8600M GT: 128mb vs 256mb

[Episteme]

I have to admit I'm very surprised by Barefeats' results. I was about to shell out $425 extra without a second thought before seeing this. I could care less about 3 fps...but will the gap be bigger for games (like Oblivion) with large outdoor areas, and more textures? I also plan on running it off my external montior (1920x1200, I think)...the tests still seem to show negligible results at even this resolution. Thanks for any tips!

Note that all the games tester are fairly old, and given they're Mac versions, they'd need to run reasonably well with 128MB -- there weren't many Macs that had 128MB of VRAM back then.

I suspect Supreme Commander, Oblivion, STALKER, etc. would present a different story...

 

[hanzoh]

I wonder if I have to get the 256MB version, if I want to use my MBP in dual-screen mode with a Dell 2407 @ 1920*1200?

I'm currently using a MacBook in clamshell mode in order to give the external screen the full 64MB of VRAM. It then runs very nicely, so could I use the MBP with 128MB VRAM like this but with the internal screen activated and have no sluggishness in normal desktop work?

 

[Episteme]

I wonder if I have to get the 256MB version, if I want to use my MBP in dual-screen mode with a Dell 2407 @ 1920*1200?

I'm currently using a MacBook in clamshell mode in order to give the external screen the full 64MB of VRAM. It then runs very nicely, so could I use the MBP with 128MB VRAM like this but with the internal screen activated and have no sluggishness in normal desktop work?

Depends what you're doing really.

If your GMA950 works fine for just the Dell, you're probably fine using both at the same time with the 128MB MBP, since you're doubling the VRAM but not the display area. I also suspect you won't actually double the number of apps you use.

Here's some rough figures -- The Dell will take 18.4MB just for the desktop, the MBP's own display will take 10.37MB for the desktop, so that's 28.8MB for desktops. That leaves almost 100MB for "everything else". Each app that takes a full screen will take at least as much as the desktop it sits on.

My guess is you'd be fine unless you then run something else that stresses the 3D - say, gaming or Motion or similar. Then all bets are off..

 

[aliquis-]

I second that question. It is so easy to be drawn into this whole texture size/VRAM/clock speed mess - I feel like the old "PC-me" is coming back ! That is exactly why I switched to Macs two years ago and now I have a 360 for all my gaming needs.

Anyway, I do a lot of photoshop work on dual screens and I wonder if the extra memory would help keeping things smooth. Compared to the iBook I use today the difference will be enormous anyway I guess...

I have never owned a graphics card that allows for upgrading the memory. Especially in a notebook I would say the chance is 0%.

I'm very sure more VRAM won't help in Photoshop, more RAM will thought, depending on how large and many images you will work with at the same time of course.

 

[aliquis-]

Each app that takes a full screen will take at least as much as the desktop it sits on.

Due to core image saving the window looks for faster redraws or why? Even if there are limited amount of memory available? The window textures aren't compressed somehow? Are we sure the 8600M GT doesn't use turbocache to add more virtual graphics memory which it could put the windows in?

 

[Evangelion]

Trust me I know the card has been undercloced by at least 30% or more.

According to NVIDIA, the 8600M GT has core-clock of 475MHz, and memory-clock of 700Mhz. Barefeats reports that on the 15" MBP, the GPU runs at max at 470Mhz, and memory runs at 635Mhz. So the core runs at around 99% of the specced speed, while the RAM is around 10% underclocked.

Where are you getting this 30%? Please provide some facts and figures. I got my figures from barefeats and nvidia.com.

 

[aliquis-]

Where are you getting this 30%? Please provide some facts and figures. I got my figures from barefeats and nvidia.com.

Well, "I know" together with "30% or more" seems to invalidate eachother, so no, he probably doesn't know, only guessed.

 

[bassy6]

According to NVIDIA, the 8600M GT has core-clock of 475MHz, and memory-clock of 700Mhz. Barefeats reports that on the 15" MBP, the GPU runs at max at 470Mhz, and memory runs at 635Mhz. So the core runs at around 99% of the specced speed, while the RAM is around 10% underclocked.

Where are you getting this 30%? Please provide some facts and figures. I got my figures from barefeats and nvidia.com.

