Switch from 256mb to 512mb 8600M GT in MBP 2007?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by wick3d73, Mar 9, 2008.

  1. wick3d73 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    #1
    Is it possible to upgrade from the 256 to the 512 8600m GT gfx card in the 2007 MBP?
     
  2. JWest macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    #2
    The graphics card is soldered to the motherboard, so that would be a no.
     
  3. wick3d73 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
  4. MediaRyan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    #4
    Apple is all about "market fragmentation."

    No custom built computers, you have to find which one meets ALL your personal minimum requirements and get that one.

    Brilliant. :rolleyes:
     
  5. burningrave101 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #5
    Wouldn't be any point in doing it if you could. The 8600M GT isn't fast enough to use that much memory anyways. 256MB is about all the 8600M GT can really benefit from.
     
  6. MediaRyan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    #6
    I've heard something about the amount of memory not being a determining factor, but rather the card (or chip?) itself...

    How true does that hold? Does the computer's processor also hold a lot of sway?
     
  7. JWest macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    #7
    What makes you say that? It has nothing to do with how "fast" the card is. More memory let's you use higher texture resolutions and higher screen resolutions. Sure, it won't make the card any faster at lower resolutions, but it makes a pretty big difference when running things on higher settings.
     
  8. MediaRyan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    #8
    Is it possible that it isn't a substantial bump in performance?

    Even though the memory doubled, the performance probably only goes up like 10-20% ?
     
  9. barefeats macrumors 65816

    barefeats

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    #9
    We have some test data comparing a MacBook Pro with 512MB VRAM to one with 256MB VRAM. As far as with 3D OpenGL gaming, there is no advantage in speed.

    However, a few Core Image based apps that gobble up VRAM (like Motion or iMaginator) might benefit. We'll be testing that today and report back.
     
  10. MediaRyan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
  11. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #11
    Not really, it definitely have everything to do with how fast the card is itself and the nvidia 8600gt cards are limited to only a 128-bit wide bandwidth and 512mb doesnt really make any difference. But its a different story say on a nvidia 8800gt card on the mac pro if whether to opt for the 512mb or 256mb.
     
  12. Inconsequential macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #12

    The core still has to process the data.

    If there is 512Mb of textures with a core that can only reasonably process 256mb of textures then THERE IS NO POINT.

    Hell my X1900XTX which is twice as fast as the 8600GTM in my MBP doesn't use 512mb. The most I've seen it use is 400mb and that was in Crysis at 20FPS!!!!

    The ideal for the MBP 8600GTM is somewhere between 128 and 256mb.

    End of thread.
     
  13. burningrave101 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #13
    Only if the card is "fast" enough to push more data through when it has 512MB of memory vs only having 256MB. If it's bottlenecked by a 128-bit memory bus and slower speeds compared to like an 8800GT then it's not going to be able to fill the memory fast enough to actually benefit from 512MB over 256MB. It would be dumping the data and filling with new data before it ever got near 512MB.
     
  14. Bubba Satori Suspended

    Bubba Satori

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Location:
    B'ham
    #14
    Apple knows what we need. Don't worry. Be happy.
     
  15. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #15
    Apple's marketing Scheme once again fools alot of people. Basically to me when I saw the penryn update only benefit I saw was the 45nm, multitouch, 2 more cache and thats about it.

    Funny story is that I used a penryn mbp on my friends the other day (I thought it was an sr mbp) then I noticed the trackpad options and i was like oh its the newer model and never would have guessed if I hadnt looked at the trackpad options, LOL.
     
  16. burningrave101 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #16
    It's still a SR MBP. The motherboard didn't change, only the processor was upgraded. And you're right, you should notice any difference really between a 2.4Ghz Merom and a newer 2.4-2.5Ghz Penryn unless you're doing like a battery life test or a CPU intensive test that really makes use of the new Penryn architecture.
     
  17. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #17
    Yea partially true, I was encoding hd movies and doing pretty intensive stuff on the penryn mbp, and I noticed the heat was pretty much the same as the merom (Santa Rosa) version, if not hotter.

    And working on the same things I've done on the SR mbp and on his penryn the encoding speed was pretty much the same (saw no increase in speed whatsoever). My friend did point out that on regular usage he did get 15-20 minutes more battery time at most.
     
  18. blackfeathers macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #18
    just curious, will the 512mb make a difference later on if/when blu-ray drives and maybe hi-def playback are possible?

    perhaps these incremental improvements are ramping up hardware compatibility for the potential to meet/exceed future standards and devices? yes? no?
     
  19. MediaRyan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    #19
    These guys don't show all possible models, but they do have a couple of the previous generation MBPs.

    http://www.macworld.com/article/132330/2008/03/macbookpro_bench.html

    Interesting to note that the 2.5ghz penryn model has a somewhat significantly higher framerate on Unreal Tournament. That however I think is attributed more to the 6mb cache than a 512 card...
     
  20. otispunkmeyer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Location:
    Middlesbrough UK
    #20
    512 is a complete waste for the 8600. its just not powerful enough to make use of it. its definately not worth upgrading for more memory on the graphics card. definately not. i't be a complete waste of time.
     

Share This Page