Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
uziq
Member
+175|1855
i literally just linked 2 videos that contradict everything you've claimed. CoD:MW had huge optimisation issues.

these chips have been on the market for 2 weeks. bootcamp has only been available for 1 week. it's like the beta of a beta. and still the results are literally better than what you've just been spouting above. 'no they're not capable'. 'not above 30 fps'. uuuuuuuuuuuh i guess you're wrong?

even the list of games on that site you linked is posting results from week 1 of unoptimised drivers that backs up EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING: that the new-gen mobile GPUs are PERFECTLY DECENT.
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
Lol those "buggy drivers" are actually a net benefit to performance I'd say, how many effects just straight up aren't being displayed there
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black

uziq wrote:

mobile graphics is in a pretty astounding place tbh.

uziq wrote:

mobile GPUs are PERFECTLY DECENT.
goodnight uzi
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855
yeah, mobile GPUs are in an astounding place in that they are perfectly decent for gaming.

are you fucking retarded finray? i never said mobile GPUs were 'astounding'. are you really getting those simple statements confused? my F I R S T post said that they obviously weren't pulling 100fps+ on maxed-out settings. they are in an astounding place in that the STOCK GPU option on the ENTRY LEVEL MacBook can now play games with a good frame rate.

to put that comment in more context, the new stock GPUs are THREE TIMES the performance of the stock option in the last MacBook from A MONTH AGO. and it is the SAME PRICE. see? that's an astounding leap for casual gamers in terms of tech. not 'the tech is absolutely astounding, i'm playing crysis 2 in a hologram'.

you've back-pedalled pretty nicely on 'no way will they get 30fps', 'no way will GTA V run well', etc. this is literally an instance of you being like 'HOOAH, HOLD MY BEER' because you're at a fucking BTEC college trying to do something with your life and think you now have the down-low on the tech sector. you are a total mope.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 14:23:39)

Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
nah you're pretty far off the mark there bud, you'd be spot on if I had jumped into some conversation on the benefits of python over c++ or something, but considering my course consists of roughly 1 hardware class (that's all very very basic out of date shit) I don't think you're on to anything there.

You want me to defend my "no way they'll get 30 fps?" okay, I exaggerated. They won't get playable frames is what I should have said. 30 was a number pulled out of the air in haste, however, 30-50 fps in Tomb Raider is not exactly an order of magnitude off, so I'm gonna stand by my statement.


gta 5? I was totally wrong
https://i.imgur.com/3MWvqdz.png


this is not me feeling high and mighty from finally getting education, far from it
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855

Finray wrote:

"The next title I tried is Deus Ex Mankind, this is a super old title.." 50 FPS
yeah and the next line is 'but it's one of the most taxing games', i.e. another crysis-type title i imagine.

ditto with your comment about tomb raider. so first you claim absolutely they can't get 30fps in these titles, then link a screenshot ... with 50fps ... in OSX, not windows, whilst running a benchmark.

these are all caveats that he mentions in the commentary, stating explicitly that actual performance will be better than the demos.

christ how fucking disingenuous can you be? just admit you're wrong and got too excited to flex your moronic technical course chops.

this conversation is obviously going to end up in the usual dead-end of '60fps is not playable!!! reee i need 200fps at least / i need 144hz for my elite monitor / lol only plebs think 70fps is acceptably smooth' etc. which i'm counting as an automatic victory for me considering my original comment precisely said that these chips do a fine job for gaming in most average people's needs.

just to recap, here. on the opening beta week and initial results phase:

fortnite maxed out - 80 fps 1440p.
tomb raider - 50/60 fps.
gat v - 90-120 fps high settings.
overwatch - 120 fps high settings
deus ex whatever the fuck - 50 fps

YEAH, it looks like these entry-level MacBooks with gaming as an afterthought can now RUN GAMES FINE.

fuck me

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 14:34:32)

uziq
Member
+175|1855

Finray wrote:

