128MB vs. 256MB VRAM

[suneohair]

I don't know. The low end models are usually less sought after on the used market. People want that 256MB just like he does now.

Besides, the OP is talking YEARS, I take that to mean 3+ ( I could be wrong of course). In 3+, heck even in 2 you can forget getting $1500, there would have been major revisions at that point.

I think it was this thread, but it may have been another where I said to take resale value into consideration. I have a buddy trying to dump off his CD MBP and he can't get $1300 for it and that was last year. That isn't to say the top end 15" will be much better, but I think he would have more headroom and he would have a more enjoyable machines 2 years down the road.

Not everyone wants to sell their Mac every year.

I'd prefer to use the 500 i saved getting 128MB now against buying the new low end model in 1-2 years time.

Basically by buying the 2000 dollar model you can sell it on for 1500 next year (or two years depending on resale value) and use the 500 you saved to buy the new 2000 model which will have a much better graphics card, will probably have 256 MB as standard and will be NEW.

 

[Umbongo]

8800M Series

It's not worth $500.

Like that was ever going to happen and they aren't even out.

 

[suneohair]

Mac resale value is a different game these days. Until we get deeper into this Intel stuff (heck we are pretty much there) people should put the old assumptions of stellar resale value out of their mind.

I think that is already proving to be the case.

That's not a bad strategy (yay Mac-resale value). I have to deal with the fact that I promised my wife no new machine for 3 years while I go back and get my masters. Which means I'm loading 'er up (4GB, external LCD, ...) so that I can make it stretch!

 

[ready2switch]

I could pay 50 for the bigger VRAM, 50 for the bigger HD, and 150 for the faster CPU. That makes it 250 dollars worth upgrades. Apple charges double, so I for one will not be buying.

In the monster thread announcing the MBP, I posted some numbers showing that Dell, in fact, charges more for these (or very similar) upgrades than Apple. $535-609, rather than $500. A VERY large portion of the price is the processor upgrade, which originates with the manufacturer. Just pointing out that it's not Apple charging double.

I do agree, though, that the gpu upgrade should be offered as BTO.

 

[James L]

For anyone wanting gaming comparisons between the two new 15" machines, it says here:

http://barefeats.com/santarosa.html

that:

MORE TO COME
We're busily running a series of CPU intensive tests on the "Santa Rosa" MacBook Pro including After Effects CS3, Photoshop CS3, Compressor 3, Cinebench 9.6, Geekbench, and others. We'll post those results later today or tomorrow morning.

We will also be testing a 2.2GHz MacBook Pro "Rosa" with 128MB of SDRAM video memory to see how it affects 3D Game play compared to the 2.4GHz model with 256MB of SDRAM. And yes, WoW numbers are coming, too.

 

[mags631]

For anyone wanting gaming comparisons between the two new 15" machines, it says here:

http://barefeats.com/santarosa.html

Out of curiosity, any thoughts about why Halo might perform better on the older model MBP?

 

[Spoony Bard]

Out of curiosity, any thoughts about why Halo might perform better on the older model MBP?

Off the top of my head, optimized ATI drivers? That's really quite odd.

 

[Umbongo]

Off the top of my head, optimized ATI drivers? That's really quite odd.

I think you are spot on. Looks like Apple wrote the drivers themselves rather than Nvidia doing it. Hopefully there will be some benchmarks under vista and xp done by someone that compare both MBPs.

 

[booksacool1]

I think you are spot on. Looks like Apple wrote the drivers themselves rather than Nvidia doing it. Hopefully there will be some benchmarks under vista and xp done by someone that compare both MBPs.

+1. The performance of the 8600 in the tests seems rather low. Benchmarks place the 8600 as being anywhere from 50 to 120% faster than the x1600. I've seen overclocked 8600m gt's achieve ~4000 3dmarks06 which is more than twice that of a typical x1600.
They should run the benchmarks at a higher resolution, in windows with latest drivers, to remove bottlenecks and driver troubles.

 

[Evangelion]

8800M Series

While 8800M would naturally be even faster, the 8600M is a lot faster than Ati X1600 as well. And if the app uses shading, I think the difference would be even bigger. And this is WITHOUT taking all the new features in to account.

As Barefeats sez:

"The new MacBook Pro with the GeForce 8600M runs 3D accelerated games significantly faster than the previous 2.33GHz model with the Mobility Radeon X1600. For example, Quake 4 ran 60% faster, Prey 55% faster, and Doom 3 ran 38% faster. The "Rosa" even beat the 4-Core Mac Pro desktop with a GeForce 7300 GT in 4 out of 5 of our tests."

38-60% faster is pretty significant increase in my book. And it fitst right in to the 40-60% faster I mentioned earlier . And this is with unoptimized drivers.

 

[theVariable]

Any idea as to when Bare Feats is going to add the 2.2Ghz/128MB VRAM stats? I'd like to see how it stacks up to the 2.4Ghz/256MB so I can decide which one to buy, and I've been checking their site multiple times a day...

I'm also part of the camp that thinks they should have released the entry level MBP with 256MB and went with 512MB for the mid level and 17", as that would have make the choice a lot easier for most...

 

[Mac.Jnr]

I say get the 256MB version.

128MB nowadays is weak, 256 is standard.

If you want to play games in the future i'd suggest getting the 256 version.
128mb just doesn't cut it now days, if you are just gonna play some old games that aren't really demanding get the 128mb but if you want to play DX 10 games or even some of the new games now get the 256mb.

I hope the Mac Pro gets a 8800GTX, heck even a 8800GTS 640mb or 320mb.

