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

[eXan]

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.

True, with the use of external display, mirrored or not, the available VRAM splits in half.

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!!

You should monitor the CPU and HD usage when playing back/rendering video in FCP (Activity Monitor will help you ) to find out where is the bottleneck.

 

[Kurt871]

True, with the use of external display, mirrored or not, the available VRAM splits in half.

Does this hold true even in lid-closed operation? (IE- the notebook is closed and used with an external keyboard & mouse)

 

[aliasfox]

For gaming:
- If you plan on gaming at XGA (1024 x 768) and do not plan on using AA or AF, 64 MB will work for most games.
- For any resolution that's higher or for using AA or AF, I'd be more comfortable in 128 MB.
- In modern games, I wouldn't go higher than SXGA on an x1600 pro (1280 x 1024) - it doesn't matter how much VRAM you have, the card's only about as fast as the venerated (albeit 4 year old) 9800 Pro, which saw no speed increase when going to 256 MB VRAM, and that was on a 256 bit memory bus.

So... unless you must be on the bleeding edge, 128 MB is fine for VRAM. I probably wouldn't play Doom 3, Quake 4, or Half Life 2 at native resolution on a current MBP regardless of which VRAM option I got.

 

[hkk]

I ordered the 15" MBP with 128MB VRAM.
Because I don't care about the slightly faster processor (so few things are CPU bound these days anyway) and at least for in the educational store the difference is > 400 CAD. Which seemed excessive.

But now, after reading some more information on the web, I decided to get on the phone with Apple and change my order. Here are my reasons and maybe this is helpful to anybody else:

- I plan to do a lot of photo editing. From what I read, applications that use Core Image (for example Aperture) will run a lot better with 256MB VRAM. Thats because a lot of the computation is performed on the GPU.
- It seems likely that upcoming image processing applications such as Photoshop will use GPU based computation a lot as well.
- The Core Animation framework coming up in Leopard will likely have fairly high demands on VRAM as well. Or at least benefit from more VRAM. The OS and many future applications will be based on this.
- I have an external 24" Dell monitor (which is awesome btw.) with 1920x1200 resolution. I suspect that running Core Image and Core Animation based applications on that will require (/ benefit from) a lot of VRAM.
- I read in C't magazine that the Aero interface in Vista will require a minimum of 256 MB VRAM to be used at 1920x1200 resolution! Not that I plan to use Windows a lot. But still, buying a new system now that will not allow me to properly use an OS coming out in the very near future on my configuration (with the external monitor) seemed wrong.

I don't plan on gaming much, if at all (thats what I have a Nintendo DS for ), so thats not a deciding factor for me. And I tend to agree with the earlier cross-post from Onmac.net that it's likely not to be worth it to go 256MB if all you care about is gaming performance.

 

[eXan]

Does this hold true even in lid-closed operation? (IE- the notebook is closed and used with an external keyboard & mouse)

No. It splits VRAM between working displays. So, while one is off, all available VRAM is dedicated to the currently working dsiplay

- I plan to do a lot of photo editing. From what I read, applications that use Core Image (for example Aperture) will run a lot better with 256MB VRAM. Thats because a lot of the computation is performed on the GPU.
- It seems likely that upcoming image processing applications such as Photoshop will use GPU based computation a lot as well.
- The Core Animation framework coming up in Leopard will likely have fairly high demands on VRAM as well. Or at least benefit from more VRAM. The OS and many future applications will be based on this.
- I have an external 24" Dell monitor (which is awesome btw.) with 1920x1200 resolution. I suspect that running Core Image and Core Animation based applications on that will require (/ benefit from) a lot of VRAM.
- I read in C't magazine that the Aero interface in Vista will require a minimum of 256 MB VRAM to be used at 1920x1200 resolution! Not that I plan to use Windows a lot. But still, buying a new system now that will not allow me to properly use an OS coming out in the very near future on my configuration (with the external monitor) seemed wrong.

You'll be prefectly fine with 128 MB VRAM for those needs, unless you plan to work with both your MBPs display and Dell at the same time (VRAM/2).

