GT 330M with 256 MB vs GT 330M with 512 MB

[SysFailure0x5a]

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.

It will indeed make a difference if a game can only fit 60% of the required textures into 256mb of vram. Itll thrash between system ram and vram.

I know the 330m is comparable to the 9600gt. Lets have a look. I couldn't find any at 1440x900 but here are some various resolutions. See how on certain games the 512mb version performs better in benchmarks.

...And by the way, I'm not sure how it read to you, but I was trying to emphasize that most modern games could be ran at medium settings on the non high-res screen. I didn't really mean that a 330m could run crysis or Bad Company 2 at high/ultra ;-)

 

[Eddyisgreat]

^^^^^
you make me want to punch a baby.

A 9600 GT which is what you posted those from IS NOT the same as a 9600M GT

 

[mikeo007]

^^^^^
you make me want to punch a baby.

A 9600 GT which is what you posted those from IS NOT the same as a 9600M GT

Haha, not only that, but the benchmarks are all using different resolutions, all of which are beyond what the macbooks can even display. Hell, the one benchmark was done ABOVE freaking 1080p resolution.

If you were to run some games at those resolutions on the new MBP, your difference would be 1 fps since it would only be running at a couple fps anyway.

Seriously, I don't mind having intelligent debates, but tossing random stuff around doesn't make you right.

This link related to Macs in particular, but can apply to any VRAM debate. It helps (situationally) with high rez textures, but has virtually no effect on screen resolution.
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30457

 

[SysFailure0x5a]

A 9600 GT which is what you posted those from IS NOT the same as a 9600M GT

Now I feel like we are arguing semantics

I was pointing out that 512 will make a difference vs 256 on lower end video cards such as the 9600gt. It obviously does to an extent. I believe the 330m will compare to the 9600gt . The full fledged 9600gt has 64 stream procssors. The 330m has 48. Thats 16 difference. Your right they are not the same CPU, but its not like I'm comparing a Radeon 5850 to the 330m.

... You can't argue that thrashing will occur if the game requires additional memory, which most of them will. The additional textures will be loaded into system ram instead, which is slower. God forbid the ram dumps to the pagefile/swap.

Besides, I was not lying when I said Starcraft 2 actually states in the graphics settings that it requires you to have 512 or 1024 depending on the setting.

The simple answer to the OP's question: When your playing videogames, its possible to see a noticeable difference.

The complicated answer: It depends on the game.

 

[SysFailure0x5a]

Haha, not only that, but the benchmarks are all using different resolutions, all of which are beyond what the macbooks can even display.

I compared both 1280x1024 and 1920x1080. One is lower, one is higher. Actually 1280x1024 isn't that far off from 1440x900. I even pointed out in that post that they aren't native 1440x900 but should give a good idea.

I guess my point is, 256 just isn't enough, 512mb is a good size for vram.

 

[mikeo007]

I compared both 1280x1024 and 1920x1080. One is lower, one is higher. Actually 1280x1024 isn't that far off from 1440x900. I even pointed out in that post that they aren't native 1440x900 but should give a good idea.

I guess my point is, 256 just isn't enough, 512mb is a good size for vram.

I just noticed your benchmarks use anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing. That is a method which involves using up to 4 times the texture resolution of the original texture, and again has nothing to do with screen resolution.

From the same web page that you grabbed your benchmarks:

With AA & AF off, there is virtually no difference at all.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

I guess my point is, 256 just isn't enough, 512mb is a good size for vram.

the point is, you are comparing desktop class GPUs to downclocked laptop components which are VERY different. The 8600/9600/3xx M GT variants do not scale in performance with additional VRAM because they can't drive those kind of graphics in the first place. It's like putting high performance wheels on a geo and expecting it to compete with a lambo.

 

[therealseebs]

the point is, you are comparing desktop class GPUs to downclocked laptop components which are VERY different. The 8600/9600/3xx M GT variants do not scale in performance with additional VRAM because they can't drive those kind of graphics in the first place. It's like putting high performance wheels on a geo and expecting it to compete with a lambo.

That's a vast oversimplification. It's easy to create a workload where the amount of memory will indeed matter, but where the card can keep up -- just use relatively few polygons with very detailed textures.

In the case where the card can't really keep up, you're still going to see a big difference between a card which can't render fast enough and a card which can't render fast enough AND has to spend a ton of time waiting for textures and model data to get paged in and out.

 

[jyeom12]

starcraft2

hi

I would use my macbook pro, among other things, to play starcraft 2. I have been playing starcraft for like ten years, and with starcraft 2 coming out, I would really like to play this game on my mbp. Would I be able to play it at least at high setting with 256mb? or would i need 512?

 

[therealseebs]

hi

I would use my macbook pro, among other things, to play starcraft 2. I have been playing starcraft for like ten years, and with starcraft 2 coming out, I would really like to play this game on my mbp. Would I be able to play it at least at high setting with 256mb? or would i need 512?

I'm not sure that any 330M can play it at high settings. If there's a beta available, I guess one thing would be to try it, but so far I've seen people talking about playing it at medium settings.

 

[milkyboy]

Hi, sorry for being a bit off topic, but I'm looking at getting my first MBP (first OSX based computer actually) and I am looking for some help.

I had decided to get the base 15" model, with the 256 mb 330m gt. However, I was offered to buy a used C2D 2,8 ghz, 4gb with 512 mb (9600m GT) for a substansially less amount of money (in comparison to the new mbp 15).

I am going to use the computer for a lot of things that doesn't really require any horsepower at all (surfing, movies etc). I might want to learn to use photoshop a little, but it is not my primary concern. However, I do want to play Dragon Age: Origins on it - and how nerdy it may seem, this will be the dealbreaker for me. Do you guys think the new i5 with 256 330m will outperform the older C2D or should I go for the new one?

