MBP - 2.2 or 2.4? Advice Please.

[Atomic-Ed]

I have no idea about design specs, etc.

I can only tell you my personal experience running Vista on a Sony SZ460 with GMA950 graphics, and it always ran smoothly and just fine even with many windows open and using window previews in the taskbar, Flip3D, etc. and even having video playing.

Either way, GMA950 graphics shares system memory (usually it would take about 200 megs of my 2GB of memory when running with the GMA950 graphics), so I don't know how big a deal the issue is with storing stuff in video memory anyway.

I am new to Macs and this forum, so can you tell me how I can upload some screenshots to this thread? If so I will show you what the performance results are for this. It is quite easily seen in the performance score for the gma950 which I have here and can show you.

BTW.. Your right it does share system memory which is many times slower than true vram and also takes that ram from the OS which has an impact on the interface as well. But thats another story. It is no comparison to true video memory. The GPU part of the GMA950 is yet another area of weakness and it is about at the performance level of an old 1st gen Geforce circa 1999, but has no T&L capability so it is actually weaker than that.

 

[Zadillo]

I am new to Macs and this forum, so can you tell me how I can upload some screenshots to this thread? If so I will show you what the performance results are for this. It is quite easily seen in the performance score for the gma950 which I have here and can show you.

I've seen performance scores, etc. I believe you that the performance scores in the Windows Experience Index are lower.

You're trying to tell me I'm wrong though that I didn't see any slowdown, etc. with GMA950 graphics though, and performance scores aren't going to change my own experiences.

I am telling you, a Sony SZ460 with GMA950 graphics (not using the GeForce 7400 mode) could handle Aero just fine; all Aero effects were smooth; I did Flip3d with a dozen windows open, including one playing video, and a few web browser windows with flash stuff playing in them), and it never choked.

I don't see why performance scores are relevant to this.

 

[Tacos!]

Hi everyone,
So far I'm a Mac virgin, but I've finally made the decision to open my eyes and invest in a MBP! Now I just have to decide if it's the 2.2 or 2.4 for me... and I assumed you Mac Gurus could help me out.

My needs are as follows:
I'm a physics and engineering student starting out my degree.
I plan on running parallels with Vista Ultimate and Linux (both of which I need for university). I might also open a Windows partition on Boot Camp (hopefully I won't have to).
I plan on upgrading the hard disk to 160GB 5400 RPM if I get the 2.2.
I do some graphics work (photoshop...) and ofcourse I'll be running things like MATLAB.
No need for games. That's what desktops are for.

Now I need the computer to do all that and do it smothely. The work in Vista will be mostly "Office" type stuff which I will have to do in windows.

So what do you think? I doubt the processor speed will be a noticable difference, but the 128 vs. 256 MB of video memory might make a substancial difference...
Would that be worth the extra $450?!
If anyone has tried a setup like the one I need on the 2.2, how does it run?

Any and all advice would be appreciated,

Ilan

What kind of engineering? I want to be a mechanical engineer when i got to college...Anyways

I would stay away from vista right now... Alot of people say its buggy and in 2 months it will be EXTREAMLY slow. Get XP professional, its much better

If you want the 160GB HD, try and get a 7200RPM one, it will be much faster.

I have a 2.2 macbook pro, and it exceeds all my expectations of everything. I have a demo of aperture installed, and it works beautifully with it. I don't use photoshop, though.

-Justin

 

[v-ault]

i don't know what to tell you on ths as MS coded Vista's Aero interface exactly as I previously described where each windows texture info is stored in vram. This is a fact and is clearly described in the Vista design specs. If your 128mb (which is bare minimum spec) can defy the coded design of MS somehow then thats great. Otherwise is is not physically possible for your 128mb video memory to hold more window info than any other cards 128mb video memory does. Maybe through some sort of 3rd party texture compression technology hacked into it or something, but sort of that I just can't tell you why yours defies physics.

LOL. On vista, I had Counter Strike Source open, AIM, Firefox, and office all open at the same time. Guess what? No problems. Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you have a huge tendency towards hyperbole.

 

[Atomic-Ed]

I've seen performance scores, etc. I believe you that the performance scores in the Windows Experience Index are lower.

You're trying to tell me I'm wrong though that I didn't see any slowdown, etc. with GMA950 graphics though, and performance scores aren't going to change my own experiences.

