GT 650M, difference between 512MB and 1GB?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Suno, Jun 12, 2012.

  1. Suno macrumors 6502

    Suno

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    #1
    Regarding the newest chip, I was wondering if there is a significant difference between 512MB and 1GB video ram? I'm sure for upper level graphic work/gaming, the difference would be noticeable, but even at that level is the difference between the two like night and day? Like would I notice a huge difference playing a certain game (say... Starcraft 2 since that was a listed game on the website) between a 512MB and 1gb ram chip?
     
  2. MathiasVH macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    #2
    Not a big difference at all. Though the retina display will benefit from the ram, I doubt you'll be able to play any modern games at full res with some eye candy with either anyway.
     
  3. Martialis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    #3
    Yeah, the new graphics hardware isn't exactly thrilling. I laughed out loud when I watched the new promo video on the Apple website and it described it as "the most powerful graphics chips".
     
  4. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #4
    What exactly should they have put in considering the heat constraints? I laugh out loud when people think that a 680M should be in the MBP.
     
  5. Martialis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    #5
    I have no idea. Why? Do you think I'm an engineer or something? I assure you I'm not really the person you should be asking for an opinion on what could have been put in. It's nice that you find people advocating a 680M amusing, I guess. I don't know why you mention that to me.
     
  6. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #6
    For the same reasons that drove you to write your previous post.
     
  7. PeopleTheseDays macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #7
    That does not make sense at all. It's a fact that the 650M is NOT the "most powerful graphics chip". Which is why it was funny. Completely independent from what you were insinuating.
     
  8. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #8
    Do people pay attention to market speak? They mean the most powerful graphics chip in a mac notebook. I would have thought that it's obvious for the average person. If it's not, then you guys should get a class action suite going.

    The other point is that for it be the "most powerful graphics chip" period, then Apple would have had to include the 680M. It all seems pretty clear to me.
     
  9. PeopleTheseDays macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #9
    Why are you getting your panties in a bunch? All he said was he thought it was funny that they would mention that over a 650M. He was not insulting Apple, declaring a class action, or saying anything about a 680M. Since you are making a lot of assumptions over a single sentence, I'm assuming that you were insinuating that he is one of the people who want a 680M, when the post did not make a single mention of it.
     
  10. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #10
    I am not getting my panties in a knot at all. I am having a laugh and a good time. How are you?
     
  11. PeopleTheseDays macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #11
    Hahaha sure, that's good to know. I'm great, I'd be having an even better time with the new mbp in front of me.
     
  12. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #12
    Me too. Shipping in 3-4 weeks unfortunately on my order.
     
  13. cirus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #13
    Exactly, 512 MB is pathetic and will surely be a problem in the future.

    C'mon Apple, Its almost impossible for me to find notebooks with a dedicated GPU that is not absolute crap (like the 6470m) that does not have at least 1 GB.

    They probably specially asked Nvidia to give them chips with only 512 MB as Nvidia would not sell a 650m with only 512 MB. This is just pathetic.
     
  14. PeopleTheseDays macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #14
    Interesting. Can't verify your hypothesis, but I definitely agree. 512 MB of ram is probably artificial to create some distance between the 1800 vs 2200 configurations. I think other laptops with the 650M have 1 GB minimum of cram from a quick look on notebookcheck.

    At least the 1800 config isn't GDDR3 memory. That'd be a real slap in the face or other metaphors.
     
  15. aoaaron macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    #15
    NO WAYYY TEH 512MB IS ENUF TO USE TEH RETINA DISPLAY DA RETINA DISPLAY ACTUALLY HAS RAM ISNIDE IT FOR ITS GRAPHICS AND STUFF! IF U WATCH MOVIE ON THE RETINA DISPLAY IT AUTOMATICALY MAKES TEH MOVIE RETINA LOLZ.

    honestly the fair comment made by someone about the underpowred graphics card and apple really overhyping it was jumped on by so many idiots.

