Well, that's cool........ I guess at least Apple has unofficially decided to do some form of software seeding even for regular ADC Student members.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
8600M GT: 128mb vs 256mb
- Thread starter binaryreason
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, that's cool........ I guess at least Apple has unofficially decided to do some form of software seeding even for regular ADC Student members.
Hi,
I've been following the 128meg vs 256meg debate for a while now and I just need some advice to finally make my decision. I play to run OSX and windows vista (ultimate) parallel (in a windows shell? told by my friend). And will possibly connect it up to a 24-30" external lcd/hdtv in future. I do intend to play some games with the laptop, but do not mind if it's not 'super' great quality etc. So is the 128meg version enough or should I opt to go for the 256meg version for future proof?
Furthermore, I see some drastic fps failures on some conditions/games with the 128meg GT card (I'm guessing due to maxing out on the ram). In cases like this would the 8600 GS with 256meg be actually better? From this forum thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879
I shows that some 128meg GT's perform around the 2600 mark for 3Dmark06. My friend's Benq S41 (which has a 8600GS with 256meg) gets around 2730 3Dmark06 with similar resolution (1200x800).
So to put it simply, 8600GS 256meg can be >> than the 8600GT with only 128meg?? If so, that is quite disturbing
Thanks in advance.
I've been following the 128meg vs 256meg debate for a while now and I just need some advice to finally make my decision. I play to run OSX and windows vista (ultimate) parallel (in a windows shell? told by my friend). And will possibly connect it up to a 24-30" external lcd/hdtv in future. I do intend to play some games with the laptop, but do not mind if it's not 'super' great quality etc. So is the 128meg version enough or should I opt to go for the 256meg version for future proof?
Furthermore, I see some drastic fps failures on some conditions/games with the 128meg GT card (I'm guessing due to maxing out on the ram). In cases like this would the 8600 GS with 256meg be actually better? From this forum thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879
I shows that some 128meg GT's perform around the 2600 mark for 3Dmark06. My friend's Benq S41 (which has a 8600GS with 256meg) gets around 2730 3Dmark06 with similar resolution (1200x800).
So to put it simply, 8600GS 256meg can be >> than the 8600GT with only 128meg?? If so, that is quite disturbing
Thanks in advance.
Hi,
I've been following the 128meg vs 256meg debate for a while now and I just need some advice to finally make my decision. I play to run OSX and windows vista (ultimate) parallel (in a windows shell? told by my friend). And will possibly connect it up to a 24-30" external lcd/hdtv in future. I do intend to play some games with the laptop, but do not mind if it's not 'super' great quality etc. So is the 128meg version enough or should I opt to go for the 256meg version for future proof?
Furthermore, I see some drastic fps failures on some conditions/games with the 128meg GT card (I'm guessing due to maxing out on the ram). In cases like this would the 8600 GS with 256meg be actually better? From this forum thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879
I shows that some 128meg GT's perform around the 2600 mark for 3Dmark06. My friend's Benq S41 (which has a 8600GS with 256meg) gets around 2730 3Dmark06 with similar resolution (1200x800).
So to put it simply, 8600GS 256meg can be >> than the 8600GT with only 128meg?? If so, that is quite disturbing
Thanks in advance.
I wouldn't consider a score that is 130 points higher "drastic", it's about a 5% difference.
It's no big deal in reality. I had the high end 2.33 MBP with 256 MB VRAM on the X1600 before, but now I decided it wasn't worth the extra 500$ just to get that extra VRAM because it really isn't going to boost performance by that much. Also the lower end MBP has a slightly longer battery life if I'm not mistaken, and doesn't get quite as hot (that's the impression I'm under, correct me if I'm wrong).
I'd go with the base model with maybe an upgraded hard drive or something.
What I wanna know is, whether the 8600GS or even a 8400GS (both with 256mb Vram) under the conditions that the game (eg. running a game on external lcd with 1900x1200 resolution) and the system uses pass 128meg Vram (imo totally possible today, and even more so in future not far away with DX10 games), will the 8600GS with 256meg run much smoother, while the 8600GT starts to struggle bigtime due to the fact it is out of Vram and has to fetch it using "turbocache" from the main Ram? If this scenario can happen, I'm really thinking twice about getting the standard version of the macpro. I mean, what's the point of a great DX10 card when it doesnt even have enough memory to run the DX10 games coming out...
