[Macworld]

Post your comments for MacBook Pro Boot Camp Gaming Benchmarks here

[Scott_Gardner]

"No surprises here"??
You seem pretty blasé about the CPUmark scores. I admit I don't know everything that's being measured in the CPUmark test, but a 76% increase in the score seems pretty impressive, considering the bump from 2.4 GHz to 2.8 GHz in only a 17% increase.

[medopal]

looks interesting, what about the FPS for those games on Windows PCs like HP, Dell? Anybody have an idea?
BTW, XP is still better even though DirectX had a major update in Vista.
I will try the same tests on my Macbook and use your result as reference :)

[Philip Michaels]

It is unfortunate that the PC World article does not link to Macworld's full tests of how the new MacBook and MacBook Pro models handle games. The link has been added to the story. You can also reach it here.

[zeroblizzard]

Geez, you guys are thickheaded. If you have a little something called "discrete graphics" (also known as a graphics card), you can see high settings with at least 45fps+ with a GTX 280 or 4870x2.
And Scott_Gardner, you're one of the worst. The main differences between processors (and besides, games don't care about processor speeds at resolutions past 800x600 to begin with) is the architecture, or the marketing name; not the clock speed.
Intel and AMD stopped the clock speed war a long time ago, and even now, the amount of cores doesn't really count as an improvement. A 3.0 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme will beat the entry-level Intel Quad Core.
Get your facts straight, dillweed.

[Peter Cohen]

We can do without name calling and insults.

[zeroblizzard]

True. Sorry.
I just get worked up about how little some people know about gaming hardware.
Again, apologies.

[Scott_Gardner]

I realize that you can't compare clock speeds across different manufacturers, models or generations. But in this case, both computers and processors are very similar (both fairly recent MacBook Pros with Intel C2D processors), so I was pleasantly surprised that the CPUMark scores on the new one are so much higher.
What I'm not sure about (and I mentioned this in my first post) is what exactly the CPUMark 2006 benchmark is measuring. Is the improved graphics system in the new MBP partially responsible, or is the test just measuring CPU/memory performance? I tried looking up information on the CPUMark 2006 benchmark, but didn't find anything useful.

[rdas7]

It is just me, or is it kinda strange that XP outperforms Vista in all these benchmarks? I was wondering whether to migrate my Parallels install to Vista (I'm on XP at the moment), but all signs are pointing to: NO!