    OF COURSE the NEW macbook pro is going to have a better graphics card than the OLD macbook pro. when they throw around turns such as 'best graphics card'... trust me thats misleading.

    graphics card is underpowered for display.
     
  16. dccorona macrumors 68020

    dccorona

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    #16
    it basically has to do with the amount of strain it takes off of system memory, at least from my understanding. Dedicated graphics memory is faster for the graphics card to access, and also keeps graphics assets off the RAM the rest of the system uses. However, if you're gonna go with a good amount of RAM, then you shouldn't run into any issues with only having 512mb.

    And since games generally run as the only thing on your system (that's how I'd recommend playing them), there should be plenty of system memory available
     
  17. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #17
    It doesn't keep anything of the system memory. System memory still has to store loads of stuff. The graphics memory usually cannot hold enough and the in some more streaming games like Call of Duty, MS Flight Sim. the Memory is constantly swapped at some GB/s. Which means the entire content is replaced many times each second. You need to have that in RAM just to swap back and forth fast enough.

    As soon as you have to little VRAM textures need to be swapped. And they suddenly pop up during you run around in a level. In GTA 4 that already happens if you 1GB RAM, a game that gladly takes 2GB.

    If you run out of VRAM that is not only less bandwidth it means a latency penalty and that really kills performance. Too little VRAM limits the detail settings that you can set. It is like with system ram, as long as you have enough a little more or less makes no difference. When you have to little it means more swapping and that hurts performance. Yet unlike system memory it also limits the stuff you can do at all, as some games just won't let you enable settings if you don't have enough VRAM. You get different options with too little VRAM.

    Some settings like high detail textures are no problem for a GPU speedwise but they give quality but with too little VRAM you cannot fit them in there. Enabling AA increases VRAM use and if that pushes over the 512MB you are in for a huge decrease in performance that would otherwise be not even half that.

    More VRAM means more graphical quality. With the right setting you can still run 512MB but it is already at the very edge on many modern games. The 650M can push a lot of pixels and 512MB is just not enough.
    The 560M is equally fast and was sold last winter with 1.5 or 3GB.

    A 650M should come with 1GB minimum and 2GB would make it future proof.
    They should have put 1GB GDDR5 in the lower end and 2GB into the highend.

    512MB is barely enough today and will suck 1-2 years from now. Considering the speed of a 650M it already sucks. 2GB cheap DDR3 would have been better. Which means you can find a faster GPU in some notebooks that cost less than half that or in some thinner ultrabooks with 15".
    512MB is a bad joke. If they wanted the highend to look better they should have made the difference between 1 and 2 GB.
     
  18. Suno thread starter macrumors 6502

    Suno

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    #18
    Thanks for the detailed post. I guess I have no choice but to get a 1GB ram version to "futureproof" (assuming 1GB is futureproof, sure doesn't sound like it) my purchase.
     
  19. aoaaron macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    #19

    ANYONE with half a brain knows the 1GB RAM graphics card cannot power for a reasonable ammount of time that high resolution screen.

    definitley from any type of gaming perspective. people are going to need to make sacrifices to work at that resolution for sure this generation.
     
  20. Suno thread starter macrumors 6502

    Suno

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    #20
    I wasn't planning on getting the Retina MBP. I was going to stick with the spec-bump 'classic' MBP, higher end with the 1680 x 1050 screen.

    Maybe it's because I haven't seen the Retina screen in person yet, but I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Okay it looks prettier and more crisp, but is that worth the price-hike, along with non-upgradability, as well as hit in graphical performance when it comes to gaming? Wow, it's thinner and lighter, as if the original MBP wasn't thin and light enough for most people.
     
  21. archurban macrumors 6502a

    archurban

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #21
    so now Apple applied retina display for new laptop line. in order to play modern games properly with retina resolution, it needs more than 2GB as I guess. nowadays, even Alienware put 2 or 3GB video ram for new one. of course, you should have very high end chip like GTX 675M. otherwise, retina display is just a decoration.
     

Share This Page