I am telling you, a Sony SZ460 with GMA950 graphics (not using the GeForce 7400 mode) could handle Aero just fine; all Aero effects were smooth; I did Flip3d with a dozen windows open, including one playing video, and a few web browser windows with flash stuff playing in them), and it never choked.

I don't see why performance scores are relevant to this.

With all due respect to you, I am not trying to tell you your wrong so much as I am trying to say your description of its performance does not make any sense. In other words, every single GMA950 I have worked on with Aero enabled, has displayed the exact same horrible glass performance after 2 windows at once. The Aero glass features store all texture info in video ram for EACH open window. Yet you describe tons of windows being open with no performance hit on your gma950. I have various machines here that run 7900GS with 256mb that can not do this effectively without performance issues.

All I am saying is if your that satisfied with your gma950 under vista, then it just does not add up except that maybe your personal perception of acceptable performance is less so it seems acceptable to you. Whichif thats the case then that is great because you can save alot of money that way.

Anyway if we were to boil this down to the design in its simplest expression, it is like having buckets to hold stuff and each window needing its own bucket, so with alot of windows you need alot of buckets. Its really just that simple when you look at how it is designed. The Windows performance scores are there to assist consumers in obtaining the system hardware they recommend for various performance aspects of Vista. That is why they break these down to categories like graphics, disk access, etc. Using this an average user could determine they need to upgrade their HD to improve performance of their system with a weak disk acces score or a video card to achieve better performanc ein that area. It is there to assist people in tuning their systems to provide a pleasurable Vista experience. Vista graphics with a score of 2 is the absolute barest minimum to run Aero according to MS. This is not my opinion but from the designers themselves. These scores also help people in buying software that will run nicely on their systems that match their windows experience scores.

 

[Episteme]

With all due respect to you, I am not trying to tell you your wrong so much as I am trying to say your description of its performance does not make any sense. In other words, every single GMA950 I have worked on with Aero enabled, has displayed the exact same horrible glass performance after 2 windows at once. The Aero glass features store all texture info in video ram for EACH open window. Yet you describe tons of windows being open with no performance hit on your gma950. I have various machines here that run 7900GS with 256mb that can not do this effectively without performance issues.

All I am saying is if your that satisfied with your gma950 under vista, then it just does not add up except that maybe your personal perception of acceptable performance is less so it seems acceptable to you. Whichif thats the case then that is great because you can save alot of money that way.

Anyway if we were to boil this down to the design in its simplest expression, it is like having buckets to hold stuff and each window needing its own bucket, so with alot of windows you need alot of buckets. Its really just that simple when you look at how it is designed. The Windows performance scores are there to assist consumers in obtaining the system hardware they recommend for various performance aspects of Vista. That is why they break these down to categories like graphics, disk access, etc. Using this an average user could determine they need to upgrade their HD to improve performance of their system with a weak disk acces score or a video card to achieve better performanc ein that area. It is there to assist people in tuning their systems to provide a pleasurable Vista experience. Vista graphics with a score of 2 is the absolute barest minimum to run Aero according to MS. This is not my opinion but from the designers themselves. These scores also help people in buying software that will run nicely on their systems that match their windows experience scores.

I'm running Vista with Aero just fine on a borrowed Toshiba laptop running GMA950 and a Core Duo 1.73GHz CPU -- and I always have a ton of Windows open.

Regardless, MS does not say you need 256MB for Vista. In fact, the MBP has fewer pixels than the "Recommended 128MB" setting.

From Microsoft themselves:

I thought my system can support Windows Aero but Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor tells me I need to upgrade my video card. Is my system capable of running the Windows Aero user experience?

Windows Aero requires a DirectX 9-class graphics processor that supports the following:

* WDDM driver
* Pixel Shader 2.0
* 32 bits per pixel
* Adequate graphics memory
o 64 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at a resolution lower than 1,310,720 pixels
o 128 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at resolutions from 1,310,720 to 2,304,000 pixels
o 256 MB of graphics memory to support a single monitor at a resolution higher than 2,304,000 pixels

(emphasis mine)

So, that's straight from the horses mouth.

The MBP has 1440x900 pixels - 1440x900=1,296,000 -- less than 1,310,720 pixels that, according to MS, is the "bare minimum" is 64MB for Aero at the MBP resolution.

