8600M GT: 128mb vs 256mb

[skye12]

The decision gets even harder. I KNOW Apple will release new iMacs
and Mac Pro's between now and Oct (when Leopard is released.) Maybe
even tweak the MBP's again with a slight increase in processor speed.

So I must wait a little longer until October. It is logical. (part Vulcan).

Please hold on little ibook-just a little longer!

 

[Patch^]

What resolution were you playing at?!

I was playing it at 1440x900 on the standard settings (high etc...) I'll try and take a screen shot if I can, if you don't believe me.

 

[Cuyahoga]

rob_ART posted a couple of interesting new tests over at insidemacgames. I was just about ready to settle on the 128, so this isn't exactly what I was hoping for.

I took Michael's suggestion and made the two MacBook Pro 2.2GHz units work harder. I think you'll find the results interesting:

Doom 3 at 1440x900 High Quality , FSAA = 4X
128M = 21 fps
256M = 26 fps (or 24% advantage)

Doom 3 at 1440x900 Ultra Quality, no FSAA
128M = 16 fps
256M = 46 fps (or 188% advantage)

Quake 4 at 1440x900 High Quality, FSAA = 4X
128M = 23 fps
256M = 38 fps (or 65% advantage)

Quake 4 at 1440x900 Ultra Quality, no FSAA
128M = 4 fps
256M = 37 fps (or 825% advantage)

Though few will play 3D games on a MacBook Pro with 128M or 256M at Ultra Quality --- or with FSAA enabled at native resolution, this clearly demonstrates that there is a threshold at which the MBP with the larger VRAM gains a significant advantage.

More "VRAM Wars" -- 15" MacBook Pro 2.2GHz (128M VRAM) versus 2.4GHz (256M VRAM).

Under Windows XP Pro, I ran 3DMark06 at 1440x900, 4X FSAA, 4X Anisotropic Filtering:
SM2.0 Gaming
128M = 641 rating
256M = 1279 rating (or 100% faster)

HDR/SM3.0 Gaming
128M = 554 rating
256M = 1063 rating (or 92% faster)

Under Windows XP Pro, I ran Prey 1.3 at 1440x900, 4X FSAA, 4X Anisotropic Filtering:
128M = 31 fps
256M = 46 fps (or 48% faster)

 

[MRU]

^ Those are stupid results.

Ultra setting is for cards with 512mb, as its uncompressed textures filling up the memory. So of course the game is going to take a big hitch on both models when using Ultra.

High setting without 4xAA is more applicable.

Also that Quake 4 test is even more BS. 4fps right.....

V. skeptical over those tests...

 

[aliquis-]

^ Those are stupid results.

Ultra setting is for cards with 512mb, as its uncompressed textures filling up the memory. So of course the game is going to take a big hitch on both models when using Ultra.

High setting without 4xAA is more applicable.

Also that Quake 4 test is even more BS. 4fps right.....

V. skeptical over those tests...

The 128MB takes a much bigger hit, and it's not unintresting since the games released TODAY probably use bigger and larger textures and for those obviously the 256MB version is much faster.

Try Quake4 yourself then, I guess it's easy to see if it's true or not.

In any case, the same truth still holds: Apple suck at making wellbalanced systems.

To bad they had to cheap out on a few dollars and therefor making the macbook pro suck more than it had to.

If 256MB version makes it much more likely I would be able to play Supreme Commander and Starcraft 2 at decent framerates this means a lot.

 

[barnettgs]

Well, for gaming you would be better off with 256 MB but lets face it, would you need to fork out £300 for a 256mb version with a small bump in processor speed and a bit bigger HDD?

£300 easily buy you xbox 360 plus a couple of games, isn't it?

 

[MRU]

Try Quake4 yourself then, I guess it's easy to see if it's true or not.

OK just done that kind of...

