Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just out of curiosity: since Apples are so highly coveted and used by media professionals, why are the graphics cards still so consistently weak? I've read that CAD users need something on the level of the Quardo cards, and I'd assume professionals who edit HD video would benefit from more robust graphics. Am I missing something?
As the perception of Windows as virus-ridden, BSoD-prone heaps of awful repugnant tat disappears, so too will the notion that creative professionals use Macs exclusively. The thing that keeps a lot of high-end pros on Apple's side is familiarity and Apple's own software - FCP, Logic etc.
 
People who make 3D movies probably need the best cards on the market.

Also, medical imaging can be quite demanding, from what I understand modern MRI/CAT machines have pretty intense hardware in them.
 
Ah, that's interesting.

Sorry for this slight divergence from the thread topic, but what are some instances where a professional graphics card like a Quadro is necessity rather than luxury?

Really none.

The Quadro line offers a few advantages - more planes of reference and different anti-aliasing properties - but in terms of actual DOING work there is really no situation. ALL of these advantages are purely software though - there are no hardware differences. Its Nvidia's way of justifying a higher price-tag.
 
People who make 3D movies probably need the best cards on the market.

Also, medical imaging can be quite demanding, from what I understand modern MRI/CAT machines have pretty intense hardware in them.

do people who make 3d movies... or mri/cat machines use laptops?
 
The Quadro line offers a few advantages - more planes of reference and different anti-aliasing properties - but in terms of actual DOING work there is really no situation. ALL of these advantages are purely software though - there are no hardware differences. Its Nvidia's way of justifying a higher price-tag.

That's somehow reassuring to know as I had wondered if Ives and his team actually used Macs to design Apple products, as absurd as that may be, after I learned of the quality of graphics cards available in mobile workstations like the ones offered by HP and Dell versus the ones offered by Macs. And also the fact that AutoCAD only runs on Windows, and it appears to be the flagship CAD program (or maybe it's not, but that's the impression I get from what little I've googled).
 
do people who make 3d movies... or mri/cat machines use laptops?
Well if we're talking exclusively about laptops, nobody who needs to do even remotely taxing graphics work uses a laptop anyway because it's not the right tool for the job, so the whole point's moot.
 
All due respect you seem to be the one thats uneducated here.

Bus width effects bandwidth, nothing else. GDDR5 allows double the data rate as GDDR3, which means the bus is equivalent to a 256bit bus on older cards.

Bandwidth is ONLY relevant when you need to move large amounts of data around, such as when your doing MultiSampling (or especially SuperSampling) operations or have what is equivalent to IO operations within the card. In terms of pure texture storage and display it makes no difference at all.

Since most new games use more than 256MB of memory, it is highly relevant to what can be displayed from the framebuffer.

There is more to it. Bandwidth is one of the top things there is to a GPU (besides shaders and fab process). The faster you move things the better. Laptop GPUs are more powerful than what people think, but they are severely bottlenecked by low memory or low bus rate. A solution has been what you described, up the DDR speed from GDDR3 to GDDR5. Works, but it is not the solution. Just look at ATI's and nVidia's current gen cards, all use 256-bit (performance/enthusiast) and 128-bit (consumer). However, the better performance cards are always those with ample bandwidth to the VRAM.

Why? Because they have to move massive amounts of data to/from the VRAM. You can look at many results and will find that fact holds true thru all video cards. Moreover, adding more VRAM will only solve the problem if you are doing something in an image editor like Photoshop. In games, having 2GB is mostly unneeded currently as current cards haven't even tapped 1GB potential. nVidia just broke that 1GB barrier with Fermi based GTX 480 and GTX 470 at 1.2GB configurations; test show that all the large .2GB really does it keep minimum frame rates up, but doesn't add any potential.Test was on intensive game like RE5, Batman, and Far Cry.

In Photoshop, the amount of VRAM is what is important, in games and other applications that require the GPU to push data fast, it's the bus width and data rate that matter.