It's almost like you have a super talented soccer player (excellent GPU), that can score goals for you at will. However, he can only lasts on the field for 5min stretches because he doesnt have enough stamina (lack of ram) to sustain the competition.....
It's almost like you have a super talented soccer player (excellent GPU), that can score goals for you at will. However, he can only lasts on the field for 5min stretches because he doesnt have enough stamina (lack of ram) to sustain the competition.....
No, an 8400GS with 256MB of VRAM isn't going to outperform an 8600M GT with 128MB of VRAM. Neither would an 8600M GS for that matter. They are clocked completely differently, and the 8400GS has more technical limitations anyway.
Seriously, VRAM isn't the only factor in gaming performance - if it were, a 512MB GeForce 7700 Go should outperform a 256MB GeForce 8600M GT, which of course it doesn't.
As many people have noted, the big area where VRAM helps is when playing at higher resolutions. The only noticeable differences in most games comes when playing at 1440x900.
But frankly, you're better off playing at lower res's anyway (you mentioned playing games at 1900x1200, and honestly, even the highest end mobile cards are going to struggle with that).
If you're that concerned about gaming performance though, go ahead and get the one with the 256MB of VRAM.
Or, if the price concerns you, get something like the Asus G1S, etc.
I don't know if I'd say that, as mobile laptops go, the MBP seems to be holding its own very well against the nearest competition (Asus G1S, Dell Inspiron 1520, etc.). Especially against the Inspiron, since Dell cheaped out and used DDR2 RAM instead of GDDR3 RAM like Apple and Asus.
And the Asus and Dells of course weigh almost 7 pounds.
-Zadillo
So originally I was set on the 2.4/256MB vram MBP but now I've been thinking and I'm not sure if it's worth the extra $500 for it.
I will be using my MBP for video editing (fcp), compositing (motion, shake, after effects), photoshop, aperture, and gaming. I probably won't be playing crysis but I'd like to be able to play games like BF2.
So will the 256MB make a huge difference over the 128MB?
I will be using my MBP for video editing (fcp), compositing (motion, shake, after effects), photoshop, aperture, and gaming. I probably won't be playing crysis but I'd like to be able to play games like BF2.
So will the 256MB make a huge difference over the 128MB?
I'm pretty sure Final Cut, Motion, Aperture, etc. will benefit from the extra VRAM.
-Zadillo
I think it depends on the task, but I think it can be quite a bit. Check sites like barefeats.com; they specialize in performing these kinds of application benchmarks, showing the difference VRAM makes in stuff like Final Cut, Aperture, Motion, etc.
But really though; you've spent thousands of dollars on Final Cut, Aperture, Motion, Photoshop, etc. but you're balking at spending an extra $500 for the extra VRAM?
Usually it's pretty common for people to want to squeeze as much as they can out of the hardware they buy. If spending the extra $500 allows them to save a few minutes per task, and that adds up to hours and hours of time over a longer period of time, then depending on what your time is worth to you, it ends up paying for itself.
-Zadillo
For most people, there are definitely better ways to spend their hard-earned money. I think this is the case for you. For creative work, you could stick with the base model and spend two to three hundred bucks to upgrade to a zippy 7200 rpm hardrive and extra RAM. I'd venture to say that you'll probably save at least as much time (if not more) and over a larger range of tasks (loading apps, working with large multimedia files, multitasking) than having an extra 128 vram. As an added bonus, you'll have some play cash left over. Or, if you don't mind a few more seconds here and there, you could put the $500 towards your next Mac!
