2.4 vs. 2.5 gaming performance (lotro)

[FerdinandSvehla]

I am trying to decide between the 2.4 and 2.5 ghz MacBookPro. -- the 2.5 has 512 MB Graphics Memory.

I like to play Lord of the Rings online in bootcamp - will it make much difference?

 

[jjahshik32]

I am trying to decide between the 2.4 and 2.5 ghz MacBookPro. -- the 2.5 has 512 MB Graphics Memory.

I like to play Lord of the Rings online in bootcamp - will it make much difference?

I owned both 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz on the 15" mbp and both 2.5Ghz and 2.6Ghz on the 17" mbp.

All I can say is if gaming is important to you get the 2.5Ghz version in the 17" as it did run much faster due to its higher clock/core for the gpu and its bigger/more efficient heat sink.

If your planning on getting a 15" mbp stick with the 2.4Ghz as I saw no differences whatsoever in gaming from the 2.5Ghz with the 512mb vram. The nvidia 8600m GT is still only a 128-bit gpu so 256vram would be the right choice.

 

[smudged]

I owned both 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz on the 15" mbp and both 2.5Ghz and 2.6Ghz on the 17" mbp.

All I can say is if gaming is important to you get the 2.5Ghz version in the 17" as it did run much faster due to its higher clock/core for the gpu and its bigger/more efficient heat sink.

If your planning on getting a 15" mbp stick with the 2.4Ghz as I saw no differences whatsoever in gaming from the 2.5Ghz with the 512mb vram. The nvidia 8600m GT is still only a 128-bit gpu so 256vram would be the right choice.

So you say the double video memory won't show like it should?

 

[djinn]

If I am not mistaken, high texture games would take advantage of the high memory.

I am not sure if LOTR would be classified in that high texture category.

 

[jjahshik32]

If I am not mistaken, high texture games would take advantage of the high memory.

I am not sure if LOTR would be classified in that high texture category.

Not necessarily true, the bandwidth is still only 128 bit so its limited anyway and 256vram would be the max amount that it would benefit.

The 256vram is a very good deal as the current mbp uses the exact same gpu as last year's mbp with the 128mb vs. 256mb and you had to pay the extra $500 to get the 256vram. I owned the 2.2Ghz with the 128mb vram mbp and the 2.4Ghz of last years mbp and it made a HUGE difference in gaming when I played a game called s.t.a.l.k.e.r.

With the 128mb mbp it was barely playable and 256mb was more than playable but from my same experiences of the 256 and 512 I saw maybe 1fps or 2 at best differences. But now the 17" made a big difference in gpu performance either 256 or 512.

The current 256mb vram mbp especially the 15" model is a HUGE STEAL with student discount total comes up to $1947.

 

[pr5owner]

If your planning on getting a 15" mbp stick with the 2.4Ghz as I saw no differences whatsoever in gaming from the 2.5Ghz with the 512mb vram. The nvidia 8600m GT is still only a 128-bit gpu so 256vram would be the right choice.

if your gaming you wouldnt get a mac at all, the 8600Gt isnt really a gaming card if your pairing it up with a 17" WSXGA+ or a WUXGA screen.

8600gt's are good for lower res screens like WXGA or WXGA+

 

[Vanarak19]

if your gaming you wouldnt get a mac at all, the 8600Gt isnt really a gaming card if your pairing it up with a 17" WSXGA+ or a WUXGA screen.

8600gt's are good for lower res screens like WXGA or WXGA+

which all 15" MBP are

mine is fine. Its not worth 500$ just to be 512 vs 256, thats for sure.

you can argue you get more than just the GPU for that 500$, but really, its not much faster of a machine.

If i was looking at the 512, id be going 17" MBP for sure. I wish the 15" had more resolution, but itll have to do.

 

[jjahshik32]

if your gaming you wouldnt get a mac at all, the 8600Gt isnt really a gaming card if your pairing it up with a 17" WSXGA+ or a WUXGA screen.

8600gt's are good for lower res screens like WXGA or WXGA+

Even so, the 17" is much faster in terms of gaming even at 1920x1200 on the 17" hi res screen which was gorgeous. I've noticed it first hand in speed and believe me I've played some demanding games on all the 15" models and the 17" models as I owned it all.

 

[jjahshik32]

which all 15" MBP are

mine is fine. Its not worth 500$ just to be 512 vs 256, thats for sure.

you can argue you get more than just the GPU for that 500$, but really, its not much faster of a machine.

If i was looking at the 512, id be going 17" MBP for sure. I wish the 15" had more resolution, but itll have to do.

I second this as well as someone who owned every single model since last year. The overall speed difference I couldnt tell whatsoever from the 2.4Ghz or the 2.5Ghz of this years models.

If I were blindly testing each I could not tell the differences and surely its not worth the $500 extra for the 50gb more hdd as most people replace them with better hdd's anyway, 6mb of cache (couldnt tell much of a difference at all as the cache gets filled up fast anyway which makes use of RAM memory) and 512mb which makes no difference either maybe 1 or 2 fps at best.

Unless you do intense 3d modeling where the extra mb of vram could help you but from a 8600m gt card not by that much more anyway. If 3d modeling is important I'd suggest a dedicated desktop like the mac pro. But if you need for mobile 3d modeling then the 2.4Ghz is best for the price.

 

[m1stake]

The extra memory is only good if the GPU can fill it. So while you'll see a huge difference between the 8800GT 256MB and the 8800GT 512MB, it's because it can actually populate the extra memory with data.

 

[jjahshik32]

At times I think Apple's marketing strategy is impressive charging a staggering $500 for 50gb more hdd space, 3mb more of cache (which in real life and has been tested only makes overall 5% more at best speed improvements where in real life I have never even felt) and 256mb of more vram which wont make almost any difference. I see the only reason to getting more of those specs is if your absolutely content on getting that spec'd mbp just because its better on paper.

 

[alphaod]

It's not worth it.