2.2ghz Macbook pro + upgrades or 2.4ghz

I will get a Macbook pro sometime next week. I am not a heavy gamer but I do enjoy a game now and then. I dont mind lower settings because I play games for the fun and not for the graphics so much.

I have pick between the:
2.2ghz Macbook pro with the 128MB 8600M GT upgraded to 3GB DDR2 and a 250GB 5400rpm WD hard disk (or 200gb 7200rpm disk). for about 1750€

Or

2.4ghz Macbook pro with the 256MB 8600M GT with 2gb ram and the standard 160GB hard disk. for about 1850€

I dont think the CPU speed will make much differance in anything I run. There have been reports that 3GB RAM helps the 8600M GS/GT in the Asus laptops alot. Shouldnt this apply even more to a card limited to 128MB ram? I really would like to get the bigger disk because I could really use the space and I read that it performce pretty well.

Which laptop would you get?

 

I believe that the extra RAM helps Asus laptops because their graphics card shares RAM with the system, so an increase in RAM would mean a higher possible increase in graphics memory.
However, OS X does not have turbocache, so unless you Boot Camp, an increase in RAM would not necessarily mean a significant increase in 3D gaming (although it would increase Parallels performance by quite a lot).

Seeing as you do game, I would recommend the 256MB version of the graphics card, as RAM is dirt cheap nowadays, and you can just get an external HD to satisfy your storage needs (like I have done).

Do note that the 3GB RAM version means 2 different sticks. I think if you want more RAM, purchasing 2x2GB would be a better option.

 

I will be gameing mostly with bootcamp and WinXP yes. There turbocache is supported no?

Ram might be cheap but a 2gb stick still costs me 75-85€ and if I get the 2.4ghz macbook pro it is already at my max max limit so I wont be getting any more ram or disk space. Atleast not this year. 1GB + 2GB should be fine. Atleast it is for all windows laptops it makes no differance dont think the macbook is different. I know I will be getting the 32bit version of XP for sure so atleast there 3gb is max anyway.

 

I'd go with the 2.4 ghz version for the reason that ram is upgradable, while video cards and processors are not easily upgradable. If you decide 'man, I really need that extra gig of ram and a 7200 rpm harddrive,' you can always go out and buy them and put them in without a problem. But if, two years down the road, you need a 2.4 ghz processor and more video memory, you're out of luck.

 

I just got the 2.2 yesterday. Frankly, for $500, I don't think an extra 40GB of drive space and a marginally better video card are worth it. I'm not a super-intense gamer; if I was, I'd have a dedicated gaming desktop. I already have a huge 320GB external FireWire drive for backups and other crap too.

This thing is so fast in Vista and OS X that I don't even see a need for the 2.4GHz. Hell, I'd have taken a 2.0 C2D.

Take the $500 and get Apple Care, a Mighty Mouse, and a spare battery.

 

can someone confirm this?

 

Turbocache is supported if you boot camp Windows. It is not supported natively in OS X.

 

It's supported in Vista, not XP.

 

I wasnt talking about the Intel Turbo Memory... I was talking about the Nvidia Turbocache where the GPU uses part of the RAM for video ram. This works for both XP and Vista.

 

I'm using XP with my 2.2Ghz MBP and it reports 512MB of dedicated VRAM so I'm going to assume turbocaching works in XP.

 

Isn't Bootcamp the only dual boot program that supports 3D acceleration in XP/Vista? I could be wrong.

 

Every dual system has full 3D support. Dual booting a Mac with XP and Vista gives you full directx9/10 support. It is no different from running Windows on a Pc.

What you are talking about is the lack of DirectX support in Virtual Machines such as VMware and Parallels. This runs Windows inside a window of OSX. Parallels supports directx8 but not fully.

 

I was thinking about Parallels but I couldn't remember the name of it for the life of me.