Performance of 9600M GT with 256MB vs. 512MB?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Urnothere, Dec 26, 2008.

  1. Urnothere macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    #1
    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?
     
  2. digitard macrumors 6502a

    digitard

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Gilbert, AZ
    #2
  3. nope7308 macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #3
    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 :)
     
  4. Luftwaffles macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Urnothere thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    #5
    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.
     
  6. iVeBeenDrinkin' macrumors 65816

    iVeBeenDrinkin'

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #6
    It is amazing what info you can find when you search the forum.
     
  7. MICHAELSD macrumors 68040

    MICHAELSD

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #7
    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.
     
  8. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #8
    Well you know you can get a discount on the base model as well?
     
  9. nope7308 macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #9
    Yes, but you get a bigger discount on the 2.53Ghz model.
     
  10. nope7308 macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #10
    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.
     
  11. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #11
    hardly worth it, as most people have said it will only be like a 5%-15% increase. IMO its not worth it.
     
  12. sporadicMotion macrumors 65816

    sporadicMotion

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Location:
    Your girlfriends place
    #12
    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.
     
  13. zorahk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #13
    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
     
  14. digitard macrumors 6502a

    digitard

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Gilbert, AZ
    #14
    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.
     

Share This Page