That is assuming the 8700M GT would be used in the iMac. For all we know they might use a desktop part again.
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.
8600M GT: 128mb vs 256mb
- Thread starter binaryreason
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is assuming the 8700M GT would be used in the iMac. For all we know they might use a desktop part again.
Benchmark compilation
Hey guys, I posted a compilation of SR MBPs benches found on different forums (including this one) at NBR. Have a look!
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=2049400#post2049400
Hey guys, I posted a compilation of SR MBPs benches found on different forums (including this one) at NBR. Have a look!
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=2049400#post2049400
Awesome! Very helpful. So Oblivion on the 128MB doesn't sound so good...still no word on the 256MB.
To be fair, the person who posted their Oblivion impressions basically only did it with almost everything at max settings, max resolution, etc. I suspect that Oblivion would run smoother at lower settings, medium quality, etc.
Thought the question is if the GPU can actually handle games at the type 3dmark06 simulates at decent FPSs anyway, still annoying to know that it might lower performance a lot thought
Not so much difference in the barefeats test (around 10%), but those are older games aswell.
I didn't bought last gen because the lowend model had 128MB vram, now I waited for this one, and well.. that didn't worked =P
The sad thing is that probably 3/5-4/5 of the price raise to the middle modell is from the CPU, and as you do I don't give a **** about the CPU speed, buying the highest end CPU there is are so ****ing retarded anyway, it will still be old in one years time, and it won't sell at a premium by then and it would save you a lot of cash. Buying the very greatest graphics card are quite stupid aswell, one or two step below the greatest stuff are almost as good and will save you lots of cash.
Yeah, and that wouldn't be good because then they actually had a GOOD MODELL OUT THAT, and that would suck, ...
The bad thing with Macs are that you legally can't run OS X on anything except Apples hardware so therefor they can do this ****, in the real world companies would try to release superior hardware at the best prices they could instead to have people buy them, well not Apple, rather have insuperior stuff to make people buy less priceworthy machines instead... Macs clearly needs more clones, but there's no chance that Apple will losen up their controll over where OS X runs. (And mac people will claim that oh, but the hardware control makes X run so much faster on the same hardware! My 10 year old computer still rules because OS X makes both parts! Apps never crash on my Mac because it's a closed whatever. Well: No, obviously it works fairly well on non-Apple machines aswell.)
Personally I would prefer it they had just released the 12" model and then they could have had 12", 15.4" and 17"-models and there would't be any problem with putting 256MB vram in all except the 12" which would probably need to run a less power draining GPU.
Back in the days the middle modell (or all) had decent/same specs, didn't they?
Oh give me a break........ Apple doesn't make "insuperior" (?) hardware.
They do make premium priced hardware, but please find me a single company that makes a machine with the same specs, materials and dimensions and weight of either the $1999 MBP or $2499 MBP.
You won't find one. The fact is, even the $1999 MBP is one of the best bangs for the buck right now. No-one else makes a 5.4 pound 1" thick machine with a 15.4" LED-backlit screen and ANY sort of 8600M GT.
I can agree that it would be nice if Apple had more configuration options, etc. but this idea that Apple is charging more than what the hardware is worth is ridiculous.
The closest machine on the market right now in terms of specs is the $1999 Asus G1S; but that's a machine without an LED-backlit screen, which weighs 6.8 pounds and is considerably thicker and larger.
-Zadillo
Yeah, any 12"/13.3" MBP isn't going to be running any sort of 8600M GT anyway, so it's a moot point.
I don't see why I wouldn't argue the same in 4-5 months............ looking at the Asus G1S as an example, the price on the previous Asus G1 never really dropped from its initial price point over the course of its lifespan.
I don't see any major changes in the mobile platform in the next 4-5 months, except the major one (the introduction of Penryn chips in the Fall), so I don't see why I would say Apple's pricing would be any less reasonable now than it would be in 4-5 months.
What do you think is going to change in 4-5 months exactly? Do you anticipate someone releasing a 1" thick 5.4 pound laptop with an 8600M GT, 15.4" LED-backlit screen, etc. for significantly less than the current price of the MBP?
Apple has historically also seemed to do a solid job of doing minor updates in between major updates (i.e. speed bumps, bumping memory capacity, etc.) so if something is really necessary between now and Penryn, I could see them doing it.
That's nothing to do with the 256/128 difference.
Parallels only lets you assign 64mb even if you have a 512mb X1900XT in a mac pro.
Freyqq seems to think Oblivion is playable at those high settings, so I see no reason to classify the situation as "not sounding so good." AFAIK, HDR really eats into performance. I'm perfectly happy with those results!
True...Oblivion at completely maxed out settings can bring just about anything to a halt. It's impossible to tell exactly what Freyqq means by "close to max", or even his definition of "playable" (I suppose that's why it's in the subjective evaluation section
). But all-in-all, I'd say it's a positive review on second thought.I have to admit though that I'd be a little disappointed not being able to play a year-old game at max settings on a brand new computer. It doesn't really bode well for the next few years.
