I would just get either the 2.4ghz last gen or the 2.4ghz current gen. The 2.5ghz model doesn't really have anything offer as a real upgrade due to the fact both the 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz models are Penryn based and 100Mhz isn't enough of a speed increase to make a big difference even with the extra 3MB of L2 cache. If it was only like $100-$150 to upgrade to the 2.5Ghz processor then yeah I would do it but not for $400-$500. And like I said, the 512MB of VRAM is going to be of no use. The 8600M GT isn't that fast of a card to need that kind of RAM.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
256 or 512 vram?
- Thread starter gregvet
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would just get either the 2.4ghz last gen or the 2.4ghz current gen. The 2.5ghz model doesn't really have anything offer as a real upgrade due to the fact both the 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz models are Penryn based and 100Mhz isn't enough of a speed increase to make a big difference even with the extra 3MB of L2 cache. If it was only like $100-$150 to upgrade to the 2.5Ghz processor then yeah I would do it but not for $400-$500. And like I said, the 512MB of VRAM is going to be of no use. The 8600M GT isn't that fast of a card to need that kind of RAM.
youll need 512mb if say...you run crysis in bootcamp on an external monitor at full HD.
the RAM basically allows the GPU to have more 'stuff' on at any given time.therefore, the higher the resolution, the more ram you need.on a 1440 x 900 screen...i reckon you can survive on a 128mb....256 would make it run though
the RAM basically allows the GPU to have more 'stuff' on at any given time.therefore, the higher the resolution, the more ram you need.on a 1440 x 900 screen...i reckon you can survive on a 128mb....256 would make it run though
What all this talk about photoshop? That program barely uses the video card at all in the first place. Vram wont do anything for it, photoshop likes regular ram.
vram has always been a scam on low end cards. They are barely fast enough to use the ram they have, theres no way they can use the same amount of ram that the enthusiast cards are using. What benifets the most is stuff like large textures and anti-aliasing in games. Also, history has shown that low end cards with too much vram usually perform slower... since they use slower clocked ram to keep the price down.
Whats worse is when people pay more attention to the amount of vram rather than the gpu its using, thats a major noob mistake. A 256mb 8800GT would demolish a 100,000gb 8600 or whatever. The kind of card it is is way more important than the amount of vram it has.
512mbs of ram even in a fast card isnt going to make a difference with photoshop or high resolutions. People have been running high resolutions and photoshop long before even 128mbs of ram was standard, nothing has changed on that front that would require more vram. Hell, I remember years ago buying a gaming card with something like 32 or 64mbs of ram and seeing on the box "supports resolutions up to 2048x1536" and I couldnt even imagine a monitor with that high of a resolution.
Yes you need 512mbs of ram to run games like Crysis at high resolutions. But the problem is that theres no way in hell an 8600 is going to run crysis at high resolutions even with everything on low, so it doesnt really matter. The GPU is the bottleneck, not the vram. An 8800GT however would be bottlenecked by 256mbs of vram, since the gpu is so fast.
vram has always been a scam on low end cards. They are barely fast enough to use the ram they have, theres no way they can use the same amount of ram that the enthusiast cards are using. What benifets the most is stuff like large textures and anti-aliasing in games. Also, history has shown that low end cards with too much vram usually perform slower... since they use slower clocked ram to keep the price down.
Whats worse is when people pay more attention to the amount of vram rather than the gpu its using, thats a major noob mistake. A 256mb 8800GT would demolish a 100,000gb 8600 or whatever. The kind of card it is is way more important than the amount of vram it has.
512mbs of ram even in a fast card isnt going to make a difference with photoshop or high resolutions. People have been running high resolutions and photoshop long before even 128mbs of ram was standard, nothing has changed on that front that would require more vram. Hell, I remember years ago buying a gaming card with something like 32 or 64mbs of ram and seeing on the box "supports resolutions up to 2048x1536" and I couldnt even imagine a monitor with that high of a resolution.
Yes you need 512mbs of ram to run games like Crysis at high resolutions. But the problem is that theres no way in hell an 8600 is going to run crysis at high resolutions even with everything on low, so it doesnt really matter. The GPU is the bottleneck, not the vram. An 8800GT however would be bottlenecked by 256mbs of vram, since the gpu is so fast.
