13-inch Gaming Performance under Windows

Like I said earlier, this is the first Apple portable with Intel graphics in over two years. What does this mean for graphics performance? Bad things. See, when Jarred looked at HD 3000 in our SNB mobile testbed, he found that it was a bit faster than the 320M at low settings, and a little

Like I said earlier, this is the first Apple portable with Intel graphics in over two years. What does this mean for graphics performance?

Bad things. See, when Jarred looked at HD 3000 in our SNB mobile testbed, he found that it was a bit faster than the 320M at low settings, and a little bit slower at medium settings. The i5-2415M has the same specs as our testbed, with 12 execution units with a max clock speed of 1300MHz. Given the gaming performance from our Sandy Bridge review, I was actually pretty optimistic that the new 13" MacBook Pro's graphics weren't actually worse than the outgoing models.

Oh how I wish I wasn't wrong. 3DMark scores go down about 20% relative to the SNB testbed and stay within 10% of the old MBP. So far, so mediocre.

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark06

Futuremark 3DMark05

Futuremark 3DMark03

The good news in the gaming numbers is that everything is playable, at low settings at least. Unfortunately, performance is, for the most part, a lot slower than the outgoing 13" MBP. 30% slower in STALKER, 20% slower in Mass Effect 2, DiRT 2, and Battlefield: Bad Company 2, 10% slower in L4D2, and a hair faster in StarCraft 2. StarCraft isn't actually that surprising, since it's by far the most CPU-centric game in our benchmark suite.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

DiRT 2

Left 4 Dead 2

Mass Effect 2

Stalker: Call of Pripyat

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7orrAp5utnZOde6S7zGiqoaenZIFzfJRoq6GdXaKupK7OqKJmqKKkerOx1aKcsGVhaHqiusNmaG5lmaOwqXmRaWhqZZKntq%2Bz0maqmqaUrnqjvsidnp5nYW0%3D

 Share!