Would it be different if it was 2cm? Laptops are thin. They are portable. Going from 3cm to 1cm does not make a huge difference.
and yeah, to go back to this, that is PRECISELY my point. i'm sure you can find gaming laptops that will make this tripling in performance on the MBPs look relatively shit. but my point is that retina macbooks are TINY. you mention chromebooks as a similar comparison which can't even play games without cloud computing ffs. the amount of performance that is being squeezed out of a 100W machine is really good. this thing slips into my work backpack with my books and papers. i don't have to carry a giant power-block around with me. i don't even need to take a charger at all, because the batteries last for 10+ hours!

these seemingly marginal things are huge differences in the laptop market. the thick lenovo/alienware machines are fucking bricks compared to a MBP. i completely agree with you that 'gaming laptops' as those things are marketed are a complete abomination. they are huge, heavy, run out of battery in 3 hours, run at like 110 degrees and sound like a hovercraft going by. am i fuck going to pull out one of those (with 5 metre charging block) in a cafe to play some warcraft or whatever.

do you now see what i mean by they're in a really impressive place? you have a form factor of a travel-wallet size laptop that can play games fine. we've been bickering over benchmarks on 1440p/1080p high settings, as well. jesus christ it wouldn't kill me to notch down some settings to medium and 'suffer' a current-gen game at 100fps instead of on high @ 60fps. once again, the tech, for what it is, is in a really impressive place, to me.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 14:48:03)

Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
Only one of those is a "current title" and it runs below 60fps, so, no?
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855
nice to see you're sticking to some literalist definition of what a 'current title' is, as opposed to, you know, a common sense definition that anybody else here reading this would understand to mean 'any game that people are likely to play at present'. the laptop has an average gamer's needs covered, is that a better formulation for you? it's convenient you're emphasising some notion of 'current-gen games' now that your idiotic points about 'older' but still immensely popular games like GTA V have been disproven.

also again about your emphasis on exact fps boundaries:

OSX catalina is brand new, it is an absolute clusterfuck in general
these graphics chips are 2 weeks old, drivers are brand new
bootcamp was only released last week
performance is essentially beta test levels

60fps on high is the WORST result it's going to get, dumkopf.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 14:54:06)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4509|eXtreme to the maX
What resolution and frame rate will a MBP give me for Sub-Battle, and does it have a DOS simulator.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-11-28 14:53:51)

Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+175|1855
i dunno but this aussie guy seems happy with it.



did i forget to mention they have the best speakers ever put into a laptop?
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black

uziq wrote:

nice to see you're sticking to some literalist definition of what a 'current title' is, as opposed to, you know, a common sense definition that anybody else here reading this would understand to mean 'any game that people are likely to play at present'. the laptop has an average gamer's needs covered, is that a better formulation for you? it's convenient you're emphasising some notion of 'current-gen games' now that your idiotic points about 'older' but still immensely popular games like GTA V have been disproven.

also again about your emphasis on exact fps boundaries:

OSX catalina is brand new, it is an absolute clusterfuck in general
these graphics chips are 2 weeks old, drivers are brand new
bootcamp was only released last week
performance is essentially beta test levels

60fps on high is the WORST result it's going to get, dumkopf.
Knew you'd come back with this. Why are you using the term "current title?" why is a laptop running current titles impressive? Because it implies that's the most demanding game you can run on it. That's what "current title" is used for, and if you didn't know that you're ignorant and if you did you're dishonest.

You're taking 50-60 FPS (which is unplayable, btw) and trying to use it to justify

uziq wrote:

it runs all the current games just fine at 1440p high settings
It doesn't. It can ALMOST run Tomb Raider.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
how much is a 16" macbook nowadays anyway? Surely you could get a performance PC + monitor + peripherals + a portable netbook for the cost of one as usual
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855
how is 60fps unplayable on a 60hz monitor? you could turn it down to ... medium settings, if it's literally unplayable?

i don't even know what the 'current-gen' games are. it's no surprise to you that i haven't bought a new computer game in about 5 years. by 'current games' i meant 'games people are currently playing', i.e. games wot i seen reviewers and benchmarkers posting about. you came up with this selective definition of a 'current-gen' game being some creme-de-la-creme of hardware demand. and now you've invented some 60fps rule as being 'unplayable' when before you said it wouldn't even get 30 fps.

i'm gonna take a 3x performance increase for the same price as the previous model and a perfectly fine gaming machine and call it a success. thx.

and for all this preciousness about your beloved desktop hardware and 300fps requirements, what are you even using it for yourself? lol. great argument in support of dropping dosh on a giant tower.
uziq
Member
+175|1855

Finray wrote:

how much is a 16" macbook nowadays anyway? Surely you could get a performance PC + monitor + peripherals + a portable netbook for the cost of one as usual
jesus christ it's like the whole point of my original comment went WAY over your head.