Well I have a MBP core duo 2ghz, 2gb memory, 100gb 7200rpm drive & with the ATI X1600 128mb, and

I run Quake 4 at 1440x900 at medium setting normally with no AA and low AF

On TimeDemo I get avg 42fps

high - same settings I got 31fps

ultra - same settings I got 22fps


So I find it even harder to believe that a newer MBP only got 4 fps

I have a stock 2.2 coming, so I will try it for myself, but like I say I expect with CPU boost alone I should see some improvement in framerate, let alone better GPU.

Will post when it finally gets here.

 

[aliquis-]

Well, for gaming you would be better off with 256 MB but lets face it, would you need to fork out £300 for a 256mb version with a small bump in processor speed and a bit bigger HDD?

£300 easily buy you xbox 360 plus a couple of games, isn't it?

No, because it's retarded to pay $300 for the 1/11th faster CPU, it was retarded the last revision and it is at this one aswell, and I won't pay that because I don't need that ****ing highest end gay CPU.

Still since I know the 256MB version is much faster and that it might be needed it would annoy me to get the 128MB version, so I might skip this revision aswell, which sucks because I've wanted to get a Macbook Pro for long.

I waited thru the last revision because I guessed they couldn't be so retarded that they would still keep that 128MB ****, and that hopefully it would get a DX10 card.
I where both right and wring, it was a DX 10 card, but Apple are still retarded.

The thing is that I don't know if I can wait for the next revision because I would had wanted to order it with ADC student discount, something I for some stupid reason paid for when the last revision showed up to "force" me into buying it... But I didn't as I said ;/

Oh damn I hate Apple.

Also I have an Athlon64 which kind of works, so I'm not in an urgent need of a new computer so I won't buy ****** deals just because..

 

[Cuyahoga]

OK just done that kind of...

Well I have a MBP core duo 2ghz, 2gb memory, 100gb 7200rpm drive & with the ATI X1600 128mb, and

I run Quake 4 at 1440x900 at medium setting normally with no AA and low AF

On TimeDemo I get avg 42fps

high - same settings I got 31fps

ultra - same settings I got 22fps


So I find it even harder to believe that a newer MBP only got 4 fps

I have a stock 2.2 coming, so I will try it for myself, but like I say I expect with CPU boost alone I should see some improvement in framerate, let alone better GPU.

Will post when it finally gets here.

Thanks for that...good to put things in perspective. Maybe it's just a part of a computer user's brain that keeps them awake at night knowing that 2-3 years from now, his 2-3-year-old mac isn't quite as fast as it could be, and there's absolutely nothing he can do about it now.

The difficulty of the 128 vs. 256MB decision is trying to predict if your future-self would be happy or upset about shilling out an extra $430 to get a slightly better computer. I'd say many people that paid the extra cash (without getting themselves into debt) would have long forgotten about the downside of losing that much money, and would instead be rather pleased their laptop can play those new games (or whatever) significantly faster than otherwise.

However, within the first year, I'd say the wound would still be fresh, and you'd be a little bitter that you paid $430 for a hardly perceptible difference. Then, of course, you could also decide a year down the road that you never plan on playing a computer game for the rest of your life. Who knows...not I, at least. But I'm hoping many of you have been in this situation more times than I, and have therefore figured out what makes you the happiest. If so, please share.

 

[barnettgs]

Still since I know the 256MB version is much faster and that it might be needed it would annoy me to get the 128MB version, so I might skip this revision aswell, which sucks because I've wanted to get a Macbook Pro for long.

Do you play games? If not, why worry?

 

[Zadillo]

No, because it's retarded to pay $300 for the 1/11th faster CPU, it was retarded the last revision and it is at this one aswell, and I won't pay that because I don't need that ****ing highest end gay CPU.

Still since I know the 256MB version is much faster and that it might be needed it would annoy me to get the 128MB version, so I might skip this revision aswell, which sucks because I've wanted to get a Macbook Pro for long.

I waited thru the last revision because I guessed they couldn't be so retarded that they would still keep that 128MB ****, and that hopefully it would get a DX10 card.
I where both right and wring, it was a DX 10 card, but Apple are still retarded.