For gamers, it's generally accepted that the chipset is the most critical factor and built-in memory is secondary. Moreover, the video card will benefit from turbocache in Windows so the 128 mb extra performance boost will be even less in Windows under Bootcamp, which is what most people use for gaming anyway. Sure, you might still notice a small performance gain in extreme gaming, but consider this difference in perspective. Along with the possibility of just upgrading the HD/RAM, with $500 you could opt for a cheap Dell desktop for gaming or a PS3/Xbox 360 or two Wii's. So yes, $500 will buy you slightly better performance in limited circumstances (some would argue, very limited) -- but in the vast majority of cases, there are better ways to spend your money.Edit: I'm sure someone will point out that for the extra $500 you also get 0.2 ghz faster CPU and an extra 40 GB of HD. The HD is relatively cheap to upgrade (both in size and speed). As for the 0.2 ghz, how often will you really be maxing out your dual core processor to notice the difference? Again, it's a matter of cost vs. benefit, and for most people, I'd argue that the minor performance gain in the limited number of tasks doesn't justify the added cost. Of course, if money is no object, then by all means opt for the higher end model.
Not much at all. I'm telling you, it won't make nearly as much of a difference as people might tell you or as you might imagine. Probably less than the 5% that I stated earlier (which was for gaming). I really think the base model is the way to go.
I think people have said that motion (and final cut?) makes use of the vram and since it looks like you will be using it professionally(?) why risk anything?
BF2 was playable on a guys X300 I belive so that won't be an issue for the 8600 GT.
Ok, two months have passed and Dell sells the Vostro 1500 with similair specs as the mid end MBP for around half the price. Happy?
(It's not the same specs, but for my usage they would be more or less the same, and they are much more balanced and intelligent and offers a lot more bang for your bucks.)
The CPU sits in a socket, the GPU are probably soldered to the motherboard, so 128 + 256MB configs require two different motherboards for the 15.4", if both had 256MB they wouldn't had to go thru that. My guess is that 1) They like the extra cash 2) They might had a special deal with Intel where they get better price for buying highest end cpus or something, so they try to force the customers to get higher end cpus.
Good thing you used such a big font. Wouldn't have ignored all that otherwise...
Actually they probably use the exact same mother board just with different sized memory modules. Also the CPU isn't socketed... get with the times man!
The Vostro is hardly comparable. It is considerably thicker, is almost 7 pounds, does not have an LED-backlit screen, and uses DDR2 RAM instead of GDDR3 RAM for the video card.
-Zadillo
Yeah, that definitly makes up for the ...
12 000 Swedish kronor = 1 721.76 U.S. dollars
1700 dollars ... ;D
(from 11.000 to 23.000)
(yeah, the mid mbp cost equivalent of 3300 dollar in Sweden. 22 995 Swedish kronor = 3 299.3226 U.S. dollars)
The CPU is probably the biggest price changing factor since it where 2GHz.
I live in Sweden and not the USA, we have no Apple Stores, my friends gf has a macbook which they had troubles with and it was gone over a month (I don't know how long, just that it had been over a month when I talked to him and they hadn't got it back yet) because the service center it had been sent to didn't had whatever they needed, and in my home town (#6th in Sweden which is still quite small but then someone should sell them atleast?!) there are no store which sells Apple machines so I can't have a look at one.
Dell might not be so convenient because they has no stores either, but I ordered a 2007 WFP monitor which I wasn't happy with due to the crappy screen coating which looked like greasy dust or something, so I sent it back. That was easy and they came and picked it up and so on. They also offer 3 years warranty on their displays and they are cheap so I where happy with the service, it was just that the product didn't lived up to my expectations.
Anyway, I don't want the Vostro, since I want OS X without the hassle off running a hack, but I still think it's sad that they configure them like this =P
To be fair, the price difference in the US between a similarly configured Vostro 1500 and an MBP isn't nearly so extreme (as close as you can get, of course...... things like the LED-backlit screen, 1" thin chassis, 5.4 pound weight, GDDR3 VRAM, etc. of course simply aren't even options). And the price difference is made up for by the things I mentioned; seriously, the Vostro 1500 is a behemoth; it's barely portable, and is one of the largest 15" laptops on the market.
I'm not saying the Vostro 1500 isn't a good deal; it is very good for what it is, a cheap but fairly durable machine for people who don't need a lot of frills or excellent portability.
But pointing to the Dell and how cheap it is as some sign that Apple is overcharging or whatever is really not right. The Vostro is cheap and cuts corners in a lot of ways. The MBP is much more directly comparable to more expensive Dell machines like the Latitude line, or Asus laptops like the V1S (probably the closest directly comparable machine to the MBP on the market right now)..... note that the price of the V1S is much closer to the price of an MBP.
-Zadillo