I dont think its worth to invest this kind of money for 256MB VRAM, unless you work on 2 display at the same time.

 

[hkk]

You'll be prefectly fine with 128 MB VRAM for those needs, unless you plan to work with both your MBPs display and Dell at the same time (VRAM/2).

I dont think its worth to invest this kind of money for 256MB VRAM, unless you work on 2 display at the same time.

Hmm. I did call them to change my order (which had an estimated shipping date of Oct 31). But it turned out to be too late. My MBP shipped today. So my only option would be to return it immediately when it arrives and re-order.
But I guess you are right. It's probably not worth it. Especially given that it's not just a lot of money but also additional hassle and wait time.
And I just found out that my information about Aero was incorrect. 128MB VRAM are actually sufficient for using Aero with resolutions up to 1920x1200. Of course single display only. Which is fine.

 

[3nm]

dude, i'll say save the money and get a new MBP next year after apple releases leopard. barefeats shows that the 20" iMac w/ 128mb vram performs equally well when compared to the faster 24" iMac w/ 256mb vram in their core image test. while the 20" iMac is nearly as good as the 24" in most GPU intensive area, the 256mb GPU does really shine when it comes to gaming.

so i'd save the money if i were you... but then i'm exchanging my CD MBP for a C2D... so i guess spend the money as long as you think it's worth it.

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd3.html

Hmm. I did call them to change my order (which had an estimated shipping date of Oct 31). But it turned out to be too late. My MBP shipped today. So my only option would be to return it immediately when it arrives and re-order.
But I guess you are right. It's probably not worth it. Especially given that it's not just a lot of money but also additional hassle and wait time.
And I just found out that my information about Aero was incorrect. 128MB VRAM are actually sufficient for using Aero with resolutions up to 1920x1200. Of course single display only. Which is fine.

 

[eXan]

dude, i'll say save the money and get a new MBP next year after apple releases leopard. barefeats shows that the 20" iMac w/ 128mb vram performs equally well when compared to the faster 24" iMac w/ 256mb vram in their core image test. while the 20" iMac is nearly as good as the 24" in most GPU intensive area, the 256mb GPU does really shine when it comes to gaming.

Leopart is still 6 months away. Why live without a computer for six months just to save 130$ to get 10.5 "for free"?

BTW, its not 256 MBs that shine in BareFeats test. GeForce 7600 is considerably faster than X1600, especially at higher resolutions. If that 7600 in 24" iMac had 128MBs I'm absolutely sure it would perform equally to as it does now . BF used Medium settings in Doom 3, so additional VRAM doesnt really matter

 

[3nm]

Leopart is still 6 months away. Why live without a computer for six months just to save 130$ to get 10.5 "for free"?

dude... if you read hkk's post you'd know that he/she has already taken delivery of his/her C2D MBP and is/was thinking about returning it for the 256mb GPU...

BTW, its not 256 MBs that shine in BareFeats test. GeForce 7600 is considerably faster than X1600, especially at higher resolutions. If that 7600 in 24" iMac had 128MBs I'm absolutely sure it would perform equally to as it does now . BF used Medium settings in Doom 3, so additional VRAM doesnt really matter

exactly my point that the additional 128mb vram will hardly make any difference on the MBP. reread my post and you'd see i said "256mb GPU," meaning g7600.

 

[hkk]

dude, i'll say save the money and get a new MBP next year after apple releases leopard. barefeats shows that the 20" iMac w/ 128mb vram performs equally well when compared to the faster 24" iMac w/ 256mb vram in their core image test. while the 20" iMac is nearly as good as the 24" in most GPU intensive area, the 256mb GPU does really shine when it comes to gaming.

so i'd save the money if i were you... but then i'm exchanging my CD MBP for a C2D... so i guess spend the money as long as you think it's worth it.

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd3.html

Thanks for the info on the benchmarks. Yeah, I'll keep the 128MB one. It seems that likely the only application that matters to me in which I would see a real difference is Aperture. And even that isn't totally clear. Plus I haven't even bought Aperture yet and will probably wait for Lightroom 1.0 before I decide on either one.
And you are right, I could always sell it and upgrade a year or two down the line. If I happen to have the money at that time.

