the announcement day may 19th 2007 ?
Most of the videos the stuff looks the same. Just curious if my now 2 year old card will still be good enough to run the game. (it runs HoN pretty well).
|
I think you're all over-reacting. If Blizzard's past games are any indicator Starcraft 2 will probably run fine on a cardboard box with a hamster on a wheel inside.
|
On September 26 2009 14:47 generic88 wrote:
I think you're all over-reacting. If Blizzard's past games are any indicator Starcraft 2 will probably run fine on a cardboard box with a hamster on a wheel inside.
But if you want to play it at a decent resolution you should at least go for SLI or CrossFireX, so make that two hamsters.
|
On September 26 2009 14:47 generic88 wrote:
I think you're all over-reacting. If Blizzard's past games are any indicator Starcraft 2 will probably run fine on a cardboard box with a hamster on a wheel inside.
Try to look at the system requirements of red alert 3 and to find the system requirements of sc2. That means at least a 128mb card and 1 gig of ram for XP/2 for vista.
|
|
|
On September 27 2009 03:46 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2009 14:47 generic88 wrote:
I think you're all over-reacting. If Blizzard's past games are any indicator Starcraft 2 will probably run fine on a cardboard box with a hamster on a wheel inside. But if you want to play it at a decent resolution you should at least go for SLI or CrossFireX, so make that two hamsters.
Naw i don't think sli or crossfire will be nessary unless you are running a dual monitor set up.
I run at 1920x1200 i think i'll be fine ofc i'll be upgrading from my 8800GTS 640mb to a GT300 chip or ATI's 5870/5890 depending when the hell nvidia finally makes a pbc for that dam chip and i can compare the two, It can wait though it's not like sc2 has a real release date that is soon. Anywyas with my cpu and gpu and ram i probably wouldn't have too much problem to begin with playing sc2 at max.
Simply unless you are gonna play at 800x600 with nothing on you do need a little something in your gpu and cpu. Depends on the engine but a decent cpu is usually necessary to play a newer rts
|
I'm looking to buy a new laptop, probably a T400 because of reliability issues with my old laptop (and a discount from my Dad's work).
Intel Core 2 Duo processor P8700 (2.53GHz 1066MHz 3MBL2)
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)
160 GB Hard Disk Drive, 7200rpm
The graphics would either be
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD with vPro
or
ATI Mobility Radeon 3470 with 256MB
I'm aware integrated graphics are generally bad, but do you think it'd be able to run sc2 on low? Or should I go for the dedicated card (though from what I've seen, it's not great either).
Also, I have the option to go for netbook/PC, so I guess I could buy a netbook and build a desktop like the one ghermination suggested.
|
|
|
If you have the option of netbook/PC, I'd opt for that. When I have netbook/business laptop/PC available to me, I usually go netbook/PC, opting for laptop over that combination when one is missing. There are few situations where I would really miss a portable (or should we say transportable?) 15~17inch screen.
|
On September 30 2009 11:50 OrderlyChaos wrote:
I'm looking to buy a new laptop, probably a T400 because of reliability issues with my old laptop (and a discount from my Dad's work).
Intel Core 2 Duo processor P8700 (2.53GHz 1066MHz 3MBL2)
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)
160 GB Hard Disk Drive, 7200rpm
The graphics would either be
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD with vPro
or
ATI Mobility Radeon 3470 with 256MB
I'm aware integrated graphics are generally bad, but do you think it'd be able to run sc2 on low? Or should I go for the dedicated card (though from what I've seen, it's not great either).
Also, I have the option to go for netbook/PC, so I guess I could buy a netbook and build a desktop like the one ghermination suggested.
Go for the dedicated card definitely. The performance will be miles ahead of any integrated card, and also it will have sufficient cooling (as long as it isn't fanless, lol.)
Also, unless you completely NEED a laptop, i CANNOT recommend enough that you get a desktop. 10x the performance, 1/2 the cost, and none of the bullshit. Most laptops die within a few years anyway.
|
The laptop I listed would be around 950 dollars with the dedicated card (yes I realize you could probably get a better gaming laptop for cheaper, but again I'm going more for brand reliability than pure price. I've had a bad experience with my hp pavilion). If I went desktop/netbook, I think I'd have to wait for a break to build my pc, since I've never built one before and I'd expect it'd take me a while. How long should I expect it to take once I get all the parts?
If I went the netbook/PC route, would you recommend that I just use something similar to the one you just posted, or would it be more advantageous to wait until I had time to build it?
EDIT: Also, I want to buy soon, as my laptop is bugging out/feels near death and I want a mobile option as soon as possible.
EDIT2: I also have realized that I could go for a cheaper configuration on the thinkpad and then, with the savings, create the computer ghermination posted for a similar total price.
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor P8400 (2.26GHz 1066MHz 3MBL2) 25W
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM) (unnecessary I know, but it's only 2 dollars more than the 3GB and I think I'll be getting 64 bit windows 7 from win741)
160 GB Hard Disk Drive, 7200rpm
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD with vPro
9 cell battery (the most expensive upgrade but best for portability around campus and such)
Price: 750ish dollars
If I went 6 cell it'd be under 700 dollars
Also, thanks for the advice so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5873/1235601217174.jpg)
