Dedicated VRAM Option?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Mobius 1, May 8, 2011.

  1. Mobius 1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    USEA
    #1
    why isn't there a 512MB dedicated vRAM for the base 15" ?



    btw, those HD 3000 didn't have the shared vRAM listed there :/
     
  2. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #2
    You may get better response to your thread with this tip.

    Are you talking about this?:
     
  3. Mobius 1 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    USEA
    #3
    yea, but the high end 15" is too expensive just to get more vRAM
     
  4. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #4
    Well, there's no other option. Either you get the lower end with less graphics memory, or pay more for the higher end. The choices are pretty clear.
     
  5. Capt Crunch macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
    #5
    Yes, but he asked why.

    The answer has been given many times: economy of scale. It is cheaper for Apple to not give you choice. Moreover, most Apple users (me included) have drank the kool-aid so much that they will pay the extra money to get the features they want.
     
  6. Mobius 1 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    USEA
    #6
    "Graphics and video support

    AMD Radeon HD 6490M graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR5 memory on 2.0GHz configuration

    ; or AMD Radeon HD 6750M graphics processor with 1GB of GDDR5 memory on 2.2GHz configuration

    Intel HD Graphics 3000 with 384MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory"

    I'm worried about the HD 3000 having more vRAM. altough shared w/ main memory

    does it mean if i buy the 15" MBP the 13" MBP will be able to take more video process?
     
  7. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #7
    The dedicated GPU in the base 15", albeit weak, is still a fair bit more powerful than the integrated Intel 3000 GPU. The shared RAM is just that, shared. It takes a bite out of the system's RAM to use for GPU storage. Also, in case you weren't aware, the 15" comes with BOTH the AMD GPU and the Intel GPU. You could switch over to the Intel for power savings if you choose to.

    RAM is only one of many different benchmarks by which to measure a GPU's ability.
     
  8. Mobius 1 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    USEA
    #8
    ^ i mean the base 2.0 GHz

    more vRAM means more process rite?

    or the GDDR5 dedicated vRAM makes the 6490M better than the HD 3000 secondary GPU which has 384 mb SHARED according to GGJ?


    again, base model (256MB vRAM) me poorfag here
     
  9. altecXP, May 8, 2011
    Last edited: May 8, 2011

    altecXP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #9
    There is a lot more to GPU's than just vRAM. Even if the ATI and Intel had the SAME vRAM the ATi would still beat it. Even if they were both dedicated. You also have to look at clock speed, memory speed, and other factors.

    vRAM for most people only effect how high of a resolution you can run games at.

    Im not sure why you keep asking about 'processes" what processes are you speaking of?

    Also the higher end 15in isn't "just more vram" its a whole different video card, and on another performance level.
     
  10. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #10
    If "processes" is a mis-translation for "speed", then NO, more VRAM is not equal to more speed.

    Clock rate, bus width, memory type, etc. all factor into speed. The 6490m is better than the HD 3000.


    This is pretty confusing and untrue. Intel doesn't make a dedicated GPU, so you can't claim that it would be slower than another dedicated GPU.
     
  11. Mobius 1 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    USEA
  12. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #12
    No its not. The Intel has a lower core clock speed, even if the rest of the intel was on par with the ATi the clock speed alone would make the ATi faster.
     
  13. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #13
    No, that's still wrong. The Intel has higher potential clock speed (up to ~1.3ghz) when compared to the AMD's stock 800mhz. This is because it's clock is based on the processor's clock.

    But none of this matters at all because it's not a dedicated GPU. A dedicated GPU would not be designed like the Sandybridge GPU since it wouldn't be integrated with a processor on a single chip and would have its own dedicated bus, etc.
     

Share This Page