The only significant un-upgradable difference between the two MacBook Pros seems to be the amount of RAM in the video card. Does 256mb vs. 512mb make a real difference? For gaming, photoshop, video editing, video playback, etc. I'm interested in one of the new Macbook Pros but $500 seems like a lot for a little more video RAM. Also, is the amount of ram in the video card upgradable?
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.
Performance of 9600M GT with 256MB vs. 512MB?
- Thread starter Urnothere
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/580718/
Hope that helps. I, myself, went with the 512mb model (2.53ghz, 4gb memory, etC) and couldn't be happier. I've been playing some WoW on it, among other apps, and it's been great.
Hope that helps. I, myself, went with the 512mb model (2.53ghz, 4gb memory, etC) and couldn't be happier. I've been playing some WoW on it, among other apps, and it's been great.
If you look closely, the extra $500 gets you the following:
- Double vRAM (non-upgradeable)
- Double DDR3 RAM
- Faster processor (non-upgradeable)
- Double CPU cache (non-upgradeable)
- Bigger HD
If you factor in the edu discount, then the price gap is even less. Personally, I think the 2.53Ghz is a better deal if you want the MBP. The entry level machine is the exact same (performance wise) as the high-end MB.
I know that doesn't answer your question, but it does contextualize it
The VRAM isn't upgradeable. In almost every video card I've seen to date (with the exception of the very early iMacs) the VRAM is soldered on to the video card.
I'm trying to get the most for my money. The processor upgrade isn't significantly faster and the RAM and hard drive I can upgrade myself for later and possibly cheaper. The only big sticking point seems to be the video card performance. Thanks for the link Digitard. It was really helpful.
Edit: Ah, the cache is also twice as big in the higher model. Didn't notice that at first.
Edit: Ah, the cache is also twice as big in the higher model. Didn't notice that at first.
If you look closely, the extra $500 gets you the following:
- Double vRAM (non-upgradeable)
- Double DDR3 RAM
- Faster processor (non-upgradeable)
- Double CPU cache (non-upgradeable)
- Bigger HD
If you factor in the edu discount, then the price gap is even less. Personally, I think the 2.53Ghz is a better deal if you want the MBP. The entry level machine is the exact same (performance wise) as the high-end MB.
I know that doesn't answer your question, but it does contextualize it
That's wrong since the MacBook doesn't have a 9600M GT like the MacBook Pro. Since the 9600M GT is 2-5 times faster than the 9400M GT, that's a huge difference
I think the 5%-15% difference between the 2.4GHz and 2.53GHz models in gaming should speak for itself since you're going to be gaming:
http://www.macworld.com/article/136251/2008/10/macbookgraphics.html
Overall, if you have the money, the 2.53GHz model is worth the price difference.
If you look closely, the extra $500 gets you the following:
- Double vRAM (non-upgradeable)
- Double DDR3 RAM
- Faster processor (non-upgradeable)
- Double CPU cache (non-upgradeable)
- Bigger HD
If you factor in the edu discount, then the price gap is even less. Personally, I think the 2.53Ghz is a better deal if you want the MBP. The entry level machine is the exact same (performance wise) as the high-end MB.
I know that doesn't answer your question, but it does contextualize it
Well you know you can get a discount on the base model as well?
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was referring to both machines running the 9400. Obviously the MBP is going to outperform the MB when you use the better GPU. Oddly enough, in some benchmarks, the MB outperforms the MBP when running the 9400.
The point I was trying to make was that the 2.53Ghz model has noticeable improvements over the base model, which is actually quite close to the MB.
hardly worth it, as most people have said it will only be like a 5%-15% increase. IMO its not worth it.
it won't make a difference in Photoshop, that's for sure. Photoshop CS3 uses the CPU, not the GPU... and even CS4 only uses the GPU for rotate and zooming... not exactly major here... not sure why they even bothered implementing it yet. Gaming, the difference will be negligible... hardly worth it.
If you even want to play 1 game, it will pay for itself.
If you just want photoshop, who the hell cares. Just get a 2.4ghz and max out the ram. CS4 only uses the video card during video encoding on AE/PR
If you just want photoshop, who the hell cares. Just get a 2.4ghz and max out the ram. CS4 only uses the video card during video encoding on AE/PR
Depends on what type of gaming. As mentioned in the link I posted up if he's playing something like an MMO he will notice a difference on the higher settings due to the amount of textures, etc, that are loaded at any given time. There's some good info in that link.
D.