Nah. It isn't underclocked. If you keep reading my comments you will see that others have corrected me. I was just going by the fact that the 8600M GT is twice more powerful than the x1600 but on barefeats only about 57%. But now I know its probs just due to lack of drivers for the new card.

That goes for any1 who reads my comments, just 4get them cuz I was wrong about most if not all the stuff I wrote

 

[Episteme]

Due to core image saving the window looks for faster redraws or why? Even if there are limited amount of memory available? The window textures aren't compressed somehow? Are we sure the 8600M GT doesn't use turbocache to add more virtual graphics memory which it could put the windows in?

On OS X, all windows are cached in VRAM normally. I think all are double-buffered but don't quote me. The desktop certainly is.

Just to clarify what I said, note that I wasn't contending each app took a full screen's worth of memory by default, just that each app that used the full screen (ie window was full desktop size) took the same as a desktop. Just trying to provide a rule of thumb.

Turbocache isn't part of my calculations since it's irrelevant -- it's a bs marketing name for "streaming textures from system memory", which would result in some jerkiness/slowdown, which is what the original poster wished to avoid.

I'm not talking about a limit that'll cause your apps to no function, just where he needs to be to keep the desktop experience nice and smooth.

 

[Evangelion]

Turbocache isn't part of my calculations since it's irrelevant -- it's a bs marketing name for "streaming textures from system memory", which would result in some jerkiness/slowdown, which is what the original poster wished to avoid.

Turbocache is actually different than streaming textures from system-RAM (which was one of the new features of AGP-bus). Turbocache lets the GPU see one big pool of RAM. Part of that RAM is the local VRAM and part is system-RAM. Of course the GPU is smart enough to put most commonly used stuff in the VRAM, but logically it has just one pool of RAM. Such schemes were used earlier in 3DLabs's hi-end Wildcat 3D-accelerators.

Besides textures, the system-RAM can be used for framebuffer as well. And the GPU can access the system-RAM at the same time it accesses the VRAM. So if the GPU has 10 units of bandwidth to the VRAM and 2 units of bandwidth to the system-RAM, it would have a total of 12 units of bandwidth at it's disposal.

 

[randfee2]

I spent most of the day running 3DMark06 (WinXP) on the MacBook Pro 2.4GHz while a friend in Hawaii was running it on his 2.2GHz MBP. We were trying to measure the performance difference between the 128MB and 256MB video memory.

Some insights running at 1440x900 with 4X Anti Aliasing and 4X Anisotropic Texture Filtering:
1. Running 3D game engine using SM2.0 Shaders, the 256M model was 101% faster.
2. Running 3D game engine using HDR Rendering with SM3.0 Shaders, the 256M model was 92% faster
3. Running the Pixel Shader 3D Graphics test, the 256M model was 11% faster.
4. Fill rate for Multiple Textures, it was a dead heat (3.8 GigaTexels/sec).

We thought dropping back to 800x600 and turning off AA and Aniso, the gap would close. With those settings:
1. Running 3D game engine using SM2.0 Shaders, the 256M model was 74% faster.
2. Running 3D game engine using HDR Rendering with SM3.0 Shaders, the 256M model dropped to 12% faster.

How does this translate to game performance under OSX? I should have an answer by tomorrow evening since I'll have results for Quake 4, Doom 3, Prey, Halo, and UT2004 from my tests on a friend's MBP 2.2.

after reading this at insidemacgames.com I'm not so sure anymore....
that's huge!!!

Is there anyone that has finally conducted some equalized testing on higher end Windows games now?!??!

 

[aliquis-]

Turbocache is actually different than streaming textures from system-RAM (which was one of the new features of AGP-bus). Turbocache lets the GPU see one big pool of RAM. Part of that RAM is the local VRAM and part is system-RAM. Of course the GPU is smart enough to put most commonly used stuff in the VRAM, but logically it has just one pool of RAM. Such schemes were used earlier in 3DLabs's hi-end Wildcat 3D-accelerators.

