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.
Starcraft 2 on the 330m: 256 or 512MB?
- Thread starter PurpleShaman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A 9600m GT with 256MB is not comparable to a 330m GT with 256mb. As I posted in my earlier link, most people are not feeling a difference on ther MBPs with 256MB or 512MB in SC2. That could possibly change after the nVidia/Snow Leopard/SC2 bugs are fixed but we will have to wait and see. I don't expect it to gain much from more ram regardless.
thanks for the feedback so far guys. just to clear a couple of things up...were talking about the 256vs512 running on WINDOWS...it just seems silly to talk about the performances on osx at the moment because of the abysmal drivers. so if someone's performance is listed better that yours, hes probably talking about it running on Windows.
and again, if anyone has screenshots of the game running on the 256 vs 512 on windows plz share it with us, im sure a lot of ppl are still in the same dilemma as well 🙂
and again, if anyone has screenshots of the game running on the 256 vs 512 on windows plz share it with us, im sure a lot of ppl are still in the same dilemma as well 🙂
I have the 2008 Unibody Macbook pro with 4gb of ram and the 512 video card.
SC2 works flawlessly in 1400x900 in medium graphics. Bootcamped with W7 64bit.
SC2 works flawlessly in 1400x900 in medium graphics. Bootcamped with W7 64bit.
Where did you get that drivers? I assume http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/? Maybe the custom DoX drivers?
If you don't remember you could at least check the version number of the driver:
Rightclick on desktop -> NVidia System Control -> Help -> Systeminformation
ditto, please hit us up with your respective drivers and how well they perform.
and once again, PLEASE provide some feedback/screenshots esp. for the 256MB card users!
thanks
and once again, PLEASE provide some feedback/screenshots esp. for the 256MB card users!
thanks
I have the 17" which has the 330m with 512GB. It runs great..but I have to run it at 1600x1200 resolution instead of the native wide screen so that it runs a little faster. A few times when playing with lots of friends I had to drop the settings down from High so that it could keep up and not slow everyone down.
Edit: I see that you guys are talking about windows. oops 🙂
Edit: I see that you guys are talking about windows. oops 🙂
i just came across an older thread which talked about how the 256 and 512 wont really show a difference unless they go off a large display monitor with much higher resolution. I think the report came from barefeats.com. some people have agreed and some have refuted it...whats the deal with that? and if they both ran SC2 on the MPB monitors (hi-res or not), would there really be a difference?
drivers, screenshots, FPS, settings...all appreciated, let get some good info here
drivers, screenshots, FPS, settings...all appreciated, let get some good info here
I've got a high-res i5 15" macbook pro and I just beat the single player campaign with settings on medium IN OSX.
If you game because you enjoy it, then don't worry about running Starcraft II with a 256mb card. It's been terrific for me. My frame rate seemed fine and it was one of the best gaming experiences I've had in a long time.
If you game because you enjoy it, then don't worry about running Starcraft II with a 256mb card. It's been terrific for me. My frame rate seemed fine and it was one of the best gaming experiences I've had in a long time.
sc2 sucks on the osx compared to bootcamp!!!
the mouse is so laggy on the osx, its unbearable for me. on the bootcamp side its smooth as hell running on high/high
the mouse is so laggy on the osx, its unbearable for me. on the bootcamp side its smooth as hell running on high/high
im just using the drivers from the utility disk that came with my mbp, i have windows 7 ultimate btw
I just finished all the campaigns on my 15 i7 His-res MBP a few days ago, really good game and can't wait to see the following episodes.
I initially had lots of crashes during playing gameplay if I run everything at high settings using apple's boot camp nvidia drive under windows 7 ultimate. So I Googled and found newer nvidia drive may solve the crash issues, so I downloaded the newest 330M driver from nividia website (released in mid July) and installed the new driver, Starcraft II crashed much less now and the GPU temperature reduced from ~ 80 to 75 degrees. I also used GPU-Z to check the GPU statues during gaming, I think texture settings is the only thing that will affect the VRAM usage, the memory usage were ~320M and ~430M under medium and high quality at 1680*1050 respectively, consistent to their suggestions.
So if you want to use better texture probably you need the 512M VRAM in i7 MBP (I did not notice much difference between med and high texture settings although the VRAM usage changed dramatically). The 330M card seems to be fine running under all High settings after driver update. But due to the crashes I had before I normally run the game at high texture settings and everything else mid to make sure the card is safe. And due to reports that Starcraft II may damage your video card you'd better do so and put following line in your variables.txt file.
frameratecapglue=30
frameratecap=60
I initially had lots of crashes during playing gameplay if I run everything at high settings using apple's boot camp nvidia drive under windows 7 ultimate. So I Googled and found newer nvidia drive may solve the crash issues, so I downloaded the newest 330M driver from nividia website (released in mid July) and installed the new driver, Starcraft II crashed much less now and the GPU temperature reduced from ~ 80 to 75 degrees. I also used GPU-Z to check the GPU statues during gaming, I think texture settings is the only thing that will affect the VRAM usage, the memory usage were ~320M and ~430M under medium and high quality at 1680*1050 respectively, consistent to their suggestions.