OMG I'm SO fed up with people being SO WRONG about how VRAM affects performance in modern computers!!
In 99.999999999999999% of cases, the faster graphics card matters more than extra VRAM. The speed of the graphics card isnt measured by the amount of VRAM its has. Jeez... EXAMPLE: UT3 will run significantly faster on Radeon X1900XT with 256 MB than on Radeon X1600 with 512 MB.
The amount of VRAM graphics card has should be the last thing you take into consideration when buying a new one.
Also note that MOST apps DO NOT use the graphics card for rendering, so having a faster one is 0% increase in performance. I'm talking about apps like the whole Adobe Creative Suit, Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iPhoto, etc.
Apple that USE the graphics card for rendering (at least partly) are: Motion, Aperture, Color, Maya, games, and some more.
As for screen resolutions... 32MB card can easily drive 1920x1200 monitor. As for anything higher, you need a dual-link DVI port, not more VRAM. When having 2 or more display, the available VRAM splits between them in equal parts. Say you have a 1440x900 display in your 256MB MBP and want to connect it to a 2560x1600 external one. VRAM each monitor is given is 128 MB.
I HOPE it was clear...
Also, in a slow card like GeForce 8600 GT is, extra 256 MB in 512 MB wont make any difference. The card is too slow to quickly address all that memory for you to notice any significant increase in performance.
EDIT: too slow...
In 99.999999999999999% of cases, the faster graphics card matters more than extra VRAM. The speed of the graphics card isnt measured by the amount of VRAM its has. Jeez... EXAMPLE: UT3 will run significantly faster on Radeon X1900XT with 256 MB than on Radeon X1600 with 512 MB.
The amount of VRAM graphics card has should be the last thing you take into consideration when buying a new one.
Also note that MOST apps DO NOT use the graphics card for rendering, so having a faster one is 0% increase in performance. I'm talking about apps like the whole Adobe Creative Suit, Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iPhoto, etc.
Apple that USE the graphics card for rendering (at least partly) are: Motion, Aperture, Color, Maya, games, and some more.
As for screen resolutions... 32MB card can easily drive 1920x1200 monitor. As for anything higher, you need a dual-link DVI port, not more VRAM. When having 2 or more display, the available VRAM splits between them in equal parts. Say you have a 1440x900 display in your 256MB MBP and want to connect it to a 2560x1600 external one. VRAM each monitor is given is 128 MB.
I HOPE it was clear...
Also, in a slow card like GeForce 8600 GT is, extra 256 MB in 512 MB wont make any difference. The card is too slow to quickly address all that memory for you to notice any significant increase in performance.
EDIT: too slow...
Talking about »noob mistakes«, I'd like to point out that there's no VRAM on the 8600M GT. The 8600M GT has got SDRAM. And yes, there is a difference. And no, VRAM does not just stand for any kind of RAM that is on a graphics card. So since you're all big experts here, it might be a good idea to not talk rubbish.
From a technical standpoint that is correct but from an average end user standpoint most people understand the term VRAM better than they do GDDR3 SDRAM. VRAM was replaced by SGRAM and DDR-SDRAM. While the terms and specs have changed the concept is still the same. VRAM's (Video RAM) simple definition is:
A lot of times VRAM is just used to related to the video memory on the graphics card just like the term RAM or System Memory is used to relate to the DDR2 or DDR3 SDRAM found in desktop systems today.
256 or 512, which one
OK sorry to be such a boob and confused, but here is the student pricing I can get:
15 2.4 penryn $1799
15" 2.5 penryn $2299,
older 2.4 santa rosa $1699.
Clearly the $600 difference between the old 2.4 and new 2.5 is hard to swallow. But there is only a $100 difference between the old and new 2.4 machines. Again this will be for photoshop and likely FCP Studio 2. I likely will hook up a second DVI monitor
OK sorry to be such a boob and confused, but here is the student pricing I can get:
15 2.4 penryn $1799
15" 2.5 penryn $2299,
older 2.4 santa rosa $1699.