MY
WHOLE
POINT

is that now you can play games to an acceptable level and have a completely portable laptop -- in ONE. the dichotomy doesn't have to exist anymore. for all your mewling about 60 fps in tomb raider (gimped in OSX with no drivers) being 'unacceptable', the laptop is patently very capable of playing anything you throw at it just fine.

as to why someone would prefer an all-in-one option that does gaming decently rather than a 'decent' netbook and a monster PC ... i'll leave you to figure out that finray. your average consumer isn't an overgrown man-child with a twitch-streaming room covered in neon lights. it's nice to be able to play games wherever i go without needing a tower. i could move abroad in 2020 for a spell and continue playing games. i might have to travel for work. can't do that with a portable netbook and not much use with your uuuuuumazing triple-SLI ROGYBIV-LED machine sat at home.

cost isn't even the point here anyway. nobody is making arguments for it being the wisest financial choice. nobody who buys apple gear is doing it for the financial benefits. that's not what i'm talking about AT ALL. consumer value is really up to the consumer. i have a £800 soundcard and pre-amp for fuck's sake, which is the price of a decent PC build. the money is not the point. it's the all-round functionality -- that's why mobile GPUs are in an impressive place.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 15:18:59)

Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
because it's 60fps MAX, not avg, or minimum.

how can you say

uziq wrote:

it runs all the current games just fine at 1440p high settings
if

uziq wrote:

i don't even know what the 'current-gen' games are.
These aren't things I'm inventing. 60 fps max is unplayable, it's been pretty standard requirement for a while now.

Yes, it is about my "beloved desktop hardware", because integrated graphics are shit by comparison. They're great in a pinch, amazing for power efficiency and size, but shit in comparison to dedicated graphics cards. Which was my point.

Btw, 120fps is your diminishing returns point, 144 is now the industry standard for high refresh because idk bigger number better marketing, but have you heard of gsync/freesync? you don't even need to get 144 anymore. I'm not a champion for 300 fps

I play the LATEST and CURRENT titles on my PC, and I use every bit of what I paid for.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black

uziq wrote:

Finray wrote:

how much is a 16" macbook nowadays anyway? Surely you could get a performance PC + monitor + peripherals + a portable netbook for the cost of one as usual
jesus christ it's like the whole point of my original comment went WAY over your head.

MY
WHOLE
POINT

is that now you can play games to an acceptable level and have a completely portable laptop -- in ONE.
Whilst sacrificing frames from gaming, weight from portability, and time from productivity.

uziq wrote:

the dichotomy doesn't have to exist anymore. for all your mewling about 60 fps in tomb raider (gimped in OSX with no drivers) being 'unacceptable', the laptop is patently very capable of playing anything you throw at it just fine.
For the dichotomy not to exist any more, there would have to be laptops that perform at the same level as desktops, so no.
also, can it run tarkov? doubt it.

uziq wrote:

as to why someone would prefer an all-in-one option that does gaming decently rather than a 'decent' netbook and a monster PC ... i'll leave you to figure out that finray. your average consumer isn't an overgrown man-child with a twitch-streaming room covered in neon lights. it's nice to be able to play games wherever i go without needing a tower. i could move abroad in 2020 for a spell and continue playing games. i might have to travel for work. can't do that with a portable netbook and not much use with your uuuuuumazing triple-SLI ROGYBIV-LED machine sat at home.

cost isn't even the point here anyway. nobody is making arguments for it being the wisest financial choice. nobody who buys apple gear is doing it for the financial benefits. that's not what i'm talking about AT ALL. consumer value is really up to the consumer. i have a £800 soundcard and pre-amp for fuck's sake, which is the price of a decent PC build. the money is not the point. it's the all-round functionality -- that's why mobile GPUs are in an impressive place.
blah blah i'm so mature with cultured interests and I travel...
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855
2 pages later and you're still making the point that desktop graphics are better than laptop graphics. who knew? wow.