 

[theVariable]

That's where I'm leaning, but I don't think it's worth $500 to me. So that's why I'm waiting for actual performance numbers to compare them.

 

[theVariable]

The results are in...

http://barefeats.com/rosa03.html

They state a maximum of 9% performance gain with a 5% average. Which is hardly worth 20% more money. Apple really dropped the ball on the 2.4Ghz model. So I'm gonna save myself $500 and buy the 2.2Ghz model...

 

[Eidorian]

The results are in...

http://barefeats.com/rosa03.html

They state a maximum of 9% performance gain with a 5% average. Which is hardly worth 20% more money. Apple really dropped the ball on the 2.4Ghz model. So I'm gonna save myself $500 and buy the 2.2Ghz model...

Thank goodness for BareFeats extensive benches.

 

[Evangelion]

The results are in...

http://barefeats.com/rosa03.html

They state a maximum of 9% performance gain with a 5% average. Which is hardly worth 20% more money. Apple really dropped the ball on the 2.4Ghz model. So I'm gonna save myself $500 and buy the 2.2Ghz model...

Just checked the benchmarks. It's starting to seem that it's the 2.2GHz/128MB MBP with 160GB HD for me.

 

[furious]

Thank goodness for BareFeats extensive benches.

do I correctly detect a hint of sarcasm?

 

[KidOtaku]

They state a maximum of 9% performance gain with a 5% average. Which is hardly worth 20% more money. Apple really dropped the ball on the 2.4Ghz model. So I'm gonna save myself $500 and buy the 2.2Ghz model...

I tend to lean this way, too, but it's also important to realize that the tested game engines are not exactly demanding by today's standards, not for such an advanced GPU anyway. The games did not require so much VRAM when they came out in the first place, and looking at the numbers, it's clear that the GPU crunches effortlessly the data it gets from the CPU, and the test comes down to a CPU speed test, which is not really relevant. Some newer, more demanding games would give a much better picture.

 

[Erasmus]

do I correctly detect a hint of sarcasm?

Agreed. How about some Oblivion scores in Bootcamp???

Bring on Crysis Benchmarks!!!

(Clearly Crysis on Mac OSX with DX10 Cider wrapper is the extra Apple announcement we'll be hearing about from EA soon.)

 

[theVariable]

I tend to lean this way, too, but it's also important to realize that the tested game engines are not exactly demanding by today's standards, not for such an advanced GPU anyway. The games did not require so much VRAM when they came out in the first place, and looking at the numbers, it's clear that the GPU crunches effortlessly the data it gets from the CPU, and the test comes down to a CPU speed test, which is not really relevant. Some newer, more demanding games would give a much better picture.

Fair enough, but I'm still gonna go ahead and save myself the $500. The 2.2Ghz model will hold me off until I build a new desktop for gaming.

 

[Eidorian]

do I correctly detect a hint of sarcasm?

How so?

 

[K-Vos]

Editing Software

I'm in the same boat with the $500 difference. I'm a student going into my first year in Film & TV production. So money is tight and I'm wondering if the extra 128mb GPU (256 total) and .2 ghz (2.4) cpu is worth the $500. Also i'm keeping in mind that through my schools computer store i can upgrade my ram to 4gigs for $280 and my HD to 160 GB for $82. And if i paid the extra $500 I still dont get the 4 gigs of ram. I just wanna know if this lack of VRAM is going to have a big impact on my editing software (Final Cut Studio 2). I know it will have some effect, but will it be so dramatic that it will greatly impact or will it be something I can seriously deal without upgrading. Plus my school has workstations so i could use those too do the major graphic heavy work. Just want to know anyones recommondations. I mean I am no professional, merely a student. I can see a professional needing an upper end model, but a student may not need it as much, it'd be more of a luxury to have a higher speed. Plus the schools really wont be upgrading their software that often because it costs them a bunch of money. So as long as it gets me through 3 - 5 years of schooling after then when I'm in the real work force i'd opt for a top end MBP if not a iMac or MP. Just want to make sure i'm making the right decision, from what i've read on this thread and from the benchmarks seen through the links, im leaning towards the base model with upgraded 4 gigs of ram and a bigger harddrive. With the exrta $500 dollars i could afford software (Adobe Photoshop CS3, Final Cut Studio) and an external harddrive, mouse, bag, which as a student i need. Plus as i stated money is tight.

 

[Erasmus]

How so?

Doom 3, Quake 4, UT2004 and WOW?
How about Oblivion, Supreme Commander, and other super demanding games?

If this wasn't a sarcastic reply to a reply to a sarcastic reply, then that's why. Those games aren't the most demanding on the market. Maybe we should do a benchmark with Starcraft? (The game that's 9 years old)

 

[Eidorian]

Doom 3, Quake 4, UT2004 and WOW?
How about Oblivion, Supreme Commander, and other super demanding games?

If this wasn't a sarcastic reply to a reply to a sarcastic reply, then that's why. Those games aren't the most demanding on the market. Maybe we should do a benchmark with Starcraft? (The game that's 9 years old)

I didn't make any complaints. They're going to hopefully do another round of benches at Ultra quality for Doom 3 and Quake IV.

 

[joehack]

@K-Vos
I doubt that additional VRAM boosts video editing since video is 2D. The story might be different one if you plan to attach a 30" display (see http://barefeats.com/rosa03.html).

To save money, I would not order my MBP with 4GB. Apple charges a pretty hefty premium for the extra 2GB. At least here in Switzerland, the certified Mac dealers sell memory much cheaper.

Jochen