One can always turn off border transparency effects to save some VRAM if one experiences poor performance. You might try that for your GMA systems, as well as checking they're set to dynamically allocate memory instead of it being forced in the BIOS to a set size, as they certainly sound sick, since this laptop (with a whole bunch of windows open) is doing just fine. No tearing, no grinding to a halt, etc. It's not the only GMA system I've seen Aero running on, and while I think GMA950 is bloody useless for most things, it's fine for the composited desktop in Vista (and OS X, come to that...). Oh

To the original poster -- will you be running multiple displays? If you intend to run multiple displays, the 256MB VRAM model might be worthwhile. Likewise if you run 3D modelling apps that use significant numbers of textures. If you're heavily into 3D gaming, it might be worthwhile too -- tho $500 will buy you most of a decent gaming desktop. Otherwise, the cheaper 15" MBP should be fine IMO.

Usual disclaimers apply...

 

[s7on3d]

wow...

First of all thanks to everyone for the great responses and especially to Atomic-Ed and Zadillo for the riveting debait but I would like to clarify a few points:

First of all, for Tacos! - I'm starting a double degree in electronic engineering and physics... I've given up my rights to sleep, a social life, and females for the next 4 years...

Now back to the matter at hand:
I plan on using OSX for all my day to day work and play. All graphics, surfing, spreadsheets, presentations, and MATLAB will be in OSX.
My problem comes only because I am in Israel, and thus part of my work will be in hebrew... OSX has some minor compatability issues with the ancient language, as do Safari, Firefox, iWork and Office 2004.
I will only be using the Paralles Vista for the rare website that doesn't work in Safari, the rare document that has to be aesthetically pleasing, and so on...
So basically, if Vista can run in Parallels as well as it can on say a PC with a GMA950 (which I know is by all means less than optimal but still covers my basic needs), I will be content.
BUT... I do need it to run smothely in OSX. I am quite the power user, so having a video or music playing in the background while running a simulation in MATLAB, with a spreadsheet or two open, a couple of webpages and a PDF open would be quite a normal load...
Could the 2.2 handle such a load? (I've seen the MBP 2G 2.33 w/ 2GB RAM handle such tasks quite nicely)
Would the 128 MB of video RAM cover all my needs well into the next couple of years?

Now for the price breakdown (Student prices!):
The 2.2 costs $1799 as a student to which I would add $67 to upgrade to 160GB hard drive. Sum total - $1866.
The 2.4 comes with the hard drive I want and costs $2299.
Since I still highly doubt that I'll notice the difference between the processors (especially if i don't compare them side by side), is the difference in video RAM worth $433 (a lot of money...)?

Once again, thanks in advance!

 

[Episteme]

First of all thanks to everyone for the great responses and especially to Atomic-Ed and Zadillo for the riveting debait but I would like to clarify a few points:

First of all, for Tacos! - I'm starting a double degree in electronic engineering and physics... I've given up my rights to sleep, a social life, and females for the next 4 years...

Now back to the matter at hand:
I plan on using OSX for all my day to day work and play. All graphics, surfing, spreadsheets, presentations, and MATLAB will be in OSX.
My problem comes only because I am in Israel, and thus part of my work will be in hebrew... OSX has some minor compatability issues with the ancient language, as do Safari, Firefox, iWork and Office 2004.
I will only be using the Paralles Vista for the rare website that doesn't work in Safari, the rare document that has to be aesthetically pleasing, and so on...
So basically, if Vista can run in Parallels as well as it can on say a PC with a GMA950 (which I know is by all means less than optimal but still covers my basic needs), I will be content.
BUT... I do need it to run smothely in OSX. I am quite the power user, so having a video or music playing in the background while running a simulation in MATLAB, with a spreadsheet or two open, a couple of webpages and a PDF open would be quite a normal load...
Could the 2.2 handle such a load? (I've seen the MBP 2G 2.33 w/ 2GB RAM handle such tasks quite nicely)
Would the 128 MB of video RAM cover all my needs well into the next couple of years?