The thing is that I don't know if I can wait for the next revision because I would had wanted to order it with ADC student discount, something I for some stupid reason paid for when the last revision showed up to "force" me into buying it... But I didn't as I said ;/

Oh damn I hate Apple.

Also I have an Athlon64 which kind of works, so I'm not in an urgent need of a new computer so I won't buy ****** deals just because..

If Apple was "retarded" as you say, they would not even make a 15" laptop with an 8600M GT. They could "cheap out" like you say and only make 8400M's and 8600M GS's available. Like what HP and Sony do, for example.

The large majority of PC laptop makers aren't even using ANY form of 8600M GT; they are cheaping out and using 8400M's and 8600M GS's, if you're lucky.

 

[dmaxdmax]

I think the longer you keep the machine the bigger bang you'll get for your 500 bucks. 5+ years ago I "overspent" and bought the top of the line iMac. It seems to me the extra 100 Mhz has made more of a difference with every passing year. (I stunned my friends when I threw away money on a superdrive. Why would anyone need to burn a DVD?)

Buying more only hurts when you write the check.

 

[iamthebest22]

Hey guys, I currently own a 2.2Ghz, 2GB Ram and 128VRAm of the 8600M GT and 120GB hard drive. I overclocked my GPU to 500 MHZ core and 850MHZ core but had to but a double fan to put under my mac or else it would go off the graph chart (highest was 101 Celsuis, but now only 75 max with fan). Now I would really suggest using bootcamp to install Xp and play games like Doom3 or recent ones on it. The reason being that, and alot of people don't notice this. In the Mac OS X, you only have of course 128VRAM. HOWEVER, once you go into XP or Vista, they both let you use your RAM to add into it, so when I go into Xp, I actually have 512MB of VRAM, and after overclocking it, I got an approx 60 FPS on games like Doom3 or Prey. However like I said before, you have to buy a fan to be able to overclock that high or else it would pretty much melt down.

 

[panzer06]

The 128MB version will use system RAM

I am faced with the same decision and posted a question in the buying tips section and received a response with a Vista screen shot showing the 8600M being allocated 872MB with Steam running.

After looking at nVidia's tech docs I found a brief reference to the 8600 using system ram as a "last resort". I think I may need to stick with the 128MB version and let Windows take some of the 4GB ram for video. I just can't see spending $500 extra for extra Vram.

Cheers,

 

[mavere]

If Apple was "retarded" as you say, they would not even make a 15" laptop with an 8600M GT. They could "cheap out" like you say and only make 8400M's and 8600M GS's available. Like what HP and Sony do, for example.

The large majority of PC laptop makers aren't even using ANY form of 8600M GT; they are cheaping out and using 8400M's and 8600M GS's, if you're lucky.

Dell's upcoming Inspiron 1520 is supposed to have a 8600M GT 256MB as an option. And the upcoming T61P thinkpad is supposed to have a 256MB workstation version of the 8600M GT. The Dell info might be rumors, but this is Dell, not Apple. No one cares enough to make up stuff.

Those two companies serve different niches, but I kinda wish Apple spent a couple bucks more for the extra video memory.

 

[Zadillo]

Dell's upcoming Inspiron 1520 is supposed to have a 8600M GT 256MB as an option. And the upcoming T61P thinkpad is supposed to have a 256MB workstation version of the 8600M GT. The Dell info might be rumors, but this is Dell, not Apple. No one cares enough to make up stuff.

Those two companies serve different niches, but I kinda wish Apple spent a couple bucks more for the extra video memory.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Dell one is legit (it wasn't just rumors, but I think leaked specs/manuals from the upcoming Inspirons).

But my main still stands though; that's what I said "the large majority of PC vendors", not "all", since I did know at least about Dell using it as an option in the Inspirons, and of course Asus makes it available in the Asus G1S.

 

[aliquis-]

The difficulty of the 128 vs. 256MB decision is trying to predict if your future-self would be happy or upset about shilling out an extra $430 to get a slightly better computer.