Thanks!

 

[cyrexo]

Hey guys,

i want to buy a 15" mbp with a high res display (1680 x 1050) and additionally connect a 30" (2560x1600) Dell screen to it.

Do you think i should go for the 512mb Vram to use both display at one time?

 

[mikeo007]

Hey guys,

i want to buy a 15" mbp with a high res display (1680 x 1050) and additionally connect a 30" (2600x1600) Dell screen to it.

Do you think i should go for the 512mb Vram to use both display at one time?

The max resolution the 330m can display is 2560x1600, and the VRAM won't make a difference for normal every day tasks.

milkyboy: the new machine will be better than the old one, but not a huge leap. I have no clue if dragonage will run on either though.

 

[cyrexo]

The max resolution the 330m can display is 2560x1600, and the VRAM won't make a difference for normal every day tasks.

Well my fault it's 2560

Both displays must use the 256 ram so for each 128 mb.

I only want to work on this => no gaming

 

[therealseebs]

For no gaming at all, 256 will probably be fine.

 

[gagaliya]

First let me start off by saying I don't know what I am taking about.

Fail.


And guys stop fussing over the 256m vs 512m on that crap card, save the money and get yourself a ssd instead, much better use of the money.

 

[gpcovenant]

Hi, sorry for being a bit off topic, but I'm looking at getting my first MBP (first OSX based computer actually) and I am looking for some help.

I had decided to get the base 15" model, with the 256 mb 330m gt. However, I was offered to buy a used C2D 2,8 ghz, 4gb with 512 mb (9600m GT) for a substansially less amount of money (in comparison to the new mbp 15).

I am going to use the computer for a lot of things that doesn't really require any horsepower at all (surfing, movies etc). I might want to learn to use photoshop a little, but it is not my primary concern. However, I do want to play Dragon Age: Origins on it - and how nerdy it may seem, this will be the dealbreaker for me. Do you guys think the new i5 with 256 330m will outperform the older C2D or should I go for the new one?

Thanks!

Regarding Dragon age. I have the original 2008 unibody with 2.4 gig processor and 4 gig ram and the 9400m gt on board graphics and I had no trouble running dragon age at medium settings. Granted I didnt get far into the game where a lot of the bigger battles take place. Oh I was running it in bootcamp, windows xp.

I would point out though that dragon age 2 is expected to ship early next year so u might want to keep that in mind with any decision u make. Not sure if its using updated graphics or not.

 

[milkyboy]

Regarding Dragon age. I have the original 2008 unibody with 2.4 gig processor and 4 gig ram and the 9400m gt on board graphics and I had no trouble running dragon age at medium settings. Granted I didnt get far into the game where a lot of the bigger battles take place. Oh I was running it in bootcamp, windows xp.

I would point out though that dragon age 2 is expected to ship early next year so u might want to keep that in mind with any decision u make. Not sure if its using updated graphics or not.

Thanks for the reply. What resolution did you play it at, and what framerate did you get? I just can't figure this out, I'm like my mother at best buy when it comes to the discussion regarding the amount of VRAM: clueless.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

I just can't figure this out, I'm like my mother at best buy when it comes to the discussion regarding the amount of VRAM: clueless.

don't worry. Alot of people are that way.

 

[therealseebs]

And guys stop fussing over the 256m vs 512m on that crap card, save the money and get yourself a ssd instead, much better use of the money.

The MBP I want comes with 512 regardless, so it's not really an issue for me.

SSD may or may not be a better use of the money. If you're planning to keep the machine for a while, it might be better to get the non-upgradeable parts as nice as you can, with intent to replace the drive later when SSD prices fall again.

 

[maratus]

Will there be any significant difference between 512Mb and 256Mb VRAM in this software:

1. Aperture
2. CS4 (photoshop, premiere, flash, illustrator)
3. CS5 (same)
4. FCP

I'm concerned with Adobe's statements
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405745.html

And I'm going to use 2560x1600 external LCD (sometimes with built-in screen as well). Will 256Mb VRAM be a bottleneck here?

P.S. I'm going to stick with current MB134 (512Mb 8600GT) instead of buying expensive high-end 15" i7-620M model if 512Mb will make day and night difference..

 

[harmonica01]

the determining factor for me after using almost every apple powerbook and mbp since my first pismo laptop in ~2000 AD

is that the higher memory in apple's picked graphics are usually only different when using external monitors. You wont see any difference when using built in screen on the laptop for gaming or otherwise, but if you connect to say a 24" screen, then yes the double memory vs standard 256 is noticeable

hope this helps

 

[maratus]

the determining factor for me after using almost every apple powerbook and mbp since my first pismo laptop in ~2000 AD

is that the higher memory in apple's picked graphics are usually only different when using external monitors. You wont see any difference when using built in screen on the laptop for gaming or otherwise, but if you connect to say a 24" screen, then yes the double memory vs standard 256 is noticeable

hope this helps

Okay, since I'm going to use 30" I'll buy new Nikon wide angle lens instead of 15" as a late BDay present

 

[harmonica01]

Okay, since I'm going to use 30" I'll buy new Nikon wide angle lens instead of 15" as a late BDay present

I think you misread me; if using a big external monitor you will want the double memory

 

[maratus]

I think you misread me; if using a big external monitor you will want the double memory

Nope, I got your point.

I have MB134 with 512Mb now and just consider possible upgrade to i5 15". But I don't want to spend money on anything other than base model (with 2.4Ghz and 256Mb VRam). And since I may notice 2x less VRam I'd rather wait for next update (my MB134 is doing really well, I don't need new notebook) but now I want WA lens more...

AF-S >>> MBP