Now for the price breakdown (Student prices!):
The 2.2 costs $1799 as a student to which I would add $67 to upgrade to 160GB hard drive. Sum total - $1866.
The 2.4 comes with the hard drive I want and costs $2299.
Since I still highly doubt that I'll notice the difference between the processors (especially if i don't compare them side by side), is the difference in video RAM worth $433 (a lot of money...)?

Once again, thanks in advance!

I think even a GMA-based laptop with sufficient system RAM would give you acceptable performance for that lot. None of it is terribly graphically intensive, unless you're running very high resolution videos -- and the MBP display is too small to make real use of that anyway...

Parallels doesn't current support Vista's Aero theme. Until it does, you're stuck with Vista Basic or Classic. Now, the if you REALLY want Aero in parallels (if and when it does support it), and you intend to run your Vista desktop at "full" display res, the 256MB *might* be worth it. If you can live with the Vista Basic or Windows Classic themes, then it doesn't really matter. Bear in mind, until Parallels gets their WDDM driver/support written, Vista is stuck in those modes anyway...

Otherwise, system RAM sounds like it'd be a more limiting factor -- you may want to consider moving to 4GB at some point. When you do it is a trade-off... do it sooner and your 2x1GB modules that came with the system have a better resale value, do it later and the 2GB modules will be cheaper. Just don't buy Apple's RAM, it's usually excessively over-priced!

 

[Wolfpup]

i don't know what to tell you on ths as MS coded Vista's Aero interface exactly as I previously described where each windows texture info is stored in vram. This is a fact and is clearly described in the Vista design specs. If your 128mb (which is bare minimum spec) can defy the coded design of MS somehow then thats great. Otherwise is is not physically possible for your 128mb video memory to hold more window info than any other cards 128mb video memory does. Maybe through some sort of 3rd party texture compression technology hacked into it or something, but sort of that I just can't tell you why yours defies physics.

I just wanted to point out the obvious-OS X has been doing this same thing for the last 6 years.

 

[Bearxor]

Atomic - You're just crazy man. I've ran Vista on several different machines with no ill effect of Aero. One of them, my old HTPC, a AthlonXP-m 2600+ with a 128MB Radeon 9600 Pro didn't even blink an eye at Aero or at Vista MCE.

My current HTPC, a Opteron 165 with a 256MB Geforce 8500 definitely has no problems. The video card I replaced with the 8500, a 128MB Radeon X1300 Pro had no problems running Aero, only OTA HD content, which is why it was replaced.

My Inspiron 6000, which I've used Vista on for the past year (Media Center Beta Tester here) with it's PentiumM Dothan (that's single-core 2MB L2 533mhz FSB) 1.73 and 128MB Radeon X300 still has no problems running Aero. Up untl yesterday, it was my full-time machine and always has it's fair share of windows open.

So, as for advice to the OP:

By the $2000 model. Buy yourself the biggest HD you want off of newegg (there's a 200GB here for only $150 and then buy yourself a nice slim SATA enclosure like this one and have yourself a huge 200GB internal HD and a 120GB external drive to back up to just in case. Or just buy a full-size 500GB external hard drive for the same price and don't worry about opening your laptop.

And then stop listening to this FUD about how you HAVE to have 256MB of video ram and it still runs vista crappy.

 

[mattsajay]

I'm starting a double degree in electronic engineering and physics... I've given up my rights to sleep, a social life, and females for the next 4 years...
!

come on... !!!!! its not THAT bad... these situations arise twice per semester.. max! otherwise you lead a pretty normal life. this coming from an 'old' phd student mind you.. i am "supposed" to be bitter about these things.....

Now for the price breakdown (Student prices!):
The 2.2 costs $1799 as a student to which I would add $67 to upgrade to 160GB hard drive. Sum total - $1866.
The 2.4 comes with the hard drive I want and costs $2299.
Since I still highly doubt that I'll notice the difference between the processors (especially if i don't compare them side by side), is the difference in video RAM worth $433 (a lot of money...)?

Once again, thanks in advance!

i have been asking around and doing quite a bit of background research for sometime about the low end MBP (since it came out) and the MB. the cheapest way to buy a MBP with the option of increasing ram later is the stock MBP through ADC student membership. The total inclusive of adc pricing (roughly 100 bucks) and tax (roughly 120 bucks) comes to around 1850. thats the cheapest i could get. It is around 350 more thanthe middle order MB with 2 gig ram.

from what i learnt through this forum, talking to a mac-genius and asking around in my department (applied maths) is that 2.2 mbp is probably a decent buy if you spend less than 2 grand on it. the best part is it has the option of upgrading ram and a 'complete' 64 bit processor. plus through adc you probably get leopard for free.

