Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by maraca2020, Jun 8, 2009.
With a crappy graphics card as it is, why would they not put the 9600m gt 512 in all of them
probably look at sale numbers and that is what the market is.
I wouldn't call it "crappy" but I guess if you really look at it, it's use to distinguish the line. Base MacBook Pro (I'm not considering 13") only 9400M, middle MacBook Pro 9400M + 9600M GT 256MB and high-end MacBook Pro 9400M + 9600M GT 512RAM. You basically get the low, mid and high-end to it, makes sense I guess.
Anything that requires 512MB of VRAM is probably going to choke the 9600 anyway. Either way, not many games running at 1440x900 are going to use more than 256 MB, lol...
Would you say for HD video editing in FCP 512MB would be better? I do not game. My concern is all about video and stills (my 5Dmk2 has 30MB RAW files)
any kind of editing it is better to have the higher VRAM. esp if you are using an external monitor.
Thanks for your reply ViciousShadow. I was unsure how VRAM truly effects performance--if it's just viewing performance or actual rendering. When at home I will be using an external 24" Dell.
So 512 really makes that much a difference over 256?
To get people to upgrade by not allowing customers to freely configure their laptops like everybody else does. $20 billion in the bank. I can't believe they stuck with the last generation Nvidia 9600, especially after the 8800 clusterf..., when the new ATI Mobility 4000 series are almost 50% faster than the 9600.
Well, achooley, I can believe it.
that is what the benchmarks i have seen showed. i mean the 256 is still a great card but 512 is twice as much so logically it would make sense performance would be better when having to render more pixels for a larger external screen.