'[R-DEV wrote:Duke;1618993']To elaborate on the above, the OP specified a 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz quad-core i7 processor. That's standard configuration for the 2011 15" Macbook Pro, whose graphics cards can easily run PR on all high.
Sorry, but that's not strictly true. It was correct up until the bolded part, at which point things went horribly awry.
The standard config for the 15" MBP is actually an intel HD 3000 IGP, but let's pretend that isn't the case and it comes with the next step up which is a HD6490m [ranked 145th in notebook GPU power], which is by no means a slouch, but given the
3dmark scores that
pale in comparison(
*) to that of my brother's (desktop based) HD5770 which had dips below 60fps @ 1280x1024 on fallujah, I would posit that the HD6490 would not fare too favourably on high settings @ 1440x900. What do you think of this assertion?
Moving on to the top spec for the 15" macbook, it comes with a far more respectable HD6750m [ranked much higher @ 76th in power], which is at the top of the "mid range cards" echelon. This however is still bested in power by my brother's desktop based card, which again, at a comparable resolution did not handle PR @ maxed out settings smoothly (>=60fps).
Were the MBP to house a HD6770m or perhaps even a HD6870m, I would happily jump on the 'can max out PR on that laptop' bandwagon. That being said, were PR to be optimized and the niggling bottleneck found and removed (and I'm quite sure there is one, specifically CPU bound), I would be happy to revise my contention that the MBP even in maximum config would struggle with PR0.95 @ maxed out settings.
(
*)
The test in that review was carried out with an overclocked i7 920, which would skew the results up versus the MBP's crippled notebook processor variant. That being said, my brother runs an overclocked Q6600 (3.2ghz), which should compare rather favorably to a mobile i7 of today.
****
Source:
-
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Gra ... 844.0.html
-
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html