Well, atleast you and me doesn't think about it the same way. I'm quite confident it's NOT worth it, and I wouldn't do it. To me it's all about how ****ing retarded it's from Apples side to cheap out and only put 128MB there. 256MB wouldn't had cost many dollars more.

Do you play games? If not, why worry?

Are you retarded? If you are why post your comments?

If Apple was "retarded" as you say, they would not even make a 15" laptop with an 8600M GT. They could "cheap out" like you say and only make 8400M's and 8600M GS's available. Like what HP and Sony do, for example.

The large majority of PC laptop makers aren't even using ANY form of 8600M GT; they are cheaping out and using 8400M's and 8600M GS's, if you're lucky.

So just because other computers suck and is unbalanced speced the Apples ones sucks less?

In the Mac OS X, you only have of course 128VRAM. HOWEVER, once you go into XP or Vista, they both let you use your RAM to add into it, so when I go into Xp, I actually have 512MB of VRAM, and after overclocking it, I got an approx 60 FPS on games like Doom3 or Prey.

Yeah, I know they supports TurboCache, but I have no idea if OS X uses that, in any case using the 667MHz DDR memory instead of 1400MHz GDR2/3 or whatever it uses will be slower, also it will have to travel the data over PCI-express x16 and fight for bandwidth vs other system components. So it's not as good. The question is how bad it is.

Since people have posted the up to 100% difference benchmarks from 3dmark06 which uses Windows I assume we can be 100% sure that it's as bad WITH turbocache, it would probably be even worse without it.

I am faced with the same decision and posted a question in the buying tips section and received a response with a Vista screen shot showing the 8600M being allocated 872MB with Steam running.
After looking at nVidia's tech docs I found a brief reference to the 8600 using system ram as a "last resort". I think I may need to stick with the 128MB version and let Windows take some of the 4GB ram for video. I just can't see spending $500 extra for extra Vram.
Cheers,

But the 3dmark06 results will already have included the turbocache memory.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Dell one is legit (it wasn't just rumors, but I think leaked specs/manuals from the upcoming Inspirons).

But my main still stands though; that's what I said "the large majority of PC vendors", not "all", since I did know at least about Dell using it as an option in the Inspirons, and of course Asus makes it available in the Asus G1S.

Thing is you don't write down each manufacturer and modell of computer on a note, roll a dice and pick the first one which shows up. You buy the one which fits your need. And there are probably already or will be in a very soon future picks which would have been more wellbalanced and worked better for me than a MBP but which would require me to run a hacked version of OS X if I wanted to run it at all.

Thought of course in Apple land you don't do either of rolling a dice or deciding yourself for the best option. You just buy the only thing which Apples offer and try to convince everyone that it's great and not really expensive even thought it suck and is.

 

[Cuyahoga]

To me it's all about how ****ing retarded it's from Apples side to cheap out and only put 128MB there. 256MB wouldn't had cost many dollars more.

No offense, but what's the point in arguing what Apple *should* have done?

They didn't. The discussion is solely what the consumer should do.

 

[Zadillo]

Well, atleast you and me doesn't think about it the same way. I'm quite confident it's NOT worth it, and I wouldn't do it. To me it's all about how ****ing retarded it's from Apples side to cheap out and only put 128MB there. 256MB wouldn't had cost many dollars more.Are you retarded? If you are why post your comments?So just because other computers suck and is unbalanced speced the Apples ones sucks less?Yeah, I know they supports TurboCache, but I have no idea if OS X uses that, in any case using the 667MHz DDR memory instead of 1400MHz GDR2/3 or whatever it uses will be slower, also it will have to travel the data over PCI-express x16 and fight for bandwidth vs other system components. So it's not as good. The question is how bad it is.