 

[Clydefrog]

More VRAM for games means playing at higher quality texture settings in the newest games without sacrificing performance. More VRAM wont help older games run faster.

As for $2000 model vs $2500 model, I think 2500 isnt worth it. 2.33 GHz CPUs are considerable more expensive than 2.16 GHz ones and give a small performance boost. But we have to wait fo 1st benchmarks to really check it out

I think its worth it, mostly because when your spending 2k on a laptop, why not save up some more and just get the good model. Its like buying a ford when you could have bought a lexus or somthing. plus you get an extra gb of ram, a faster superdrive, better videocard, etc.

 

[eXan]

dude... if you read hkk's post you'd know that he/she has already taken delivery of his/her C2D MBP and is/was thinking about returning it for the 256mb GPU...

I know he got is MBP already, I was answering your phrase:

dude, i'll say save the money and get a new MBP next year after apple releases leopard.

___

exactly my point that the additional 128mb vram will hardly make any difference on the MBP. reread my post and you'd see i said "256mb GPU," meaning g7600.

Yea, but you called 7600 "a 256 MB GPU", instead of GeForce 7600, as if you pointed out that it's 256 MB is the most important spec.

I think its worth it, mostly because when your spending 2k on a laptop, why not save up some more and just get the good model. Its like buying a ford when you could have bought a lexus or somthing. plus you get an extra gb of ram, a faster superdrive, better videocard, etc.

Extra gig of RAM is great, but the SuperDrive, HD are identical on base and high-end 15" models. GPUs are also the same, except for that 2500k model has double VRAM.

I'd rather configure the base model with 2 gigs, than pay extra $325 for

1)additional 0.17 GHz
2)additional 128 MBs of RAM that wont be used anyway.

 

[xPismo]

I'd rather configure the base model with 2 gigs, than pay extra $325 for

1)additional 0.17 GHz
2)additional 128 MBs of RAM that wont be used anyway.

Yup. I havn't really seen an opposing voice. Yay really.

 

[dgoss]

I'd rather configure the base model with 2 gigs, than pay extra $325 for

1)additional 0.17 GHz
2)additional 128 MBs of RAM that wont be used anyway.

eXan, my feelings exactly. Actually, I have a 1GB stick here I pulled out of a recently sold MBP CD so the difference feels more like $500 for me.

 

[irongus]

Windows users?

You are thinking like Windows users, thats why 256 or 128MB of VRAM seems to be of no difference. Only hkk talked about Core Image benefits with more VRAM. Of course, Mac OS X is radically different, and it can and will put to use all the VRAM you can give it, unlike Windows which would only fill it up with the frame buffer and when running games, with game textures.

Mac OS X draws everything with OpenGL commands, almost entirely through GPU operations, even simple lines, text, the desktop; all backing stores are stored and worked on in VRAM and all bitmaps will be cached in VRAM if they can fit. Please read about the Mac OS X graphics architecture: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14

Only problem with this is, even with 10.4.8, I don't get Quartz 2D Extreme enabled on my MBP as default. Bummer. I guess its still too buggy and kernel crash prone. Leopard will use the graphics cards even more with the resolution independence and better OpenGL implementation, so hopefully things will work as advertised then.

 

[Garden Knowm]

My feeling...You can't look at it as an extra $350 dollars.. you have to look at as a % of the total price of your computer..

If you are going to spend $3000 on a laptop that is going to last you 2-3 years, you might as well go for the gusto and get the lap top on ROIDS for $4000..

