Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Macbook Pro or PS3 for Modern Warfare 2?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 21, 2009 6:06:09 PM

I (like everyone else I'm sure) has a countdown calender for MW2. I'm torn between which version to buy however (pc or ps3)

I have a 17" 2009 Macbook Pro with:
2.8 GHz Core 2Duo
4GB DDR3 RAM
9600M GT Video Card 512MB RAM
Windows 7

I would prefer to play on my laptop (connected to my TV :) , but I am wondering if it will have (at 1920x1200 res) at least as good a visual experience as my ps3. I am unfamiliar with how the ps3 stacks up against modern pc's.

Any insight would be sweet!

Thanks!
October 21, 2009 6:34:48 PM

9600m gt + 1920x1200 = one crap experience
m
0
l
October 22, 2009 7:30:46 PM

As far as I know there won't be a version for Mac. You will have the best experience on the PS3 hands down.

If there is a version for Mac at launch, don't even bother....
m
0
l
Related resources
October 22, 2009 8:29:44 PM

First of all, I'm running Windows 7 so the hardware being apple is not an issue.
2nd of all I realize I'm not going to get anywhere near the performance of a dedicated gaming pc. I was simply wondering if the hardware I have would give similar performance to a ps3 which is running subpar hardware compared to current gaming pc's as well.

Thanks for the responses.
m
0
l
October 22, 2009 8:38:06 PM

Well to answer your question, NO. The PS3's hardware is superior to the hardware in your laptop. The gaming experience is also superior using the PS3 due to your GPU limitation. If you have the PS3 already then I do not see why you don't buy the keyboard, mouse adapter and use your PS3 as a normal PC.
m
0
l
October 22, 2009 8:46:33 PM

If the reason you want to play on your laptop is due to using the keys and mouse then get this :

Max Shooter (Keyboard Mouse Adapter) for PS3
http://www.gameyeeeah.com/max-shooter-keyboard-mouse-ad...

I have it and since I started to play CoD4 most peeps call me a cheater cause my aim is so much more accurrate. Not sure why they think im cheating when you cant on a console... hope this helps.....
m
0
l
October 22, 2009 8:50:30 PM

yes, very helpful...I have a bluetooth keyboard already connected to my ps3 wirelessly. I'm assuming a mouse might connect as well. Is there a special reason to have the adapter if I have a bluetooth keyboard and mouse already? Sry for the newb questions...just got the ps3 a couple days ago.
m
0
l
October 22, 2009 8:55:03 PM

Yes, the difference is that with the adapter you can connect both the wired keyboard and wired mouse as opposed to only being able to use the bluetooth keyboard without a mouse. So basically if you want to use your PS3 as a PC you need the adapter.
m
0
l
October 22, 2009 9:12:10 PM

Quote:
Hmm, I am not sure which gpu would be better, the 9600m is not exactly powerful, but the ps3 is a 7 series. The newer tech alone may swing it especially in a modernish game like COD. Might be wrong of course but I wouldn't say it is for definite.


The RSX is not a 7 series, it's not even comparable. I would say based on specs it is as powerfull as 8600 Ultra with minor tweaks.

650MHz Core
300 Million Transistors
136 Shader Operations per Cycle
Independent Pixel/Vertex Shaders
256MB GDDR3 RAM at 22.4GB/sec
External Link to CPU at 35GB/sec (20GB/sec write + 15GB/sec read)
1920x1080 Maximum Resolution

Based on that, I'll make some guesses to the number of pipelines and ALUs.

24 Pixel Pipelines (2 Vector + 2 Scalar + 1 Texture ALUs)
8 Vertex Pipelines (1 Vector + 1 Scalar ALUs)

(24 x 5) + (8 x 2) = 136
550MHz x 96 = 52.8 Billion Pixel Shader Ops/Sec
550MHz x 24 = 13.2 Billion Texture Address Ops/Sec
550MHz x 16 = 8.8 Billion Vertex Shader Ops/Sec

basically the RSX would crush a 9600m ...... and on top of that you cannot compare a mobile GPU to a desktop GPU, the mobile GPU's are much weaker in terms of performance ....
m
0
l
October 22, 2009 9:38:32 PM

Quote:
Mobile gpu's of the same model names are usually weaker but their is nothing that states a mobile part needs to be weaker.

Also the rsx is just a cut back 7900gt or something like that. It is the same gpu. It is not a new design like the 360 gpu by ati was.

Nope, Considering how badly the 7 series fares nowadays and even in it's day in newer games I cannot say for certain without an actual comparison in games as to which is better.


Correct, but you cannot say that the RSX performs the same as any 7 series GPU. If this was correct you would not be able to get 30/40 frames at 1920x1080 with todays GPU demanding games. The RSX might have the same arch but it is far superior.

Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that the RSX paired with the CELL (CPU) is by far superior to a 7 series GPU paired with a E5200 for example....
m
0
l
October 22, 2009 9:54:55 PM

What I am trying to explain here is that you really cannot compare a 7 series GPU to the RSX, there are too many factors to consider. If you think that the RSX is the same as a 7 series GPU then I guess you are entitled to your own opinion.

