In this test, the 1.83ghz(january, I assume 128MB graphics RAM) MBP is faster than the 2.0ghz MBP (january, I assume 256MB graphics RAM) in Unreal Tournament 2004.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/reviews/mbookmain/index.php?lsrc=mwrss
It is probably due to how benchmarks change slighty each time you test. But I think it is safe to say that the extra 128MB graphics RAM don't help in Unreal Tournament 2004. And in theory 256MB vs. 128MB shouldn't make a difference unless the game has textures etc. that are more than ~120MB in size, right?
So what is the 256MB useful for? Driving a 30" inch plus built in 15/17" screen? Shouldn't 128MB be enough for that?
Some times extra numbers are added but not really utilized. For instance ATA 133 bandwith instead of ATA 100 on disks with a maximum transfer rate of ~60 MB. But people still want the 133 since it's "more bandwith". Same with AGP 8x graphics cards, when AGP 2x is sufficient. Is the 256MB graphics in the MBPs such a case?
http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/reviews/mbookmain/index.php?lsrc=mwrss
It is probably due to how benchmarks change slighty each time you test. But I think it is safe to say that the extra 128MB graphics RAM don't help in Unreal Tournament 2004. And in theory 256MB vs. 128MB shouldn't make a difference unless the game has textures etc. that are more than ~120MB in size, right?
So what is the 256MB useful for? Driving a 30" inch plus built in 15/17" screen? Shouldn't 128MB be enough for that?
Some times extra numbers are added but not really utilized. For instance ATA 133 bandwith instead of ATA 100 on disks with a maximum transfer rate of ~60 MB. But people still want the 133 since it's "more bandwith". Same with AGP 8x graphics cards, when AGP 2x is sufficient. Is the 256MB graphics in the MBPs such a case?