On the other hand, it's a laptop, not a gaming machine---and I probably won't have anytime to play games anyway. I guess I'm just in the awkward boat of not wanting to pay $3000 for a Mac Pro, but don't actually need any of the portability of a MBP. And I already have a beautiful 24" monitor, so the 24" iMac would be a waste. I guess I'm just coming to the sad realization that Apple doesn't make a computer that suits my needs, and if I decide to wait around for one I may never get a new computer.
Sorry for that rant...back to the 128 vs. 256 comparisons.
True...Oblivion at completely maxed out settings can bring just about anything to a halt. It's impossible to tell exactly what Freyqq means by "close to max", or even his definition of "playable" (I suppose that's why it's in the subjective evaluation section
I have to admit though that I'd be a little disappointed not being able to play a year-old game at max settings on a brand new computer. It doesn't really bode well for the next few years.
On the other hand, it's a laptop, not a gaming machine---and I probably won't have anytime to play games anyway. I guess I'm just in the awkward boat of not wanting to pay $3000 for a Mac Pro, but don't actually need any of the portability of a MBP. And I already have a beautiful 24" monitor, so the 24" iMac would be a waste. I guess I'm just coming to the sad realization that Apple doesn't make a computer that suits my needs, and if I decide to wait around for one I may never get a new computer.
Sorry for that rant...back to the 128 vs. 256 comparisons.
We had a discussion about this over at NBR. The big thing was that he was playing with HDR on, and HDR is known to frankly stress even some of the most powerful cards on the market, so it isn't a surprise that it had a major impact on the 8600M GT.
As it is, Oblivion is a pretty intensive game engine, and the MBP can probably handle it better at lower res, maybe HDR turned off, and maybe somewhat lower quality settings. Even if it's a year old, it's still probably one of the biggest examples of a game that will stress a GPU.
Well, I did my part and sent a scathing letter here. I didnt really want to, but I felt I had to tell them how frustrating this is.
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html
Why not have the 256 card as an option for the low end mbp and make a PROFIT on it? I mean, I would pay 150 bucks extra for it no problem. 500 (433 technically) is not cool.
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html
Why not have the 256 card as an option for the low end mbp and make a PROFIT on it? I mean, I would pay 150 bucks extra for it no problem. 500 (433 technically) is not cool.
Again, it's because part of how Apple works is having a limited number of basic configurations. Clearly it is cheaper for Apple to have one MBP with a 2.2GHz CPU and 128MB GPU and one with a 2.4GHz CPU and 256MB GPU. It would probably impact Apple's manufacturing and production to add even more variables (2.2 GHz with 256MB GPU, 2.4 GHz with 128MB GPU, etc.).
If it bugs you so much though, get one of the few PC laptops that does fit your needs, like the Asus G1S, which has a 2.2GHz CPU and 256MB GPU (note that Asus doesn't let you order an Asus G1S with a 512MB GPU or with a faster CPU; in Asus's case, there is exactly ONE config of that machine, so Apple has a leg up on them, frankly).
Frankly, I'd be glad Apple is even offering the 8600M GT at all. A lot of PC manufacturers simply won't sell you a 15.4" laptop with an 8600M GT (like HP and Sony).
I just did that video stress test on counter-strike source on windows xp and got 161.2FPS!! Didn't even know that was possible. It's probably not that accurate, but Thought some of you might like to know. I've got the 128MB 8600GT and HL2 and CS:S run amazing on it
I just did that video stress test on counter-strike source on windows xp and got 161.2FPS!! Didn't even know that was possible. It's probably not that accurate, but Thought some of you might like to know. I've got the 128MB 8600GT and HL2 and CS:S run amazing on it
What resolution were you playing at?!
I couldn't help thinking that this 9% 'maximum' difference is contributed by 9% difference in processor speed! (2.2 vs 2.4Ghz)
I won't be looking at 'maximum 9%' because the benchmark averaged out to be 5%!
that is true of course hence the processor is the limiting factor in OSX with the Doom engine. Rob Art (the guy from barefeats) did some tests with same settings under OSX and Windows and found a performance difference of nearly 100%.
The Source engine is not very suitable to test a GForce 8 card either. What settings did you use anyway? It's too old for that. If you want heavy shader usage try
Oblivion
STALKER
Supreme Commander
Before we don't have a proper test setup with both machines running the same stuff with proper drivers (windows) we won't know.
The Source engine is not very suitable to test a GForce 8 card either. What settings did you use anyway? It's too old for that. If you want heavy shader usage try
Oblivion
STALKER
Supreme Commander
Before we don't have a proper test setup with both machines running the same stuff with proper drivers (windows) we won't know.