Besides textures, the system-RAM can be used for framebuffer as well. And the GPU can access the system-RAM at the same time it accesses the VRAM. So if the GPU has 10 units of bandwidth to the VRAM and 2 units of bandwidth to the system-RAM, it would have a total of 12 units of bandwidth at it's disposal.

And in this case I much rather have a whole windows graphics store in turbocache memory which atleast can be fetched from regular ram and showed immediatly than having the gpu notice "oh ****, no more ram left" and then stop caching all the windows and stuff and therefor have to redraw everything each time they need to be redrawn, which obviously will take more time than just fetching the data from system ram.

Also in the case of say aero3d on 2.3mpx desktop or larger with 128MB vram it's impossible, with 256MB vram it works, but since the macbook pro only have 128MB if it has say 768MB turbocache memory I guess it will still work. And having aero3d in a not perfect solution vs not having it at all is an easy choice to me.

Same with games requiring 256MB vram for textures aswell. I much rather have them work althought slow than not work.

 

[aliquis-]

after reading this at insidemacgames.com I'm not so sure anymore....
that's huge!!!

Is there anyone that has finally conducted some equalized testing on higher end Windows games now?!??!

Just makes me even more angry Apple are so ****ing retarded and cheaps out on the vram, I don't wanna buy a ****ing highend cpu for no reason at all just because I don't want the cheapassretardedgraphicssolution :/

**** Apple, but I don't know if I can wait ;/, and what says the next update will have 256MB vram? I waited for this one just for that reason, and it didn't.

Apple suck.

 

[diamond.g]

after reading this at insidemacgames.com I'm not so sure anymore....
that's huge!!!

Is there anyone that has finally conducted some equalized testing on higher end Windows games now?!??!

I think that is due to 3dmark06 needing more texture ram period. AA and AF just don't help any. Apple shoud have gone with 256 minimum and 512 in the 17". I understand the cost difference in the 4 64MB chips needed (or 2 128MB), but geez. It couldn't hurt is all I gotta say.

 

[aliquis-]

Looks better here:
http://barefeats.com/rosa03.html

I guess 3dmark06 test a little more for "future"/highend type of games thought, which probably requires more vram.

 

[randfee2]

well, if the performance on up-to-date D3D games under Windows really doubles under "normal settings" (resolutions were reasonable), then there is no way I can justify buying the small MBP, because I would not be happy with it replacing my desktop.

I'm no highend freak, but I wanna be able to play current stuff and some new things like Crysis too!!! And I don't wanna upgrade my desktop for hundreds of dollars, I wanna rid it!!

 

[aliquis-]

I think that is due to 3dmark06 needing more texture ram period. AA and AF just don't help any. Apple shoud have gone with 256 minimum and 512 in the 17". I understand the cost difference in the 4 64MB chips needed (or 2 128MB), but geez. It couldn't hurt is all I gotta say.

Cost difference are around $20 for 256 to 512MB desktop version of 8600 GT, i doubt 256MB vram in all models would have cost apple many dollars.

The 2.2 to 2.4GHz cpu is another matter thought, on the dell XPS laptop going from 2 to 2.33 GHz cost you almost $1000 more.

So yes, 256MB vram in all models makes sense, because now people have to take another model which contains the top-of-the-line cpu Intel has to offer and that cost a ******** of money.

I want 256MB vram, I don't want 1/11th faster CPU. That cpu will still be **** 1 year from now, atleast for that price...

 

[biodeezl]

this is so damn frustrating.

I want to make a purchase that will last me at least a few years.
I am an engineer and the potential for CAD software eating Video ram makes me fear the 128 meg MBP. Plus I will dual display.

However, I really dont give a sh*t about 2.2 vs 2.4 GHz chip. 2.2 will be fine indefinitely IMO. 500 bucks is a lot of money.

I would have bought one by now but this quandry is eating me up.

The 256meg card should be an option for the low end MBP. I am furious, and have yet to spend any money. DO YOU HEAR THIS APPLE?

 

[bluefiberoptics]

this is so damn frustrating.

I want to make a purchase that will last me at least a few years.
I am an engineer and the potential for CAD software eating Video ram makes me fear the 128 meg MBP. Plus I will dual display.