So if you want to use better texture probably you need the 512M VRAM in i7 MBP (I did not notice much difference between med and high texture settings although the VRAM usage changed dramatically). The 330M card seems to be fine running under all High settings after driver update. But due to the crashes I had before I normally run the game at high texture settings and everything else mid to make sure the card is safe. And due to reports that Starcraft II may damage your video card you'd better do so and put following line in your variables.txt file.
frameratecapglue=30
frameratecap=60
Something i find sorely lacking, no one posted if they're running on battery or power-supply mode, which i guess everyone is playing on power-supply mode.
Big difference on OSX as on battery mode only 2 cores are active and its barely playable on default SC2 settings.
Just heads up, i would guess BC would be best for gaming after all.
Big difference on OSX as on battery mode only 2 cores are active and its barely playable on default SC2 settings.
Just heads up, i would guess BC would be best for gaming after all.
I play SC2 on my MBP13 at 1680x1050 with High settings through Windows 7 bootcamp. Quite surprised at how weel it ran through my external monitor. And running SC2 through OSX is a joke, couldn't even run smoothly at native resolution on medium video settings.
thank for the feedback killer, that sounds like it generally ran pretty well right? also, what exactly does ur script thing do? just limit the usage of GPU?
and...wow running high on a 13 inch MPB? that sounds pretty impressive.
and...wow running high on a 13 inch MPB? that sounds pretty impressive.
Dude, upgrade to custom Omega drivers and overclock your card, you can practically squeeze another 50% FPS.
folks, does anyone have any screens/comparisons/reviews of the 256vs512 cards? a lot of us are still caught in this dilemma so any comparative info would be great.
and...about overclocking. My old ASUS F3 recently died after 3 years and some (not a lot) of overclocking...im hesitant to do so with my new MBP. ive also heard that Apple underclocks the GPUs...so essentially if we OC it to the standard 330m clocks, would that be bad for the MBP?
and...about overclocking. My old ASUS F3 recently died after 3 years and some (not a lot) of overclocking...im hesitant to do so with my new MBP. ive also heard that Apple underclocks the GPUs...so essentially if we OC it to the standard 330m clocks, would that be bad for the MBP?
Gamedevpro
macrumors newbie
I am also having the same problem. most of the posts people have a i7 15" and not the 2.4 i5 15" which i plan on buying. is there anyone with the same config im getting? also it will have a high res screen.😡
(dang all you rich people..... why do i have to be poor and be in college... )
no offence.
I will also be playing a lot of games, mostly blizzard titles like starcraft2 and diablo3 (i quit world of warcraft a while ago) Age of empires, Empire total war, origanal warcraft, aion, and also most of steam games like counter strike, team fortress 2, settlers7, civIV, and also dragon age. throwing in Guild wars 2 in the bunch too. if the 256 can play all the games i just said fine on med on a 1680X1050 display i would be happy or i would have to save my pennies for a i7 which to me dosn't really make sence that it is already 1900 tax included for the 256 2.5 i5 and 2245 for the i7 tax included.
Also how would the 256 card run on a external monitor that is 22" with a res of 1680x1050 would it lag?, or would it be well powerful enough to mirror or as a second display? i do animation and game development with blender and it would be nice to have a mobile cause i can't lug my pc render rig with me.😕
(dang all you rich people..... why do i have to be poor and be in college... )
no offence.
I will also be playing a lot of games, mostly blizzard titles like starcraft2 and diablo3 (i quit world of warcraft a while ago) Age of empires, Empire total war, origanal warcraft, aion, and also most of steam games like counter strike, team fortress 2, settlers7, civIV, and also dragon age. throwing in Guild wars 2 in the bunch too. if the 256 can play all the games i just said fine on med on a 1680X1050 display i would be happy or i would have to save my pennies for a i7 which to me dosn't really make sence that it is already 1900 tax included for the 256 2.5 i5 and 2245 for the i7 tax included.
Also how would the 256 card run on a external monitor that is 22" with a res of 1680x1050 would it lag?, or would it be well powerful enough to mirror or as a second display? i do animation and game development with blender and it would be nice to have a mobile cause i can't lug my pc render rig with me.😕
Barefeats has an article testing 256 vs 512 megs of vram on the new MBPs. You can check it out here:
http://barefeats.com/mbpp22.html
Basically, both configurations perform the same unless you run something past 1920x1200. At 2560x1600 the 256 meg card flat lines, and the 512 keeps running.
http://barefeats.com/mbpp22.html
Basically, both configurations perform the same unless you run something past 1920x1200. At 2560x1600 the 256 meg card flat lines, and the 512 keeps running.
Look at the games he's using to test 256MB vs 512MB, why would anyone take that test seriously?
@Ross, would you mind looking up the settings and perhaps taking a screenshot or two, itd really help a lot! Also, im assuming your running it in windows on bootcamp right?
as for the barefeats test, I do agree that the games are pretty old for that comparison. i emailed the Barefeats guy to see if he could do a test with SC2 since its such a popular title on the market right now.
i am also leaning towards the base i5 and possibly with a hi res upgrade. so far the consensus seems that there really isnt that big of a difference between the two cards and id much rather save that $300 for an iPhone or some RAM upgrades later on.
as for the barefeats test, I do agree that the games are pretty old for that comparison. i emailed the Barefeats guy to see if he could do a test with SC2 since its such a popular title on the market right now.
i am also leaning towards the base i5 and possibly with a hi res upgrade. so far the consensus seems that there really isnt that big of a difference between the two cards and id much rather save that $300 for an iPhone or some RAM upgrades later on.