x1600 128 vs x1600 256

Hi all,

First I'd like to thank the admins here for not making me go click a link in my hotmail mailbox just to post my simple question. Removing that step in registration may increase the amount of 'crust' in these forums and increase the amount of work for the admins but I really appreciate not having to jump through that hoop.

My question is regarding the performance of the x1600 mobility 128mb vs that of the 256 mb version, I'm asking because the Apple's MBP 15" offers both, but the only way I know of to upgrade that is to pay ~$600 CAD. I'm hunting around for benchmarks, but haven't found any good numbers.

Also, it would be interesting to know if there's a "cheaper" way to get the upgraded card. Basically I'd like the 15" macbook pro with the 2.16 ghz proc, but with an extra gig of ram (could install this myself, apple seems to overcharge) and the 256mb x1600. Given Apples... stringent.. hardware configurations, I'd be surprised if I'm allowed to do something like this, but thought I'd ask anyway.

Thanks much,
BeguiledFoil

 

I would just go with the 2.16GHz MBP and get the extra memory, like you planned. There isn't any specific way to get the extra VRAM in the lower end configuration.

The only way I can see would be to buy a refurb 2.33GHz C2D MBP, which would come around in price similar to the new 2.16GHz MBP, and should still be fine.

Or if you can wait a couple of months, when the MBP line is refreshed with Santa Rosa, it's likely there will be GPU upgrades as well, and presumably more VRAM even in the lower-priced MBP config.

For what it's worth, in terms of real-world gaming performance, I've tried out both the 2.16GHz C2D MBP and the 2.33GHz one, and in most of the games I tried the extra VRAM didn't make a whole lot of difference.

For what it's worth, the extra cost of the higher end config basically includes the memory, the extra VRAM and the 2.33GHz C2D instead of the 2.16 GHz C2D. I remember when I was doing the price comparison, it ended up being pretty reasonable (that is, totalling the costs of those individual component upgrades, the extra cost of the higher end config was about right).

 

The 128mb version will create a bottleneck while playing most modern pc games. If you're looking to play any graphics intense games, I would definitely suggest 256mb dedicated memory minimum. The MBP is definitely a beautiful and powerful laptop with lots of bells and whistles (that I wish I could've afforded) but you might find what you want from another brand, perhaps an Asus.

 

I agree with poster Hello here, you should consider looking at another company if you want to game. The only reason to spring for a MacBook Pro is to use the Mac operating system in my opinion.

Synthetic 3DMark05 benchmarks show about a 33% performance advantage for the 256MB card over the 128MB. The real world difference will be less because not all games are going to need 256MB of dedicated memory. There's no question that the 256MB version would be nice to have, but is it worth $600 CAD extra? Not by a long shot.

 

Agreed. Asus has some excellent notebooks that offer the X1600/X1700, for cheaper than the Macbook Pro. Check MilestonePC.com for potential Asus models - the V1JP, W3J, and S96J/Z96J are three very popular Asus notebooks

 

Thanks for the replies guys, lots of great info/opinions.

I should have mentioned this in the initial thread, but my place of employment heavily subsidizes mac hardware, so that's why I've settled on a MBP. If not for that discount, I'd definitely be looking elsewhere.

I can wait a couple of months, but not much more than that. Any word on when exactly this will happen? I'll google around, hope I find something.

As for that $600 CAD it also includes an extra gig of ram, so I get a slight cpu clock boost, double the ram, and double the vram. But even then... I just can't justify it right now, I feel like I can just double the ram myself and be totally content. As was mentioned, the MBP isn't really 'for' games anyway.

 

There isn't anything official yet, but the general expectation is that the new MBP lineup will debut when the Santa Rosa platform becomes available in May. At the latest people expect it in June (coinciding with Apple's WWDC). I would be shocked if they go much longer than that without coming out.

It's very likely that the new MBP's will have upgraded GPU's, and it might remove the "sticking point" of the base model having a GPU with a smaller amount of VRAM.

I think you should still be fine with the core MBP, but it does depend on how important gaming capabilities are. I had one for a brief period of time, and gaming was fine on it (especially the Core 2 Duo models, which are closer to the stock clock speeds of the X1600). Given the overall form factor and the overall construction quality, I was more than satisfied with it's capabilities. For what it's worth, I think they're excellent machines (my only real complaint about the MBP line right now is that some of them seem to have a problem where from certain viewing angles, part of the screen can be slightly darker, although this is mostly noticeable when viewing a solid color across the entire screen at once). But it's one reason I'm looking forward to the new lineup, which is expected to use the same sort of LED backlighting that Sony currently uses for their premium SZ line.

-Zadillo

 

Since I have the 128MB X1600 MBP, I'll tell you my 3DMark scores. These are using the Omega 7.1 drivers since by default Boot Camp comes with some old beta ATI driver from before March 2006, which is barely optimized for 3DMark06. These are my best runs since they seem to have a bit of variation. But, I've done no optimization beyond using Omega drivers and have my antivirus, firewall, etc. all left running.

3DMark03 (default 1024x768): 7018
3DMark05 (default 1024x768): 3928
3DMark06 ("official" 1440x900): 1585
3DMark06 ("common" 1280x800): 1878

PCMark05: 4305

Now a note about 3DMark06. The official resolution is supposed to be 1280x1024. However, that is not a common resolution for most notebooks so the benchmark usually defaults so keeping 1280 horizontal pixels but varies the vertical pixels to fit the screen. Therefore, I've provided scores at 1440x900, which if you multiply it out is basically comparable to the number of pixels at 1280x1024. So 1585 in 3DMark06 is comparable to desktop setups and laptops with native resolutions of 1680x1050 and up.

Laptops that have a 1440x900 native resolution or lower usually default to 1280x800 so I've provided my 1878 score at that resolution. This score is probably applicable to the majority of laptops out there since scores for say that A8Js would likely be at this resolution unless the user deliberately changed it. The W3J seems to be one of the rare notebooks that use a 1280x768 resolution so it's score would be artificially inflated slightly above this.