Starcraft 2 on the 330m: 256 or 512MB?

PurpleShaman

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 18, 2007
88
0
before I make my final verdict on which 15'' model to get, I just wanted to see how these two versions of the 330m run SC2. My inclination tells me that there probably isnt that much of a difference, but I've also heard that SC2 needs a lot of texture support which would benefit from the 512MB version.

plz post some pics and settings if you guys happened to have tried it already
 

DesmoPilot

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2008
1,171
26
Been playing since the beta and I can say 512MB all the way, but be prepared to BootCamp to get good performance (performance under OS X is a joke).
 

PurpleShaman

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 18, 2007
88
0
i see that you also hit the hi res upgrade. how does it run on hi res vs 1400X900 for u? that much of a difference?

duno if youve read that barefeats article but the guy said that there wouldn't be much difference between the 256 and 512 unless your hookin it up to an external (much higher res.) just not sure what to decide on at the moment. more help appreciated
 

PurpleShaman

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 18, 2007
88
0
also, feedback from other games are also appreciate, doesnt have to be strictly SC2...
 

Meever

macrumors 6502a
Jun 30, 2009
630
24
It won't make a difference. the higher vram only helps loading large quanity of textures in very high resolution.

at anything below 1920x1080 it won't make a difference big enough to really discus about. Same deal for i7 vs i5 btw. Very minor improvement for a huge price difference.
 

Freyqq

macrumors 601
Dec 13, 2004
4,022
172
It won't make a difference. the higher vram only helps loading large quanity of textures in very high resolution.

at anything below 1920x1080 it won't make a difference big enough to really discus about. Same deal for i7 vs i5 btw. Very minor improvement for a huge price difference.
depends on the game imo, but for sc2, the requirements aren't all that intense. 256 should be enough for decent settings under bootcamp.
 

kgeier82

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2008
1,013
0
Played 6 games last night.

i7, 512 VC ram. Played flawless @high on 1680x1050.

Going to try external monitor today.
 

PurpleShaman

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 18, 2007
88
0
that sounds great, do u mind posting a couple of screenshots and FPS marks if u get a chance?

also, and i5 feeback from SC2 would be greatly appreciated. thanks!
 

Some Guy 555

macrumors regular
May 26, 2009
194
0
If you are planning on playing SC2 on the macbook pro, GET THE 512mb of Vram. Without it, prepare to have your system memory taxed... heavily.
 

Rithem

macrumors 6502
Jun 29, 2008
454
0
Played 6 games last night.

i7, 512 VC ram. Played flawless @high on 1680x1050.

Going to try external monitor today.
I hope that's on bootcamp. I can't get the thing to do decent settings on anything but a mix of medium/high
 

PurpleShaman

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 18, 2007
88
0
@Rithem, are u runnin it on windows? from what ive heard so far the i7 on windows can run mostly on high. now we just need to see how the 256 i5 goes!
 

religionisalie

macrumors newbie
Apr 30, 2010
11
0
Played 6 games last night.

i7, 512 VC ram. Played flawless @high on 1680x1050.

Going to try external monitor today.
This is either wishful thinking or a straight-out lie. My MBP i7 hi-res 128GB SSD 512mb Vram has an average of 20-30fps on high settings 1680x1050 resolutions. Playable but by far NOT flawless. Running in bootcamp.

On medium settings 1680x1050 I get much better FPS. Changing the resolution to 1400x900 almost doubles the frames per second.

*Screenshot on request.
 

Shadow Zujed

macrumors member
Jul 17, 2010
33
0
This is either wishful thinking or a straight-out lie. My MBP i7 hi-res 128GB SSD 512mb Vram has an average of 20-30fps on high settings 1680x1050 resolutions. Playable but by far NOT flawless. Running in bootcamp.

On medium settings 1680x1050 I get much better FPS. Changing the resolution to 1400x900 almost doubles the frames per second.

*Screenshot on request.

Can I see a screenshot?
 

DesmoPilot

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2008
1,171
26
This is either wishful thinking or a straight-out lie. My MBP i7 hi-res 128GB SSD 512mb Vram has an average of 20-30fps on high settings 1680x1050 resolutions. Playable but by far NOT flawless. Running in bootcamp.

On medium settings 1680x1050 I get much better FPS. Changing the resolution to 1400x900 almost doubles the frames per second.

*Screenshot on request.
You're probably running the original BootCamp nVidia drivers which are ancient to begin with. With a mix of High/Med @ 1680x1050 I get butter smooth gameplay.
 

Rithem

macrumors 6502
Jun 29, 2008
454
0
@Rithem, are u runnin it on windows? from what ive heard so far the i7 on windows can run mostly on high. now we just need to see how the 256 i5 goes!
Mac atm. Too lazy to download on bootcamp and I'm not going back home to San Diego to pick up my physical game till next weekend.
 