 

[ajhaji]

CPU Price Difference

Just for reference, according to Wikipedia the price difference between the low-end and the high-end CPU is $214.

 

[Atomic-Ed]

LOL!

This is my last post in this ridiculous thread. I have shared some info with respect to the subject and Vista Aero that is what it is.

For those of you who liked thread comments, I was glad to be part of it, and for those of you that do not care for the input I gave or feel your personal integrated graphics under Vista are somehow unaffected by the design specs to run it porperly, thats fine you have a right to your opinion and I won't say your crazy or anything because you know what they say about opinions.

PT Barnum said it best and with that I will simply say enjoy your ultimate Vista Aero performing integrated GMA950.............

 

[dollystereo]

With all due respect to you, I am not trying to tell you your wrong so much as I am trying to say your description of its performance does not make any sense. In other words, every single GMA950 I have worked on with Aero enabled, has displayed the exact same horrible glass performance after 2 windows at once. The Aero glass features store all texture info in video ram for EACH open window. Yet you describe tons of windows being open with no performance hit on your gma950. I have various machines here that run 7900GS with 256mb that can not do this effectively without performance issues.

All I am saying is if your that satisfied with your gma950 under vista, then it just does not add up except that maybe your personal perception of acceptable performance is less so it seems acceptable to you. Whichif thats the case then that is great because you can save alot of money that way.

Anyway if we were to boil this down to the design in its simplest expression, it is like having buckets to hold stuff and each window needing its own bucket, so with alot of windows you need alot of buckets. Its really just that simple when you look at how it is designed. The Windows performance scores are there to assist consumers in obtaining the system hardware they recommend for various performance aspects of Vista. That is why they break these down to categories like graphics, disk access, etc. Using this an average user could determine they need to upgrade their HD to improve performance of their system with a weak disk acces score or a video card to achieve better performanc ein that area. It is there to assist people in tuning their systems to provide a pleasurable Vista experience. Vista graphics with a score of 2 is the absolute barest minimum to run Aero according to MS. This is not my opinion but from the designers themselves. These scores also help people in buying software that will run nicely on their systems that match their windows experience scores.

You are a very strange person, do you think windows is a Quake 5??
If so, it really sux.

The super fast G8600 is an excelent video card, the 128MB version will blow away vista, dont worry.
I am Math Engineering, and I have a CD MBP, is a great machine. I have tried vista on it, and it runs better than any pc i have seen. Just go for the 2.2Ghz machine, is enough, save your cash for a external backup drive, and maybe a 2nd 20" dell screen. Is very Useful for mathlab. You dont need Linux, macosx is Unix based, so port everything there. Here at the campus we do heavy math works all based on G5s. I think is better to get XP running for solidedges and mechanical stuffs. Good luck

 

[Cehtna]

Have to see some proof

I have to see some benchmarks and listen to some powerusers at a reviewsite
who have experienced both 8600-128 and 8600-256 before I make up my mind..

I agree with a lot of people, they should have used 256/512 gpu-memory, like most PC-vendors do.

Do anyone know if it is possible to change the 8600 graphicscard?

 

[iW00t]

Hi everyone,
So far I'm a Mac virgin, but I've finally made the decision to open my eyes and invest in a MBP! Now I just have to decide if it's the 2.2 or 2.4 for me... and I assumed you Mac Gurus could help me out.

You will definitely lose money no matter which one you choose

I would buy the 2.2 if I were sane, but I bought the 2.4 just because I figured it is going to last me 3-4 years anyway. With the LED backlights these things will literally never die (short of a logic board failure outside of Applecare).

 

[s7on3d]

You will definitely lose money no matter which one you choose

Well... Here in Israel the importer is such a horrible gouger that they charge almost double the american price for a Macbook Pro...
It is actually cheaper for me to buy a plane ticket to the US, buy a MBP, and pay the 15.5% import tax when I get here than to buy it here...

So basically considering that I'm getting it at student prices, and that a friend is bringing it here for me, I can sell it in around a year for a few hunderd dollars more than I payed for it and upgrade!

