Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Will the high-res Macbook Pro screen demand more video memory ?

D

discosoap

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 20, 2008
110
3
The Netherlands
Hi guys,

just ordered a Macbook Pro i5 2.4 with the high-res display (yay:)). Then i realized a high-res screen might demand more of the 330M graphics card (256MB), because it has to continuously put out 1680x1050 instead of 1440x900 pixels. Would it be worth upgrading to the 512MB graphics card in order to handle the high-res screen, or won't it matter that much ?? What's your take on this ??

Kind regards..:apple:
 
It's negligible. The resolution ain't that great to really benefit off the extra VRAM and 330M isn't fast enough to need more than 256MB
 
Hellhammer said:
It's negligible. The resolution ain't that great to really benefit off the extra VRAM and 330M isn't fast enough to need more than 256MB
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for your response!! But you do reckon there is a (negligible) difference between driving the low- or high-res display, correct ? Could you explain how the 330M is not fast enough to need more than 256MB ??



dr. shdw said:
If you're playing games, yes.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I would like to play the occasional game, but coming from a first-gen Macbook, I don't think my standards will be that high. Have you got experience with gaming on the 256MB 330M / high-res display?? Did you notice anything in particular ?
 
discosoap said:
Ok, thanks for your response!! But you do reckon there is a (negligible) difference between driving the low- or high-res display, correct ? Could you explain how the 330M is not fast enough to need more than 256MB ??
Click to expand...

http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp22.html

There is no difference and one of them is the 17". 330M simply is not fast enough to really take advantage of the extra VRAM. Simply put, there are other bottlenecks that will bottleneck the performance before the VRAM.
 
discosoap said:
Ok, thanks for your response!! But you do reckon there is a (negligible) difference between driving the low- or high-res display, correct ? Could you explain how the 330M is not fast enough to need more than 256MB ??

Thanks. I would like to play the occasional game, but coming from a first-gen Macbook, I don't think my standards will be that high. Have you got experience with gaming on the 256MB 330M / high-res display?? Did you notice anything in particular ?
Click to expand...

What's the price difference between 256 and 512?

Use to have a 2008 MBP with a 9600 w/512, worked pretty well, can't vouch for the 256/330M.
 
Hellhammer said:
http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp22.html

There is no difference and one of them is the 17". 330M simply is not fast enough to really take advantage of the extra VRAM. Simply put, there are other bottlenecks that will bottleneck the performance before the VRAM.
Click to expand...

Sounds good enough. I believe the benchmarks show no real difference, up to a certain point. The real difference will be noticeable playing 3-d games at high-resolution external screens @ 2560x1600. I will not be gaming at external displays with these resolutions, so for me there will be no big difference. Thanks clearing this up for me !!

@dr. shdw; yes these are older games. I guess that with newer games, the difference between 512MB and 256MB will be noticeable at lower resolutions, because they're more demanding. Anyway, not a hardcore gamer, so there's no point for me going for the Euro 2150,- 512MB version.

Thanks guys!!
 
discosoap said:
Sounds good enough. I believe the benchmarks show no real difference, up to a certain point. The real difference will be noticeable playing 3-d games at high-resolution external screens @ 2560x1600. I will not be gaming at external displays with these resolutions, so for me there will be no big difference. Thanks clearing this up for me !!

@dr. shdw; yes these are older games. I guess that with newer games, the difference between 512MB and 256MB will be noticeable at lower resolutions, because they're more demanding. Anyway, not a hardcore gamer, so there's no point for me going for the Euro 2150,- 512MB version.

Thanks guys!!
Click to expand...

The 256 mb version is fine, seriously.

I have the i5 with Anti-glare high res screen, and CoD MW2 plays super smooth at 1680 x 1050.

Crysis plays super smooth at medium setting at 1680 x 1050. I played Far cry 2 not very much, but the short time I played it, it plays very smooth with everythin on very high also at 1680 x 1050. ( i believe I had to disable HDR though, but everything else was set on very high )

Supreme commander is a joke, you max out that game at 1680 x 1050 easily.

If you really want to spend money for game performance, then get a ATI 5850 or GTX 460 for your PC, then you'll be able to run Crysis on very high at 1920 x 1200. The $300 upgrade you really won't notice in games, atleast I haven't noticed it yet.

You won't run crysis higher than medium on a 330m on 1680 x 1050, whether it has 256mb or 1 gb of Vram. The GPU is too weak for that.
 
mark28 said:
The 256 mb version is fine, seriously.

I have the i5 with Anti-glare high res screen, and CoD MW2 plays super smooth at 1680 x 1050.

Crysis plays super smooth at medium setting at 1680 x 1050. I played Far cry 2 not very much, but the short time I played it, it plays very smooth with everythin on very high also at 1680 x 1050. ( i believe I had to disable HDR though, but everything else was set on very high )

Supreme commander is a joke, you max out that game at 1680 x 1050 easily.

If you really want to spend money for game performance, then get a ATI 5850 or GTX 460 for your PC, then you'll be able to run Crysis on very high at 1920 x 1200. The $300 upgrade you really won't notice in games, atleast I haven't noticed it yet.

You won't run crysis higher than medium on a 330m on 1680 x 1050, whether it has 256mb or 1 gb of Vram. The GPU is too weak for that.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark!! I believe "will it run crysis?" is the ultimate test for any computer device these days, and if the 256MB 330M does so (albeit at medium settings), it passes that test :) Happy to hear this.

I assume the processing speed of the 330M is the bottleneck and not the amount of VRAM, correct ??
 
DesmoPilot said:
That test is pointless (seriously, Halo?), and I'm surprised someone with your knowledge would take it remotely seriously.
Click to expand...

Do you have some better benchmarks then? In most cases, the VRAM is irrelevant and isn't worth the extra cash as the GPU power is the bottleneck, not the VRAM. Might give you a frame or two more if you're playing game with heavy textures

Seriously, there are like 10000 threads about this

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/895792/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/923682/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/899115/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/978796/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/896469/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/585385/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2804
http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30457
http://www.notebookcheck.net/How-much-graphic-memory-makes-sense.2558.0.html
 
Hellhammer is correct. Gaming @ revolutions below 1920x1200 you are not going to notice a difference between 256MB or 512MB of RAM, and if you are wanting to game @ uber resolutions then a 330m would choke even if it had 2GB of vRAM, as the GPU itself would be the bottleneck not the amount of video RAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back