Wafflausages

macrumors 6502
Jun 27, 2010
285
1
I have the i5 and the game runs flawlessly on medium textures, i haven't tried high yet (low shaders, but medium shadows) i get above 50~60 fps and 30-40 fps during extreme battles)
 

kgeier82

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2008
1,013
0
This is either wishful thinking or a straight-out lie. My MBP i7 hi-res 128GB SSD 512mb Vram has an average of 20-30fps on high settings 1680x1050 resolutions. Playable but by far NOT flawless. Running in bootcamp.

On medium settings 1680x1050 I get much better FPS. Changing the resolution to 1400x900 almost doubles the frames per second.

*Screenshot on request.
I love how people post this kind of crap. Why I would lie about something as dumb as this is beyond me. Fact is, I play it in windows, on high, on 1680x1050, and havent had one tiny issue. Custom drivers.

Maybe a post of what your not seeing "flawless" in, the type of game or situation in SC2 could be more helpful...?

edit: Im using default settings in game too, and it set everything to high.
 

Tassadur

macrumors newbie
Jul 30, 2010
2
0
I love how people post this kind of crap. Why I would lie about something as dumb as this is beyond me. Fact is, I play it in windows, on high, on 1680x1050, and havent had one tiny issue. Custom drivers.

Maybe a post of what your not seeing "flawless" in, the type of game or situation in SC2 could be more helpful...?

edit: Im using default settings in game too, and it set everything to high.
Could you please post which drivers your using?
I'm on he exact same MacBook, using Windows 7 64 Bit and lates nVidia drivers (258.96) and getting the same suboptimal results as religionisalie, which is nearly the same performance I get using Mac OS.

Since I got better performance on my old 9600 GT on the beta I bet something in my installation ist flawed, most liky the driver.
 

Syonidism

macrumors regular
Feb 10, 2009
213
0
Turkey
I love how people post this kind of crap. Why I would lie about something as dumb as this is beyond me. Fact is, I play it in windows, on high, on 1680x1050, and havent had one tiny issue. Custom drivers.

Maybe a post of what your not seeing "flawless" in, the type of game or situation in SC2 could be more helpful...?

edit: Im using default settings in game too, and it set everything to high.
would you kindly share your custom drivers please :)

-Atlas
 

aznguyen316

macrumors 68010
Oct 1, 2008
2,000
0
Tampa, FL
It won't make a difference. the higher vram only helps loading large quanity of textures in very high resolution.

at anything below 1920x1080 it won't make a difference big enough to really discus about. Same deal for i7 vs i5 btw. Very minor improvement for a huge price difference.
Yeah unless you want high textures, then get 512mb. But then again you'll be getting i7 also. But if just for SC2, the 256mb does medium textures well enough. And this is coming from a guy that had a gaming laptop with 1gb vram.
 

Rithem

macrumors 6502
Jun 29, 2008
454
0
Anyone overclocking on Windows? Curious since I usually do when I play graphic intensive games
 

demonsavatar

macrumors regular
Jun 26, 2010
199
0
Not sure they took into account the Hi-res display, but the Mac performance guide over at the official Starcraft II forums doesn't distinguish any performance benefits between the 256 or 512 VRAM. There are also a number of performance issues with nVidia cards on Macs at the moment, which are discussed there as well.

Link: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/224842575

Here are their recommended settings and they say to expect ~50fps:

Mid 2010 15/17-inch Core i5/i7 Macbook Pro with 256MB or 512MB nVidia GT330M Graphics Card

Textures:

Texture Quality: Medium

Graphics:

Graphics Quality: Custom

Shaders: Low
Lighting: Low
Shadows: Low
Terrain: Medium
Reflections: On
Effects: High
Post-Processing: Medium
Physics: High
Models: High
Unit Portraits: 3D
Movies: High Definition


Notes: Expect an average of 50fps.
 

kgeier82

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2008
1,013
0
Could you please post which drivers your using?
I'm on he exact same MacBook, using Windows 7 64 Bit and lates nVidia drivers (258.96) and getting the same suboptimal results as religionisalie, which is nearly the same performance I get using Mac OS.

Since I got better performance on my old 9600 GT on the beta I bet something in my installation ist flawed, most liky the driver.
Let me find out how and Ill be happy to at least tell u which Im using :)
 

acribb

macrumors regular
Nov 30, 2007
148
3
Let me find out how and Ill be happy to at least tell u which Im using :)
How did you install your 'custom' drivers?

I'm assuming you had to install them somehow, in which case you would know what version/type of video drivers are on your Macbook Pro.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.