9600M GT 256MB Vs 512MB

Hi folks I been watching Crysis gameplay footage on Youtube and have noticed some pop up on the lower spec MBP.
Would foliage appearing as if by magic be a result of having less memory in the GPU? or would it be down to system memory, the CPU or another factor I'm unaware of?
Please help as I'm about to pull the trigger on a MBP and don't want to splash out more than I need to

 

There won't be much different between 256 and 512MB of VRAM, since it runs on a 128-bit bus, which means there is a limit of how fast it can see the memory. That makes the extra 512MB of VRAM unnecessary since it can only see 128MB of the 256MB in a set amount of time. Bottom line, it will be no difference, and will be just as efficient and have the same graphics as the higher end one.

 

The analogy that Chaz uses is that if an office worker can only use 3 computers at a time and you give him 6, it won't make him work any faster; the other 3 are just a waste. The same works with that specifc video card. It can only effectively use 256MB, so having any more is just a blatent waste of your money.

 

Correct. That's a great analogy also, as it sums it up exactly, but in a nutshell.

 

512mb vram FTW.

 

I've read many explanations/analogies to this...the two in this thread are common but I've also read that these analogies are wrong.

There is beneficial aspects to 512VRAM or else Apple would waste the extra money to put it in.

 

I'm sure there's a reason Apple put the extra VRAM in there, but the benefits of the lower end model might outweigh the benefits of the 512MB VRAM.

 

What benefits does the lower end model have over the 512mb vram model?? I guess price but thats it. It has the same mb of cache just like my mac mini or macbooks. Jumping from 3mb of cache to 6mb of cache is HUGE in my experience, no more color wheels for that matter.

Basically the lower end mbp is a macbook's internals + a 256mb vram nvidia 9600m gt gpu.

I remember when I ran my external monitor with the 2.4GHz unibody mbp to the 24" led acd it was slower than with the 512mb vram in overall speed. It was silky smooth on the 512mb vram but the 256mb vram was kind of jerky at times. Especially in dual monitor mode.

 

This is not correct. I'm not sure where you got the idea that bus width has an impact on usable memory.

 

Hmmmm just asked my friend about his PB, no jerkiness issues for him on his 256meg 9600m on an external monitor.

Also Macworld did a comparison benchmark

 

The beneficial aspects of the 512 is this. "Oh this one has 512!! I'm going to spend more money on this one!" There.

 

You have to try it out for yourself.

I'm not talking about gaming performance or overall benchmark comparisons but driving an external monitor there is a HUGE difference between the 256mb vram vs. 512mb vram in terms of overall ui speeds and workflow.

I've owned many macbook pros in my time for the last 3 years. I've owned them all. 2.4/2.5/2.6GHz 15"/17" 256/512mb vram nvidia 8600m or the 256mb vram 9600m gt earlier this year before exchanging it for the 512mb vram version.

Anyway there is a simple test. Try multitasking with 2-6 spaces enabled in dual monitor mode:

1) 2.4GHz 256mb vram connected dual monitor screen mode meaning the macbook pro is not in closed shell mode. I can guarantee you if your multitasking with 4-6 spaces, even just 2 will cause jerkiness or color wheel to pop up sooner or later. Especially with the measley 3mb of cache.

2) 2.5/2.6Ghz 512mb Vram, in this case 2.66 and now 2.93Ghz models with 512mb vram. I've tested this with dual monitor mode once again with anywhere from 2-6 spaces open multitasking it runs buttery smooth with no jerkiness.

Basically it feels like a 2.4GHz 256mb vram in closed shell mode (runs faster than dual monitor mode) equivalent to a 2.5/2.6GHz mbp with a 512mb vram in dual monitor mode. And the 512mb vram mbp will run even faster when its in closed shell mode.

 

The difference will be resolution dependent. At higher resolutions the extra Vram will show a difference. Similar results will also be seen with AA/AF.

 

The 9600m gt supports turbo cache. So it will be able to use the maximum amount of ram possible. If you have 2gb ram like the stock config, the maximum amount of vram you'll be able to use is 1gb(even though you'll never use it). So stick with the 256mb and save your money.

 

So what benefits would adding another 2GB of DDR3 system memory have? Would having a 2.66ghz processor over 2.4 be a noticeable improvement?

 

Adding RAM increases the number of applications you can use at the same time. I would advise you do it if you'll be running virtual O.S. Concerning the processor, the difference in speed is barely noticeable, except when doing heavy video encoding, etc. The additional cache memory will give you some 3-5% performance increase, which makes it not worth of upgrading to the 2.66Ghz processor.

 

some of these people are full of it.. relying on synthetic benchmarks and word of mouth wisdom...

the 6mb cache and higher freq processor is faster... quite a bit when doing CPu intensive things.... well worth the money. And yes you can use 512mb of video memory and get quite an improvement... just depends what your doing with it. playing some game that was designed with 128 and 256 in mind? probably wont be better, just as benchmarks show, but thats not all you can do with your video card or memory...

 

According to Chaz, bumping the processor to 2.66Ghz won't improve the performance greatly. I advise you to stick with the 2.4Ghz one.

 

The extra performance is going to come from the extra cache, not the clock speed. In some applications, the extra cache can improve performance quite a bit. However, for most people, I don't think the $2500 model is worth $500 over the $2000 base model.

bus width has nothing to do with how much memory you can address (use). However, a narrower bus means less data can travel back and forth between the processor and the ram. This bottleneck is typically why 512mb of ram does not give much of a performance increase to the 9600gt.

 

I can think of reasons why you might want a bigger frame buffer:
Texture caching - load once use many times
Procedural models - kind of like above but with vertices
Buffer effects

Also, the GPU is not just barfing stuff up onto your screen so the straight pipe arguement is not valid I don't think. There is a lot more going on than sending pixels across a 64/128/256 bit bus into a frame buffer.

Fill rate is not king anymore.

Or I could be completely wrong.

Either way I vote 512.

 

listen to benchmarks, not people's opinions.

 

this one rose from the grave...

don't just generally trust benchmarks, as they are not always right... totally depends on the benchmark, and your system and has hundreds of variables. *Most* benchmarkers and benchmarking software will try to do it as accurate as possible, but its not infallible.

 

^ true although its still more accurate than people's opinions. Also depends on what you're going to be doing? we presume gaming, but at what res, texture settings? find a benchmark that is that is benchmarking something similar to what you want to be using your computer for and see how they compare.

 

Random pop ups like that is due to the 128bit-bus width, not the amount of video ram. However more video ram would help, which is why the 512 does show a noticeable performance increase from the 256 according to reviews and benchmarks. However lets be honest, the 9600m isn't exactly a powerhouse and a few extra frames in the sims 4 isn't going to be worth the price for most people.

 

For my UMBP running the 512mb 9600m gt, I know that it makes a difference while gaming in GTA4. It's a very demanding game and shows you exactly what your chipset can render in real-time. So I can have twice the cars, detail, etc than say someone with only 256mb. Not exactly a benchmark but a kind of real world test, which is what matters to me.

 

...

poor information here.

you aren't getting 2x content, detail, or removing pop-up by adding more memory to your graphics card.

in the end, expect 10% difference in frame rate at the most. the end.

 

Ok what is the difference.
The reason for greater VRAM is to allow dedicated access to texture memory.
This is important for high detail texture games.
If a 256MB VRAM uses TurboCache it has to access system RAM which introduces latency.
For games with low texture RAM requirements there will be negligible difference.