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

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by discosoap, Sep 9, 2010.

  1. discosoap macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #1
    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:
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    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
     
  3. dr. shdw macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
  4. discosoap thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #4
    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 ?
     
  5. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #5
    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.
     
  6. dr. shdw macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    #6
    All of those games are pretty old..
     
  7. dr. shdw macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    #7
    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.
     
  8. discosoap thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #8
    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!!
     
  9. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Rithem macrumors 6502

    Rithem

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    #10
    This. Lower resolution requires less memory to play at native resolution.
     
  11. discosoap thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #11
    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 ??
     
  12. DesmoPilot macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #12
    That test is pointless (seriously, Halo?), and I'm surprised someone with your knowledge would take it remotely seriously.
     
  13. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #13
    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

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=895792
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=923682
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=899115
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=978796
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=896469
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=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
     
  14. bobbytomorow macrumors 6502

    bobbytomorow

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Location:
    Left Coast
    #14
    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.
     

Share This Page