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.
Are 128 MB enough?!
- Thread starter Neo91
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It depends on what you're planning on doing. All the 3dMark synthetics that I've seen have been done a 256 MB cards though.
Don't expect high texture gaming on it. I ran into that problem with my X1600 128 MB. I could push the resolution just fine. I just couldn't cranky any texture settings up.
Don't expect high texture gaming on it. I ran into that problem with my X1600 128 MB. I could push the resolution just fine. I just couldn't cranky any texture settings up.
I just want to play on Vista some little games like Coutner Stike or Battlefield 2, may be World of Warcraft or F.E.A.R., but I only want to play it without any problem. I won't play it with high texture or max. details.
Thx!
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx 128MB min and he want to play games. i would go with 256MB.
No, Aero DOES NOT require 256MB of vram.
The minimum is 128MB, and this the MBP has had for a very long time. 128MB is enough right upto 1280x1024, which is more pixels than 1440x900.
Get things straight next time.
I'm focusing in the same question since I play WoW a lot and next year ill only have a macbook pro with me.
Personally i think that video ram is not that important as the actual chipset is.
For example, a nvidia 8600 128MB of Ram will be MUCH MUCH faster than a nvidia 8200 512MB with the higest resolution and texture detail.
The new macpro includes a 8600 GT (gt is a better model than regular 8600)mobile. Its probably a bit underclocked to prevent high temperatures but it is definitly a GREAT chip.
128MB of Vram should be good enough to play almost all of games out on the market at something between 1280x1024 +- 1028x768.
I currently play wow on a nVidia 7600GT 256 ddr3 and it rocks. Wow will probably run 10-20 fps faster on windows XP than on OSX (because the games engine is more optimized for directx thank for opengl) .
Hopefully full graphics @ 30 to 60 FPS and @ 20 to 30 fps on 25 man raid boss battles.
I wouldnt choose Vista since games run MUCH slower (Wow goes about 70% fps) although in the future it may be interesting cause the directx10.
Personally i think that video ram is not that important as the actual chipset is.
For example, a nvidia 8600 128MB of Ram will be MUCH MUCH faster than a nvidia 8200 512MB with the higest resolution and texture detail.
The new macpro includes a 8600 GT (gt is a better model than regular 8600)mobile. Its probably a bit underclocked to prevent high temperatures but it is definitly a GREAT chip.
128MB of Vram should be good enough to play almost all of games out on the market at something between 1280x1024 +- 1028x768.
I currently play wow on a nVidia 7600GT 256 ddr3 and it rocks. Wow will probably run 10-20 fps faster on windows XP than on OSX (because the games engine is more optimized for directx thank for opengl) .
Hopefully full graphics @ 30 to 60 FPS and @ 20 to 30 fps on 25 man raid boss battles.
I wouldnt choose Vista since games run MUCH slower (Wow goes about 70% fps) although in the future it may be interesting cause the directx10.
Then I must have a very special first gen MacBook to get Aero on mine.
I would skip Vista and use XP instead. It is much more stable and uses a lot less system resources. I have Vista running on my gaming machine and I have had a ton of little things pop up that are just plain annoying.
You'll want the 256 MB for those screen resolutions.
Video RAM limits texture quality and screen resolution. I got great frames overclocking the X1600.
Well, depends on what he want's to do at this resolution...
My MacBook can handle the Dell 2407 in clamshell mode pretty well (except the water effect in Dashboard).
I'm not sure that is correct that you need 256mb. I was running a g4 powerbook to my Dell 2405FPW without problems...
they're ok.
i have a 128mb X1600 card, which is fine for Photoshop and ok for editing with Final Cut Express, but its not that great for gaming. u probably will only be able to get ur grphics on medium.
I have a question:
Can graphics cards be changed on a 17 inch iMac intel core, and can they support directX 10 graphics cards?
i have a 128mb X1600 card, which is fine for Photoshop and ok for editing with Final Cut Express, but its not that great for gaming. u probably will only be able to get ur grphics on medium.
I have a question:
Can graphics cards be changed on a 17 inch iMac intel core, and can they support directX 10 graphics cards?
Graphics cards have nothing to do with image editing. Photoshop is purely processor.
It all depends on what you're using your computer for. If you're a hardcore gamer, I would say it's not enough and not future proof if you want to play upcoming games as well. If you're surfing the net, doing some light graphic design work etc. it's plenty.