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

Whats the benefit of 256 mb VRAM over 128 mb VRAM in the MBP?

To add on to all of this, I play BF2 on my MBP and it runs really well.

I have the 2.16 Yonah chip with 256 mb VRAM and 2 gb RAM.

After adding the extra gig of RAM after i bought the computer, I noticed a lower load time for the maps, especially the second time theyre loaded.

So the 256 card is kinda like a bonus-- you dont really need it, but its nice to have that overhead security for framerates. The real kicker is the 2 gb standard. Thats a deal right there.

I could go into more detai regarding all this, but it seems like im too late for that. :)
 
Does VRAM make any diffence when using Photoshop or when linked to a large monitor. I ordered the middle MBP yesterday (256 vram etc) and hope I haven't wasted my money. This will be my use (well sort of):

Photoshop/iphoto 8%
Internet 50%
Video editing 2%
itunes 3%
DTP 5%
Viewing DVDs 12% (I commute by train 176 miles every day)
Word processing 18%

The remaining 2% is spent swearing at the thing!
 
Better2bRed said:
The remaining 2% is spent swearing at the thing!
Click to expand...

And just why in the hell would you be swearing at an MBP....I mean...Unless it were running Windoze at the time...
 
Vegeta-san said:
A user on "Onmac.net" by the name of "OptimismPrime" posted this about the subject matter ...the x1600 only uses a 128bit Interface to the graphics memory ...If gaming isn't your main concern there is no reason at all to get the 256MB Version...
Click to expand...

Well I understand the comments, and I appreciate the info. I'm not so sure about the final verdict. I wrote a bunch of questions and just erased them all, I think I will have to wait for some app benchmarks to find out the anwser to this.

Right now, I'm very much in the 2k camp. Which I will admit is one heck of a surprise! (wanting the base model over the high end?!?!?)

Better2bRed said:
commute by train 176 miles every day
Click to expand...

It sounds like you could get away with a MB but thats another subject. I quoted this since I did a full doubletake at 176 miles a day!?!?! Woah. From where to where? How long does it take? Do you miss / want a car?
 
xPismo said:
It sounds like you could get away with a MB but thats another subject. I quoted this since I did a full doubletake at 176 miles a day!?!?! Woah. From where to where? How long does it take? Do you miss / want a car?
Click to expand...

I have been using an iBook for the past 4 years, and I loved it (apart from having about 6 replacement motherboards). I decided not to replace my G4 and have a laptop as my primary home computer, because I do a lot of photography I thought a MBP would be best.

The train journy takes 55 minutes into London England, it's very comfortable, you can leave you laptop on the table, go for a pee and its still there when you get back. A car journy would take duoble that time. The only bit that hurts is the price, just over £5,000 a year (about $8,500ish).
 
256m will make no difference in any screen/basic video application. The frame buffer is only a few megs, which means that the entire screen only takes up as many megs as there are pixels. Photoshop, aperture whatever.

3d is where you get the enhancement, NOT 2d screen info.
 
eXan said:
1) No
2) Not now, probably in the future
3) Motion is the only app in FCS that uses GPU to accelerate rendering. However, it writes render results to system RAM, not VRAM
4)No. Done only by CPU.
Click to expand...

sorry to be redundant... Soo.. you are saying that vram does effect RT rendering in FCP?

cheers
 
Not unless you are rendering some 20 full high res screens ahead and hold them in the buffer will it matter that you have 256m.
 
Better2bRed said:
Does VRAM make any diffence when using Photoshop or when linked to a large monitor. I ordered the middle MBP yesterday (256 vram etc) and hope I haven't wasted my money. This will be my use (well sort of):
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any difference currently - but the latest rumblings are that CS3 will make a good deal of use out of your GPU
 
If you want numbers, the 256 GPU gave 2866 on one 3DMark05 score while the 128 GPU gave about 2566. So consider a 9% increase in Futuremark score but how that works in real world gaming remains to be seen.

Fortunately the new C2D GPU underclocking is much less servere; 418/450 as compared to the previous models 300 something average.
 
urrl78 said:
If you want numbers, the 256 GPU gave 2866 on one 3DMark05 score while the 128 GPU gave about 2566. So consider a 9% increase in Futuremark score but how that works in real world gaming remains to be seen.

