GT 650M - 1GB or 2GB?

2GB -- more textures for games like Rage, Crysis series, etc...
Not talking about FPS (which may not be a big difference or any) depending on the new benchmarks released lately comparing memory size and speed with 28nm cards.

Example: Games like RAGE look outstanding with the high end textures and you need video memory to load them up without the "pop ins".

Another example: Skyrim.

 

Another vote for 1GB. There are plenty of things you can use that $100ish for that would get you a far more substantial performance boost than the GPU memory will.

 

Most would say that 1gb is enough. I don't really have any position on the matter. I just got a 2gb because it was cheaper for the way I set it up to go with a 2gb.

 

i just go for 2gb...in case some application need extra memory.
the upgrade cost me 28 dollar only.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

I remember a few years ago done laptops with 512mb used gddr3 while 1gb models used ddr2. The 1gb model was more expensive but performed worse. There are many more important factors than memory size for gpus. If everything is the same except memory capacity, I would never pick past 1gb for these 128 bit cards unless it were free.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

According to the specs on Alienware's site, both the 1GB and 2GB 650M use DDR5. They're identical except for the memory.

 

If you can afford it, buy 2GB. But IMHO you're better off spending that $100 on alternate upgrades like a blu-ray (if you watch movies), SSD, better wi-fi card, etc.

 

I think the order of priority for upgrades to the m14x from the base model should probably look something like this:

1. Screen upgrade to 1600x900
2. Upgrade i5 to i7
3. Adding either an mSATA boot drive or an SSD (This can be done after you buy it for cheaper, but will make a huge difference)
4. Wireless card
5. Everything else

 

More video RAM makes absolutely no difference with these level of cards. Heck even desktop level cards. See here:

HARDOCP - Introduction - AMD Radeon HD 6950 1GB Performance Review

" We have found that it comes down to what your native resolution is that you play at. If you play at 1920x1200 or lower, we have no problem recommending the 1GB Radeon HD 6950 over the GeForce GTX 560 Ti. At 1920x1200 1GB frame buffer seems to be adequate."

People have a misunderstanding of what video RAM a system has and how it's utilized. Just because the system says it has 1.5GB of textures doesn't mean it needs 1.5GB of video RAM to make it happen. Video RAM will act as a buffer for textures, but it isn't used specifically only to store textures.

 

I am not following your reasoning.

 

Neither am I, lol. My point was a bit tongue-in-cheek that if you want to spend the money, go for it, but it's money wasted. You took it out of context, and possibly didn't translate well to begin with.

And credit goes to you for that link to HardOCP originally.

 

Question: it has been brought up that 2gb is overkill for single monitors and games in most instances. Fine.
But out of curiosity, does anyone know what more video memory will do for applications such as Photoshop, Premiere Pro, and After Effects that are relying more and more on gpu power? Adobe's policies surrounding most upgrades such as processors and ram is that more is always better, wondering if this has an effect on it as well?

 

Adobe stuff is primarily RAM hungry and dependent on CPU, GPU is largely irrelevant.

 

Unless you're going for a dual core to quad core, the i5 gives much better performance for its cost. Wireless card can also be upgraded after market along with memory and SSD/HDD.

 

Of course, but as I said they are starting to tend more and more to harness power from the gpu. A couple years ago (like 1/2) it was pretty much only premiere pro that was using gpu with it's mercury playback engine (and the only part of the gpu that really affected the performance was the cuda cores)

However now with cs6 photoshop uses the gpu to do tasks such as liquify and the like to edit in real time, which, if you've ever tried to work with it on a large image, you know how painful it can be, even with a good computer. Other Adobe products are also starting to use the gpu more and more, and rely somewhat on the available video memory (recommended is 256mb or more), hence the question as to whether or not the 2gb upgrade would improve performance. I wouldn't even consider the upgrade if I just did some smalltime editing, but most photoshop files I'm working with are well in excess of 1gb, which is quite large, and oftentimes I feel I'm limited to that working space because, quite frankly my computer starts to buckle on most tasks after about the .25-.5 mark.

 

Well, I wouldn't consider any laptop but a workstation type laptop for any serious Adobe projects, not a 14" medium range laptop with a 1600x900 screen. The Quadro video card is suited to commercial 3D and even some 2D apps, where consumer level cards really aren't the proper choice if you want to do intense projects. I can't answer for certain, but I highly doubt that having an extra 1GB vRAM in a laptop such as the AW M14x will make a lick of difference with any Adobe package. Hopefully someone else can answer that one that has experienced it first hand.

Notice Adobe Premiere and After Effects call for 8GB RAM and primarily Quadro cards:
- http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html
- http://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects/tech-specs.html

But if you're really concerned, buy the 2GB vRAM. Then you've done nothing more than spend $100 for peace of mind.

 

No, the 2GB will not improve performance. Bear in mind like was said earlier in this thread that the GPU memory is only there as a buffer. The GPU specs on the cards themselves are completely identical otherwise. It will render at the same speed on the 1GB version.

I would agree with you on the i5 if this were a desktop, but with the m14x the i5 model is a dual core where the i7 is a quad core, so that makes a significant difference.

Also, yes, the wireless card can be upgraded after-market, but the Killer upgrade on Alienware's site usually goes for about $20 US, which is fairly cheap. Obviously everyone's opinion is different, but I don't see cracking the case open and doing the installation work worth saving just a couple bucks for. The cost difference for SSDs is much more significant, justifying doing it yourself.

 

Yeah, that's the only disappointing thing about the AW is definitely the screen with like 60% gamut, and only two dimms. Obviously their quadro cards are far superior for, like you said, 3d rendering and such with maximus and more cuda cores etc, but you can't really do any gaming on them, and integrated graphics are :S
Though, going from my old computer, which was yuck, to my new desktop, which was yuck (with the promise of a good laptop), to working on a circa 2009 iMac (which was yuck), to even just a core i5 4gb ram lenovo desktop, and being quite happy with rendering times and such, with a good AW laptop I'm feeling confident that even though it's not a workstation laptop whose gpu alone can breach like $6k..it will hopefully meet all my needs.

Reason I brought up PP and AE was mostly just because they require gpu power, the extent of my use of premiere will likely be 5-10 minute clips for school or youtube most likely. Still haven't used after effects because all the above mentioned computers would probably crash upon opening a new document. Other than that I will mostly be using photoshop and illustrator.

Sorry for wall of text. >.<

tl;dr: AW is not the best workstation laptop, but I'm okay with that. Just wanted to make sure I was making the right choice on gpu. Likely though, because I'm Canadian, customization options will likely land me with a 2gb version anyways.

 

for 3d bluray playback is 2 gb gt 650m better?

 

GPU has nothing to do with 3D blu-ray. It's all about the screen (and CPU).

 

Everything except 3D games run on the Intel Integrated graphics because they don't need the extra processing power of the dGPU.

On a related note, I have the 2GB 650m and it's totally unnecessary. There really isn't anything that is going to need more than 1GB of RAM that isn't going to kill the 650m, it's not fast enough to need the RAM, I would never have bought it if it hadn't bundled in with the upgraded screen and quad core processor for less than the price of the screen and processor alone.

 

The additional RAM is useful as a frame buffer for things such as triple buffering / vsync / anisotropic filtering and it will only help you if you intend to game.. for bluray, I suppose it won't.

 

Exactly, also useful if you play games on external monitors with higher resolutions such as 2560x1440.

For blu-rays I don't think it'll make a difference.

 

That's what I'm thinking...