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.
256MB VRAM == soon obsolete?
- Thread starter cube
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Depends on the GPU. With high end ones, it's already obsolete, and has been for some time. The real issue is whether or not the GPU will hit the limit of the VRAM before it hits it's own performance limits.
For as long as the GPU stops being the bottleneck. 256mbs is good for slower GPU's like the 9600 since it cant go through 512mbs of data fast enough for it to matter anyways.
Video card ram isnt the same as system ram, theres a certain amount of ram that the card can handle before it hits a bottleneck and stops benefiting from the extra ram. The slower the card the less ram it can go through, 256mbs is just right for the 9600.
Video card ram isnt the same as system ram, theres a certain amount of ram that the card can handle before it hits a bottleneck and stops benefiting from the extra ram. The slower the card the less ram it can go through, 256mbs is just right for the 9600.
For gaming on the 15 inch macbook pro, is the extra 256 worth it? I'm torn between a (300 dollar cheaper) 15 inch 2.66 and the 2.8. I don't want the larger HD, but I do want excellent video performance. Will SL end up using the extra ram?
Also, anyone know if the 2.8 in the 15 inch has a 35 w TDP? I need the best battery life I can get.
Also, anyone know if the 2.8 in the 15 inch has a 35 w TDP? I need the best battery life I can get.
To make more money. The practice is not new, video card makers have been putting excessive amounts of ram into their budget video cards as "upgrades" for years even though there is no performance impact (and in some cases it hurt performance since they used slower speed ram to keep the price from raising too much).
Well back in the day you could get an ATi Radeon 9800XT with 256MB that it (IIRC) couldn't really handle, but GPUs have moved on so much in 5 years that I find it hard to belive an nVidia 9600M couldn't make good use of 512MB VRAM. The memory hasn't increased much considering the amount that GPUs have moved forward.
The 9600m is about equal to an old 7600gt desktop card which was 256mb with the 512 versions being gimmicks, its not very fast. The 9800GTX in my PC only has 512mbs of ram and it destroys the 9600m. 512 is overkill for that thing.
Here is the info, at least for graphics:
http://www.macworld.com/article/136251/2008/10/macbookgraphics.html?t=204
http://www.macworld.com/article/136251/2008/10/macbookgraphics.html?t=204
I have to disagree. I had an old 7800gt desktop card and I can't believe how much better the 9600m is in comparison. Games are actually more smoother that I can't even think of how a card could be faster. I know the CPU is better but still.
In my opinion, the new NVIDIA 9600 card is a very high boost in performance, especially in programs like COD4 and Crysis. On my desktop of a 7xxx series card, the framerate for Crysis: Warhead was around 19FPS. With my Macbook Pro, the FPS was around 40 consistently. The settings for both were all mediums, with the textures set to high. Plus, the scrolling in Preview and other Apple special effects were a lot better and higher in quality then the previous Mac's card. And the NVIDIA card's doubled RAM would significantly alter the performance of the machine.
They don't actually compare the same CPU, but with the 356 vs 512MB in that link - but you can see the difference between 9400 and 9600 (artially obscured through different CPU).
According to this, additional VRAM only helps if playing at high resolutions (and then only if your GPU can handle it).
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/...howtopic=30457
Cheers,
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/...howtopic=30457
Cheers,
Well, yea of course the 9600GT M is probably on par with the 7800GT (I had one too!). We're talking generations apart of video cards.