Is my laptop or desktop better for gaming?

[FearoftheNight]

Desktop:
Dell XPS 8300
i5-2300 sandy bridge quad
6 gb ram
radeon 6850 oc'ed to almost 6870 speeds
1gb hdd

vs

Retina Macbook Pro (2012 base)
2.3 ghz ivy bridge quad core
8 gb ram
nvidia 650m oc'ed to 660m speeds.
256 ssd

Which would perform better in gaming and how much?

 

[Cerb]

1. Is someone arguing with you about this? Because it really doesn't make much sense, otherwise. The two are vastly different types of computers. One is a home gaming box from 1-2 years ago, nice, but not too expensive, and one is a 'prosumer' notebook, with a fancy screen.

2. If you want a halfway-decent comparison, you can't leave out the monitor(s) used.

In any case, though:
- The desktop has a 30% faster CPU
- The desktop has just shy of 2x the GPU power
- Assuming a 1080P monitor v. integrated display, the desktop has 1/2 the pixels to render per frame

The rMBPs are shitty gaming machines, plain and simple. That's not what they're made for.

 

[FearoftheNight]

1. Is someone arguing with you about this? Because it really doesn't make much sense, otherwise. The two are vastly different types of computers. One is a home gaming box from 1-2 years ago, nice, but not too expensive, and one is a 'prosumer' notebook, with a fancy screen.

2. If you want a halfway-decent comparison, you can't leave out the monitor(s) used.

In any case, though:
- The desktop has a 30% faster CPU
- The desktop has just shy of 2x the GPU power
- Assuming a 1080P monitor v. integrated display, the desktop has 1/2 the pixels to render per frame

The rMBPs are shitty gaming machines, plain and simple. That's not what they're made for.

I have more than one residence that I stay at. Just wanted to get a better idea of the relative performance since the laptop is obviously the more portable one.

 

[lehtv]

- Assuming a 1080P monitor v. integrated display, the desktop has 1/2 the pixels to render per frame

The full resolution is 4x 1440x900 which means you get a pretty sharp image gaming-wise for the size of the screen when gaming at 1440x900. No one in their right mind would try gaming at 2880x1800 on a notebook...

In any case, the 6850 is much faster for gaming than the 650M, even when comparing 1080p vs 1440x900 (> 2x the performance, +60% pixels)

 

[Cerb]

The full resolution is 4x 1440x900

Indeed. I was going by the currently-advertised 2560x1600.

 

[cbk]

Desktop:
Dell XPS 8300
i5-2300 sandy bridge quad
6 gb ram
radeon 6850 oc'ed to almost 6870 speeds
1gb hdd

vs

Retina Macbook Pro (2012 base)
2.3 ghz ivy bridge quad core
8 gb ram
nvidia 650m oc'ed to 660m speeds.
256 ssd

Which would perform better in gaming and how much?

YOU ARE OVERCLOCKING A LAPTOP GPU?!?!?!? You are a daredevil, my friend!

 

[FearoftheNight]

YOU ARE OVERCLOCKING A LAPTOP GPU?!?!?!? You are a daredevil, my friend!

Apple did it for me.

 

[Zodiark1593]

YOU ARE OVERCLOCKING A LAPTOP GPU?!?!?!? You are a daredevil, my friend!

The GT 650M used in the rMBP is overclocked by Apple, performance being roughly on par with the GTX 660M. Reason they did that, I do not know, perhaps giving the GPU a better chance at running lighter games at the native resolution.

 

[Torn Mind]

Hyperthreading doesn't help in many games, and the clockspeed on the MBP is lower. So, for gaming, the CPU is worse on the MBP.

And what lehtv said about the GPUs is right.

 

[FearoftheNight]

Wow this was a little unexpected.

 

[mfenn]

Wow this was a little unexpected.

Wait what? You actually expected the laptop to be faster?

I love my rMBP as much as the next guy, but that piece of fruit on the lid does not turn it into a wünderbox.

 

[FearoftheNight]

Wait what? You actually expected the laptop to be faster?

I love my rMBP as much as the next guy, but that piece of fruit on the lid does not turn it into a wünderbox.

Two years is a long time ^_^

 

[Torn Mind]

Total CPU speed depends on the speed of each individual core and the "number of cores". Individual core speed depends on the clockspeed and the microarchitecture on the core. Programs don't always take advantage of extra cores because some programs aren't coded that way. Also, there are virtual cores that are not quite full cores but still boost performance for apps that are coded to take advantage of that.