MBP 128mb v. 256mb 8600

Don't have much time and writing from my phone, but was just wondering how much of a different the 128 and 256 would have in game. Like if playing a new game, would the 256 play it on high and the 128 on medium and have about the same frame rate? Thanks and sorry if this is repetitive..

thanks

 

yes and no. the extra memory will help in rendering when in higher resolutions. and in this age, i suggest the 256 over the 128 just because of the ability to render faster in higher resolutions.

changing detail level from what i know in the same resolution doesnt make the 256 faster.

 

It will have a tremendous impact on game performance, moreso than any other component in your computer.

Oh sure it does, it can have a tremendous effect. For instance, Quake 4 on ultra detail REQUIRES 512MB of video card memory, the textures are just that large.

 

doubling your gpu's memory from 128 to 256 wouldn't have more of an impact than doubling your system memory. (from either 512 to 1 gig or from 1 gig to 2... possibly even from 2 to 4 depending on the game and operating system *cough vista*)

quake 4's ultra detail setting actually doesn't require 512 megs of onboard memory. it will make use of 512 megs, but you can use system memory to compensate. and i have doubt's as to the difference between the actual result of that setting vs the one beneath it (very high? high? i dont remember) - especially in resolutions with less than 1000 vertical pixels.

but who knows.

256 megs will increase performance though once you start increasing resolution. native res. on the mbp is 1440x900 and it has a moderate effect at that point. my friend and i both ran the css benchmark maxed out (he has the 128) and i think he got 88fps average vs 111 for me. i dont remember the exact numbers, but thats either correct or very close.

the monitor refresh is only 60hz. neither of us will see a difference in css. however, if a future game showed a 25% performance increase, he might be getting 30 fps average, i might get 37... that could make a difference.

plus- most of today's games target 128 meg / 256 meg cards. as games come out that use more memory for textures or what not, even 256 might be pushing the low end.. who knows. at that point, they will still run on 128 meg cards, but the performance difference might increase.

 

I was giving the benefit of the doubt that the rest of the system isn't already low end. Going from something like 2GHz to 2.2GHz won't have much of an effect, and even going from 1GB to 2GB of system RAM won't have as much as an effect as the GPU will (and good luck using 4GB of RAM on a 32-bit version of Windows). But having an 8600 will by far have the largest effect (it's not JUST the fact that it has double the GPU memory).

Assuming you're not talking about the crappy generic "value" games, 256MB has already been on the low end for a while now. Trying to play Quake 4 on Ultra with less than 512MB of GPU memory is not going to give you an a very usable experience.

 

If you want to play next generation games get the 256. Even that will hamper the gpu in the future. If you are a light gamer, and mostly want to play current and older games, the 128mb card will be fine.

 

what about using direct x 10 on company of heroes with the 128?

 

Kind of off topic, but do you think once EA releases the new games, can the regular Macbook maxed out handle Tiger Woods 08?

Just want something to play when Im bored..

 

i doubt it would handle it very well...especially since it will be running in cider in osX.

 

The problem is that that to get the 256MB VRAM, you have to pay $500, even if you don't really want the meager 200MHz processor increase and the meager 40GB larger hard drive.

I really wish Apple would open up their configuration options a little bit.

 

I can't imagine that turning out very well...

 

I agree completly. I would pay another 100 or so for the 256 card and pass on the 2.4 and 160gb hd. so maybe a mpb for 2100... the 500 buck increase is ridiculous but it is almost necessary just to get the bloody card.

I know that the 256 card can turbo cache up to 1gb if you have enough ram, but does anyone know how much ram the 128 card can use turbocache-ing ?? that might make it kind of interesting.

also has anyone done any comparisons of the 3dmark 05 and 06 of these two systems?? link?

thanks for the help

 

I have both the 2.2 GhZ (128MB card) and the 2.4 (256MB) and I can definitely say that there is little to NO difference in the performance of any of my games. I play all the latest games using parallels and there is no problem with either machine.

 

ave you benchmark them yet? like what's the 3dmark06 score on the 120mb one? THX

 

None of the games you could play in Parallels would tax the graphics enough.

 

yeah what games are you playing? I mean like fear/oblivion/supreme commander/ company of heroes.

if you could possibly post up your 3dmark 05 and 06 scores for each machine to compare that would be awesome!

 

The review here says this:

Apple MacBook Pro (2.0GHz Core Duo, ATI X1600 128MB): 1,528 3D Marks

Apple MacBook Pro (2.40GHz Core 2 Duo Intel T7700, NVidia 8600M 256MB): 4,674 3D Marks


Like I said, huge difference.



Still, my desktop's score is three times that ok.

 

Ah wait, they actually have 128MB 8600s now. I thought it was all ATI up to the 256MB 8600 on the most expensive MBP.

 

do yo uhave the scores for the 2.2ghz one with the 128mb 8600gt???

 

^^ Just to clarify for people that don't know, those scores are in 3DMark06 and the 8600M GT score is the maximum mark posted (for the MBP) of a somewhat wide range.

Thanks to Prism for creating this thread (which includes resolution information and more): MBP SR 128MB vs 256MB - Benchmark Compilation where you will find a plethora of information on the newest MBPs.

 

Think of it more like this: Say on a new DX10 game coming out much later this year, the 2.2Ghz gets 10FPS on avg on medium settings, the 2.4Ghz gets 13FPS on avg on medium settings. Neither will be all that playable and you're better off saving that $500 for a new laptop in another couple years or so.