'for the dichotomy to not exist, laptops would have to run as well as desktops'. are you really this fucking dumb? lol. that is not how consumers or average users work. if someone can game acceptably on a laptop, much like as they could game acceptably on a console, they're going to be happy. this is literally the same line of argument as when pc gamers dismiss console gamers because 'they don't get as nice graphics in red dead redemption'. yeah, hundreds of millions of people literally do not care. the dichotomy, for all intents and purposes, does not exist.

saying that someone no longer needs both a laptop and a PC, as they can game on both, is not saying that the laptop has categorically matched the PC. you fucking retard.

yeah the '144fps industry standard', which is really applicable to ... 60hz laptop screens. we've both summarily dismissed how retarded dedicated 'gaming laptops' are for this precise reason. sticking a 4k display or a high-refresh display on a laptop designed for gaming is like trying to break physics.

i couldn't care less what the current games industry has drummed up as a confected 'industry standard' to sell monitors. i've played computer games on 60-75hz screens for 15 + years. a laptop powering its 60hz screen or outputting to my main 60hz screen at 1440p resolution with good frame rates is a happy win for me. it's a bit confusing that you're using that logic to declare 60 fps 'unplayable'.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 15:29:20)

Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black

uziq wrote:

2 pages later and you're still making the point that desktop graphics are better than laptop graphics. who knew? wow.

yeah the '144fps industry standard', which is really applicable to ... 60hz laptop screens. we've both summarily dismissed how retarded dedicated 'gaming laptops' are for this precise reason. sticking a 4k display or a high-refresh display on a laptop designed for gaming is like trying to break physics.

i couldn't care less what the current games industry has drummed up as a confected 'industry standard' to sell monitors. i've played computer games on 60-75hz screens for 15 + years. a laptop powering its 60hz screen or outputting to my main 60hz screen at 1440p resolution with good frame rates is a happy win for me. it's a bit confusing that you're using that logic to declare 60 fps 'unplayable'.
eh, no, high refresh rates on laptops are still good, disappointed apple hasn't got any yet (?), and 60hz is garbage tier trash.

It's the companies selling monitors that set the 144 standard, not the games..

60fps max is unplayable, because you regularly dip below 60, below the refresh rate of your monitor, introducing input lag and tearing.

You should really get a high refresh monitor, at least 120Hz. It's night and day.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855
the only game i have played in years is world of warcraft. you do not need 120Hz for MMOs (i don't think you can get 120 fps constant on the WoW engine even with a monster PC ...). i think you really struggle to see what an average tech consumer wants. people do not give a fuck about these hype terms from 'eSports'. do you have a rally-style gamer chair as well? 'night and day' ...

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 15:33:49)

uziq
Member
+175|1855

Finray wrote:

blah blah i'm so mature with cultured interests and I travel...
some of us bothered to get educations and jobs which means we have freedom of movement, and can work abroad, or travel for long periods of time. mind-blowing concept for someone that has spent their 20s sucking cock in the public toilets of carnoustie in exchange for mephedrone and working shifts in a bar, i know.

it also means we can buy nice £3000 laptops. i highly recommend it fin!
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
on the contrary, you're clearly out of touch if you don't think high refresh rate screens are worth it
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
why you gotta get so personal aaron so nasty
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855
i could probably appreciate a 120Hz screen if i was playing lots of FPS games and quite serious about it. i'm not denying that they're an improvement in terms of 'feel' with quick moving games. i mean to deny it would be to deny something very obvious.

but my point is that i played games for 15+ years, sometimes to a top level, with a 60hz screen or an early CRT. i never once thought 'damn this refresh rate sucks' or 'the ghosting is distracting'. for you to turnaround and say that 60Hz is trash-tier and horrid and that a laptop that can only game on 60Hz is 'unplayable' is just ridiculous. people have played on 60hz for the majority of gaming's history. you're really drinking the marketing kool-aid if you think sub-120Hz is 'unplayable'.

