Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

8600M GT 256mb vs GT 330M 512mb / 1gb ? - Starcraft2, Diablo3?

R

rwdebes

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 28, 2007
254
0
Ok i was hoping for a 330M 1gb , but for more battery life and heating issues steve went for the 512mb.

So i was thinking to get another laptop after more than 10 years using apple computers only , just because i want to be able to run games like Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 on my mac smoothly ( YES for those who doesnt know Blizzard will launch MAC/PC versions of those games ) and be able to run a 1080p .mkv 12gb file smoothly on my computer because my card cant do it and i need a laptop who can do those 2 things well. I cant convice me to get the new macbook pro , but at the same time i want / dont want to get a PC after more than 10 years away from that **** , and will need to run Mac OS on that.

I was looking for a 1899U$ HP 15" ENVY with a i7 Quad , HDMI , Radeon 5830 1gb , 15" full HD , 6 Hours battery life , 8 gb RAM , 640gb HD. almost same thickness and weight. i dont want a PC , the only thing making me go this way is the graphics card and HDMI. and maybe the price.. please convice me macbook pro is better please !!

My Questions are: GT 330M with 512mb will be fast enough to run nice those games ??? upgrading from my currenctly GT 8600M 256mb to a 330M 512mb i will have a noticiable difference ??

thanks :)
 
the 330 in general is crap by today's standards. Should have went with ATI.

But it's no surprise Apple stuck with crap graphics in their notebooks. It's become their staple.
 
Your current notebook should be fine. If you upgrade, you'll probably only notice a difference during heavy usage.
 
Repo said:
Your current notebook should be fine. If you upgrade, you'll probably only notice a difference during heavy usage.
Click to expand...

im a heavy user. so u are saying that from a 8600 GT 256mb to a 330M 512mb will be no difference ? :eek:
 
coolmacguy said:
the 330 in general is crap by today's standards. Should have went with ATI.

But it's no surprise Apple stuck with crap graphics in their notebooks. It's become their staple.
Click to expand...

so steve doesnt know that HUGE games are coming to Macs ?

Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 will be heavy games and not being able to run a game on a 2000U$ + computer is INSANELY CRAZY.

thats why i want to know what better i just cant decide for a PC move ... if im sure the 330M 512mb is a fast card and can handle i will be happy but thats not what seems to be the truth
 
rwdebes said:
im a heavy user. so u are saying that from a 8600 GT 256mb to a 330M 512mb will be no difference ? :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll notice a difference during heavy usage between the two cards. I meant you probably won't if you're just surfing the web, checking email, etc.
 
It should run about double the framerates as the 8600M GT
The graphics card alone scores about 80-90% better then the 8600GT.
The i7 is also a lot faster.

There is a video on youtube running the beta of SC2 on the last gen macbook pro (9600M 256mb) (bootcamp ofc as the mac beta is not yet released). Which seems to handle it fine (without looking like SC1 ;) ). The new one is around 25% faster so that should be ok. I honestly think the new 13 inch will run SC2 fine.

Diablo will be heavier. No one knows what it's gonna take to run that game with all graphics turned up. Historically Blizzard games have always played really well on older hardware. But then again the delay on DB3 may be that blizzard is waiting for the hardware to catch up. Like i said no one knows except probably a few blizzard employees.
 
rwdebes said:
Ok i was hoping for a 330M 1gb , but for more battery life and heating issues steve went for the 512mb.

So i was thinking to get another laptop after more than 10 years using apple computers only , just because i want to be able to run games like Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 on my mac smoothly ( YES for those who doesnt know Blizzard will launch MAC/PC versions of those games ) and be able to run a 1080p .mkv 12gb file smoothly on my computer because my card cant do it and i need a laptop who can do those 2 things well. I cant convice me to get the new macbook pro , but at the same time i want / dont want to get a PC after more than 10 years away from that **** , and will need to run Mac OS on that.

I was looking for a 1899U$ HP 15" ENVY with a i7 Quad , HDMI , Radeon 5830 1gb , 15" full HD , 6 Hours battery life , 8 gb RAM , 640gb HD. almost same thickness and weight. i dont want a PC , the only thing making me go this way is the graphics card and HDMI. and maybe the price.. please convice me macbook pro is better please !!

My Questions are: GT 330M with 512mb will be fast enough to run nice those games ??? upgrading from my currenctly GT 8600M 256mb to a 330M 512mb i will have a noticiable difference ??

thanks :)
Click to expand...

wow you made 2 of these threads?
 
rwdebes said:
Ok i was hoping for a 330M 1gb , but for more battery life and heating issues steve went for the 512mb.

So i was thinking to get another laptop after more than 10 years using apple computers only , just because i want to be able to run games like Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 on my mac smoothly ( YES for those who doesnt know Blizzard will launch MAC/PC versions of those games ) and be able to run a 1080p .mkv 12gb file smoothly on my computer because my card cant do it and i need a laptop who can do those 2 things well. I cant convice me to get the new macbook pro , but at the same time i want / dont want to get a PC after more than 10 years away from that **** , and will need to run Mac OS on that.

I was looking for a 1899U$ HP 15" ENVY with a i7 Quad , HDMI , Radeon 5830 1gb , 15" full HD , 6 Hours battery life , 8 gb RAM , 640gb HD. almost same thickness and weight. i dont want a PC , the only thing making me go this way is the graphics card and HDMI. and maybe the price.. please convice me macbook pro is better please !!