However, I really dont give a sh*t about 2.2 vs 2.4 GHz chip. 2.2 will be fine indefinitely IMO. 500 bucks is a lot of money.

I would have bought one by now but this quandry is eating me up.

The 256meg card should be an option for the low end MBP. I am furious, and have yet to spend any money. DO YOU HEAR THIS APPLE?

I feel your pain. I'm fighting daily as to whether or not I want to buy a Macbook Pro for Christmas. The 128 is a downer.

 

[spaceman3]

I feel your pain. I'm fighting daily as to whether or not I want to buy a Macbook Pro for Christmas. The 128 is a downer.

Ditto. This is a deal breaker for me I'm afraid. If I could get a 2.2 with 256mb I'd order it in a second. *sigh* Is there any chance of changing Apple's mind on this before the next refresh (which could be almost a year from now)? How 'bout a mass email/phone campaign?

I love Apple, but hate their lack of options.

 

[Zadillo]

Ditto. This is a deal breaker for me I'm afraid. If I could get a 2.2 with 256mb I'd order it in a second. *sigh* Is there any chance of changing Apple's mind on this before the next refresh (which could be almost a year from now)? How 'bout a mass email/phone campaign?

I love Apple, but hate their lack of options.

Apple has always done this, so it's not going to change any time soon. They clearly see the VRAM as a way to give people an incentive to pay for the higher-end machines.

Frankly, if they made the $1999 model have 256MB of VRAM as well, there'd probably be no sales at all for the more expensive machine.

 

[Cuyahoga]

Indecision

Man, I just don't know now. Looking at the current barefeats results, I can live with those. The 3dmark06 results, showing nearly a 100% gain in same areas, are much more troubling. I, like almost everyone else here, could care less about the 0.2 GHz speed bump which makes up the majority of the $433. I'd still love to see robART post benchmarks for Half-Life 2 & Oblivion...until then it's just a bunch of numbers to me. I suppose this isn't the place to make an open request though.

 

[spaceman3]

Apple has always done this, so it's not going to change any time soon. They clearly see the VRAM as a way to give people an incentive to pay for the higher-end machines.

Frankly, if they made the $1999 model have 256MB of VRAM as well, there'd probably be no sales at all for the more expensive machine.

Ya I understand that, but the lack of a choice to upgrade to 256mb (for a fee mind you, I don't expect it to be free) is a tad consumer unfriendly and the biggest reason why I may have to see what HP or Dell can do for me. So instead of getting me to pay them an extra $500 for a proc that I don't want, they're getting me to pay them nothing.

 

[diamond.g]

Apple has always done this, so it's not going to change any time soon. They clearly see the VRAM as a way to give people an incentive to pay for the higher-end machines.

Frankly, if they made the $1999 model have 256MB of VRAM as well, there'd probably be no sales at all for the more expensive machine.

Well if the 256 was baseline, and the 512 was a higher end option...

Hmm, in regards to the iMac and possibly getting the 8700M GT I wonder if Apple is able to get them with less that 256MB?

 

[Zadillo]

Ya I understand that, but the lack of a choice to upgrade to 256mb (for a fee mind you, I don't expect it to be free) is a tad consumer unfriendly and the biggest reason why I may have to see what HP or Dell can do for me. So instead of getting me to pay them an extra $500 for a proc that I don't want, they're getting me to pay them nothing.

Well, HP won't sell you a 15" laptop with an 8600M GT, so it's kind of a moot point. As for Dell, it is rumored that the 256MB 8600M GT will be an option on the new Inspirons, so if you'd prefer a Dell Inspiron to a MBP, that could certainly be an option.

Frankly, Apple is one of the few people making the 8600M GT available in a 15.4" laptop, and certainly the only ones who are cramming it into a 15.4" 1" thick 5.4 pound laptop with an LED-backlit screen. I'll take that over more configuration options, personally.

But as for Apple, no, they don't have the capability to have as many configuration options as some other companies. What we have basically are two basic models to customize RAM, hard drive, etc.

Personally I'll still take the MBP, and maybe pay a bit more for things I might not otherwise need, than put up with another PC laptop from Dell (I've owned two, as well as a Toshiba and a Sony, and they were nightmares.

-Zadillo