Apple's laptops are not oriented at games, so they don't need large VRAM. People forget that. Apple has its OS X for media stuff, like pictures thru iPhoto or your favorite image editor, movies (which are more CPU intensive) and audio (Logic Pro, and other audio tools). Sure Apple pushes games, but ideally, MacBook Pros are not for games, that's something people have added by using Bootcamp and putting Windows in there.
 
There is more to it. Bandwidth is one of the top things there is to a GPU (besides shaders and fab process). The faster you move things the better. Laptop GPUs are more powerful than what people think, but they are severely bottlenecked by low memory or low bus rate. A solution has been what you described, up the DDR speed from GDDR3 to GDDR5. Works, but it is not the solution. Just look at ATI's and nVidia's current gen cards, all use 256-bit (performance/enthusiast) and 128-bit (consumer). However, the better performance cards are always those with ample bandwidth to the VRAM.

Why? Because they have to move massive amounts of data to/from the VRAM. You can look at many results and will find that fact holds true thru all video cards. Moreover, adding more VRAM will only solve the problem if you are doing something in an image editor like Photoshop. In games, having 2GB is mostly unneeded currently as current cards haven't even tapped 1GB potential. nVidia just broke that 1GB barrier with Fermi based GTX 480 and GTX 470 at 1.2GB configurations; test show that all the large .2GB really does it keep minimum frame rates up, but doesn't add any potential.Test was on intensive game like RE5, Batman, and Far Cry.

In Photoshop, the amount of VRAM is what is important, in games and other applications that require the GPU to push data fast, it's the bus width and data rate that matter.

Apple's laptops are not oriented at games, so they don't need large VRAM. People forget that. Apple has its OS X for media stuff, like pictures thru iPhoto or your favorite image editor, movies (which are more CPU intensive) and audio (Logic Pro, and other audio tools). Sure Apple pushes games, but ideally, MacBook Pros are not for games, that's something people have added by using Bootcamp and putting Windows in there.

All of that is completely true, but if your comparing the 256MB vs 512MB 330M there will be noticeable image quality advantage as games absolutely will utilize that framebuffer. The 330M will get shader limited well before it gets bandwidth limited. Were not talking about Fermi or Cypress here.
 
All of that is completely true, but if your comparing the 256MB vs 512MB 330M there will be noticeable image quality advantage as games absolutely will utilize that framebuffer. The 330M will get shader limited well before it gets bandwidth limited. Were not talking about Fermi or Cypress here.

True but at 48 shaders, the 256 v 512 VRAM shouldn't even be up for discussion.
 
True but at 48 shaders, the 256 v 512 VRAM shouldn't even be up for discussion.

I highly disagree. A game like Doom 3, which will run flawlessly on a 330M, uses ~500MB of texture ram on ultra settings. the 256mb model will experience hitching as new textures are loaded in, the 512 will not. Other games, such as GTA4, Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield 2, Left 4 Dead, etc all use over 256 mb ram while still performing acceptably on the 330M
 
I highly disagree. A game like Doom 3, which will run flawlessly on a 330M, uses ~500MB of texture ram on ultra settings. the 256mb model will experience hitching as new textures are loaded in, the 512 will not. Other games, such as GTA4, Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield 2, Left 4 Dead, etc all use over 256 mb ram while still performing acceptably on the 330M

True, but the MacBook Pros are not sold as gaming laptops now are they?
 
Forget Gaming. Will 512mb Improve Final Cut Pro & Photoshop?

JAVA 6454,

I'm not going to play any games on my laptop. I need it professionally for Photoshop & Final Cut pro.

Will I benefit from the 512MB? If so how so?

Thanks,

Scott
 
I suggest you to buy 15inch. because A game like Doom 3, which will run flawlessly on a 330M, uses ~500MB of texture ram on ultra settings. the 256mb model will experience hitching as new textures are loaded in, the 512 will not. Other games, such as GTA4, Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield 2, Left 4 Dead, etc all use over 256 mb ram while still performing acceptably on the 330M
 
I suggest you to buy 15inch. because A game like Doom 3, which will run flawlessly on a 330M, uses ~500MB of texture ram on ultra settings. the 256mb model will experience hitching as new textures are loaded in, the 512 will not. Other games, such as GTA4, Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield 2, Left 4 Dead, etc all use over 256 mb ram while still performing acceptably on the 330M

Derp? :confused:
 
Maybe then it about time to drop the 'Pro' tag on their notebook line if 512Mb is as far as it will ever go.