Another example would be playing GTA4 on a 7800GT (for example) compared to the RSX... The 7800GT would cough in a split second, the RSX would at least get 30 frames in heavy combat not to mention that the RSX is running at 1080p ...
m
0
l
October 23, 2009 3:13:03 PM

I am no PS3 fanboy (all the Xbox games I would want to play I can do so on my computer, or else I would own one of those as well, FM3 might convince me yet) but as both a computer and console gamer, the gap isn't as large as SS makes it out to be.

Its just PS3 Hate. No need for it. There is no doubt that the PS3 will outperform that laptop in MW2. The ps3 version will be optimized for the hardware. The PC version will not. The laptop has a mobile edition of an already subpar desktop GPU. It is not rocket science (its not even general computing).

If you were to take a look at ACTUAL GAMEPLAY of games like KillZone 2, Uncharted/Uncharted2, Demon's souls, GT5p, the Motorstorm series... you would know that these games would not be possible at those resolutions and framerates on an old 7900 based system.

You would also know from this experience, that games like GTA4 are from shoddy porting and lack of attention to the PS3 architecture. The RSX does not interact with the PS3 architecture in the same was as that aforementioned 7900 communicates with an old P4.
m
0
l
October 23, 2009 3:33:40 PM

That is what I was tryimng to explain to SS... I know the RSX is derived from a 7 series GPU due to the fact that Nvidia helped to produce it. My point is that it is a beefed up GPU that is capable of rendering images in such detail that the 7 series would not be able to acomplish at such high resolutions. Making it a more powerfull GPU that can handle intensive games like the ones that you mentioned.

Again I just wanted the OP to know that he would be wasting his time if he decided to buy the PC version soley for his laptop and that he would get much better gameplay from the PS3 version.
m
0
l
October 23, 2009 3:42:37 PM

Get a GOOD pc to play it.

End of story.
m
0
l
October 23, 2009 3:47:39 PM

If it was a 7800, Sony and Nvidia would not have gone through all the trouble they did to produce such a GPU. They could have just changed a few drivers and re-program the 7800 in order for it to be compatible with the chipset.

The RSX is similar to dual 6800 Ultra's in SLI so that tells you that it is more powerfull than a single 7800GT....

Quote :

Press Releases

Sony staff were quoted in PlayStation Magazine saying that the "RSX shares a lot of inner workings with NVIDIA 7800 which is based on G70 architecture. Since the G70 is capable of carrying out 136 shader operations per clock cycle, the RSX was expected to feature the same number of parallel pixel and vertex shader pipelines as the G70, which contains 24 pixel and 8 vertex pipelines.

NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang stated during Sony's pre-show press conference at E3 2005 that the RSX would be more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra video cards combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer...

You can say what you want. Im done arguing with you.....

m
0
l
October 23, 2009 4:32:35 PM

You said it yourself, they don't play on the same field. Yet you insist on trying to compare PC and console usage of a similar part, within drastically different environments and architectures.

You want a price/performance comparison? Replicate the PS3s features and performance in a complete brand new computer for $300. Or how about a 360 for $200. You are the one who is trying to damn consoles by highlighting a single part. But if I insisted on this, I would be sinking to your hypocritical level, so nevermind.
m
0
l
October 23, 2009 5:00:50 PM

Comparing used parts to new parts is not a fair comparison either. I can buy a 2 year old PS3 for 150 bucks. Build a used parts computer matching specifications for that price then. Don't forget the BD, BT, and WiFi. And this isn't even my arguement. My point is that you are making illogical comparisons to back up your own unfounded bias.

That laptop will NOT outperform a PS3 at identical outputs and graphics settings. To say that is quite revealing at the self-delusional loops you force yourself to jump through to back up your bias.

Did Sony kick your dog or steal your lunch money?
m
0
l
October 23, 2009 6:35:15 PM

Quote:
I think you do not know that the laptop wouldn not outperform it, I think there is no evidence of that.


Just as there is no evidence to support the contrary. Thanks for closing your own argument for me.

Though, in general I would agree. Each person should make their own choices, especially when it comes to hypothetical situations involving software that isn't even out yet. You should have said that from the start instead of waging a sad little anti-console war.

Please OP, let us know how it goes, If there is to be a PC demo available for MW2, you should have no problem finding a game store with MW2 being demoed on the PS3 for direct comparison.
m
0
l
Anonymous
January 12, 2010 8:56:59 PM

I was going to buy a PS3 until I connected a friend's to my 1080p monitor (where I planned on using one) and looked at the graphics with MW2. There's no anti-aliasing, the textures are blurry, and it just looks horrible. The PS3 GPU is crap. 256MB RAM, and it can only render MW2 internally at like 600p with no AA, and then it's upscaled to 720p, and upscaled again to 1080p. No wonder the graphics are awful!

On the other hand, I've seen claims of people running MW2 on a 13" MacBook Pro (9400m GPU, which has 512MB shared RAM) at 720p with graphics settings on high and no AA, which is definitely better than the PS3 can do!
m
0
l
January 13, 2010 4:55:50 PM

You are just misinformed. Sony actually didn't want to include the RSX, because they thought that the cell could cope with graphics on it's own. And, in games like uncharted 2 or killzone2, cell is mostly used in rendering, the rsx helps of course, but it's the cell that does most of the work.

And, don't use windows, 'cause it blows. Use mac/linux and wine, mw2 plays rather well with it.
m
0
l
!