My Questions are: GT 330M with 512mb will be fast enough to run nice those games ??? )
Click to expand...
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5830.24733.0.html

MiniDisplay Port also now supports audio so all you need is an adapter to HDMI.
 
greg400 said:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5830.24733.0.html

MiniDisplay Port also now supports audio so all you need is an adapter to HDMI.
Click to expand...

you are right , thats good to know.. not that i like to carry around adaptors. but ok.. why he cant pay the rights and put a ****ing HDMI on macbooks.. would be freaking nice , how many people would be happy with that , being able to plug a computer to the tv without the need of adaptors.. meh.
 
Quash said:
It should run about double the framerates as the 8600M GT
The graphics card alone scores about 80-90% better then the 8600GT.
The i7 is also a lot faster.

There is a video on youtube running the beta of SC2 on the last gen macbook pro (9600M 256mb) (bootcamp ofc as the mac beta is not yet released). Which seems to handle it fine (without looking like SC1 ;) ). The new one is around 25% faster so that should be ok. I honestly think the new 13 inch will run SC2 fine.

Diablo will be heavier. No one knows what it's gonna take to run that game with all graphics turned up. Historically Blizzard games have always played really well on older hardware. But then again the delay on DB3 may be that blizzard is waiting for the hardware to catch up. Like i said no one knows except probably a few blizzard employees.
Click to expand...

Double? No way. It only has 50% more stream processors which are bottlenecked by the tiny 128-bit bandwith bus. It does however have a much higher clock speed. 50 to 60% better would be a realistic estimate.

However while a 50/60% boost sounds impressive, don't forget that the 8600M GTs are 3 years old already. A 50/60% boost is pathetic for a graphic card that is 3 years newer.
 
rwdebes said:
Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 will be heavy games and not being able to run a game on a 2000U$ + computer is INSANELY CRAZY.
Click to expand...

The beauty of Apple here is the very defined number of possible combinations. My guess is that Diablo 3 will be optimized in such way, that it would be playable with most Apple systems available. Maybe, 9400m is a bit too optimistic, but 8600gt, 9600gt 320M and 330M will definitely do it.

You would probably want to check notebookcheck.net for a list of test results. The 330M is faster than 8600, but not that *much*. Honestly, if you want a gaming machine, why don't you just stick with your current Mac systems for general use and get a cheapo desktop PC? For $300-$400 you could get a SOooOOO MUCH faster system than $2000 MBP.



As for Diablo 3 being a "hard ass" game, I would be sceptical. Diablo was ALWAYS famous for having low system requirements. For example, Mac version of Diablo 2 was able to run on 3 yr old systems without a problem... Basically, 9400m might be on the margin, but anything better than that, will do it
 
Starcraft 2 already runs smoothly on medium on my 8600M GT. The 9400M could probably run it on low. GT 330M should be able to run it on high.
 
cathyy said:
Starcraft 2 already runs smoothly on medium on my 8600M GT. The 9400M could probably run it on low. GT 330M should be able to run it on high.
Click to expand...

Agreed on this, I was able to play to Dawn of War 2 on my 256 MB 8600M GT in 1280*800 in high settings. So no problem for the 330M with SC2 in 1440*900 IMHO.

Also able to play Bioshock (Mac version) in 1280*800 High settings very smoothly.
 
Puqq said:
The beauty of Apple here is the very defined number of possible combinations. My guess is that Diablo 3 will be optimized in such way, that it would be playable with most Apple systems available. Maybe, 9400m is a bit too optimistic, but 8600gt, 9600gt 320M and 330M will definitely do it.
Click to expand...

Forgive my computer ignorance, but regarding these games everyone seems much more concerned about GPU's than CPU's. Why is that? Maybe CPU's are more critical for other reasons, but for Starcraft 2/Diablo 3 are the C2D's on the 13" fine?

Im considering the 13" (2.4 GHz, 320m) and want to be able to run Starcraft 2 acceptably. Don't care if it's "perfect" or super hi-res or anything.

Also, my brother bought the "newly old" 2.26 GHz 9400m a few months ago. Sounds like this may be borderline when it comes to these games? Same thing here, he'd only want it to run decent...not perfect.
 
Here's what I want to know regarding these graphics cards in the new MBPs...

Will I be able to run all the Valve games that are coming out for Mac soon? And be able to run them well? Keep in mind that I consider 'well' to be medium settings with a solid 40-60fps.
 
Jeremy.Gray said:
Here's what I want to know regarding these graphics cards in the new MBPs...

Will I be able to run all the Valve games that are coming out for Mac soon? And be able to run them well? Keep in mind that I consider 'well' to be medium settings with a solid 40-60fps.
Click to expand...

Yes. The 330m on Left 4 Dead gets 65 and up FPS on high settings.

dlb253 said:
Forgive my computer ignorance, but regarding these games everyone seems much more concerned about GPU's than CPU's. Why is that? Maybe CPU's are more critical for other reasons, but for Starcraft 2/Diablo 3 are the C2D's on the 13" fine?

Im considering the 13" (2.4 GHz, 320m) and want to be able to run Starcraft 2 acceptably. Don't care if it's "perfect" or super hi-res or anything.

Also, my brother bought the "newly old" 2.26 GHz 9400m a few months ago. Sounds like this may be borderline when it comes to these games? Same thing here, he'd only want it to run decent...not perfect.
Click to expand...

The Core 2 Duo's are perfectly capable for gaming. In fact, the i5/i7 won't even show much improvement if any in that department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back