Also.. juiced up COMPUTERS are far easier to re-sell used... FAR EASIER


It does pain me a bit (amd my friends think I am on CRACK) that I will be paying $4,300 for a fully loaded 17 INCH MBP with a Brent HAVEN CASE, WARRANTY and airport adapter.. but.. I will quickly forget about the cost when I am flying to the UK and getting in 5 billable hours on the plane..

iloveyou

 

[3nm]

You are thinking like Windows users, thats why 256 or 128MB of VRAM seems to be of no difference. Only hkk talked about Core Image benefits with more VRAM. Of course, Mac OS X is radically different, and it can and will put to use all the VRAM you can give it, unlike Windows which would only fill it up with the frame buffer and when running games, with game textures.

there's nothing wrong to think like a windows user. if you investigate irrationaly; however, that's a different story.

(read the link i posted above regarding iMac benchmarks/core image)

Mac OS X draws everything with OpenGL commands, almost entirely through GPU operations, even simple lines, text, the desktop; all backing stores are stored and worked on in VRAM and all bitmaps will be cached in VRAM if they can fit. Please read about the Mac OS X graphics architecture: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14

Only problem with this is, even with 10.4.8, I don't get Quartz 2D Extreme enabled on my MBP as default. Bummer. I guess its still too buggy and kernel crash prone. Leopard will use the graphics cards even more with the resolution independence and better OpenGL implementation, so hopefully things will work as advertised then.

MB owners must be doomed then...

 

[NewSc2]

My feeling...You can't look at it as an extra $350 dollars.. you have to look at as a % of the total price of your computer..

If you are going to spend $3000 on a laptop that is going to last you 2-3 years, you might as well go for the gusto and get the lap top on ROIDS for $4000..

Also.. juiced up COMPUTERS are far easier to re-sell used... FAR EASIER


It does pain me a bit (amd my friends think I am on CRACK) that I will be paying $4,300 for a fully loaded 17 INCH MBP with a Brent HAVEN CASE, WARRANTY and airport adapter.. but.. I will quickly forget about the cost when I am flying to the UK and getting in 5 billable hours on the plane..

iloveyou

while it's true better laptops are easier to sell used, you're not going to get an extra $500 from the slightly better stats. You'd probably be able to sell your MBP for $100-200 more than the base model, if that.

 

[3nm]

My feeling...You can't look at it as an extra $350 dollars.. you have to look at as a % of the total price of your computer..

Also.. juiced up COMPUTERS are far easier to re-sell used... FAR EASIER

jizzed up MBPs are easier to resell, but will the resell price worth it? mind you $500 is 1/4 of the base MBP, and 1/5 of the midrange model.

If you are going to spend $3000 on a laptop that is going to last you 2-3 years, you might as well go for the gusto and get the lap top on ROIDS for $4000..

It does pain me a bit (amd my friends think I am on CRACK) that I will be paying $4,300 for a fully loaded 17 INCH MBP with a Brent HAVEN CASE, WARRANTY and airport adapter.. but.. I will quickly forget about the cost when I am flying to the UK and getting in 5 billable hours on the plane..

iloveyou

nice to see some big ballerz on here. i'm pretty ghetto so i guess i'll be just as happy to use that $4g to get two MBPs in the same time period.

 

[Garden Knowm]

Yeah, I agree, you will not be able to get MORE money for a JUICED up lap top, but it will be much easier to sell.. It will stand out from the heap at craigslist.com.

For example... now don't laugh.. I just sold my 666mhz Titanium G4 with 1 MB RAM and 50GB HD on Craigslist for $500. It took me 12 hours to sell it. This computer is OLD!!! Like my grand pappy...

Meanwhile I watched others struglgling for weeks to sell their Titaniums.. I must assume it was because I was the only one with the BIG HD and the 1GB RAM.

It is kinda like seling a house. The swimming pool makes it eaiser to sell but does not get you more money for your house.

 

[hkk]

I disagree with the last few posts. If you are spending 400$ extra, that 400$ extra investment is going to devaluate at the same rate as the rest. If not faster. Meaning that it'll probably be worth less than half that when it comes time for me to sell the computer again. So lets assume I'll sell it in two years and could get half of what I paid now for it then (which I believe is rather optimistic). Then the question is if having the extra VRAM and very slightly faster CPU during these 2 years is worth about 200$. In my case, I am still not totally sure, but I suspect the answer is 'no' and I'll stick with the 2.16GHz version.