650m 512MB VRAM enough for gaming?

[leman]

leman, there was an article at the website called overclockers.ru, about the vRAM amount necessary for modern games. I don't think you need a link to it, since it's completely in Russian
but the testing results clearly pointed that absolutely most famous gaming titles that comed out in 2011-2012, require 550-1000MB at 1080p resolution.
that said, 512mb is a real bottleneck for those who want to use highest texture quality settings.

I can read Russian, so feel free to link it. Anyway, amount of VRAM required ≠ benchmark. Here, I found some Crysis benchmarks (treat them with a grain of salt): http://www.overclock.net/t/401321/4870-512mb-vs-1gb-comparison

Don't forget that raising texture quality settings usually means increased bandwidth requirements - which is lacking on the 128bit 650M.

As to texture quality... S3TC compressed 1024x1024 texture with full mipmap chain is 1.33 MB. Of it, there is no need to keep the top mipmap level (the 1024x1024 part) in the VRAM all the time - you only need it when the object is very close by. In which case it can be streamed to the VRAM very quickly by a LOD-aware engine (alas, game engines are often very inefficient in this regard, which is a shame). This means 0.33 MB for high-quality texture chain - 100MB VRAM could fit 300 such textures, without compromising quality. And it will become even better when we get consistent ASTC compression support.

 

[Serban]

Go for alienware then

 

[kaellar]

Here you go: http://www.overclockers.ru/lab/44711_3/Skolko_operativnoj_i_videopamyati_nuzhno_dlya_igr.html

It's even worse than I thought - it's from the end of 2011

 

[leman]

Well, I think your link supports my point. For example, Crysis and Crysis Warhead both record over 800-900MB VRAM, and yet benchmarks with 512 vs 1024 MB VRAM show close to zero improvements at 1080p resolution.

For a benchmark, see my previous link or for example this one: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2428-5.html

P.S. Again, I am not defending Apple for packing measly 512MB VRAM in the iMac - I too think they should have used 1GB at least. I am simply trying to point out that you won't see that big a performance difference as you suggest (if any at all).

 

[Irishman]

Well, I think your link supports my point. For example, Crysis and Crysis Warhead both record over 800-900MB VRAM, and yet benchmarks with 512 vs 1024 MB VRAM show close to zero improvements at 1080p resolution.

For a benchmark, see my previous link or for example this one: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2428-5.html

This makes sense, because the only real gain you see by going from 512MB to 1024MB of VRAM is the ability to load larger textures.

It will not boost your framerate.

 

[leman]

This makes sense, because the only real gain you see by going from 512MB to 1024MB of VRAM is the ability to load larger textures.

It will not boost your framerate.

Basically this. And as I wrote earlier - there is no need in keeping large textures in the VRAM all the time (for those who don't know that mipmaps are: linky). Large versions of textures should be loaded when objects these textures are applied to are getting close to the viewer.

 

[Ice Dragon]

I already said so, but in my opinion, the GPU options should be like that:

21.5 base - 1gb 650m
21.5 hi-end - 1gb 660m; 1.5gb 670mx option
27 base - 1gb 660m; 1.5gb 670mx option
27 hi-end - 2gb 675mx; 4gb 680mx option.

As far as I know there is no 4 GB 680 MX. The max amount of memory with that card is 2 GB. Also I think it should go from 1 GB to 2 GB and not 1 GB to 1.5 GB.

 

[kaellar]

As far as I know there is no 4 GB 680 MX. The max amount of memory with that card is 2 GB. Also I think it should go from 1 GB to 2 GB and not 1 GB to 1.5 GB.

There are lots of 680m (not mx) with 4gb from other PC and laptop manufacturers. I don't see any reason why more powerful GPU couldn't use more than 2gb.

670mx addresses at least 1.5gb due to its 192-bit memory bus. I pointed that amount because it's the most reasonable option for 1080p Apple could use to satisfy 99.9% of customers and to keep their margins as high as they can at the same time. Of course, 2gb would be nicer

 

[Ice Dragon]

There are lots of 680m (not mx) with 4gb from other PC and laptop manufacturers. I don't see any reason why more powerful GPU couldn't use more than 2gb.

670mx addresses at least 1.5gb due to its 192-bit memory bus. I pointed that amount because it's the most reasonable option for 1080p Apple could use to satisfy 99.9% of customers and to keep their margins as high as they can at the same time. Of course, 2gb would be nicer

Right indeed. I just meant for the cards Apple is using, the max memory on all of them is 2 GB. I don't want Apple though to use a less powerful card and put more memory in it though.

 

[Serban]

So in other words...like this topic question is...the answer is YES, it is enough !
The topic does not questioning us if it is the best, only if it is enough

 

[Ice Dragon]

So in other words...like this topic question is...the answer is YES, it is enough !
The topic does not questioning us if it is the best, only if it is enough

I would disagree, I say it is not enough.

 

[cluthz]

Get real...i had Gts 250 for almost 3 years now...

You can believe as much as you like, but the GTS 250 is faster:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

Specs:
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gts250/specifications
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gt-650m/specifications

Texture fillrate:
GTS 250 47.2 billion/sec, 650M 27.2 billion/sec.