The 330 has stopped me in my tracks upgrading. Bit of a let down for me. And judging by these forums the general consensus for a lot people. Being that it aint even a quad core i7 is a kick in he teeth also. The competition is waaaaaaaay ahead as of today.

same here this stupid CRAP card is stopping me to buy the macbook pro..

a professinal notebook that costa more than 2000U$ with 512mb crap card..
terrible !
 
I suggest you to buy 15inch. because A game like Doom 3, which will run flawlessly on a 330M, uses ~500MB of texture ram on ultra settings. the 256mb model will experience hitching as new textures are loaded in, the 512 will not. Other games, such as GTA4, Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield 2, Left 4 Dead, etc all use over 256 mb ram while still performing acceptably on the 330M


so you talking about old games... from 2007 like COD4 , what about the new upcoming games ??? like diablo 3, starcraft 2... im not worried to run GTA4
i want to be able to run good games in the future.. nobody buy a new laptop every 6 months.
 
so you talking about old games... from 2007 like COD4 , what about the new upcoming games ??? like diablo 3, starcraft 2... im not worried to run GTA4
i want to be able to run good games in the future.. nobody buy a new laptop every 6 months.

Yeah, but that's the way the PC gaming market has always been dude.
 
JAVA 6454,

I'm not going to play any games on my laptop. I need it professionally for Photoshop & Final Cut pro.

Will I benefit from the 512MB? If so how so?

Thanks,

Scott

No games and only Photoshop? 512MB VRAM it is. Larger VRAM allows better Photoshop experience as whatever graphically intense info can be stored in the extra VRAM for the GPU to have handy should you do anything crazy. RAM is also important.
 
im sorry ?? when i buy a new computer im looking to whats coming , not what already came.
Yes, and the PC gaming scene has always moved quicker than the consoles on the hardware side. PC gaming is substantially more expensive than its console equivalent.

So "what's coming" will eventually be more than your MacBook Pro can handle. And that point may come a lot sooner than you'd prefer. If that's a concern, get a grey box with a hatch so you can update the components as and when you need to. If you're looking to straddle the bleeding edge of now, a MacBook is a bad call on almost every front - it's not the most powerful gaming machine going as it is, and it can't be upgraded.
 
First let me start off by saying I know what I am taking about.

Secondly, the 512mb is a BIG advantage over 256 when you want to play games at the native 1440x900 resolution and high settings. 256mb just isnt enough for high setting on recent games at that resolution. With the 256 you will probably have to lower the resolution to 1366x768 (or less) which will cause the game to be oddly stretched and slightly blurry.

So the answer is, if you get the 256mb chip you will do 1 of two things. Turn the graphics settings on low (medium for older games) or turn down the resolution. The 330m is actually a "decent" low/mid range card, which WILL be limited by the amount of VRAM. 1Gb probably isnt needed at all, except StarCraft 2 will load higher res textures into memory if you have a 1gb card.

Also, if you get the high-res screen, forget playing modern games at native resolution at anything but low. ESPECIALLY with the 256mb version.

If your just doing GPU accelerated tasks like Photoshop or encoding, either 256 or 512 will be about the same.

Here is a nice review that eventually performs some basic benchmarks between the 9400GT and the 330M 256MB
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3659/apples-15inch-core-i5-macbook-pro-the-one-to-get/1
 
First let me start off by saying I know what I am taking about.

This made me laugh..it should say "I think I know what I am talking about". A texture is a texture, and when stored in VRAM it is the same size, regardless of the resolution you are playing at. Now you're right about not being able to play at high quality settings, but that has more to do with the actual processing power of the GPU than the VRAM.

Even if the system is starved for VRAM, you're not going to take a huge performance hit. You'll just experience "hitching" when textures load, but it's not that frequent in current games.

Regardless, the 330m isn't capable of playing current games at high settings and native resolution anyway, so the point is moot.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.