After some days trying to find out about what to expect from the new MBP I stumbled upon a comment in this forum:
Some insights running at 1440x900 with 4X Anti Aliasing and 4X Anisotropic Texture Filtering:
1. Running 3D game engine using SM2.0 Shaders, the 256M model was 101% faster.
2. Running 3D game engine using HDR Rendering with SM3.0 Shaders, the 256M model was 92% faster
3. Running the Pixel Shader 3D Graphics test, the 256M model was 11% faster.
4. Fill rate for Multiple Textures, it was a dead heat (3.8 GigaTexels/sec).
We thought dropping back to 800x600 and turning off AA and Aniso, the gap would close. With those settings:
1. Running 3D game engine using SM2.0 Shaders, the 256M model was 74% faster.
2. Running 3D game engine using HDR Rendering with SM3.0 Shaders, the 256M model dropped to 12% faster.
How does this translate to game performance under OSX? I should have an answer by tomorrow evening since I'll have results for Quake 4, Doom 3, Prey, Halo, and UT2004 from my tests on a friend's MBP 2.2.
Now this really got me confused since Rob also posted on barefeats.com, that the performance gain of the 256 version was negligible and could be explained with the faster CPU clock. If this is true, I would kick myself if I went for the smaller MBP just to find out that I'm stuck with half the performance or something...
Has anyone had the chance to do some Windows game testing or benchmarks on the new machines running bootcamp?? Something?
I hope I'm just misinterpreting the whole thing!
I would appreciate it!