Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

9600GT 256Mb vs 512Mb in GAMES!

These might not give an entirely correct image as the 9600 in the macs by far outperform 9600 in PCs due to the superior chipset.
 
Well obviously the 512MB 9600GT is gonna outperform the 256MB one due to more RAM allocation...I don't really know what else you want to know lol.
 
MartinJ said:
I don't see a big step in performance between the two cards

Please check out http://www.macworld.com/article/136251/2008/10/macbookgraphics.html?lsrc=rss_main

No real difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it's pretty significant for one reason: it conflicts with the "absolutely no difference between 256 meg and 512 meg video card options" idea.

The clock speed on the CPU's IS a little bit different, and we're not seeing drastic improvements with the 512 card in all the games...

However, I'm thinking that the increase to 104 fps from 95.6 fps in Doom 3 would more likely be due to the increase in VRAM than the 0.13 GHz CPU difference.

What do you think?
 
redsteven said:
Actually, I think it's pretty significant for one reason: it conflicts with the "absolutely no difference between 256 meg and 512 meg video card options" idea.

The clock speed on the CPU's IS a little bit different, and we're not seeing drastic improvements with the 512 card in all the games...

However, I'm thinking that the increase to 104 fps from 95.6 fps in Doom 3 would more likely be due to the increase in VRAM than the 0.13 GHz CPU difference.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

The article seems to suggest otherwise:
The new 2.53GHz MacBook Pro using the 9400M was a few frames faster than the new 2.4GHz MacBook and MacBook Pro.
Click to expand...

I would think that the greater amount of VRAM might add a few frames but I think it is largely insignificant.
 
redsteven said:
Actually, I think it's pretty significant for one reason: it conflicts with the "absolutely no difference between 256 meg and 512 meg video card options" idea.

The clock speed on the CPU's IS a little bit different, and we're not seeing drastic improvements with the 512 card in all the games...

However, I'm thinking that the increase to 104 fps from 95.6 fps in Doom 3 would more likely be due to the increase in VRAM than the 0.13 GHz CPU difference.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

That difference is coming from twice as large CPU cache and slightly faster CPU clock speed.
 
i went ahead and splurged for the 2.56 GhZ macbook pro with the 512 mb of v-ram, heh ill use that power, cause i am a big gamer,
 
You will see the real deference between 256 and 512 VRAM when playing directX 10 games or just higher Resolutions then 1280*800.
 
eLbanana said:
You will see the real deference between 256 and 512 VRAM when playing directX 10 games or just higher Resolutions then 1280*800.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. And if you seriously expect DX10 games at high resolutions on a laptop, you must be insane O_O

The memory bus on a laptop card is just too slow to use that much memory efficiently.
 
guys need your help I'm going to buy a macbook pro and I'm trying to decide myself if it's worth paying the extra cash for the 512mb vid mem instead of 256mb of memory. I read all the posts below.
But which was the main reason apple released a second model with 512mb vid mem? if they know it's bus it's 128bits ... I don't really get it.. will I get the same performance if I buy the 256mb version as this guy playing crysis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoQl-_e6Gbc



:confused:

or will I only benefit on the extra 512mb mem if i play dx10 games with large textures .. ? hows the deal
 
dssence said:
guys need your help I'm going to buy a macbook pro and I'm trying to decide myself if it's worth paying the extra cash for the 512mb vid mem instead of 256mb of memory. I read all the posts below.
But which was the main reason apple released a second model with 512mb vid mem? if they know it's bus it's 128bits ... I don't really get it.. will I get the same performance if I buy the 256mb version as this guy playing crysis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoQl-_e6Gbc



:confused:

or will I only benefit on the extra 512mb mem if i play dx10 games with large textures .. ? hows the deal
Click to expand...

its just like with companies making 10 MP consumer cameras - to sell them. Making people think that more always = better.
 
dssence said:
guys need your help I'm going to buy a macbook pro and I'm trying to decide myself if it's worth paying the extra cash for the 512mb vid mem instead of 256mb of memory. I read all the posts below.
But which was the main reason apple released a second model with 512mb vid mem? if they know it's bus it's 128bits ... I don't really get it.. will I get the same performance if I buy the 256mb version as this guy playing crysis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoQl-_e6Gbc



:confused:

or will I only benefit on the extra 512mb mem if i play dx10 games with large textures .. ? hows the deal
Click to expand...

You know, if Apple just offered more configuration options things would be different... The base model, and a possibility to add a 512 MB VRAM video card instead of the 256 one, for let's say $25 more...
 
So it makes no sense to go with the 512mb version ? I mean there's some ppl saying that some kind of driver will enable both cards to run @ sli mode.. but I don't think that would happen..
So is it worth paying the extra 500 bucks for 4gb more 6mb l3 cache , and 512mb mem I mean I want the best config I can get but I don't want to spend that much basically for the extra mem on the gpu if it won't be making a perf difference at all .. not having that much of a sense :confused:
 
I think that in most cases it's going to make a negligible difference at best. However, I would expect that with games like the Total War series and others that use a lot of textures at once, you might notice an improvement.

I think the 512mb option is more of a futureproofing idea...plus, don't forget the bump in CPU speed. It's not huge but it's not nothing.
 
dssence said:
So it makes no sense to go with the 512mb version ? I mean there's some ppl saying that some kind of driver will enable both cards to run @ sli mode.. but I don't think that would happen..
So is it worth paying the extra 500 bucks for 4gb more 6mb l3 cache , and 512mb mem I mean I want the best config I can get but I don't want to spend that much basically for the extra mem on the gpu if it won't be making a perf difference at all .. not having that much of a sense :confused:
Click to expand...

You need 4gbs of ram for crysis. It stutters like crazy with 2gbs or less, it doesnt matter what kind of card you have. If you plan on playing Crysis then 4gbs should be a requirement.

Its not worth spending money for a 512mb 9600, it is not fast enough to use that much memory. Extra memory on budget video cards has been a gimmick for several years, only the fastest cards benefit from memory upgrades.
 
Only in certain games you will see the difference. It's more for professionals who need the extra vram.
 
stainlessliquid said:
You need 4gbs of ram for crysis. It stutters like crazy with 2gbs or less, it doesnt matter what kind of card you have. If you plan on playing Crysis then 4gbs should be a requirement.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that essentially rule out playing Crysis on XP? (XP can only see 3.5gb, right?)
 
cptrios said:
Wouldn't that essentially rule out playing Crysis on XP? (XP can only see 3.5gb, right?)
Click to expand...

Right on, thats why all "pro gamers" play on vista x64! ;)

P.S. ( oh yeah with 16 Gb of ram, 3way 380 GTX SLI, Quad core, and loads of other very useful stuff thats keeping the planet warm:D)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back