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

mbpsr 128vram crippled

P

prism

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Dec 6, 2006
1,090
451
It seems to be that on the more recent games, the difference between 128vram and 256vram makes a hell of a difference in performance even with moderate settings. There are two factors that affect performance: the type of GPU and the amount of vram. In other words, having a fast GPU with limited vram is crippling just like having a relatively slow GPU with lots of vram is also crippling.
This seems to explain why the comparative tests done between the mbpsr 2.2 vs mbpsr 2.4 yields such dramatically different results as can be seen here:
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30457&st=20

So the bottom line is: does $500 justify way better gameplay (only on bootcamp offcourse), slightly faster CPU and more HD space? Well considering that for the price one can get a PS3, its a hard call!
 
I am more than content with mine.

I also don't understand the OP's point. You start out with saying it makes a hell of a difference even on moderate settings, then links to a thread where there is no clear answer (from what I read) other than better FPS with higher quality texturing, AA etc. and you end up with saying it's a hard call choosing between the two?
 
iW00t said:
If you need to play games Macs are not for you.

PERIOD.
Click to expand...

I don't see why not. If you want a mobile gaming platform, the MBP fits the bill pretty well...the M8600GT is the second fastest mobile GPU out there (second to only the M8800GT, which will probably be in the next MBP update), the C2D is a damn good processor, and you can stick up to 4GB of RAM in it. I can play Supreme Commander at maximum graphics settings and it runs just fine. MS Flight Sim also runs very well on my MBP, especially compared to the machine it was replacing! (AMD 4200+ @ 2.7GHz, 2GB DDR400, 2x 6800GT).
 
Jiddick ExRex said:
I am more than content with mine.

I also don't understand the OP's point. You start out with saying it makes a hell of a difference even on moderate settings, then links to a thread where there is no clear answer (from what I read) other than better FPS with higher quality texturing, AA etc. and you end up with saying it's a hard call choosing between the two?
Click to expand...

@Jiddick, my point is that with new games under bootcamp, the amount of vram seems to matter very much considering that even on average settings there seems to be a lot more texturing (or maybe I am confused?). I think the following stats are interesting and highlight this point:

I took Michael's suggestion and tried Ultra and FSAA on the 15" MacBook Pro "Santa Rosa" 2.2 (128M VRAM) and the 2.4 (256M VRAM).

Doom 3 at 1440x900 High Quality , FSAA = 4X
128M = 21 fps
256M = 26 fps (or 24% advantage)

Doom 3 at 1440x900 Ultra Quality, no FSAA
128M = 16 fps
256M = 46 fps (or 188% advantage)

Quake 4 at 1440x900 High Quality, FSAA = 4X
128M = 23 fps
256M = 38 fps (or 65% advantage)

Quake 4 at 1440x900 Ultra Quality, no FSAA
128M = 4 fps
256M = 37 fps (or 825% advantage)


Though few will play 3D games on a MacBook Pro with 128M or 256M at Ultra Quality --- or with FSAA enabled at native resolution, this clearly demonstrates that there is a threshold at which the MBP with the larger VRAM gains a significant advantage.
 
prism said:
Though few will play 3D games on a MacBook Pro with 128M or 256M at Ultra Quality --- or with FSAA enabled at native resolution, this clearly demonstrates that there is a threshold at which the MBP with the larger VRAM gains a significant advantage.
Click to expand...

Clearly it does. But then again I wouldn't expect anyone to buy a MBP to play at these quality settings. It would be insane to do that no matter what laptop you bought.

And then again you contradict yourself from your first post where you stated 'at moderate settings'. Ultra quality is not at moderate settings. It's at insane settings even for a gaming laptop with a mobile 8800 gt.

I see your point but most of this comes down to need. You can always make these kinds of extreme measurements in one end of the spectrum but it doesn't change the fact that I would take them with a grain of salt when comparing to see which laptop would be most appropriate for me.

