8600GS 256meg vs 8600GT 128meg

Ok, I've read a lot of the differences between the 128meg version of the GT in macbook pros and the 256meg version. The conclusion I came to was that 128meg is not really future proof, as games are getting big textures etc every day and it is really lacking the Vram. Some even suggests 256mb is 'minimum' these days.

What I wanna know is, whether the 8600GS under the conditions that the game (eg. running a game on external lcd with 1900x1200 resolution) and the system uses pass 128meg Vram (imo totally possible today, and even more so in future not far away with DX10), will the 8600GS with 256meg run much smoother, while the 8600GT starts to struggle bigtime due to the fact it is out of Vram and has to fetch it using "turbocache" from the main Ram? If this scenario can happen, I'm really thinking twice about getting the standard version of the macpro. I mean, what's the point of a great DX10 card when it doesnt even have enough memory to run the DX10 games coming out...

 

the 8600m gt at 128 will still run better then the 8600m gs at 256

the gt has double the stream processors, which even the GS has a faster core clock, and memory clock, but it doesn't matter - the GT with double the stream processors will run better.

16 vs 32

 

Yes, I know in terms of raw speed etc. GT will run better than GS, it has a better GPU and all. However, my scenario is when the GT utilizes ALL of it's VRAM (with 128meg, imo thats in every way possible today). What would happen then? Say the game requires 150meg Vram, but the GT only has 128meg to offer, while the GS can offer 256. The GS can go along with its usual operation, but wouldnt the GT just collapse and fall apart?

I'm not sure, perhaps the scenario I came up with isn't even realistic in real world gaming/processing etc, just need some confirmation on this

 

The 8600 series uses turbocache very efficiently, so as long as you have 2 or 3 GB or RAM, the 8600GT will still run better. I suppose if ALL of your RAM was being utilized, and ALL of your VRAM used, then the 8600M-GS might outperform the 8600M-GT, but at that point you need to turn some settings down, as neither will run great.

 

Hmmm, from what I've read so far, a lot of people been saying that Turbocache is just an exaggerated marketing strategy and the actual performance is quite crappy ?

I'm just afraid to fork out the money for a standard version and come a few months time when new DX10 games releases, can't even play them properly due to 128meg vram while someone's crappy gpu with double the vram can handle it fine

 

The 256mb chip in the 2.4 GHz configuration is 8600GT so why are you worrying about the GS version?

 

VRAM is not, and has not been, the limiting factor in a graphics card for a while now. There is no way that a lower end GPU would be able to handle a game that a higher end GPU couldn't because of additional VRAM. Also, nVidia's Turbocache has improved significantly recently, to the extent that a 64-mb dedicated Go7400 could play games that required a minimum of twice that VRAM, and even the 8600m series has seen major improvements by additional RAM for turbocaching. Read this, around post #378.

 

i see your concept, and i see how you are making your argument, but the truth is that its a null argument.

the 8600m gt with 128 megs of vram is still going to outperform the 8600m gs with 256. Its not even going to be a close fight.

I am not particularly a fan of turbocache, but apparently it just takes what it needs, so its not that big a deal. your system still has preference to the memory over your gpu.

 

Ok, , I think I get it now. The reason I was asking this was because I was deciding between the macpro 128meg GT or another laptop similar spec with a 8600GS 256meg ram. If that the GS can outperform the GT in certain conditions due to the extra ram, I will think twice about buying the standard macpro book and perhaps purchase the laptop with the GS for a much cheaper price.

So the conclusion is, a 8600GS (stock) with no matter how much Vram, will never be able to outperform a 8600GT (also stock) under any situations with only 128meg Vram. Hope I have this right.

thanks for the replies

 

the 128 meg 8600m gt seems to perform similarly (or slightly better) than the ddr2 8600m gt cards (which have 400mhz ram clock and 256 megs of vram)

the above cards handily outperform the 8600m gs.

the 128 meg 8600m gt has a 635mhz ram clock, not 700, just to keep that straight.

 

how does the nvidia 8600M GT with 128MB compared to the old ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256MB vram?

 

So I guess your only purchasing the MBP for gaming?

 

The 8600M-GT is much better.

 

Hmm, actually no, if I was just purchasing a gaming laptop, I would probably go for a much cheaper option like the Dell 1520 or Asus VP1.

The Macbook Pro has all the features I wanted after doing some research. It's as light as 14"'s (I was looking at 14" laptops originally because I thought 15 were too bulky and heavy). It's got a great design, great screen with choice of matte/glossy (I want matte, whereby most companies these days only offer glossy). Then I did some research on OSX and it looked great, the programs are very neat, seems like operating in OSX saves a lot more battery life, and connecting an external HDTV under OSX is just plug and play and all the resolution fixes itself without any hassle. All these great features pointed me to get a Macbook Pro, just which version?

I want to be able to game a bit on it, as it will be a desktop replacement for my old amd xp3500. Until I can save up enough to get a proper gaming desktop again in say 1-2 years time. Just that when I first say 8600GT 128meg, I was like, isnt 128meg days ancient (cards up going pass 512meg these days!), I mean, even my ATI 9600Pro has 128meg ram on it. However, it looks like my concept of Vram is totally wrong and it seems the macpro standard version is more than enough as long as I don't put every setting to ultra or something.

 

You should look into the upcoming Asus V2s and the Asus F8sv, if you hadn't considered those. However, you're correct that the standard MBP should be fine for pretty much anything but hard-core gaming usage.

 

Sorry, that was a really stupid thing to say to you...

I hope you enjoy Mac OS X and your new MBP!