Fortunately the new C2D GPU underclocking is much less servere; 418/450 as compared to the previous models 300 something average.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll be curious to see what the 3dmarks are on the new ones - more importantly what realworld gaming is like (benchmarks only tell you so much).
 
urrl78 said:
If you want numbers, the 256 GPU gave 2866 on one 3DMark05 score while the 128 GPU gave about 2566. So consider a 9% increase in Futuremark score but how that works in real world gaming remains to be seen.

Fortunately the new C2D GPU underclocking is much less servere; 418/450 as compared to the previous models 300 something average.
Click to expand...

do you have a source for this? im debating between the low and hi end 15" and this is pretty much the deciding factor for me.
 
The new Macbook Pros really have a less underclocked GPU? That's nice at least. An x1600 is still whimpy, but at least it amounts to an "upgraded" GPU if true!
 
Wolfpup said:
The new Macbook Pros really have a less underclocked GPU? That's nice at least. An x1600 is still whimpy, but at least it amounts to an "upgraded" GPU if true!
Click to expand...

I still don't think I'd describe the X1600 as wimpy....... especially not in a 1" thin 15" laptop. The only better video cards generally are those that you find in the big and heavy high-end gaming laptops like the 7900GS and 7900GTX.
 
tarjan said:
Not unless you are rendering some 20 full high res screens ahead and hold them in the buffer will it matter that you have 256m.
Click to expand...


I will be rendering 100s and 1000s of frames... I am also interested in how it will effect Real Time playback without rendering in Final Cut Pro..

cheeers
 
Garden Knowm said:
I will be rendering 100s and 1000s of frames... I am also interested in how it will effect Real Time playback without rendering in Final Cut Pro..

cheeers
Click to expand...

Probably wont affect realtime playback. Again, thats not terribly taxing as far as the gfx are concerned, its more of an issue for the main cpu to get the bits in order and ship them to the cpu.

If the proc can offload some of the rendering tasks, then it might be an advantage. I cant say though as I dont know the details.
 
Garden Knowm said:
sorry to be redundant... Soo.. you are saying that vram does effect RT rendering in FCP?

cheers
Click to expand...

No. RT effects are currently handled by CPU in FCP. Probably with futore releases it will be aided by GPU, but who knows?

In FCP, hard drive speed is far more important than CPU speed. For example, when I render Motion's projects in FCP, my CPU (2GHz G5) is loaded only by 20-25%, while HD is operating at it's maximum speed.
 
eXan said:
In FCP, hard drive speed is far more important than CPU speed. For example, when I render Motion's projects in FCP, my CPU (2GHz G5) is loaded only by 20-25%, while HD is operating at it's maximum speed.
Click to expand...

very interesting.. thank you..

I just upgraded my internal HDs to (2) 750 GB seagate drives...

I previously had (2) 250 GB internal Maxtor drives..

they are both 7200 RPMS.. I do not know what the seek time is...

I am currently working on a 1hour show that has 4-12 layers in 15% of the show and the RT is struggling...

I have wondered if I am running a hair slower wth these larger drives..

cheers
and thanks for the info!!
 
eXan said:
In FCP, hard drive speed is far more important than CPU speed.
Click to expand...


I am going to purchase a MBP 17 inch in the next week or so.. Many people on these boards say that it is fine to go with the 160 GB 5400 rpm dirve.. OF course all my industry buddies say that 5400rpms is not acceptable..

what do you think?.. It would be sooo nice to have the extra 60GBs.. and not have to bring along an external HD...

cheers and I appreciate your input!!!
 
aperture and 256

Since I plan to be a heavy Aperture user, I just purchased the 2.33ghz mbp with 256mb of sdram. Will the 256mb make any difference compared to the 128 for aperture? Is it just a waste of money? If so, I'm thinking of downgrading my order.
 
rishio said:
Since I plan to be a heavy Aperture user, I just purchased the 2.33ghz mbp with 256mb of sdram. Will the 256mb make any difference compared to the 128 for aperture? Is it just a waste of money? If so, I'm thinking of downgrading my order.
Click to expand...

Probably not. You should read the rest of the thread as I think your answer might appear. :rolleyes:

Thanks for all the informative posts guys, you make my decision easier. ;)
 
i do know that there will be some people that are going to use extended desktop mode with a external monitor. and if you use the internal monitor and a external monitor and you have the 128mb version the vram gets split to 64mb/64mb, 64mb for the internal monitor and 64 for the external monitor useing the same GPU.

now if you have the 256mb vram model and you have a external monitor hooked up useing extended desktop the vram will split into 128mb/128mb, 128mb for the external monitor and 128mb for the internal monitor useing the same GPU.
 
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