Barefeats updated: 128MB vram vs 256MB

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by James L, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. James L macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    #1
  2. Mr.Pibb macrumors newbie

    Mr.Pibb

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
  3. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #3
    confirming my suspicion that the 2.2 is the right buy. :)
     
  4. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #4
    So the 15" 2.4GHz MacBook Pro is only about 5-9% faster than the 15" 2.2GHz MacBook Pro. :)

    I would like to see the difference for more than just gaming though... :)
     
  5. BlizzardBomb macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #5
    It's roughly the same...
     
  6. Evangelion macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    #6
    I would like to see more benchmarks from more demanding apps. Like Prey or some Windows-games maybe?
     
  7. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #7
    Check back on barefeats now. They ran Prey on very high settings, although on a very small resolution, and got some interesting OSX vs XP results. Apparently 37 fps in OSX, but 73 fps on XP. That's double. And that's high enough to suggest that Prey would be perfectly playable on at least the 15" native res on highest graphics settings with 4xAA and 4xAF.
     
  8. Illicit macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    #8
    It was to my understanding that the game was tested using the same mbp, but once while running XP and another while running OSX.
    so this isn't relevant in terms of comparing 128vram vs 256vram.
     
  9. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #9
    Its not. But it is interesting.

    And suggests that the 8600M GT is great, and that performance in OSX really is driver limited, and not hardware limited.

    And suggests that even the 128MB version should be more than capable of playing something like Prey very well.
     
  10. booksacool1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #10
    Yeah I agree, but the benchmarking is pretty crappy. Why?

    Well Prey is the doom3 engine. As is doom 3 and quake 4. Why bother testing all three? Besides, everyone knows you can get the doom 3 engine almost on max on any modern nvidia card.
    And UT2004 runs great on my fx5200... wow.

    Barefeats needs to test using a modern game which actually pushes the memory with huge textures, high AA settings etc. Maybe Oblivion, NWN2, STALKER, Supreme Commander etc. They'll show a difference with the extra 128mbytes.
     
  11. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #11
    Oh. I didn't know Prey used the Doom 3 engine. That sucks.

    I agree we need more Oblivion scores. In bootcamp. (not that there's much choice, but the point has to be made)
     

Share This Page