The 650M has very many different memory configs, but the fastest config is slightly faster than a stock GTS250.

This is a test of 650M versus other GPUs, no GTs250 there, but it's GTX285 there (which is quite a bit faster than the GTS 250 tho), but the GTX 285 absolutely demolishes the GT650M in all tests.
http://barefeats.com/gam12.html

So please don't just shoo away other people that actually know what they are talking about.

Also take a note of if you look up older 3Dmark results, is that most GTS250s are tested with a Core 2 Duo class CPU and 3Dmark is very CPU heavy too, thus the machines with GT650M is usually scoring slightly higher.

To sum up, is a 650M coupled with an i7 faster than a GTS250 coupled with a Core 2Duo? yes.
Is a GT650M faster than a GTS250 with the same kind of cpu, no the GTS250 is faster.

 

[Serban]

So in a real test..i have a desktop pc with i5 661 +gts250 and I get in starcraft 2 around 48fps at 1280*1024 resolution

At imac with i5 +650m I get in boot camp at native resolution (1920*1080) in starcraft 2 around 70fps.....

and another overall check this link: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

For me my real life result is far more important.

 

[Ice Dragon]

so in a real test..i have a desktop pc with i5 661 +gts250 and i get in starcraft 2 around 48fps at 1280*1024 resolution

at imac with i5 +650m i get in boot camp at native resolution (1920*1080) in starcraft 2 around 70fps.....

And another overall check this link: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

for me my real life result is far more important.

gts 250 - 906
650m - 1,270

 

[cluthz]

So in a real test..i have a desktop pc with i5 661 +gts250 and I get in starcraft 2 around 48fps at 1280*1024 resolution

At imac with i5 +650m I get in boot camp at native resolution (1920*1080) in starcraft 2 around 70fps.....

and another overall check this link: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

For me my real life result is far more important.

StarCraft 2 is very CPU heavy.
PassMark is probably the worst test ever and it has nothing to do with real life.
They claim that GTX480 is faster than GTX590. And that the 580 is faster than the 690?!
Also the 650M is over GTX285, and if you look at the OSX tests I linked earlier, the GTX285 is demolishing the 650M in almost all tests (including Starcraft2, 39 FPS vs 23 FPS)

The again the Core i7 Quad 3rd Gen will demolish a first gen dual core i5.
I have absolutely no problems with seeing the rMPB being faster than your old rig, but that is not due to the 650M being a faster chip than the GTS250.

The 650M is indeed a better chip. It features newer technology, it produces way less heat and it uses a fifth of the power a GTS250 needs. But it ain't faster in most cases, if you compare it with the same hardware.

 

[Serban]

Yet again..the 650M if for 21.5" so no need for test at resolution over 1920*1080..pointless..like in your link where in starcraft 2 ultra you get around 23fps on 2560*1440....for that kind of resolution you get a minimum 660M or 675mx or 680mx

I talk what you get.
So a recent example,beside starcraft 2, i am still playing some Farcry 3 from time to time, in my desktop pc (250gts) i get in 1280*1024 around 40fps everything medium(no AA, vsync off), on 650M i get at native resolution on the same settings around 35 fps

----------

Yet again, those who actually are playing and testing for their own said even 640M from base 21.5 imac is capable to play games more demanding like Arkhaim City, Borderlands 2 etc on native resolution everything on low to medium.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I just want a desktop that isn't awkwardly large, but still has a GPU that can do RAW video. And price really isn't that much of an issue... but the option doesn't even exist, for any price.

 

[Serban]

Exist but is not in Apple family but Alienware

 

[leman]

I just want a desktop that isn't awkwardly large, but still has a GPU that can do RAW video. And price really isn't that much of an issue... but the option doesn't even exist, for any price.

What do you mean? Uncompressed video? What does it have to do with GPUs? Or am I missing something?

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

What do you mean? Uncompressed video? What does it have to do with GPUs? Or am I missing something?

RAW video, is analogous Raw picture files(higher bit depth, less or no compression).

Editing programs for these types of files typically require 2gb cards or greater.

 

[Serban]

I think base model 21.5" is better in games or in his graphic card generating native resolution than 27" base model.

640M for 1920*1080 it's ok but 660M for 2560*1440 this is outrageous

 

[Ice Dragon]

but 660M for 2560*1440 this is outrageous

So basically only the 675MX and 680MX are good enough for that resolution?

 

[Serban]

So basically only the 675MX and 680MX are good enough for that resolution?

Of course ..those are top high end graphic cards

 

[2Turbo]

Thanks for all the replies.

Just wonder how much a hit 512MB will take since all I want to do is play Black Ops 2 & MW3. I saw a guy with Retina 650m say he gets over 70 FPS @ 1080p with these settings:

Details: Extra
Shadows: off
MSAA: 2x
HBOA: off
FXAA: on
Occlusion: Medium
Dept of field: Medium
fps: always 70+

 

[Serban]

So? It isn't good for you ? ))) i mean there are only 2 stages:

1) over 30 fps you get a smooth gameplay
2) over 50 fps you get a let say realistic movement speed

That it...if you have a minimum 60 or 70 or 200 fps doesn't matter anymore. It's the same experience