Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nvidia 9600MGT 256 vs 512M
- Thread starter shadow1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Depending on game at that screen size it is usually 0fps more. Though some games do have larger textures that may benefit but only on a higher resolution screen usually unless the 512MB version has faster ram, or a faster core clock.
I've been reading from many sources (nvidia doesn't have this info on its site), but the 9600M GT has an 128-bit memory bus interface. This means 256MB of memory is fine and 512MB is over kill.
Yes, the card supports up to 1GB of memory, but it won't help stuff out. That extra memory will just sit there and do nothing.
Edit -
Linky to nVidia 9600M GT specifications.
Yes, the card supports up to 1GB of memory, but it won't help stuff out. That extra memory will just sit there and do nothing.
Edit -
Linky to nVidia 9600M GT specifications.
this is true if the OP is only going to be using his laptop but if they plan on hooking it up to a large external monitor then the extra RAM will make a significant difference regardless of the bus.
That is not true as GPU limitations will kick in well before the res limitations kick in. I had the 512 and the 256... there has been absolutely no discernible difference between the two in both games and work. Both were 2.66 MacBook Pro's and the previous one even had more CPU cache on top of the GPU memory.
With modern video cards, if you happen to use all of the video card ram (only in high end games), it will go and continue to then use your regular system ram as needed.
There's not really any noticeable performance difference, per say.
Here is a classic (but somewhat dated) article with good info:
http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=33
There's not really any noticeable performance difference, per say.
Here is a classic (but somewhat dated) article with good info:
http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=33
nope sorry, with higher resolutions VRAM makes a difference regardless of the bus.
I'm not talking about pure bus speed. No... it won't. If the GPU was faster there would be a discernable difference however it isn't so at higher res, the GPU's processing limitations will kick in first. Now I'm talking gaming here and intensive GPU processing... if you're referring to something else, then please correct me. As I've said, I had both machines and no matter what, there has no noticeable difference on an external or on the primary display.
it depends on how demanding the game is. look at THIS
but if the game is not demanding then you are right it will not make a difference. but if you are doing 4-16xAA at high resolutions the VRAM will make a big difference.
same here
I had the 2.4ghz/3mb L2 cache/256mb 9600M GT and it didnt feel powerful enough, so I got the 2.8ghz/6mb L2 cache/512mb 9600M GT but COD4 plays better on the faster core + more gfx ram
I did look at that... desktop cards are far more powerful. Still doesn't apply to our notebook cards. If we were talking about our machines big desktop brothers then yes, you are right. Seriously, I've tried this already... I was anal in picking which gen MBP I wanted.