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

Barefeats updated: 128MB vram vs 256MB

dmw007

dmw007

macrumors G4
May 26, 2005
10,635
0
Working for MI-6
So the 15" 2.4GHz MacBook Pro is only about 5-9% faster than the 15" 2.2GHz MacBook Pro. :)

I would like to see the difference for more than just gaming though... :)
 
E

Evangelion

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2005
3,374
147
I would like to see more benchmarks from more demanding apps. Like Prey or some Windows-games maybe?
 
Erasmus

Erasmus

macrumors 68030
Jun 22, 2006
2,756
298
Australia
Check back on barefeats now. They ran Prey on very high settings, although on a very small resolution, and got some interesting OSX vs XP results. Apparently 37 fps in OSX, but 73 fps on XP. That's double. And that's high enough to suggest that Prey would be perfectly playable on at least the 15" native res on highest graphics settings with 4xAA and 4xAF.
 
I

Illicit

macrumors 6502
May 14, 2007
267
0
Waterloo, ON
Erasmus said:
Check back on barefeats now. They ran Prey on very high settings, although on a very small resolution, and got some interesting OSX vs XP results. Apparently 37 fps in OSX, but 73 fps on XP. That's double. And that's high enough to suggest that Prey would be perfectly playable on at least the 15" native res on highest graphics settings with 4xAA and 4xAF.
Click to expand...
It was to my understanding that the game was tested using the same mbp, but once while running XP and another while running OSX.
so this isn't relevant in terms of comparing 128vram vs 256vram.
 
Erasmus

Erasmus

macrumors 68030
Jun 22, 2006
2,756
298
Australia
Illicit said:
It was to my understanding that the game was tested using the same mbp, but once while running XP and another while running OSX.
so this isn't relevant in terms of comparing 128vram vs 256vram.
Click to expand...

Its not. But it is interesting.

And suggests that the 8600M GT is great, and that performance in OSX really is driver limited, and not hardware limited.

And suggests that even the 128MB version should be more than capable of playing something like Prey very well.
 
B

booksacool1

macrumors 6502
Oct 17, 2004
292
1
Australia
Erasmus said:
And suggests that even the 128MB version should be more than capable of playing something like Prey very well.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, but the benchmarking is pretty crappy. Why?

Well Prey is the doom3 engine. As is doom 3 and quake 4. Why bother testing all three? Besides, everyone knows you can get the doom 3 engine almost on max on any modern nvidia card.
And UT2004 runs great on my fx5200... wow.

Barefeats needs to test using a modern game which actually pushes the memory with huge textures, high AA settings etc. Maybe Oblivion, NWN2, STALKER, Supreme Commander etc. They'll show a difference with the extra 128mbytes.
 
Erasmus

Erasmus

macrumors 68030
Jun 22, 2006
2,756
298
Australia
booksacool1 said:
Yeah I agree, but the benchmarking is pretty crappy. Why?

Well Prey is the doom3 engine. As is doom 3 and quake 4. Why bother testing all three? Besides, everyone knows you can get the doom 3 engine almost on max on any modern nvidia card.
And UT2004 runs great on my fx5200... wow.

Barefeats needs to test using a modern game which actually pushes the memory with huge textures, high AA settings etc. Maybe Oblivion, NWN2, STALKER, Supreme Commander etc. They'll show a difference with the extra 128mbytes.
Click to expand...

Oh. I didn't know Prey used the Doom 3 engine. That sucks.

I agree we need more Oblivion scores. In bootcamp. (not that there's much choice, but the point has to be made)
 
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