X1600 128mb vs. X1600 256mb?

I thought all X1600s had 256mb with hyper memory upto 512mb. On apple's website the two 15" MacBook Pros have a few differences, ram, processor and vga. One has the x1600 128mb and the other 256mb. How much stronger is one over the other? Is there a big difference or is it like the 64mb 7400 on the xps1210 compared to the 128mb 7400? Also, does the 128mb version also have hyper memory upto 512mb?

 

not sure about the 128 and hypermemory, but i will tell u there is a world of difference between the 128 and 256 modes of this particular card. now the old x700s shows almost no performance diference. however scores show the 128 to be closer to the old x700s then a 256 x1600. it leads me to believe that the 128 mb ones may have other performance cuts as well, lower clocks and some other changes, not sure though

 

In laimen terms, will I be able to play BF2 on med/high settings? I mean it can't be as bad as an x1400?

 

Well I don't have specific numbers for you, but a X1600 with 128MB is much faster than a X1400. 128MB is generally enough for resolutions up to 1280x800. 256MB really starts pulling away at 1440x900. That said, I'm not sure if the X1600 really has enough power to game at 1440x900 where the memory would really make a difference. If you really want to game though, then the 256MB is definitely useful.

Someone who actually has a MBP should comment, but I'm pretty sure BF2 is one of those games that will benefit from 256MB given the large textures it loads. Having 2GB of RAM is also beneficial in BF2. Whether that allows you to run high settings, you'll have to ask an actual user.

In terms of 3DMark05, I believe there is about a 300 point spread between the low-end 15.4" MBP and the high-end one. Something like 3700 points for the 128MB and 4000 points for the 256MB. It doesn't necessarily have much meaning though since 3DMark05 is optimized for 128MB of VRAM. Still, they are both much better than a typical X1400 which scores like 2000-2200.

For Hypermemory, I don't believe Apple implements it in OS X, so only the dedicated is usable. In Windows, I believe ATI driver's implement it by default.

 

One thing I read about the 128MB X1600 is that some of them had 64bit memory. There was a thread a few weeks back in the the gaming forum section in which they had a huge discussion about this. I got wary of getting the 128MB X1600 because I do not know if Apple used the regular 128MB or the "crippled" 128MB, and opted for the MBP with the 256MB X1600 instead.

Edit:
I would also keep hypermemory the last thing to consider. Dedicated memory is what counts the most.

 

There is no hypermemory for the MacBook Pros. Also, the 3DMark05 difference is only about 100 points. The limiting factor will be the chipset, not the VRAM. What it comes down to is this, is it worth $500 to you for 1 more gigabyte of RAM and double VRAM that will translate to a few extra frames in most games.

 

I don't believe the 128MB X1600 has 64-bit memory bus. There's no way that it can score 3700+ in 3DMark05 with that large a bandwidth limitation.

 

As I suspected. I don't think Apple uses low end parts. They are usually always high end.

 

Is there that much of a difference? I could of paid 250$ and gotten the 2.33 with x1600 256mb, 2 gb. I'm fine with the 128mb but are there any benefits? Does this card run cooler?

 

Yeah Bob, I know how you feel. I got pretty scared when I first started playing WoW on my macbook pro and I was running at 20 FPS with max settings/resolution at only 20 FPS...What do you think the 256MB card would run at though? I'm a little worried because I thought the x1600 could squeeze out more performance...Although my desktop with 2G ram and the nVidia Geforce 7500LE runs it faster at a higher resolution, even though my laptop runs oblivion faster.

 

Thats weird. This card is faster than my x800xt in oblivion. Are you sure that your FPS problems are a result of the video card and not connection? Theres no reason it shouldnt' be able to get 30+ FPS, unless you had AA pushed up.

 

He may be running it in OS X, which if that is the case, the lower FPS is due to OpenGL and the lack of DirectX 9.