Since people have posted the up to 100% difference benchmarks from 3dmark06 which uses Windows I assume we can be 100% sure that it's as bad WITH turbocache, it would probably be even worse without it.But the 3dmark06 results will already have included the turbocache memory.Thing is you don't write down each manufacturer and modell of computer on a note, roll a dice and pick the first one which shows up. You buy the one which fits your need. And there are probably already or will be in a very soon future picks which would have been more wellbalanced and worked better for me than a MBP but which would require me to run a hacked version of OS X if I wanted to run it at all.

Thought of course in Apple land you don't do either of rolling a dice or deciding yourself for the best option. You just buy the only thing which Apples offer and try to convince everyone that it's great and not really expensive even thought it suck and is.

Umm, I really think you aren't being fair to Apple.

Apple does make a balanced and well spec'd machine, and that is the $2499 15" MBP. Yes, it costs a bit much more, but it also has a faster CPU, and is the only laptop on the market with an LED-backlit 15.4" display. It's also one of the lightest and thinnest 15.4" machines around, and is all-metal.

Considering that the Asus G1S has a slower CPU, a non-LED backlit display, is thicker and weighs almost 7 pounds, but costs $2000, I'd say that the $500 price premium of the higher end MBP is still more than made up for by its overall construction and dimensions and screen.

Yes, I'm sorry they aren't using the 256MB VRAM on the $2000 model, and if that is so important to you, there are clearly options out there that you can sacrifice other areas for.

But to say that Apple's machines "suck" as you have said is unjustified. As it is, both 15.4" MBP's are two of the best overall laptops currently available....... I would still take the $2000 MBP over the $2000 Asus G1S any day.

Please try and separate your disappointment that the $2000 MBP has only 128MB VRAM from your claims that Apple makes a machine that "sucks", because it simply isn't true.

 

[L3X]

I agree with Zadillo. If you need another config than don't trash Apple. Just get one that suits you.

Apple has always had a few options. As someone said earlier, if they had a 256 in the 2.2, than no one would buy the 2.4. They have to have a few differences to separate things out.

I have no problem with their options.

 

[aliquis-]

No offense, but what's the point in arguing what Apple *should* have done?

They didn't. The discussion is solely what the consumer should do.

Well, any of swallowing it and buy it anyway or skip it hoping that some day Apple gets their sense back and releases something good.

The consumer shouldn't pay 500 dollar extra for the mid-end.

Umm, I really think you aren't being fair to Apple.

Apple does make a balanced and well spec'd machine, and that is the $2499 15" MBP. Yes, it costs a bit much more, but it also has a faster CPU, and is the only laptop on the market with an LED-backlit 15.4" display. It's also one of the lightest and thinnest 15.4" machines around, and is all-metal.

Yeah, hurray, I can get a decent system if I think paying 300 dollar more for 1/11 th faster CPU performance sounds like a good idea just because Apple wanted to save $10 on the low-end model (or to force people to opt for a more expensive model/because they think they for whatever stupid reason need three models.)

I don't give a **** about CPU speed, more or less, single core 2GHz would be fine with me.. 1.8 aswell, just don't put **** graphics in it.

Considering that the Asus G1S has a slower CPU, a non-LED backlit display, is thicker and weighs almost 7 pounds, but costs $2000, I'd say that the $500 price premium of the higher end MBP is still more than made up for by its overall construction and dimensions and screen.

Does the ASUS come with the urine tint aswell? No just joking with you, anyway no matter how you see it I will know I paid 500 dollar extra for 128MB vram, because I don't give a **** about the rest, and that sounds like a really stupid idea don't you think? You almost get a full rig gaming PC for that ;/

Yes, I'm sorry they aren't using the 256MB VRAM on the $2000 model, and if that is so important to you, there are clearly options out there that you can sacrifice other areas for.

Yeah, like OS X, but if I sacrifice OS X I don't need a new computer at all to begin with so... Also I can't understand this **** for the Macbook either, if they put **** graphics in the machines why would anyone need to upgrade at anytime at all? I mean games are more or less the only thing which pushes hardware development anyway. If it wasn't for games most people would do fine with 400MHz P2s with 128MB ram...

