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.
How good will the 2.2GHZ do with games??
- Thread starter XheartcoreboyX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't really understand why people are still pointing to that same old set of BareFeats tests as "evidence" about the difference between the 128MB of 256MB 8600M GT in Boot Camp.
Those BareFeats tests were testing OS X games, and older ones at that where a noticeable difference wouldn't be seen.
When people have tested more intensive games, like FEAR or Prey, they are seeing more noticeable differences.
Even BareFeats noticed better performance in Windows XP vs. OS X, so I don't really get why people are using their tests to answer questions about the difference in performance under Boot Camp.
Check out this discussion (and the links to other threads and tests within it) for an example:
http://forums.macnn.com/69/macbook-pro-and-powerbook/339055/vram-in-new-2-4-mbp/
This in particular:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879&page=2
That extra VRAM is going to help in more intensive games.
Those BareFeats tests were testing OS X games, and older ones at that where a noticeable difference wouldn't be seen.
When people have tested more intensive games, like FEAR or Prey, they are seeing more noticeable differences.
Even BareFeats noticed better performance in Windows XP vs. OS X, so I don't really get why people are using their tests to answer questions about the difference in performance under Boot Camp.
Check out this discussion (and the links to other threads and tests within it) for an example:
http://forums.macnn.com/69/macbook-pro-and-powerbook/339055/vram-in-new-2-4-mbp/
This in particular:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879&page=2
That extra VRAM is going to help in more intensive games.
The GPU is dynamically clocking, 375 mhz is on normal load, it clocks to 470 at heavy loads, that is 5 mhz less than rated, and ~1% underclocking, not much of a deal
Indeed. And at least we get that full performance.
You should see the rage in some of the Dell forums about the 8600M GT in the new Inspiron 1520 machines; not only is it only using GDDR2 RAM (instead of GDDR3, like the MBP and Asus G1S), but it is also significantly underclocked even during 3d operations.
WOW,,now that make a real difference!! >_< , why do most people say its not big difference ?!
GAH. It's not enough of a difference to justify it. The fact is that the current games run FINE on the 128, and future games are going to have issues with the card itself being insufficient, not just the amount of vram. I didn't quote those tests, I understand how they were gathered. I'm simply trying to relay the fact that you are NOT future-proofing yourself for games to come by getting the extra vram.
Why do people insist on asking the same questions over and over again?
...because they're not certain in the first place.
It's the same with all these comparisons, some people tested on games like Doom 3, HL2, Quake 4 and found no appreciable difference (5% more on average), others tested on more modern games with über settings and found an appreciable difference. It comes down to whether you need to play the newest games with all the settings maxed out, which in the 128Mb versions case chokes the RAM because Ultra Settings = Uncompressed Textures.
Dial it down a notch on the texture and model quality, and you won't notice any major difference, and you suddenly begin seeing similar performance.
While we're at it, 24+ FPS is the minimum FPS you should aim for, most people just find a setting where they can play at 40-60 FPS while trying to have the most graphically pleasing options on. Frankly, any of the MBPs should do 60+ FPS on a game like HL2 with maxed settings, and HL2 is an incredible looking game.
Does it really justify spending $500 of your (or your brothers) money to get that extra speed on max settings which you likely won't even notice compared to the lower tier machine with almost-maxed settings?
There you go. Stop worrying and questioning yourself, and just go for the 2.2GHz.
I still don't buy this reasoning though. It's not like there aren't already games out where the difference is noticeable and obvious.
I could understand if you were arguing this only affected games coming out in the future, but it can already be seen with modern games released over the past year.
The reality is, there are games on the market now that can benefit from extra VRAM, allowing one to run at higher quality settings with higher framerates.
And for better or worse, the 8600M GT is going to be essentially the "top of the line" for mobile GPU's in a 15" form factor for quite a while.
It is one thing to argue whether or not it is worth the extra money, how much one will be playing games, etc. But it's another thing to argue that there isn't any noticeable difference with today's games. This is something that is demonstrably false.
I would also argue that even some upcoming games like, say, Quake Wars or BioShock or Fallout 3 should be playable on these systems (heck, Quake Wars beta is playable on my desktop 6800GT, which is less powerful than the 8600M GT). So it's not like there aren't upcoming games where the 8600M GT will still be able to play them, and where the extra VRAM will help.
-Zadillo
You're honestly claiming that, say, Prey or FEAR or Oblivion, running at, say, 1280x800, at the same quality settings, would have identical performance on a 256MB system as on a 128MB system?
Can you back that up with actual benchmarks demonstrating a such?
EDIT: From reading a bit more on this, it does sound like there is less of a difference at lower resolutions, so I'll accept this premise then.
yup from what i know,what he says,what everyone says...the 256 vcard would make a difference when playing games with high settings..high res..in lower res..theres a little difference or in some games..nothing!