Thanks to all the posters
Any more info would be happily accepted (especially personal experiences of ppl using the 2.2 MPBs... with Vista in parallels) though for the most part I think I've made up my mind.

It will be the 2.2 GHZ Macbook Pro and I'll upgrade the hard drive.
After speaking to some friends I've found out that I'll be spending most of my work time either running Linux or parsing through OSX.
All things considered, I just can't allow myself to spend another $433 when the only thing I want is more Video RAM so Vista moves a little bit more smothely (I wish money was not part of the equation). If I find it all to be a bit too slow and jerky I can always sell at a profit or upgrade my RAM .

Thanks once again to all the posters and please keep them replies coming ,
Ilan

 

[iW00t]

I have to see some benchmarks and listen to some powerusers at a reviewsite
who have experienced both 8600-128 and 8600-256 before I make up my mind..

I agree with a lot of people, they should have used 256/512 gpu-memory, like most PC-vendors do.

Do anyone know if it is possible to change the 8600 graphicscard?

Macs are not for powerusers. If you are a poweruser... hey, like you said it yourself. Buy a brand that delivers 256/512 gpu-memory (like most PC-vendors do).

 

[Zadillo]

Macs are not for powerusers. If you are a poweruser... hey, like you said it yourself. Buy a brand that delivers 256/512 gpu-memory (like most PC-vendors do).

Macs are not for powerusers? Give me a break.

As for what most PC-vendors do; most PC vendors aren't even using the 8600MGT. They're using less powerful cards like the 8600M GS or even 8400M's.

And most are shipping cards with, at best, 256MB VRAM. I think Zepto and Clevo are the only ones I've seen selling the 8600M GT with a 512MB VRAM option (and I think that might have been GDDR2 RAM, not GDDR3).

Asus's G1S, for example, only uses a 256MB VRAM version of the 8600M GT.

-Zadillo

 

[Bearxor]

I have to see some benchmarks and listen to some powerusers at a reviewsite
who have experienced both 8600-128 and 8600-256 before I make up my mind..

I agree with a lot of people, they should have used 256/512 gpu-memory, like most PC-vendors do.

Do anyone know if it is possible to change the 8600 graphicscard?

I dont have access to both versions of the MBP, but I can tell you of my first gamin experience on the MBP 128MB.

I installed C&C3 last night and was able to turn up the detail setings to max on everything at native resolution. I didn't turn AA on though. The tutorial played just fine. It's possible that more frantic battles would introduce slowdown, but in that case I'd probably drop it to the recommended settings, which was ll the way up on all but just a couple of things.

 

[island]

LOL!

This is my last post in this ridiculous thread. I have shared some info with respect to the subject and Vista Aero that is what it is.

For those of you who liked thread comments, I was glad to be part of it, and for those of you that do not care for the input I gave or feel your personal integrated graphics under Vista are somehow unaffected by the design specs to run it porperly, thats fine you have a right to your opinion and I won't say your crazy or anything because you know what they say about opinions.

PT Barnum said it best and with that I will simply say enjoy your ultimate Vista Aero performing integrated GMA950.............

You are on a Mac forum arguing about nothing. The OP asked is there a difference between 2.2 & 2.4 on certain things, there will be NO DIFFERENCE in Vista using AERO. Windows will not flip faster, you won't be able to see thru extra windows with more memory on your video card. Either card will be fine for Aero. Final.

 

[joehack]

What are the VRAM requirements of Mac OSX with Core Animation and Core Image? Episteme was so nice to list the Vista requirements.

I'm considering buying a MBP 2.2 and I want to attach a 24" (or maybe 30") display to it. Are the 128 MBytes VRAM enough?

Jochen

 

[e12a]

aero runs fine on my friend's 2.0 blackbook.

 

[mattsajay]

Macs are not for powerusers. .

this is the most hilarious post i have read in this greatly informative forum.

well.... maybe iW00t meant linux clusters or sun ultra sparcs or silicon graphics high end octane machines are for power users.........!!!!!!!!! thhose are the only things better than macs ... but unfortunately they are NOT USED as a PERSONAL COMPUTER.

 

[aliquis-]

Go with the cheaper one, for your requirements even the macbook sounds like sufficient.