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.
Switch from 256mb to 512mb 8600M GT in MBP 2007?
- Thread starter wick3d73
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wouldn't be any point in doing it if you could. The 8600M GT isn't fast enough to use that much memory anyways. 256MB is about all the 8600M GT can really benefit from.
What makes you say that? It has nothing to do with how "fast" the card is. More memory let's you use higher texture resolutions and higher screen resolutions. Sure, it won't make the card any faster at lower resolutions, but it makes a pretty big difference when running things on higher settings.
We have some test data comparing a MacBook Pro with 512MB VRAM to one with 256MB VRAM. As far as with 3D OpenGL gaming, there is no advantage in speed.
However, a few Core Image based apps that gobble up VRAM (like Motion or iMaginator) might benefit. We'll be testing that today and report back.
However, a few Core Image based apps that gobble up VRAM (like Motion or iMaginator) might benefit. We'll be testing that today and report back.
Not really, it definitely have everything to do with how fast the card is itself and the nvidia 8600gt cards are limited to only a 128-bit wide bandwidth and 512mb doesnt really make any difference. But its a different story say on a nvidia 8800gt card on the mac pro if whether to opt for the 512mb or 256mb.
The core still has to process the data.
If there is 512Mb of textures with a core that can only reasonably process 256mb of textures then THERE IS NO POINT.
Hell my X1900XTX which is twice as fast as the 8600GTM in my MBP doesn't use 512mb. The most I've seen it use is 400mb and that was in Crysis at 20FPS!!!!
The ideal for the MBP 8600GTM is somewhere between 128 and 256mb.
End of thread.
Only if the card is "fast" enough to push more data through when it has 512MB of memory vs only having 256MB. If it's bottlenecked by a 128-bit memory bus and slower speeds compared to like an 8800GT then it's not going to be able to fill the memory fast enough to actually benefit from 512MB over 256MB. It would be dumping the data and filling with new data before it ever got near 512MB.
Apple's marketing Scheme once again fools alot of people. Basically to me when I saw the penryn update only benefit I saw was the 45nm, multitouch, 2 more cache and thats about it.
Funny story is that I used a penryn mbp on my friends the other day (I thought it was an sr mbp) then I noticed the trackpad options and i was like oh its the newer model and never would have guessed if I hadnt looked at the trackpad options, LOL.
Funny story is that I used a penryn mbp on my friends the other day (I thought it was an sr mbp) then I noticed the trackpad options and i was like oh its the newer model and never would have guessed if I hadnt looked at the trackpad options, LOL.
It's still a SR MBP. The motherboard didn't change, only the processor was upgraded. And you're right, you should notice any difference really between a 2.4Ghz Merom and a newer 2.4-2.5Ghz Penryn unless you're doing like a battery life test or a CPU intensive test that really makes use of the new Penryn architecture.
Yea partially true, I was encoding hd movies and doing pretty intensive stuff on the penryn mbp, and I noticed the heat was pretty much the same as the merom (Santa Rosa) version, if not hotter.
And working on the same things I've done on the SR mbp and on his penryn the encoding speed was pretty much the same (saw no increase in speed whatsoever). My friend did point out that on regular usage he did get 15-20 minutes more battery time at most.
just curious, will the 512mb make a difference later on if/when blu-ray drives and maybe hi-def playback are possible?
perhaps these incremental improvements are ramping up hardware compatibility for the potential to meet/exceed future standards and devices? yes? no?
perhaps these incremental improvements are ramping up hardware compatibility for the potential to meet/exceed future standards and devices? yes? no?
These guys don't show all possible models, but they do have a couple of the previous generation MBPs.
http://www.macworld.com/article/132330/2008/03/macbookpro_bench.html
Interesting to note that the 2.5ghz penryn model has a somewhat significantly higher framerate on Unreal Tournament. That however I think is attributed more to the 6mb cache than a 512 card...
http://www.macworld.com/article/132330/2008/03/macbookpro_bench.html
Interesting to note that the 2.5ghz penryn model has a somewhat significantly higher framerate on Unreal Tournament. That however I think is attributed more to the 6mb cache than a 512 card...
512 is a complete waste for the 8600. its just not powerful enough to make use of it. its definately not worth upgrading for more memory on the graphics card. definately not. i't be a complete waste of time.