But to say that Apple's machines "suck" as you have said is unjustified. As it is, both 15.4" MBP's are two of the best overall laptops currently available....... I would still take the $2000 MBP over the $2000 Asus G1S any day.

Please try and separate your disappointment that the $2000 MBP has only 128MB VRAM from your claims that Apple makes a machine that "sucks", because it simply isn't true.

Maybe they are good, but I would still worry that the 8600M GT might had been good enough for supreme commander, starcraft 2 or something similair but that 128MB vram pushes it back. Also I would run it dual screen with my 20" 1680x1050 TFT and I would like to know that I have plenty of VRAM for UI layout caches, Aero 3D if I ever wanted to run Vista or whatever.

Well, if I was unlucky and got one of those oh-my-MBP-is-20-degrees-hotter-than-my-friends and a crappy screen I would belive so. Thought most people seems happy with the screen so as long as it don't have that yellow tint it's probably ok. Still to bad it's TN.

I agree with Zadillo. If you need another config than don't trash Apple. Just get one that suits you.

Apple has always had a few options. As someone said earlier, if they had a 256 in the 2.2, than no one would buy the 2.4. They have to have a few differences to separate things out.

I have no problem with their options.

So please tell me why they need three models? Why wouldn't two have been enough? What would be wrong with two GOOD options? Why do we need one a-little-stupid-speced and one oh-why-do-i-have-to-pay-so-much and one good one for those lucky bastards who can afford it and want to have a 17" screen?

Would people have complained with "ohh, apple, why no 2.4GHz modell of the 15.4"? Do people really need those 200MHz more? Really? Even if they are $300? I'm sure many people would complain about the step price difference for the 17" thought, but hell why not put 2.2GHz in that one to then and be done with it... Buying the highest end computer stuff is retarded, it's just as if Apple have to have it to make their machines seem cool (MHz myth on steroids) so Apple fanboys can say "omg latest mbp have the fastest cpus!!!", but then it doesn't matter that the graphics isn't that great and the machine really is kind of midrange (not not, and one can argue if the x1600-version ever was to.)

Sure I could buy the 2.4GHz version, but it would feel retarded.
But I really wanted to buy a MBP because I paid for ADC student membership this christmas because I wanted to get the MBP back then but then I regreted it due to 128MB vram and hold out for next revision... And this one came out the same.

So my current situation is:
1) Buy 2.2GHz and get an inferior retarded speced machine.
2) Pay 500 dollar for a CPU I don't need.
3) Let it be, point my finger to Apple and have lost 100 dollar for ADC student membership.

Because I doubt they update again before it run out

 

[Satch]

Well, any of swallowing it and buy it anyway or skip it hoping that some day Apple gets their sense back and releases something good.

The consumer shouldn't pay 500 dollar extra for the mid-end.Yeah, hurray, I can get a decent system if I think paying 300 dollar more for 1/11 th faster CPU performance sounds like a good idea just because Apple wanted to save $10 on the low-end model (or to force people to opt for a more expensive model/because they think they for whatever stupid reason need three models.)

I don't give a **** about CPU speed, more or less, single core 2GHz would be fine with me.. 1.8 aswell, just don't put **** graphics in it.Does the ASUS come with the urine tint aswell? No just joking with you, anyway no matter how you see it I will know I paid 500 dollar extra for 128MB vram, because I don't give a **** about the rest, and that sounds like a really stupid idea don't you think? You almost get a full rig gaming PC for that ;/Yeah, like OS X, but if I sacrifice OS X I don't need a new computer at all to begin with so... Also I can't understand this **** for the Macbook either, if they put **** graphics in the machines why would anyone need to upgrade at anytime at all? I mean games are more or less the only thing which pushes hardware development anyway. If it wasn't for games most people would do fine with 400MHz P2s with 128MB ram...Maybe they are good, but I would still worry that the 8600M GT might had been good enough for supreme commander, starcraft 2 or something similair but that 128MB vram pushes it back. Also I would run it dual screen with my 20" 1680x1050 TFT and I would like to know that I have plenty of VRAM for UI layout caches, Aero 3D if I ever wanted to run Vista or whatever.