Heck, I could open up three terminal windows on a Powerbook and a Macbook Pro, type in yes dev>null three times on each laptop and try and surf the web and check my email. The end result might be that the MBP was a smidge faster at those tasks with both cores maxed out but it wouldn't be a legitimate estimate. Just as the ultra quality doesn't give you more than max 46 fps which makes the game unplayable anyway.

The MBP so happens to fit my gaming needs nicely. Sure I could need some extra power in terms of overclocking and more appropriate drivers, not to mention another 128 mb of Vram, but I will live because my expectations were never to play at insane settings.

When the GPU starts to lack behind when new games are announced I can damn well assure you the high-end MBP will lack behind as well.
 
Jiddick ExRex said:
Clearly it does. But then again I wouldn't expect anyone to buy a MBP to play at these quality settings. It would be insane to do that no matter what laptop you bought.

And then again you contradict yourself from your first post where you stated 'at moderate settings'. Ultra quality is not at moderate settings. It's at insane settings even for a gaming laptop with a mobile 8800 gt.

I see your point but most of this comes down to need. You can always make these kinds of extreme measurements in one end of the spectrum but it doesn't change the fact that I would take them with a grain of salt when comparing to see which laptop would be most appropriate for me.

Heck, I could open up three terminal windows on a Powerbook and a Macbook Pro, type in yes dev>null three times on each laptop and try and surf the web and check my email. The end result might be that the MBP was a smidge faster at those tasks with both cores maxed out but it wouldn't be a legitimate estimate. Just as the ultra quality doesn't give you more than max 46 fps which makes the game unplayable anyway.

The MBP so happens to fit my gaming needs nicely. Sure I could need some extra power in terms of overclocking and more appropriate drivers, not to mention another 128 mb of Vram, but I will live because my expectations were never to play at insane settings.

When the GPU starts to lack behind when new games are announced I can damn well assure you the high-end MBP will lack behind as well.
Click to expand...


Well actually the reason why I posted this example is because I couldnt find one that tests on more recent games such at COD4, BIOSHOCK or UT3. Remember that the example is using maxed out settings for old games, so maybe that is equivalent to moderate settings in more recent games? If that is the case, then the difference in vram is a very big deal for those of us that want decent framerates at moderate settings.
 
In windows, doesn't the 8600 do turbocaching with the system ram? Does that help at all? I don't really know too much about that (besides it is slower than having it's own dedicated RAM) but I thought it helps it out a little bit?
 
LoneWolf121188 said:
I don't see why not. If you want a mobile gaming platform, the MBP fits the bill pretty well...the M8600GT is the second fastest mobile GPU out there (second to only the M8800GT, which will probably be in the next MBP update), the C2D is a damn good processor, and you can stick up to 4GB of RAM in it. I can play Supreme Commander at maximum graphics settings and it runs just fine. MS Flight Sim also runs very well on my MBP, especially compared to the machine it was replacing! (AMD 4200+ @ 2.7GHz, 2GB DDR400, 2x 6800GT).
Click to expand...

8600GT is slower than the 8700GT the 8800M GTX/GT and the 7950 GTX Go. It just pulls less power and creates less heat than the others. There are laptops with SLI'ed 7950GTX's and 8800GTX's. That would laugh at most modern games.
 
diamond.g said:
8600GT is slower than the 8700GT the 8800M GTX/GT and the 7950 GTX Go. It just pulls less power and creates less heat than the others. There are laptops with SLI'ed 7950GTX's and 8800GTX's. That would laugh at most modern games.
Click to expand...

for these larger cards though, the battery life and the heat from the laptop would be tremendous, especially with the really thin design on the MBP. Although personally I wouln't mind a thicker MBP, I'm sure more of the applelites on this forum would go crazy if their product wasn't slick and pretty.
 
aiterum said:
for these larger cards though, the battery life and the heat from the laptop would be tremendous, especially with the really thin design on the MBP. Although personally I wouln't mind a thicker MBP, I'm sure more of the applelites on this forum would go crazy if their product wasn't slick and pretty. (Which is apparently more important than functional)
Click to expand...

Eh, it is a trade off. While having RAID and SLI in a laptop is cool, it is also impractical. Apple is more about practical, not cool.
 
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