Clearly the $600 difference between the old 2.4 and new 2.5 is hard to swallow. But there is only a $100 difference between the old and new 2.4 machines. Again this will be for photoshop and likely FCP Studio 2. I likely will hook up a second DVI monitor
Definitely go with the 15" 2.4Ghz Penryn model for only $100 more. The 2.5Ghz model wouldn't even be a consideration though at $600 extra.
opt for the 256mb because the 2.5-2.6 and the 6mb of cache is just a marketing scheme to make that extra $500. Real world use has no differences whatsoever.
Also keep in mind that having 512mb doesnt mean anything since the 8600m gt cards still have only 128-bit wide bandwidth so the 256mb should be the maximum benificial output.
Also keep in mind that having 512mb doesnt mean anything since the 8600m gt cards still have only 128-bit wide bandwidth so the 256mb should be the maximum benificial output.
I will 3rd the vote because I actually had this same dilemma and ordered the new penryn 15" 2.4. You actually get big upgrades for the same price as the santa rosa model -> improved battery life, lower heat generation, twice the video ram, multitouch pad, (improved bus speed too right?)
I dont think 512mb would make a much of a difference if not even at all running Crysis. Even the top of the line gaming rig cant do max settings on Crysis.
I wouldnt think of running crysis on a mbp and should be played on a desktop. Even the mac pro with 8800gt card cant play with max settings.
Of course 512mb vram is a must on an 8800gt card, that card is just way superior than the measly 8600m gt card. Dont forget that the 8800gt has a higher bandwidth other than the 128bit and not to mention its a far superior card itself from the beginning.
Basically 8800gt 512mb(256 bit bandwidth)=8600m gt 256mb (128 bit bandwidth)
Pretty much comparison from 128mb vs. 256mb on the 8600m gt card as to 256mb vs. 512mb on the 8800gt card.
Its like putting 1gb of vram into an 8800gt card with only 256 bit wide bandwidth the extra 512mb will be pretty much useless.
sorry to go on a different direction here but i dont want to open a topic just to ask this:
working with Adobe CS3 on a Penryn Black Macbook and a Penryn 2.4 Macbook Pro connected to the same external monitor/keyboard/mouse will i be able to tell any difference at all in performance?
i ask because i just bought myself a black macbook and was wondering if maybe i should have gone for the base mbp...
working with Adobe CS3 on a Penryn Black Macbook and a Penryn 2.4 Macbook Pro connected to the same external monitor/keyboard/mouse will i be able to tell any difference at all in performance?
i ask because i just bought myself a black macbook and was wondering if maybe i should have gone for the base mbp...
sorry to go on a different direction here but i dont want to open a topic just to ask this:
working with Adobe CS3 on a Penryn Black Macbook and a Penryn 2.4 Macbook Pro connected to the same external monitor/keyboard/mouse will i be able to tell any difference at all in performance?
i ask because i just bought myself a black macbook and was wondering if maybe i should have gone for the base mbp...
I believe CS3 are cpu intensive and not bound by gpu. So you will not see any difference with a better gpu.
sorry to go on a different direction here but i dont want to open a topic just to ask this:
working with Adobe CS3 on a Penryn Black Macbook and a Penryn 2.4 Macbook Pro connected to the same external monitor/keyboard/mouse will i be able to tell any difference at all in performance?
i ask because i just bought myself a black macbook and was wondering if maybe i should have gone for the base mbp...
A small amount, nothing considerable
Your comparing a Desktop graphics card with a mobile card. Any of the G92 based cards are going to beat the 8600M GT.
I'm well aware that of course, I'm just explaining to the guy the analogy of the laptop 8600m gt card as to the desktop 8800gt card with the differences of the vram in the gpu and why the extra 256vram wont make any difference.
And to point out the next gpu the laptops use with 256vram vs. the current 8600m gt card with 512mb vram, the next gen card will be far superior. Which in the end the card itself is the most important part in performance and speed than the amount of vram that it has.
If you can afford it then put the $500 towards buying another MBP when Montevina releases later this year. Much more of an upgrade than 2.4 -> 2.5 Penryn.