2.2ghz and 128mb video memory or 2.4 and 256?

Well, I'm sure this is a question on many other people's minds as well. I was wondering if the extra hdd space, faster processor and higher vid. memory was really worth the $500 extra to get it. I was originally considering a compal IFL90, but have since then moved to the MBP because I think it suits my needs better than a PC would. I do some occasional gaming, only game that I really play now is CSS, but in the future I may want to play a few new games that come out, and want to have the ability to do that. I do a lot of photo work, and also some modeling and animation(which is another reason why I decided to go w/ a mbp). I will be going to college next year, and am currently saving for a laptop.
I just dont know if its really worth waiting longer for me to save the extra money to get the upgraded version.

Thanks for all the help guys.

 

You might as well get the 2.4 ghz cpu and better GPU so there won't be any "Oh, if I had done such and such, things would be so much better now!"

 

If you want to game, spend the $500. I will gaurantee you that the 128mb memory will cripple the 8600GT, as that's far too little for a card on par with the 7900 series.

 

this thread might help

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=129109


256mb:

CS:S video stress test- set all the options to the maximum (including the shadow option that isnt set at max at default)

1440x900 screen resolution

i set the aa to 2x and aniso to 4x.

the average frames per second were 112.

128mb

CS:S video stress test- set all the options to the maximum (including the shadow option that isnt set at max at default)

1440x900 screen resolution

i set the aa to 2x and aniso to 4x.

the average frames per second were 88.98.

 

The only problem with those tests, are the Source engine isn't exactly the greatest stress test, especially not for a card like the 8600GT. Look at some Lost Planet DX10 benches, and you'll see the difference even more.

 

i got the 2.4 ghz 256 8600mgt MBP and i must say i am impressed, definitely recommend it over the 2.2, but thats just me.

I don't know about other people on here, but got it with the matte screen and its beautiful and bright

 

The only reason I posted that thread was b/c he said he plays CSS. Are those on the MBP or other notebooks? Is this the game? If so I can try to run it on my MBP tonight...if anyone is interested

 

The Macbook Pro uses the Turbocache feature right?

 

Yes, honestly I am going to stick with the 128MB - In the past yes the extra 128 MB would have made a big difference, but do to the way windows utilizes turbo cache and system ram, with 2GB of ram on a machine you have have nothing to worry about ram wise. The VRAM is going to be a little slower shared, but it is not like you are going to run out of texture memory because of it - aka no major slow down.

The majority of the benchmarks out there that show some fps differences are primarily do to the extra 200 MHz. I will have mine soon to get some good benchmarks of my own, but I cannot justify an extra 500 dollars for it when I doubt I will be able to tell the difference with normal day to day use.

 

hmmm, ahh tough decisions. Well, I plan on waiting to save up some more to get the upgraded version of the MBP, which means I'll have to wait until the 1st of july to have enough cash. I think the extra video ram would really help with rendering and stuff in my animation program.

 

In normal day use, no, but in gaming you'll notice it alot. No card faster than the Go7400 can utilize shared ram efficiently, so the 128mb MBP really only has 128mb of VRAM, the shared ram is next to useless. And yes, you will run out of texture memory, especially if running at high resolutions or with AA on.

 

instead of listening to ppl who don't even have their hands on a mbp
take a look at this site.
http://www.barefeats.com/rosa03.html

quote from the site:"
The 15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (256MB GDDR3 video SDRAM) was at most 9% faster than the 15" 2.2GHz MacBook Pro (128MB GDDR3 video SDRAM)."

the games that are tested are all current and last gen games; I suppose thats fine if you are not going to use the thing as your main gaming machine.

 

First of all, those aren't the latest gen games. The 8600mGT cannot truly be tested if you leave out games like Oblivion, Lost Planet (DX10), or similar demanding games. Just look at the other 8600mGT benchmarking threads floating around. Secondly, it's fine if you don't want to trust my opinion because I haven't personally tested both MBP's (though I have tested the 2.2ghz version), but that doesn't mean you should automatically trust someone who does.

 

i did mention those are last and current games
btw i consider oblivion current gen since low end cards like the 7400go can run it in med setting just fine.

i did look at the 3dmarks score and curiously the scores vary from 1 user to the other. Some ppl got 2700 and some got as low as 1500. at this point in time i think the benchmarks is very unreliable.

 

Ok, here's my take on the 128MB vs 256MB debate. First, older games will run fine on either version so if you're into WOW or Source or even FEAR, it shouldn't matter which version you have. Newer games like Oblivion and Supreme Commander won't look so hot on either version with full settings but you might get as much as a 40% increase in frame rate (guesstimate) with the 256MB version. eg. If you get only 20FPS in the 128MB version you would get 28FPS in the 256MB version, which can be considered more playable and tolerable.

But now here's the problem... Assuming you do not want to be limited to recent games that fall into the second category of "Newish games", whichever model you get I can guarantee you it isn't going to be able to handle any FPS or RTS at high/max settings coming out in Q4-2007+. So if you're the kind of gamer whose gotten accustomed to laptops to game with you're going to be toning down the details pretty soon anyway no matter which version you get and once you do that the 128MB or 256MB aren't going to make much of a difference at all.. except for maybe X360 or PS3 ports (damn those poorly coded ports..).

Anyway, so my take on it is that if you're one of those people whose really gotten into one of those recent games like the above mentioned and need to play it at maximum settings, you should get the 256MB MBP. Otherwise, you're better off saving your money for your next notebook purchase... Or possibly Leopard.

And for the record, I did order the 128MB MBP, however, it does not have anything to do with gaming as I recently got out of the habit of keeping up with the latest games and am now just a casual gamer who enjoys the occasional wc3 or source match.

Oh, and here's hoping SC2 will at least run smoothly on med settings on the 8600M GT whenever it decides to get released.