and my point still stands about the genre. i'm not going to toss a laptop for having a 60Hz screen if my interest is MMOs, or RTS games. the fuck do you need 120Hz for, other than burning out your retinas quicker?

it's also ironic that you trash gaming laptops and then say 'higher refresh rates in gaming laptops is decent'. lol show me a laptop that can consistently maintain 120fps or 144fps on a 1080p+ screen. you are literally contradicting your own self-invented strictures, here.

and i'm not being nasty at all, i just think you're being super pedantic and autistic about a fairly unexceptional claim: that mobile GPUs now are really in a good place, in that mid-range options can play just about any game that a gamer would want to play nowadays. having the very best laptop for my freelance/creative work that can also jump into fortnite or overwatch or play through a new single-player game at acceptable frame rates IS astounding to me. even buying specced-out MBPs in the past, to game on a high resolution would equal 12-15fps. now that is what i would objectively say is 'unplayable'. to claim that 60 fps is game-breaking is just ridiculous, because it's obviously not. you're not going to be competitive at cs:go, of course, and there will be screen tears and slow downs, but in general it's fine. you're literally ragging on the performance from that guy's video ... when he is playing the game and it looks fine.

imo benchmarks and reviews in the coming months are going to improve on performance all round, anyway. even before the latest MBP launched, OSX catalina has been a complete shitshow of an OS launch, and hardly any graphics drivers are working. a good windows bootcamp on the MBP hardware will smoke those figures in the videos linked above. past experience with OSX/bootcamp gaming has had a +20% difference, easily.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 16:13:57)

Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black

uziq wrote:

i could probably appreciate a 120Hz screen if i was playing lots of FPS games and quite serious about it. i'm not denying that they're an improvement in terms of 'feel' with quick moving games. i mean to deny it would be to deny something very obvious.
Even on the desktop, it's really nice to have, and you notice it when you go back.

uziq wrote:

but my point is that i played games for 15+ years, sometimes to a top level, with a 60hz screen or an early CRT. i never once thought 'damn this refresh rate sucks' or 'the ghosting is distracting'. for you to turnaround and say that 60Hz is trash-tier and horrid and that a laptop that can only game on 60Hz is 'unplayable' is just ridiculous.
never said any of that. 60 fps max is trash tier. 60 fps 60hz is quite playable.

uziq wrote:

people have played on 60hz for the majority of gaming's history. you're really drinking the marketing kool-aid if you think sub-120Hz is 'unplayable'.
dude, crts were pushing hundreds of hz 30 years ago. High refresh has always been a thing, it's just taken this long to get it working on flat screens.

uziq wrote:

it's also ironic that you trash gaming laptops and then say 'higher refresh rates in gaming laptops is decent'.
no I said higher refresh rates on laptops is decent, even out of games it's still nice to have.

uziq wrote:

lol show me a laptop that can consistently maintain 120fps or 144fps on a 1080p+ screen.
like, any of the current gaming laptops, if you're playing lite current games(CoD, Apex, CS:GO)

uziq wrote:

and i'm not being nasty at all, i just think you're being super pedantic and autistic about a fairly unexceptional claim:
yes, that is the entirety of the point of this conversation, I came for a fight

uziq wrote:

that mobile GPUs now are really in a good place, in that mid-range options can play just about any game that a gamer would want to play nowadays. having the very best laptop for my freelance/creative work that can also jump into fortnite or overwatch or play through a new single-player game at acceptable frame rates IS astounding to me. even buying specced-out MBPs in the past, to game on a high resolution would equal 12-15fps. now that is what i would objectively say is 'unplayable'. to claim that 60 fps is game-breaking is just ridiculous, because it's obviously not. you're not going to be competitive at cs:go, of course, and there will be screen tears and slow downs, but in general it's fine.
Ehh, I dunno man. I think we have different definitions of "fine". "Fine" is merely acceptable, it ticks the boxes but doesn't excel. Unfortunately, I'd say that under 60FPS average with demanding current-gen titles is not a "fine" gaming experience, it's sub-par. It's not terrible, I grant you, but it's not "fine" in my book. "Fine" is 60FPS minimum, not maximum.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard