GPU : 9600M @ 512 vs 330M @ 256

[Venturo]

Alright guys, I'm quite confused..

Just ordered my i5 MBP...
I currently got a late 2008 MBP with the 9600M with 512 Mo VRAM.
I got sick of that glossy screen and that's why I've stepped towards the i5 Anti glare.

Anyway I'd simply like to know if I'm about to loose some perf with the new GPU having only 256 Mo VRAM compared to my old 9600 with 512.
Concretely, I'll be playing Starcraft 2 on my MBP's screen, so no external screen and huge resolution.

Do you think it'll be better with the i5 spec ? Same ? Worse ?
Give me your opinion..
I've heard VRAM isn't a really a big deal as long as you stick to the MBP's screen resolution...I'd just like to have an opinion concerning the diff between 330M with 256 and 9600 with 512.

Thanks for enlightening me and sorry for my english, I'm not a native speaker !

 

[Bill Gates]

The vast majority of the time you will get better performance with the 330M. However, the 330M is not hugely faster than the 9600M GT, so gains will be moderate at best. Coming from a glossy MBP myself, I can still say with complete confidence that it's worth the money to upgrade to the new antiglare screen from a glossy one.

 

[iamrawr]

The 330m is more powerful than the 9600, but not by much. Most users have said that 512 gb will usually help more for applications with high textures or higher resolutions

 

[Venturo]

Alright, thanks guys.

Any more opinions ?

I really need to be sure that the 256 VRAM will handle Starcraft 2 on native HD resolution..
Slightly Better / Slightly worse than the 9600 with 512 VRAM ?
Cause besides Adobe CS, it's the only app that will require power.

 

[wake6830]

I have a similar question. I've got a 2008 MBP with a 2.5ghz C2D, 2 gigs of ram and the 8600m with 512mb of vram. Currently I play Bad Company 2 in Windows XP and get decent framerates at the default res, albeit with most of the settings on low.

I'm looking at either the new i5/330 with 256, or the i7/330 with 512. Is it safe to assume they both would be an improvement over the 8600? What if I was to get the higher-res screen - would the 512 be necessary then?

 

[Bill Gates]

I have a similar question. I've got a 2008 MBP with a 2.5ghz C2D, 2 gigs of ram and the 8600m with 512mb of vram. Currently I play Bad Company 2 in Windows XP and get decent framerates at the default res, albeit with most of the settings on low.

I'm looking at either the new i5/330 with 256, or the i7/330 with 512. Is it safe to assume they both would be an improvement over the 8600? What if I was to get the higher-res screen - would the 512 be necessary then?

Both would be a decent improvement over the 8600M. 512MB of VRAM is not necessary for gaming at 1680x1050 without antialiasing and such, but if you enable high levels of AA and AF it can help. However, the 330M GT is not powerful enough to play many games with AA and AF which negates the advantage somewhat. Most of the performance improvements with the 512MB VRAM model come from the processor firstly, and then the added VRAM.

 

[Venturo]

512MB of VRAM is not necessary for gaming at 1680x1050 without antialiasing and such

Alright, so I guess that confirms my i5 HD choice... Thanks !
If anyone disagrees with that...speak now please :>

 

[Jottle]

Alright, so I guess that confirms my i5 HD choice... Thanks !
If anyone disagrees with that...speak now please :>

Concur. More info. Visit this site for a direct comparison of 256 vs. 512vram.

click here