Well, if I was unlucky and got one of those oh-my-MBP-is-20-degrees-hotter-than-my-friends and a crappy screen I would belive so. Thought most people seems happy with the screen so as long as it don't have that yellow tint it's probably ok. Still to bad it's TN.So please tell me why they need three models? Why wouldn't two have been enough? What would be wrong with two GOOD options? Why do we need one a-little-stupid-speced and one oh-why-do-i-have-to-pay-so-much and one good one for those lucky bastards who can afford it and want to have a 17" screen?

Would people have complained with "ohh, apple, why no 2.4GHz modell of the 15.4"? Do people really need those 200MHz more? Really? Even if they are $300? I'm sure many people would complain about the step price difference for the 17" thought, but hell why not put 2.2GHz in that one to then and be done with it... Buying the highest end computer stuff is retarded, it's just as if Apple have to have it to make their machines seem cool (MHz myth on steroids) so Apple fanboys can say "omg latest mbp have the fastest cpus!!!", but then it doesn't matter that the graphics isn't that great and the machine really is kind of midrange (not not, and one can argue if the x1600-version ever was to.)

Sure I could buy the 2.4GHz version, but it would feel retarded.
But I really wanted to buy a MBP because I paid for ADC student membership this christmas because I wanted to get the MBP back then but then I regreted it due to 128MB vram and hold out for next revision... And this one came out the same.

So my current situation is:
1) Buy 2.2GHz and get an inferior retarded speced machine.
2) Pay 500 dollar for a CPU I don't need.
3) Let it be, point my finger to Apple and have lost 100 dollar for ADC student membership.

Because I doubt they update again before it run out

Dude if you don't like it, go buy yourself a laptop from another brand.
Seriously you're crying like a baby about Apple treating you unfair.
The 2.2 Ghz version is NOT retarded, it isn't **** graphics. It's still fast as Hell, by the way, it was never designed as the ultimate gaming laptop..
Get a Dell if you want to game at Ultra high settings so badly..
And the x1600 is fine, you can't just put the fastest GPU in the macbook pro because it uses to much power!

 

[Matto1020]

Maybe someone can help me here...

I like many many others am planning on purchasing my FIRST EVER Macbook Pro. But I am stuck with which to buy.

I am thinking the lower end MBP would be fine because all I will be doing is using the Adobe Creative Suite 3, hooking it up to my 20" monitor (non widescreen) when at home, and other various editing software for pictures and movies.

The machine will have NO games on it... (thats what I own a 360 and a Wii for) so that wont be an issue. Would I be ok with the 128mb one?


Also..I know this is not the right thread...but if I sign up for a ADC Student discount (the $99 membership) will I be given a free copy of Leopard when it comes out? Thanks everyone!

 

[Zadillo]

Maybe someone can help me here...

I like many many others am planning on purchasing my FIRST EVER Macbook Pro. But I am stuck with which to buy.

I am thinking the lower end MBP would be fine because all I will be doing is using the Adobe Creative Suite 3, hooking it up to my 20" monitor (non widescreen) when at home, and other various editing software for pictures and movies.

The machine will have NO games on it... (thats what I own a 360 and a Wii for) so that wont be an issue. Would I be ok with the 128mb one?


Also..I know this is not the right thread...but if I sign up for a ADC Student discount (the $99 membership) will I be given a free copy of Leopard when it comes out? Thanks everyone!

You'll be just fine with the base model. The 128MB 8600M GT will be more than enough to handle what you described.

The ADC Student membership does not include software seeds/OS releases, etc.

It's POSSIBLE that ADC Student memberships might get Leopard (i.e. if Apple decides just to give out copies to members), but it isn't part of the membership, and I wouldn't count on it.

 

[randfee2]

well... during the past 24 months I got at least 3 Tiger DVDs. I got the first one right after it came out. There is no guarantee but I'm pretty sure we'll get a Leopard copy as well!